A Short Note on the Levitical Sacrificial System

In the present note, I discuss (from a Christian perspective) the function of ‘atone-
ment’ within the Levitical system. As Christians, we often view atonement1 in a
manner which is correct in terms of its overall gist, but mistaken in terms of its
specifics. This (mistaken) view can be summarised as follows: (1) The purpose
of the sacrificial system (as described in Leviticus) is to deal with man’s moral
failures, i.e., to handle situations where, say, a person has lied, stolen, committed
adultery, etc. (2) When such sins are committed, the ‘sinner’ is to bring an ap-
propriate sacrifice to the Tabernacle, where the blood of the sacrifice is ‘applied’
to him in some way. (3) Once the sacrifice has been offered, the sinner is free
to go his way, forgiven (although his sins are not completely dealt with; they are
merely ‘covered’ in some unspecified way in anticipation of the full treatment of
sin by means of Christ’s sacrifice). (4) What the Levitical sacrifice accomplished
in part, Christ’s sacrifice accomplishes in full. Just as OT saints are forgiven by
virtue of the blood of animals, so NT saints are forgiven by virtue of Christ’s
blood, but their forgiveness is more ‘complete’ in some way.

While the upshot of the above view is roughly correct, its specific claims are not
correct. (Those claims also prompt some awkward questions: for instance, if the
Mosaic law offers men forgiveness from their moral sins, then why does Paul say
life cannot be obtained by means of the law?2 And why does the writer to the
Hebrews say the blood of bulls and goats cannot remove sin? And how can a
mere ritual purify a man’s heart?3 And how can a man be ‘partially forgiven’
anyway?) The reality of atonement within the Levitical system can better be
summarised as follows. (1) The purpose of the sacrificial system is not to deal
with ‘moral transgressions’ but, rather, to cleanse Israel from her (unintentionally-
contracted) ceremonial impurity. (2) The blood of OT sacrifices is not typically
applied to ‘sinners’, but to the Tabernacle (and its associated vessels). ‘Blood
manipulation’ purifies YHWH’s sacred space, and hence allows YHWH to dwell
safely in the midst of his people. (3) The sins of believers are completely forgiven
in the OT; hence, David can confidently proclaim, “As far as the east is from the
west, so far does [the LORD] remove our transgressions from us”, and Paul can
1
For the present purposes, it suffices for us to think of atonement as an essentially remedial function,
i.e., as a ritual which shields an individual from the consequences of his sin; hence, when atonement is
not available to an individual, he is forced to ‘bear his own sin’ (e.g., Lev. 5.1 cf. 5.2-13).
2
e.g., Rom. 3.20, Gal. 2.21, 3.11, 3.17, 3.21
3
In response, the word ‘mere’ can be questioned. A ‘mere’ ritual, someone might say, does not
purify a man’s heart, but, when accompanied with faith, it does. Faith, however, is nowhere mentioned
in the book of Leviticus. Its rituals nowhere prescribe (or even presuppose) faith as a pre-condition of
their efficacy. The ritual is performed, and the result (purification) is said to follow.

1
equate the forgiveness extended to the NT believer with the forgiveness offered
to a man like David (Rom. 4.7-8 cf. Psa. 32.1-2). The OT believer does not
obtain forgiveness through sacrifices (or even through sacrifices-infused-with-the-
efficacy-of-Christ’s-sacrifice). He obtains forgiveness in exactly the same way as
the NT believer does, namely through faith in God (insofar as God has revealed
himself). (4) The sense in which the OT sacrificial system foreshadows the
sacrifice of Christ is, therefore, as follows: what Levitical sacrifices accomplished
in ceremonial terms, Christ’s sacrifice accomplishes in moral terms; put another
way, while OT animal sacrifices dealt with ‘ceremonial sin’, Christ’s sacrifice deals
with all sin, be it biological, moral, intentional, or unintentional. As such, Christ’s
is a better sacrifice than those of the Levitical system in every conceivable sense.
It operates on a completely different plane, and its effects are permanent in nature.
The epistles to (for instance) the Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews mean exactly
what they say: righteousness cannot be obtained by means of the law (where
‘the law’ should be identified with the sacrificial system), and the blood of bulls
and goats do not remove a man’s sins.

Below, I explain and defend each of these points in greater detail and then consider
how they are reflected in the specific Hebrew and Greek terminology employed
in the OT and NT.

