Sin offering

Sin Offering. The Sin Offering among the Jews was the sacrifice in which the ideas of propitiation and of atonement for sin were most distinctly marked. The ceremonial of the Sin Offering is described in Leviticus 5 and Leviticus 6. The Trespass Offering is closely connected with the Sin Offering in Leviticus, but at the same time clearly distinguished from it, being, in some cases, offered with it, as a distinct part of the same sacrifice; as, for example, in the cleansing of the leper. Leviticus 14. The distinction of ceremonial clearly indicates a difference in the idea of the two sacrifices. The nature of that difference is still a subject of great controversy. We find that the Sin Offerings were --

Regular.

(a) For the whole people, at the New Moon, Passover, Pentecost, Feast of Trumpets, and Feast of Tabernacles, Num 28:15-29; Num 38:1, besides the solemn offering of the two goats on the Great Day of Atonement. Leviticus 16.

(b) For the priests and Levites at their consecration, Exo 29:10-14; Exo 29:36, besides the yearly Sin Offering, (a bullock), for the high priest on the Great Day of Atonement. Lev 16:2.

Special. For any sin of "ignorance" and the like, recorded in Leviticus 5 and Leviticus 5. It is seen that, in the law, most of the sins which are not purely ceremonial are called sins of "ignorance," see Heb 9:7, and in Num 15:30, it is expressly said that while such sins can be atoned for by offerings, "the soul that doeth aught presumptuously," (Hebrew, with a high hand), "shall be cut off from among his people." "His iniquity shall he upon him." Compare Heb 10:20.

But here are sufficient indications that the sins here called "of ignorance" are, more strictly, those of "negligence" or "frailty," repented of by the unpunished offender, as opposed to those of deliberate and unrepentant sin. It is clear that two classes of sacrifices, although distinct, touch closely upon each other. It is also evident that the Sin Offering was the only regular and general recognition of sin in the abstract, and accordingly, was for more solemn and symbolical in it’s ceremonial; the Trespass Offering was confined to special cases, most of which related to the doing of some material damage, either to the holy things or to man.

Josephus declares that the Sin Offering is presented by those "who fall into sin in ignorance," and the Trespass Offering by "one who has sinned and is conscious of his sin. But has no one to convict him thereof." Without attempting to decide so difficult and so controverted a question, we may draw the following conclusions.

First, that the Sin Offering was for the more solemn and comprehensive of the two sacrifices. Secondly, that the Sin Offering looked more to the guilt of the sin done, irrespective of its consequences, while the Trespass Offering looked to the evil consequences of sin, either against the service of God or against man, and to the duty of atonement, as far as atonement was possible. Thirdly, that in the Sin Offering, especially, we find, symbolized, the acknowledgment of sinfulness as inherent in man, and of the need of expiation by sacrifice, to renew the broken covenant between man and God. In considering this subject, it must he remembered that the sacrifices of the law had a temporal, as well as a spiritual significance and effect. They restored the sin offender to his place in the commonwealth of Israel; they were, therefore, an atonement to the King of Israel, for the infringement of his law.

(See SACRIFICE; ATONEMENT; LEPROSY.) As chatteth, hamartia, is the "sin offering", so asham (implying "negligence"), lutron, is the "trespass offering". (See SIN.) The trespass offering was a forfeit for the violated rights of others, whether of Jehovah as head of the nation or of a fellow man. It related to the consequence of sin more immediately than to sin itself in the sinner’s heart. Its connection with the consecration of the leper, and reconsecration of the Nazarite, expressed the share each has in sin’s consequences, disease, death, and consequent defilement (Lev 5:14; Lev 5:14; Lev 5:15). It was less connected with the conscience than the sin offering (Lev 4:3). There was no graduation of offerings according to the worshipper’s circumstances. It was accompanied with pecuniary fine, one fifth besides the value of the injury done, in fact "fine offerings" (Num 5:5-8). None of the blood was put on the altar horns, as in the sin offering. The victim was a ram instead of a female sheep or goat.

