Lehi's Altar and Sacrifice in the Wilderness

David Rolph Seely

The Book of Mormon records that Lehi, in obedience to the Lord's command, left Jerusalem with his family and that "when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water. And it came to pass that he built an altar of stones, and made an offering unto the Lord" (1 Nephi 2:6–7). This simple act of worship raises an important issue for the reader familiar with biblical law.

The Book of Mormon repeatedly assures us that the Nephites continued to live the law of Moses until the coming of Christ (2 Nephi 5:10; Jarom 1:5; Alma 30:2–3; 4 Nephi 1:12). That being the case, many readers are not surprised by Lehi's wilderness sacrifice nor by other occasions when his people "offer[ed] sacrifice and burnt offerings unto the Lord" (1 Nephi 5:9; 7:22) and built a temple, which presumably had an altar (2 Nephi 5:16; Mosiah 2:3).¹ Yet Deuteronomy 12 appears to strictly forbid the building of altars and the making of sacrifice outside the place the Lord had chosen for that purpose. The place so designated is usually understood to be the temple in Jerusalem.

So the question arises, How could these people who observed the Mosaic law justify building altars and offering sacrifices away from the Jerusalem temple? While there are several possible answers, the passage in the Book of Mormon that mentions Lehi's three days' journey into the wilderness (1 Nephi 2:6–7) may provide an explanation that is at once surprising and simple.

Latter-day Saint commentators have not typically dealt with the issues of Nephite sacrifices, altars, and temples outside of Jerusalem and have not commented on the particular problems presented by Deuteronomy 12.² Sperry, in his Book of Mormon Compendium, simply states, "Lehi built an altar of stones and offered sacrifice to the Lord" without further comment.³ Nibley describes Lehi's sacrifice as a commonplace occurrence among Semitic peoples of all ages in the desert.⁴ Welch apparently assumes that the injunction from Deuteronomy was not of concern to Lehi, arguing that "Father Lehi was also following patterns set by the patriarchs of old."⁵ McConkie and Millet note that Lehi offered sacrifice by virtue of the Melchizedek Priesthood, which may be a way of saying that the injunction of the lower law in Deuteronomy was not applicable to Lehi.⁶ In their discussion of the building of the Nephite temple, they refer to the Jewish traditions that derive from Deuteronomy 12 but declare that, based on other scriptural evidence, temples could be built anywhere: "It is commonly held by the Jews that there can be but one temple--the temple in Jerusalem. Scriptural writ testifies otherwise."⁷ I suggest that more lies beneath the surface.

Deuteronomy 12
First let us look at the relevant passages in Deuteronomy. According to Deuteronomy 12, after Israel entered the promised land the place of sacrifice was to be confined to a single altar at the place where the Lord would choose to put his name. The key passages are as follows:

But unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come: And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks. (Deuteronomy 12:5–6)

But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, . . . then there shall be a place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there. (Deuteronomy 12:10–11)

Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest; but in the place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee. (Deuteronomy 12:13–14)

Scholars call this series of injunctions the "centralization of the cult" or the "centralization of worship," referring to how the sacrifices and offerings that were the most prominent rituals of the Mosaic law were to be carried out in one location.⁸ In its own way the centralization of worship was a revolutionary law that, when implemented, would change the practice of Israelite religion in a very dramatic way. Because the laws in Deuteronomy 12 affected various institutions in the law of Moses—the offering of tithes and firstlings (Deuteronomy 14:22–26), the celebration of the holidays (Deuteronomy 16:1–17), the cities of refuge (Deuteronomy 19:1–9), and the enfranchisement of the Levites (Deuteronomy 18:6–8)—centralization would also affect the worship of every person in Israel. For example, because sacrifice was an integral part of all of the festivals, these festivals would no longer be celebrated in the various villages, but only at the central altar at the temple after it had been established.

It must also be remembered that, according to Leviticus 17, even the slaughter of clean animals was considered a type of sacrifice that had to be performed at an altar, even if the animal was to be killed only for human consumption.⁹ Hence, while Deuteronomy 12 banned the sacrifice of animals at all places other than "the place chosen by the Lord," it also gave instructions for "secular slaughter," whereby an animal could be killed for human consumption even where no altar existed (Deuteronomy 12:14–16). This kind of slaughter was to be performed at the gates of the city, and the blood was to be "poured to the earth," presumably as a symbol recognizing the sanctity of life as first described in Genesis 9:4: "the flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."

