Sin Offering
Sin Offering
SEE SIN OFFERING.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Sin offering
(, chattath; Sept. , , ; Vulg. pro peccato). The sin offering among the Jews was the sacrifice in which the ideas of propitiation and of atonement for sin were most distinctly marked. It is first directly enjoined in Leviticus 4, whereas in ch. 1-3 the burned offering, meatoffering, and peace offering are taken for granted, and the object of the law is to regulate, not to enjoin, the presentation of them to the Lord. Nor is the word chattath applied to any sacrifice in ante-Mosaic times. Its technical use in Gen 4:7 is asserted, and supported by high authority But the word here probably means (as in the Vulgate and the A.V.) sin. The fact that it is never used in application to any other sacrifice in Genesis or Exodus alone makes the translation sin offering here very improbable. It is therefore peculiarly a sacrifice of the law, agreeing with the clear definition of good and evil, and the stress laid on the sinfulness of sin, which were the main objects of the law in itself. The idea of propitiation was, no doubt, latent in earlier sacrifices, but it was taught clearly and distinctly in the Levitical sin offering. The ceremonial of the sin offering is described in Leviticus 4, 6. The animal a young bullock for the priest or the congregation, a male kid or lamb for a ruler, a female kid or lamb for a private person, in all cases without blemish was brought by the sacrificer to the altar of sacrifice; his hand was laid upon its head (with, as we learn from later Jewish authorities, a confession of sin, and a prayer that the victim might be its expiation); of the blood of the slain victim some was then sprinkled seven times before the veil of the sanctuary, some put on the horns of the altar of incense, and the rest poured at the foot of the altar of sacrifice. The fat (as the choicest part of the flesh) was then burned on the altar as a burned offering; the remainder of the body, if the sin offering were that of the priest himself or of the whole congregation, was carried out of the camp or city to a clean place and there burned; but, if the offering were that of an individual, the flesh might be eaten by the priests alone in the holy place, as being most holy.
The trespass offering ( ; , ; pro delicto) 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 (ch. 14). The victim was in each case to be a ram. At the time of offering, in all cases of damage done to any holy thing, or to any man, restitution was made with the addition of a fifth part to the principal; the blood was sprinkled round about upon the altar, as in the burned offering, the fat burned, and the flesh disposed of as in the sin offering. 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. Looking first to the derivation of the two words, we find that is derived from , which is, properly, to miss a mark, or to err from a way, and, secondarily, to sin, or to incur penalty; that, is derived from the root, , which is, properly, to fail, having for its primary idea negligence, especially in gait (Gesenius). It is clear that, so far as derivation goes, there appears to be more of reference to general and actual sin in the former, to special cases of negligence in the latter. Turning next to the description, ill the book of Leviticus, of the circumstances under which each should be offered, we find one important passage (Lev 5:1-13) in which the sacrifice is called first a trespass offering (Lev 5:6), and then a sin offering (Lev 5:7; Lev 5:9; Lev 5:11-12). But the nature of the victims in Lev 5:6 agrees with the ceremonial of the latter, not of the former; the application of the latter name is more emphatic and reiterated; and there is at Lev 5:14 a formal introduction of the law of the trespass offering, exactly as of the law of the sin offering in 4:1. It is therefore safe to conclude that the word, is not here used in its technical sense, and that the passage is to be referred to the sin offering only SEE TRESPASS OFFERING.
We find, then, that the sin offerings were
A. REGULAR.
(1.) For the whole people, at the New Moon, Passover, Pentecost, Feast of Trumpets, and Feast of Tabernacles (Num 28:15 to Num 29:38); besides the solemn offering of the two goats on the Great Day of Atonement (Leviticus 15).
(2.) 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 (Leviticus 15).
(3.) To these may be added the sacrifice of the red heifer (conducted with the ceremonial of a sin offering), from the ashes of which was made the Water of separation, used in certain cases of ceremonial pollution (Numbers 19).
B. SPECIAL.
(1.) For any sin of ignorance against the commandment of the Lord, on the part of priest, people, ruler, or private man (Leviticus 4).
(2.) For refusal to bear witness under adjuration (Lev 5:1).
(3.) For ceremonial defilement not wilfully contracted (Lev 5:2-3), under which may be classed the offerings at the purification of women (Lev 12:6-8), at the cleansing of leprosy (Lev 14:19; Lev 14:31) or the uncleanness of men or women (Lev 15:15; Lev 15:30), on the defilement of a Nazarite (Num 6:6-11) or the expiration of his vow (Num 6:16).
(4.) For the breach of a rash oath, the keeping of which would involve sin (Lev 5:4).
The trespass offerings, on the other hand, were always special, as
(1.) For sacrilege in ignorance, with compensation for the harm done, and the gift of a fifth part of the value, besides, to the priest (Lev 5:15-16).
(2.) For ignorant transgression against some definite prohibition of the lawn (Lev 5:17-19).
(3.) For fraud, suppression of the truth, or perjury against man, with compensation, and with the addition of a fifth part of the value of, the property in question to the person wronged (Lev 6:1-6).
(4.) For rape of a betrothed slave (Lev 19:20-21).
(5.) At the purification of the leper (Lev 14:12), and the polluted Nazarite (Num 6:12), offered with the sin offering.
