Yom Kippur’s fulfillments belong in the realm of the eschaton or close to it.
Damian Chambers
The Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) ritual, recorded in Leviticus 16, is the central festival in the Jewish religious year. According to Roy Gane, though the Day of Atonement was not the greatest of festivals in terms of the number of sacrifices offered on that day, due to its unique nature, it stands at the “pinnacle of Israelite cultic observance.”1 Thomas Hieke and Tobias Nicklas posit that Yom Kippur is at the center of the Torah and is a central passage for both Jews and Christians. It is a day of purgation of sin from both the temple and the people—removing all that would hinder interaction between humans and God.2 Isaac Kalimi also said that Day of Atonement is the central festival of the Pentateuch. It appears at the center of the Torah as well as the center of the Book of Leviticus. It culminates chapters 1 to 15.3 It was a day that brought an end to the activities in the sanctuary by a ritual cleansing of both the sanctuary and the people from all their sins. According to the Mishnah, The Day of Atonement was the most solemn day in the Jewish calendar year. The central part of the day was when the High Priest entered the Most Holy Place. The people were kept in awe until he re-emerged.4
It is difficult for any Christian theologian to explain the atonement without considering the meaning of the Day of Atonement ritual in Leviticus 16. According to Hieke and Nicklas, “Leviticus 16 provides decisive impulses for understanding the basic theological message of the Cross.”5 Despite the central role that Leviticus 16 plays in the doctrine of the atonement, theologians are not united on the exact meaning of all the rites of this passage. The major questions surrounding this passage include: What is the exact meaning of Azazel? Are both goats representative of Christ? Does Yom Kippur find complete fulfillment in the Cross event?
While the first two questions might have implications surrounding Yom Kippur, this article is mainly concerned with the last question. A study of the Jewish and early Christian understanding of Yom Kippur suggests that the Day of Atonement implies eschatology. So, the research attempts to answer the question of whether the Cross event (which is such a central event to Christians) represents the complete fulfillment of Yom Kippur, including its eschatological aspects.
This article argues that while the Cross event is connected to Yom Kippur (due to Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice for sins), it is not a complete fulfillment of the Day of Atonement. There are several reasons for this conclusion. First, because of the eschatological nature of Yom Kippur (as seen in the Jewish and early Christian understanding), it is to see the complete cleansing of the sanctuary and God’s people from sin and the banishment of Satan; and second, references to Yom Kippur in the New Testament (including the Book of Hebrews) speak more to a future fulfillment of Yom Kippur from its time.
Evidence for Eschatological Yom Kippur Among Jews and Early Christians
The Jewish understanding of Yom Kippur was that it represents the eschatological end of sin.6 For the Jews, eschatology represents the renewal of the earth and the uprooting of idolatry from the temple, and the establishing of the city of Jerusalem.7 For the Christian, eschatology represents the “doctrine of the last things” (comprising death, resurrection, judgment, and the afterlife).”8 For the early Christians (first and second centuries), the general view of eschatology was the Secondd Coming of Christ in glory. Evidence for the eschatological nature of Yom Kippur is found in the timing of the festival, in Jewish non-canonical apocalyptic literature, and the writings of early church fathers.
The Timing of the Yom Kippur Festival In the Jewish Calendar Points and Eschatological Fulfillment
The timing of the Yom Kippur festival in the Jewish calendar is one indication of its eschatological nature. According to John Ritchie, the feasts and the sanctuary services of the Old Testament foreshadowed the work of Christ.9 These feasts were both a “prophecy” and a “shadow” of things to come. According to him, there were seven annual feasts (excluding the weekly Sabbath) that were appointed by God for Israel.10 He also posits that these feasts represent God’s dealing with His people “from the death of Christ to His millennial kingdom, and to the eternal glory and rest, which lie beyond it.”11 In other words, Richie sees the fulfillment of the feasts in the chronological order that they appear during the Israelite year from the time of Christ to the eschaton. For example, he mentions that the first four feasts run close to each other—the Passover, Feast of Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, and Pentecost. Then, there is a four-month break until the next three feasts—Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and Feast of Tabernacles.12 Ritchie interprets the chronological arrangement of the feasts to mean that the first four relate to God’s work in the church and the present age, but the last three relate to the gathering of Israel (the seed of Abraham) and the future blessing that God has in store for them.
