WHEATON COLLEGE

LEVITICUS 17:10-16THEOLOGICAL TRAJECTORIES: OLD TESTAMENT, NEW TESTAMENT, AND INTO TODAY

SUBMITTED TO DR. JOHN WALTON IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF BITH 562-INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT EXEGESIS

BY JUSTIN LANGLEY MARCH 2, 2010 CPO: 4224

THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION: PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS The concept of the hermeneutical spiral indicates, in part, that reading a text in its entirety affects the way the same reader will understand individual parts of the text upon a subsequent reading. Thus, studying the entire book of Leviticus should shed light on the authors intentions in individual pericopes. Moreover, readers of Leviticus quickly discover that, while it stands alone as a distinct unit, it also holds a significant place within a group of books known as the Pentateuch, generally considered as a larger unit consisting of Genesis through Deuteronomy. Therefore, readers of Leviticus may find that other passages in the Pentateuch shed legitimate light on particular passages. Furthermore, Leviticus stands as one document within a recognized canon of Hebrew Scriptures that Jews and Christians have, for thousands of years, acknowledged as having their ultimate origin in the Creator of the universe. This canon developed over hundreds of years, ostensibly ceasing in the sixth or fifth century B.C. Later Hebrew writers may have had access to earlier Hebrew texts or perhaps other traditions somehow related to the texts. Therefore, within the Hebrew Scriptures, readers may find theological developments connected to or based upon earlier texts. Finally, New Testament authors had access to Gods final and climactic revelation of himself in the person of Jesus Christ, and they began to consider the ways Gods self-revelation in the Hebrew Scriptures related to Jesus in light of his death and resurrection. Filled with the Holy Spirit, these Christian authors wrote documents in which they quoted and alluded to verses, passages, and types they knew from their Scriptures. Their thinking reflected in the documents of the New Testament displays constant formation by terminology, structures, and concepts from 2

3 the Old Testament. Investigating the ways New Testament authors reflected on and understood individual Old Testament texts often yields significant theological dividends for readers seeking the divine intention of any particular passage. While neither the human nor the divine author perhaps intended the original audience of Leviticus to understand certain things, at least the divine author surely had later audiences in mind when he assured that a human author would communicate with a particular locution that the divine author could develop as he saw fit through the centuries. Stepping outside the canon of Scripture, todays readers ought to consider the insights of those who spent their lives thinking, preaching, and writing about these texts in previous generations. While certainly God has intended his inscripturated revelation for all humanity in one sense, at a more profound level he has designed this written revelation for his holy people, the Church, the body of Christ. As the members of this body cannot exist apart from other members of this body,1 so also it perhaps follows that individual members of Gods people cannot understand Gods message in isolation.2 While no theologian since the apostles of the first century speaks with Gods authority, Christians of every generation over the past 2000 years have worked hard to understand and communicate clearly the revelation given by God, and their work may benefit todays readers in many ways. Certainly, different people approach the text of Scripture with different hermeneutical presuppositions and with different methods of interpretation. Many have not approached Scripture with the most honest motives. Nevertheless, anyone who has ever taken the time and put forth the effort to understand the Scriptures as, in

1

Cf. 1 Cor 12:12-31.

Perhaps this is part of the reason Paul highlights and emphasizes the appointment of apostles, prophets, and teachers above other gifts given by the Spirit in 1 Cor 12:28.

2

4 some way, Gods revelation of himself to his people may provide some benefit to the task of todays Christian seeking to understand Gods revelation of himself. Seeking to engage the various theological trajectories of a given text, the reader must still begin with the text itself. Every writer of Scripture had theological concepts they desired to communicate. An individual pericope may not articulate the fullness of any particular theological concept, but it serves the authors overall rhetorical strategy in some way. Thus, the task of interpretation involves in identifying how a pericope serves the theological rhetorical strategy of the human author. This should then flow into a consideration of the divine authors intent, which will take into account how the pericope in view informs and affects the rest of Scripture. The theological themes communicated in a particular pericope usually relate directly to the ways the author expects his audience to respond to what he has written. Since the divine author surely had all audiences in view, even todays readers should find appropriate ways to respond to what we understand the text to say. We may find the theological theme(s) of a particular pericope to demand readers to believe something specific about Gods character or actions in the world, but rarely will this comprise the only response the divine author has intended. What a person believes ought to influence how a person behaves,3 so once a reader has identified with some confidence a texts theological themes, she ought to go further and ask, How should believing this truth about God change the way I live?

