| |
 |
| The atonement in scripture |
|
Rev'd Dr David Peterson
This paper was delivered at the Fourth Annual Oak Hill College School of Theology in May 2000. An expanded version of this paper appears as the first two chapters of 'Where Wrath and Mercy Meet: Proclaiming the Atonement Today' (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2001).
Please click the links below to read the different sections of the paper.
> Introduction
> Sacrifice and Atonement in the Pentateuch – see below
> Sacrifice and Forgiveness in the Prophets and the Psalms
> Jesus and his Sacrifice
> Pauline perspectives on the atoning work of Christ
> Conclusions
> Notes
Sacrifice and Atonement in the Pentateuch
Sacrifice was common in the ancient world and it is regularly mentioned in the book of Genesis in connection with key individuals and significant moments in the outworking of God's purposes for his world (e.g. 3:3-5; 8:20-22; 12:7-8; 22:1-19). Such incidents are often spontaneous expressions of devotion and gratitude to God. However, it is in Exodus that sacrifice is first established as an essential part of God's plan for Israel as a nation. From that point in the biblical narrative, various rituals are prescribed as God's gift to his people, to express and maintain the relationship he established with them by grace.(7)
The celebration of the Passover is intimately linked with Israel's redemption from Egypt (Ex. 12:1 – 13:10). Sacrifice is then associated with the giving and receiving of the covenant code (24:4-8), and a whole system of sacrifice is prescribed in connection with the building of the tabernacle, so that God can continue to 'dwell among them' and 'be their God' (29:38-46). The details of the sacrificial system are set out more fully in the book of Leviticus, where it is made clear that the annual Day of Atonement is at the heart of God's gracious provision for the continuance of Israel as his holy people. In due course, I will examine the extent to which New Testament writers interpret the death of Jesus in the light of these rituals and the theology associated with them.
Salvation and covenant
When the Passover is first described in Scripture, the meaning of the Hebrew word pesah is explained in terms of the Lord's 'passing over' the houses of the Israelites when he brought judgement against the Egyptians (Ex. 12:11-13, 23-7). Two separate but related feasts, the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, were to be celebrated one after the other as 'a perpetual ordinance', to remember the mighty deliverance of Israel from bondage in Egypt (Ex. 12:14-20; 13:3-10). Originally a purely domestic occasion, the Passover involved the sprinkling of the two sideposts and lintel of the door with the blood of the sacrificed lamb. When the sacrificial aspect of the festival was transferred to the central sanctuary, this blood sprinkling was apparently applied to the altar (cf. 2 Chron. 35:11).(8)
The first Passover signified God's deliverance of his people from the judgement of the final plague, in which the firstborn son of every Egyptian household died (Ex. 11:4-8). Thus, from this early stage of the biblical story, deliverance from divine judgement is associated with the offering of animal blood as a substitute for human life. In this respect there is a resemblance to the sin offering prescribed later in the Pentateuch. However, unlike the sin offering, the Passover was a communal celebration, not individual, 'and this, together with the fact that it was eaten, makes it closer to the fellowship offerings in character'.(9) Like the fellowship offerings, it was thus also a sign of covenant fellowship with God. But what is most important for our purpose is the observation that a substitutionary blood sacrifice is linked with the deliverance that constituted Israel as God's distinct and holy people.
The covenant ratification ceremony in Exodus 24:3-8 involved burnt offerings and peace offerings, such as became a regular part of the Israelite sacrificial system. Uniquely on this occasion, however, the blood of the sacrifices was splashed on both altar and people, presumably to represent their consecration to God as a holy nation (Ex. 19:6). In between these applications of blood, the people swore an oath of covenant loyalty to the Lord (Ex. 24:7). A striking similarity between the ritual on this occasion and the ritual for the consecration of priests in Exodus 29 has also suggested to some scholars that Israel was more specifically being consecrated at Sinai to fulfil its role as 'a priestly kingdom'. Richard Averbeck suggests that, 'in the offering and manipulation of blood something that already by nature belonged to the Lord, and the Lord alone, was used to make a connection between the Lord and the person or thing that was to be consecrated to him.'(10) However, accepting the possibility that the application of blood in such contexts has a consecratory significance, it is important to consider whether 'atonement' should be understood as that which makes consecration possible.