(1) The scope of the Levitical system

The sacrifices prescribed in the Levitical system are not intended to address
the issue of moral transgressions. While they frequently refer to ‘sin’, most
people would not classify the ‘sins’ in question as moral failures. 4.1-35 prescribes
sacrifices for unintentional sin (4.2, 4.13, etc.). 5.2-14 prescribes sacrifices for
what should happen if a man touches an unclean substance and hence becomes
unclean (or if he becomes aware of a previously hidden sin: 5.2-5).4 5.15 prescribes
sacrifices for unintentional sins when a man has financially benefited from the
sin. Ch. 6 prescribes sacrifices for situations where a man comes to realise an
element of dishonesty in some of his transactions.5 12.1-8 prescribes sacrifices
4
5.1 refers to acts of intentional sin, but it classifies these sins as impossible to atone for. Where
intentional sins have occurred, the sinner must “bear his [own] guilt”; that is to say, he must bear the
consequences of his sin himself, whatever they turn out to be—excommunication at the very least.
5
Ch. 6 could, potentially, envisage an intentional moral sin, but, since its subject matter is what a
man should do once he ‘realises his guilt’ («PŠM»: so 6.4-5 ESV cf. 4.22-23, etc.), it seems to presuppose
an element of unintentionality and hence to follow the pattern of chs. 4-5. Such a view of ch. 6 is
plausible even if (with Sklar 2005:39-41) we trans. «PŠM» in 6.4-5 as ‘to suffer the consequences of
guilt’, since the ‘consequences of guilt’ could be mentioned precisely because they alert the ‘sinner’
to his sin. But ‘to suffer the consequences of one’s guilt’ does not actually seem a very satisfactory
translation of «PŠM», since, in many cases of unintentional sin, a sin could be realised long before

2
for a woman made ‘unclean’ by pregnancy. 14.10-32 prescribes sacrifices for a
person afflicted by a skin disease. 15.14-15 and 15.29-30 prescribes sacrifices for
people made unclean by ‘discharges’. Ch. 16 prescribes a yearly sacrifice, which
Heb. 9.7 explicitly describes as a sacrifice for unintentional sins. And 17.10-12
tells the Israelites not to consume blood in any way. It prescribes no sacrifice for
those who do so.

Most if not all of the sacrifices listed above do not concern moral transgressions.
(To break God’s law unintentionally or, say, to become pregnant or contract a skin
disease is not really to commit a moral transgression; and, unlike uncleanness, the
guilt incurred by moral sins does not ‘wear off’ over time.) Ch. 1’s prescription is
particularly noteworthy, since it does not mention sin at all, and yet atonement
nevertheless needs to take place (1.4), so its purpose clearly cannot be ‘moral
forgiveness’. Moral transgressions necessitate a very different course of action.
A man who steals an ox must pay compensation (five oxen: Exod. 22.1). A man
who commits murder must be put to death (Exod. 21.12-14), as must a man who
commits adultery. And so on. In the vast majority of these cases,6 no sacrifices
are prescribed as a means for the guilty party to ‘atone’ for his transgression;
they require restitution or death (in which case it can be said, ‘The transgressor’s
blood is on his own hands’: e.g., Lev. 20.9-13). Levitical law deals directly with
the sinner (outside of the mediation of the sacrificial system) in order to make
restitution for such sins.

In sum, then, the Levitical system prescribes sacrifices in order to absolve a man
of his ‘guilt’ when he has become ceremonially impure or unfit for the Tabernacle
in some way. Its purpose is not to absolve a man of moral crimes, but to cleanse
his ceremonial defilement.7 As the book of Hebrews states, “[The Tabernacle’s]
its consequences became apparent, which the sinner would not be expected to wait for. Suppose, for
instance, a man picks up a carcass of what he takes to be a clean animal only to discover it to be
unclean. Or suppose a man promises to give someone a sum of money only to suffer a financial loss
himself and hence be unable to make good on his commitment. In such cases, someone would not be
expected to wait for ‘the consequences of guilt’ to become evident to offer a sacrifice. «PŠM» therefore
seems better translated as ‘to realise one’s guilt’. 4.3 has been cited as an example of where the trans.
‘to realise one’s guilt’ does not work (e.g., Sklar 2005:34), but 4.3 is not actually a conj. of the vb.
«PŠM». It is a nominal form rather than a verbal form. (The priest is said to sin ‘to the guilt of the
people’.)
6
Num. 5.5-10 is a possible, though unintentional sin may be in mind there (cf. our discussion of Lev.
6 above).
7
Many commentators claim otherwise. Atonement, they say, is (at least partly) moral in character.
The rituals prescribed in Lev. 6 and Num. 5 cover certain intentional sins, and the day of Atonement
covers all the other sins. But such claims do not square with the text. As mentioned above, the day of
Atonement is explicitly stated to deal only with ‘the people’s unintentional sins’, i.e., sins committed
agnoēma (Heb. 9.7 cf. Gen. 43.12 LXX, where mišgeh [from «ŠGG»: Lev. 4.2, 4.22, 5.15, etc.] is rendered
as agnoēma). Furthermore, nowhere does the text of Lev. 16 make any statement along the lines of
‘Israel shall be forgiven for their sins’, as Lev. 6.7 does. On the contrary, the object of the day of

