Comment 63 the offender(s) forgiveness. B, * , - 1:4) and grants t Biveness. Because the priests par. erice (Cr sin as members of the covenant community, they may ere ticipate is animal's parts. All the remains of the animal must be burned in a any ot ace outside the camp as with the purification offering of the anointed an wae (w 1-12). Excursus: 72>, “make expiation, atone” piblograPhY - The Bible and the Greeks. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935, 82-95, Garnet, P. nt OE eerncibns in the Old Testament and the Qumran Scrolls.” EvQ46 ag ; ” 43. Gerleman, G. “Die Wurzel Apr im Hebraischen,” In Studien zur alttestamentlichen sg Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider, 1980. 11-28. Hartley, J. “Expiation.” ISE rev rea, Herrmann, J. Die Idee der Sithne im Alten Testament: Eine Untersuchung ier Gelrauch 2 Bedeutung des Wortes kipper: Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905. “lAdoxoyai.” TDNT 3:301- 10. Koch, K. Die israelitsche Sithneanschauung und ihre historischen Wandlungen. Erlangen: Theologische Fakultat der Universitat, 1956. ———.. “Sihne und Sindenvergebung um die Wende von der exilischen zur nachexilischen Zeit.” EvT 26 (1966) 217-39. Lang, B. “BD kipper.” TWAT 4:303-18. Levine, B. “Kippurim.” Eretz-Israel 9 (1969) 88-95, 136. Maas, F. “75D kpr pi. sthnen.” THAT 1:842-57. Médebielle, A. L’expiation dans I'A et le N.T. Rome: Institut Biblique Pontificial, 1923. ———.. “Expiation.” DBSup. 3:1-262. Milgrom, J."w2/2D BD.” Leshonenu 35 (1970) 16-17. ———.. “Atonement in the OT.” DBSup 78-82. Morris, L. Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. London: Tyndale Press, 1956. 144-213. Schenker, A. “koper et expiation.” Bib 63 (1982) 32-46. Sesboiié, B. “L’expiation dans la révélation judéochrétienne.” Rencontre chrétriens et juifs 3 (1969) 233-44. Stamm, J. J. Erlésen und Vergeben im Alten Testament. Bern: A. Francke, 1940. 59-84. sat co7mology of Heb, 182 is debated. One approach is to identify it with Arab wt to cover,” Cited in support of this identification is the quotation of Jer 18:23 in ch 8:87 (4:5); Nehemiah substitutes 70D, “cover,” for Jeremiah’s use of "52. Another ahead is to relate TBD to Akk kuppuru, “wipe off, smear.” According to CAD (8:179- ina means “to wipe off, clean, purify.” Various things, such as people, buildings, age of ie a temple, and other objects, may be purified by magical rites. The cultic us- terme Aupburu indicates that there is a close connection between the Akk and Heb, pe of eens to Jer 18:23, support for this position is found in the fact that 17, denon Plot out,” stands parallel to 783. Another explanation for “BD is that t's 3 1838; ef uve from the noun ">, “a ransom” (Exod 21:30; 80:20; Job 88:24; 36:18; Prov a e the ichrodt, Theology of the OT, 2:444-47). | i in Jacob's hy action of 12 may be achieved by gifts or some type of payments attes a Nn 32:9), ‘ping to appease (75D) his offended brother Esau 717202, with a present ; calle 2): But the use of TM, “gift,” in that text, rather than "BD, “bribe, me it donee question the relationship of 725 to 72>. Ifa tie exists between eae eS LTO sacsin ot aPPear to be in the foreground in most uses of 122 in cultic texts. In ain a ctifice is referred to by 75. B. Levine (In the Presence of the Lord, 67-68), rec ne this di : : de- Rominative Secncully, Posits two verbs; 78> I, primary, and eS wenn ee or the no 5, whi in the phi : Rive un 5, which usually appears in the p! the languaeesom for a life” (e.g. Exod 3 soe 10). This proposal seems to be forcing € to fit a theor 1 Other ¢ licating @.. ., i it occurs in Variety of omPlicating factor in gaining an understanding of 7B is that it oc™ “direct objetactical relationships. Seldom does it take the direct object. When i us “ect itis either the sanctuary or the cultic furniture (16:20, 38; Ezek 49:564 . LEVITICUS 4:1-5:13 26; 45:20). It is also possible for the sanctuary or the furniture to Stan (8:15; 14:53; 16:16, 18; Exod 29:36, 37; 30:10 [2x]). Kiuchi (Puri icatior i finds no distinction between these two uses of BD with 2 calc cr eng 92-35 sometimes stands alone with the preposition 3, used either instrumentally (16, > 17:1 1b; 19:22; Exod 29:33; Num 5:8) or spatially (6:23[30]; 16:17a, 27). If the recipien’ of the action is a person, that person is preceded by either the Preposition by, o, ie half of” (1 0, 26, 31, 35; 5:6, 10, 18, 16, 18, 26[6:7]; 8:34; 10:17. 