Chapter 4
Sacrifice and Atonement in the Old Testament Levitical System

Introduction: Why the Sacrificial System Matters

If you have ever opened the book of Leviticus and found yourself puzzled—or even a little disturbed—by its detailed instructions about slaughtering animals, sprinkling blood, and burning offerings on an altar, you are not alone. For many modern readers, the Old Testament sacrificial system feels strange, even primitive. What could these ancient rituals possibly have to do with us today? Why would God ask His people to kill lambs and goats and bulls? And what does any of this have to do with the death of Jesus Christ on the cross?

The answer, I believe, is: everything. The Old Testament sacrificial system is not some outdated relic of a bygone religious era. It is the essential theological foundation upon which the entire New Testament understanding of Christ's death is built. When the apostle Paul wrote that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3, ESV), the "Scriptures" he had in mind were the very passages we will explore in this chapter—the Levitical laws, the sacrificial rituals, and the rich theological grammar of substitution, blood, expiation, propitiation, and sin-bearing that runs through the entire Old Testament.¹

Here is the thesis of this chapter: The Old Testament sacrificial system, far from being primitive or arbitrary, provides the essential theological grammar for understanding the atonement—a grammar of substitution, blood, expiation, propitiation, and the bearing of sin that the New Testament authors presuppose and fulfill in Christ. Without this grammar, we cannot fully understand what happened at the cross. With it, the death of Jesus comes alive with meaning and purpose.

We will walk through the major categories of Levitical sacrifice one by one, paying close attention to what each reveals about God, sin, and the way back to fellowship with Him. Along the way, we will explore the theology of blood, the meaning of the laying on of hands, and the crucial Hebrew concept of kipper (atonement). We will also engage with scholars who challenge the substitutionary reading of the sacrificial system, and I will explain why I believe that reading is the most faithful to the biblical text.

The Sacrificial System in Its Ancient Context

Before we dive into the specific offerings, we need to step back and see the big picture. God established the Mosaic covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai, and integral to that covenant was a system of priestly sacrifice. God required Israel to approach Him through offerings. In a world where humanity was separated from God by sin, the sacrificial system was God's appointed way of bridging that gap—of providing a means by which sinful people could draw near to a holy God and maintain their covenant relationship with Him.

David Allen summarizes the foundational reality well: God is the only Savior of Israel and of the world. He instituted the Mosaic law for Israel with its priestly sacrificial system. God required a sacrificial system in which the basic concept of atonement was a covering for sin by means of a sacrifice.² Although the exact mechanics of how sacrifice "works" are never explained in detail, the concept is assumed throughout the Old Testament. God provided the system. God set the terms. And at its heart lay the principle of substitution.

Now, some scholars have questioned whether the Old Testament sacrifices were truly substitutionary. William Hess, for instance, argues that the Levitical offerings are better understood as "participatory" rather than "substitutionary." In his view, the offerings were not given in place of the individual but were instead gestures of love for God, ways of sharing in a relationship with the Creator. Hess contends that because not all offerings require the slaughter of an animal and because there are multiple participants in these rituals, the concept of participation fits better than substitution.³

I appreciate Hess's emphasis on the relational dimension of Israel's worship—there is no question that the sacrificial system was about maintaining a covenant relationship with God. But I think he draws a false either-or. The offerings can be both participatory and substitutionary. In fact, the relational goal of the sacrificial system is precisely what makes substitution necessary. Because sin breaks the relationship, something must be done to repair it. And the mechanism God chose for that repair was substitutionary sacrifice—an innocent life given in place of a guilty one so that fellowship could be restored. Let me show you why I believe this from the texts themselves.

The Burnt Offering (Olah, עֹלָה) — Leviticus 1

The first offering described in the book of Leviticus is the burnt offering, called olah (עֹלָה) in Hebrew. The word literally means "that which goes up"—referring to the smoke of the offering ascending to God. The entire animal was consumed on the altar; nothing was kept back for the priest or the worshiper to eat. This complete consumption made the burnt offering a powerful symbol of total consecration and wholehearted devotion to God.

Leviticus 1:3–4 sets out the basic procedure:

"If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish. He shall bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD. He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him." (Lev 1:3–4, ESV)

Several details here are theologically rich. First, the animal must be "without blemish"—it must be perfect, unblemished, the best the worshiper has to offer. This requirement points forward to Christ, whom the New Testament describes as "a lamb without blemish or spot" (1 Pet 1:19, ESV). Second, the worshiper lays his hand on the animal's head, an action whose meaning we will examine more fully below. Third, and crucially, the text says that the offering "shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him." The burnt offering was not merely a gift or a gesture of devotion. It accomplished something: atonement. It was accepted in the worshiper's place.

Allen observes that three principles emerge from the Old Testament sacrifices: the sacrifice is offered to God, who is holy; the sacrifice involves substitution of the innocent for the guilty; and the laying on of hands indicates substitution by incorporation.⁴ Even in this very first offering, we already see the core grammar of the atonement at work: a sinful person approaches a holy God, an innocent victim is offered in the person's place, and atonement—a restored relationship—is the result.