The Pentateuch introduces a whole system of sacrifice in connection with the building of the tabernacle. The sin offering or purification offering was provided to deal with unintentional sin (e.g. Lev. 4:1-35). Hands were to be laid on the animal before it was slaughtered and then the blood was to be manipulated 'before the Lord', to make atonement so that the participants might be forgiven (Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35). The guilt offering or reparation offering involved some financial payment as well as the sacrifice of an animal to make atonement (e.g. Lev. 5:14 – 6:7). The burnt offering, which was the most common of all the sacrifices, was meant to be an expression of consecration to the Lord but also to be a means of making atonement for sins (Lev. 1:3-17; 14:20; 16:24; cf. Gen. 8:21). 'Whereas the purification offering is concerned with cleansing the different parts of the tabernacle from the uncleanness caused by sin, the burnt offering makes atonement for sin in a more general sense.'(11) An important part of the ritual of the burnt offering was the dashing of the animal's blood 'against all sides of the altar' (Lev. 1:5; 8:19).
Descriptive texts suggest that the general sequence within the system was atonement, consecration, fellowship, though there is some overlap of meaning between the various sacrifices.(12) The ritual would begin with a sin or guilt offering or both. This would be followed by a burnt offering with its accompanying grain and drink offerings (e.g. Lev. 9:7-17). It appears that the making of full atonement normally required sin and/or guilt offerings and a burnt offering.(13) Peace offerings finally symbolized the fellowship thus restored or maintained between God and his people (e.g. Lev. 9:18-21). But what is meant by atonement in such contexts and why is it so important?
Atonement in Leviticus
The terminology of atonement is extensively used in Leviticus,(14) and structurally the chapter about the Day of Atonement is pivotal in the way the book is formed. Leviticus 1-16 contains regulations designed to maintain the purity of the tabernacle, so that the Lord may dwell in the midst of his people, to fulfil his covenant promises and bless them (cf. Leviticus 26). Although the second half of the book is still concerned with the holiness and purity of the tabernacle, Leviticus 17-27 broadens the focus to encompass the holiness of the people in a range of everyday situations. 'One might say that the shift is from tabernacle holiness and purity to national holiness and purity'.(15)
Canonically, the book picks up the notion that Israel is 'a priestly kingdom and a holy nation' (Ex. 19:6 NRSV; cf. Lev. 20:7-8; 22:32-3), consecrated to the Lord's service (cf. Ex. 24:3-8) and called to live in holiness and purity before him. They are saved by God's grace and set apart for his service from amongst the nations by the redemptive activity which brings them to himself at Sinai (Ex. 19:4). But that holy status is to be expressed by obeying his voice and keeping his covenant (Ex. 19:5-6; Lev. 11:44-5; 20:23-6).(16) In practical terms, this meant maintaining standards of moral and cultic purity that set them apart from the nations.
Within this framework of thought, Leviticus 1-16 deals with the special priestly responsibility of the family of Aaron, to maintain the holiness and purity of the tabernacle and thereby to sustain the nation in its holy calling. Leviticus teaches that pollution and sin affect not only the individual and the nation, but also the tabernacle, the seat of God's presence among his people. When this happens, 'Israel's holy redeemer can no longer dwell among them and their raison d'?tre is destroyed.'(17) Thus, although Leviticus 16 is the conclusion of the first major part of the book, it is also the theological centre and binds the two halves together. The Day of Atonement ritual is designed to make atonement for the sanctuary, the tent of meeting, the altar, the priests and 'all the people of the assembly' (16:33). Without atonement, Israel cannot function as God's holy people in a sinful and fallen world.
Atonement and judgement
In Leviticus 16:1-2 the Lord is said to have given the instructions about the Day of Atonement ritual 'after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the Lord and died'. The reference is to the incident in chapter 10, where Nadab and Abihu offered 'unholy fire before the Lord, such as he had not commanded them', and 'fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord'. This incident shows how priests who approached the Lord improperly might experience his judgement. Consequently, Aaron is warned 'not to come just at any time into the sanctuary inside the curtain before the mercy-seat that is upon the ark or he will die' (16:2; cf. 22:9).(18) Only by strict adherence to the Lord's commands could he safely enter the Lord's presence and do what was necessary for the preservation of God's people.
Again, the wider context here is the awesome revelation of the holiness of God in salvation and judgement, as experienced by Israel in the exodus (Ex. 15:1-12), at Mount Sinai (19:9-25), and in connection with the making of the golden calf (32:1 – 34:9). Those who rebelled against the Holy One experienced his fierce wrath. Moreover, when God was about to consume the people in his anger and fulfil his covenant purposes through Moses, Moses sought to 'make atonement' for their sin by interceding for them and asking for his own name to be blotted out of God's 'book' (32:30-32). This incident shows that atonement is more generally concerned with the removal of God's wrath against sin. It involves an appeal to God for forgiveness but also the need for a penalty to be paid. Moses offers himself as a substitute for rebellious Israel, even though the Lord does not allow him to function as such at this time (32:33-5).