12:7, 8 14:18, is 20, 21, 29, 31; 15:15, 30; 16:30, 33, 34; 17:11; 19:22; 23:98; Exod 30:15, 16; Num’5:8, 6:11; 8:12, 19, 21; 15:25, 28 [2x]; 28:22, 30; 29:5; 31:50; Ezek 45:15), or WA, “for, on behalf of” (9:7 [2x]; 16:6, 11, 17, 24; Ezek 45:17). In distinction from 5» 755, wa hes occurs when the priest is making atonement for himself, as Milgrom notes (Leshoneny 35 [1970] 17; Kiuchi, 88-89). The careful avoidance of saying that a Person is directly affected by the act of 95> may be a determined effort to avoid any implication that the purification resides automatically in the atoning ritual (Levine, In the Presence of the 56). Two passages contain the phrase 9 "53 (Deut 21:8; Ezek 16:63), in which God stands as subject and his people as the recipients of his granting expiation. Sometimes another verb in the context emphasizes an aspect accomplished by 75> or an attending result: 770, “be clean” (qal 12:7, 8; 14:20, 53; cf. Num 8:21) or “cleanse” (piel 16:30), 19503, “be forgiven” (4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18, 26[6:7]; 19:22), Wap (piel) “sanctify, consecrate” (8:15; 16:18-19; Exod 29:33, 36, 37; Num 6:11), and SON (piel) “purge, de-sin” (8:15; 16:18-19; Exod 29:36). Kiuchi (Purification Offering, 96) concludes that 82}, “purge,” overlaps with "5D, while U7p, “sanctify, consecrate,” is more distant. The phrase }1) 82), (lit.) “bear guilt,” in the sense of “forgive” occurs with 75> in 10:17 (cf. 5:17-18) and Num 18:23a8//8:19a8 (Kiuchi, 98). From this evidence Kiuchi (99) identifies "9 as the superordinate among these four terms, which may be arranged in the following pattern: d after Sy mp 7D ; “ao kon Wap py sta Thus 72> has a twofold effect; it removes pollution and it counteracts sin. Few te advocate this twofold direction of 75>, but it has the advantage of clarifying a word is clearly preferred over the many words for cleansing in sacrificial texts an how it differs in its denotation from them. . Determining the best translation for BD in Eng is complicated by the thedlogis! debate regarding whether 75> means “expiate” or “propitiate.” Is the sacrificial sys designed primarily to appease God or to remove sin? . sane in a few passages it = Bear that "D2 means “appease” anger, either one peo oe ger at another (Gen 32:21 [20]; Prov 16:14; cf. Schenker, Bib 63 [1982] ae ie and anger at humans (Num 25:13). However, when God stands as subject of 5 fon" the sin is either the direct object or object of the preposition 22, “on,” or 4 tiie ‘in sO idiom means “forgive,” i.c., the idea being that God has purged or Teed Oe om that the person finds forgiveness (e.g., Pss 65:4[3]; 78:38; 79:9; Ezek 16: ) eet texts of Pss 78:38 and 79:9 make it clear that the 75 action cools God’s ni ae anid Most frequently, however, 12 occurs in cultic texts; there it has a technic (Nem), @ for the achievement of certain sacrifices, pamely a purification offering (IT reparation offering (OWS), or a whole offering (777). At the end of SOE Oe of the stated that the officiating priest has made expiation for (7) 7D>) the Pe sin” (C8 sacrifice; sometimes included in the formula is the phrase “from [9 orl e 3. Lev 4:26, 35). In some texts "D2 is closely tied to the manipulation of loud ‘CE guency 17:11), indicating that this rite with blood is essential for achieving 122. The priest of the terms 778, “be clean,” and 1 1403, “be forgiven,” after the officiating Pre Sne’s done the work of 92 indicates that 15 removes both the polluting forceComment iomm 65 i]t or blame that person bears. In cultic