OVERVIEW
The ritual of forgiveness of sin on the Day of Atonement is the first repeated sacrificial ritual that is described for the benefit of all the people. Leviticus 1–7 provided a detailed guide for the variety of offerings and their composition, performance, and significance. These were then applied in chs. 8ff. In fact, Leviticus 8–9 created the priesthood and installed the priests so that they could perform the ceremonies of the sacrifices. Leviticus 10 warned of the consequences of carelessness in approaching God. Chapters 11–15 reviewed the major issues of food, birth, skin disease, death, mildew, and genital excretions that prohibited people from taking their place in the ceremony of the forgiveness of sins. All of this anticipates Leviticus 16, where the tabernacle, sacrifices, and priesthood—properly constructed, performed, and ordained—provide a fully integrated ceremony to guide the people in understanding the awful consequences of sin and the meaning of atonement for that sin.
The whole ceremony is structured in a chiastic form with an approach to God in the Most Holy Place and then a departure from that presence. Both the beginning and end of the description express the importance of this ceremony as incumbent on God’s people through his direct command. The preparation of the priest (vv.2b–5), with details about his clothing and the ongoing concern for the animals to be sacrificed (vv.6–10), correspond to the return from God’s presence (vv.23–28), which again focuses on the priestly vestments and the disposal of the remains of the animal sacrifices. The priest’s purification offering followed by Israel’s purification offering, and the atonement of the Most Holy Place followed by the atonement for Israel (vv.11–19), form the focus of the ceremony in an A–B–A’–B’ structure.
This reminds the reader of biblical parallelism found in poetry and narrative. There, as here, it emphasizes the importance of the items discussed by repeating them. The priest’s sins are atoned for before he can represent Israel for the same purpose. The Holy Place is purified before God accepts the sacrifice for Israel’s atonement. The high priest represents Israel, so his approach to God in the Holy Place also symbolizes the approach of all Israel into that place. Similarly, Christ represented all Christians in their atonement and appearance before God after he demonstrated the perfection of his life (and thus did not require that a purification offering be given for himself; Heb 4:14–16; 10:19–22).
The use of animals in the sending away of impurities occurs in Mesopotamia and among the Hittites and Hurrians (Wright, 15–74). The officiants take or send the animal to a wilderness place and there give it to a deity as a substitute or for appeasement. This part does not occur in the Bible. Various animals are involved, and in Mesopotamia they are often killed. A rite from twenty-fourth-century BC Syrian Ebla, where the purification of a “mausoleum” uses two goats—one released to a wilderness and the other enclosed there—more closely resembles the Israelite practice (Zatelli, 254–63).
Others have found parallels with Genesis 37, in which Joseph’s brothers slaughter a goat and pretend to their father that it is Joseph’s blood. This ruse may symbolize the first sin of the entire nation that is repented of before Joseph (Ge 50; Calum Carmichael, “The Origin of the Scapegoat Ritual,” VT 50 [2000]: 167–82). Its association with Leviticus 16 goes back to the intertestamental book of Jubilees and includes Maimonides among its proponents. But it does not represent the first sin of the entire nation, as Carmichael argues, because neither Joseph (the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh) nor Benjamin was included in perpetrating it. Furthermore, forgiveness was not sought from God but from Joseph. But it does provide a comparable group sin and a precedent for the use of the blood of a goat. Both this and the parallels from Ebla and elsewhere suggest a ceremony familiar to that of the Israelites.
NOTES
A. M. Rodriquez (“Leviticus 16: Its Literary Structure,” AUSS 34 [1966]: 269–86) provides a detailed chiastic structure to the chapter. This and other structural observations argue against a complex compositional development over many centuries.
1The LORD spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron who died when they approached the LORD. 2The LORD said to Moses . . .
COMMENTARY
1 On God’s act of addressing Moses, see comments on 4:1. Verse 1 qualifies this with a note that it occurred after the death of Aaron’s sons. This explicitly connects the chapter with Leviticus 10 and the events recounted there. Though chs. 11–15 logically precede ch. 16, they have no chronological context. Leviticus 10, with its defilement of the sanctuary and the sin of the sons of Aaron, precedes ch. 16 and demonstrates the need for a ceremony of atonement that restores fellowship between God and Israel.