3
gifts and sacrifices...deal only with food and drink and various washings; [they
are] regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation” (9.10). Of
course, the language of ‘sin’ and ‘forgiveness’ is frequently employed in Leviticus,
since, when transgressions occur (even if they are only committed unintention-
ally), Israel’s purity is compromised, and atonement must be made in order to
avert the consequence of man’s transgression (namely a manifestation of divine
wrath). Indeed, the ‘biological’ and ‘forensic’ aspects of Levitical law are closely
connected: both are part of the same literary body of law, described in identi-
cal language; both exhibit a number of similar features (both, for instance, are
‘contagious’ insofar as they have an effect the rest of soceity); and, as Jamieson
writes, “The cult is never far from the courtroom, especially since the law itself
[is] physically present within the ark of the covenant”.8 Whenever YHWH’s holy
law is transgressed, YHWH is judicially displeased, and rightly so. But the point
remains: the sacrificial system itself addresses only a limited kind of ‘sin’ and
‘guilt’ (namely ceremonial sin and guilt) and hence offers only a limited kind of
Atonement is the sanctuary (16.15-20). In fact, the vb. «KPR» only takes a direct object in two places
in Scripture, both of which refer to the atonement of the sanctuary in Lev. 16 (16.20, 16.33). The
implication is therefore clear: the central object of the Yom Kippur rite is the sanctuary. True—the
rite is necessary because of the “uncleannesses of the people of Israel and...their transgressions”. But
what is purified is not the people of Israel; it is the sanctuary (16.15-20). Some commentators therefore
seek to credit the ‘scapegoat’ with a kind of catch-all ability; that is to say, they take the goat sacrificed
in Lev. 16 to deal with unintentional sins and the scapegoat to deal with the remainder of Israel’s sin,
which is possible given the subtle distinction between the terminology of 16.16 and 16.21. (The sacrifice
is said to deal with ‘uncleanness’ [«T.MP»], while the scapegoat is said to deal with ‘iniquity’ [«QWN»].)
If such commentators are correct, then an important point follows, namely: Israel’s sacrificial system
does not deal with non-ceremonial sin in any comprehensive manner. In contrast to what is said when
sacrifices are offered for sin, the sin borne away by the scapegoat is nowhere said to be ‘atoned for’ or
‘forgiven’. It is merely ‘sent away’, which seems a rather unsatisfactory and fragile way to deal with a
grave and potentially catastrophic issue—hence the central argument of the book of Hebrews: in and
of itself, the sacrificial system is radically incomplete. But, whether or not we take the scapegoat to
bear away intentional sins, we should still see the effect of the scapegoat’s actions—like those of every
other Tabernacle-related ritual—as ceremonial in nature (as is stated explicitly in Heb. 9.6-14). Or,
to put the point negatively, we should not associate the scapegoat’s actions with moral purification.
Israelites who were cut off from the Tabernacle (due to, say, some kind of deliberate sin) did not have
to wait until the next Yom Kippur to be morally purified; and Israel’s congregation did not become
morally pure each Yom Kippur. Moral forgiveness has never been obtained by means of the Leviticial
sacrificial system.
8
Exod. 25.16-21, 40.20, Jamieson 2014:69 cf. Gane 2005:161.

4
‘forgiveness’.9 Like all OT pictures, it is a partial, limited, and imperfect fore-
shadow of a much deeper and grander truth.10

(2) The application of blood

The blood of OT sacrifices is not generally applied to sinners. In chs. 1-3, blood
is sprinkled on the altar. In chs. 4-7, it is sprinkled ‘before the LORD’ or on the
horns or sides of the altar. (The remainder is poured out at the base of the altar.)
In ch. 8 (where priests are ordained), it is put on the priests’ earlobe, thumb, and
big toe. And, in ch. 16, it is applied to the ‘mercy seat’.11 Furthermore, most
sacrificial animals do not ‘bear’ people’s sin. Only the ‘scapegoat’ of Lev. 16 is
said to ‘bear’ Israel’s iniquities (16.22), which is precisely why it must be released
into the wilderness rather than allowed to enter God’s presence. It is not fit to
enter God’s tabernacle as a sacrifice; its purpose is to carry sin away from the
sanctuary.