texts, then, the best rendering gin and the Bate,” focusing on the removal of sin and its effects. for 22 8 one ficial regulations there is no explicit mention of God's wrath. While it «God sometimes pours out his fierce anger on his people because of their js true thal ccasions are rare (cf. Isa 54:7-8). In contrast to these rare occurrences sinning, the a of his anger, the cult is concerned with the usual, daily means of ap- f God's ae Thus not God’s kindled wrath but his potential wrath is the direct fo- roaching mi iating sacrifices. To express it another way, a person who has sinned is cus of the XP ie does not seek expiation stands in danger of facing God's anger. t one , . . - i o es the appropriate steps to expiate a sin and to win God's favor, that one Butif one Res wrath before it is ignited. This interpretation, therefore, supports will esc@P<_ 55 in cultic texts as “expiate,” not “propitiate.” ety Bo means technically “expiate, remove” is further substantiated by the fact that ihe altar and the various cultic objects benefit. from the action of 15>. As Milgrom has shown (RB83 [1967] 390-99 = SCTT 75-84), sin releases a miasma that is drawn to the sanctuary. In order for the cultic objects there to continue to function effectively, they must be purged. This is achieved by the various purifying sacrifices presented as occasions warrant and by the annual sacrifices made on the Day of Atonement. More- over, the framework of this theology may be drawn on to understand how a house that has recovered from ae grevous mildew (MU7) is cleansed or expiated (152) by an elaborate ritual (14:4! : How expiation is achieved is not expressly addressed in these regulations, Certainly it is necessary that the entire ritual for the expiating sacrifice be performed appropri- ately before expiation may be achieved. At the heart of the expiating ritual, though, are the rites with the blood (cf. 16:18). The most definitive statement is found in Lev 17:11: “For the life of an animal resides in the blood; I have assigned it to you to make atonement for your lives on the altar, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.” D. J. McCarthy (JBL 88 [1969] 166-76) has shown that attaching such signifi- attic blood is unique to Israel among the cults of the Middle East, indicating that a ne of the blood was assigned special significance because of Israel's unique theo- hens ae This accords with the blood rites of the purification offering. The blood Shea's Pe or spread on those cultic objects polluted by sin. The pouring out of the offerer a is also important. The blood represents the animal’s 053, “life.” The animal’s neat identified himself (W52) with the animal by laying his hands on the commute th ; with this gesture the offerer recognizes that the death of the animal will penalty for his sin. It needs to be underscored that the sacrificial system nie, that the penalty of sin is death. Thus the giving of a life (WB1) on the a (WB) of the offerer upholds justice. The blood rites then have a te” offerer from tae, cleanse the sanctuary from the pollution of sin and to release the A of these eee for his sinning. 7152, “make expiation,” is the achievement of tsi on expiation . te cultic legislation there are a few passages that speak of atonement or sin when hig fo chieved by means other than a sacrifice. Isaiah was cleansed from his David sought iPS were touched by a burning coal taken from the heavenly altar (6:7)- Prolonged one to turn away Yahweh's anger, which was being expressed in @ anging some ae because of Saul’s breaking the covenant with the Gibeonites by a ing over ees The Gibeonites said that expiation could be made by David's Mov inigui em seven members of Saul’s house (2 Sam 21:1-9). According to te screover, lak is 45D, “undone,” nos 7073, “by loyal love and truth” (Prov 16:6). attered Pon Seid that when Jacob crushes the stones of the pagan altars and shrines fit avenges yooue the land, hs guilt will be expiated (Isa 27:9), Dew 