Sin Impurity Sacrifice Atonement

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.

This book is a collection of essays on purificaton and atonement in the Hebrew Bible that provides new insights into the discussion of these ideas by looking at the values of sociological and anthropological approaches to the topics. The collection also examines multivalence and polyvalence in ritual and asks to what extent it is possible to speak of the function or meaning of ritual, even within the highly systematic priestly texts.

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.

Traditional views of the atonement tend to be reductive, focusing solely on Jesus's death on the cross. In his 2011 groundbreaking book Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, David Moffitt challenged that paradigm, showing how the atonement is a fuller process. It involves not only Jesus's death but also his resurrection, ascension, offering, and exaltation. In the succeeding years, Moffitt has continued to expand and clarify his thinking on this issue. This book offers a more fulsome articulation of his work on the atonement that reflects his recent thinking on the topic. Moffitt continues to challenge reductive views of the atonement, primarily from the book of Hebrews, but he engages other New Testament passages as well. He offers fresh insights on sacrifice and atonement, the importance of resurrection and ascension, Jesus's role as priest, and a new perspective on Hebrews. This important book brings Moffitt's award-winning and influential scholarship to a broader audience. The book includes a foreword by N. T. Wright.

"In The Forgiveness of Sins, Tim Carter examines the significance of forgiveness in a New Testament context, delving deep into second-century Christian literature on sin and the role of the early church in mitigating it. This crucial spiritual issue is at the core of what it means to be Christian, and Carter's thorough and erudite examination of this theme is a necessity for any professional or amateur scholar of the early church. Carter's far-reaching analysis begins with St Luke, who is often accused of weakness on the subject of atonement, but who in fact uses the phrase 'forgiveness of sins' more frequently than any other New Testament author. Carter explores patristic writers both heterodox and orthodox, such as Marcion, Justin Martyr and Origen. He also deepens our understanding of Second Temple Judaism and the theological context in which Christian ideas about atonement developed. Useful to both the academic and the pastoral theologian, The Forgiveness of Sins is a painstaking, clear-eyed exploration of what forgiveness meant not only to early Christians such as Tertullian, Irenaeus and Luke, but to Jesus himself, and what it means to Christians today."

The Asia Bible Commentary Series empowers Christian believers in Asia to read the Bible from within their respective contexts. Holistic in its approach to the text, each exposition of the biblical books combines exegesis and application. The ultimate goal is to strengthen the Body of Christ in Asia by providing pastoral and contextual exposition of every book of the Bible. The book of Leviticus has a two-fold mission. Leviticus 1–16 symbolizes the order of the world through sacrifices, purity law, and sacred boundaries, so that God’s people can acknowledge his presence and lordship in their different aspects of life. The second part of the book, from Leviticus 17–27, extends the belief of holiness through moral laws of sex and social justice, so that God’s people can be holy, as he is holy. This commentary helps believers to integrate God’s holiness into their daily lifestyle with particular attention to Asian contexts.

In this book, James A. Greenberg examines animal sacrifice in Priestly Torah texts found in Leviticus 1–16, Exodus, and Numbers. Through his analysis, Greenberg identifies a new valence of kipper as a process that produces a positive result between two objects and argues that the Israelite sanctuary exists to facilitate a connection between YHWH, sancta, and the Israelites through the medium of blood. Rather than beginning with a priori assumptions of what sacrificial terms and symbols mean, Greenberg allows his interpretation to develop through an accumulation of textual clues. To avoid the exegetical pitfalls of symbolic and structuralist approaches, he focuses on what the language of the ritual says about sacrifice and what it seeks to accomplish. His investigation considers why the flesh and blood of an animal are used by the priest as he mediates on behalf of the offerer through the medium of YHWH’s sanctuary, what the difference is between intentional and unintentional sin, how the meaning of kipper changes from one sacrifice to the next, whether the sanctuary can be both holy and unclean, and how priests conceive of YHWH’s interaction with sancta, the offerer, and the animal. A New Look at Atonement in Leviticus recalibrates our understanding of kipper and furthers our knowledge of the priestly cult in ancient Israel. It will especially interest scholars of Biblical Hebrew and the Old Testament in particular.

Beneath the commonplace affirmation that Jesus “paid for our sins” lie depths of implication: did God demand a blood sacrifice to assuage divine anger? Is sacrifice (consciously or unconsciously) intended to induce the deity to show favor? What underlies the various metaphors for atonement used in the Bible? Here, Stephen Finlan surveys psychological theories that help us to understand beliefs about sacrifice and atonement and what they may reveal about patterns of injury, guilt, shame, and appeasement. Early chapters examine the language in both testaments of purity and the “scapegoat,” and of payment, obligation, reciprocity, and redemption. Later chapters review theories of the origins of atonement thinking in fear and traumatic childhood experience, in ambivalent or avoidant attachment to the parents, and in “poisonous pedagogy.” The theories of Sandor Rado, Mary Ainsworth, Erik Erikson, and Alice Miller are examined, then Finlan draws conclusions about the moral responsibility of appropriating or rejecting atonement metaphors. His arguments bear careful consideration by all who live with these metaphors and their effects today.