THEOLOGICAL THEMES OF LEV 17:10-16 Practically speaking, the message of Lev 17:10-16 speaks loud and clear: never eat blood! In a pericope where the main point seems so easy to deduce, readers find this text adorned with3

This seems to be at least part of what James is saying in Jas 2:17.

5 several theologically significant layers. First, in this example of case law, Yahweh sets forth the forbidden situation of a person in Israel eating blood followed by the consequences due to one who eats blood. Specifically, Yahweh declares, I will turn my face against the person who eats the blood, and I will cut that person off from his people (Lev 17:10).4 In stating the consequences this way, Yahweh highlights his right to judge his people and punish them for their failures to conform to the stipulations of the covenant he has entered with them. Next, in v. 11, Yahweh provides a reason for delineating this particular prohibition. While Yahweh does not always give reasons for the laws he defines, he frequently does so, graciously revealing more of his character to his people. Here, the connection between an animals life and its blood serves as part of the reason people should not eat blood. Then, Yahweh seemingly takes the reason a step further, indicating that he has designated animal blood for a special purpose within the sacrificial system of Israel which enables them to maintain fellowship with Yahweh. Thus, he indicates that his people should not treat animal blood as a common substance, since he has set it apart for holy purposes.5 In this statement, he has also indicated his gracious provision for them of a means of cleansing their inevitable uncleannesses and of forgiving their inevitable sins.6 Finally, in the last clause of v. 11, Yahweh further explains how animal blood successfully accomplishes the purpose he has designated for it, which reinforces how his people should use animal blood. Thus, he shows the theological significance

4

All translations of biblical verses are my own.

5 Cf. Allen P. Ross, Holiness to the Lord: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 336.

Cf. Emile Nicole, Atonement in the Pentateuch, in The Glory of the Atonement (ed. Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James, III; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2004), 48.

6

6 of animal blood for his people: it substitutes for their lives which they have forfeited due to uncleanness and/or sin.7 In the second case depicted in this passage, Yahweh considers the situation of a hunter in Israel who must deal with an animal he has killed. He commands that the hunter must pour out the animals blood and bury it (v. 13). He then gives the connection between the blood and the animals life as the reason for this command and repeats the prohibition of eating the blood (v. 14). Then, he brings in a slightly different scenario that may face a hunter and explains what he should do if he eats an animal he finds dead. Yahweh explains that eating an animal in this situation transmits uncleanness to the one who eats, and he again graciously indicates what the unclean person must do in order to restore his clean status and continue fellowship with Yahweh (vv. 15-16). Yahwehs explication of the connection between blood and life seems to serve as the underlying reason why the sacrificial system actually works to maintain fellowship between sinful people and a holy God. Moreover, the idea that animal blood shed in sacrifice may substitute for the life of a person who has forfeited his life due to sin or other uncleanness seems to provide the background by which the New Testament authors ascribed significance to Jesus death on the cross. Therefore, we will explore the development of the theological connection between blood and life that Yahweh articulates in this passage. We will also consider the implications of this connection for understanding the death of Jesus.