The burnt offering also carried a broader significance of consecration. Because the entire animal was consumed, it symbolized the worshiper's complete surrender to God. In this sense, Hess is right that the offering involved participation in a relationship. But the relational dimension does not erase the substitutionary one. The text is explicit that the offering makes atonement for the worshiper—that is, on his behalf, in his stead. As John Stott notes, the various offerings all shared a basic ritual in which the worshiper brought the offering, laid hands on it, and killed it—vivid symbolism in which the substitute animal was killed in recognition that the penalty for sin was death.⁵

The Grain Offering (Minchah, מִנְחָה) — Leviticus 2

The second offering described in Leviticus is the grain offering, called minchah (מִנְחָה) in Hebrew. The word simply means "gift" or "tribute." Unlike the other offerings, the grain offering did not involve the slaughter of an animal. It consisted of fine flour, oil, and frankincense, and a portion was burned on the altar while the rest went to the priests.

The grain offering is important for what it reveals about the breadth of Israel's worship. Not everything in the sacrificial system was about atoning for sin. The grain offering expressed devotion, gratitude, and dependence on God as the provider of daily sustenance. It acknowledged God as Creator and Sustainer. However, the grain offering was typically presented alongside one of the blood sacrifices—it was not offered alone as a means of atonement. This tells us something important: the grain offering, wonderful as it was, could not by itself deal with the problem of sin. For that, blood had to be shed.

There is a beautiful humility in the grain offering. The worshiper brought the work of his own hands—the grain he had grown, the oil he had pressed—and presented it to God as an acknowledgment that everything he had ultimately came from God's hand. The frankincense burned on the altar sent up a fragrant aroma, described in the Hebrew as a reach nichoach—a "pleasing aroma" to the Lord (Lev 2:2). This same language of a "pleasing aroma" is later applied to Christ's self-offering: Paul writes that Christ "gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" (Eph 5:2, ESV). Even this non-blood offering anticipated something about the character of Christ's sacrifice—its voluntary beauty, its pleasing quality before the Father.

This point matters because it shows that while the sacrificial system included offerings of gratitude and devotion (the relational dimension Hess emphasizes), the system also recognized that something more was needed when it came to sin. When sin entered the picture, an innocent life had to be given. Flour and oil and incense were not enough. The problem of sin required the shedding of blood.

The Peace/Fellowship Offering (Shelamim, שְׁלָמִים) — Leviticus 3

The peace offering, or fellowship offering, is called shelamim (שְׁלָמִים) in Hebrew. The root of the word is shalom—peace, wholeness, well-being. This offering was unique because it was the only one in which the worshiper shared in eating the sacrifice. Part of the animal was burned on the altar, part went to the priest, and part was eaten by the worshiper and his family in a communal meal before the Lord.

The peace offering celebrated the reconciliation and communion between God and His people. It was a meal of fellowship, a joyful acknowledgment that all was right between the worshiper and his God. It could be offered as an expression of thanksgiving (Lev 7:12), in fulfillment of a vow (Lev 7:16), or as a voluntary, freewill expression of devotion.

Stott helpfully distinguishes two basic categories of Old Testament sacrifice. The first expresses the human sense of belonging to God by right—and includes the fellowship offering, the burnt offering, and the harvest festivals. The second expresses the human sense of alienation from God because of sin—and includes the sin offering and the guilt offering. Stott notes that both kinds of sacrifice were recognitions of God's grace and expressions of dependence upon it. But it was the second category—the sin offerings and guilt offerings—that formed the foundation of the first, because reconciliation with the divine Judge was necessary before worship of the Creator could be properly offered.⁶

This is an important principle. Before fellowship with God can be celebrated, sin must be dealt with. The peace offering presupposes the sin offering. Joy and communion are only possible because atonement has already been made. In Hezekiah's purification of the temple, for instance, the sin offering "to atone for all Israel" was sacrificed before the burnt offering (2 Chron 29:20–24). Atonement comes first; celebration follows. This is exactly the pattern we see fulfilled in the gospel: Christ's atoning death makes possible our peace with God (Rom 5:1).

The Sin Offering (Chattath, חַטָּאת) — Leviticus 4–5:13

Now we come to the offerings most directly related to the atonement: the sin offering and the guilt offering. The sin offering is called chattath (חַטָּאת) in Hebrew. The word is closely related to the ordinary Hebrew word for "sin," and in fact the same word can mean either "sin" or "sin offering" depending on context. Some scholars, including Hess, prefer the translation "purification offering," arguing that the primary purpose was to purify the sanctuary from the contaminating effects of sin rather than to punish sin or provide a substitute.⁷ I will return to this debate shortly.

The sin offering was prescribed for unintentional sins—sins committed out of ignorance or carelessness (Lev 4:2). The ritual varied depending on who had sinned. If the high priest sinned, a bull was required (Lev 4:3). If the whole congregation sinned, a bull was again required (Lev 4:14). If a leader sinned, a male goat was brought (Lev 4:23). And if a common person sinned, a female goat or lamb was offered (Lev 4:28, 32). There was even provision for those who were too poor to afford a goat or lamb—they could bring two turtledoves or pigeons, or even a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lev 5:7–13). This sliding scale reveals something beautiful about God's character: He ensured that atonement was accessible to everyone, regardless of economic status.