In Isa 53:10 translated "when His soul shall have made an offering for sin" (asham, a "trespass offering", Mat 20:28, "a ransom for many," lutron anti polloon), He voluntarily laying down His life (Joh 10:17-18; Eph 5:2; Heb 9:14). (On the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement. see DAY OF ATONEMENT.) The later Jews, instead of setting the scape-goat free in the wilderness, led it to a high precipice called Sook ("narrow") and dashed it down. This was done to avoid the recurrence of what once occurred, namely, the scape-goat came back to Jerusalem, which was thought a bad omen. Lieut. Conder has discovered the spot, the hill el Muntar, half a mile beyond the well of Suk beside the ancient road from Jerusalem. The ridge still is named Hadeidun, answering to the Hebrew name of the district, Hidoodin ("sharp").

A tabernacle was erected at every space of 2,000 cubits, to evade the law of the Sabbath day’s journey, for they led the scape-goat out on the Sabbath; after eating bread and drinking water the conductor of the goat could go on to the next tabernacle; ten stages were thus made between Seek and Jerusalem, in all six and a half miles to el Muntar, from whence the conductor caught the first sight of the great desert. Beside the well probably was the tenth tabernacle, to which he returned after precipitating the goat, and where he sat until sundown, when he might return to Jerusalem. (Palestine Exploration Quarterly Statement, July 1878, p. 118). Sins of ignorance, rather of inadvertence. Ecc 5:6; Ecc 10:5; Heb 9:7, "errors," Greek "sins of ignorance." Lev 4:2, in contrast to presumptuous sins entailing (ipso facto, whether the crime incurred civil punishment or not) the being cut off (Num 15:22-30; Psa 19:12-13; Heb 10:26-27; Pro 2:13-15; Exo 31:14; Lev 7:20; Mat 12:31; 1Jn 5:16; Act 3:17; Eph 4:18; 1Pe 1:14; Luk 12:48).

The The sin-offering is always Chattath (חטאת), for which the LXX has περὶ ἁμαρτίας. The verb Chatha, whence it derives its name, signifies to sin, but in the Piel voice to cleanse or purge or to offer for sin, as in Lev 6:26; Lev 9:15; also in Psa 51:7, ’Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean.’ It is used of purification in Num 19:9; Num 19:17; see also Job 41:25. The main peculiarities of the sin-offering have been referred to above in chap. vi.; but it may be added that whilst the Olah, which was an offering of devotion, went upwards, both the blood and the flesh being lifted on the altar and turned to vapour, the sin-offering, which was mystically identified with sin, went downwards--the blood was poured down at the side of the altar, the animal, if not eaten by the priest, was burnt up on the ground, and as there was nothing pleasing to God in the sin which it represented, the smoke is not described as rising up to God as a sweet odour.

The identification of Christ with the sin-offering (περὶ ἁμαρτίας) seems clear from Rom 8:3, where we are told that ’God sending his son in the likeness of sinful flesh (or of flesh which is the seat of sin), and for sin (i.e. as a sin-offering), condemned sin in the flesh.’ The flesh, which kind been the seat of sin in all other persons, was the seat of righteousness in Christ in all the points in which St. Paul (in the previous chapters) had shown the flesh to be wanting, Christ proved more than conqueror. his members were instruments of righteousness, his feet were swift to go on errands of mercy, his words were sweeter than honey and the honeycomb, his heart was pure from all taint of sin. Hence the force of his own question, ’Which of you convinceth me of sin (περὶ ἁμαρτίας);’ and hence the efficacy of his being a sin-offering (περὶ ἁμαρτίας). his life in the flesh was a practical condemnation of sin and a victory over it; and his deat has a sin-offering was, by the will of God, the means of imparting that victory to all who are one with Him by faith.

In 2Co 5:21, we read, in confirmation of the passage just commented on, God ’made him who knew not sin to be sin for us.’ God identified Him with sin, dealt with Him as sin deserves to be dealt with, and thus fulfilled in Him that of which the sin-offering of the O.T. was a type.

The phrase περὶ ἁμαρτίας or περὶ ἁμαρτίων is also used with reference to the type or antitype in Gal 1:4; Heb 10:6; Heb 10:12; Heb 10:18; Heb 10:26; Heb 13:11; 1Pe 3:18; 1Jn 2:2; 1Jn 4:10.

See OFFERINGS.

By: Joseph Jacobs, George A. Barton, M. Seligsohn, Emil G. Hirsch

—Biblical Data:

The sin-offering proper is a sacrifice consisting of either a beast or a fowl and offered on the altar to atone for a sin committed unwittingly. The rules concerning the sin-offering are as follows: If the anointed priest or the whole congregation commits a sin through ignorance, the sin-offering is a young bullock without blemish. Should the ruler so sin, his offering is a male kid without blemish. But when a private individual sins, his offering must be either a female kid or a female lamb without blemish, or, if he is too poor to provide one of these, a turtle-dove.