2a The expression “Tell . . . Aaron” occurs previously only at 6:25, where it introduces the purification offering. But nowhere else is the term qualified by the recognition that Aaron is Moses’ brother. Of course, this is well known to the reader of the Pentateuch (Ex 4:14); nevertheless, its appearance here signifies the relationship that Moses has with Aaron as a means either to distance God from Aaron, who has come close to guilt and whose sons have sinned (cf. 10:3, 16–20), or to identify beyond doubt whom God appointed as priest to perform this special ceremony of atonement. Regarding the former, the atonement procedure that follows becomes an important means for Aaron to restore full fellowship between God and himself. Regarding the latter, Aaron will understand his key role in what follows. In either case, the designation prepares Aaron for the ceremony of atonement.
NOTES
1 Warning, 37–63, observes that of the thirty-seven statements introducing divine speech in Leviticus, this is the nineteenth or central one. It is also distinct from the others in its language and form.
Nadab and Abihu polluted the sanctuary both by their sin and by the presence of their corpses. This would require cleansing of the sanctuary—a concern addressed here (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1011). This text also serves as a warning for the high priest not to violate God’s will (Hartley, 234).
Hartley, 218, identifies the following indications of the antiquity of this ritual, despite its lack of attestation outside Leviticus: elements of antiquity present in the text itself, especially in its expiation ritual; a removal of impurity ritual (sending away the goat to the wilderness) with Hittite parallels; the loss of the meaning of “Azazel”; and the mention of the “place of atonement” (= mercy seat), which does not appear in postexilic biblical texts. See additional parallels with Hittite, Hurrian, and other second-millennium sources in this commentary.
2The LORD said to Moses: “Tell your brother Aaron not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark, or else he will die, because I appear in the cloud over the atonement cover.
3“This is how Aaron is to enter the sanctuary area: with a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. 4He is to put on the sacred linen tunic, with linen undergarments next to his body; he is to tie the linen sash around him and put on the linen turban. These are sacred garments; so he must bathe himself with water before he puts them on. 5From the Israelite community he is to take two male goats for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering.
2b This verse forms a literary connection with Exodus through the terms translated “atonement” (NIV)—or, more conventionally, “mercy seat” (kappōret, GK 4114)—and “cloud” (ʿānān, GK 6727). Both terms occur here for the first time in Leviticus, and they only appear in this chapter. The term kappōret is better translated according to the meaning of its root (kpr, GK 4105), “to atone, ransom” (see discussion at 1:4). Kappōret is not an abstract concept but a concrete location (“place of atonement”) and an object within the holiest room of the sanctuary.
Kappōret was first described in Exodus 24:17 as part of the construction of the ark of the covenant (vv.10–22). There it was an object of pure gold with a length of 3.75 feet and a width of 2.25 feet (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1014). It rested on the gold-plated wooden box of the ark between the two images of the cherubim, and it was designated as the central place where God would speak to and dwell within Israel. Martin Luther translated it as “mercy seat,” and that translation has remained popular until the present because it describes function. But the Hebrew term itself is better rendered “place of atonement.”
Both “cloud” and “place of atonement” appeared previously in the biblical texts in Exodus 40:20 (place of atonement; NIV “atonement cover”) and Exodus 40:34–38 (“cloud”), with reference to the place in the Most Holy Place of the tabernacle and the presence of God. Indeed, kappôret occurs primarily in the description of the construction of the tabernacle in Exodus 25–31 and 35–40 and in Leviticus 16. Elsewhere in the OT it twice appears incidentally (Nu 7:89; 1Ch 28:11).
Thus these terms and their theological significance provide a substantial connection between the initial construction of the tabernacle and its use for this ceremony. In light of the central features and purpose of the tabernacle, the place of atonement, and the presence of God, the ceremony of the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 forms the chief purpose of its construction. It is first and foremost not a house for God or even a place for Israel to meet with God, but a structure designed to facilitate God’s forgiveness of Israel’s sin and his restoration of fellowship with them. For the Christian, the atonement of Jesus’ death becomes this “place” of atonement (Ro 3:25).
Of all people, the priest has the greatest privilege of access to the Holy Place of the God of Israel. According to the sacrificial rituals of chs. 1–7 and the ordination of chs. 8–9, the priest comes closer to the Holy Place of God than anyone else. Nevertheless, as ch. 10 vividly demonstrated, this access is not unqualified. The priest must obey, be clean (chs. 11–15), and enter the Most Holy Place only at divinely chosen times. As with the priest of Israel and the ancient worship of God, so also with Christian worship there is a proper way to approach God (1Co 14:40).