The blood manipulation in the sin offering is especially important. For the sins of the high priest or the congregation, blood was sprinkled seven times before the veil of the sanctuary, applied to the horns of the altar of incense, and the rest was poured out at the base of the altar of burnt offering (Lev 4:5–7, 16–18). For the sins of a leader or a common person, blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering and the rest poured out at the base (Lev 4:25, 30, 34). The more serious the sin—or more precisely, the higher the status of the sinner—the deeper into the sanctuary the blood had to go. This shows us that sin defiles God's dwelling place, and the blood of the sacrifice cleanses and purifies it.

The key phrase in each description of the sin offering is this: "and the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven" (Lev 4:26, 31, 35, ESV, emphasis added). Atonement leads to forgiveness. The sacrifice does something real—it removes the barrier of sin and restores the worshiper's standing before God.

Notice the specific sequence in the ritual. The worshiper brings the animal. He lays his hand on its head. The animal is killed. The priest takes the blood and applies it in the prescribed manner. And then—and only then—atonement is made and the worshiper is forgiven. Each step is essential. You cannot skip the death of the animal and jump straight to forgiveness. You cannot omit the blood and still have atonement. The entire ritual is structured around the principle that sin is serious, that it has real consequences, and that dealing with it requires the costly gift of an innocent life. This sequence anticipates the New Testament's own logic: it is through the blood of Christ—His life given in death—that we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins (Eph 1:7).

It is also worth noting what the sin offering tells us about the nature of sin itself. Sin in the Old Testament is not just a moral failing—it is a force that contaminates, defiles, and disrupts the created order. It pollutes the very space where God dwells. This is why the blood of the sin offering had to be applied to the sanctuary furniture: sin's pollution had reached God's dwelling place and had to be purged. The deeper the sin's contamination, the deeper into the sanctuary the blood had to penetrate. This gives us a visceral, tangible picture of what sin does—it invades sacred space, pushes back against God's holy presence, and creates a barrier between the holy God and His sinful people. The sin offering addressed all of this: it dealt with the guilt of the sinner, cleansed the contamination of the sanctuary, and restored the conditions for God's continued dwelling among His people.

The Purification Debate: Substitution or Cleansing?

Now, there is an important scholarly debate about what the sin offering primarily accomplished. Some scholars, particularly those working in the tradition of Jacob Milgrom, argue that the sin offering was primarily a purification ritual. In this view, sin contaminates the sanctuary—God's dwelling place—and the blood of the sin offering cleanses and purges the sanctuary of that contamination. The focus is on removing impurity from sacred space rather than on punishing the sinner or providing a substitute to bear the sinner's penalty.⁸

Hess picks up this line of argument, contending that the sin offering (which he prefers to call the "purification offering") functioned to purify the soul, wipe away the debt, and cleanse the sacred space. He emphasizes that this purification reconciled Israel back to God and argues against reading penal substitution into these rituals.⁹

There is genuine insight here. The purification dimension of the sin offering is real and important. The blood rituals clearly have a cleansing function—they purge the sanctuary of the defilement caused by sin. But I believe it is a mistake to pit purification against substitution, as though we must choose one or the other. The text itself holds both together. The animal dies in the process of providing this purification. Its life is given so that the worshiper's life is spared. The laying on of hands establishes a connection between the worshiper and the animal. And the result is that the worshiper "shall be forgiven"—language that presupposes real guilt, not merely ritual contamination.

As Allen argues, the substitution of the animal for the worshiper indicates that the sacrifice was both vicarious and penal. The death of the animal, signified by the shed blood, became the medium of sin's expiation and forgiveness.¹⁰ Substitution and purification are not competing explanations. They are complementary dimensions of a single complex reality. The animal dies as a substitute so that the sanctuary is purified and the sinner is forgiven.

The Guilt/Trespass Offering (Asham, אָשָׁם) — Leviticus 5:14–6:7

The fifth and final main category of Levitical sacrifice is the guilt offering, or trespass offering, called asham (אָשָׁם) in Hebrew. While the sin offering dealt with the contaminating effects of sin in general, the guilt offering focused specifically on cases where someone had violated another person's rights or committed a trespass against God's holy things. It was, in a sense, a reparation offering—it addressed specific, concrete offenses that required not only atonement but also restitution.

The guilt offering was required in cases such as unintentional trespass against holy things (Lev 5:14–16), uncertain guilt (Lev 5:17–19), and deliberate offenses involving fraud, theft, or deceit against a neighbor (Lev 6:1–7). In the case of deliberate offenses, the offender was required to make full restitution plus an additional twenty percent before bringing the guilt offering (Lev 6:5). The sacrifice itself was a ram without blemish, and the blood was thrown against the sides of the altar (Lev 7:2).

What makes the guilt offering especially significant for atonement theology is that this is the very term used in Isaiah 53:10 to describe the Servant's death. The prophet declares that the Suffering Servant's life is made "an offering for guilt" (asham). As we will see in Chapter 6, where Isaiah 53 receives its full exegetical treatment, this deliberate use of sacrificial terminology is enormously important. It tells us that the Old Testament prophets themselves understood the Servant's coming death in terms drawn from the Levitical sacrificial system. The Servant's death is not merely martyrdom or an example of faithfulness—it is a guilt offering, a sacrifice that makes reparation for the offenses of others.¹¹

The Laying On of Hands (Semikah, סְמִיכָה): What Did It Mean?