The Bible shows that Christ’s death on the cross synchronized with the time for the sacrifice of the Passover lamb (1 Cor. 5:7) and the coming of the Holy Spirit synchronized with the timing of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–3). These events took place on the exact day of their corresponding type in the Jewish calendar. Based on Ritchie’s hypothesis, the last three feasts (including Yom Kippur) are yet future. He identifies the break between Pentecost and the final feasts as the current period for the working of the Holy Spirit in the church.13
Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and Eschatological Expectation of Yom Kippur
The eschatological nature of Yom Kippur is also revealed in the Jewish apocalyptic literature. According to Daniel Ben Ezra, each Jewish group (including second-temple Jews and those in the Greek diaspora) used Yom Kippur ideas and imageries in their theology.14 Despite the variations to the biblical account of Yom Kippur, there are two key elements of the Yom Kippur ideology that is common among all Jewish sects: (1) descriptions of the heavenly ascent into the presence of God by the high priest [the high priest is usually portrayed as the protagonist of the good forces]); and (2) the eschatological end of sin that sees the demise of Az’azel, who is usually portrayed as the leader of the evil powers.15 According to Ben Ezra, it is probably Zechariah 3 that not only reflects Yom Kippur imagery but served as a backdrop to later apocalyptic ideas about Yom Kippur such as 1 Enoch 10, Apocalypse of Abraham, Testament of Levi, and Dead Sea Scrolls (or Qumran) texts.
Zechariah 3
Zechariah 3 presents Joshua, the high priest, standing before God in filthy garments with Satan at his right hand resisting him. The Lord rebuked Satan and commanded that a change of garment be given to Joshua so that he might be clothed in pure garment—which represents the taking away of his guilt. Then, Joshua is commissioned to obey and promised a place among the angels if he remains faithful. God promises to remove the guilt of the land in one day. Quoting Robert Hanhart, Ben Ezra identifies some elements of Yom Kippur that are evident in Zechariah 3. These include:
1. The high priest, who is standing in a place where only God and the defending angel are present.
2. The right of access to this place is based on some regulations; therefore, this place is considered the Holy of Holies.
3. The exchanging of filthy clothes for new ones, representing the removal of sin signifies atonement.
4. And “the ‘single day’ of purification of the land evokes Yom Kippur and gives it an eschatological ring.”16
According to Ben Ezra, later Apocalyptic authors would develop their description of Yom Kippur from Zechariah 3, especially the idea of the ascent to the Holy of Holies.
1 Enoch
In the book of 1 Enoch, Yom Kippur language is usually associated with references to Azael in chapters 9 and 10. Lester Grabbe has expressed uncertainty about whether 1 Enoch’s reference to Azael/Asael is the same as Azazel of Leviticus 16, because they are two different words.17 However, he said that their activities are similar, and says both texts are brought together in the writings of “Qumran and elsewhere.”18
The main passage of 1 Enoch that relates to Yom Kippur is found in verse 10: “And he said to Raphael, ‘Bind Azael hand and foot, and throw him into the darkness; open the desert that is in the Daduel and throw him there. And place under him the rugged and sharp stones, and let darkness cover him. Let him live there ⌊forever⌋: cover up his appearance and let no light be seen. For in the day of great judgment he will be led away into the burning. The earth that the angels removed was healed. But reveal the healing of the earth so that they may heal the blow, so that all the children of the people may not be destroyed with the whole mystery that the watchmen ordered and showed to their children. And the whole earth was destroyed and laid waste by the works of Azael’s teaching. Ascribe to him all sins.’ And the Lord said to Gabriel, ‘Go against the bastards, against the base ones and the children of fornication, and destroy the children of the watchmen among the people. Send them to the battle of destruction [for they will not have a long life]. And there will not be any questioning to their fathers, even concerning themselves. For they hoped to live an eternal life and each of them will live five hundred years.’”19