3 For the young bull of the purification offering and the ram of the burnt offering, see 8:14–21 and their use at the ordination of Aaron and his sons to the priesthood.
4 The priestly outfit included linen garments (8:5–13). This second appearance suggests a special tie with the priests (4:3). Angels wore linen garments (Eze 9:2–3, 11), but here they define the priest stripped of all special vestments of his office as high priest. Though rightfully belonging to the priesthood, these other items did not serve the attitude of humility and self-affliction required on this day of seeking God’s forgiveness. Note that linen tunics were used by Mishael and Elzaphan to carry the corpses of Nadab and Abihu after the judgment for their sin (10:5). God stipulated their preparation (Ex 28:39–43; cf. 39:27–29). Compare Philippians 2:1–11 and the humility of Christ in his priestly role of sacrificing himself for the sins of all people.
5 The use of a goat to represent the purification offering of the people and the ram to represent the burnt offering differs from what might be expected according to the interpretation of Leviticus 4 and 5. There the bull is brought for a purification offering when the entire community has offended God, and a female goat is sacrificed for the transgression of a citizen of Israel. Here it may be that the choice of a goat for the purification offering symbolizes Israel as a single person in the text. The use of the ram for a burnt offering, though not specified in the initial description of the burnt offering (Lev 1), does occur for Aaron and his sons at their ordination (Lev 8–9).
NOTES
2 For the nominal structure of the term kappōret (GK 4114), see James L. Sagarin, Hebrew Noun Patterns (Mishqalim): Morphology, Semantics, and Lexicon (Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), 45–46. The other roots that form this type of noun include baṣṣōret, kaddōret, and massōret, as well as pārōket. The term baṣṣōret means a period of drought, while kaddōret refers to a ball. Massōret is postbiblical and refers to the scriptural text and other authoritative texts in Judaism. For problems with its dubious occurrence in Ezekiel 20:37, see Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 647–48, n. 170. In any case, all other forms of this noun pattern, especially in OT times, refer to physical realities or substances, not to abstract concepts. Thus it describes the “atonement slate” (Hartley, 235) or “place of atonement.”
In the priestly writings only this chapter refers to “the Most Holy Place” (= Holy of Holies) as “the Holy (Place)” (haqqōdeš, GK 7731). Elsewhere it refers to the other part of the tent sanctuary and not to the inner area (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1013). Such changes in terminology lead Hartley, 230–31, to posit a variety of sources and forms behind the present ch. 16 brought together by postexilic scribes from earlier Israelite sanctuaries throughout the land. But such a process assumes the unlikely scenario in which Josiah’s monotheism, which closed these sanctuaries outside Jerusalem, would have nevertheless permitted a variety of forms of this ritual to survive and to be held as sacred texts. Perhaps more accurate is the theory of a single ritual text whose origins or antecedents predated many of the other texts in the book, including pre-Israelite rituals.
4 Egyptian priests wore linen, and Hittie kings practiced their cult with a white garment (Itamar Singer, The Hittite KI.LAM Festival, 2 vols. [Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten 27–28; Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1983–84]; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1017).
6“Aaron is to offer the bull for his own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his household. 7Then he is to take the two goats and present them before the LORD at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 8He is to cast lots for the two goats—one lot for the LORD and the other for the scapegoat. 9Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the LORD and sacrifice it for a sin offering. 10But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD to be used for making atonement by sending it into the desert as a scapegoat.
COMMENTARY
6 The choice of the bull is designated as a purification offering for Aaron and his household. Given that the priesthood belonged to the family of Aaron, this includes all living priests and provides for their continued service.
This is the first occurrence of the verb kpr (“to atone for,” GK 4105) in Leviticus 16. It appeared many times in previous chapters beginning at 1:4, where it carried ideas of “ransom” and “appeasement.” It formed the purpose of the purification offering as described in ch. 4. The repeated emphasis on the sacrifice here “for himself” suggests that concern with the condition of the priest is paramount. The sacrifice removes all hindrances between the priest and God so that he can perform the offerings on behalf of the people.
7–8 The priest brings two goats before God at the Tent of Meeting, where the book began (1:1) and where ceremonial events take place throughout the book. The term “lot” (gôrāl, GK 1598) occurs here for the first time in the Bible and only in this chapter (vv.8, 9, and 10) in Leviticus. The practice may refer to the mysterious Urim and Thummim—devices used to determine God’s will (Ex 28:30; Lev 8:8). Instead of concern about how the lots are cast, the focus is on the fact that either goat might be chosen. The decision remains with God.