A short review of the history of the centralization of worship in Israel will help us to understand the situation facing Lehi. The patriarchs did not exhibit a sense that there had to be only a single place of sacrifice. Hence they built altars and offered sacrifices in many locations in the land of Canaan, including Shechem, Bethel, Hebron, Moriah, and Beer-sheba (Genesis 12:6–8; 13:18; 26:25; Abraham 2:17–20). During the Israelites' exodus from Egypt and sojourn in the wilderness, the portable altar of the tabernacle served for sacrifice.

Later, from the time of the conquest of Canaan to the erection of the temple, numerous altars and even temples were in operation throughout biblical Israel. For example, Samuel sacrificed at Ramah (1 Samuel 9:12–24) and Saul both at Gilgal (1 Samuel 10:8) and at Aijalon (1 Samuel 14:35). According to noted scholar Menachem Haran, "The solitary altars were numerous and scattered throughout the country; there was probably no settlement without its altar, and altars could even be found outside cities, in the countryside."¹⁰ Besides the temple in Jerusalem, Haran has counted 12 temples that functioned at various times in Israel, including those at Shiloh, Bethel, Dan, Gilgal, Mizpah, and even one in Arad that operated during the time of the temple at Jerusalem.¹¹

Deuteronomy 12 states that after the children of Israel entered the promised land, "then there shall be a place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there" (v. 11). At that designated location all sacrifices and offerings were to be made. While the temple in Jerusalem is not specified at the time of Deuteronomy 12, in biblical tradition that temple became the authorized place. When King Solomon dedicated the temple, he declared it to be the place where the Lord would put his name (1 Kings 8:29). Yet even after the temple was built, sacrifices and offerings continued throughout Israel, most notably at the high places (1 Kings 12:26–33; 2 Kings 16:4), which were uniformly condemned by the prophets (Isaiah 57:7; Hosea 10:8; Amos 7:9). Matters changed during the reigns of two later kings of Judah. Hezekiah (715–687 BC) "removed the high places" and eliminated idolatry throughout Judah so that the religion in Judah was reformed (2 Kings 18:4). Later, Josiah (640–609 BC) finally centralized worship in Jerusalem according to the injunction in Deuteronomy 12 (2 Kings 23:7–9, 15).

Legitimacy of Lehi's Altar and Sacrifice
In light of scriptural evidence there emerge several possible explanations of why Lehi built an altar in the wilderness and offered sacrifice in apparent disregard of the laws set forth in Deuteronomy 12. We will examine three possible explanations here.

1. Deuteronomy 12 did not intend to eliminate all sacrifice away from the main sanctuary. The first possibility is that the injunction in Deuteronomy did not originally intend to eliminate all sacrifice outside of the Jerusalem temple. The fact that, after the Israelite possession of the land, altars and sacrifice and even other temples continued at various places has led many scholars to believe that the laws in Deuteronomy 12 were either understood differently before the time of the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah or were written but enforced later—perhaps during the reigns of Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Josiah.¹²

Those who believe that the laws concerning the centralization of worship were early argue that the original intention of those laws was distributive. That is, the phrase the place which the Lord your God shall choose originally was not interpreted as applying exclusively to Jerusalem (in fact, Jerusalem is not mentioned anywhere in Deuteronomy). Rather, the expression was originally understood to apply to a succession of sanctuaries over time (such as Shechem and Shiloh) and only eventually to Jerusalem.¹³ Others have argued that the passage was not meant to refer to just one place but to any place that the Lord approved. In this view, there could be any number of divinely approved places of sacrifice.¹⁴

Even bracketing the issue of the original intention of Deuteronomy 12, it seems certain that by the time of Lehi "the place where the Lord would choose" was understood in ancient Israel to mean the temple in Jerusalem, as understood by Solomon's dedicatory prayer in 1 Kings 8. In the course of Josiah's reforms (King Josiah was a contemporary of Lehi), a book was discovered in the temple that many scholars believe was some form of the book of Deuteronomy. Admittedly, Josiah's reforms are described in language similar to that in Deuteronomy, and the nature of the reforms closely follows the laws found only in Deuteronomy, especially in terms of the centralization of worship.¹⁵ Motivated by the instructions in the book, Josiah eliminated idolatry throughout the country, cleansed and purified apostate temple practices, broke down the high places, and destroyed the altars throughout the land, including the altar at Bethel (2 Kings 23).

