Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions

by Jay Sklar

The goal of this closely reasoned study is to explain why, in Priestly texts of the Hebrew Bible, the verb kipper, traditionally translated 'atone', means the way of dealing both with sin and with impurity-which might seem very different things. Sklar's first key conclusion is that when the context is sin, certain sins also pollute; so 'atonement' may include some element of purification. His second conclusion is that, when the context is impurity, and kipper means not 'atone' but 'effect purgation', impurity also endangers; so kipper can include some element of ransoming. The goal of this closely reasoned study is to explain why, in Priestly texts of the Hebrew Bible, the verb kipper, traditionally translated 'atone', means the way of dealing both with sin and with impurity-which might seem very different things. Sklar's first key conclusion is that when the context is sin, certain sins also pollute; so 'atonement' may include some element of purification. His second conclusion is that, when the context is impurity, and kipper means not 'atone' but 'effect purgation', impurity also endangers; so kipper can include some element of ransoming. The goal of this closely reasoned study is to explain why, in Priestly texts of the Hebrew Bible, the verb kipper, traditionally translated 'atone', means the way of dealing both with sin and with impurity-which might seem very different things. Sklar's first key conclusion is that when the context is sin, certain sins also pollute; so 'atonement' may include some element of purification. His second conclusion is that, when the context is impurity, and kipper means not 'atone' but 'effect purgation', impurity also endangers; so kipper can include some element of ransoming. In fact, sin and impurity, while distinct categories in themselves, have this in common: each of them requires both ransoming and purification. It is for this reason that kipper can be used in both settings. This benchmark study concludes with a careful examination of the famous sentence of Leviticus 17.11 that 'blood makes atonement' (kipper) and explains how, in the Priestly ideology, blood sacrifice was able to accomplish both ransom and purification. In fact, sin and impurity, while distinct categories in themselves, have this in common: each of them requires both ransoming and purification. It is for this reason that kipper can be used in both settings. This benchmark study concludes with a careful examination of the famous sentence of Leviticus 17.11 that 'blood makes atonement' (kipper) and explains how, in the Priestly ideology, blood sacrifice was able to accomplish both ransom and purification. In fact, sin and impurity, while distinct categories in themselves, have this in common: each of them requires both ransoming and purification. It is for this reason that kipper can be used in both settings. This benchmark study concludes with a careful examination of the famous sentence of Leviticus 17.11 that 'blood makes atonement' (kipper) and explains how, in the Priestly ideology, blood sacrifice was able to accomplish both ransom and purification.

Genres: Christian

228 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2005

About the author

Jay Sklar (PhD, the University of Gloucestershire), is Professor Old Testament and VP of Academics at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. His doctoral research was completed under Gordon Wenham and focused on the sacrificial system in Exodus through Numbers, resulting in the book Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions . He has continued to focus his work on the Bible’s first five books, writing commentaries on Numbers (Story of God, Zondervan) and two on Leviticus ( Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament , Zondervan; Tyndale Old Testament Commentary , IVP). He has also co-authored a Leviticus Bible study and written supplementary books on Leviticus ( Additional Notes on Leviticus ) and Numbers Additional Notes on Numbers ). He has just submitted a commentary on Exodus for Crossway’s ESV Expository Commentary series (for which he serves as one of three general editors and in which he wrote the commentary on Jonah .


*As an Amazon Associate, I receive a small percentage from qualifying purchases made at Amazon.

Reviews

[Jared Greer · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 Rounded Down.

Sklar’s primary thesis is that both sin and impurity—while remaining distinct categories—endanger and defile an individual; and thus, ransom and purification are both required to address either issue. Consequently, he argues that “kipper” incorporates the concepts of both kopher (ransom/expiation) and purgation. The idea is that the blood of a sacrifice is a ransom offering that affects the purgation of both the sanctuary and offerer. For this reason, Sklar opts for “kopher-purgation” as a rough translation of “kipper.”

I am personally more compelled by diachronic investigations into the meaning of kipper, and I tend to see an evolutionary development evidenced in the Hebrew Bible; but Sklar nonetheless offers an interesting option for interpreting (priestly) kipper in its synchronic, canonical context. It is difficult to refute Sklar’s observations that sin and impurity can both endanger and defile. I do, however, have some misgivings about the thesis overall:

1) I have some apprehension regarding Sklar’s view that the blood of the hattat is a ransom. His view is largely informed by Lev 17:11 & Num 35:33-34; and in both of those passages, it seems more likely that kipper means “to purge” and not “to ransom.” In my view, this is the clear meaning of the term in all H texts where there is a cultic context.
2) From a purely semantic perspective, I have trouble believing that the authors/tradents consciously used one word to describe two distinct functions, as Sklar argues.
3) I would have liked Sklar to spend more time contemplating the relationship between blood rites and burning rites (e.g., are burning rites also constitutive of kipper? If so, how? If not, why do the kipper formulas often appear after the burning rites?)

Most other differences I have with Sklar are minor and of little practical consequence. Overall, this book is still very well-organized and well-argued; and it offers helpful theological insights for those interested in synchronic readings of Leviticus. It is a must-read for anyone specializing in priestly studies.

[Laura Robinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's kind of amazing a book like this hasn't been written before -- just a really exhaustive word study of purification language in Priestly lit. I'm still not as convinced of the self-evident link between kopher (ransom) and kipper (atonement) as everyone else is (Num 35 as the classic passage to back this up actually seems to complicate the association quite a bit) but I had a lot of my assumptions challenged going through this book. V. helpful.

[Ryan Storch · Rating 4 out of 5]

In a revision of his PhD Thesis, Jay Sklar sets out to examine a set of priestly texts to look at the concept of כִּפֵּר. He builds off while finding himself sometimes in minor disagreement with Jacob Milgrom’s seminal work in the topic.