Song for the Sanctuary

Chapter 12
Typology of the Daily Services
In this chapter we will go to the heart of the sanctuary servicesvarious daily (or
regular) services at the sanctuary, focusing especially upon the ritual of the sin-offering (also
called purification offering) that led to the defilement of the sanctuary. In the next chapter we
will turn our attention to the climactic yearly service on the Day of Atonement, which brought
about the cleansing of the sanctuary. I invite the reader to linger over each detail of the services,
to grasp the intricate beauty of the salvation plan and the flow of salvation history foreshadowed
in these rites!
The Continual/Regular [tamid] Services
In previous chapters we have already looked at various furnishings and services in the
sanctuary and garments of the high priest that were defined by the Hebrew word tamid
(regularly/continually). We noted how the word tamid can mean either continual/perpetual
or regular, or both of these. Modern translations are divided on which translation to use, and in
my grappling with these texts, it seems that in many cases both the continual and regular aspect
is implied. Here in this first section we gather together in one place the various continual/regular
services that we covered in previous chapters
Continual/regular burnt offering. In our discussion of the sacrifices (ch. 10), we
explored the meaning of the daily/continual burnt offering (olat tamid): a one year-old male
lamb offered regularly every morning and every evening (Num 28:38) and kept burning
continually night and day upon the altar (Lev 6:913), symbolizing the daily consecration of the

nation to Jehovah, and their constant dependence upon the atoning blood of Christ.1
Continual/regular offering of the bread of the Presence. In our examination of the
various articles of furniture in the sanctuary (ch. 9), we saw how the Bread was placed before the
Lord every Sabbath tamid (regularly/continually) as an offering to God (Exod 25:30; Lev 24:8;
2 Chr 2:4), acknowledging humanitys (regular and constant) dependence upon God for both
temporal and spiritual food and the fact that such sustenance is received only through the
mediation of Christ. Num 4:17 emphasizes the continual/regular nature of this bread offering
actually naming it lechem hattamid the continual/regular Bread.
Continual/regular light of the lampstand. In ch. 9 we also looked at the typology of
the lampstand, and saw that great care was to be taken that a ready supply of olive oil was
present in the lampstand, to cause the lamp to burn continually [tamid] (Exod 27:20; cf. Lev
24:2). Aaron was to trim the lamp regularly every morning and evening (Exod 30:7, 8), and was
to make sure that the light burned continually. We have seen how the light of the lampstand
points to Christ, the Light of the World, and also to the fact that we are to let our lights shine in
witness to Him.
Continual/regular burning of the incense. Also in ch. 9 we saw that at the same time
as Aaron trimmed the lamps regularly in the morning and evening, he was to burn sweet incense
upon the altar of incense, so that there might be a perpetual [tamid] incense before the Lord
(Exod 30:7, 8). This perpetual incense represented the merits and intercession of Christ, His
perfect righteousness which through faith is imputed to His people, and which can alone make

Ellen White, Patriarchs and Prophets, 352.

the worship of sinful beings acceptable to God.2

Continual/regular wearing of the breastplate and onyx stones by the high priest.
We also learned in ch. 10 that the high priest was to wear a breastplate containing twelve
stones with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel, and according to Gods instructions he shall
bear the names of the sons of Israel on the breastplate of judgment over his heart, when he goes
into the holy place, as a memorial before the LORD continually [tamid] (Exod 28:29). On the
breast plate were also the Urim and Thummim, and the high priest was likewise to wear these
when ministering before the Lord, so that he shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel
over his heart before the LORD continually [tamid] (Exod 28:30). Likewise, the turban of the
high priest, and fastened to it the golden plate engraved with the words Holiness to the Lord,
according to Gods command, shall always be on his forehead, that they may be accepted
before the LORD (Exod 28:38). All these garments were to point to the mediatory role of the
high priest on behalf of Gods people.
In fact, all of the items mentioned above that are associated with the Hebrew word tamid
(continual/regular) point to the various aspects of Christs mediatory ministry. This crucial
term tamid will be picked up in the book of Daniel, in reference to the whole scope of Christs
mediatory work in the heavenly sanctuary (Daniel 8:12), which would be eclipsed by the little
horn power (see below, ch. 21).
The Illegal Defilement of the Sanctuary
In this chapter we particularly deal with the basic question: how was the sanctuary defiled? We
will look first at the biblical material in the Pentateuch which points explicitly to certain high-

Ibid., 353.

handed (defiant, rebellious, unrepentant) sins which illegally defile the sanctuary, and for
which there is no atonement provided through the sanctuary rituals. Then we will ask about how
the non-defiant sins defile the sanctuary.
High-Handed Sins
The law of Moses mentions at least three examples of high-handed (Heb. beyad ramah,
lit. with a high hand) sins for which no sacrifice could atone, and which illegally defiled (the
Heb. word tame to defile is used for these sins) the sanctuary. These included: (1) murder
(Num 35:3033), which polluted the entire land, including the sanctuary; (2) idolatry involving
child sacrifice (Lev 20:3; cf. Ezek 23:3739, 29; Ps 106:38); and (3) contamination by touching
a corpse and failing to follow the prescribed rituals for purifying oneself (Num 19:13, 20). These
high-handed sins, done in rebellion against God with no expression of repentance, called for the
death penalty (for murder and child sacrifice) or being divinely cut off (either extirpation, i.e.,
having ones line of descendants terminated, or being cut off from eternal life,3 for failing to
purify oneself for corpse contamination by the prescribed sanctuary rituals).
Seventh-day Adventist interpreters differ on whether the high-handed sins mentioned
above automatically defile the sanctuary when they are committed, or whether they defile the
sanctuary when sinners who have committed such sins come into the sanctuary with the guilt of
such sins upon them. The passages in the Torah dealing with these sins do not explicitly mention
that these sins only defile the sanctuary when the sinners come into the sacred precincts, and
therefore some have concluded that the very commission of such high-handed sins automatically

See discussion of evidence for these conclusions in Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 116: A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible, 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 457460; and Donald J. Wold,
The Meaning of the Biblical Penalty Kareth, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1978).

