A Fresh Look at the Day of Atonement

By Josh Carroll

For

TTBE 731

Dr. Ken Way

1
Introduction

The sudden gruesome death of disobedient priests, the methodical sacrificial slaughter of animals, demonic

name inference, and an abundance of blood; these elements found in Leviticus 16 are far removed from many of our

own cultural experiences. In fact, due to a severe modern misunderstanding of the Day of Atonement (and the

sacrificial system in general), many eager young theologians are still sitting at the feet of professors and teachers

that continue to represent the Israelite ritual system as oppressive and contemptible. Sadly, this misunderstanding of

Old Testament scripture filters down from these professors and teachers, through their students (who become

professors, pastors, and teachers themselves), to an incalculable number of audiences. These audiences consist of

various groups that comprise the universal Church: a new generation of students, an unreached people group, a local

church congregation, etc.

Hence, in the Church, is where we find rampant confusion in the general understanding of the efficacious

works of Yahweh. How does Yahweh work through the ritual of the Old Testament? What is his purpose in

prescribing all of this brutal sacrifice? Does his character change from a harsh imposing dictator steeped in blood in

the Old Testament, to a graceful and loving Father in the New Testament? Should the ritual of the Old Testament be

discredited in the light of Christ’s work in the New Testament? If not, then why does this alleged discontinuity

between the Testaments exist?

The intention of this paper will be to examine the Day of Atonement and its corresponding ritual in order to

rediscover the original purpose of these prescriptions and their theological impact on heart of the people of Israel. It

is my hope that a continuity between the testaments will begin to form in the mind of the reader as we explore this

continuous revelation of Yahweh’s unchanging grace in ritual form. In order to accomplish this objective we will

discuss: the literary structure of Leviticus ch. 16 as it describes the purging of the Sacred Compass; important

overlooked elements of the Day of Atonement ritual; and the attitude of the heart in the requirement to “afflict”

oneself.

The Literary Structure and the Purging of the Sacred Compass

In his essay, “Equilibrium and the Sacred Compass”, Walton makes an interesting case for the arrangement

of the book of Leviticus by zones of sacred space. When Yahweh created the cosmos he brought order to it and this

order created an equilibrium consisting of organized space, established status, and ordered time. He then maintained

this equilibrium by dwelling in the midst of his creation. But… “when sin entered the world, this order was

2
jeopardized, and chaos threatened again. The [Tabernacle] of Israel represented a small, idealized island [or sacred

space] of order in a world of threatened chaos.”1 The book of Leviticus consists of instructions for the people of

Yahweh to maintain his sacred space, so that his continued presence may preserve the aforementioned equilibrium

and prevent disaster.

These instructions are revealed to the people in the form of prescribed priestly ritual which serve to purge

the Tabernacle of the impurities of the people of Israel and prepare the sacred space for the dwelling of Yahweh.

Important to this discussion is the correct understanding of the focus of this ritual. As Christians we have the

privilege of experiencing the soteriological work of Christ in our individual lives. Surprisingly this can skew2 our

perception of the work of Yahweh in the OT. When we encounter any sacrificial ritual, we automatically assume it

applies directly to the individual. This is not the case in the OT. Rather, sacrificial ritual is performed by the

Levitical priesthood on behalf of the Israelite people so they may corporately experience the presence of Yahweh in

their midst, in his sacred space. This ritual served as “a way to decontaminate a sanctuary tarnished by individual

and corporate sin and, in so doing, preserve equilibrium in God's presence.”3 Individuals benefited from the rites

performed by the priests because their status as the people of Yahweh was restored. This identity was found in the

corporate community and was contingent (as we shall later discuss) on the disposition of their individual hearts.

Walton’s zones of sacred space are expressed in the form of concentric circles. The center-most circle holds

the Holy of Holies and in it dwells the Ark of the Covenant, Yahweh’s footstool, and the point of contact between

heaven and earth. Its access is restricted to the High Priest and he may only enter it on the Day of Atonement. The

second circle contains the Holy Place and extends to the altar. Its access is limited to specific members of the

Levitical priesthood. The third circle holds the courtyard “where people of determined status (that is, a particular

level of purity) were allowed access for particular purposes (sacrifices at the altar).”4 The fourth circle is the camp of

Israel where the people of Israel conducted their daily lives. Together these concentric circles are known as “the

sacred compass”.5 The outer border of the fourth circle marks the differentiation between the people of Israel and all

1
John H Walton, "Equilibrium and the Sacred Compass: The Structure of Leviticus." Bulletin for Biblical
Research 11, no. 2 (2001): 296.
2

Walton calls this a “narcissistic twist to our theology” (ibid.)