Those reforms are significant for Book of Mormon studies since Lehi grew up in Jerusalem during the reign of Josiah and must have been influenced by the religious reforms that affected the lives of everyone living there and that did not go unnoticed. For example, Lehi's contemporary, Jeremiah, lamented the death of Josiah and praised him for his righteous reign (Jeremiah 22:15–16). Because the plates of brass contained the five books of Moses (1 Nephi 5:11), Lehi and his descendants must have been familiar with the book of Deuteronomy. The language and theology of the Book of Mormon are heavily dependent on Deuteronomy, perhaps more than any other biblical book. The very basis of the oft-repeated covenant in the Book of Mormon that "inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper" (1 Nephi 2:20) reflects the theology of Deuteronomy: "Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do" (Deuteronomy 29:9).¹⁶

The reforms of Josiah dictated the centralization of worship, which included the commandment that altars and sacrifices should be limited to one place. The only place in scripture that this injunction is found is in Deuteronomy 12. It is possible, of course, that the passage in Deuteronomy did not originally intend to limit sacrifice to only one place. Even so, any explanation of Lehi's altar and sacrifices must deal with the biblical evidence that, during Lehi's time, it was widely understood and enforced that Jerusalem was the only place where sacrifice could be offered.

2. Melchizedek Priesthood holders were not bound by the centralization of worship as prescribed by Deuteronomy 12. It seems certain that Lehi, not being of the lineage of Levi,¹⁷ officiated through the Melchizedek Priesthood.¹⁸ Because Lehi and his descendants held this priesthood, they may not have been constrained by all of the injunctions of the law of Moses. There is much that we do not understand about Nephite worship in light of the fact that Lehi and his people were living the law of Moses but apparently possessed the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood. The Book of Mormon simply does not provide enough data.

Since Lehi was not a Levite, he probably did not have personal access to the temple in Jerusalem. While living there, he may have simply offered his required sacrifices through the approved channels of the Aaronic Priesthood, or perhaps he received divine approval and authority to build altars and offer sacrifice according to other instructions of the Lord or according to his own discretion. We do not know. However, the fact that the patriarchs of old, officiating with Melchizedek Priesthood authority, built altars and offered sacrifice in various locations, and the fact that the restored Church of Jesus Christ builds temples throughout the world, suggest that the centralized worship prescribed in Deuteronomy was either misunderstood or was part of the lower law—a temporary law—that was fulfilled with the atonement of Jesus Christ.

3. Deuteronomy 12 may have been interpreted anciently as applying only to the land of Israel. While it is clear that Josiah interpreted the injunction of centralized worship to refer only to Jerusalem, it is possible that anciently there was another viable interpretation of those laws.

The Dead Sea Scrolls provide possible evidence for this view. Twice in the Temple Scroll the expression three days' journey from the temple occurs (column 43:12 about the law of the tithe, and column 52:14 concerning sacrifice). The most important passage for our study appears in column 52:

You shall not slaughter a clean ox or sheep or goat in all your towns, near to my temple (within) a distance of a three days' journey; nay, but inside my temple you shall slaughter it, making it a burnt offering or a peace offering, and you shall eat and rejoice before me at the place on which I shall choo{se} to put my name." (11QT 52:13–16; emphasis added)¹⁹

The standard interpretation by Yigael Yadin and others of the phrase three days' journey in this passage is that the Temple Scroll prohibits all nonsacrificial slaughter within the boundaries of three days' distance from Jerusalem. Within this geographical boundary the only permissible slaughter is sacrificial; in other words, the Temple Scroll bans all slaughter for nonsacrificial purposes, the so-called secular slaughter for human consumption.²⁰ This of course would be a very restrictive injunction. Recently a scholar, Aharon Shemesh, has suggested a new interpretation of the phrase in question.²¹ He has demonstrated from rabbinical sources that the actual distance of a three-day journey from the Jerusalem temple would, for all practical purposes, mark a radius encompassing the whole land of Israel, since any point therein can be reached from the temple within that time frame.²²