In sum, then, the primary focus of the sacrificial system is the ceremonial clean-
ness of the Tabernacle, i.e., of God’s sanctuary. God is an awesome God, and
is awesome in holiness. He resides in the midst of Israel, and his ‘sacred space’
must be kept ceremonially clean (16.16). Hence, to enter God’s sacred space is
a scary prospect, as Nadab and Abihu discovered to their cost (10.1-2). God’s
space must be kept clean by the application of blood, as we are told in the book of
Hebrews. “[Moses]”, the writer says, “sprinkled with the blood both the tent and
all the vessels used in worship” (9.21-22). Note, however, what the writer to the
Hebrews does not say: he does not say anything about how the blood sanctified
people from their moral transgressions. He refers only to how blood made the
9
Indeed, ‘forgiveness’ («SLH.») in the context of Lev. 4-6 cannot really envisage a ‘full moral pardon’,
since: a] in many cases, a moral fault may not have been incurred (e.g., if a man has unintentionally
touched a leprous garment), and b] even where it has, a man’s sin cannot be wiped away by means of
a ritual (as mentioned above). The ‘forgiveness’ mentioned in Lev. 4-6 must, therefore, be understood
in light of the ‘sin’ to which it relates: since the sin envisaged in chs. 4-6 is primarily ceremonial, the
«SLH . » (‘forgiveness’) should be envisaged as primarily ceremonial. Such a view of «SLH . » is consistent
with many of its cognates, such as the Mish. Heb. sĕlîh.âh (‘sprinkling’), the Jewish Aram. «ZLH.»(G)
(‘to sprinkle’), the Sam. Pal. Aram. slwh. (‘atonement’), the Mand. «ZLH.»(G) (‘to cleanse’), the Akk.
salāhu (‘to sprinkle water for purification’), etc. We can also consider, as an analogy, the sense of
«SLH
˘ » in Num. 30, where a woman’s vow can be ‘undone’ by her husband or father, in which case she
.
is said to be ‘forgiven’ [«SLH.»] of it, where ‘to be forgiven’ is not ‘to be morally pardoned’ but ‘to be
released from a vow’s obligations’. It may, therefore, be better to translate phrases such as ‘he will be
forgiven’ in chs. 4-6 as ‘he will be released’.
10
though when we talk about ceremonial sin, we should not be overly ‘compartmental’ in our view
of it. If, for instance, a man is consistently ceremonially unclean because he is simply too apathetic to
take the necessary precautions, then his fault extends beyond the ceremonial.
11
The only exception to the rule occurs in Lev. 14, where blood is applied to the earlobe, thumb,
and big toe of those with skin disorders (14.14-18, 14.25-29), yet that is done primarily to identify
those who are cleansed with the priest and priesthood (8.23+), i.e., as ‘fit for worship’; hence, it is
emphasised, “the restitution offering belongs to the priest” (14.13).

5
vessels employed in worship fit for ceremonial use, which further emphasises the
inability of (animal’s) blood to rectify moral sins. (A vessel cannot sin.) When,
therefore, the writer goes on to say, “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and
goats to take away sins”, he means what he says. The blood of bulls and goats
did not take away sin, since it did not have the power to accomplish such a task.
It removed sin neither partially, nor temporarily, nor ‘on credit’. It operated on
a different plane altogether (expanded on below). It was never meant to take
away sins.

(3) OT saints are free of sin

YHWH did not offer OT saints anything less than full and complete forgiveness.
“As far as the east is from the west”, David proclaimed, “so far does [the LORD] re-
move our transgressions from us” (Psa. 103.12). “I am he”, God declared through
the prophet Isaiah, “who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I
will not remember your sins” (Isa. 43.25). “Though your sins are like scarlet,
they will be as white as snow; though they are as red as crimson, they will be
like wool” (Isa. 1.18). David’s words in Psa. 51 are particularly instructive. “Pu-
rify me with hyssop, and I will be clean!”, David said. “Wash me, and I will be
whiter than snow!” (Psa. 51.8). David later explained the inadequacy of sacri-
fices. “You will not delight in a sacrifice, [O LORD], or I would bring one”, he says
(Psa. 51.16-17). Why would God not delight in a sacrifice? Because the Law had
not prescribed one for deliberate acts of adultery such as David’s (Psa. 51.1). So
how, the question arises, were men put right in OT times? In exactly the same way
as we are today: through repentance (like David’s) and faith (like Abraham’s:
Gen. 15.6, Rom. 4.3). Of course, the basis of God’s forgiveness (namely Christ’s
sacrifice) had not been established in OT times. God’s people were, therefore,
saved ‘on credit’ (see below). The distinction between members of the old and
new covenants is not, therefore, the distinction between ‘partially forgiven’ sin
(whatever they might be) and ‘completely forgiven’ sins, but between restricted
access into God’s presence and permanent access into God’s presence. As the
book of Hebrews says, “Only the high priest ever entered the Most Holy Place,
and only once a year,...[since] the entrance to the Most Holy Place was not freely
open as long as the Tabernacle and the system it represented were still in use.
This is an illustration pointing to the present time” (Heb. 9.7-9). “We”, the writer
says, “can boldly enter heaven’s Most Holy Place because of the blood of Jesus.
By his death, Jesus opened a new and life-giving way through the curtain into
the Most Holy Place” (Heb. 10.19-20).