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN BLOOD AND LIFE IN THE OLD TESTAMENTCf. Christopher J.H. Wright, Atonement in the Old Testament, in The Atonement Debate: Papers from the London Symposium of the Theology of Atonement (ed. Derek Tidball, David Hilborn, and Justin Thacker; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 75-6.7

7

The Pentateuch had actually already articulated an equation between an animals blood and its life as early as Gen 9:4. After the Flood, God explicitly permits humans to eat meat, but, at the same time, he regulates the eating of meat by prohibiting the eating of blood. He says, Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, which is its blood. The Pentateuch repeats the prohibition against eating blood numerous times,8 but only Lev 17:10-16 provides the full rationale for the prohibition. While Gen 9:4 does not specify that a person should pour out the blood of an animal before eating the meat, clearly the author assumes this, as the later references in the Pentateuch make explicit. Gen 9:5-6 contain another interesting connection between blood and life. In the previous verses, God had permitted the killing of animals for food without penalty or compensation while forbidding the consumption of animal blood, but in v. 5 God turns his attention to the blood of humans, referring to the death of a human caused by an animal or another human. God demands compensation or the payment of a penalty from the one who sheds human blood.9 At the beginning of v. 5, God indicates that he requires compensation for the end of v. 5, he specifies the payment he requires as

, and at

. Verse 6 then poetically

reiterates the principle: The one who sheds a persons blood, by a person his blood will be shed.10 This same idea appears in Num 35:33, where we learn that human bloodshed pollutes the land in such a way that Yahweh only accepts one form of compensation to remove the

8

Gen 9:4; Lev 3:17; 7:26-7; 17:10, 12, 14; 19:26; Deut 12:16, 23-25; 15:23. Cf. D. Denninger, ,NIDOTTE 1:995. As in Lev 17:10, the penalty is owed to God but the community/people are authorized to execute it.

9

10

8 pollution: the blood of the murderer. The previous verses also make this explicit without the specific mention of blood. Deut 12:23 exhibits the closest similarities with Lev 17:10-16. Moses explains to the people the implications of the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant for their application of it in situations that they will experience in the future. He permits them to eat meat whenever they desire, but they must still not eat the blood. He says, Only, be sure not to eat the blood because the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh. Here, Moses clearly utilizes the terms and interchangeably. He then applies this to the realm of sacrifice, saying, The blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of Yahweh your God, but the flesh you may eat (Deut 12:27). This implies that, when a person separates the blood of an animal from its flesh, the animal no longer has its life; it has died, so a person may freely eat its flesh. Thus, while blood clearly represents life while in an animal, pouring out the blood, whether on the altar for sacrifice or on the ground out in the open, clearly represents death, the separation of blood from flesh. Hebrew authors regularly use the term to stand euphemistically for death, usually death brought by violent means. For example, Judah questions his brothers intention to kill Joseph and conceal his blood (Gen 37:26). Reuben also interprets their troublesome situation in Egypt as the compensation required for Josephs blood (Gen 42:22), even though they did not actually kill Joseph.11 In Lev 20, the phrase

or similar phrases appear to indicate a

persons responsibility for their own death as a result of their violation of some stipulation of the covenant.12 Jeremiah assures his accusers that killing him would bring innocent blood upon11

However, Reuben and his brothers probably assumed Joseph died in slavery and felt guilty. Lev 20:9-16, 27. Cf. Ezek 33:4-5.

12

9 themselves (Jer 26:15). Yahweh tells Ezekiel that, if he does not warn the people of impending judgment due to their wickedness, Yahweh expects Ezekiel to execute them, saying, I will seek his blood from your hand (Ezek 3:18, 20; 33:6-8). Also, the

always relates to the

occasion of someones murder.13 Deut 21:8 describes a situation in which someone finds a person apparently murdered, and the people call out to Yahweh to effect cleansing of the land and forgiveness for the people so that he would not hold them accountable for the death of the person.

REVERBERATIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

For New Testament authors, blood carries much of the same symbolic semantic range it has in the Old Testament. Jesus himself speaks of blood in the most rhetorically arresting ways. In Matt 26:28, as he transforms the Passover celebration into a celebration for Christians about himself, he says of the wine, This is my blood of the covenant, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.14 Using symbolic language, Jesus practically commands that which the Old Testament repeatedly forbidsthe consumption of blood. This reflects Jesus earlier saying, recorded in John 6:53-59, in which he directly, even if metaphorically, specifies consuming his blood as an indicator that one has eternal life. However, the apostles later reflections on the meaning of Jesus death, in which they use the term blood as a representation of his death, reflect the most significant developments of their understanding of the connection between blood and life. Paul uses the term blood to13

See Num 35:19-27; Deut 19:4-13. Cf. Mark 14:24.