One of the most theologically significant actions in the entire sacrificial system is the laying on of hands, called semikah (סְמִיכָה) in Hebrew. Before the sacrificial animal was killed, the worshiper placed his hand (or hands) on the animal's head. We saw this in the burnt offering (Lev 1:4), and it appears throughout the sacrificial legislation. But what did this gesture actually mean? This question is at the center of one of the most important debates in Old Testament sacrificial theology, and the answer has enormous implications for whether we understand the sacrifices as substitutionary.

There are essentially three main views:

View 1: Transference of sin. In this view, the laying on of hands symbolically transferred the worshiper's sin and guilt to the animal. The animal then bore the sin on behalf of the worshiper and died in the worshiper's place. This view has strong support from the scapegoat ritual on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:21), where the high priest explicitly confesses the people's sins over the goat's head with his hands laid upon it, and the goat carries the sins away into the wilderness. Many evangelical scholars, following this line of reasoning, understand the semikah as a symbolic act of sin transference that establishes the animal as a genuine substitute.¹²

View 2: Identification and designation. Other scholars argue that the laying on of hands primarily identified the animal as the worshiper's personal offering, designating it as the one being given over to God on the worshiper's behalf. In this view, the gesture does not necessarily transfer sin but rather marks the animal as belonging to the worshiper and standing in the worshiper's place. Stott describes the action as the worshiper "certainly identifying themselves with it and 'solemnly' designating 'the victim as standing for him.'"¹³

View 3: Designation of a representative. Hess takes a version of this third view, arguing that the semikah is a designation of a representative, not a transference of sin. He points to other uses of laying on hands in the Torah—such as appointing a successor (Num 27:18), sanctifying the Levites (Num 8:10), and commissioning leaders (Deut 34:9)—and argues that the simplest reading is that the worshiper was identifying the sacrifice as an offering and giving it over to God, demonstrating humility and moral uprightness.¹⁴

How should we evaluate these views? I believe the evidence best supports a combination of the first two: the laying on of hands both identified the worshiper with the animal and transferred the worshiper's sin and guilt to it. Here is why.

First, the scapegoat ritual of Leviticus 16 provides the clearest interpretive key. In that ritual, the laying on of hands is explicitly accompanied by the confession of sins, and the goat is said to "bear all their iniquities" away into the wilderness (Lev 16:21–22). If the semikah in the scapegoat ritual involves the transference of sin, it is reasonable to understand the same gesture in the other sacrifices as carrying a similar significance—especially since all these rituals belong to the same sacrificial system established by the same God.

Second, while Hess is correct that laying on of hands appears in non-sacrificial contexts (such as commissioning leaders), this does not negate the sacrificial meaning of the gesture in the context of sacrificial rituals. Words and gestures can carry different nuances in different contexts. The relevant question is: what does the laying on of hands mean in the context of an animal being killed as a sacrifice for sin? In that specific context, the most natural reading is that the worshiper is symbolically transferring guilt and identifying the animal as a substitute.

Third, the result clause in Leviticus 1:4 is telling: the worshiper lays his hand on the burnt offering, "and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him." The language of acceptance "for him" implies that the animal stands in the worshiper's place. It is accepted where the worshiper himself could not be. This is the language of substitution.

Allen summarizes the evidence by identifying three principles in the Old Testament sacrifices: the sacrifice is offered to God, who is holy; it is a substitution of the innocent for the guilty; and the laying on of hands indicates substitution by incorporation.¹⁵ I believe this reading does the most justice to the full range of evidence.

The Theology of Blood: Life Given in Death

No discussion of Old Testament sacrifice can avoid the topic of blood. Blood is everywhere in the Levitical system. Animals are slaughtered, blood is collected in basins, blood is sprinkled on altars and veils and mercy seats, blood is poured out at the base of the altar. For modern readers, this can feel overwhelming—even repulsive. But the Old Testament makes clear that the blood is not incidental to the sacrificial system. It is the very heart of it.

The key text is Leviticus 17:11:

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life." (Lev 17:11, ESV)

This single verse is one of the most important theological statements in the entire Old Testament regarding sacrifice, and it deserves careful attention. Three crucial affirmations are packed into it.

First, blood is the symbol of life. "The life of the flesh is in the blood." This is an ancient understanding, going back at least to Noah, whom God forbade to eat meat with its lifeblood still in it (Gen 9:4). The blood represents the life of the creature. But the emphasis is not on blood flowing in veins—the symbol of life being lived. Rather, as Stott observes, the emphasis is on blood shed—the symbol of life ended, usually by violent means.¹⁶ When blood is shed in sacrifice, it represents a life given up in death.