defiled the sanctuary.4 However, other scholars note that according to Ezek 23:38-39, those who
committed such sins contaminated the sanctuary when coming to it in a state of impurity,5 and
they suggest that such was already implied in the Levitical treatment of these sins. Whichever
the case, the crucial point is that there were some high-handed sins that caused the defilement of
the sanctuary during the year.
Automatic Defilement for Non-rebellious Sins? The One-Stage Atonement Theory
Building upon the example of these three high-handed sins which are commonly regarded
as defiling the sanctuary when they were committed, a number of scholars have made the
assumption that all other sins described in Leviticus also automatically defile the sanctuary as
soon as they are committed. Baruch Levine hypothesized that sin is demonic and magical in
quality, and therefore is attracted to the sanctuary.6 Jacob Milgrom suggested that sin has a
dynamic, aerial quality that flies through the air from the sinner to contaminate the sanctuary
when sin is committed.7 For Milgrom, the greater the sin, the further it penetrated into the
sanctuary: the sins of the individual defiled the outer altar (of burnt offering); the sins of the high
priest and the congregation defiled the Holy Place; and the high-handed sins penetrated the
furthest, defiling the Holy of Holies.
The problem with the hypothesis of automatic defilement for non-high-handed sins is
that there is not a shred of biblical evidence for such automatic defilement in the case of sins that
find sacrificial atonement through the daily sanctuary services. The Levitical terminology

See, e.g., Roy Gane, Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy
(Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 144-162, 296.
5
See, e.g., Angel Rodriguez, Transfer of Sin in Leviticus, in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the
Nature of Prophecy, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 3, ed. Frank B. Holbrook (Washington D.C.:
Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 172-180 (citation, p. 175).
6
Baruch Levine, In the Presence of the Lord (Leiden: Brill,1974), 7791.
7
Jacob Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 169

makes a clear distinction between the two classes of sins: (1) the high-handed sins on one
hand, for which there is no atonement through the sanctuary services, are said to defile (Heb.
tame) the sanctuary, and (2) the sins which find atonement through the daily sanctuary
services, concerning which the word tame (defile) is never used. (We will see that confessed
sins do in a sense defile the sanctuary, as the record of the sin is transferred from the sinner to
the sanctuary, till the Day of Atonement, but this legal defilement is not referred to by the
Hebrew term tame defile.) It is problematic to develop a hypothesis, without a single text of
evidence, based upon a supposed analogy with passages that Scripture itself indicates are not
analogous!
The problem becomes even more serious when those who argue for automatic defilement
seek to explain the process of atonement or cleansing. Milgrom, in particular, has developed a
theory of one-stage atonement, which has become widely accepted in the scholarly world. He
argues that the repentant sinner described in Lev 4 does not need any purification by the blood of
the sacrifice, because he has already undergone inner purification as he has repented of his sin.
Therefore the blood of the sin/purification offering does not purify the one who offers it, but
rather purges/cleanses the sanctuary.8 There is constant urgency to purge the sanctuary, because
the holy God of Israel will not remain in a polluted sanctuary, and thus the function of every
sin/purification offering is the cleansing of the sanctuary.9 Since the day-by-day sin/purification
offerings purge the sanctuary, there is no need of a yearly purging of the sanctuary, except for
the heavy high-handed sins for which no sacrifice was brought during the year.
As we will see below, and in our following ch. 13, this one-stage atonement theory

171.

Milgrom, Leviticus 116, 254258.

does not have biblical support. The function of the sin/purification offering during the year was
not to cleanse the sanctuary, but to cleanse the sinner, and its blood also became the agent of
transfer of the forgiven sins into the sanctuary to await their cleansing on the Day of Atonement.
Let us look at the biblical evidence!
The Transfer of Sin into the Sanctuary throughout the Year: Lev 46
The most important service with respect to the topic of this chapter is the ritual of the
sin-offering (also called the purification offering) described in detail in Lev 4. A subcategory of the sin/purification offering, the trespass (also called reparation) offering
(described in Lev 56), will also be discussed in this section. Every detail of the rituals in Lev
46 was meticulously prescribed by God, and it is important to interpret carefully to get an
accurate picture of what was being foreshadowed. Because so many of the features of this
offering have been often misunderstood, we need to proceed with care to capture the biblical
meaning of the terms and procedures.
The Sin/Purification (khattat) Offering (Lev 4)
Terminology. Modern English versions generally translate the Hebrew word khattat,
used to describe the offering in Lev 4, as sin-offering, since this same word also refers to sin
in this chapter and elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Exod 10:17; Lev 4:3, 14, 23, 23, 26, 28, 35). The
word thus can refer to either the problem (the sin) or the solution (the sin-offering used to
un-sin the problem). However, the situation is complicated by the fact that the khattat
sacrifice is offered not only in making atonement for sins (moral faults), as in Lev 4, but also
in purification from physical ritual impurity, when no sin (moral fault) is involved (Lev 12:6
8; 15:1415, 2930; Num 6; 8; Num 19). Thus Jacob Milgrom proposed using the term
9

Ibid., 258260.

purification offering, and this is now widely followed by other Leviticus commentators. I will
usually use the compound term sin/purification offering to encompass both translations.
Mandatory vs. voluntary. The offerings we discussed in detail in ch. 10 above were all
voluntary offerings (burnt, grain, peace/well-being), but in Lev 4:16:7 the offerings we find
are mandatory offerings, which the offerers were required to bring when they sinned. The
foundational biblical discussion of the sin/purification offering (khattat) is found in Lev 4,
which will be the main focus of our attention in the rest of this chapter.
Who is involved in the sin? Leviticus 4:2 uses inclusive language that covers all the
camp of Israel. God tells Moses: Speak to the children of Israel, saying: If a person [nephesh,
soul, person, being] sins . . . The word nephesh is equivalent to the word aadam human
being, and encompasses all people in the entire camp, including the resident alien (ger) as well
as the Israelite (Num 15:29). Then follows the four classes of people which make up the camp
of Israel, whose sins are taken up in turn: (1) the anointed priest (vv. 312), (2) the whole
congregation (vv. 1321), (3) a ruler/chieftan (vv. 2227), and anyone of the common
people [lit. people of the land] (vv. 2735).
As will become more apparent later in this chapter, it is important to determine who is
meant by the phrase the anointed priest (Heb. hakohen hamashiakh). Some commentators
identify this as only the high priest, while others take the phrase to refer to any of the priests
(including, of course, the high priest). The difference of opinion arises because both the ordinary
priests (Aarons sons) and the high priest were anointed (Exod 28:41; 29:7, 21; 30:30; 40:13
15). After close examination of the evidence, I have become convinced that the weight of
evidence favors the interpretation of any priest (including both high priest and ordinary priest)
and not just high priest. (See the excursus at the end of the chapter for the lines of evidence
8

that have led me to this conclusion.)

