Introduction
The Day of Atonement is a complex subject. The problem addressed in this article is: If the Day of Atonement is a post-exilic feast, does it have an origin rooted in the history of Israel – as does, for example, the Passover?
The Day of Atonement in Genesis
Analysis using historico-critical methodologies has led scholars to the conclusion that the Day of Atonement is essentially a post-exilic feast,[1] for the Fast is only mentioned in Leviticus. Nehemiah makes no mention of it when he read the Law to the people, and the earliest mention of public fasting is in the post-exilic book of Zechariah (7:35, 8:19). Ezekiel on the other hand enjoined two atonement days—the first day of the first month and the first of the seventh (Ezek 45:18-20), the ritual being different to that described in Leviticus.
While, it is true that the Fast is not explicitly mentioned in the Pentateuch (except for Leviticus) it forms an intrinsic thematic backdrop to one of the earliest Biblical narratives; that of Cain and Abel. Despite the consignment of Genesis 4 to the earlier pre-exilic Yahwist sources[2] it contains many cultic overtones – the offering of sacrifices, the priestly function of the two brothers,[3] and the banishment of Cain from the ‘presence’ of Yahweh.[4] J. Moster[5] recognizes the importance of the Cain Narrative as a Biblical ‘introductory story’, as the pattern is repeated many times in the Bible in the lives of individuals and the nation. However, most scholars neglect to make the connection with Day of Atonement typology, where one goat is slain at the sanctuary (Abel) and the other is sent away (Cain). Furthermore, the offering of the wrong sacrifice (as Cain did) is integral to the genesis of the atonement ritual.
The Day of Atonement in Exodus
Although the Fast is not specifically mentioned in Exodus, it is alluded to in Exodus 30: 8-10. A cursory examination shows that the first half of the chapter concerns both the construction of the altar of incense and atoning for it, and the latter half concerns the payment of atonement money as a ransom for the male population whenever a census was taken. The Day of Atonement was not initially introduced with the other feasts but the mention of atonement in connection with the altar of incense reflects the essential historical core that later developed into Yom Kippûr: “And when Aaron lighteth the lamps at even, he shall burn incense upon it (altar of incense), a perpetual incense before the Lord throughout your generations. Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon, nor burnt offering nor meal offering; neither shall ye pour drink offering thereon. And Aaron shall make atonement upon the horns of it once in the year: with the blood of the sin offering of atonement: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the Lord.” The expression “once in the year” demonstrates that we are dealing with ceremonial elements usually associated with the Day of Atonement; however, the full rite is not introduced in Exodus. The stress is on atoning for the incense altar, whereas in Leviticus it is on entering the inner sanctuary to atone for the people’s sins.[6]
Leviticus
Although the Feast of Passover was instituted before the giving of the law, it was nevertheless incorporated into the Siniatic covenant. The Passover traces its historical origins to the deliverance from Egypt and although (like Tabernacles) it may have older associations with harvest festivals it was the defining historical reality of the Egyptian deliverance that gave the Feast true meaning – the offering of the ‘first-fruits’ became a rite that was rich, not just with agricultural significance, but with theological symbolism – a thanksgiving festival for saving the ‘first-born.’
Although the Day of Atonement is anticipated in the Cain narrative and in the account of the construction of the incense altar in Exodus – it is not explicitly enumerated among the Feasts until Leviticus. The reason for this omission is that the Fast was instituted after the giving of the Sinai covenant, for the historical core that gave rise to Fast was the contamination of the altar of incense [7] by the sons of Aaron.
In Leviticus 10, we are informed how Nadab and Abihu are struck down when they offered strange fire on the altar of incense. It is this incident that gave rise to the necessity to cleanse the sanctuary. Our suspicion is confirmed by the opening words of the Atonement chapter,
“And the Lord spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the Lord and died; and the Lord spake unto Moses, speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place with the vail, before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy-seat.” Lev 16: 1, 2
The passage implies that the sons of Aaron penetrated into the “Most Holy” after offering “strange fire.” Schneir suggests that the death of Aaron’s sons was a tragic accident – they were engulfed in flames from the unexpected flash fire of their new and untried mixture of flammable incense.[8] However ingenious this is extremely unlikely, as the prohibition on drinking alcohol (Lev 10:9) during the performance of priestly duties demonstrates that it was a deliberate act while in a state of intoxication.[9] The similarities with Cain deliberately bringing the ‘wrong’ sacrifice are obvious.[10]
The smoke from the altar of incense represented prayer rising up to God (Pss 141:2), it is this prayer that allows man into the presence of God, but only if the incense is kindled by fire taken from the brazen altar in the outer court. The brazen (sacrificial) altar in the outer court had already been atoned for (Exod 29: 36, 37) and was therefore holy. To the ancient Israelites it was clear that man could only enter into the divine presence through prayer that was sanctified by an atoning sacrifice. Moreover, it was God, not man, who determined the manner in which he was to be approached.
The Aaronic priests acted as mediators for, and representatives of, the people; therefore their actions defiled both the sanctuary, and the people. Aaron and the priests were forbidden to mourn for Nadad and Abihu, instead; “Let your brethren the whole house of Israel bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled” (Lev 10:6).