Shemesh suggests that the passage in column 52 of the Temple Scroll should be read as an interpretation of Deuteronomy 12:1–5, which is discussed in the Temple Scroll in the preceding passage in column 51. Those verses in Deuteronomy describe the manner of sacrifice in the land after the conquest and the destruction of the pagan altars. Shemesh concludes that the Temple Scroll interprets the whole of Deuteronomy 12 in light of its opening verse: "On this basis, we can then suggest that the author of the Temple Scroll embraced the opinion that the law of centralization of worship applied only in the land of Israel in line with Deuteronomy 12:1's opening declaration: 'These are the laws and rules that you must carefully observe in the land.'"²³ Shemesh cites several other examples from rabbinic literature to show that some of the ancient rabbis did not condemn the temples, altars, or sacrifices in the Jewish temple of Onias in Egypt because they were "outside of the land of Israel."²⁴

The same method of interpreting Deuteronomy 12 may lie behind the Nephite justification for building a temple in the New World even in light of their continued obedience to the law of Moses. It is possible that they understood the injunction of Deuteronomy 12 concerning altars, sacrifices, and temples to apply only to the land of Israel as suggested by Deuteronomy 12:1.

Thus, in the Temple Scroll we find an ancient interpretation of the centralization of worship in Deuteronomy that prohibits sacrifice within a three days' journey of Jerusalem. Whether this passage is interpreted to mean that there should be no sacrificial slaughter in Israel except at the temple or that secular slaughter was allowed in Israel, it is clear that an ancient interpretation limited the application of Deuteronomy 12 to a geographical area established by the distance of a three days' journey from Jerusalem—an area that roughly coincided with the boundaries of Israel.

A Clue in the Record?
Nephi recorded of his father Lehi "that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness . . . that he built an altar of stones, and made an offering unto the Lord, and gave thanks unto the Lord our God" (1 Nephi 2:6–7). This statement may simply be due to the historical fact that Lehi and his family traveled for three days before they stopped for a significant rest. But the note on the three days' journey may also be Nephi's way of saying that Lehi and his family were acting in accordance with an understanding of the law of Moses found in Deuteronomy 12.

That understanding is consistent with what we find preserved in the Temple Scroll. According to that document, the building of an altar and the offering of sacrifice were allowed only outside the radius of a three days' journey from the temple in Jerusalem. To put the matter differently, sacrifices beyond the three-day limit were acceptable under the law of Moses. In this view Lehi was conforming to the Mosaic requirement expressed in Deuteronomy 12 when he built an altar in the wilderness and offered sacrifice.