Second, blood makes atonement. And the reason for its atoning power is given in the repetition of the word "life": "it is the blood that makes atonement by the life." One life is forfeit because of sin; another life is sacrificed instead. What makes atonement on the altar is the shedding of substitutionary lifeblood. As T. J. Crawford expressed it, the text teaches the vicarious nature of the rite of sacrifice: life was given for life, the life of the victim for the life of the offerer—indeed, the life of the innocent victim for the life of the sinful offerer.¹⁷

Third, blood was given by God for this atoning purpose. Notice the remarkable phrase: "I have given it to you ... to make atonement for your souls." God Himself provided the means of atonement. The sacrificial system was not a human invention designed to appease an angry deity. It was a divine gift—God's own provision for dealing with the problem of sin. This is a point of enormous theological importance, and it cuts against any reading that portrays Old Testament sacrifice as merely a human effort to earn God's favor. As Stott emphasizes, we are to think of the sacrificial system as God-given, not of human origin, and of the individual sacrifices not as a human device to placate God but as a means of atonement provided by God Himself.¹⁸

Fleming Rutledge offers additional insight on the theology of blood. She notes that references to the "blood" of Christ in the New Testament are three times more frequent than references to the "death" of Christ—a compelling statistic. For centuries, the sacrificial system of Israel prepared God's people to understand the significance of blood.¹⁹ Rutledge also helpfully points out that the New Testament's blood language is fundamentally metaphorical—not in the sense of being unreal, but in the sense that it points beyond the literal, physical substance to the deeper reality of a life offered in substitutionary death. The blood of Christ represents His life poured out for others.²⁰

This Old Testament background illuminates two crucial texts in the letter to the Hebrews. First, "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Heb 9:22)—no atonement without substitution, no reconciliation without a life given in place of another. Second, "it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Heb 10:4)—the Old Testament sacrifices, while genuinely significant, were always pointing beyond themselves to a greater sacrifice that was to come. They were shadows; Christ was the substance. For a substitute to be truly effective, it must be an appropriate equivalent. Animal sacrifices could point toward the solution, but only "the precious blood of Christ" was ultimately sufficient (1 Pet 1:19).²¹

The Concept of Kipper (כָּפַר): What Does "Atonement" Mean?

We have been using the word "atonement" frequently, but what does it actually mean in the Old Testament context? The key Hebrew word is kipper (כָּפַר), the verb typically translated "to make atonement." This word appears over 100 times in the Old Testament, with sixteen occurrences in Leviticus 16 alone—the chapter describing the Day of Atonement.²² Understanding what kipper means is essential for grasping the theology of the entire sacrificial system.

Scholars have proposed several possible meanings for kipper, and Allen helpfully summarizes four that are not mutually exclusive.²³

First, "to forgive." When God is the subject, kipper can mean "to forgive." However, in many texts, kipper is distinguished from forgiveness and appears as a prerequisite to it. For example, in Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31, and 19:22, the pattern is: "the priest shall make atonement (kipper) for him, and he shall be forgiven." Atonement comes first; forgiveness follows. This suggests that kipper is the means by which forgiveness is obtained, not simply a synonym for forgiveness itself.

Second, "to cleanse" or "to purge." This meaning is prominent in passages like Leviticus 16:30, where the Day of Atonement rituals are said to "cleanse" the people. The blood of the sacrifice purges the sanctuary and the people from the defilement of sin. This is the purification dimension that scholars like Milgrom and Hess emphasize.

Third, "to ransom." The noun form kopher (כֹּפֶר) means "ransom price." In Exodus 30:12, for example, each Israelite was to pay a "ransom" for his life during a census. In the sacrificial context, the life of the animal is substituted for human lives—it serves as a ransom, a payment that frees the worshiper from the consequences of sin.

Fourth, "to avert wrath." In some contexts, kipper carries the sense of averting divine wrath or turning aside the consequences of sin. This propitiatory dimension—the idea that the sacrifice satisfies the demands of divine justice—is present alongside the expiatory dimension of purification and cleansing.²⁴

Allen's conclusion is one I share: the sacrificial offering (the shedding of blood) propitiates the wrath of God, expiates the guilt of sin, and effects reconciliation. The word kipper includes the notions of propitiation, expiation, purification, and reconciliation.²⁵ These are not competing meanings—they are complementary dimensions of a single, rich concept. Atonement in the Old Testament is a multi-layered reality that addresses the problem of sin from every angle: it cleanses the defilement sin causes, it satisfies the justice sin offends, and it restores the relationship sin destroys.

Hess argues that kipper (which he renders kaphar) means primarily "to cover, to wipe clean, to expiate," and that in the Hebrew mind, it is sin being acted upon, not God. He contends that Christians have wrongfully imported a Greco-Roman definition of propitiation into the Hebrew concept.²⁶ Once again, I think Hess captures an important truth—the expiatory, cleansing dimension is real—but I believe he goes too far in excluding the propitiatory dimension. As we discussed in Chapter 2 (where the propitiation/expiation debate receives its full treatment), the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. The Old Testament consistently presents sin as both a contamination that must be cleansed and an offense against God's holiness and justice that must be addressed. Kipper encompasses both realities.

The related noun kapporet (כַּפֹּרֶת) is also significant. This is the "mercy seat"—the gold lid atop the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. It was upon this kapporet that the high priest sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement (a ritual we will examine in detail in Chapter 5). Remarkably, the Greek translation of kapporet in the Septuagint is hilastērion (ἱλαστήριον)—the very word Paul uses in Romans 3:25 to describe Christ. As we will see in Chapter 8, many scholars believe Paul is deliberately presenting Christ as the true mercy seat—the place where God's justice and mercy meet. The sacrificial vocabulary of the Old Testament flows directly into the New Testament's description of what Christ accomplished on the cross.²⁷

The Passover: Substitution and Redemption

While the Levitical sacrificial code provides the systematic theology of sacrifice, the Passover narrative in Exodus 12 provides the most dramatic and memorable illustration of substitutionary atonement in the Old Testament. The Passover is technically prior to the Levitical system—it was established on the eve of the exodus from Egypt, before Sinai—but it became a foundational element of Israel's worship and forms an essential part of the Old Testament's sacrificial grammar.