The other three categories of sinners in Lev 4 are not in question: the whole congregation
(vv. 1321); the ruler/chieftain (Heb. nasi), i.e., the established leader of his clan, tribe or nation
(cf. Num 3:24, 30, 44; 10:3, 4);10 and anyone of the common people (literally, the people of the
land).
The kind of sin involved. Lev 4:2 describes what kind of sin is in view in this chapter:
If a person sins unintentionally [bishgagah] against any of the commandments of the LORD in
anything which ought not to be done, and does any of them. . . The key Hebrew term in this
verse is bishgagah (the preposition be with/through plus the noun shegagah), which has been
variously translated as unintentionally (NKJV, NIV, NASB, etc.), through ignorance (KJV),
unwittingly (RSV, NJPS), inadvertantly (NAB), straying unintentionally (NET), or
through error (NKJV, mg.). Even though some scholars see this term limited to sins involving
some kind of ignorance (either of the act or of the sin), several lines of evidence lead me to the
conclusion that the Hebrew word shegagah includes conscious as well as unwitting sins, and
these inadvertent sins includes the whole range of sins that are not done rebelliously with a
high hand:
(a) The noun shegagah is derived from the verb shagag/shagah, which means to
wander, go astray, and is used of both unwitting and conscious going astray (Ps 119:67; Job
12:16; Prov 5:20). This verb is parallel to the NT term for sin, hamartan, which similarly
means to miss the mark (whether unwittingly or consciously).
(b) The noun shegagah elsewhere in Scripture refers to occasions which encompass both

10

Ibid., 246.

unwitting and conscious going astray (Num 35:11; Eccl 5:6; 10:5).
(c) In discussing the case of the ruler or the common Israelite, the text of Lev 4 shows
two different kinds of shegagah sins, separated by the word or (Heb. ): vv. 22 and 27
describes a conscious kind of shegagah sin, where a person sins and is cognizant of his guilt, and
vv. 23, 28 describe the or alternative, where a person is ignorant of the sin which he has
committed has to be informed of the sin (vv. 23, 28). Surprisingly, some modern versions (e.g.,
NIV, RSV, NLT) ignore or mistranslate the crucial word or (Heb. ) in the text and present all
these verses as describing the same situation.
(d) Num 15:2231 presents two overarching classes of sin: vv. 2229 describes the
shagah/bishgagah inadvertent (non-rebellious) sins, and this is contrasted in vv. 3031 with
the sin beyad ramah with a high hand, i.e., high-handed, presumptuous, rebellious, sin. The
former class can be atoned for and forgiven (through the sin/purification offering) , while the
latter class cannot has no means of atonement in the sanctuary services, but the sinner is
completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him (v. 30).
Some have argued that this passage in Num 15 presents two extreme kinds of sin, the
least serious, unwitting sin (shegagah) at one extreme (which is remedied by the sin/purification
offering), and the most serious, high-handed/rebellious sin at the other extreme (which has no
remedy). But if this is the case, then the question begs to be answered: where in the Levitical
system is provision made for what may be the largest class of sins, the conscious (but nonrebellious) going astray? There simply is no ritual mentioned for this whole major class of
sins, and one must speculate that it perhaps was cared for by the burnt offering. But this cannot
work because burnt offerings were voluntary offerings, not mandatory ones to care for specific
sins (Lev 1:3)! The best solution is to understand the word shegagah meaning inadvertent in
10

the sense of all non-rebellious sin, both unwitting and conscious, where one goes astray.
(e) This understanding matches Isaiahs description of the sins the Messianic Servant
would bear for us: All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own
way; and the Lord has laid on Him [the Messianic Servant] the iniquity of us all (Isa 53:6).
(f) This all-encompassing nature of the (non-rebellious) sin seems implied by the
introductory statement of the chapter (Lev 4:2): against any of the commandments of the LORD
in anything which ought not to be done, and does any of them. . . .
The Keil and Delitzsch Commentary has well captured the meaning of the term: sinning
in error is not merely sinning in ignorance . . . , hurry, want of consideration, or carelessness . .
. , but also sinning unintentionally . . . .; hence all such sins as spring from the weakness of flesh
and blood, as distinguished from sins committed with a high (elevated) hand, or in haughty,
defiant rebellion against God and His commandments.11
In a similar vein, R. Larid Harris concludes that the sense of the verb shagag will be
adequately caught if in all the verses concerned here in Leviticus 45, the phrase sins
unintentionally is rendered by goes astray in sin or does wrong or the like.12
The kind of animal sacrificed. The kind of animal to be sacrificed is as follows: (a) for
the priest, a young bull of the herd (v. 3); (b) for the congregation, a young bull of the herd (v.
14); (c) for the ruler, a domesticated male goat (v. 23);13 and (d) for the common person, a
domesticated female goat (v. 28) or lamb (v. 32). The kind of animal corresponds in general to
the value of the sacrifice called for, starting with the most valuable sacrifice (the bull) for the
11

C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: Pentateuch (Three Volumes in
One) (reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), 2:303.
12
R. Laird Harris, Exodus, The Expositors Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 547
548.
13
Milgrom, Leviticus 116,