3
John H. Walton, "Equilibrium and the Sacred Compass: The Structure of Leviticus." Bulletin for Biblical
Research 11, no. 2 (2001):298.
4

Ibid., 299
5

ibid., 299

3
other people groups. Outside this border is a place of rampant impurity and is referred to often as “outside the

camp”.6

I have taken the liberty of modifying Walton’s diagram to trace the literary path of the prescribed ritual in

the first section of Leviticus (chs. 1-17) so that the reader may understand the specific place of the Day of

Atonement (ch.16) in the book’s overall structure (see Figure 1).

Chapters 1-23 are categorized by Walton as those having to do with Divine Equilibrium. Under this
category, chapters 1-17 are sub-categorized as Equilibrium of Sacred Space: Maintenance Procedures and
Qualification; chapters 18-22b as Equilibrium of Sacred Status: Disqualifications from Sacred Space; and
chapter 23 as Equilibrium of Sacred Times. Chapters 24-27 are categorized as having to do with Human
Equilibrium, this section pertains to equilibrium in the Israelite society.7

It is easily observable that ch. 16, under Walton’s categorization, is concerned about maintaining the sacred

space with the ultimate goal of creating divine equilibrium. In the instruction for the Day of Atonement ritual we

find the High Priest progressively purging the sacred space from the inside out. “The ritual prescribed for Yom

Kippur features the High Priest's moving into the center of the sacred zone, bringing the accumulated impurities out,

and finally sending them outside the camp.”8 Thus, the ritual moves through all of the zones of the sacred compass

to the outside of the camp and here, in ambiguity, it ends. The narrative picks back up in ch. 17 with a change of

topic; the prohibition against sacrificing to false idols outside the camp and the reorientation back to the center of the

sacred compass for proper sacrificial etiquette.

The Day of Atonement’s status as an annual ceremony in the Jewish calendar is quite telling in its

importance to maintaining divine equilibrium. “The Day of Atonement was a significant annual ceremony. Within

the context of the community in the wilderness it made possible their ability to dwell with the presence of God’s

glory and survive.”9 The Day of Atonement was also to be considered a Sabbath so that the people would not be

distracted from “afflicting themselves” and focusing on Yahweh’s provision of specific ritual to cleanse them of

their sins (16:31).

Lev. 4:12, 21; 6:11, 8:17; 9:11; 13:46; 16:27; 17:3

7
John H Walton, "Equilibrium and the Sacred Compass: The Structure of Leviticus." Bulletin for Biblical
Research 11, no. 2 (2001): 299-301.
8
John H Walton, "Equilibrium and the Sacred Compass: The Structure of Leviticus." Bulletin for Biblical
Research 11, no. 2 (2001): 301.
9

Gary Edward Schnittjer, The Torah Story: An Apprenticeship on the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, Mich:
Zondervan, 2006), 331.

4
Overlooked Elements of the Day of Atonement Ritual

As stated above, the purpose of the Day of Atonement ritual was to purge the sacred compass of the

impurities of the people of Israel in order to create sacred space for Yahweh to dwell in his Tabernacle. Certain

aspects of this ritual deserve special attention to gain an appropriate understanding of the continuity between the

testaments. The following discussion will include specific highlights of the Day of Atonement ritual for the purpose

of an integrated understanding of Yahweh’s efficacious work in both Testaments.