The story is well known but worth retelling briefly. On the eve of the final plague against Egypt, God told the people of Israel to select a lamb—a year-old male without defect—and slaughter it on the fourteenth day of the month. They were to take the lamb's blood, apply it with a branch of hyssop to the doorposts and lintel of their homes, and remain inside through the night. God would "pass through" Egypt in judgment, striking down every firstborn. But when He saw the blood on the doorposts, He would "pass over" that household—the firstborn would be spared.

Allen highlights the substitutionary character of this event: in order for the inhabitants of the house to be safe, a lamb had to die. This death was viewed as a substitute for the firstborn sons of Israel.²⁸ The logic is straightforward: a life was given so that another life would be spared. The lamb died so the firstborn would not.

Stott draws out three theological roles that God plays in the Passover narrative. First, God revealed Himself as Judge—the one who decreed that every firstborn in Egypt would die. Second, God revealed Himself as Redeemer—the one who provided the lamb whose blood would shield Israel from the judgment. Third, God revealed Himself as covenant Lord—the one who claimed Israel as His own people through this act of redemption. Stott's conclusion is particularly important: "The Judge and the Savior are the same person. It was the God who 'passed through' Egypt to judge the firstborn, who 'passed over' Israelite homes to protect them."²⁹

This insight is crucial for understanding the atonement rightly. We must never set God's justice against God's mercy, as if they were opposed to each other. The same God who judges sin also provides the remedy for it. The same God who demands holiness also makes a way for sinners to be spared. This pattern—God as both Judge and Redeemer, justice and mercy united in a single divine act—is precisely what we find at the cross. As we will see in Chapter 20, the Trinitarian nature of the atonement means that God Himself, in the person of the Son, provides the sacrifice that His own holiness requires.

The New Testament explicitly identifies Christ as the fulfillment of the Passover. Paul declares: "Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed" (1 Cor 5:7). Peter writes that believers are "ransomed ... with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot" (1 Pet 1:18–19). And in the book of Revelation, Jesus is worshiped as the slain Lamb who has "ransomed people for God" by His blood (Rev 5:9). The Passover lamb of Exodus finds its ultimate fulfillment in the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.³⁰

It is worth pausing here to note what the Passover tells us about the character of the God who atones. The Catholic theologian Philippe de la Trinité makes an important point that resonates deeply with the Passover narrative: Christ's sacrifice was a loving offering made in union with the Father, not an appeasement of divine rage.³⁷ The Passover is entirely consistent with this insight. God does not require the blood of the lamb because He delights in the suffering of animals. He provides the lamb because He loves His people and is making a way for them to be spared from judgment. The blood on the doorpost is not a bribe to an angry God—it is God's own provision, God's own remedy, God's own love made visible in sacrificial blood. This pattern—God providing the sacrifice out of His own love—reaches back even further than the Passover, to Genesis 22, where Abraham is about to sacrifice his son Isaac and God provides a ram as a substitute. Abraham names the place "The LORD will provide" (Gen 22:14)—a profound theological declaration that God Himself is the one who furnishes the sacrifice. The substitutionary principle and the divine initiative of love are inseparable from the very beginning.

The Covenant Offerings of Exodus 24

One more Old Testament text deserves attention before we move toward our conclusions. Exodus 24 records the covenant ceremony at Sinai, and it provides an early and important link between sacrifice and covenant.

After God delivered the law to Moses, Moses built an altar at the foot of the mountain and sent young Israelite men to offer burnt offerings and peace offerings. Moses then took half the blood and threw it against the altar, and the other half he threw upon the people, declaring: "Behold the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words" (Exod 24:8, ESV).

This is significant because it shows that the covenant relationship between God and Israel was established and sealed through sacrificial blood. The blood thrown on the altar represented God's side of the covenant; the blood thrown on the people represented their side. Both parties were bound together by blood—by the life of an innocent victim. Allen notes that this text teaches us that God must be approached through an offering, that true worship is based on atonement for sin, and that the substitution of the animal for the worshiper indicates the sacrifice was vicarious and penal.³¹

The writer of Hebrews picks up this very language when he describes Jesus as "the mediator of a new covenant" whose "sprinkled blood ... speaks a better word than the blood of Abel" (Heb 12:24, ESV). And at the Last Supper, Jesus Himself took the cup and said, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matt 26:28, ESV). The covenant-blood theology of Exodus 24 flows directly into the New Testament's understanding of Jesus' death as the establishment of a new and better covenant.³²

The Shadow and the Substance: Pointing Forward to Christ

As rich and significant as the Old Testament sacrificial system was, the New Testament is clear that these sacrifices were never the final answer to the problem of sin. They were, in the language of the writer of Hebrews, "a shadow of the good things to come" (Heb 10:1, ESV)—pointers to a greater reality that was still on the horizon.