9–10 This choice anticipates the use made of the two goats in vv.15–22. The one selected by lot becomes the purification offering for the people of Israel and is sacrificed so that its blood may purify the Holy Place. The remaining goat survives and receives the sin of the people so that it may be sent into the wilderness “to/for Azazel” and thereby expiate the sins of the people. In fact, vv.6–10 are all anticipatory. Except for vv.7–8 and the selection of the goat by lot, the remaining verses in this section are substantially repeated in the first part of the following sections: v.11 repeats word for word v.6, v.9 anticipates v.15, and v.10 anticipates vv.20–21.
This introductory section serves as the equivalent to many ancient sacrificial texts of the wider world of the OT. Such sacrificial texts, as those that have been found dating to the thirteenth century BC and earlier at cities such as Ugarit, were often administrative records of the number and types of animals to be used in sacrifices to various deities for a particular festival.
But a text from Ugarit (CAT 1.40) also preserves what some have seen as a ritual for atonement. Though vv.6–10 do not at first appear to be an inventory, they are. They demonstrate one of the great differences between biblical sacrifices and those of other religions. The biblical sacrifices required by God contain far fewer animals to be sacrificed. The focus is not on the vast number of animals killed but on the attitude of the participants and their repentance and obedience to God (1Sa 15:22; 1Jn 1:9).
8 Azazel (ʿazā ʾzēl) has most often been identified as (1) a place in the wilderness (Rashi; Driver, “Three Technical Terms,” 97–98; Wenham, 235, “a place of destruction”); (2) a demon (Gorman, 97; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1020–21); or (3) some combined expression about a departing goat or the like (Kellogg, 266–67; H. Tawil, “Azazel the Prince of the Steppe: A Comparative Study,” ZAW 92 (1980): 43–59; Harris, 590; less likely J. De Roo [“Was the Goat for Azazel Destined for the Wrath of God?” Bib 81 (2000): 233–42], who suggests a metathesis of zayin and aleph resulting in “wrath of God,” but perhaps related to a Hittite term meaning “to overcome divine wrath”).
“Azazel” (GK 6439) occurs nowhere else in the Bible—only in 16:8, 10, and 26. A place is not otherwise identified. The idea of a demon contrasts nicely with one goat designated for the Lord and the other for a demon. But there is no evidence that a demon is intended in the text (the reference to “goat demons” in 17:7 uses a completely different word), and the emergence of this understanding is only attested in the intertestamental literature (see, e.g., the role of Azazel in 1 Enoch, where he is one of the demons that copulate with the daughters of men, Ge 6:1–4).
Regarding the Hebrew term, the first two letters (ʿz) mean “goat” (which appears in 16:5). The last half of the term (ʾzl) comprises a root meaning “to go away, be gone” (which occurs in Dt 32:36 and some eleven times in the Bible). Perhaps the text summarizes the departure of the goat through an expression that came to be misunderstood as a proper noun (cf. LXX, “the goat to be dismissed”). The objection that this is a place/person to which the goat is sent (lamed preposition; Hartley, 237) is not decisive because it may serve as an abbreviated indicator of purpose (i.e., sent for the purpose of dismissing the goat). No solution is certain. For the use of animals for appeasement, substitution, and transfer in dealing with evil among the Hittites, see the summary of Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1071–79.
The Mishnah (b. Yoma 4.1–2) remembers the selection of goats by lots in the period of the temple during the time of Jesus as one in which two markers—one “for the LORD” and one “for Azazel”—were drawn from a pot by the high priest.
11“Aaron shall bring the bull for his own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his household, and he is to slaughter the bull for his own sin offering. 12He is to take a censer full of burning coals from the altar before the LORD and two handfuls of finely ground fragrant incense and take them behind the curtain. 13He is to put the incense on the fire before the LORD, and the smoke of the incense will conceal the atonement cover above the Testimony, so that he will not die. 14He is to take some of the bull’s blood and with his finger sprinkle it on the front of the atonement cover; then he shall sprinkle some of it with his finger seven times before the atonement cover.