Sin and Impurity

In order to understand the how the effects of sin were viewed in the OT one must put aside many

preconceptions and enter the ritual-centered world of the ancient Israelite. In this world, the Tabernacle stands at the

center of the camp with each tribe of Israel situated around it according to Yahweh’s instructions. Yahweh has

graciously chosen a people to be his own and he desires to dwell among them. But, impurity and uncleanness runs

rampant throughout the camp. “The community’s uncleanness imperiled the whole nation, because uncleanness

defiles the Lord’s Tabernacle, God’s dwelling place in their midst (Lev 16:16; Num 19:13, 20) as well as the land

itself (Lev 18:27) and could make God’s continued dwelling in their midst impossible (Ezek 43:7–9; cf. 9:7). If

unpurged, uncleanness could lead to a general outbreak of divine wrath and ultimately the expulsion of the land’s

inhabitants (Lev 18:25)…” 10

This impurity comes from the people of Israel and, like an airborne contaminate, it is magnetically attracted

to the epitome of holiness in the camp, the Tabernacle.11 Here in lies the problem, a holy God cannot dwell in an

impure tabernacle. So, in a gracious act of love, Yahweh reveals to his people what they must do to purify his house

and ensure his continued presence. “The main purpose of the day of atonement ceremonies is to cleanse the

sanctuary from the pollutions introduced into it by unclean worshipers (cf. 16:16, 19). Without a purpose such as

this there would have been little point in the High Priest putting his life at risk by entering into the holy of holies.”12

The High Priest is to act in accordance with the revealed will of Yahweh and perform the purgation ritual.

Previously this ritual has been misunderstood as the “covering of sins” due to an inadequate translation of the

Hebrew verb kipper. Jacob Milgrom has successfully challenged past translations and correctly translated the verb

10
Joe M. Sprinkle, “The Rationale of the Laws of Clean and Unclean in the Old Testament,” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 43.4 (2000): 641-642.
11
John H. Hayes, "Atonement in the Book of Leviticus," Interpretation 52 (1998): 6.
12

Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament
(NICOT), (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 228.

5
as it fits in the ritual context in which it appears. “The customary rendering of kipper is "to atone for," or "expiate"

but in most cases this is, at best, imprecise. In poetry its parallel synonym is mahah ("to wipe away"; Jer. 18:23),

or hesir ("to remove"; Isa. 27:9, cf. the passive, ibid. 6:7), suggesting that kipper means, "to purge”. Also, ritual texts

regularly couple kipper with tiher ("to purify"), and hitte ("to decontaminate"; Lev. 14:48, 52, 53)."”13

In order to accomplish the “purgation” of the Tabernacle a goat is chosen by Yahweh from a likely pair of

candidates. The chosen goat’s blood is to serve as a prescribed detergent, removing the defilement of the

Tabernacle. “Thus far the phenomenology is eminently clear: To eliminate dangerous impurity, we must localize it,

pin-point it, thus reducing its area and volume, so that it can be eliminated without destroying everyone and

everything in the process.”14

The Ark of the Covenant and the Decalogue

Interestingly, the cleansing of the tabernacle begins at the Ark of the Covenant, which resides in the Holy

of Holies. The Ark of the Covenant is the centerpiece of Israel’s understanding of Yahweh in their midst. “In the

tabernacle the ark was understood to be the throne or the footstool to the throne of God (2 Kings 19:15). Above the

ark were placed two cherubim with outstretched wings and downcast eyes. God was envisioned as enthroned on the

wings. The ark was the symbol of God’s very presence on earth.”15 Aaron’s duty as High Priest was first to make

“purgation” for himself with the blood of a bull and then to make “purgation” for the people with the blood of the

goat. This process of purgation began on the lid of the Ark of the Covenant, also known as “the atonement plate”.

He was then to continue the process outward, through the sacred compass, making “purgation” as he went.

Adding to the Ark of the Covenant’s importance were its special contents, the stone tablets of the

Decalogue. “It is a container of the Decalogue, ‘the covenant text’, and at the same time it serves as the footstool to

the throne of Yahweh.”16

The Decalogue is the foundational revelation from Yahweh that summarizes the required heart behind true

covenant obedience. Yahweh gave the Decalogue to his people not as a legislative prescription but as a framework

13

Jacob Milgrom, “Kipper.” In Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 12 2nd ed., eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred
Skolnik (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007),180.
14
Baruch Levine, "René Girard on Job : The Question of the Scapegoat," Semeia no. 33: (1985):127.
15

Leland Ryken, et al., “Ark of the Covenant,” in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. (Downers Grove, Ill:
InterVarsity Press, 1998), 187.
16

Desmond T. Alexander and David Barker, “Religion,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch,
(Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 678.