The inadequacy of the Old Testament sacrifices is evident in several ways. First, they had to be repeated constantly—daily, weekly, monthly, and annually. The very repetition testified to their incompleteness. If any single sacrifice could have permanently dealt with sin, there would have been no need for another. The priests stood day after day, offering the same sacrifices, which could never take away sins (Heb 10:11). The sheer volume of blood shed over the centuries of Israel's worship—countless lambs, goats, bulls, and birds—bore eloquent testimony to the depth of the human problem and the provisional nature of the Old Testament remedy. Second, "it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Heb 10:4). Animal life, while precious, is not equivalent to human life. A lamb cannot truly substitute for a person. As Jesus Himself said, a human being is "of more value than a sheep" (Matt 12:12). The sacrifice had to be appropriate—an equivalent substitute—and no animal could fully meet that requirement.

And yet the Old Testament sacrifices were not meaningless. They were genuinely significant within the context of the covenant. God accepted them as temporary provisions. They truly did provide atonement—but it was a provisional atonement that pointed beyond itself to the definitive atonement that was coming. Think of it this way: the Old Testament sacrifices were like a promissory note. They were genuine commitments backed by God's own faithfulness. But the payment they promised was not fully realized until Christ came and offered Himself as the once-for-all sacrifice that the entire system had been anticipating.

This is exactly where the New Testament message breaks through with stunning clarity. What the Levitical system could only foreshadow, Christ has accomplished in reality. The burnt offering's complete consecration finds its fulfillment in Christ's total self-offering to the Father. The sin offering's purification of the sanctuary finds its fulfillment in Christ's blood, which purifies our consciences from dead works (Heb 9:14). The guilt offering's reparation for specific offenses finds its fulfillment in the Suffering Servant whose life was made an asham (Isa 53:10). The Passover lamb's substitutionary death finds its fulfillment in Christ, our Passover, who has been sacrificed (1 Cor 5:7). The blood of the covenant finds its fulfillment in the blood of the new covenant, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins (Matt 26:28).

Rutledge captures this beautifully when she writes that the Old Testament motifs are combined in the New Testament in a completely new way. The salient point was that God, knowing that the Israelites could not come near to Him as they were in their guilt, provided the means for them to live in His presence. Another life, unblemished and blameless, was offered instead.³³ The sacrificial system was always about God's gracious provision, not about human effort to earn divine favor. And that grace finds its ultimate expression in the cross of Christ.

Engaging the Objections: Was the Sacrificial System Really Substitutionary?

Before we conclude, I want to engage fairly with the strongest objections to the substitutionary reading of the Levitical system. Intellectual honesty requires that we take these arguments seriously, even as I explain why I find them ultimately unpersuasive.

Objection 1: Not all sacrifices deal with sin.

This is true and important. The grain offering, the peace offering, and the burnt offering all had dimensions that went beyond sin and its consequences. They expressed devotion, gratitude, and fellowship. Hess makes this point effectively.³⁴

Response: This is a valid observation, but it does not undermine the substitutionary character of the sin-related offerings. The diversity of the sacrificial system shows that Israel's relationship with God was multi-dimensional—involving both joyful fellowship and the serious business of dealing with sin. But the sin offering, the guilt offering, the Passover, and the Day of Atonement rituals are all explicitly concerned with atonement for sin, and in these offerings, the substitutionary logic is clear. The existence of non-atoning offerings does not invalidate the atoning ones.

Objection 2: The sacrifices purify space, not punish sin.

As noted above, scholars in the Milgrom tradition emphasize that the sin offering functioned primarily to purify the sanctuary from the contaminating effects of sin. In this view, the blood is a cleansing agent, not a penal payment.

Response: As I argued earlier, purification and substitution are not mutually exclusive. The blood cleanses because a life has been given. The purification of the sanctuary is accomplished through the death of a substitute. And the language of the text itself points beyond mere ritual cleansing to genuine atonement and forgiveness: "the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven" (Lev 4:26). Forgiveness implies real guilt, not merely ritual impurity. Both dimensions are present.

Objection 3: The laying on of hands is about designation, not sin transference.

As we discussed above, Hess and others argue that semikah is better understood as a designation of a representative, not a transference of sin.

Response: I addressed this at length above. The scapegoat ritual of Leviticus 16, where laying on of hands is explicitly tied to the confession and transference of sins, provides the strongest evidence that semikah in the sacrificial context involves sin transference. The broader non-sacrificial uses of the gesture do not override its specific meaning within the sacrificial system.

Objection 4: The pure goat is killed, not the sin-bearing goat.

Hess makes an intriguing argument regarding the Day of Atonement ritual. He points out that it is the "pure goat" (the one sacrificed for a sin offering) that is killed, while the "sin goat" (the scapegoat that receives the people's sins) is sent away alive. He argues that this is the opposite of what we should expect if penal substitution were true—the goat bearing the sins should be the one that dies.³⁵

Response: This argument initially sounds compelling, but it actually overlooks how the two goats function as complementary aspects of a single atonement. As Allen explains, the first goat (which was slain) pictured the means of atonement—the shedding of blood for propitiation and expiation. The scapegoat pictured the effect of the atonement—the complete removal and bearing away of sin.³⁶ Together, the two goats present a full picture of what atonement accomplishes: sin is both purged through blood and carried away completely. Both goats are necessary, and both are substitutionary in character—one through its death, the other through its exile into the wilderness. This is explored more fully in Chapter 5, where the Day of Atonement receives detailed treatment.