Conclusion
While standard critical scholarship assigns development of the Day of Atonement to the post-exilic period, we would argue that the form of the “Cain and Abel” narrative and the Altar of Incense ritual in Exodus both constitute evidence of the existence of a Day of Atonement earlier than the post-exilic period.
The Day of Atonement was instituted in the first instance in order to cleanse the sanctuary, the people and the priesthood from the sins of Nadab and Abihu. The “affliction of the soul” that forms such an integral part of the ceremony found it’s origins in the people’s mourning for the deaths of the two priests. The sin involved the whole nation, not just the two perpetrators – for the people no longer had access to the contaminated sanctuary. It demonstrated both the limited efficacy of the Aaronic priesthood and the necessity for the repentance from national sin. It was instituted as a constant reminder of these principles – looking forward to a time when a greater priest would make atonement ‘once and for all’ for the sins of the people.
[1] According to E.O. James, Seasonal Feasts and Festivals (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1963), 119, Yom Kippur is of a later origin, although he believes that the symbolism was borrowed from earlier sources; he speculates as follows: “In the book of Ezekiel the sanctuary is said to have been cleansed twice a year–on the first day of the first month and on the first day of the seventh month –but no mention is made of the Day of Atonement as described in the Levitical narrative. Therefore, the post-exilic observance would seem to have been an addition to the autumnal festival after the return from Babylon when the Jewish calendrical sequence was established, the symbolism of which was borrowed from earlier sources”.
[2] Standard critical scholarship has divided the sources of the Pentateuch into four main sources dubbed “J”, “D”, “E” and “P”. Whereas the Yahwist (J) source is considered to be earliest and largely anthropomorphic, the (P) Priestly source is thought to be concerned with stressing cultic elements – however, literary criticism, particular the presence of chiasm, indicate that consignment to separate sources is an over simplification.
[3] Bruce K. Waltke comments in “Cain and his Offering”, WTJ 48 (1986): 363-372, “The unity of the Pentateuch also enables us to discover, interpret, and validate clues regarding the brothers as priests. Leviticus 8-9, 26 teaches that the priest’s character qualified him or disqualified him from the altar. An encroacher, be he Israelite or non-Israelite, must be put to death. In this light, the statement in vv. 4-5 that the Lord accepted one priest, Abel, and rejected the other, Cain, takes on new significance. Whereas the text explicitly characterizes Abel’s offering, and more or less infers Cain’s, it dwells on Cain’s character, and more or less infers Abel’s”.
[4] In Gen 4:16 – the “presence” (ynplm, “from-before”) suggests that the offerings were brought to a sanctuary. The mention of Sin in Gen 4:7 is usually understood as a zoomorphism but this no more than an educated guess; the ellipsis must be supplied in order to understand the Hebrew idiom as – the sin-offering laid at the door (xtpl) of the sanctuary. The same words are used in Lev 16:7; “And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the (ynpl) Lord at the door (xtpl) of the tabernacle of the congregation”.
[5] J. B. Moster, “Cain: Why Is He Featured So Prominently in the Bible?” JBQ 24 (1996), 238. Cain goes through the following six-step cycle: (1) He sins; (2) He leaves a safe environment; (3) He enters a hostile environment; (4) While in the latter, God protects him; (5) He parts from God; and (6) He ends up in favourable circumstance.
[6] The expression ‘once a year’ is used in Lev 16:34 in connection with atonement for the sins of the people (rather than for the incense altar). The New Testament picks up on this expression: “But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people” (Heb 9:7). The author to the Hebrews is using the atonement ritual as a metaphor to stress the unique, never-to-be repeated, effectiveness of the sacrifice of Christ. The Day of Atonement was, of course, repeated every year, but that does not diminish the analogy.
[7] The altar of incense is associated with the cessation of the Aaronic priesthood – the death of the first two priests to inherit the office, but also with the announcement of the birth of the last legitimate Aaronic priest – John the Baptist (Lk 1:10, 18, 20).
[8] L. Schneir, “Sense and Incense”, JBQ 21 (1993): 242-247.
[9] As a priest on duty, Jesus Christ refused to drink wine again (after the last supper) until the establishment of the kingdom (Matt 26: 29).
[10] Many commentators regard the divine rejection of Cain’s worship as a mystery, or worse, as an arbitrary or capricious act by God – Christadelphians have long recognised that Cain knew that blood sacrifice was required to cover sin (Gen 3:21) and that the ground (and its produce) was under a curse (Gen 3:17) – God would not accept what had been grown ‘in the sweat of thy face’ (justification by works) as a sin offering (although agricultural produce was sometimes offered together with blood sacrifice, or for different occasions). Garry Herion comes to a similar conclusion regarding the cursed ground in his essay; “Why God Rejected Cain’s Offering: The Obvious Answer” in his Fortunate the Eyes That See (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 52-65. It was therefore a deliberate, pre-meditated act of defiance on Cain’s part – did the sons of Aaron purposely get drunk in order to work up the courage to offer strange fire?
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One