11–13 This section begins with a verse that repeats all that was said in v.6. The purification offering of the bull is thus described and followed by a note that the priest should slaughter the bull. The text then considers the procedure for the high priest to prepare the Most Holy Place so that he can make atonement for himself without dying. The observation that he will not die (v.13) and the use of terms such as “censer” (maḥtâ, GK 4746) and “incense” (qeṭōret, GK 7792) relate vv.12–13 to 10:1–2. In both passages there is concern for the holiness of God and a warning not to violate proper procedure when coming close to his presence. In Leviticus 16, however, divine instructions provide for the correct means to obtain the fire and proceed with the incense.
Unlike the “unauthorized fire” of Nadab and Abihu, the fire here comes from “the altar before the LORD”—most likely the altar of burnt offering placed at the entrance to the tabernacle, which had hot coals available from the sacrifices performed on it (Ex 40:28–29). This was a public place, visible to all. The priest then enters the Holy Place, where he is hidden from onlookers. Here he finds the altar of incense positioned in front of the veil to the Most Holy Place (Ex 40:26–27). He burns the incense so that the cloud covers the place of atonement behind the veil and thereby hides the presence of God, which no one can see without dying.
14 With the place of atonement so prepared, the instructions return to the blood of the slaughtered bull, last mentioned in v.11. The placement of the blood before the place of atonement on the Day of Atonement is not accidental. Elsewhere with the purification offering (4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34; 8:14–15) the blood is placed at the base of the altar of sacrifice in order to consecrate it. Here the high priest sprinkles the blood seven times before the place of atonement. By doing so, he purifies the sanctuary from defilement that has entered into the inner part of the sanctuary. He also reconsecrates the sanctuary (Gorman, 88).
The instructions of v.14 follow a chiastic arrangement—literally:
This arrangement envelops the place of atonement with the commands regarding the priest’s actions. The blood, with its sprinkling by the priest, becomes the means to the central concern of the passage: access to the place of atonement. It is this access to forgiveness and reconciliation that is provided only by the blood of the slain animal. The same is true of Christ’s work in the NT. The shedding of his blood is necessary for him to present himself as a purification offering for all Christians (Heb 9:22).
NOTES
12–13 Rather than the cloud of incense hiding the sinful priest from God’s gaze (Keil, 399), it hides the place of atonement and thus serves to protect the priest from seeing God (Wenham, 231).
14, 23–24 The high priest bathes and changes clothes on entering and leaving. This symbolizes the change of status and of sacred place. The priest leaves the world of people and mortality and enters the world of God and divine holiness. The bathing and clothing symbolize this change of position, or entry into and exit from “marginal status” (Gorman, 90–95), with all of its attendant dangers. The bathing does not symbolize ritual purification from sin alone, because the priest also bathes when he exits the Most Holy Place. Instead, it is a purification that removes anything—holy or unholy—that might be taken into the other world where he finds himself.
15“He shall then slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people and take its blood behind the curtain and do with it as he did with the bull’s blood: He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it. 16In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been. He is to do the same for the Tent of Meeting, which is among them in the midst of their uncleanness. 17No one is to be in the Tent of Meeting from the time Aaron goes in to make atonement in the Most Holy Place until he comes out, having made atonement for himself, his household and the whole community of Israel.
18“Then he shall come out to the altar that is before the LORD and make atonement for it. He shall take some of the bull’s blood and some of the goat’s blood and put it on all the horns of the altar. 19He shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites.
COMMENTARY
15 The purification offering for Israel is summarized. The blood of the goat that was chosen in v.9 is manipulated in a similar manner as the blood of the bull in vv.11–14. It is sprinkled over the place of atonement. This represents the purification offering of the people.
16–17 Verse 16 reiterates the purpose of this act as bringing about atonement for every act of disobedience by Israel against God. Verse 17 repeats the important purpose of this ceremony, as though to stress the need for reconciliation between the people of Israel and their God. It adds the observation that no one may remain in the sanctuary when the act of atonement occurs. Provision exists only for the priest to enter with the blood. So holy is this place that he requires a separate act of atonement—the sprinkling of the bull’s blood—before he is able to function on behalf of Israel. No one but the priest can be near the presence of God at this special time. For the impurities and sins mentioned in v.16, see the Introduction, “Theology.”