6
and ethos within which the Israelites were supposed to live. It is so tightly linked to the covenant that its content is

referred to as the “words of the covenant” (Ex. 34:28). It provided Israel with a concrete example of the Divine

Suzerain’s unchangeable commitment to them and at the same time, it was a constant reminder of their commitment

to Him.17

The opening line of the Decalogue declares exactly who Yahweh is and what he has done for his elect

people: “I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Ex. 20:2).

The two stone tablets of the Decalogue, originally etched by Yahweh himself, reside in the Ark of the Covenant per

his command. It should come as no surprise that this specifically designed container holds this set of relationally

designed statements at the very point Yahweh chooses to manifest his presence and make his dwelling among the

people of Israel. The Ark of the Covenant was not only extremely sacred because of its purpose as a footstool of the

eternal throne, but also because of what its contents represented: a relationship between man and Yahweh.

I would posit that it is exactly because of the relational nature of the objects found in the Holy of Holies

that impurity is drawn directly to it. The presence of Yahweh in the Tabernacle consecrates it and creates sacred

space. Yahweh has established covenant standards by which the people are to live; violation of these standards

defiles the individual and also creates impurity in the relational connection between Yahweh and man. This impurity

in turn violates the sacred space created by Yahweh. “Uncleanness, once contracted, takes on a life of its own; as an

invisible yet physical substance, impurity aggressively seeks out contact with holiness, and once holiness has been

attacked, it becomes contaminated by the impurity which remains stuck to it, like barnacles to a ship.” 18 This

impurity becomes centered on the very point where the essence of the covenant agreement (the Decalogue) has been

physically stored (the Ark of the Covenant). This location of amassed impurity is exactly where the “purgation”

ritual begins. The Ark of the Covenant is the touch point for the presence of Yahweh. His “feet” rest on the covenant

through which he has chosen the people of Israel to be his own. The relational barrier (impurity) must be removed so

that Yahweh’s holy presence can continue. Yahweh’s presence signified his special approval of his people and

revealed his continued attentiveness to maintaining the divine equilibrium. “... the sanctuary is a barometer that

measures not only the spiritual health of the community of faith but also, more important, the stability of the world

17
Daniel Block, "Reading the Decalogue from Right to Left: The Ten Principles of Covenant Relationship
on the Old Testament," (Reading the Decalogue Lectures, Center for Applied Christian Ethics and Wheaton College,
December 10, 2009).
18
Megory Anderson and Philip Culbertson, "The Inadequacy of the Christian Doctrine of Atonement in
Light of Levitical Sin Offering," Anglican Theological Review 68, (1986): 309-310.

7
God has created."19

Confession and Transfer

The second goat was chosen by lot to avoid the detersive role of the first, yet it would still play a crucial

part in the Day of Atonement ritual. This goat was to be designated for Azazel, whose identity is highly debated,20

and sent “outside the camp” in to the surrounding wilderness (see Illustration: Who, What, Where is “Azazel”). Its

fate is not revealed to us in the Levitical narrative hence its destination is lost in ambiguity.

Previously, Aaron is instructed to change out of the normal priestly vestments into holy “linen garments”

reminiscent of angelic adornment (16:4).21 It is in these clothes that the people of Israel witness the High Priest

exiting the Tent of Meeting and continuing his “purgation” of the altar in the courtyard. “Among his fellow men his

dignity as the great mediator between man and God is unsurpassed, and his splendid clothes draw attention to the

glory of his office. But in the presence of God even the highest priest is stripped of all honor: he becomes simply the

servant of the King of kings, whose true status is displayed in the simplicity of his dress.”22

After the “purgation” of the altar in the courtyard, and subsequently the entire courtyard itself, the High

Priest is to take part in what I believe to be the most important aspect of the Day of Atonement ritual, confession (v.

21). Sadly, this significant aspect has been severely neglected in past discussion of this ritual due to, in my opinion,

excessive discussion of other far less important interpretative conjectures.23 It is my hope that through the thorough

analysis of the concept of confession presented in vv. 21-22 the modern reader will rediscover this as the main thrust

of the Day of Atonement ritual.