The ultimate threat of the Pentateuch is that the Lord will uproot Israel from the land 'in anger, fury, and great wrath', casting them into another land, because of their unfaithfulness and rebellion against him (Deut. 29:19-28; cf. Lev. 26:21-39). 'The Bible writers have nothing to do with pagan conceptions of a capricious and vindictive deity, inflicting arbitrary punishments on offending worshippers, who must bribe him back to a good mood by the appropriate offerings.'(19) But they portray the wrath of God as his fixed and determined response to all that is unholy and evil. At the same time, they proclaim him as the God of mercy (e.g. Ex. 34:6-7), who provides ways in which the consequences of sin may be averted.
In a positive sense, the ritual provisions of the law are designed to maintain Israel's covenant status as a holy people living in the presence of a holy God. Negatively, they are designed to protect priests and people from experiencing the judgement of God. It is therefore quite misleading for John Goldingay to say: 'the idea of punishment belongs in the framework of law rather than the framework of worship, and we get into difficulties when we mix ideas from the different frameworks such as these'.(20)
For one thing, the provisions for worship in the Pentateuch are an integral part of God's law for Israel and cannot be separated from his moral and social demands. Worship involves obedience to God's commands and the terminology of worship fundamentally expresses submission and service to God as Israel's great king.(21) Furthermore, as we have noted, the avoidance of divine judgement is linked with ritual provisions in several important contexts and must be understood within the wider framework of Israel's covenant relationship with the Holy One and the threat of ultimate exclusion from the land and God's presence.
The meaning of the terminology
The Hebrew verb kpr is used 102 times in the Old Testament, almost always in intensive forms (such as the Piel kipper) and mostly in the priestly or ritual sections of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers.(22) In non-priestly contexts it is said that God himself will 'make atonement for his land and people' (Deut. 32:43 NIV) or 'cleanse the land for his people' (NRSV; cf. Ezek. 16:33). Even where some ritual is prescribed, God is still asked to (lit.) 'atone for' or 'absolve' his people (Deut. 21:8; 2 Chron. 30:18-19). In other words, there is a recognition that God is the true or ultimate source of atonement, even if he provides certain rituals as a means of obtaining this benefit.
Some English versions quite rightly translate kpr 'forgive' or 'pardon' where God is the subject (e.g. Pss. 65:3[4]; 78:38; 79:9; Jer. 18:23). There is a close link between atonement and forgiveness in Scripture. But it is important to note that when kpr is used in parallel with the normal verb to forgive (slh), 'atonement' is clearly necessary before one can expect to be forgiven for the transgression (e.g. Lev. 4:20, 26, 31; 19:22; Num. 15:25).(23) We must recognize in the processes of the cult 'both the element of grace and the necessity for the worshipper to make his offering if he would be forgiven for his sin'.(24)
Debate continues about the foundational meaning of the terminology of atonement, especially when it is used to describe an action that humans perform with respect to God. Some scholars have related the Hebrew root to the cognate Arabic verb 'cover, conceal', but there are serious problems with this proposal.(25) Others have argued that the root meaning is 'wipe clean, purge', noting the cognate Akkadian verb and the parallel in Jeremiah 18:23 with Hebrew mhh ('wipe, blot out') or with hsr ('remove') in Isaiah 27:9.(26) Many of the cultic uses of kpr certainly suggest that blood was used to purge the sanctuary from contamination.
But there is another possibility that the verb is a denominative from koper ('bribe, ransom').(27) In Exodus 30:11-16 and Numbers 35:29-34, these terms occur together, suggesting that atonement is associated with the payment of a ransom. A range of other passages similarly indicate that atonement in non-cultic contexts involves the payment of a price, either of money or of life (e.g. Ex. 32:30; Num. 25:10-13; 31:50; Deut. 21:1-9; 2 Sam. 21:1-14). It is then important to note that the expression 'to make atonement for your lives', which is found twice in Exodus 30:15-16, is also found in Leviticus 17:11, which is a key text for explaining the significance of sacrificial blood within the Israelite cult:
For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life (lit. 'in the life'), it is the blood that makes atonement. (NRSV)
The means of atonement for a human life in Exodus 30:11-16 is a monetary payment, whereas the means of atonement in Leviticus 17:11 is the blood or 'life' of a slaughtered animal. Atonement is not simply a matter of removing guilt or defilement by purging but of averting the wrath of God by offering the life of a substitute. Gordon Wenham contends that, seen in its wider Old Testament context, the burnt offering in particular can be regarded as 'a ransom payment for the worshipper', to prevent God's displeasure at Israel's sin being turned into punishment.(28)
Are we then to conclude that kpr in cultic contexts reflects two distinct verbal forms and derivations ('purge' and 'ransom')? Richard Averbeck argues that the base meaning is 'to wipe away, wipe clean, purge',(29) but that the verb sometimes takes on the meaning of 'ransom' when it refers to the overall effect of the action. The 'wiping away' is done by means of a substitute, 'specifically, the soul of the animal that is represented by its blood'.(30) Here the 'wiping' is achieved by more than the application of blood to an object as an act of cleansing. This is a possible answer to a complex linguistic and exegetical problem. It is a warning against an exclusive identification of atonement with either cleansing or ransom.