Sin-offerings were brought on other occasions also. On the Day of Atonement the high priest inaugurated the festival with two sin-offerings—a bullock as his own offering, and a male kid for the congregation. The flesh of these was not eaten, but after the fat had been removed the carcasses were burned outside the camp (Lev. xvi. 3, 5, 10-11, 25, 27). A woman, after the days of her purification had been fulfilled, was required to bring a dove for a sin-offering, in addition to a burnt offering. A leper, on the day of his cleansing, was required to bring, besides other offerings, a female lamb or, if he were too poor, a dove for a sin-offering (Lev. xii. 6; xiv. 10, 19, 22).

Sin-offerings formed a part of inaugural and dedicatory ceremonies. Thus, when Aaron and his sons were inaugurated into the priesthood, one of the sacrifices was a sin-offering consisting of a bullock, the flesh of which was burned outside the camp (Ex. xxix. 1, 10-14; Lev. viii. 14-17). Eight days later Aaron brought a calf, and the Israelites brought a small kid, as sin-offerings (Lev. ix. 2-10). At the dedication of the altar each of the twelve princes offered a male kid (Num. vii. 16 et passim). The sacrifices of those who returned from captivity with Ezra included twelve he-goats (Ezra viii. 35).

Ritual of the Sin-Offering.

The ritual of the sin-offering was as follows: If the victim were a quadruped, the offerer confessed his sins over the head of the victim and slew it himself (comp. Lev. iv. 4, 15, 24, 29). The place of slaughter was on the north side of the altar (comp. ib. i. 11 and ib. iv. 19 [A. V. 25]). The priest took some of the blood and sprinkled it before the veil (ib. iv. 5 [6]), or, on the Day of Atonement, before the mercy-seat (ib. xvi. 15); this he did seven times, and then smeared some on the horns of the altar. The remainder of the blood was poured out at the base of the altar of burnt offering. The internal fat of the animal, with the caul, liver, and kidneys, was burned upon the altar of burnt offering. In early times the flesh belonged to the priests (comp. Hos. iv. 8 and Lev. vi. 22 [29]), though it was sacrosanct, making everything which touched it holy, and might be eaten by priests alone. The law of Lev. iv. prescribed that the flesh, together with the hide, head, legs, viscera, and dung, should be burned outside the Temple. The blood was so holy that an earthen vessel which touched it was to be broken, and a brazen vessel scoured (ib. vi. 21 [28]).

When the victim was a bird the priest pinched off its head with his thumb-nail (ib. v. 8; but see Jew. Encyc. x. 619b, s. v. Sacrifice), and sprinkled its blood without dividing the carcass. A second bird was offered as a burnt sacrifice. When an offering of fine flour was made, the priest burned a handful of it on the altar and retained the rest for himself (ib. v. 11-13).

—Critical View:

The sin-offering () was an ancient sacrifice. In the later ritual it is associated with the Burnt Offering () and the Guilt-Offering (). An early reference to it occurs in Hos. iv. 8. In Ezekiel's proposed reconstruction of the cultus the sin-offering had for its objects: (1) the consecration of the altar (Ezek. xliii. 19 et seq.); (2) the annual cleansing of the sanctuary (ib. xlv. 18-20); (3) a part of the preparation for the Passover (ib. xlv. 22); and (4) preparation for the festivals of the New Moon, etc. (ib. xlv. 15 et seq.). In the first three cases the offering consisted of a bullock, and in the last of lambs. Ezekiel provided also a table in the north porch of the Temple where the sin-offering might be slain or eaten (ib. xl. 39), and one on the south side where it might be laid or eaten (Ezek. xlii. 13). In accordance with the use of the sin-offering in the consecration of the altar, a late supplementary priestly narrative relates that when the altar of the Tabernacle was dedicated a sin-offering was brought for each of the twelve tribes. In this case the victims were he-goats (comp. Num. vii. 16, 22, et passim).

In Levitical Ritual.