From this enumeration it will be clear that the two classes of sacrifices, although distinct, touch closely upon each other, as especially in B (1.) of the sin offering, and (2.) of the trespass offering. It is also evident that the sin offering was the only regular and general recognition of sin in the abstract, and accordingly was far more solemn and symbolical in its 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, except in (5.) where the trespass offering is united with the sin offering. Josephus (Ant. 3, 9, 3) 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.
From this it may be inferred (as by Winer and, others) that the former was used in cases of known sin against some definite law, the latter in the case of secret sin, unknown, or, if known, not liable to judicial cognizance. Other opinions have been entertained, widely different from, and even opposed to, one another. The opinions which suppose one offering due for sins of omission, and the other for sins of commission, have no foundation in the language of the law, Others, with more plausibility, refer the sin offering to sins of pure ignorance, the trespass offering to those of a more, sinful and deliberate character; but this does not agree with Lev 5:17-19, and is contradicted by the solemn contrast between sins of ignorance, which might be atoned for, and sins of presumption, against which death without mercy is denounced in Num 15:30. A third opinion supposes the sin offering to refer to sins for which no material and earthly atonement could be made, the trespass offering to those for which material compensation was possible. This theory has something to support it in the fact that in some cases (see Lev 5:15-16; Lev 6:1-6) compensation was prescribed as accessory to the sacrifice. Others seek more recondite distinctions, supposing, e.g., that the sin offering had for its object the cleansing of the sanctuary or the commonwealth, and the trespass offering the cleansing of the individual; or that the former referred to the effect of sin upon the soul itself, the latter to the effect of sin as the breach of an external law. Without attempting to decide so difficult and so controverted a question, we may draw the following conclusions:
First, that the sin offering was far 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. Hence the two might with propriety be offered together. 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.
There is one other question of some interest, as to the nature of the sins for which either sacrifice could be offered. It is seen at once that in the law of Leviticus most of them, 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 (Heb. with a high hand) shall be cut off from among his people…. His iniquity shall be upon him (comp. Heb 10:26). But there 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. The Hebrew word itself and its derivations are so used in Psa 119:67 (Sept. ); 1Sa 26:21 (); Psa 19:13 (); Job 19:4 (). The words and have a corresponding extent of meaning in the New Test.; as when in Act 3:17, the Jews, in their crucifixion of our Lord. are said to have acted ignorantly ( ); and in Eph 4:18; 1Pe 1:14 the vices of heathenism, done against the light of conscience, are still referred to. The use of the word (like that of in classical Greek) is found in all languages, and depends on the idea that goodness is man s true wisdom, and that sin is the failing to recognize this truth. If from the word we turn to the sins actually referred to in Lev 4:5, we find some which certainly are not sins of pure ignorance; they are, indeed, few out of the whole range of sinfulness, but they are real sins. The later Jews (see Outram, De Sacrificiis) limited the application of the sin offering to negative sins, sins in ignorance, and sins in action, not in thought, evidently conceiving it to apply to actual sins, but to sins of a secondary order.
In considering this subject it must be remembered that the sacrifices of the law had a temporal as well as a spiritual significance and effect. They restored an 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. It is clear that this must have limited the extent of their legal application; for there are crimes for which the interest and very existence of a society demand that there should be no pardon. But so far as the sacrifices had a spiritual and typical meaning, so far as they were sought by a repentant spirit as a sign and means of reconcilement with God it can hardly be doubted that they had a wider scope and a real spiritual effect, so long as their typical character remained. SEE SACRIFICE.
For the more solemn sin offerings, SEE DAY OF ATONEMENT; SEE LEPROSY, etc.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Sin-offering
(Heb. hattath), the law of, is given in detail in Lev. 4-6:13; 9:7-11, 22-24; 12:6-8; 15:2, 14, 25-30; 14:19, 31; Num. 6:10-14. On the day of Atonement it was made with special solemnity (Lev. 16:5, 11, 15). The blood was then carried into the holy of holies and sprinkled on the mercy-seat. Sin-offerings were also presented at the five annual festivals (Num. 28, 29), and on the occasion of the consecration of the priests (Ex. 29:10-14, 36). As each individual, even the most private member of the congregation, as well as the congregation at large, and the high priest, was obliged, on being convicted by his conscience of any particular sin, to come with a sin-offering, we See thus impressively disclosed the need in which every sinner stands of the salvation of Christ, and the necessity of making application to it as often as the guilt of sin renews itself upon his conscience. This resort of faith to the perfect sacrifice of Christ is the one way that lies open for the sinner’s attainment of pardon and restoration to peace. And then in the sacrifice itself there is the reality of that incomparable worth and preciousness which were so significantly represented in the sin-offering by the sacredness of its blood and the hallowed destination of its flesh. With reference to this the blood of Christ is called emphatically “the precious blood,” and the blood that “cleanseth from all sin” (1 John 1:7).
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Sin-Offering
The The sin-offering is always Chattath (), for which the LXX has . 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 ( ) 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 ( );’ and hence the efficacy of his being a sin-offering ( ). 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 or 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.
Fuente: Synonyms of the Old Testament
Sin Offering
(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; 1Jo 5:16; Act 3:17; Eph 4:18; 1Pe 1:14; Luk 12:48).
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
Sin-Offering
SIN-OFFERING.See Sacrifice and Offering, 14.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Sin offering
See SACRIFICE.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Sin Offering
See OFFERINGS.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
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.