18–19 The atonement of the Most Holy Place symbolizes this act for the whole sanctuary, but the altar of burnt offering requires a separate atonement. Again, both the blood of the bull and of the goat is sprinkled on its “horns” (projections at the four corners on the top of the altar). They may represent the focal points for the intention of the sacrifice on the altar and thus symbolize the purpose and function of the whole altar. If the sanctuary is the place where God can meet with his people annually for purposes of restoring fellowship and symbolizing his continual presence with Israel, the altar of burnt offering is the place where restoration and fellowship take place on a daily basis between individual members of the community and God. The offerings presented there are the means by which the believing Israelite can find forgiveness and worship God throughout the year.
NOTES
15–16, 19 For Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 1033–35, 1079–84), the primary purpose of “atonement” (kipper, GK 4105) is purification of the sanctuary. But in this context (“rebelllion of the Israelites”) he acknowledges its additional implication of forgiveness for intentional sins (as in “rebellions” [pešaʿ, GK 7322]; Hartley, 240).
19 The altar, exposed to the air and to regular contact with laity, is the most vulnerable of all the holy objects and thus may especially require the sevenfold application of blood (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1039).
REFLECTION
In the NT the author of Hebrews recognizes the superiority of Christ’s sacrifice of his own blood for the forgiveness of our sins. He stresses repeatedly that this act was “once for all,” in contrast to the many times each day that the priest acted for individual Israelites at the altar, or annually for the entire nation (Heb 7:27; 9:12, 26; 10:10).
20“When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the Tent of Meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat. 21He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites—all their sins—and put them on the goat’s head. He shall send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task. 22The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man shall release it in the desert.
COMMENTARY
20–22 This section describes the activity of the remaining goat. It is not killed for sacrifice but receives on its head the sins of all Israel. The priest sends it to a wilderness region that is uninhabited. An assistant goes with the goat to guarantee that it reaches its destination. While the death and blood of the one goat purified the sanctuary, the second goat carried away the sin so that it disappeared from the camp.
The picture of the goat, a small creature, as running from the sanctuary through the camp to the regions outside created a twofold impression. First, it symbolizes the purity of the camp and its holy state despite the sins of the people. Here is the beginning of another year with the opportunity to start afresh in following God and loving him with one’s entire being (Dt 6:4–9). God’s grace and forgiveness provide a new opportunity and a wonderful freedom from guilt.
Second, the departure of the goat outside the camp and the subsequent removal of all impurities to the same region (vv.23–28) demonstrate the danger of leaving the holy community and separating from the holy place that Israel’s God provided for meeting with his people. In the camp life is guaranteed by God; outside the camp are sin and death. The community is key to a life lived in faithfulness to God (Heb 10:25).
NOTES
21 Milgrom (“Sacrifices and Offerings,” IDBSup [Nashville: Abingdon, 1976], 765; Leviticus 1–16, 1042) suggests that the use of two hands implied transference, whereas the placement of one hand on the animal (1:4; 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 24, 29, 33) described identification with the animal. For Zohar, 615, the two hands indicate that volitional sins will also be confessed. Kiuchi, 153, suggests that in addition the priest acts as a substitute who represents himself and all Israel in guilt when he places his hands on the animal (cf. B. H. McLean, “The Interpretation of the Levitical Sin Offering and the Scapegoat,” SR 20 [1991]: 345–56). The removal of the sin from the camp by the goat corresponds to the bird’s removal of impurity in 14:4–7, 49–53.
22 Gorman, 98–100, applies anthropological analysis to the Most Holy Place, where God resides and there is order, and its opposite (the wilderness), where there is chaos. The goat takes the sin away from God’s presence, where there is life and well-being, to a place of death and disorder, where the kingdom of God is not present. The Mishnah (m. Yoma 6.6) recalls how the goat is driven over a cliff to kill it and prevent its return.
OVERVIEW
The text considers the actors in the drama of this special day and the means by which they return from their special status or, in the case of the sacrificed animals, the disposal of their carcasses. Thus the texts examine the priest (vv.23–25), the individual who guides the goat out of the camp (v.26), the disposal of the carcasses of the bull and goat used for the purification offering (v.27), and the purification of the individual who disposes them (v.28).
23“Then Aaron is to go into the Tent of Meeting and take off the linen garments he put on before he entered the Most Holy Place, and he is to leave them there. 24He shall bathe himself with water in a holy place and put on his regular garments. Then he shall come out and sacrifice the burnt offering for himself and the burnt offering for the people, to make atonement for himself and for the people. 25He shall also burn the fat of the sin offering on the altar.