Milgrom’s translation of vvs. 21-22 is as follows: "Aaron shall lean both of his hands upon the head of the

live goat and confess over it all of the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites, including all of their sins, and

put them on the head of the goat; and it shall be sent off to the wilderness by a man in waiting. Thus the goat shall

19

Samuel E., Balentine, Leviticus. Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox Press, 2002), 129.
20

For Azazel and ANE discussion see: D P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible
and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987).
21

Samuel E., Balentine, Leviticus. Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox Press, 2002), 127.
22
Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament
(NICOT), (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 230.
23

For example: The origin and meaning of “Azazel”, confusing rabbinic categories for sin that do not line up
with the text, and the integration of speculative textual sources, etc.

8
carry upon it all of their iniquities to an inaccessible region."24

Problem begins to creep into the interpretation process when a healthy comparison of ancient Near East

ritual to the Israelite Day of Atonement ritual becomes the comprehensive interpretative lens for vvs. 21-22. When

this happens the idea of magical “transfer” and “disposal” is deduced from Aaron’s act of “putting” the sin on the

head of the goat. This deduction could not be farther from the truth.

Other cultures of the ANE took part in ritual that included transfer and disposal but Israel was unique.25

Gane rightly views what is taking place in vvs. 21-23 as non-magical, “…the oral component of the Israel ritual was

confession (by the High Priest; Lev. 16:21) rather than an incantation, and the power of the Biblical procedure was

from the Lord rather than magical in nature.” But, he wrongly concludes that even though magic was not involved in

the Israelite ritual, they went through the motions of acting out the transfer and disposal ritual that other surrounding

ANE cultures practiced. What would the purpose of such acting out be? Gane concludes by stating, “[The facade of

a transfer and disposal ritual] provided powerful assurance to the Israelites that their community was freed from the

sins they had committed during the past year.”26

Such reasoning is commendable as it tries to rectify what appears to be happening in vvs. 21-22 with the

surrounding cultures of the ANE. Yet, I would suggest that the starting point to understanding this particular

Israelite ritual should be an examination of the differences between it and other ANE ritual. The main difference, as

noted above, is that Aaron took part in a prescribed act of public confession. Here we find no magical invocation or

spoken words of power. While other ANE cultures focused on the magical manipulation of spiritual power in the

transfer of various maladies to an animal, Israel stands apart in their submission to Yahweh through the act of

confession.

But what does this confession entail?27 Yahweh reveals to Aaron that this confession was to include “all the

iniquities of the Israelites and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins” (NET). At first glance this seems to

be a very comprehensive list in which an extensive amount of time would be required to recall and declare every

24

Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary vol 1. Anchor Bible
Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1010.
25
see D P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and
Mesopotamian Literature (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987).
26

Roy E. Gane, Leviticus, Zondervan Illastrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (ZIBBC), vol. 1, ed. John
H. Walton (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2009), 306.
27

See Appendix: Confession of the High Priest in the Rabbinic Tradition

9
instance of every iniquity and transgression preformed by every single person in the community. A simple word

study helps clarify what confession entails in this context.

The Hebrew word for “confess” in Lev. 16:21 comes from the root word “yādâ” which primarily means:

“to acknowledge or confess sin, God’s character and works, or man’s character.”28 Here we find the Hithpael form

of the verb, which “is normally employed when this verb is used to convey the confession of national sins.”29

Outside of the Pentateuch this form of the verb is used to convey the failure of the nation of Israel to abide to the

covenant that God has established with them. This failure takes the form of explicit rebellion against Yahweh’s

Torah.30

Based on the Hebrew usage, it seems only logical to conclude that the confession being made was not

specific to a certain individual. Rather, it was the confession of a general characterological propensity to break

Yahweh’s covenant standards; one that the entire nation of Israel shared in common. “These three terms

[“iniquities”, “transgressions”, and “sins”] together encompass all dimensions of humans’ breaking of God’s law.

Furthermore, all these terms are in the plural, indicative of the frequency and totality of humans’ sinning.”31 The

“sin” was a corporate matter that each individual took part in; a matter for which the entire nation would face the

consequences.