14

10 represent Jesus death in several statements teaching what Jesus death accomplished: God presented15 Jesus as a sacrifice that averts Gods wrath and takes away sin16 through his blood (Rom 3:25); believers receive justification by his blood (Rom 5:9); believers have redemption through his blood (Eph 1:7); Gentile believers draw near to God by his blood (Eph 2:13); and God has accomplished universal peace by his blood (Col 1:20). The author of the letter to the Hebrews exhibits the most extensive development of the theme of Jesus blood in relation to the sacrificial system of the old covenant. Heb 9 details the authors understanding of both the superiority of Jesus priesthood and of his sacrifice over the Old Testament cult. The high priest entered the Holy of Holies only after he had sacrificed a purification offering and accomplished cleansing for himself, and he had to take the blood of the sacrificed animal into the Holy of Holies (see Lev 16). He entered annually to sacrifice on behalf of the people for all their sins. Jesus, however, entered the Holy of Holies of the heavenly dwelling of God by his own blood (Heb 9:11-12). His death accomplished a lasting redemption so that no more sacrifice may cleanse sins. The author of Hebrews acknowledges the temporary cleansing value of the sacrificial rites of the Old Testament, but he shows how Jesus death overshadows these repeated sacrifices in efficacy. Moreover, he states a general principle that, under the Mosaic Covenant, nearly everything is cleansed with blood and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (Heb 9:22). This statement reflects the double significance of15

This may reflect Gods gracious provision of the sacrificial system reflected in Lev 17:11.

The meaning of in Rom 3:25 continues to be debated. Here, I indicate my understanding of the significance of the term which I think Paul used to say that Jesus death relates to the Day of Atonement ritual outlined in Lev 16, where is used to refer to the mercy seat where the blood of the purification offering is sprinkled. While the blood itself was certainly viewed as the agent of purification for the sancta, I think more than that is implied in view of Lev 17:11. Therefore, the purification offering sacrificed on the Day of Atonement not only cleansed the sancta from pollution caused by the peoples sins, but it also served as the ransom given in exchange for the lives of the people, which provides Yahweh the opportunity to forgive them justly (contra Milgrom). Cf. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus I, 1-16 (AYB 3; Garden City: Doubleday, 1991; repr., New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008), 253-64; and D.A. Carson, Atonement in Romans 3:21-26, in The Glory of the Atonement (ed. Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James, III; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2004), 129-36.16

11 blood in the sacrificial system: it both purifies and provides a way for Yahweh to forgive sins justly. Later, the author of Hebrews indicates that believers may also enter the heavenly Holy of Holies because Jesus serves as the great high priest and has offered his own blood to cleanse believers so that they may approach God without danger to themselves (Heb 10:19-22). The rest of the New Testament contains a variety of statements reflecting on Jesus blood. Peter encourages his audience by reminding them that God redeemed them with Jesus precious blood (1 Pet 1:18-19). He contrasts Jesus blood with perishable things such as silver or gold, seemingly indicating that he understands Jesus death as the payment of a price that sets believers free. John, on the other hand, highlights the cleansing power of Jesus blood for believers upon their acknowledgment of sinfulness (1 John 1:9). In the book of Revelation, John highlights both the efficacy of Jesus death in freeing sinners from the power of sin and enabling them to conquer the Devil (Rev 1:5; 5:9; 12:11) and its cleansing effects (Rev 7:14). These passages all indicate that the authors of the New Testament worked with a fundamental understanding of Jesus blood as representing his life given up as a sacrifice which had the power to cleanse believers and to bring Gods forgiveness as well.