Elements of Yom Kippur evident in this passage include the banishment of Azael, all sins being ascribed to Azael, the great day of judgment, the healing of the earth, and the destruction of the evil forces. According to Ben Ezra, “the purpose behind the narrative is an eschatological day of purification of the whole earth from sin.”20
Grabbe also connects the 1 Enoch 10 passage with eschatology by showing that it parallels Revelation 20. He wrote that though there are no direct references to Azazael in the Book of Revelation, there are parallel experiences between Azael of 1 Enoch and Satan of Revelation 20. First, Asael is bound prior to the judgment just as is Satan. Second, just as Satan is cast into the abyss, so are Azael and others according to Syncellus’ version of 1 Enoch 9, 4. Third, in the final judgment, just as Satan is cast into a “lake of fire” (Rev. 20:10), so Azael and his companions are cast into an “abyss of fire” (1 Enoch 10, 13).21
Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran texts)
The Qumran community texts followed in the line of other Jewish Apocalyptic literature to see the Day of Atonement as representing an eschatological deliverance from sin that would see the defeat of Azazel. William K. Gilders wrote an article based on the results of a study that he did on the various Dead Sea (Qumran) texts to derive a full picture of how the Qumran community interpreted Yom Kippur. In his research, he examined both texts that were written by the community, as well as those that were from outside the group.22 Gilders pointed out that the Qumran community’s view of the Day of Atonement surrounds four documents 1 QpHab XI. 2-8 (a reinterpretation of Habakkuk 2:15), 4Q Enoch Giants, 4Q180, and 11Q Melchizedek. This Jewish sect did not have access to temple services; however, they observed Yom Kippur based on how they envisioned it to be done in an ideal temple.23 They saw Yom Kippur as a day of rest (sabbath) and fasting. William summarizes his view of how this community saw the Day of Atonement: “The Day of Atonement anticipated and prepared for eschatological liberation. This liberation would include release from the burden and debt of sin. Thus, an appropriate degree of penitential observance was important to the Day. Defeat of demonic powers was understood to be prefigured in the rite of expulsion to Azazel, which was prescribed in Leviticus and the Temple Scroll. The sect imagined that this rite would be performed in an ideal Temple, probably one that would exist before the final eschatological victory of Melchizedek.”24
Grabbe also identifies connection between 11Q Melchizedek and Revelation 20, in that the binding of Satan takes place after the Day of Expiation (Day of Atonement). The document identifies this as the Jubilee year. Grabbe said that “to many Jews of the time, the binding of Satan before the messianic age was likely to evoke jubilee symbolism and with it the whole complex associated with the Day of Atonement.”25
Early Church Fathers and Yom Kippur
According to Grabbe, the discussion regarding Yom Kippur among early church fathers does not continue in the same vein as the Jews. For example, the “demonological” view of Azazel is not adopted by the Christians fathers.26 What is common among Christian fathers is that both goats (of Leviticus 16) are used as symbols of Christ.27 However, Grabbe said that these early Christian authors showed considerable knowledge of Jewish culture regarding the Day of Atonement. He made this conclusion on the basis that Tertullian’s rendition of the handling of the two goats contains extra biblical material that is found in the “Mishna tractate Yoma.”28
Ben Ezra, who did a comprehensive study on the impact of Yom Kippur on early Christianity, identifies a late obsession with Yom Kippur imagery among some early church fathers. Ben Ezra attributes this rise in Yom Kippur typology to the influence and existence of Jewish Yom Kippur practices among Christians. He said that because some Christians began attending the Jewish fasts (connected with Yom Kippur), some church fathers like Origen and Chrysostom not only rebuked them for doing so, but also developed a theology to explain why Christ is the fulfillment of Yom Kippur and why it is absurd for Christians to be still following these Jewish practices.29 Despite their identifying both goats as connected with Christ, early Christian apologists connected Yom Kippur with eschatology, in the sense that they viewed the two goats as fulfilling His first and second coming. This view is found in the writings of Origen, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Hippolytus.