Adding to our understanding is the position of this national confession in the ritual order. Aaron’s

purification path has taken him from the center of the Tabernacle (the Ark of the Covenant) outwards towards the

exit to the camp. Now he is to lay two hands on the goat and take part in the confession. The text does not explicitly

say where the national “confession” takes place. It seems safe to assume that Aaron is still within the confines of the

Courtyard of the Tabernacle since the Tabernacle is the center place for the ritual of the Israelites.

I would surmise that the national “confession” took place at the entrance to the courtyard of the Tabernacle

28
Laird R. Harris, et al. “yadah” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT). (electronic ed.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1999.), 364-365.
29

Ibid.
30

Dan. 9:4-20, Ezra 10:1-17, Neh. 1:1-11; 10:1-39. Also interesting to note is how the authors use the
Hebrew words for “iniquities” “transgressions” and “sins” in relation to acts that are a direct affront to the
established covenant standards. In each of these passages there are several instances of the same words used in Lev.
16:21 showing up in the national confessions to describe Israel’s failure to keep covenant standards. This requires
more study.
31

John E. Hartley, Leviticus in Word Biblical Commentary, v. 4, ed Glen Barker (Dallas: Word Books,
1992), 241.

10
from the camp, directly in front of the open screen. It is at this location that the sacred Tabernacle, the holy place of

Yahweh’s dwelling presence, meets the rest of the Israelite camp. This would be the place that Yahweh’s presence

would come into contact with his people and where the Israelites would naturally gather to observe such a ritual (cf.

Ex. 29:42-46).32

At this location is also where the impurities of the Tabernacle (through Aaron’s previous purging) meet the

sins of the people (garnered from the confession). Aaron ritually gathers them together and lays his blood soaked

hands on the head of the goat. This act is not one of transfer but of “burdening”.

Milgrom shows why in his explanation of the role of the live goat in v. 10:

The preposition ‘al following the verb kipper always means “for, on behalf of” when the object is human,
but when the object is inanimate it can also mean “upon”…. Here, uniquely, the object is an animal, but it
is treated as an inanimate object; hence kippur (purgation) takes place upon it. Its meaning is not that the
goat itself is purged but that the purgation of the sanctuary is completed when the goat, laden with the
sanctuaries impurities, is dispatched to the wilderness.33

Required Affliction and the Attitude of the Heart

Also pertinent to our discussion is the required state of the people’s heart during the Day of Atonement ritual.

In vvs. 29-31 the Day of Atonement is declared to be an annual Sabbath during which the people are to put aside

their work and “afflict” themselves. Wenham explains that the phrase “afflict yourselves” is very rare.34 I would

reason that the context of this phrase in the OT speaks of disciplines (such as fasting) that are associated with

prayerful introspection done by the individual Israelite. This in turn contributes to the corporate attitude towards

Yahweh’s commands. Following each specific detail down to the letter was worthless if an attitude of worshipful

repentance did not begin, accompany, and follow their actions.

The people are to “afflict” themselves throughout the entire Day of Atonement ritual. This attitude of the

heart seems highly important in its relation to the nature of the national confession. During this confession the

people seem to be intimately involved due to their proximity to the action and their individual contribution to the

corporate failings. Kiuchi explains the required attitude of the heart and how it relates to one’s action in the context

of Levitical ritual: “The concentration of the text on external ritual acts is not an indication that the worship is

32
see Appendix for a discussion the place of confession in the Day of Atonement ritual as told in the
Temple Scroll)
33

Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary vol 1. Anchor Bible
Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1023.
34

Lev. 23:27, 32; Num. 29:7; Isa. 58:3, 5; Ps. 35:13

11
external, but it is rather an indication that the lawgiver desires to stress that the worshipper must express his inner

attitude outwardly.”35

Conclusion: Grace, the Bridge Between the Testaments

The Day of Atonement ritual was direct revelation from Yahweh for the purpose of instructing his beloved

people about Himself. It would be easy for the modern reader to become confused by the ritual and misconstrue the

purposes of Yahweh in Lev. 16. Taken out of context, as it often is, this ritual seems to require concentrated

obedience that is forcefully imposed on a miserable people. They must obey or face the wrath of Yahweh; if they

make even minor mistakes in the ritual prescription, they will die (Lev. 10).36 Sadly, this paradigm has become the

standard way to view all ritual and law in the OT, especially in certain “reformed” circles. When OT ritual is viewed

from the vantage point of NT revelation and filtered through dogmatic system, a Grace versus Law paradigm often

develops. Law then is viewed as a malediction of Yahweh to burden his elect people to the point of exasperation,

thus only showing them their need for a Savior. In this view grace manifests itself only in the NT through Yahweh’s

unmerited gift of his Son, Jesus Christ.