6
(4) Christ’s sacrifice operates on a different plane
According to the NT, just as (in the OT) specific sacrifices could deal with certain
ceremonial issues, so Christ’s sacrifice is able to deal with all sin, be it ceremo-
nial, moral, intentional, or unintentional. That is the power of Christ’s sacrifice.
Compared to the OT system, it is a better sacrifice in every way. It is able to
deal with precisely what the OT system could not deal with—hence, the writer to
the Hebrews’ claim, “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away
sins”. The contrast between the OT sacrificial system and the work of Christ is,
therefore, a dramatic one. (When we read the NT back into the OT, we min-
imise the contrast between them, which undercuts the fundamental premise of
Hebrews.) Christ has not achieved what OT sacrifices could only achieve in part,
nor is he the means by which OT sacrifices acquired their power. Rather, Christ’s
sacrifice has achieved what the OT system could not do, did not do, and was not
designed to do. It has enabled men (in OT and NT times alike) to be sancti-
fied from their moral transgressions by means of repentance and faith. Again,
the book of Hebrews brings out precisely this point. “If the blood of goats and
bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer”, the writer
says, “sanctify for the purification of the flesh”, then “how much more will the
blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish
to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (9.13-14).
Note the writer’s claim: the claim is not, ‘OT sacrifices accomplished nothing
for OT saints’, nor is it, ‘OT sacrifices accomplished partial forgiveness for OT
saints’; rather, the writer’s claim is, ‘What OT sacrifices accomplished in cere-
monial terms (“the purification of the flesh”), Christ’s sacrifice has accomplished
in moral terms’. Christ has not merely dealt with “washings” and “regulations
for the body” in an earthly tabernacle (9.11). He has entered a heavenly taber-
nacle and obtained “eternal redemption” for us (9.12). To put the point another
way: while OT sacrifices operated on the ceremonial level (insofar as they make
unclean things clean), Christ’s sacrifice operates on a different plane altogether,
namely the moral plane, since it makes the unrighteous righteous. The difference
between animal sacrifices and Christ’s sacrifice is not, therefore, the difference
between ‘partial’ and ‘complete’ forgiveness; it is the difference between ceremo-
nial and moral sanctification. As such, Christ’s sacrifice is both like and unlike
animal sacrifices. In both cases, a thing is translated from one state to another.
While, however, animal sacrifices effect a transition from a state of ceremonial
uncleanness to ceremonial cleanness, Christ’s sacrifice effects a transition from un-
righteousness to righteousness. It turns sinners to saints, and subjects of Satan’s

7
kingdom to subjects of God’s. It is concerned with the transition from unrigh-
teous to righteous than from uncleanness (t.āmē -) to cleanness (t.āhôr ). The NLT’s
treatment of Heb. 9.9-14 makes this point very clearly:

The [old covenant’s] gifts and sacrifices...are not able to cleanse

the consciences of the people who bring them, [since] that old sys-
tem deals only with food and drink and various cleansing cere-
monies—physical regulations...in effect only until a better system
could be established. [But] Christ has now become the High Priest
over all. ...He has entered that greater, more perfect Tabernacle in
heaven, which was not made by human hands and is not part of
this created world. With his own blood (not the blood of goats and
calves) he entered the Most Holy Place once for all time and secured
our redemption forever. Under the old system, the blood of goats
and bulls and the ashes of a young cow could cleanse people’s bodies
from ceremonial impurity. Just think how much more the blood of
Christ will purify our consciences from sinful deeds so we can wor-
ship the living God.
(Heb. 9.9-14 NLT)

The OT system therefore teaches us (among other things) three important truths:
i] bloodshed and sacrifice are fundamental to how a man is put right with God;
ii] the trangression of the law carries a costly penalty (it demands death); and
iii] the Levitical sacrificial system has severe limitations, both in terms of its
scope and its power. As such, the OT system anticipates and looks on towards
Christ’s full and perfect sacrifice—which is precisely the point made in Heb. 9.22.
“Under the law”, the writer tells us, “almost everything is purified with blood”
(9.22a); in other words, under normal circumstances, priests, men, and vessels
are made ‘clean’ only by means of blood.12 But, ultimately, “forgiveness of sins” is
“impossible without bloodshed” (9.22b). How, then, can it be obtained? The (im-
plicit) answer is as follows: through a sacrifice not specified in Levitical law, but
connected to a different priesthood altogether—a Melchizedekian priesthood—,
namely through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, our Passover lamb.
12
Grain offerings are acceptable only when someone is unable to afford a blood-related sacrifice (Lev.
5.11, etc.).