Somewhat akin to the use of the sin-offering in these cases of consecration is its use in the Levitical ritual in ceremonies of purification, i.e., in the removal of a taboo. Several of these taboos are connected with sexual matters, or mysterious diseases. Of these may be noted; (1) cases of gonorrhea (Lev. xv. 14, 15), in which the offering was a turtle-dove or a young pigeon; (2) cases of menorrhagia (ib. xv. 29, 30), when also the offering was a turtle-dove or a young pigeon; (3) purification after childbirth (ib. xii. 6), the offering being again a turtle-dove or a young pigeon; (4) it formed a part of the ritual of a leper who had recovered (ib. xiv. 19), the victim in this case being a ewe lamb (comp. ib. v. 10). With these may be classed (5) the use of the sin-offering as part of the ritual by which a Nazarite's vow was discharged (Num. vi. 14), the victim in this case being a ewe lamb a year old. Evidently the sin-offering in the first four of these cases was offered as a recognition of the mysterious or supernatural character of sexual secretions, childbirth, and leprosy. While the vow of the Nazarite is not really in the same class, yet he also became taboo by virtue of his consecration to the Deity, symbolized by the great length of his hair.

Primitive Origin.

The cases thus far considered have their origin in very primitive thought. A more advanced conception may be looked for in cases where the sin-offering is associated with atonement for the nation. In this connection the Day of Atonement comes under consideration (Lev. xvi.), on which the high priest offered a bullock as a sin-offering for himself and for his house. This was done apparently that the priest might not be slain while performing public duty; it had, therefore, a national significance. Two he-goats were then selected as a sin-offering for the congregation. One of these was selected by lot for Yhwh; the remaining one was for Azazel. The priest then killed the bullock, took the blood together with incense, entered into the Holy Place, and sprinkled the blood on the east side of the mercyseat and "before the mercy-seat" seven times, "that he die not." The blood of the goat that was Yhwh's was brought in and sprinkled in like manner, "to make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins." The high priest then confessed the sins of the people over the head of the live goat, and it was driven away into the wilderness where Azazel might catch it. Azazel appears to have been a wilderness demon (comp. Ethiopian Book of Enoch, viii. 1; x. 4, 8 et seq.).

Akin to the sin-offering of the high priest on the Day of Atonement was the offering prescribed in one of the latest laws (Lev. iv. 3-12) and which an anointed priest was obliged to offer if he had sinned so as to bring guilt on the congregation. This offering also consisted of a bullock. The same law provided that, if the whole people sinned unwittingly, they should bring, when the sin was known, a young bullock for a sin-offering (ib. iv. 13-21). These sin-offerings, like those of the Day of Atonement, were of a national character. That which the same law (ib. iv. 22-26) prescribed for the ruler may have partaken of the same public nature, because of the prominence of the ruler; but this is not stated, and the offering may have been a purely personal one. The victim was in this case a he-goat.

Offenses Expiated.

In Lev. iv. the laws descend finally to the individual. If one of the common people sinned unwittingly (verses 27-32), he was to offer a female goat or a ewe lamb as a sin-offering. The offenses whichdemanded a sin-offering are detailed in Lev. v. 1-6. They are for the most part of a non-moral nature, such as contact with a dead body, with an unclean reptile, or with an unclean discharge from a human being; but two of them have more of a moral character. These latter are (1) cases where a man permits injustice by withholding information (ib. verse 1), and (2) cases of rash though ignorant swearing to that which turns out to be false (ib. verse 4). A noticeable feature of Lev. iv. and v. is that the expense of the sacrifice is graded according to the dignity or wealth of the offender. Thus in ch. iv. the offering may be a bullock, a he-goat, a she-goat, or a ewe lamb, while in ch. v. it may be a she-goat, a ewe lamb, a turtle-dove, a young pigeon, or the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour (comp. ib. verses 6, 7, 11).

It is clear that the sin-offering was not primarily an offering for real sins, but for the unconscious violation of mere taboos. It was demanded in the case of actual sins only sporadically, and then only to a slight degree. There is an exception to this in the ritual of the Day of Atonement; but the words in Lev. xvi. 16 which make the sin-offering cover real sins are probably of late date.

Bibliography:

W. R. Smith, Rel. of Sem. 2d ed., pp. 344-352, London. 1904;

Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, in Nowack's Hand-Kommentar, pp. 373 et seq., Göttingen, 1903.

SIN-OFFERING.—See Sacrifice and Offering, § 14.

See SACRIFICE.

A type of sacrifice used to atone for and expiate unintentional sins.

Or “purification offering,” a

sacrifice that was offered to God to

remove impurities from sin and make a

person fit to worship God.