11

priest and congregation, and moving to the male goat for the prince and on to the female
goat/lamb for the commoner. Although it might be argued that the female goat/lamb is more
valuable than the male in an agrarian society, a commoner, particularly a poor one, is likely to
keep only female animals, which provide sustenance, and only if he could afford it would he
retain a single male for breeding. The chieftain, by contrast, could well afford to keep several
males in his flock.14 All of these animals were to be without blemish, typifying the perfect
sacrifice of the coming Messiah (1 Pet 1:19; cf. Heb 4:15; 1 Pet 2:22).
The two kinds of procedures. In Lev 4 there are two different procedures for the
sin/purification offering. The first procedure is for the priest and the congregation, and the
second is for the individual ruler/chieftain and the common person. The initial phases of both
procedures are the same:
1. Guilt and repentance. The one who committed the sin is guilty (NKJV) and also
realizes/feels his guilt (ESV/Milgrom15): the Hebrew phrase in vv. 13, 22, and 27 probably
implies both the legal status of being guilty and the subjective experience of feeling guilt. The
realization of guilt implies in this context that the sinner has acted on this realization of guilt
and repented for what he has done wrong.
2. The animal substitute and confession. The repentant sinner brings his animal sacrifice
to the door of tabernacle (vv. 4, 14, 23, 28). The sacrificial animal is a substitute, representing
the repentant sinner who brought it. This was made apparent in Lev 1:4: It shall be accepted for
[le] him to make atonement for [le] him. The very act of bringing the sacrifice constitutes the
sinners mute confession of his sin. As Ellen White puts it: By the act of bringing the offering

14
15

Milgrom, Leviticus 116, 252.

Ibid., 226.

12

to the sanctuary, the individual confessed himself a sinner, deserving the wrath of God, and
signified his repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, whose blood would remove the guilt of the
transgressor.16
3. Hand-leaning, thus transferring sin to the sacrifice. The repentant sinner lays/leans
his hand on the head of the animal (vv. 4, 15, 24, 29). We have already noted in our discussion
of the burnt offering in a previous chapter (10), that the hand-laying/leaning upon the sacrificial
animal ultimately points to the idea of transfer of sin from the sinner to the animal substitute.
This is evident especially in the language used to describe the meaning of the whole
sin/purification ritual (Lev 4:26): the priest must perform the rite of expiation for him to free
him from his sin (NJB); this implies that the sin has been transferred from the sinner. It is also
evident in the language regarding the priests eating of the meat of the sin/purification offering
for the individual (Lev 10:17): God has given it to you [the priests] to bear [Heb. nasa, carry
off, take away, remove] the guilt of the congregation. These passages are discussed further
below; see also Excursus B at the end of the chapter for summary of additional biblical evidence
for hand placement symbolizing transfer.
4. Death of the sin-bearing substitute. The repentant sinner then slays the animal before
the Lord (vv. 4, 15, 24, 29). This underscores that it is our sins that ultimately caused the death of
the Lamb (see Isa 53:5, 6, 8), who bore our sins as our Substitute on the Cross (2 Cor 5:14, 15; 1
Pet 2:24).
In the last phases of the two procedures there are distinct differences in what is done with
the animal by the priest. For a sin of the priest and the whole congregation, the priest (5) brings

16

Ellen White, Signs of the Times, July 15, 1880.

13

some of the blood into the Holy Place, (6) dips his finger in the blood and sprinkles some of it
seven times before the Lord in front of the inner veil, (7) daubs some of the blood on the horns of
the altar of incense, (8) pours the rest of the blood at the base of the outer altar, (9) removes the
suet, (10) burns the suet on the altar, (11) carries the remainder of the animal to a clean place
outside the camp, and (12) incinerates the remainder of the animal (vv. 57, 1618).
For a sin of the individual ruler and individual common person, the priest (5) collects the
blood, (6) daubs with his finger some of the blood on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, (7)
pours the rest of the blood at the base of the altar, (8) removes the suet, (9) burns the suet on the
altar, (10) and eats the meat of the sin/purification offering (vv. 2526, 3031; 6:2530).
The ultimate result is the same for both procedures: the priest shall make atonement for
the repentant sinner(s)literally, as Gane shows, shall purge [the sin] from [Heb. min] the
sinner(s) (see NLT, NJB), implying the removal of the sin from the sinner(s);17 and the sinner(s)
will be forgiven (vv. 20, 26, 31). The fact that the verb translated will be forgiven is in the
passive (Hebrew nifal) implies that it is God who does the forgiving, not the priest!
The basic difference in these two procedures is may be boiled down to this formula:
when the blood goes into the sanctuarys Holy Place, the meat of the sacrifice is not eaten; but
when the blood does not go in, the meat of the sacrifice is eaten by the priest. Why this
difference? The answer seems clear: in the cases of the priest or of the whole congregation
(which would also include the priest), the priest cannot become the carrier of his own guilt, so
the blood goes directly into the sanctuary, as the agent of transfer carrying the sin away from the
sinner into the Holy Place. But in the case of the ruler and the individual commoner, the priest is

17

Roy Gane, Privative Preposition min in Purification Offering Pericopes and the Changing Face of
Dorian Gray, Journal of Biblical Literature 127/2 (2008): 209222.

14

not involved in the sin, and thus he can be the carrier of the sin from the sinner onto himself.
Lev 10:16, 17 makes explicit this reason, in a situation when the priests failed to eat the sin
offering: Why have you not eaten the sin offering in a holy place, since it is most holy, and God
has given it to you to bear the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them [lit., purge
from them] before the Lord? In this latter case, the sin is transferred to the sanctuary via the
priests, either by the principle of part for the whole (the priests as part of the sanctuary
representing the whole),18 or when the priests offer their own sin offering and the blood is taken
into the sanctuary.19 Ellen White seems to support this latter explanation:
The sins of the people were transferred in figure to the
officiating priest, who was a mediator for the people. The
priest could not himself become an offering for sin, and
make an atonement with his life, for he was also a sinner.
Therefore, instead of suffering death himself, he killed a
lamb without blemish; the penalty of sin was transferred to
the innocent beast, which thus became his immediate
substitute, and typified the perfect offering of Jesus Christ.
Through the blood of this victim, man looked forward by
faith to the blood of Christ which would atone for the sins
of the world.20
By means of the sin/purification offering, the sinner is purged/cleansed from the sin, he is
forgiven, and the sin is transferred to the sanctuary. In its typological fulfillment, Christ is both
the Lamb of God and the Priest-Mediator (John 1:29; Heb 8:12). He had no sin in Himself, so
as the priest He could bear the guilt of the congregationyes, the whole world! (Lev 10:17) in
His own body. He also could minister the benefits of His spilled blood in the New covenant

18

So Gane, Leviticus, Numbers, 196.