26“The man who releases the goat as a scapegoat must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water; afterward he may come into the camp. 27The bull and the goat for the sin offerings, whose blood was brought into the Most Holy Place to make atonement, must be taken outside the camp; their hides, flesh and offal are to be burned up. 28The man who burns them must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water; afterward he may come into the camp.
COMMENTARY
23 The priest must go to the Tent of Meeting and remove the linen garments used in the ceremony (v.4). Constructed according to God’s will, they serve as fitting attire for the priest and preserve him from death. But he cannot wear them at occasions other than those in the sanctuary, lest they be profaned. The recognition that some things in this world can carry a special value and are not to be held up to public ridicule is applied by Jesus to the word of God (Mt 7:6).
24 God commands the priest to bathe before presenting any offering. He bathes at the bronze basin between the Tent of Meeting and the altar for burnt offerings (Ex 30:18–21). Then the priest presents burnt offerings for himself and for Israel. These seal the whole sacrificial experience with a symbol of commitment and dedication to God by the priest and the Israelites. The burnt offering represents the total dedication of a person to God.
This logically follows the forgiveness of sin that the previous purification offerings have effected. With the possibility of fellowship between Israel and God restored, the burnt offerings define that fellowship as one of total commitment to God and the covenant. The rite of bathing at this point represents the transition from the sacred back to the common, just as the earlier bathing evoked a transition in the opposite direction (Budd, 234).
25 This mentions the burning of the fat of the purification offering. In the description of the purification offerings (4:1–5:13), this always represents the concluding action of the priest. As the end of v.24 refers to the atonement made by the offerings, so the burning of the fat on the altar in 4:1–5:13 regularly concludes with an observation that this is involved in effecting atonement for the offerers.
26 The person who guides the goat from the camp must also wash both his clothing and skin. This symbolizes the removal of all the impurities of the scapegoat, with its burden of the sins of the people. Only when everything is washed can the “goat herder” return to the community. This confirms the importance of the preservation of holiness in the community. Nothing unclean is allowed to enter.
Though this individual may not have touched anything unclean, according to the requirements of Leviticus 11–15, there remains the question of the sin-laden goat. The proximity and perhaps touching of this goat may have created the problem with impurity. Even more important, at the time that atonement has been made for the entire nation, there is special sensitivity to the intrusion of any sin, whether cultic or otherwise, into the purified community.
27 The remnants of the slaughtered bull and goat represent the same uncleanness as that of the goat sent out of the camp. The symbolism of sin cannot be tolerated among the freshly forgiven Israelites; therefore, it is essential that the remaining parts of the animal be destroyed outside the community. Leviticus 4 stipulated that the bull of the purification offering was to be burned outside the camp in a clean place (4:11–12, 20–21; 9:11). There is no similar detail as to the disposal of the goat. Nevertheless, the same principle applies: removal of the unclean remnants outside the camp and their destruction by fire.
28 The last verse of this section identifies the person responsible for the burning of these carcasses and describes how this person must wash and bathe. The text uses precisely the same language as that used to describe the one who guided the living goat outside the camp. Throughout this section the different grades of holiness are preserved. There is the absolute holiness of God in the Most Holy Place. To preserve this the priest who officiates and enters that sacred area must change clothes, wash, and offer burnt offerings of dedication as well as complete the purification offering before returning to the holy community. That community must not have its holiness compromised by the purification offerings, so the goats and bull, as well as those involved in moving them and their carcasses outside the community, must be treated in such a way that any sin and impurity they represent do not return to the community.
NOTES
23–25 While some rearrange the text or go to great lengths to avoid an interpretation that the high priest would appear naked (cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1048–51; Ex 22:26), perhaps there was an enclosed area for this procedure to hide the priest from the onlookers (Levine, 108; Hartley, 242).
26 Unlike the high priest, who was specially consecrated with oil and blood, this member of the laity does not enjoy any such immunity from the uncleanness of the goat; therefore, the text requires him to wash (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1052).
REFLECTION
The value of the holiness of God and of the community remains the key message of these verses. Even full atonement does not remove distinctions of sanctity. Instead, it increases the care with which they are preserved. For the Christian, the picture of Jesus Christ breaking down all barriers to allow access to God for all people is a strong one (Eph 2:11–22), symbolized by the tearing of the curtain in the temple at the time of his atoning death (Mt 27:51; Mk 15:38; Lk 23:45). But the image of the Holy Place and its demand for sanctity has been transferred from a physical structure to Christians and the church of Christ (Ro 12:1; Eph 2:21; Col 1:22).