THE EARLY CHURCH AND LEV 17:10-16

As the church grew and expanded through the first couple of centuries after Jesus death and resurrection, believers faced a variety of theological and philosophical challenges that their leaders fought against. The question which most frequently brought Lev 17:10-16 into view concerned the nature of the soul. For example, Origen (c. 185-254) argues that all people maintain that all living creatures have souls, however one may define soul. He then quotes Lev

12 17:11 (LXX) to show that Scripture equates the soul with blood, which propels him into wondering whether this text excludes creatures that do not have blood, per se, such as bees, wasps, or ants. He concludes that these creatures have a liquid that corresponds well enough to blood so that the biblical statement holds true for them as well.17 St. Basil (330-379) poses a similar question, arguing that animals have souls to serve as a contrast to the human soul to show its superiority. He argues, As the blood when thickened changes into flesh, and flesh when corrupted decomposes into earth, so the soul of beasts is naturally an earthy substance.18 Assuming that the human soul has a heavenly quality, St. Basil sets the inferiority of the earthly animal soul against the superiority of the heavenly human soul. The controversies of the earliest church did not revolve around the significance of the death of Jesus; therefore, it seems that such an important passage for understanding the nature of the Old Testament sacrificial system, which the New Testament authors seem to understand as the background for Jesus death on the cross, went largely unexamined through early years of the churchs life.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS ON LEV 17:10-16

Though Protestant church historians regard the Middle Ages as an extremely dark period of time for the Church, the 11th century produced arguably one of the brightest theologians of church history in Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). As the earliest church in the first few hundred years after Jesus death and resurrection had particular theological and philosophical battles to fight so did the church of the Middle Ages. Aquinas spent the last ten years of his life writing his massive Summa Theologica, in which he sought to thoroughly explain the major tenets of Christianity in17

Origen de Principiis 8.1 (ANF 4:286). The Hexaemeron 8.2 (NPNF2 8:95).

18

13 the form of various questions, rebuttals, and answers. In question 102, Aquinas argues for the causes of the ritual sacrifices of the Old Testament. Objection 8 says, Further, those who offer victims to God should partake thereof, according to the words of the Apostle (1 Cor. 10:18): Are not they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? It was therefore unbecoming for the offerers to be denied certain parts of the victims, namely, the blood, the fat, the breastbone and the right shoulder.19 The objection directly questions the propriety of Yahweh forbidding that people should eat the blood. Aquinas responds by giving reasons found in the Old Testament for the propriety of Yahweh forbidding the eating of blood. First, he argues that it deterred idolatry, since idolaters often consumed the blood of their sacrifices. Second, he argues that pouring out the blood served as a pictorial deterrent to shedding human blood. Third, citing Lev 17:11, 14, he argues that pouring out the blood reminds people that we owe both life and a sufficiency of all good things to God. Finally, he argues that it foreshadows the shedding of Christs blood, and the abundance of His charity, whereby He offered Himself to God for us.20 Aquinas also considered the significance of Lev 17:11 for understanding Jesus death on the cross. In a brief explanation of how he understands the propriety of Christs work as Redeemer, he says: For someone to redeem, two things are requirednamely, the act of paying and the price paid. For if in redeeming something a man pays a price which is not his own, but anothers, he is not said to be the chief redeemer, but rather the other is, whose price it is. Now Christs blood or His bodily life, which is in the blood, is the price of our redemption (Lev. 17:11, 14), and that life He paid. Hence both of these belong immediately to Christ as man; but to the Trinity as to the first and remote cause, to Whom Christs life belonged as to its first author, and from Whom Christ received the inspiration of suffering for us. Consequently it is proper to

19

STh., I-II q.102 a.3 obj.8. STh., I-II q.102 a.3 ad.8.

20

14 Christ as man to be the Redeemer immediately; although the redemption may be ascribed to the whole Trinity as its first cause.21 Aquinas clearly understands the connection between blood and life as the mechanism by which blood offered in sacrifice can serve as a price paid for redemption.