In my opinion the Grace versus Law paradigm has been the single-most fallacious and detrimental

obstruction to the establishment of continuity between the Old and New Testaments. I would hold that the emphasis

of the Day of Atonement ritual is grace. Yahweh gracefully elected the people of Israel for his own, he gracefully

established an eternal covenant with them, he gracefully recued them from bondage in Egypt, he gracefully lead

them through the desert, he gracefully revealed himself to them throughout the journey, and now he desires to dwell

in their midst. In the Day of Atonement ritual we do not find a people burdened with guilt and shame, but a people

who take joy in the instruction of Yahweh and are in worshipful awe of his presence. This ritual is a graceful gift

that reveals the will of Yahweh, to dwell with his people. Ritual is a means to an end. When properly observed, it

does not earn grace; it is the epitome of grace.

It is with this understanding that Christians (who are saved, sanctified and glorified by Yahweh’s grace)

should approach any supposed discontinuity between the Testaments and rectify our interpretation accordingly. In

doing so, we just might find a richness of depth that was previously deficient in our understanding of Yahweh’s

35

Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, "Spirituality in Offering a Peace Offering," Tyndale Bulletin 50 (1999): 30-31.
36
The death of Aaron’s sons in their offering of “unauthorized” fire is often viewed wrongly as a mistake
born of naivety. Rather, I believe it was a just punishment from Yahweh for their attempt to manipulate presence.
The reminder of this incident is found in the beginning of Lev. 16 as a reminder that the correct heart behind the
ritual is essential, especially from those commissioned to represent the people in Yahweh’s presence.

12
timeless efficacious work in the lives of his chosen people.

With this fresh realization we can freely join the Psalmist in worship as he sings:

Forever, O LORD, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens. Your faithfulness endures to all generations; you
have established the earth, and it stands fast. By your appointment they stand this day, for all things are
your servants. If your law had not been delight, I would have perished in my affliction. I will never forget
your precepts, for by them you have given me life. I am yours; save me, for I have sought your precepts.
The wicked lie in wait to destroy me, but I consider your testimonies. I have seen a limit to all perfection,
but your commandment is exceedingly broad (Ps. 119:88-96, emphasis mine).

13
 Bibliography

Alexander, T. Desmond, and David W. Baker. “Religion.” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch.
Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2003, 670-684.

Anderson, Megory, and Philip Culbertson. "The Inadequacy of the Christian Doctrine of Atonement in
Light of Levitical Sin Offering." Anglican Theological Review 68, (1986): 303-328.

Balentine, Samuel E. Leviticus. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 2002.

Block, Daniel. "Reading the Decalogue from Right to Left: The Ten Principles of Covenant Relationship
on the Old Testament," Reading the Decalogue Lectures, Center for Applied Christian Ethics and
Wheaton College, December 10, 2009.

Gane, Roy E. Leviticus. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (ZIBBC), vol. 1, ed. John
H. Walton, Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2009.

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke. “yadah” in Theological Wordbook of the
Old Testament (TWOT). (electronic ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999.), 364-365.

Hayes, John H. "Atonement in the Book of Leviticus." Interpretation 52 (1998): 5-15.

Hartley, John E. Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary, v. 4, ed. Glen Barker. Dallas: Word Books, 1992.

Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi. "Spirituality in Offering a Peace Offering." Tyndale Bulletin 50 (1999): 23-31.

Körting, Corinna. "Theology of Atonement in the Feast Calendar of the Temple Scroll." SJOT:
Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 18 no. 2 (2004): 232-247.

Levine, Baruch. "René Girard on Job: The Question of the Scapegoat." Semeia no. 33 (1985): 125-133.

Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary vol. 1. Anchor
Bible Dictionary, New York: Doubleday, 1991.