Origen
Origen is considered the “first Christian exegete on Leviticus.”30 His interpretation of Yom Kippur imagery is very interesting because he moved away from mere application to Christ’s sacrifice to several other typologies. These include: (1) the Barabbas episode [Matthew 27]; (2) the two criminals who were crucified with Christ; (3) evil vs. good thoughts; (4) evil doers vs. godly people; and (5) unrepentant sinners vs. repentant sinners. According to Ben Ezra, the common theme among Origen’s interpretations is bipolar—bad vs. good.31 Origen claims that if all the people were holy, there would not be a need for two goats; one goat for the Lord would be sufficient.32
On the other hand, some of Origen’s interpretation of Yom Kippur follow similar lines of Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and other Christian authors—the idea that Yom Kippur points to Christ’s eschatological triumph over the evil forces and that Yom Kippur will not end until Christ returns the second time. According to Origen, “The day of atonement remains for us until the sun sets; that is, until the world comes to an end. For let us stand ‘before the gates’ waiting for our high priest who remains within ‘the Holy of Holies,’ that is, ‘before the Father’; and who intercedes not for the sins of everyone, but ‘for the sins’ of those ‘who wait for him.’ For he does not intercede for those who come into the lot of the he-goat which is sent ‘into the wilderness.’ He intercedes only for those who ‘are the lot of the Lord,’ who ‘wait for him before the gates,’ who ‘do not depart from the Temple, who are not absent from fasting and prayer.’”33
In other words, Origen saw the Day of Atonement as starting from the time that Christ ascended into the “holy of holies” until the end of the world. Most of the other early church fathers had similar views—Christ, at His first coming offers His sacrifice, but Yom Kippur is not complete until He returns the second time (at the eschaton).
Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr interpreted the two goats to represent Christ—one at His first coming (the one that was killed), and the other at His second coming.34 Ben Ezra suggests that Justin got his typology of Yom Kippur, not from the Bible, but from Jewish tradition, because he referred to the “death” of the scapegoat.35
Tertullian
Similarly, Tertullian saw the two goats as representing the two comings of Christ.36 Tertullian was defending the Messiahship of Jesus against the accusations of Marcion of Sinope, who claimed that the Jews (experts in the Old Testament) did not recognize Jesus and were still looking for a glorious appearing of a Messiah.
Tertullian responded by presenting a typology of the two goats representing Jesus. Tertullian suggested that the scapegoat represented the first coming of Jesus when He was spat upon and killed. And the second goat represents Jesus at His second coming, “after all sins have been expiated.” God’s people will feast on His flesh (spiritually) while the others “fast from salvation.”37
Hippolytus
Hippolytus had similar views of both goats representing Christ. However, he differed slightly from Origen and Justin Martyr, because he identified the scapegoat as Christ, who is slaughtered for the sins of the world, then sent out to the Gentiles (a desert).38
The New Testament Anticipation of a Future Fulfillment of Yom Kippur
The early beliefs of Christianity were formulated by Jewish Christians. Therefore, the memories of Jewish concepts and ideas impacted their ideologies. It is difficult to see how their ideas of Yom Kippur would not also affect their interpretation of the death of Jesus Christ.39 However, outside of the book of Hebrews and Romans, Yom Kippur language is very sparse in the New Testament. According to Henrietta L. Wiley and Christian A. Eberhart, “overt references to the Day of Atonement are . . . rare in the New Testament.”40 According to them, Christians who consider the death of Christ to be the core of the gospel should consider that His death took place during the festival of the Passover; not Yom Kippur. Therefore, this might be the reason that the New Testament writers said so little about the Day of Atonement. According to these authors, references to Day of Atonement in the New Testament are very subtle and relate specifically to the scapegoat ritual.41 Whenever the New Testament mentions Yom Kippur, it does not imply a complete fulfillment of the typology. It mainly addresses references to the sacrifice that Christ offered, but not the entire fulfillment of the type. The New Testament references are divided into two types—implicit (Rom. 3:25, 26; Gal. 3:13; Matt. 27:15–26) and explicit (Book of Hebrews) references.
Implicit References to Yom Kippur in the New Testament
Ben Ezra mentions four Bible passages that he believes reflect Yom Kippur imagery. These are Romans 3:25 and 26, Galatians 3:13; Matthew 27:15 to 26; and several passages in the Book of Hebrews. He also mentions that Yom Kippur language would more than likely influence other direct references to the passion narrative, such as John 1:29 (Jesus as the “Lamb of God”) and 1 Peter 2:24.42 Any mention of the death of Christ would involve not only Yom Kippur but also the Passover and other sacrificial services because Christ’s death is “once for all” (1 Peter 3:18; Heb. 10:10, NIV). However, for the purpose of this article, passages that relate directly to the fulfillment of Yom Kippur are addressed, not just the sacrificial offering.
