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.

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.

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.

Leviticus describes a point in human history when God came and dwelt in the midst of the ancient Israelites and taught them what their purpose in life really was. Jay Sklar's commentary makes clear what it is that the Lord said to them and, in so doing, makes clear what he says to us today.

Through the swirling smoke of Aaron’s incense, and of scholarly theories, the present volume steps toward the meaning enacted on “the Day of Purgation,” commonly known as Yom Kippur or “the Day of Atonement.” By treating moral evil both as relational/legal breach and as pollution, the Israelite system of “purification offerings” = so-called “sin offerings” addresses both the standing and state of YHWH’s people. This system shows the way not only to freedom from condemnation but also to healing of character, which is defined in terms of loyalty to YHWH. Freedom and healing come together on the Day of Purgation, when purification rituals benefit those who show themselves loyal to YHWH by affirming the freedom from condemnation that they have previously received. The effects of purification rituals on YHWH’s sanctuary and community profile harmony between justice and kindness in the character of YHWH as he deals with imperfect people of various kinds of character by pardoning and clearing the loyal but condemning the disloyal. Thus, Gane ultimately affirms Milgrom’s seminal insight that theodicy is foundational to the Israelite expiatory system. Gane’s conclusions are derived from exegetical study of Hebrew ritual texts, informed by controls to ritual analysis developed in the course of prior research through critical examination of existing ritual theories and by adapting a systems theory approach to human activity systems.

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.

Ancient Jewish sacrifice has long been misunderstood. Some find in sacrifice the key to the mysterious and violent origins of human culture. Others see these cultic rituals as merely the fossilized vestiges of primitive superstition. Some believe that ancient Jewish sacrifice was doomed from the start, destined to be replaced by the Christian eucharist. Others think that the temple was fated to be superseded by the synagogue. In Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple Jonathan Klawans demonstrates that these supersessionist ideologies have prevented scholars from recognizing the Jerusalem temple as a powerful source of meaning and symbolism to the ancient Jews who worshiped there. Klawans exposes and counters such ideologies by reviewing the theoretical literature on sacrifice and taking a fresh look at a broad range of evidence concerning ancient Jewish attitudes toward the temple and its sacrificial cult. The first step toward reaching a more balanced view is to integrate the study of sacrifice with the study of purity-a ritual structure that has commonly been understood as symbolic by scholars and laypeople alike. The second step is to rehabilitate sacrificial metaphors, with the understanding that these metaphors are windows into the ways sacrifice was understood by ancient Jews. By taking these steps-and by removing contemporary religious and cultural biases-Klawans allows us to better understand what sacrifice meant to the early communities who practiced it. Armed with this new understanding, Klawans reevaluates the ideas about the temple articulated in a wide array of ancient sources, including Josephus, Philo, Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, New Testament, and Rabbinic literature. Klawans mines these sources with an eye toward illuminating the symbolic meanings of sacrifice for ancient Jews. Along the way, he reconsiders the ostensible rejection of the cult by the biblical prophets, the Qumran sect, and Jesus. While these figures may have seen the temple in their time as tainted or even defiled, Klawans argues, they too-like practically all ancient Jews-believed in the cult, accepted its symbolic significance, and hoped for its ultimate efficacy.