8
Linguistic considerations
Each of the points outlined above are reinforced by the grammar and syntax of
the sacrificial system. The Heb. vb. ‘to atone’ is «KPR».13 In the context of the
sacrificial system—i.e., in any text which describes an action performed in the
Tabernacle or Temple or a sacrifice or tribute administered by a priest—,14 the
vb. ‘to atone’ is employed in one of two ways: either i] as a standalone verb, or ii]
via a construction of the form «KPR» + ,al + noun (the norm) or «KPR» + bĕ ,ad
+ noun (less common),15 where the noun in question is an individual, group of
individuals, or object which has become ‘unclean’ in some way.16 In other words,
atonement is spoken of either as an abstract activity or is said to be made on
behalf of a specific third party or object.17
13
Whenever I refer to «KPR» in the present note, I always have in mind its D-stem conjugation (i.e.,
its Piel form), but, for the sake of convenience, I denote it as «KPR».
14
The slaughter of Zimri and Cozbi would, therefore, class as a sacrifice (since it is performed by
Phinehas), which seems appropriate since God chooses to establish “a covenant of a perpetual priest-
hood” with Phinehas on the basis of his actions (Num. 25.6-13).
15
Whether min should be considered to be a prep. of «KPR» in the same sense as it is of, say,
«BQŠ» (‘to request from’) is debatable. My inclination is to think not. min never directly follows
the vb. «KPR»—or, to put the point positively, min is invariably separated from «KPR» by a different
preposition—, which seems significant. Furthermore, the most common construction in which min
occurs is «KPR» + ,al + noun + subject + min + noun (4.26, 5.6, 5.10, etc.), which parallels the constr.
of 4.35 and 5.18, where the prep. ,al assumes the same position as min and has a causal/explanatory
sense (‘because’). My inclination is, therefore, to distance min from «KPR» and to render it as ‘because’,
as per the NASB, ESV, HCSB, etc. We can consider, by way of analogy, Isa. 53.5 where min +
‘transgression’ has the same sense (!‫הוא מחלל מפׁשענו‬: ‘he was pierced because of our transgressions’).
16
The prepositions ,al and bĕ ,ad are translated in the same way in the LXX, i.e., via the prep. peri
+ noun [gen.]. In at least two instances, the sense of ,al appears to be ‘locative’. Atonement is made
‘on’ the horns of the altar and ‘on’ the goat for Azazel (16.10). I also take the sense of ,al in 16.16
to be locative. Atonement is made ‘at’ the site of the sanctuary. Sometimes, a qualifier of the form
bĕ + noun is also involved, e.g., «KPR» + bĕ -êl hā -āšām (‘to make atonement with the ram of the
guilt-sacrifice’: 5.16). Note: In the constr. ‘ram of ordination’ ( -êl hakkippurîm: Num. 5.8), «KPR»
functions adjectivally, so is not discussed here.
17
Leviticus contains only two exceptions to the above rule, both of which relate to the day of Atone-
ment (16.20, 16.33). In 16.20 and 16.33, the vb. «KPR» takes a chain of direct objects; that is to say,
it is not governed by a preposition. The objects of the vb. «KPR» in 16.20 and 16.33 are “the holy
place”, the “sanctuary”, the “tabernacle”, and “the altar”. Atonement is not made ‘on behalf of’ these
objects; rather, these objects are ‘atoned’ in some way. Put another way, the priests do not make
atonement on behalf of the altar; they atone the altar. Given the context of Lev. 16, the uniqueness
of its syntax makes sense. What takes place in 16.20 and 16.33 is very different from what takes place
elsewhere in Leviticus. Atonement is not made on behalf of a guilty party or an object which has
become unclean in some way (e.g., a house or garment affected by leprosy). Instead, the very source
of the whole sacrificial system is ‘purified’ in some way so as to sustain its ability to ‘cleanse’ what is
brought to it. As an example of how the altar acts as the source of the system’s ability to purify, we
can consider the text Exod. 29, where the whole sacrificial system is ‘kickstarted’ at God’s command:
“Purify [«H.T.P»(D) ] the altar in readiness for the day when you will make atonement on it, and anoint
it so as to consecrate it. For seven days, you must make atonement on the altar and consecrate it.
The altar will become especially holy; whatever touches the altar will become holy” (Exod. 29.35-37;
for the translation “in readiness for”, see the sense of the lāmed prefix in Exod. 34.2). Jesus’ question
to the Pharisees presupposes a similar view of the altar: “Which is greater?”, he asks, “The gift or the
altar which makes the gift sacred?” (Matt. 23.18-19). In Lev. 16.20 and 16.33, the sacrificial system is
‘energised’ in some way and imbued with the ability to sanctify.

9
Outside of the sacrificial system, the vb. «KPR» is employed in a different manner.
These occurrences can be divided among six non-distinct categories. Each cate-
gory is defined by a criterion which distinguishes it from sacrificial-system-related
occurrences of the vb. «KPR». The criteria are as follows. First, deliberate (or
at least potentially deliberate) blood-shed has occurred and «KPR» is governed
by the prep. lĕ (Num. 35.33, Deut. 21.8, 2 Sam. 21.1-6). Second, God performs
«KPR» (Deut. 32.43, Psa. 65.3, 78.38, Dan. 9.24).18 Third, the land receives
atonement (Num. 35.33, Deut. 32.43). Fourth, God «KPR»s sins (Psa. 65.3,
78.38, Dan. 9.24).19 Fifth, God performs «KPR» on behalf of Israel’s sins (Exod.
32.30, Psa. 79.9, Jer. 18.23). Sixth, iniquity is ‘atoned for’ (where the constr.
takes the form ‘noun + pass. conj. of «KPR»’) without any explicit statement of
who performs the atonement (1 Sam. 3.14, Prov. 16.6, Isa. 6.7, 22.14, 27.9).20

