Ii. ‘Blood’ In The New Testament
c. The problem of atonement
Examination of the passages treating of atonement is relevant, for if they show that atonement is generally linked with life, then, in view of Leviticus 17: 11, they will support the idea that life and blood are much the same thing. This will strengthen the hands of those who feel that the essential thing in sacrifice is the offering of life. But if, on the other hand, we find that atonement is linked with death this will form evidence against both these conclusions.
Atonement seems to be connected with the blood in the manner of Leviticus 17: 11 eleven times outside that verse. Some of the passages are so specific as to leave us in no doubt as to the atoning efficacy of blood, as, for example, when we read of the bullock and goat ‘whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy ?>place’ (Lv. 16: 27), or the direction that ‘with the blood of the sin offering of atonement once in the year shall he make atonement for it’ (Ex. 30: 10). But before we conclude that such passages mean that atonement is made by offering of life we must set beside them another verse in which blood is said to atone, namely, ‘for blood, it polluteth the land: and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it’ (Nu. 35: 33). Here we have explicit mention of atonement by blood, but it is certainly the execution of the murderer that is spoken of and not any presentation of his life before God. The importance of this verse as a commentary on Leviticus 17: II is not always realized. The Leviticus passage is ambiguous, for the reference to blood could be understood as signifying the presentation of life, or, equally, as indicating the infliction of death. This ambiguity is present in nearly all the other passages which connect blood and atonement. This enhances the importance of Numbers 35:33, for in this verse there is no ambiguity - the blood which atones is that which flows when the death penalty is inflicted on the criminal. It is true that this is not a sacrifice in the strict meaning of the term, and therefore some will doubt the validity of its application to the sacrificial scene. But consider that in both cases it is expiation of sin that is in question, in both cases the means is blood, in both cases the action is directed towards God, and in both cases atonement is said to be secured. It is difficult to deny the relevance of the passage.
There are twenty-two other passages where atonement is effected by means other than the cultus, and these show that atonement and the offering of life were not inseparably connected in Hebrew thought. Four of them are particularly significant. In the first, Moses says he will try to make atonement for the sin of the people and makes his attempt by asking God to blot him out of the book which He has written (Ex. 32 : 30-32). In the second, Phinehas is said to have made atonement by killing Zimri and Cozbi (Nu. ?>25: 13). The third is that in which David makes atonement by delivering up seven descendants of Saul to be hanged by the Gibeonites (2 Sa. 21: 3f.), while in the fourth the heifer is slain to avert punishment when murder has been committed by a person unknown (Dt. 21: 1-9). In each of these passages there is atonement made or contemplated, and in none of them can it fairly be argued that what is meant is the presentation of life to God. In each case it is the termination of life, the infliction of death that atones. So far from any symbol of life being presented to God, the descendants of Saul were hanged, and the heifer killed by having its neck broken. This last passage is remarkable in that in verses 7-9 blood is mentioned four times and the verb kipper occurs twice, yet atonement is not connected with blood at all.
Turning now to those passages where atonement is connected with the cultus, the usual way is to speak quite generally of the whole sacrifice, for example, ‘he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meal offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make atonement for the house of Israel’ (Ezk. 45: 17). Thirty-eight times in all atonement is referred to in this way, and the general impression from them all is that it is the whole offering, rather than the presentation of the blood, that is thought of as effecting atonement. This impression is strengthened by the fact that sometimes the mention of atonement is attached to a point in the ritual other than the manipulation of the blood. Thus it is mentioned in connection with the laying of hands on the head of the beast (Lv. 1 : 4),216 or with the burning of the fat (Lv. 4: 26).217 These turns of expression are natural enough if it is the whole offering which atones, but they represent a strange way of speaking if the essence of it all is the offering of life contained in the blood.
Then there are passages in which atonement is mentioned in connection with rites prescribed by the cultus, but where the blood seems definitely to be excluded. Thus Aaron and his sons are instructed that ‘they shall eat those things wherewith atonement was made’ (Ex. 29: 33). Since the reference is to a carcass from which the blood has been drained, neither blood nor life can possibly be meant. Similar is the passage in which Moses rebukes the sons of Aaron, asking: ‘Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, seeing it is most holy, and he hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord?’ (Lv. 10:17). In neither of these examples does it seem possible to maintain that the essence of atonement is through offering of life. On the contrary, in both cases the death of the animal seems to be regarded as a necessity in the making of atonement.
Attention should be drawn also to certain passages in which the slaughter of nations is likened to sacrifice. Thus Jeremiah speaks of the destruction of the mighty men of Egypt and her allies and proceeds: ‘And the sword shall devour and be satiate, and shall drink its fill of their blood: for the Lord, the Lord of hosts, hath a sacrifice in the north country’ (Je. 46: 10). Similarly Zephaniah says, ’for the Lord hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath sanctified his guests’ (Zp. 1:7). If the essence of sacrifice is the presentation of life before God such passages are completely inexplicable. They receive adequate explanation only when we hold that sacrifice is inherently the destruction of the victims.
In other places atonement is connected with such ceremonies as the pouring of oil on the head of the cleansed leper (Lv. 14: 18, 29), the offering of incense (Nu. 16: 46), the scapegoat (Lv. 16:10), and there are others. But these do not seem to forward our inquiry so we pass over them, merely noting that in each case the removal of the particular thing sacrificed from the possession of the offerer seems indicated.218 In the case of the animal offerings this is almost invariably by death.
Attention should also be drawn to the Passover ritual. In the original Passover, although there is no mention of atonement, there is mention of the blood as a means of averting destruction. ‘And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land ?>of Egypt’ (Ex. 12: 13). It is impossible to understand from the splashing of blood on the lintel and doorposts that a life is being presented to anyone. The obvious symbolism is that a death has taken place, and this death substitutes for the death of the first-born.
We conclude, then, that the evidence afforded by the use of the term dām in the Old Testament indicates that it signifies life violently taken rather than the continued presence of life available for some new function, in short, death rather than life, and that this is supported by the references to atonement.