Notes
1. Unfortunately there is very little information about the Nephite temples in the Book of Mormon. The most complete study of the Nephite temples to date is John W. Welch, "The Temple in the Book of Mormon: The Temples at the Cities of Nephi, Zarahemla, and Bountiful," in Temples of the Ancient World: Ritual and Symbolism, ed. Donald W. Parry (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1994).
2. For a brief discussion of some of the issues relating to the sacrifice of Lehi and the Nephites beyond the injunctions in Deuternomy 12, see JBMS 8/1 (1999): 71.
3. Sidney B. Sperry, Book of Mormon Compendium (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1968), 99.
4. Hugh W. Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 245–46.
5. Welch, "The Temple in the Book of Mormon," 320.
6. "As a prophet, Lehi held the Melchizedek Priesthood and by that authority offered sacrifice (Teachings, p. 181). . . . The Book of Mormon writers made no attempt to elaborate upon the nature or types of their offerings. The Aaronic Priesthood was the province of the tribe of Levi, and thus was not taken by the Nephites to America. It would appear, therefore, that the sacrifices performed by the Lehite colony were carried out under the direction of the higher priesthood, which comprehends all the duties and authorities of the lesser" (Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1987], 1:31).
7. McConkie and Millet further explain: "A covenant-centered religion required a covenant sanctuary. The fact that the Nephites constructed a temple suggested that all remnants of Israel, wherever they had been scattered, if they possessed the priesthood would have done likewise" (ibid., 1:223).
8. For a recent review of biblical scholarship on Deuteronomy 12, see Bernard M. Levinson, "The Innovation of Cultic Centralization in Deuteronomy 12," in Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 23–52. An excellent discussion of the issue of the restriction of sacrifice to a single sanctuary can be found in Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 459–64.
9. The interpretation of Leviticus in terms of the so-called secular slaughter is much debated. See Tigay, Deuteronomy, 366 n. 43; and Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 112–13.
10. Menachem Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 459–64. This commentary is highly recommended as a model presentation of biblical scholarship to an educated lay audience.
11. Ibid., 26–42.
12. This is the prevailing view among modern scholars. In the classic documentary hypothesis, the literary strand D—chiefly the book of Deuteronomy—is dated to the middle of the seventh century BC While most scholars who hold this view agree that there is older material in Deuteronomy, they believe that the book in its present form was edited in the seventh century and its laws were first applied in their entirety by King Josiah. For a balanced and readable presentation of this view, see Tigay, Deuteronomy, xix–xxvi; and Moshe Weinfeld, "Deuteronomy, Book of," Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 2:168–83.
13. See, for example, Alexander Rofé, "The Strata of Law about the Centralization of Worship in Deuteronomy and the History of the Deuteronomic Movement," in Congress Volume: Uppsala 1971 (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 221–26; Baruch Halpern, "The Centralization Formula in Deuteronomy," Vetus Testamentum 31 (1981): 20–38; and Levinson, "Innovation of Cultic Centralization," 24–25.
14. A. C. Welch, "The Problem of Deuteronomy," Journal of Biblical Literature 48 (1929): 291–306.
15. See Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 65–84.
16. See Ellis Rasmussen, "Deuteronomy," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1:378–79.
17. Lehi was a descendant of Manasseh (see Alma 10:3).
18. The priesthood that Alma₂ held is described as "the high priesthood of the holy order of God" (Alma 4:20; compare 13:1–12, which describes the priesthood of the Nephites as the Melchizedek Priesthood). Responding to the question of whether the Melchizedek Priesthood was taken away when Moses died, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught: "All Priesthood is Melchizedek, but there are different portions or degrees of it. That portion which brought Moses to speak with God face to face was taken away; but that which brought the ministry of angels remained. All the prophets had the Melchizedek Priesthood and were ordained by God himself" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976], 180). He also taught: "What was the power of Melchizedek? 'Twas not the Priesthood of Aaron which administers in outward ordinances, and the offering of sacrifices. Those holding the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood are kings and priests of the Most High God, holding the keys of power and blessings. In fact, that Priesthood is a perfect law of theocracy, and stands as God to give laws to the people, administering endless lives to the sons and daughters of Adam" (ibid., 322).
19. Translations of the Temple Scroll from Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983).
20. Yadin, Temple Scroll 1.315–20, 2.233–39; Lawrence H. Schiffman, "The Deuteronomic Paraphrase of the Temple Scroll," Revue de Qumran 15 (1992): 558–61; and "Sacral and Non-Sacral Slaughter," in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness, ed. Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schiffman (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 69–84.
21. Aharon Shemesh, "'Three-Days' Journey from the Temple': The Use of this Expression in the Temple Scroll," Dead Sea Discoveries 6/2 (1999): 126–38; and idem, "A New Reading of Temple Scroll 52:13–16. Does this Scroll Permit Sacrifices Outside the Land of Israel?" Proceedings of the International Congress, Fifty Years of the Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. Vanderkam (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 400–410.
22. Shemesh, "'Three-Days' Journey,'" 126–27; emphasis added.
23. Ibid., 130; emphasis added.
24. Ibid., 130–32. This may help to explain the fact that the Jews built temples in Egypt in Elephantine (destroyed in 410 BC) and Leontopolis (shut down in AD 73) where sacrifice was offered. See Haran, Temples, 46–47. Shemesh cites Mishnah Menahot 13:10 and Babylonian Talmud Menahot 109a.

니파이 백성들은 모세의 율법에 따라(모사이야서 2:3) 희생물과 번제를 바쳤습니다. 몰몬경은 리하이가 주님의 계명에 순종하면서 그의 가족들과 함께 예루살렘을 떠났고 그들의 광야에서 3일을 여행한 다음 강가 근처 계곡에서 텐트를 치고 제단을 쌓아 희생 제물을 바쳤다는 것을 ㅣ기록으로 전하고 있습니다. (니전 2:6,7) 몰몬경에는 반복적으로 니파이 백성들이 그리스도가 오시기 전(니후 5:10, 예이롬 1:5, 앨마 30:2,3)까지 모세의 율법에 순종했음을 설명합니다. 그렇기 때문에 리하이가 제물과 번제를 주님께 바치고 (니전 5:9) 제단이 있는 성전을 세웠을 것입니다. (니후 5:16, 모사이야 2:3) 그러나 니파이인들은 므낫세 지파로(앨마서 10:3) 모세 율법에 따르면 레위 지파거나 아론의 후손들만이 제단 위에서 희생 제사를 지낼 수가 있었습니다. (출 28-30장, 민수기 3:7 참조) 이에 대해 문제를 제기하는 분들이 있습니다. 또한 신명기 12장에서는 주님께서 특별하게 선택된 곳 이외에서는 제물을 바치거나 제단을 쌓는 일이 없도록 지시하였는데 이 구절을 근거로 하여 리하이의 모습은 그릇되다고 합니다. 어떻게 모세의 율법을 준행했던 백성들이 예루살렘 성전과 먼 지역에서 제단을 쌓고 제물을 바칠 수 있냐는 것입니다.