Milgrom, Jacob. “Kipper.” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 12 2nd ed., eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred
Skolnik. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. p180-183.

Pinker, Aron. "A Goat to Go to Azazel." Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 7 (2007): 1-25.

Ryken, Leland, Jim Wilhoit, Tremper Longman, Colin Duriez, Douglas Penney, and Daniel G. Reid. “Ark
of the Covenant.” in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1998,
Pp. 186-188.

Schnittjer, Gary Edward. The Torah Story: An Apprenticeship on the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids, Mich:
Zondervan, 2006.

Sprinkle, Joe M. “The Rationale of the Laws of Clean and Unclean in the Old Testament.” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 43.4 (2000): 637-657.

Walton, John H. "Equilibrium and the Sacred Compass: The Structure of Leviticus." Bulletin for Biblical
Research 11, no. 2 (2001): 293-304.

Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament
(NICOT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Wright, D. P. The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian

14
 Literature. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.

For Further Reading:

Carmichael, Calum. "The Origin of the Scapegoat Ritual." Vetus Testamentum 50, no. 2 (April 2000): 167-
182.

Levine, Baruch A., "Silence, Sound, and the Phenomenology of Mourning in Biblical Israel." Journal of
the Ancient Near Eastern Society 22 (1993): 89-106.

Milgrom, Jacob. "The Preposition MIN in the HT_T Pericopes." Journal of Biblical Literature 126, no. 1
(2007): 161-163.

Tidball, Derek. The Message of Leviticus: Free to Be Holy. The Bible Speaks Today Commentary Series.
ed. J.A. Motyer. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005.

15
 Illustrations

Figure 1:
/

16
/Who, What, Where is “Azazel”?

17
 Appendix:
Confession of the High Priest in the Rabbinic Tradition:
[The High Priest] came to the scapegoat and laid his two hands upon it and made confession. And
thus he used to say: “O God, your people, the house of Israel, have committed iniquity,
transgressed, and sinned before you. O God, forgive I pray, the iniquities and transgressions and
sins which your people, the house of Israel, have committed and transgressed and sinned before
you; as it is written in the law of your servant Moses, ‘For on this day shall atonement be made for
you to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the Lord.’ And when the priest
and the people who stood in the Temple Court heard the Expressed Name come forth from the
mouth of the High Priest, they used to kneel and bow themselves and fall down on their faces and
say ‘Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever!’ (m. Yoma 6:2)

The Day of Atonement Ritual in the Temple scroll:

In the Temple scroll we find significant differences in the ritual progression of the Day of
Atonement.37 The place where the self-washing of the High Priest happens in the progression of the ritual is
subtly and significantly changed. After performing the blood purification the High Priest is to wash himself
and change into his own clothes before he confesses the sins of the people over the head of the live goat.
This seems to indicate a significant focus on the confession aspect of the ritual. Also significant is the what
happens in the act of confession itself. The High Priest still confesses “all the iniquities of the children of
Israel, with all their guilt, all their sins” (Col 27:11-12) but there is no laying of hands on the goat. The sins
are still “put” on the head of the goat but the idea of transference cannot even be assumed from the text.
Instead, the act of confession seems to take a prominent place in the ritual practice described in the Temple
Scroll.
Behind this confession lies the attitude of the people of Israel. “The confession of sins becomes
part of the self-affliction of the children of Israel, and the High Priest as the representative of the people
makes it heard. In this perspective the Azazel-rite is a remnant of an older tradition that became the
medium for the theology of repentance. It points out stronger than has been before the necessity of the
attitude of the people and their partaking of the ritual – via the High Priest – for the success of the day.”
I would posit that the Temple Scroll’s rearrangement of the ritual reflects the contemporary
concern the exegetical community had for the original purpose of the Day of Atonement to shine through
despite the prominent apocalyptic expectations that drove their theology. Confession of their own failures
to adhere to the Covenant, in physical practice as well as attitude of the heart, was supremely important and
took center stage in their understanding of this holy day.

37
For a detailed explanation see: Corinna Körting, "Theology of Atonement in the Feast Calendar
of the Temple Scroll,” SJOT: Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 18, no. 2 (2004), 242-245.

18