Romans 3:25, 26. This text is identified as direct reference to Yom Kippur due to its use of the term ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion), which means “a sacrifice of atonement” or “atonement cover.”43 This is a reference to the mercy seat that was inside the Holy of Holies, which the priest could access only once per year (Leviticus 16; Hebrews 9). However, the passage does not expound on the Yom Kippur service in its fullness; therefore, it is difficult to derive much meaning in terms of fulfillment, outside of connecting Christ’s sacrifice to Yom Kippur.
Galatians 3:13. Most theologians who identify Yom Kippur language in Galatians 3:13 usually do so by identifying Christ as the ill-treated goat, Azazael. According to Richard Barry, the idea of “curse,” in opposition to being “blessed” (based on a study of Deuteronomy, from which the language of Galatians 3:13 is derived). In his view, the “curse” is easily identified with the “desolate land” to which Azazel is sent, or where he dwells (depending on one’s interpretation of Leviticus 16).44 Again, this reference must be inferred; there is not a full exposition on the Yom Kippur typology. Additionally, though space is inadequate here to expound on it, there are some problems with identifying Jesus with Azazel.
Matthew 27:15–26. Ben Ezra claims that Yom Kippur imagery can be identified in the Passion narrative of Matthew’s Gospel. According to him, there might be a scapegoat imagery with the story of the release of Barabbas. He does so on the following basis: (1) the lottery of the two goats; (2) the similarity of the goats [to Jesus]; (3) their contrasting destinations; (4) the confession over the scapegoat; and (5) the washing the hands [by Pilate] at the end of the ritual. However, there are some problems with this typology. Hans Moscicke identifies three of them: (1) It is unclear how Barabbas functions as the scapegoat. Moscicke attempts to solve this problem by identifying the people as the scapegoat, who claimed to take the sins upon themselves. (2) What is the role of the declaration by the people, “‘His blood be on us and on our children’” [Matt. 27:25, NKJV]?; (3) Pilate’s washing of his hands is unclear.45 As pointed out by Ben Ezra, such identification of scapegoat typology could only be identified in Matthew’s gospel, due to Matthew’s play on words to identify Barabbas as Jesus, in order to create a picture of similarity.46 Therefore, definite Yom Kippur imagery, outside of the sacrifice of Christ, is not conclusive.
Explicit References to Yom Kippur in the New Testament—The Book of Hebrews
Of all the New Testament books, that of Hebrews has the clearest reference(s) to Yom Kippur (Hebrews 9). Several scholars argue, based on the Book of Hebrews, that Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension to “sit at the right hand of the Father” represents the complete fulfillment of Yom Kippur and that Christ’s current intercession only involves “praying” for His people.47 In other words, there is no “atonement” going on after the resurrection and ascension of Christ. The Book of Hebrews does not present the idea that Christ completely fulfilled Yom Kippur at the cross, but at His ascension Christ began His offerings that transferred people's sin to the sanctuary, referred to as His Tamid ministry, and would later (closer to the eschaton) fulfill the Yom Kippur typology (Heb. 9:28). This is based on the following: (1) Christ’s activities in the Book of Hebrews are more related to the Tamid; not Yom Kippur; and (2) the Book of Hebrews anticipates an eschatological exit from the heavenly sanctuary by the High Priest.
The Book of Hebrews points to Tamid, not Yom Kippur. This argument will come in the form of a solution to the problems with two opposing views on the function of Yom Kippur in the Book of Hebrews. Some of the questions to be addressed include the following: When does Yom Kippur begin in relation to the Tamid ministry of Christ? Is Christ’s Tamid ministry efficacious? How does Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice relate to a delayed fulfillment of Yom Kippur? Nicholas Moore and David M. Moffit, in their dialogue through various articles on the Book of Hebrews, share opposing views on how it handles the atoning work of Christ. On one side, Moore argues that when Christ sat at the right hand of the Father, it signaled the end of His Yom Kippur ministry and the beginning of Tamid (which, according to him, is intercession through prayer).48 On the other hand, Moffitt argues that Christ’s ongoing ministry is part of Yom Kippur. According to him, Christ presented Himself as a sacrifice once in the Holy of Holies, but His Yom Kippur ministry will not end until He leaves the heavenly sanctuary and returns to His people at His second advent (9:28).49
While both authors make valid points, the challenge that they face goes deeper than the issues they disagree on. The fundamental problem that they face is the timing of Yom Kippur—both authors place it at the start of Christ’s high priestly ministry. This is problematic. For Moore, placing Yom Kippur at the beginning puts his typology in conflict with the sequencing of the earthly sanctuary services. The earthly sanctuary service started with a daily round of offerings that transferred the people’s sin to the sanctuary, referred to there as “Tamid” (Leviticus 4); second, the Day of Atonement takes place at the end of the year, when all those sins are cleansed from the people and the sanctuary, and placed on the head of the scapegoat (Leviticus 16). According to Roy Gane, the Book of Leviticus identifies two phases for the expiation of sins: (1) the removal of sins from the offeror [Leviticus 4]; and (2) the removal of sin from the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement [Leviticus 16].50 Therefore, if the earthly sanctuary functioned as a shadow of Christ’s ministry, then it would be expected that that Tamid should take place before Yom Kippur.