Gerhard F. Hasel, Studies in Biblical Atonement I: Continual Sacrifice, Defilement/Cleansing and
Sanctury, in The Sanctuary and Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies (Washington, D.C.:
Review and Herald, 1981), 106.
19

20

Ellen White, Selected Messages, 1:230 (=Signs of the Times, March 14, 1878).

15

heavenly sanctuary (more on this in later chapters!).

The Graded Sin/Purification (khattat) Offering (Lev 5:113)
Lev 5:113 describes a special kind of sin/purification offering (khattat, see vv. 9, 1112
for identification as sin/purification offering), in which some kind of reparation (asham,
restitution) is to be made. In these verses there is no literal amount of monetary value for the
reparation, because the moral fault lies in the area of action rather than property. The sin
involved is one of omission or neglect, in contrast to the sins of commission mentioned in Lev 4.
Perhaps because sins of omission could more easily go undetected by others, specific
requirement is made that the one who was guilty of these sins must make public confession of
his sin before bringing his guilt/trespass offering (asham) to the Lord (5:5). But note that the
confession was made before the sacrifice was brought to the priest at the sanctuary; confession
was not to a priest, but to the Lord! (We saw above that repentance and confession were also
involved implicitly in the sin/purification offering described in Lev 4).
This special kind of khattat (sin/purification offering) is graded, i.e., provision was made
that those who cannot afford the prescribed offering of a ewe lamb or female kid (v. 6), were
able to bring a less-expensive offering: two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one as a
sin/purification offering and one as a burnt offering (v. 7). If even this offering was not
affordable, the one who had sinned could bring for the sin/purification offering one-tenth of an
ephah of fine flour, unmixed with oil or frankincense (v. 11); the priest would present a handful
of the flour as a memorial portion, and burn it on the altar to the Lord, retaining the rest of the
flour as his portion, like in the grain offering (vv. 1213). As pointed out in ch. 10, this offering
of grain to make atonement for sin is the one exception to the general rule that only blood can
atone for sin (thus the statement in Hebrews 5:22 that according to the law almost all things are
16

purged with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission). But this one
exception, made in order that no one may forfeit atonement because of poverty, in no way
breaks, but rather confirms the rule that blood is the basis of atonement (Lev 17:11).
The actual ritual involved in offering the normal sin/purification offering for sins of
omission (ewe lamb or female kid) is not described (Lev 5:6), since presumably it was the same
as the sin/purification for the individual common person detailed in Lev 4:2735. Sin is
transferred into the sanctuary by the priests eating of the meat of the sacrifice, thus bearing the
guilt of the sinner (see above). But the rituals for the less-expensive offerings are modified
somewhat to fit the nature of the sacrifice (birds or fine flour), as described in Lev 5:713. It is
possible that this passage regarding the grading of offerings according to the economic ability of
the offerer (Lev 5:713) may be a subscript to the entire section dealing with sin/purification
offerings, applicable to the common persons sins described in Lev 4 as well as those described
in Lev 5:14.
The Trespass/Reparation Offering (asham, Lev 5:146:7 [Heb. 5:26])
The final kind of sacrifice described in Leviticus is the trespass/reparation offering
(asham). This involved offerings for sins for which some reparation (restitution) was required.
The standard reparation was full restitution for the harm done plus one-fifth or 20 per cent (5:16;
6:5 [Heb 5:24]). The required offering was a ram without blemish (5:1618; 6:6 [Heb 5:24]).
The details of the ritual are the same as the sin/purification offering given Lev 4:2735, as
expressly stated in Lev 7:7: The trespass [reparation] offering is like the sin [purification]
offering; there is one law for them both. As with the sin/purification offering of Lev 4, the sin
was transferred from the sinner, to the substitute (the sacrificial animal), then to the priest as he
ate the meat of the sacrifice, and thus to the sanctuary (which the priest represents, or understood
17

alternatively, when he offered a sin/purification offering for himself). The sinner was cleansed
from the sin, and the sin was transferred to the sanctuary. The only difference in the ritual was
that the blood of the trespass/reparation offering was sprinkled all around on [the sides of] the
altar [of burnt offering] (Lev 7:2), as with the burnt or peace/well-being offering, instead of
daubed on the altars horns, as with the commoners sin/purification offering (Lev 4:34). This
indicated that the expiatory significance of the blood is less in a reparation offering, . . . because
the offerer makes a literal payment for a specific amount before the reparation offering is
performed. The purification offering, by contrast, constitutes total debt payment because it
remedies sin to which no price tag can be attached.21
Various categories of sins are mentioned that required restitution. Leviticus 5:1516
mentions a person who commits a breach of faith (or sacrilege, Heb. maal) and sins
unintentionally [bishgagah] in regard to the holy things of the Lord. Leviticus 5:1718
mentions the situation in which a person, without knowing it, sins in regard to any of the
LORD's commandments about things not to be done (v. 17, NJPS). Leviticus 6:15 (Heb.
5:2124) describe situations where a person sins and commits a breach of faith (sacrilege,
Heb. maal) against the Lord by misusing human property in the context of swearing falsely in
Gods name in order to defraud (i.e., denying under oath that someone had been defrauded).22
In its typological fulfillment, the reparation offerings teach that even though we need to
seek to make things right by making restitution to those whom we have wronged, all our best
efforts are not adequate to make up for our sins. Just as reparation was made and yet the sinner
21

Roy Gane, Leviticus, Numbers (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervn, 2004), 132.
Ibid., following Milgrom, Leviticus 116, 337. It is further pointed out that such misuse of human
property could have been handled by the courts, except that it involved sacrilege against the Lord by misusing His
name in an oath, and thus the LORD had actually been made an accomplice in the defrauding of a fellow human
being.
22

18

needed to bring his sacrifice, so after we make things right where we have wronged others, we
still stand in need of forgiveness by the blood of Jesus!
The reparation offerings are ultimately fulfilled as God Himself makes reparation through
sending His Son (John 3:16). The Servant Song of Isa 53 explicitly describes the Messiah as an
asham (trespass/reparation) sacrifice. As we saw in ch. 6, this passage is linked by crucial
terminology to Gen 15 and Abrahams covenant-making ceremony, where the two Light sources,
representing the Father and the Son, walked through the pieces of the dismembered sacrifices,
thus binding Themselves to a conditional curse: Let the Godhead be ripped apart if we are not
faithful to our covenant. On the Cross, the ultimate Reparation Offering was made, as God [the
Father] was ripped from God [the Son], taking the covenant curses that we deserved (Gal 3:10
13). Praise God for making reparation for our sins, purging/cleansing them by bearing them in
our stead, and providing for us forgiveness, full and free!

