In an article in Religion Compass , David Janzen challenges Milgrom’s understanding of sacrifice as “purgation” and his claims about the effects of sacrifice. Rather than purging, sacrifice emphasizes Yahweh’s difference from Israel, the requirement of Israel’s obedience, and the consequences of her failure to obey. He concludes:

“But the sacrificial rendering unto God what is God’s is . . . a public demonstration of Israel’s feudal relationship to the divine. In P’s narrative, sacrifice is largely about distinction and the obedience that follows upon accepting the feudal relationship implied in this distinction between the divine and human realms. Sacrifice demands obedience, and it signals a warning. The consequence of not sacrificing is not, as Milgrom sees it, that the divine presence will depart from Israel – an assertion that P nowhere makes – but that God will make a sacrifice out of Israel through famine, plague, and warfare, as so vividly described in Leviticus 18:24–30 and 26:14–39. The blood of sacrifice is ultimately not a detergent, but an indicator of something that belongs to God – an indication of God’s authority to demand obedience and power to punish sin.”

The whole discussion is skewed by Milgrom’s and Janzen’s focus on the non-existent P.