Moffit attempts to solve the problem by employing an extension of Yom Kippur as the fulfillment of Christ’s ongoing ministry. He views Yom Kippur as ongoing, from the time of Christ’s sacrifice and ascension until the eschaton.51 While it is true that Yom Kippur will not end until Christ exits the sanctuary (Heb. 9:28), starting Yom Kippur at the time of Christ’s ascension is problematic as well. Yom Kippur does not begin until closer to the eschaton.
A person may ask the question, If Yom Kippur does not begin until closer to the eschaton, how do we account for the sacrifice of the Lord’s goat at that time, when the Book of Hebrews points to a once-for-all sacrifice (10:10)? Similar to the fact that Christ’s sinless nature makes it unnecessary for Him to offer a sacrifice for Himself as the earthly high priest did, it is also unnecessary for Him to offer Himself as a sacrifice for every point in the service that needs a sacrifice. So, Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice takes care of all the instances in the sanctuary services when a sacrifice is necessary. So, since Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, the only thing required after that is to apply the merits of His sacrifice when it is required (1 John 1:9; 2:1, 2). Therefore, when He entered heaven, Christ took up His ministry as our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary to carry out His ministry in the sequence stipulated by the earthly sanctuary service―Tamid first, then Yom Kippur.
There is one other problem that needs to be addressed: What is involved with Christ’s Tamid ministry? Is Christ simply praying for His people, or is He applying the merits of His sacrifice on their behalf? According to Robert Letham, Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary does not involve any blood; He is simply praying and interceding on behalf of His people.52 The problem with this view is if Christ is only praying for His people, how does one account for the atonement of sins after baptism and after the Cross? It is Christ’s Tamid ministry that takes care of “forgiveness of sins,” not Yom Kippur (1 John 2:1, 2). Roy Gane suggests, as mentioned above, that forgiveness is not mentioned at all in Leviticus 16 because Yom Kippur is not about forgiveness; it is about cleansing the sanctuary. According to him, it is during the year (through the Tamid ministry) that forgiveness is offered, but on the Day of Atonement the sanctuary is cleansed.53 The point is that the Tamid ministry of Christ is necessary to take care of the forgiveness of sins by the application of the merits of Christ’s sacrifice until the eventual cleansing of the heavenly Holy of Holies.
Eschatological exit from the heavenly sanctuary by the High Priest. A second reason for saying that the Book of Hebrews does not present a completed Yom Kippur is that the author of Hebrews awaits an eschatological exit of the High Priest from the heavenly sanctuary (9:28). Moore is aware of this problem.54 That is why he argues for a divergence from the levitical typology on this matter. According to him, the signal for the end of the high priest’s work in the Holy of Holies (based on Leviticus), is his exit. However, the Book of Hebrews does not speak of any exit outside of the eschaton (vs. 28). Therefore, Moore argues that the Book of Hebrews diverts from this typology of Leviticus on this matter and implements the “sitting down at the right hand of the Father” as the signal that Yom Kippur is over.55 However, there is no need to divert from the levitical typology, because the Book of Hebrews indicates an exit from the heavenly sanctuary by the High Priest (vs. 28). If no exit was stipulated, then there might be a precedent for replacing the levitical typology.
Conclusion
This study is based on the chronological arrangement of the Jewish feast days and the expectations of the Jews and some early Christians. Yom Kippur’s fulfillments belong in the realm of the eschaton or close to it. The New Testament, including the Book of Hebrews, does not present a complete typology or fulfillment of Yom Kippur. Therefore, like the author of Hebrews, we await an eschatological exit of the High Priest from the heavenly sanctuary.