Jacob Milgrom somewhat similarly argues that kpr as 'purge' is restricted to the sanctuary and its objects: it is never used of a person directly. The sanctuary must be regularly purged of its impurities or else God will abandon both sanctuary and people to their doom. However, kpr as 'ransom/substitute' for the sins of the people is associated with the notion of the scapegoat and the heifer whose neck is broken. 'The common denominator of all these cases is their avowed goal: to siphon off the wrath of God from the entire community.'(31)
The Day of Atonement
When the ritual of the Day of Atonement is outlined in Leviticus 16, the high priest is warned to approach the 'mercy-seat' on God's terms (vv.1-2),(32) lest he experience the wrath of God by acting inappropriately as the two sons of Aaron did (10:1-3). He must first make atonement 'for himself and for his house', by sacrificing a bull and sprinkling some of its blood 'on the front of the mercy-seat and before the mercy-seat' (v. 14). As a preliminary to this last action, he must put incense 'on the fire before the Lord, so that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy-seat, that is upon the covenant, or he will die' (v. 13).(33) He must then cast lots over the two goats, to determine which one is to be presented to the Lord as a sin offering for the people (cf. vv. 7-9).
The blood of one goat is sprinkled 'upon the mercy-seat and before the mercy-seat', to 'make atonement for the sanctuary, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins' (vv. 15-16). These verses speak comprehensively of the need of the people for forgiveness and cleansing. They also indicate the need for the outer 'tent of meeting', as well as the inner sanctuary, to be atoned for. When this is done, the high priest sprinkles the blood of goat and bull on the horns of the altar, to 'make atonement on its behalf' (v. 18) and 'cleanse it and hallow it from the uncleannesses of the people of Israel' (v. 19). Israel's failure to be a holy nation contaminates these vehicles by which their relationship with God is expressed and maintained, putting that relationship at risk.
When the high priest has finished atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he presents the live goat (v. 20), chosen by lot 'for Azazel' (vv. 8-10). Although there has been considerable debate over the interpretation of this last expression, the meaning of the ritual seems clear enough. 'Whether Azazel means, the mountain where the goat is destroyed, the sin which is given to destruction, or the evil angel who is given the bribe so that he does not become an accuser, it all comes back to the same basic idea: that sin is exterminated from Israel.'(34) Laying both his hands on the head of the live goat, the high priest confesses over it 'all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness by means of someone designated for the task' (v.21).(35)
It is interesting to reflect on the spatial significance of the ritual of the two goats. 'The blood of one goat reaches to the heart of holy space, whereas the other is driven out to where major impurities have their proper place (cf. Nu. 5:1-3). At no other time of the year are these spaces employed in priestly rituals.'(36) Both parts of this movement together restore harmony between God and Israel. The Day of Atonement appears to have been the occasion when all the serious impurities accumulated throughout the year were dealt with. 'The ordered world of the cult could be compromised by an unchecked multiplication of impure people and places, but on the Day of Atonement the appropriate boundaries were re-established and the sanctuary purified from every possible defilement.'(37) However, from a biblical-theological point of view it must be stressed again that the wider context of this activity is the maintenance of Israel as a holy nation before a holy God.
The goat that is set free is explicitly said to 'bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region' (Lev. 16:22). When a person is the subject of the expression 'bear sin/iniquity' (Heb. nasa awon/het, the meaning is 'bear responsibility, punishment' for his or her sins (e.g. Lev. 5:1. 17; 7:18; 17:16; 19:8; Num. 5:31) or 'remove iniquity, forgive sin' (e.g. Gen. 50:17; Ex. 10:17; 1 Sam. 15:25). In the sacrificial system, the priest is authorized to 'remove the guilt of the congregation', by making atonement on their behalf 'before the Lord' (Lev. 10:17). Leviticus 16:22 is the only text where an animal is explicitly said to 'bear on itself' the iniquities of God's people. Although the sense of 'carry away' is implied by the movement 'to a barren region', there must also be a sense of vicarious punishment involved in putting all the transgressions 'on the head of the goat' (16:21) and sending it off to die.(38) As we shall shortly observe, the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53:12 is the only person in the Old Testament who is said to 'bear' the sins of others.
> Click here for next page
© David Peterson 2000. This material is copyright and may not be reproduced or copied without due acknowledgement of its authorship and source. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