OVERVIEW
Leviticus 16 concludes by discussing the responsibility of the Israelites on this special day (vv.29–31) and the permanence of this celebration, which is to go on after Aaron with future priests (vv.32–34). The statement concerning the permanence of this ceremony in Israel envelops this conclusion, appearing both at the beginning and end of vv.29–34. This represents the concern of the passage to establish the practice so that every Israelite of every generation will participate in the ceremony. With the designation of the particular day of the year when this atonement is made, the text turns to command self-denial and rest.
29“This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: On the tenth day of the seventh month you must deny yourselves and not do any work—whether native-born or an alien living among you—30because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins. 31It is a sabbath of rest, and you must deny yourselves; it is a lasting ordinance. 32The priest who is anointed and ordained to succeed his father as high priest is to make atonement. He is to put on the sacred linen garments 33and make atonement for the Most Holy Place, for the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and for the priests and all the people of the community.
34“This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: Atonement is to be made once a year for all the sins of the Israelites.”
And it was done, as the LORD commanded Moses.
COMMENTARY
29–31 Every Israelite must participate in the events of the Day of Atonement. In vv.29 and 31 is a concentric structure in which three phrases or ideas are repeated in inverse order: “a lasting ordinance, you must deny yourselves,” and a reference to refraining from all work. The expression “lasting ordinance” makes it clear that this is a command with no limit in time.
The expression “you must deny yourselves” demands the full participation of each and every member of Israel. The verb ʿnh (GK 6700) in the Piel stem occurs only here in Leviticus and again in the discussion of the same ceremony in 23:27, 32. This term is connected with fasting in the Prophets and Psalms (Isa 58:3, 5; Ps 35:13), though it (or a homonym) is also used of rape or unlawful sex (Ge 34:2; Dt 22:29; Jdg 20:5; 2Sa 13:12, 14; La 5:11) and of general humiliation and defeat (Ge 16:6; Ex 1:11; 22:22; Jdg 16:5; 2Sa 7:10). The idea of fasting is key in Leviticus 16.
The third command is expressed differently in the two verses. Verse 29 forbids any work and commands the inclusion of everyone in Israel, citizens and visitors, in this command. Verse 31 proclaims the day as a sabbath of Sabbaths. The root of “sabbath” (šbt, GK 8697) implies that no work is done on that day. Verse 30, lying between these repeated statements, focuses on the purpose of this ceremony: the purification of all sins and full and complete atonement before God. There is little question but that the believer in the OT understood this as a day when all sins were forgiven and there was a full restoration to fellowship with God.
32–34 Here the verb “to atone” (kipper, GK 4105) occurs five times (see comment at 1:4). It is the first word in v.32, appears three times in v.33, and occurs once more in v.34. Clearly this is the important function of the priest and the sacrifices that are made on this special day. Aaron is identified in Leviticus 16 a total of nine times. He leads the ceremonies and sacrifices on this special day. He was Israel’s priest, and all the priestly ceremonies of installation were directed toward him (Lev 8–10).
But the instructions affirm that this special day will be celebrated long after Aaron’s death; therefore, these verses are concerned to provide for successors to Aaron and to guarantee that the correctly chosen one, the descendant of Aaron, performs the ceremony. Thus the line descends from father to son, beginning with Aaron. Its purpose is atonement and it remains forever. As long as the world continued, there will be sin (Ro 3:23) and the need to deal with it in order to approach a holy God.
NOTES
29–34 Some see this as a later addition, arguing that at its beginning the Day of Atonement was not fixed on the tenth day of the seventh month. Thus Solomon’s temple dedication, which lasted for a week or more in that month, seems not to have been troubled by interference with this fast day (1Ki 8:65–66; 2Ch 7:8–10). But if this feast ended on the twenty-second day of the month, there would be no overlap.
29 It seems that fasting symbolized but did not encompass the entire meaning of self-affliction. Though the examples cited in Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 1054) describe fasting for the most part, there is no requirement that the term limit itself to this practice.
REFLECTION
Hebrews 9 and 10 affirm that Christ provided a perfect and complete atoning sacrifice. Thus the OT sacrifices anticipated this full and complete atonement. The death of Christ did not nullify the OT sacrifices; instead, it gave them their complete value in that they participated as signs pointing to the fullness to come. As in the OT, so also in the NT the sinner needs to respond with repentance and faith (Ro 10:9; Eph 2:8–9).