Damian Chambers, ThM, is an Assistant Professor and Coordinator for the undergraduate program of the School of Religion and Theology at Northern Caribbean University, Mandeville, Jamaica. He is currently pursuing a PhD in systematic theology at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. Roy Gane, Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 217.
2. Thomas Hieke, and Tobias Nicklas, eds., The Day of Atonement: Its Interpretations in Early Jewish and Christian Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2011), vii.
3. Ibid., 76.
4. Eugene J. Lipman, trans., The Mishnah: Oral Teachings of Judaism (New York: Schocken Books, 1970), 109, 110.
5. Hieke and Nicklas, The Day of Atonement, vii.
6. Daniel Stokl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity: The Day of Atonement From Second Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century (Tubingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 2003), 89.
7. David Flusser, Judaism of the Second Temple Period Volume 1 Qumran and Apocalypticism, Azzan Yaddin, trans. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007), 208.
8. Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1984), 362.
9. John Ritchie, The Feasts of Jehovah (Kilmarnock, Scotland: John Ritchie, Ltd., 1982), 13.
10. Ibid., 19.
11. Ibid., 9.
12. Ibid., 19.
13. Ibid., 62.
14. Daniel Stokl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur (Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 78.
15. Ibid., 79.
16. Ibid., 81.
17. Lester Grabbe, “The Scapegoat Tradition: A Study in Early Jewish Interpretation,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 18:2 (December 1987): 154.
18. Ibid.
19. Rick Brannan et al., eds., The Lexham English Septuagint (Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2012), Enoch 10:4–10, Logos Bible Software.
20. Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 89.
21. Grabbe, “The Scapegoat Tradition,” 161.
22. William K. Gilders, “The Day of Atonement in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In The Day of Atonement: Its Interpretations in Early Jewish and Christian Traditions, Thomas Kieke and Tobias Nicklas, eds. (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012), 6: https://search-ebscohost-com.aaron.swbts.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e093mww& AN=408444&site=eds-live.
23. Ibid., 67.
24. Ibid., 72.
25. Grabbe, “The Scapegoat Tradition,” 161.
26. The “demonological” view of Azazael among the Jewish literature presents Azazael as the leader of the fallen angels. Grabbe, “The Scapegoat Tradition,” 158; Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 125.
27. Grabbe, “The Scapegoat Tradition,” 162.
28. Ibid., 163.
29. Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 261, 273.
30. Ibid., 265.
31. Ibid., 266.
32. Origen, Homilies on Leviticus: 1-16, The Fathers of the Church, Gary Wayne, trans. (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1990), 181.
33. Ibid., 187.
34. Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 157.
35. Ibid., 156.
36. Ibid., 157.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid., 158.
39. Ibid., 145.
40. Henrietta L. Wiley and Christian A. Eberhart, “Sacrifice, Cult, and Atonement in Early Judaism and Christianity: Constituents and Critique,” Resources for Biblical Study, Number 85 (Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2017), 229.
41. Ibid.
42. Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 176–178.
43. James A. Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament), (Oak Harbor, Wash.: Logos Research Systems, Inc, 1997).
44. Richard J. Barry IV, The Two Goats: A Christian Yom Kippur Soteriology (doctoral diss., Marquette University, May 2017), 311, 312: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/716).
45. Hans M. Moscicke, “Jesus, Barabbas, and the Crowd as Figures in Matthew’s Day of Atonement Typology (Matt. 27:15–26),” Journal of Biblical Literature 139:1 (2020): 125: https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1391.2020.7.
46. Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 167, 168.
47. Robert Letham, The Work of Christ: Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 156, 157.
48. Nicholas J. Moore, “Sacrifice, Session and Intercession: The End of Christ’s Offering in Hebrews,” Journal of the Study of the New Testament (2020), 42:537. https://doi.org/10.1 177/0142064X20914527.
49. David M. Moffit, “Jesus as Interceding High Priest and Sacrifice in Hebrews: A Response to Nicholas Moore,” Journal of the Study of the New Testament (2020), 42:542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X20914528.