In the majority of these cases, ‘atonement’ has clearly been necessitated by sins
beyond the ceremonial, and the act of atonement clearly accomplishes results
beyond the ceremonial, i.e., results which presuppose moral forgiveness (or its
absence). For instance, in 2 Samuel, Saul’s household must be judged for the
blood it has shed in order to avert a famine, and atonement must be made by
means of human lives (2 Sam. 21.1-6). In the Psalms, when Israel angers God in
the wilderness and break their covenant, she repents and God atones for her guilt
in order to spare her from destruction (Psa. 78.31-39). In Proverbs, it is said to
be possible to atone for wickedness by means of “loyalty and faithfulness” (Prov.
16.6). In Isaiah, Israel’s iniquity is atoned for by the destruction of Israel’s idols
(Isa. 27.9). In Daniel, Israel’s long history of unfaithfulness is atoned for (and her
restoration brought about) by means of seventy long weeks of difficulties (Dan.
9.24). And so on.

What, then, can we say by way of summary of the above discussion? The answer
is as follows. What is meant by ‘atonement’ within sacrificial-system-related
contexts is quite different from what is meant by it outside of them.21 Never
in of the context of the sacrificial system is sin (however described) the object
of «KPR» (whether governed by a preposition or not).22 Sin is, of course, the
18
‘Land’ is a direct object in Deut. 32.43.
19
As in Deut. 32.43, ‘land’ is a direct object in Psa. 65.3, 78.38.
20
Other categories could be created to accommodate the employment of «KPR» in Gen. 32.20 and
Isa. 47.11, though «KPR» seems to have a more ‘pagan’ sense in these texts (‘to appease’ or ‘to
placate the desire for vengeance’ ?). Either way, they do not overlap with the employment of «KPR»
in sacrificial-system contexts.
21
Such a notion should not surprise us too much. The phrase «NŚP» + ,āwōn (‘to bear sin’) also
functions differently inside and outside of the sacrificial system (Sklar 2015:87-101).
22
nor is sin the subject of a pass. conj. of «KPR»

10
reason why atonement is made. But atonement is never performed ‘on behalf of’
particular sins. Rather, atonement is performed on behalf of particular people
or objects. Furthermore, never in the context of the sacrificial system is God the
subject of «KPR», and never is the ‘land’ of Israel the object. Outside of the
sacrificial system, the vb. «KPR» is employed in a very different manner. The
difference is three-fold: i] a single individual or object is never the (grammatical)
object of the vb. «KPR» (whether it is governed by a preposition or not); ii]
God is frequently the subject of the vb. «KPR»; and iii] the object23 is always
sin, bloodguilt, or the land. As far as I can tell, these claims hold true when
examined in the context of over a hundred OT occurrences of the vb. «KPR».

The distinction between the employment of «KPR» inside and outside of the sacri-
ficial system strikes me as highly instructive—not because of its precise syntactic
nature («KPR» + ‘a person’ as opposed to «KPR» + ‘sin’), but because of its
simply facticity (i.e., because of its consistent observation throughout Scripture).
What ‘atonement’ accomplishes in the context of the sacrificial system is clearly
very different from what it accomplishes outside of the sacrificial system. In what
way? How exactly does atonement within the context of the sacrificial system
differ from atonement without it? The answer to our question simply requires
us to consider what necessitates ‘atonement’ in the first place, which we have
already done.

In the context of the sacrificial system, atonement is necessitated by ceremonial

impurity. What is accomplished by such atonement must, therefore, be ceremonial
purification. To put the point another way, the purpose of the sacrificial system is
to purge Israel of her ceremonial impurities and hence to make God’s sacred space
safe for them to enter, which is exactly what its rituals of atonement do. So, what
about «KPR» outside of the sacrificial system? What necessitates atonement
outside of the sacrificial system is almost invariably moral sin (e.g., blood-guilt,
etc.), as is clear in the examples cited above (e.g., Psa. 65.3, Isa. 27.9, etc.).
What is accomplished by such atonement must, therefore, extend beyond the
ceremonial. What is accomplished is the kind of atonement with which we are
much more familiar as Christians: forgiveness, pardon, moral absolution. God
deals directly with a man’s sin (as is reflected in the verb’s syntax, where God
is often the subject and sin the object), and absolves him of its guilt. Moral sin
is ‘atoned for’ in a moral sense. These two senses of atonement are, therefore,
very different from one another. A man whose transgressions are not “covered” in
God’s eyes (and to whom the LORD imputes iniquity: Psa. 32.1-2) can leave the
23
or the subject of a pass. verb

11
Tabernacle’s courts ceremonially restored, but remain in the same guilty spiritual
condition.24 As far as the law is concerned, then, moral impurity is unforgivable;
it leaves a indelible stain on our account, which no Levitical ritual is able to wash
away, which is precisely why Paul tells us the Law cannot justify. Our sins are
like scarlet (i.e., a permanent dye: Isa. 1.18), and the sacrificial system lacks the
power to undo them. So, how can moral sin be atoned for? The answer requires
us to turn to the NT, but at least one very important point can be gleaned from
our consideration of the Levitical system: if atonement for such sin is to take
place, then it must take place outside of the context of the Levitical system, i.e.,
outside of the Tabernacle. Indeed, that is precisely the premise of the book of
Hebrews. The blood of bulls and goats does not take away sin. As such, the
Levitical sacrificial system is radically insufficient, and awaits a better covenant
and sacrifice.