그런데 구약을 보면 레위 지파가 아님에도 불구하고 합당한 희생을 드린 자들의 예들이 나옵니다. 예를 들어서 이스라엘 백성들이 이집트에서 탈출하여 처음으로 드린 희생 제사는 레위인에 의한 것이 아니라 당시 이스라엘 백성도 아니었던 모세의 장인, 이드로에 의한 것이었습니다. (출 18:12) 리하이처럼 므낫세 지파 출신인 초기 이스라엘의 사사였던 기드온의 경우를 보십시오. 하나님에게 제단을 쌓으라고 명령을 받았을 때 그는 그곳에서 희생 제물을 바쳤고 그에 따르는 아무런 형벌도 받지 아니하였습니다. (사사기 6:24-26) 선지자 사무엘의 아버지인 엘카나는 에브라힘 지파였지만 그가 드린 희생 제물을 주님께서 받아들여졌습니다. (삼상 1:1-3) 사무엘 역시 아버지의 방식대로 했으며 주님께서 그의 제물을 받아들이셨습니다. (삼상 7:9)

당시 축복사들은 희생을 드릴 수 있는 장소가 유일한 곳이라는 개념을 가지고 있지 않았습니다. 그래서 그들은 많은 지역에서 제단을 쌓고 번제를 드릴 수가 있었던 것이지요. (창세기 12:6-8, 13:18, 26:25) 축복사들 이후 이스라엘 백성들이 이집트를 탈출하여 광야에 머물러 있을 당시에는 운반할 수 있는 성소가 희생 제물을 위해 사용되었고 가나안을 정복하여 성전을 건축하던 시기에도 수많은 제단과 성전들이 운영되었습니다. 예를 들어서 사무엘은 라마에서 제물을 마쳤으며 (삼상 9:12-24) 사울은 길갈(삼상 10:8)과 아자론(삼상 14:35)에서 희생을 드렸습니다. 성서학자인 메네켐 하란에 의하면 "고정적인 제단은 국가 전역에서 흩어져 있었으며 제단이 없이는 사람들이 정착하지 않았다. 심지어 제단은 도시 밖에서도 발견이 되었다"고 기록합니다.(Menachem Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978)) 예루살렘에 있는 성전 외에도 하란에는 12개의 성전이 있어서 다양한 역할을 했는데 예를 들어 실로, 베델, 단, 길갈, 미즈파, 그리고 예루살렘 성전이 운영되던 시기의 아라드 지역에서도 성전이 운영되었다고 기록합니다.. (같은책 26?42)

기원전 715년에서 687년경으로 추정하는 시기가 되어서야 유다의 두 왕, 히스기야의 경우 유다에서 우상을 버리고 종교개혁을 일으키고 (왕하 18:4) 그후 요시아 왕이 (640-609년 추정) 신명기 12장에 근거하여 예루살렘만을 희생바칠 수 있는 곳으로 성별함으로서 (왕하 23:7-9, 15) "특정 지역에서만 희생이 가능하다"는 원칙이 세워지게 된 것입니다.

이처럼 니파이 백성들도 아론의 후손이 아니였지만 주님께서는 그들에게 맞는 방식을 마련해 주셨습니다. 마치 창세기 4:4에서 나오는 아벨의 희생 제물과 마찬가지로 말입니다.  아벨은 아론이 살기 이전 사람이며 당연히 희생 제물을 아론에 반차에 따른 제사들에게 전달할 수도 없었습니다. 그래서 그는 그 스스로 제물을 가져다가 주님께 희생으로 드렸던 것입니다. 니파이인들은 아벨과 같은 아론 이전의 축복사들과 같이 그들의 희생을 바쳤을 것입니다. .

그럼 신명기 12장에서 말하고 있는 것은 무엇입니까?. 먼저 신명기 12장의 일부를 인용하겠습니다.