50. Gane, Cult and Character, xx.
51. Moffit, “Jesus as Interceding High Priest and Sacrifice in Hebrews,” 546.
52. Letham, The Work of Christ, 156, 157.
53. Gane, Cult and Character, 233, 234.
54. Moore, “Sacrifice, Session and Intercession,” 537.
55. Ibid.
1. Roy Gane, Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 217.
2. Thomas Hieke, and Tobias Nicklas, eds., The Day of Atonement: Its Interpretations in Early Jewish and Christian Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2011), vii.
3. Ibid., 76.
4. Eugene J. Lipman, trans., The Mishnah: Oral Teachings of Judaism (New York: Schocken Books, 1970), 109, 110.
5. Hieke and Nicklas, The Day of Atonement, vii.
6. Daniel Stokl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity: The Day of Atonement From Second Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century (Tubingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 2003), 89.
7. David Flusser, Judaism of the Second Temple Period Volume 1 Qumran and Apocalypticism, Azzan Yaddin, trans. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007), 208.
8. Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1984), 362.
9. John Ritchie, The Feasts of Jehovah (Kilmarnock, Scotland: John Ritchie, Ltd., 1982), 13.
10. Ibid., 19.
11. Ibid., 9.
12. Ibid., 19.
13. Ibid., 62.
14. Daniel Stokl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur (Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 78.
15. Ibid., 79.
16. Ibid., 81.
17. Lester Grabbe, “The Scapegoat Tradition: A Study in Early Jewish Interpretation,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 18:2 (December 1987): 154.
18. Ibid.
19. Rick Brannan et al., eds., The Lexham English Septuagint (Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2012), Enoch 10:4–10, Logos Bible Software.
20. Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 89.
21. Grabbe, “The Scapegoat Tradition,” 161.
22. William K. Gilders, “The Day of Atonement in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In The Day of Atonement: Its Interpretations in Early Jewish and Christian Traditions, Thomas Kieke and Tobias Nicklas, eds. (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012), 6: https://search-ebscohost-com.aaron.swbts.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e093mww& AN=408444&site=eds-live.
23. Ibid., 67.
24. Ibid., 72.
25. Grabbe, “The Scapegoat Tradition,” 161.
26. The “demonological” view of Azazael among the Jewish literature presents Azazael as the leader of the fallen angels. Grabbe, “The Scapegoat Tradition,” 158; Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 125.
27. Grabbe, “The Scapegoat Tradition,” 162.
28. Ibid., 163.
29. Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 261, 273.
30. Ibid., 265.
31. Ibid., 266.
32. Origen, Homilies on Leviticus: 1-16, The Fathers of the Church, Gary Wayne, trans. (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1990), 181.
33. Ibid., 187.
34. Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 157.
35. Ibid., 156.
36. Ibid., 157.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid., 158.
39. Ibid., 145.
40. Henrietta L. Wiley and Christian A. Eberhart, “Sacrifice, Cult, and Atonement in Early Judaism and Christianity: Constituents and Critique,” Resources for Biblical Study, Number 85 (Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2017), 229.
41. Ibid.
42. Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 176–178.
43. James A. Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament), (Oak Harbor, Wash.: Logos Research Systems, Inc, 1997).
44. Richard J. Barry IV, The Two Goats: A Christian Yom Kippur Soteriology (doctoral diss., Marquette University, May 2017), 311, 312: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/716).
45. Hans M. Moscicke, “Jesus, Barabbas, and the Crowd as Figures in Matthew’s Day of Atonement Typology (Matt. 27:15–26),” Journal of Biblical Literature 139:1 (2020): 125: https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1391.2020.7.
46. Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 167, 168.
47. Robert Letham, The Work of Christ: Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 156, 157.
48. Nicholas J. Moore, “Sacrifice, Session and Intercession: The End of Christ’s Offering in Hebrews,” Journal of the Study of the New Testament (2020), 42:537. https://doi.org/10.1 177/0142064X20914527.
49. David M. Moffit, “Jesus as Interceding High Priest and Sacrifice in Hebrews: A Response to Nicholas Moore,” Journal of the Study of the New Testament (2020), 42:542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X20914528.
50. Gane, Cult and Character, xx.
51. Moffit, “Jesus as Interceding High Priest and Sacrifice in Hebrews,” 546.
52. Letham, The Work of Christ, 156, 157.
53. Gane, Cult and Character, 233, 234.
54. Moore, “Sacrifice, Session and Intercession,” 537.
55. Ibid.