THEOLOGY SINCE THE MIDDLE AGESREFLECTION ON LEV 17:10-16

While theologians of the Reformation wrote and taught extensively on Jesus sacrificial death, it seems that Lev 17:10-16 did not play an especially crucial part in forming their understanding. However, modern theology has elevated Lev 17:11 as the OTs central statement about the significance of blood in the sacrificial system.22 Theologians highlight different theological themes apparent in this passage. For example, Berkouwer emphasizes the divine initiative in providing the means for reconciliation.23 However, like other modern theologians concerned to understand the work of Jesus on the cross on our behalf, Berkouwer also emphasizes the aspect of substitution that Lev 17:11 teaches, undergirding the entire sacrificial system. He says, The sacrifice was fully in behalf of because it took place in the stead of.24 The emphasis on sacrificial substitution reflected in this verse has led to the articulation of the doctrine of penal substitution, which indicates that the Messiah died in the sinners place and took upon himself the sinners just punishment.25 In this view, atonement involves judgement [sic] upon the21

STh., III q.48 a.5 obj.3. J.A. Motyer, Blood, Sacrificial Aspects Of, EDT 176. G.C. Berkouwer, The Work of Christ (SD; trans. Cornelius Lambregtse; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), Ibid., 309.

22

23

271-2.24

Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation (FET; Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1997), 171.

25

15 wrong either directly or vicariously through the offering of an equivalent, of life for life, and through this expiation of the wrong, atonement involves reinstatement to favour and restoration to holiness before God.26 In recent years, some theologians have also worked to argue against this understanding of sacrifice. For example, Schmiechen argues, The life of the unblemished animal represented the power to restore the defective life of the sinner.27 He understands the connection between blood and life articulated in Lev 17:11 as unrelated to death. Arguments like this have spurred many Evangelical theologians to work energetically to defend the substitutionary idea in sacrifice,28 while some have attempted to alter the terminology used in the discussion, offering representation as an appropriate replacement for the idea of substitution.29 However each theologian attempts to parse their particular verbiage in relation to Jesus death as a sacrifice, all acknowledge some kind of connection between blood and life as reflected in Lev 17:10-16, and all typically acknowledge that this connection has significance for ones understanding of sacrifice in the Bible.

Thomas F. Torrance, Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ (ed. Robert T. Walker; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2009). Peter Schmiechen, Saving Power: Theories of Atonement and Forms of the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 22.28 E.g., Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2007). 27

26

E.g., Hans Boersma, Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross: Reappropriating the Atonement Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004).

29

BIBLIOGRAPHY The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 1885-1887. 10 vols. Repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994. Aquinas, St. Thomas. Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1921. Berkouwer, G.C. The Work of Christ. Studies in Dogmatics. Translated by Cornelius Lambregtse. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965. Boersma, Hans. Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross: Reappropriating the Atonement Tradition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004. Carson, D.A. Atonement in Romans 3:21-26. Pages 119-39 in The Glory of the Atonement. Edited by Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James, III. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2004. Demarest, Bruce. The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation. Foundations of Evangelical Theology. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1997. Jeffery, Steve, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach. Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2007. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus I, 1-16. Anchor Yale Bible 3. Garden City: Doubleday, 1991. Repr., New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008. Motyer, J.A. Blood, Sacrificial Aspects Of. Page 176 in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. 14 vols. Repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994. Nicole, Emile. Atonement in the Pentateuch. Pages 35-50 in The Glory of the Atonement. Edited by Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James, III. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2004. Ross, Allen P. Holiness to the Lord: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. Schmiechen, Peter. Saving Power: Theories of Atonement and Forms of the Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. 16

17 Torrance, Thomas F. Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ. Edited by Robert T. Walker. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2009. VanGemeren, Willem A., ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. Wright, Christopher J.H. Atonement in the Old Testament. Pages 69-82 in The Atonement Debate: Papers from the London Symposium of the Theology of Atonement. Edited by Derek Tidball, David Hilborn, and Justin Thacker. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.