Excursus A: Who is The Anointed Priest in Lev 4?

Those who identify the anointed priest in this passage as the high priest alone, point to
several lines of evidence, which on the surface may appear convincing, but upon closer
inspection, in my estimation actually point toward the interpretation of any priest.
(1) Parallel terminology. It is pointed out that this exact same Hebrew phrase appears
again in Lev 6:15 (English v. 22) in clear reference to the high priest. But a closer look at this
latter passage reveals that although the words are the same in spelling (morphology), the
grammar and syntax are very different. In Lev 4:2, the word hamashiach anointed is an
attributive adjective modifying hakohen the priestthe anointed priest, but in Lev 6:15 (Eng

19

22) the word hamashiach is a past participle. . . not a regular adjective,23 appearing in
apposition with hakohen and best translated as the one who is anointed. So Lev 6:15 (Eng 22)
reads very different from Lev 4:2: the priest from among his [Aarons] sons, [the one] who is
anointed in his stead (NKJV; cf. ESV, RSV, etc.).
(2) Use of the definite article. It is argued that the use of the definite article the implies
a particular priest, i.e., the high priest. However, the use of the definite article does not limit the
reference to the high priest, since throughout this entire chapter, every reference to the priest
employs the definite article, even in passages where commentators generally agree that reference
is being made to any of the priests, high priest or ordinary priest (vv. 25, 30, 31, 34, 35).24
Milgrom tacitly acknowledges that this argument has no real force, when he translates the term
for ruler/chieftain, nasi, without the definite article, as definite, the chieftain.25
(3) Special anointing of the high priest. It is pointed out that the high priest had a special
anointing, with oil poured on his head (Exod 29:7; Lev 8:12), while the ordinary priests (Aarons
sons) were anointed only by sprinkling oil on them (Exod 29:21; Lev 8:30), and thus reference to
the anointed priest seems to imply the high priest who had a singular kind of anointing.
However, the passages in Lev 4 referring to the anointed priest give no indication that they are
referring only to the priest who had a special anointing on the head, but simply refers to the
priest who is anointed, which terminology applies to all the priests. It is highly significant that
whenever other passages outside of Lev 4 refer to the high priest with reference to his anointing,
there is some indication in the wording of the passage that it the special anointing of the high
priest and not the general anointing of any priest that is in view (see Lev 6:15 [Eng 22];16:32;

23
24

Milgrom, Leviticus 116, 400.

See, e.g., Milgrom, Leviticus 116, 249.

20

21:10; and Num 35:25).

(4) Priests sin bringing harm on the congregation. It is suggested that the reference to
the anointed priests sin as bringing guilt/detriment on the people (Lev 4:3) seems particularly
appropriate for the high priest as representative of the whole congregation. However, it is
instructive to note that the only passage in the Pentateuch which describes priestly conduct
bringing harm to the community, Lev 10:6, this passage explicitly refers to all the priests (Aaron
and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar), and not just the high priest!
(5) Shift from high priest to ordinary priest in Lev 4. It is contended that the reference
to the anointed priest in the first half of Lev 4 and its omission in the second half indicates a
shift from high priest in the first half to the regular priest in the second half. However, the same
term hakohen the priest by itself is used throughout Lev 4, and there is no clear indication of a
shift from reference to high priest in the first half of the chapter (vv. 6, 7, 10, 17, 20) to
reference to any priest in the last half of the chapter (vv. 25, 26, 30, 31, 34, 35), although
commentators are agreed that any priest is in view in the last half of the chapter. The
references to the priest in the earlier part of the chapter emphasize his anointed status, and then
the shortened form the priest is used throughout the rest of the chapter, just as throughout
Leviticus the complete version of a given ritual is stated when it is first mentioned and then
abbreviated statements of that ritual are used in subsequent references. That no shift from one
kind of priest to another is intended in Lev 4 is underscored in Num 15:25, 28, where the
procedure for the sin/purification offering of the congregation is summarized, followed
immediately by the procedure for the sin/purification offering of the individual, and in both cases
the very same term, the priest (hakohen) is used to describe the one who officiates in the
25

Ibid., 246.

21

offering, although in Lev 4 the anointed priest is used for the first and not for the second.
In addition to these points, I have found other evidence, or implications of the above
evidence, that leads me to the conclusion that it is any priest that is referred to by the term the
anointed priest in Lev 4 refers to any of Israels priests and not just the high priest.
(6) Non-usage of the anointed priest for high priest elsewhere in Scripture. Since the
exact phrase hakohen hamashiach, in its only other Scriptural occurrence in Lev 6:15 (Eng 22)
has different grammar syntax than in Lev 4, there is therefore no reference in Scripture outside of
Lev 4 which uses a grammatically-syntactically equivalent term to refer to the high priest.
(7) Other terms for high priest used elsewhere in Scripture. Stated differently, whenever
the high priest is specifically referred to in Scripture outside of Lev 4, another term than the
anointed priest is employed.
(8) Rabbinic usage. This is also true in rabbbinic tradition; never is the term hakohen
hamashiach used to refer to the high priest.26
(9) Num 3:3. One passage in Scripture, Num 3:3, does use the exact phrase the anointed
priest in the same way (grammatically/syntactically) as in Lev 4, but in its plural form, the
anointed priests (hakohenim hamshuchim), and this phrase clearly refers to the regular priests,
Aarons sons, not to the high priest. Thus the only exact terminological parallel, in terms of
grammar and syntax, points to the ordinary priests, and not solely the high priest.
(10) Preceding context. The immediate preceding context of Lev 4 is important to notice.
Scholars have pointed out that the early chapters of Leviticus presuppose the information
supplied in the latter part of Exodus. In the last part of Exodus, seven verses refer to the
anointing of Aaron and his sons: Exod 28:41; 29:7, 21; 30:30; 40:1315. The same word for

