while the flesh was in
seething, with a flesh-hook of three teeth in his hand; and he struck it
into the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot: all that the flesh-hook
brought up, the priest took for himself. So they did in Shiloh unto all
the Israelites that came thither. Also before they burnt the fat, the
priest's servant came, and said to the man that sacrificed, Give flesh
to roast for the priest; for he will not have sodden flesh of thee, but
raw. And if any man said unto him, Let them not fail to burn the fat
presently, and then take as much as thy soul desireth; then he would
answer him, Nay; but thou shalt give it me now; and if not I will take
it by force. Wherefore the sin of the young men was very great before
the Lord: for men abhorred the offering of the Lord._" (1 Sam. ii.
12-17.) There is a very interesting question behind this, into which I
must not enter here; how far all animal sacrifice is to be regarded as
the consecration of food; the recognition of God as the giver, as the
lord of the animal slain, and of man's right to slay as a right which
had been delegated by the Lord. That there is some deeper idea in animal
sacrifice no thoughtful reader of the Bible, I imagine, can well
question; but that this is a very important part of the meaning I feel
well assured. It casts a flood of light on the immense slaughter of
victims at the consecration of the temple and other high occasions;
while it is itself illustrated by the customs of orientals with
reference to the slaughter of animals to this day. But the priest's
portion was a recognised thing. Portions of this, not needed by the
priest's household, would be sold in the shambles. Portions belonging to
those who offered the sacrifice might be similarly exposed. Sometimes a
feast would be made in the temple, the animal which furnished the flesh
being sacrificed there (ver. 10); sometimes in a private house (x. 27),
where Christians, following the liberal law, the law of liberty laid
down by the apostle (1 Cor. v. 9, 10), would be constantly brought into
contact with it, and through it, it might seem to them, with the idol by
whose name it had been consecrated. A serious difficulty would thus
arise. I beg you to mark carefully where the real heart of the
difficulty lay. It was not at all a question of meat in itself, noxious
in quality or becoming noxious by quantity. If it had been a question of
a man eating unwholesome food, or eating good food to excess, d