Let us turn, then, to the issue of how the New Testament conceives of atone-
ment—and, in particular, how it conceives of Christ’s work of atonement. Does
the NT describe Christ’s work in ‘ceremonial’ or ‘moral’ terms? The answer in a
nutshell is, Both. The data at issue is as follows. The Heb. «KPR» is invariably
translated in the LXX by means of the Gr. vb. hilaskomai.25 hilaskomai and its
derivatives occur six times in the NT. In Luke 18.13, a sinner in the Temple
asks God to ‘have mercy on’ (hilaskomai ) him. In Heb. 2.17, the same vb. is
employed to describe what the high-priest achieved on behalf of Israel, and is
applied by way of analogy to Christ’s work as our high-priest. In Heb. 9.5, the
noun hilastērion is employed to describe the mercy-seat in the Tabernacle. In
Rom. 3.25, the same noun is employed to describe the nature of Christ’s sacrifice.
And, in 1 John 2.2 and 1 John 4.10, Christ is said to be the hilasmos for our sins,
i.e., the one who has atoned for our sins.

A simple but important conclusion follows from these considerations. Christ’s

act of atonement is both like and unlike OT ceremonial sacrifices. It is like an
animal sacrifice insofar as Christ’s actions are depicted in light of what Israel’s
high-priest accomplishes on the day of Atonement (as he sprinkles an animal’s
blood on the mercy seat: Rom. 3.25 cf. Heb. 2.17, 9.5); to be more precise,
Christ’s work involves the presentation of blood before God’s throne. Yet, at the
24
The same point can be spelt out in terms of ‘righteousness’. Never in the context of the sacrificial
system is atonement said to make a man ‘righteous’. It forgives (chs. 4-6), and it cleanses (12.7-8,
14.19-20, 14.29-31, 14.53, 16.30, although the purpose of atonement is not ‘to make clean’ per se, since
atonement sometimes needs to take place even after uncleanness has ‘worn off’, e.g., 15.30). But it
does not make sinners righteous.
25
or a form of it, most often exilaskomai

12
same time, Christ’s act of atonement is unlike the actions of Israel’s high-priests
since it exceeds them in its efficacy and power; to be more precise, it atones for
sins (Luke 18.13, 1 John 2.2, 4.10), a sense of “atone” not attested in the context
of the Levitical system but multiply attested outside of it, where the need for
and result of atonement extends well beyond the ceremonial. (That concept is
brought out far more fully by a whole range of other verbs, such as ‘to justify’,
‘to sanctify’, and so on.) In summary, then, the NT concept of atonement is both
similar and dissimilar to the concept of Levitical atonement: it is similar insofar
as it requires blood to be presented before the LORD, and translates men from one
state to another, yet it is dissimilar insofar as it operates on an entirely different
dimension: it translates people from darkness to light, from death to life, from
dead works to a living God.

Why hold the above view?

I am personally attracted to the above view of the sacrificial system for a number
of reasons. First, I believe it to be correct—which, of course, is a sufficient
reason to hold any view. Second, it explains a number of otherwise hard-to-
explain features of the sacrificial system. Why, for instance, if sacrifices are
a means of moral forgiveness, do they only deal with a small subset of sins,
namely unintentional sins? How are people forgiven for the rest of their sins?
And what happens in ‘the time between a man’s sacrifices are brought to the
Tabernacle’ ? Do his sins slowly ‘accumulate’, only to be forgiven when he offers
his next sacrifice? Is it the Tabernacle simply an OT-version of ‘the confession
box’ ? And is the ‘forgiveness’ offered by the sacrificial partial or complete? And
what, in practice, could the concept of ‘partial forgiveness’ even mean? Will a
‘forgiven’ sinner still be punished for his sins or not? If so, in what sense is he
‘forgiven’ ? And, if not, in what sense is the forgiveness ‘partial’ ? And why, if
the day of Atonement’s sacrifices offers moral forgiveness to all Israel, are any
Israelites lost? And why does Ezekiel mention ‘atonement’ by sacrifice in the
context of a renewed Messianic age (Ezek. 43)?26 On the view set out above, the
answers to these questions are easy to see. Deliberate sins are dealt with, not by
sacrifice, but by repentance and faith; sin does not ‘accumulate’ between visits
to the Tabernacle, since it is dealt with quite apart from the Tabernacle; and
the activities of the day of Atonement, like those described in Ezekiel’s renewed
Temple, are not intended to ‘redeem’ every Israelite but, rather, to cleanse the
Temple and its worshippers, just as they always were.
26
Whether one views Ezekiel’s temple as literal or metaphorical is beside the point. The question
remains, Why picture atonement as an ongoing feature of a renewed order?

13