Substitution at the Heart: The Theological Grammar of the Cross

As we step back and survey the Old Testament sacrificial system as a whole, several profound theological truths come into focus. These truths form the essential grammar—the basic vocabulary and structure—that the New Testament writers presuppose when they describe what Christ accomplished on the cross.

First, sin is deadly serious. The sacrificial system taught Israel that sin was not a trivial matter to be shrugged off. Sin separates people from God. Sin defiles. Sin incurs guilt. Sin deserves death. The elaborate rituals of blood and fire and confession all testified to the gravity of sin and the costliness of dealing with it. In our modern age, we are tempted to minimize sin—to treat it as a mere social construct or a relic of outdated moralism. The sacrificial system will not allow us that luxury. Sin is real, and it has consequences.

Second, God Himself provides the remedy. The sacrificial system was not a human invention to appease a capricious deity. It was God's own gracious provision. "I have given it to you ... to make atonement for your souls" (Lev 17:11). The same God who is offended by sin provides the means of dealing with it. Justice and mercy are not at war in God—they work together. This is one of the most important truths in all of theology, and it finds its ultimate expression at the cross, where God Himself, in the person of His Son, provides the sacrifice that His own holiness requires.

Third, substitution is at the heart of atonement. An innocent life is given in place of a guilty one. The worshiper deserves death; the animal dies instead. The firstborn of Israel would have perished; the Passover lamb died in their place. The people of Israel deserved judgment for their sins; the goat on the Day of Atonement bore their iniquities away. This principle of substitution—one life given for another—runs like a scarlet thread through the entire Old Testament, from Genesis 22 (where a ram was offered instead of Isaac) to Isaiah 53 (where the Servant bears the sin of many). And it reaches its climax at Calvary, where the Lamb of God takes away the sin of the world.

Fourth, blood—life given in death—is the means of atonement. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (Heb 9:22). This is not an arbitrary divine requirement—it is a profound theological truth. Sin's penalty is death. For the penalty to be paid, a life must be given. The blood of the sacrifice represents that life given in death. And the blood of Christ—His life poured out on the cross—represents the ultimate and final payment for sin.

Fifth, the Old Testament sacrifices were incomplete. They pointed forward to something—Someone—greater. They were shadows, not the reality itself. They had to be repeated because they could never fully accomplish what they symbolized. But in Christ, all the shadows find their substance. Every lamb, every goat, every bull, every drop of blood on every altar pointed to the Lamb of God, whose single, once-for-all sacrifice accomplished what all the Levitical offerings together could never achieve: the complete, permanent, and effective removal of sin and the reconciliation of sinful humanity to a holy God.

Conclusion

We began this chapter by asking what the ancient Levitical sacrificial system could possibly have to do with us today. I hope the answer is now clear. The sacrificial system is not a dusty relic from a primitive age. It is the divinely ordained grammar of the gospel—the foundational theological vocabulary without which we cannot properly understand the cross of Christ.

The burnt offering taught Israel (and teaches us) about complete consecration and the acceptance of a substitute. The grain offering spoke of devotion and dependence on God. The peace offering celebrated the fellowship that atonement makes possible. The sin offering addressed the contaminating effects of sin through purifying blood. The guilt offering provided reparation for specific offenses—and gave the prophets a word (asham) to describe what the Suffering Servant would one day accomplish. The laying on of hands established the connection between the worshiper and the sacrifice. The theology of blood taught that life must be given for life. And the concept of kipper—atonement, covering, cleansing, ransom, propitiation—wove all these threads together into a single, magnificent tapestry.

At the center of it all stands the principle of substitution. An innocent life given in place of a guilty one. This is the heartbeat of the Old Testament sacrificial system, and it is the heartbeat of the gospel. As we turn in the next chapter to the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur)—the climax of the entire sacrificial calendar—we will see this principle displayed with even greater clarity and power. And as we continue through this book, we will trace the thread of substitution from the Old Testament through the New, from the Levitical altar to Calvary, and from the blood of bulls and goats to the precious blood of Christ, who gave His life as a ransom for many.

The Old Testament sacrificial system, in all its complexity and all its beauty, was preparing the world for the cross. And when we understand its grammar, the cross speaks to us with a depth and power that nothing else can match.

Bibliography

Allen, David L. The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2019.

Aulén, Gustaf. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement. Translated by A. G. Hebert. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003.

Blocher, Henri. "The Sacrifice of Jesus Christ: The Current Theological Situation." European Journal of Theology 8, no. 1 (1999): 23–36.

Gathercole, Simon. Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Hess, William L. Crushing the Great Serpent: Did God Punish Jesus? 2024.

Jeffery, Steven, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach. Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007.

Marshall, I. Howard. Aspects of the Atonement: Cross and Resurrection in the Reconciling of God and Humanity. Colorado Springs: Paternoster, 2007.

McNall, Joshua M. The Mosaic of Atonement: An Integrated Approach to Christ's Work. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2019.

Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991.

Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Philippe de la Trinité. What Is Redemption? How Christ's Suffering Saves Us. Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road, 2021.

Rutledge, Fleming. The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.

Sklar, Jay. Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions. Hebrew Bible Monographs 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005.

Stott, John R. W. The Cross of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.