39:43 says that the lang lood of his servants by taking vengeance on their enemies in oven oUt land mi mij : ight be cleansed or expiated. In the most dramatic case Moses loudly procl tar for the fold functio,66 LEVITICUS 4:1-5:13 to make expiation for the people’s grave sin by intercessory prayer, eye God to remove his own name from the book of life in order that the par Pl°ading fo, forgiven (Chor No); Exod 32:30-34). Intercession then isa means of sect ® Might be Three passages proclaim the harsh words that a specific sin cannot ene iniquity of Eli's house (1 Sam 8:14), blatant iniquity (Isa 22:14), and the seh atthe that will befall Babylon (Isa 47:11). In the same vein Jeremiah pleads with yy ote" iniquity of his opponents who persecute him relendlessly may not be expan {hatte %23), 22 The third ritual is for an unintentional transgression Committed by spy « prince.” D. J. Wisemen suggests that 80) could refer to a deputy or leader ; secondary rank (BS[1977] 228; cf. E. A. Speiser, “Background and Function a of Biblical Nai,” in Oriental and Biblical Studies, 118-22). The lack of the def i: article with 80) may indicate that the term is to be used generally and not oe cifically (Harrison, 66); that is, it stands for tribal leaders in general (cf. Nias 5, 7 etc.), not a single leader like the king. For example, in Num 7 each tribal prince presents a goat for a purification offering. Ezekiel, however, uses this term with an elevated meaning for the Davidic leader of the new, ideal Israel (34:24. 37:25; 45:7, 16-17; 46:2, 4, 8, 10, 17; cf. 1 gs 11:34 for its only use in the histori. cal books for the Davidic ruler). In Ezekiel this prince is to present a bull for a purification offering on the first day of Passover instead of a goat as here (45;29), further attesting to his higher status in Ezekiel than in this legislation, On the other days of the Passover he is to offer elaborate whole offerings and a male goat (OY 12) for a purification offering (45:23). Incidentally Ezekiel also uses “prince” for foreign rulers (26:16; 27:21; 32:29; but cf. 37:25). Because a prince is a secular leader of a tribe, not a cultic leader, his sin is not as potent as that of the anointed priest or the congregation, nor is the animal required, Oty yb, “a male goat,” Dan, “without defect,” as costly. Presumably the pollution released by his sin reaches only the main altar before the Tent of Meeting. 25-26 1211, “the priest,” manipulates the blood. Since “the priest” occurs here without the term Wa, “anointed,” it stands for any officiating priest. Again this fact points to the antiquity of this ritual and a broader use of the term “prince” as in Num 1:16, 44, for if the prince were the Davidic head of Israel, surely his stature would demand that the officiating priest be the high priest. The manipulation of the blood with this offering is simpler. Instead of taking blood into the holy Fe and smearing it on the horns of the altar of incense (v 5), the priest puts ([F ) some blood 77y7 nam np 2y, “on the horns of the altar of the whole offering. The rest of the blood is poured out (75) at the base of this altar. No Ee are given about the disposal of the remains of the animal, for the meat bel Bei to the priests. Therefore, the blood rite takes place only at this altar. Beret iz priest is not a participant in this prince’s sin, he has a right and an obligatio eat the animal’s flesh (6:19[26], 22[29]). 1 B}). 27° The last ritual is for an inadvertent sin committed by any person qm a cal a That person is a member of the people of the land (7787 D2). This last ter) op 10 ried different sociological meanings in different periods of Israel's ui a early literature, as here, it refers to any member of the community. ae then period before the exile it stands for the landed aristocracy (e.g-, Jet 1: Hag 2:4 in the post-exilic community it refers to the populace, the mass (eB wee Zech 7:5). Later it came to mean the uneducated, common people seg 4:13).