22

anoint is used for both the regular priests and high priest, even though the procedure of
anointing is different. In Lev 4, there is no indication that it is the special anointing of the head
(for the high priest) that is in view, but only to the fact that the priest has been anointed. As
pointed out above, this is unlike all the other references later in the Pentateuch, where the special
anointing of the high priest is clearly in view. With no indication in this passage of any specific
anointing, it seems fair to assume that no distinction is being made in this passage between
regular and high priest.
(11) Ordinary priests do not fit in the category of the common people. If the anointed
priest does not include the ordinary priests, then there is no category in Lev 4 where the
ordinary priests fit. Since the use of nephesh person in Lev 4:2 implies that Lev 4 is
encompassing all the people of Israel, some scholars, such as Milgrom, affirm that the ordinary
priests fit under the fourth category, dealing with the common people [lit. people of the
land].27 But in his very next sentence, Milgrom contradicts his own position by showing that
elsewhere in Scripture the term people of the land denotes those who are neither the ruler nor
priests (Ezek 45:22; cf. 7:27; 45:16) and those who are neither king, nor officials, nor priests (Jer
1:18; Hag 2:4).28 Placing the ordinary priests in the fourth category does not fit the biblical data.
(12) Priests cannot bear the guilt of their own sins. A decisive reason that the ordinary
priests cannot be placed in the fourth category with the rest of the populace is that part of the
sacrifice which is for the sins of the common people is to be eaten by the priest (Lev 6:2630),
who thus bears the guilt of the congregation (Lev 10:17). The priest cannot bear the guilt of
his own sins!

26
27

Milgrom, Leviticus 116, 231.

Milgrom, Leviticus 116, 251252.

23

In light of the above considerations, I find it preferable to take the term the anointed
priest to refer to any of the priests, including both the high priest and the ordinary priests.

Excursus B: Does Hand-Placement on the Sacrificial Animal Signify Transfer of Sin?

Traditionally, both Jewish and Christian expositors have argued that the basic meaning of
hand placement in Scripture is transfer. In general, Christian understanding of the typology of
the sin/purification offering has until recently has been that when the repentant sinner placed his
hand(s) on the sacrificial animal, this symbolized the transfer of the sins from the sinner to his
animal substitute, and pointed forward to Christs taking on of the sins of the world as our SinBearer (Isaiah 53). But in modern liberal-critical exegesis, which has no use for the concept of
substitution or transfer of sin, this consensus has been replaced by various ideas of what handplacement means.
A pivotal study by David P. Wright29 argues that there are two forms of the gesture in
Scripture, the one-handed form and the two-handed form. Wright further claims that the
laying on of two hands all occur in non-sacrificial contexts, while in a sacrificial context it is
always only one hand which is placed on the animal. Wright summarizes the various meanings
of the two-handed formtransfer and identificationand rejects transfer in favor of
identification. He also summarizes the various views of the one-hand placement on animal
sacrifices. These include the ideas of (a) transfer of sin or guilt (the traditional view); (b) transfer
of the offerers personality/emotion to identify the animal as the offerers substitute; (c) transfer
of the offerers personality/emotion to identify the animal as the offerers gift to God; (d)

28
29

Ibid., 252.
David P. Wright, The Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite Literature, Journal

24

dedication of the animal; and (e) demonstration of the offerers ownership of the animal. 30
Based largely on his presuppositions which deny the validity of the substitution theory of
sacrifice, Wright out of hand31 rejects any notion of transfer, and argues for the ownership
interpretation.
As I have looked at the biblical evidence, I am not convinced that there is a clear
distinction between the meaning of placing one hand or placing two hands. An Andrews
University doctoral dissertation dealing with the laying on of hands on Joshua in Num 27:1223
and Deut 34:9, shows that there was no real concern with whether one or two hands were laid on
him. According to Num 27:18, God told Moses to lay your hand [singular] on him. But when
Moses carried out Gods instruction, the record states that he laid his hands [dual, signifying
two] on him and inaugurated him (v. 23; cf. Deut 34:9). Apparently the number of hands was
not the issue, and whether one or two, there was no change of meaning. Likewise, although
Wright claims that all cases involving sacrifice, there was only one hand laid on the animal, this
is not at all clear. See, for example, in the anointing service of Aaron and his sons (Exod 29:10,
15, 19; Lev 8:14, 18, 22), they were to put their hands [plural] on the head of the sacrificial
animal. Wright claims that this means each person puts one hand on the animal, but such cannot
be proven from the text. Likewise, in the case of the sin/purification offering for the
congregation, the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands [plural] on the head of the
bull (Lev 4:15); and there is no way of proving whether this means one hand for each person or
both hands for each person. See also other passages where this same ambiguity exists: Lev

of the American Oriental Society 106 (1986): 433446.

30
See ibid., 436438, for representatives of all these views.
31
Ibid., 437, Wright rejects the idea of transfer of sin because, as he states, It is informed by the
substitution theory of sacrifice which is untenable.

25

24:14; and Num 8:10, 12. According to Jewish tradition, as represented in the Talmud, the one
who offered the sacrifice laid two hands upon the sacrificial animal.32 One can either posit a
mistake in the interpretation, or as I prefer, one can see that even in rabbinic times it was
understood correctly that there is no concern for or distinction between how many hands are laid
upon the animal. In light of the ambiguous usage in various biblical passages and in Jewish
tradition, I find it doubtful that one can make a distinction between one-hand and two-hand
placement in Scripture. Others have recently come to the same conclusion.33
If this is the case, then examples from non-sacrificial contexts should not be ignored in
seeking to determine the meaning of the hand-placement gesture. I do not deny the possibility
and even probability of various related meanings of hand placement occurring the same passage,
since in ritual A given activity can carry more than one meaning at the same time.34 But my
purpose here is to look at evidence from Scripture that points to transfer as a primary (if not the
primary) meaning of this gesture:
(1) Lev 16:21 is the clearest passage. In the context of the Day of Atonement, after
completing the cleansing of the sanctuary, the high priest, who carries the sins out of sanctuary in
his person, shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities
of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the
head of the goat. With regard to this passage, it is unanimously agreed that the passage speaks
of transference of guilt.35 This passage I find to clearly teach that hand-laying symbolizes
transfer, in this case, of the sins of the people. In ancient Jewish exegesis, the meaning of the
32

m. Menach. 9:8.
See Mattingly, xxx. Cf. N. Kuichi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 113: the difference in form as such does not necessarily imply a difference in the
meaning of the gesture. In fact, the imposition of both hands in Lev 16.21 may simply solemnize the rite.
34
Gane, Cult and Character, 8.
33