 신명기 12장

신명기 12장에 의하면 이스라엘이 약속의 땅에 들어간 뒤에 희생을 바칠 수 있는 장소는 주님께서 그의 이름을 둘 곳으로 선택하신 곳에만 해당된다는 것이다.  

“오직 너희 하나님 여호와께서 자기 이름을 두시려고 너희 모든 지파 중에서 택하신 곳인 그 거하실 곳으로 찾아 나아가서 너희 번제와 너희 희생과 너희의 십일조와 너희 손의 거제와 너희 서원제와 낙헌 예물과 너희 우양의 처음 낳은 것들을 너희는 그리로 가져다가 드리고”  (신명기 12:5,6)

 “너희가 요단을 건너 너희 하나님 여호와께서 너희에게 기업으로 주시는 땅에 거하게 될 때 또는 여호와께서 너희로 너희 사방의 모든 대적을 이기게 하시고 너희에게 안식을 주사 너희로 평안히 거하게 하실 때에 너희는 너희 하나님 여호와께서 자기 이름을 두시려고 한 곳을 택하실 그곳으로 나의 명하는 것을 모두 가지고 갈찌니 곧 너희 번제와 너희 희생과 너희 십일조와 너희 손의 거제와 너희가 여호와께 서원하는 모든 아름다운 서원물을 가져가고” (신명기 12:10,11)

“너는 삼가서 네게 보이는 아무 곳에서든지 번제를 드리지 말고 오직 너희의 한 지파 중에 여호와의 택하실 그곳에서 너는 번제를 드리고 또 내가 네게 명하는 모든 것을 거기서 행할찌니라” ( 13,14절)

신명기 12장은 이스라엘 백성들이 약속의 땅에 들어간 이후도 "주 하나님께서 그의 이름을 두기 위해 선택할 곳이 있음을"을 말씀하신 것이며 그처럼 성별된 지역에서는 희생과 제단이 만들어졌습니다. 그래서 솔로몬 왕이 성전을 헌납했을 때 그는 그것을 주님께서 이름을 주신 것이라고 선언했던 것입니다. (삼상 8:29)

단도직입적으로 말해서 신명기 12장에은 주요 지역 외는 희생을 드리지 말라고 언급하지 않습니다.

이스라엘이 가나안 땅을 소유한 이후에도 제단과 희생, 그리고 다른 성전들은 다양한 지역에서 있었습니다. (최소한 히스기야, 므낫세, 요시아 이전) "너희 하나님이 선택하신 장소"란 개념을 예루살렘에만 국한시키지 않았습니다. (실제 신명기에서는 예루살렘에 대한 어떤 언급도 없다.) 오히려 그 구절은 주님께서 선택하신 지역이면 언제든지 제단을 쌓도록 성별된 곳이란 의미로 이해됩니다. 이러한 견해에 비추어 봤을 때 희생을 위한 장소가 여러군데 있었음을 추정할 수 있다.(A. C. Welch, "The Problem of Deuteronomy," Journal of Biblical Literature 48 (1929): 291?306)

신명기의 구절은 요시야왕(리하이의 동일시대 사람)이 성전에서 경전 구절을 발견하면서 그것을 근거로 예루살렘 성전에서만 가능토록 개혁을 한 것이지요. 그래서 그런지 요시야의 설명들은 신명기의 표현과 비슷하고 그 구절을 근거로 개혁운동을 했다고 볼 수 있습니다. 그 책에 자극을 받은 요시야 왕은 전역의 우상들을 치워버리고 비교적 성전 의식을 정화하며 높은 위치를 파하고 땅 전역의 제단들을 파괴했던 것입니다. (심지어 베델에 있는 제단마저..왕후 23장)

이 당시 요시야 왕의 개혁을 통해 희생을 드릴 장소로 예루살렘 성전만 인정되었던 것입니다. 따라서 요시야 왕의 개혁이 일어나고 그의 통치가 진행되던 시기에 리하이가 성장하기는 했지만 그에 따르는 모든 법칙들을 알 수 없었을지도 모릅니다.

지금까지 살펴본 것처럼 미대륙에서 리하이가 드린 희생 제사는 정당하였을 것입니다. 신명기 12장에서 언급한 것도 "주께서 그분의 이름을 두실 장소"를 지칭한 것이었으니 주님으로부터 선택된 땅으로 일컬음 받은 "미대륙"에서 다른 축복사들처럼 주님께 희생을 드린 것은 당연했을 것이지요.. (배문철)