This ritual gesture is explicitly mentioned and performed in 23 contexts in the Pentateuch (Gen. 48:14, 17-18; Exod. 29:10, 15, 19; Lev. 1:4; 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 15, 24, 29, 33; 8:14, 18, 22; 16:21; 24:14; Num. 8:10, 12; 27:18, 23; Deut. 34:9). Based on the contextual indicators, it was most likely performed in another five contexts even though it was not explicitly mentioned (Lev. 1:10-11; 9:8, 12, 15-16, 18; 12:6; 23:8, 12, 18-19, 27, 36, 37-38, Num. 28–29). Also, based on contextual indicators, this gesture was neither mentioned nor performed in seven contexts (Lev. 1:14; 5:7, 12:6, 8; 14:22; 15:14, 29; 16:6, 9, 11, 15, 24; Num. 6:10). Finally, outside of the Pentateuch, laying on of hands was explicitly mentioned to be performed once more in the Old Testament (2 Chron. 29:23).
The meaning of this ritual gesture is one of the most debated one in the last century and a half. Even more, it stands in the background of a significant debate as early as in rabbinic literature between rabbis Hillel (110 BC-10 AC) and Shammai (50 BC-30 AC) who argued whether it is lawful to lay hands on sacrificial animals during the festivals.
Starting with rabbis Hillel and Shammai’s later students, followed by church fathers, until the end of the nineteenth century especially, and to this day as well, it was believed that laying on of hands symbolizes a transfer. Depending on the immediate context, this ritual gesture could symbolically transfer sins, sinfulness, authority, guilt, blessings … The element of substitution is often present along with the transfer, especially in the contexts where sin is involved. The strongest support for such understanding was found in Leviticus 16:21, where the high priest “lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sin (or sin sacrifices); and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness.” Numbers 27:18-20 and Deuteronomy 34:9 can be added to Leviticus 16:21 since scholarly consensus holds that symbolic transfer of authority and wisdom also took place when Moses placed his hands on Joshua. This interpretation of laying on of hands is still believed by one group of scholars.
The reason that initiated multiple other suggestions to the meaning of this ritual gesture in the last century and a half was the fact that no text in the Old Testament explicitly states the meaning of it. Thus, to establish its meaning, scholars generally began to consider, besides the Bible itself, two additional sources of data. One school of scholars began borrowing methods and presuppositions from ritual studies and applied them to the biblical texts. Another school of scholars immersed itself into finding parallels between the laying on of hands in the Bible and the immense number and volume of text corpora from the Ancient Near East region, such as Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Anatolia, the Levant, and even Mediterranean. The outcome of this trend was emerging of at least four additional meanings regarding this ritual gesture: (1) identification, (2) consecration, (3) ownership, and (4) manumissio. The most affected meaning of laying on of hands was the one found in sacrificial contexts.
Even though all these new interpretations can fit some contexts but yet in a limited way, careful analysis of the contexts in which laying on of hand seems to support the traditional meaning of it, the one of transfer while what has been transferred is determined by the immediate context.
While scholars generally agree that outside of the sacrificial context laying on of hands symbolizes a transfer of authority, wisdom, blessings, or guilt, many disagreements were generated concerning sacrificial contexts. Several presuppositions have to be taken into consideration to outline a proper interpretative framework for identifying the meaning of this gesture.
First, the Old Testament presents human beings as inherently sinful, which refers to the condition where both the human body and mind are affected by it. As such, human beings are unfit to approach and commune with the holy God. The Old Testament identifies two impurities—ritual and moral—that human beings can experience, and both of them stream out of their common sinful, fallen nature—the result of the fall of Adam and Eve in Eden (Gen. 3). This natural condition of separation from God is the key initiator or is involved in all sacrificial contexts. A symbolic transfer of this sinful condition fits well in all sacrificial contexts. This is strongly confirmed by the fact that the offerer would come to the sanctuary affected either by sin, general human sinfulness, or, in some cases, severe ritual impurity and leave the sanctuary forgiven or accepted by God after offering their sacrifice. None of the texts states what happened with the sin, general human sinfulness, or ritual impurity except for Leviticus 16:16. Based on this text, they are in the sanctuary. In other words, God removes the guilt from human beings for being involved in any of these harmful conditions and allows them to be stored in his sanctuary until the Day of Atonement when they are permanently removed from there and taken outside of the camp. This fundamental yet foundational contextual remark confirms that the meaning of symbolic transfer in the best way represents what laying on of hands means in sacrificial contexts. Laying on of hand is a necessary activity in the ritual process only if it is taken to transfer these unfavorable conditions to the most holy place symbolically. If this meaning is rejected, then laying on of hand becomes an unnecessary gesture within the ritual of sacrificial offering.
Second, laying on of hands in all sacrificial contexts precedes atonement, the process that leads to various results of sacrificial offerings such as acceptance, forgiveness, sanctification, sin removal … The Hebrew verb kipper has received much scholarly attention, and, based on the scholarly hermeneutical tendencies in the last century and a half, kipper was defined in two basic ways. First, kipper was translated as “to cover,” in the sense that it is some sort of cover that covers a sinner’s sin or sinfulness and prevents God from seeing them. Second,[A1][SJ2] kipper was understood as referring to a cleansing of sin, general human sinfulness, or ritual impurity from the offerer.
The Old Testament explicitly explained the meaning of kipper in Leviticus 17:11: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it [the blood] to you to make atonement for your lives on the altar; for it is blood, as or by reason [or means] of life, that makes atonement.” Based on this text, the foundational idea of kipper is that it refers to ransom. Namely, God accepts the blood of the sacrificial animal, which represents its life, that is applied to the sacrificial altar as a ransom for or instead of the offerer’s life. The animal’s blood/life, at the same time, becomes a sinner’s substitute. The sinner does not die for their sin but the sacrificial animal. Thus, atonement is a complex process that is based on ransom and includes a substitution of the sacrificial animal’s life for the offerer’s life to whom the sin and impurity of the individual were transferred. In the process, sin is removed from the offerer in the sin offering contexts and stored in the sanctuary until it is removed from there on the Day of Atonement. This translation of kipper fits well in all sacrificial contexts and accounts for all biblical data.
The most complete but not perfect understanding of kipper is “to atone for.” This interpretation presupposes that the offerer is an inherent sinner that always needs mediation before God when they want to approach Him or that there is a price that needs to be paid when they violate God’s law. It assumes that by instituting the sacrificial system, God provided a safe way for sinners to commune with Him when they want regardless of their degrading sinful condition and to resolve the guilt in the times when they commit sin. God’s acceptance of sinful human beings is always available as long as they accept regulations God set up for them. The supplementary nuances to this understanding of kipper are present in some specific context, but they are to be identified on a case by case basis. This understanding of kipper is also in harmony with the notion of atonement presented in the New Testament.