26

imposition of hands in Lev 16.21, i.e., the transference of sin, was the model on which other
cases of the rite in sacrificial contexts should be construed.36 In Lev 16:21, The imposition of
both hands to two hands may simply solemnize the rite37 or may intensify the meaning of the
gesture since all the sins of Israel for the year are being transferred to the live goat (Lev 16:21
22).
(2) Num 27:1820 indicates that among the various symbolic meanings of the laying on
of hands was transfer, in this case, Moses honor/authority (Heb. hod): Take Joshua. . . and lay
your hands on him. . . and you shall transfer some of your authority to him (NLT). Likewise,
Deut 34:9 implies a transfer of Moses spirit of wisdom to Joshua with the laying on of hands:
Now Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands on
him.
(3) Lev 24:14 describes the case of the blasphemer; the members of the congregation
were who heard him blaspheme were to places their hands on his head. It seems likely that by
this gesture they were not only identifying the blasphemer but also transferring any responsibility
for the crime or liability for punishment from themselves to the blasphemer.
(4) Num 8:1012 describes the laying on of hands by the entire congregation of Israel
upon the Levites. In light of vv. 1618, where it is repeatedly stated that God was accepting the
Levites in place of the firstborn of all the children of Israel, it seems clear that the congregation
was placing their hands upon the Levites, in order to transfer to them the responsibility that had
been originally assigned to the firstborn of all Israel.
(5) Lev 10:17. Moving to the sacrificial contexts, the idea of transfer seems clear in Lev

35
36

Kuichi, Purification Offering, 113.

Ibid. (See note 8 which supplies references to the ancient sources.)

27

10:17, where Moses specifically identifies the meaning of the eating of the meat of the
sin/purification offering by the priests: For it is most holy, and He [God] gave it to you to bear
away [Heb. nasa] the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD
(NASB). This verse clarifies by implication, that the sin is removed from the sinner to the
sacrifice by the laying on of hands, and then after the animal is slain, the priest carries the sin
from the animal by eating of its flesh, and becomes responsible for the sin and liable for
punishment. Lev 5:1 clarifies that when a person sins, that person bears his iniquity/guilt
(Heb. nasa awon). But after the sacrificial ritual, he is forgiven his sin (v. 10), and the priest is
bearing his sin/guilt! The logical conclusion is that the sin was transferred to the sacrificial
animal via the hand placement, and on to the priest as he ate the sacrifice.
(6) Lev 1:4 points to the meaning of substitution and also ultimately implies transfer of
sins. As we have noted above, the sacrificial animal is a substitute, representing the repentant
sinner who brought it. This was made apparent in Lev 1:4: It shall be accepted for [le] him to
make atonement for [le] him. The placement of hands on the animal does not just symbolize
ownership (this animal is mine) but also substitution (this animal is me!). Inasmuch as the
sacrificial animal becomes the substitute for the sinner, implicitly is indicated that the offerers
sins have been transferred to the animal substitute, who then dies in his place, symbolically
paying the debt for the sins that are born (and pointing to the ultimate Sacrifice who would in
reality pay the debt for those sins!)
(7) Lev 4:26 describes the meaning of the ritual of the sin/purification offering, in this
case for the leader: the priest will purify [kipper] the leader from [Heb. prep. min] his sin
(NLT). The NJB translates similarly: the priest must perform the rite of expiation [Heb. kipper]
37

Ibid.

28

for him to free him from [Heb. min] his sin. As we have noted above, this implies that the sin
has been transferred from the sinner.38 The sinner is cleansed, and his substitute, the sacrificial
animal, has symbolically born his penalty in its death.
(8) Lev 17:11 describes the meaning of the blood in the sacrificial system: For the life of
the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your
souls [literally, in exchange for the person]; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the
soul [lit. in exchange for the person]. The best translation of the key phrase in this passage,
in exchange for the person,39 highlights both the concept of substitution and transfer that is
involved in the sacrifice. If the animals blood has been accepted in exchange for the
repentant sinner who offers the sacrifice, then the offerers sins have been transferred to the
animal, and the only part of the ritual that can symbolize this is the laying on of hands.
(9) Isa 53:10 depicts the Messianic Servant as being offered up as an asham sacrifice, as
we have noted above. The asham offering, like the sin/purification offering, involves the laying
on of hands by the offerer upon the head of the sacrifice. Isa 53 makes clear, by repeated
statements underscoring this concept, that involved in the Messianic Servants death is the
concept of substitution and transfer of sins. See especially v. 6: the Lord has laid on Him the
iniquity of us all. Verse 4 makes the same point: Surely He has borne our griefs and carried
our sorrows. Again, v. 8: For the transgressions of My people He was stricken. Again, v. 11:
For He shall bear their iniquities. And the last verse of the Servant Songs: And He was
numbered with the transgressors and He bore the sin of many (v. 12). Transfer of sin is part and

38

See the article by Gane, Privative Preposition min in Purification Offering Pericopes, for detailed
analysis of this passage.
39
See Angel Rodriguez, Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus and in Cultic-Related Texts (AUSD, 3; Berrien
Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1979), 250.

29

parcel of the Messiahs asham sacrifice!

(10) Lev 16:16. Finally, in the Day of Atonement, we find that all of the sins of the
children of Israel that have been committed during the year, are symbolically present in the
sanctuary (Lev 16:16). This only makes sense if these sins were transferred to the animal
sacrifice, and then on via the priest or via the sin-laden blood to the sanctuary, to await cleansing
on the Day of Atonement.
We will look in more detail at the Day of Atonement services in the next chapter. . .

30