Lesson eight will present the study of the sin offering and the specific category to which it belongs. There will be a different ritual that governs this sacrifice. Certainly there will be placed in evidence the logical applications directly made to Jesus Christ. There are significant changes in the ceremonial and even in the nature of the sacrifice of the sin offering, and though there are certain qualities or proceedings that are similar to the burnt offering and the peace offering, there are, nevertheless, significant differences to set this sacrifice apart from all the rest.
Having studied in the previous lessons the three “sweet savor” categories of sacrifices—the burnt, the grain and the peace offerings—we now enter into a study of the “most holy” series of sacrifices. These are the sin, trespass and Day of Atonement offerings. Though they are not “sweet savor,” they are not to be despised for they are “most holy.”
The passages of scripture that explain the sin offering are found in Leviticus 4:1-5:13. Leviticus 6:24-30 and Numbers 15:21-22 are the basic passages of scripture that explain the nature of this atonement sacrifice.
The Historical Background of the Sin Offering
Sin Offering – Hattath in Hebrew
The name of the sin offering in Hebrew is hattah. This sacrifice is generally required when there has been a violation of one of the first five of the Ten Commandments of the Law of Moses. In other words, sin violates the nature and divine rights of God. This is not a fragrant odor sacrifice. It does not belong to the sweet savor category because it speaks of sin. It speaks of disobedience of the laws that defend the nature and dignity of God. Therefore, it is not to be considered a sweet savor sacrifice, though there are isolated elements in the sacrifice that are called “sweet savor.”
This sacrifice assumes that the fellowship between God and the individual has been broken because of the sin committed. That person is no longer in covenant relationship with God or even with the nation of Israel. It is a sacrifice of atonement that must be made before the restoration to fellowship with God can be obtained. It must be understood that in both the Old and New Testaments, sin is sin whether it is committed wittingly—deliberately or willingly—or unwittingly in ignorance of the law. Whether the sin involves voluntary disobedience of known law or involuntary wrong, atonement must be made before covenant relations can be restored.
Whether in the Old or New Testament teaching on the subject, sin is always seen on the part of a man as a chosen course. If committed in ignorance of the Law or whether of willful disobedience of known law, man is held accountable for his actions. An individual could not claim ignorance of the Law and then pretend exemption from its penalties and demands. One could conceivably refuse to study the Law of God, and then assume that he is not accountable because of his ignorance. That would be a voluntary decision to remain untaught. Therefore, in the final analysis, such a course would result in his refusal to be governed by God’s revealed will in His Law. Therefore, even ignorance of the Law is a chosen course. This is where the man who is an agnostic makes his fallacious assumptions. He assumes that if he doesn’t know about God then he can escape any judgment by God. He simply chooses to remain untaught about God and His moral and religious government. His choice is still his choice, but it is evil in the sight of God.
One thing is evident, and that is that sin is not a result of a built-in tendency on the part of man, constructed in him at creation. It is a chosen course. Otherwise, how would you explain the innocence of Jesus? He was innocent by choice just as surely as we are guilty by choice. Sin is not simply a defect in human nature, nor a programmed defect given in creation. There was no built-in ingredient at creation that made us inevitably sinful. That would make God responsible for our wrong doing.
It is also evident that sin is not some kind of an evil inheritance that we receive from Adam. Each individual is innocent until he personally violates the Law of God. True, sin can be learned from others, but even then it is the result of one’s personal decision. Paul said: “Do not be misled: ‘Bad company corrupts good character’” (I Corinthians 15:33). Peter discusses the “. . . empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers . . .” (I Peter 1:18). Such statements warn us to be cautious in the selection of our friends. The Bible knows nothing of inherited guilt. For confirmation, read Ezekiel 18:1-32. Particularly poignant are the words of verse 30: “Therefore, O house of Israel, I will judge you, each one according to his ways, declares the Sovereign LORD.” The truth is underscored in all Old and New Testament scriptures that deal with the subject.
Under the Law of Moses there were certain sins that were called the “high-handed” sins. A high-handed sin is a belligerent rejection of God’s government. The high-handed sinner appears to double up his fist and shake it in the face of God and to lift it up toward heaven and say, “I don’t care what your Law says; I am going to do what I want to do.” Under the Law of Moses there was no sacrifice of atonement for that kind of a sin. Deuteronomy 13:6-9; 17:2-3; and Leviticus 24:14 describe sins committed with a haughty spirit. Such a person was to be taken out of the gates of the city and stoned to death, thus losing fellowship with Israel and, most certainly, his fellowship with God. Even if the person were a close kin, or one’s closest friend, Leviticus 24 says that the people must show no pity, no mercy. In that way, God instructed them to remove sin from the nation of Israel. Sin contaminates those who are around it. In Hebrews 10:28, the writer said, “Anyone who rejected the law of Moses (according to the Greek, considered it as nothing) died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.”
However, if sins were committed in ignorance, not with rashness, perhaps because of stupidity, maybe because of weakness or waywardness, those sins could be covered by the sacrifice of atonement. Therefore, there was a difference between the sin of a high-handed attitude and those committed in ignorance.
Sin & Trespass Offerings Were
New Legislation in Israel
The sin offering and the trespass offering were new legislation for Israel. All other sacrifices—the burnt offering, the grain offering, and the peace offering—pre-existed the Law of Moses. There was, however, no sin or trespass offering offered during the patriarchal dispensation, before the Law of Moses was given. There is no record of atonement sacrifices in the book of Genesis. Only mention is made of sacrifices by Job, just in case his sons had sinned (Job 1:5). But even in that case the sacrifice was a burnt offering.
There was no constituted order of priests back then who were expected to offer sacrifices. The patriarchs themselves functioned as priests for their extended families, as in the case of Job. There was no tabernacle and no altar where that kind of sacrifice could be offered, though we do read of Abel, Noah, Abraham and others building their altars and offering sacrifices. The absence of sin or trespass offerings during the pre-Mosaic age should not surprise us any more than the observation that Christians do not offer such sacrifices today.
Animal Sacrifices Did Not Cover Sin
No Atoning Quality in Animal Blood
Yet Sins Were Actually Forgiven
After the sacrifices of the sin and trespass offerings were made, it is recorded that the individual was actually forgiven. Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31, 35; and 5:10 clearly state: “. . . and he will be forgiven.” Evidently he was not forgiven by animal blood, but he could not be forgiven without it. This may appear to be a contradiction, but only apparently so. Hebrews 9:22 affirms that according to the Law, “. . . without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”
The Hebrew could not be forgiven without the sprinkling of the blood of his sacrificial substitute. It was his obedience to Divine command to offer the atoning sacrifice. Through that sacrifice was established the redemptive connection with the blood of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. God was able to forgive the Hebrew, not in virtue of animal blood, but in view of the future sacrifice of Calvary.
Romans 3:24-27 affirms that God “. . . presented him as a sacrifice of atonement (“satisfaction” says the Greek) . . . to demonstrate his justice . . .” in forgiving “. . . sins committed beforehand . . .” The word “beforehand” relates to the sins committed under the Law. Hebrews 9:15 affirms the same thing: “. . . now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”
The Sinners Rank or Position
Aggravated Atonement
Levels or Grades
of Responsibility for Sin
When an individual who was in a high place of authority in the nation of Israel committed a sin, it had ramifications that filtered down to the entire nation. The high priest was the number one individual in responsibility, because he was God’s representative to Israel and Israel’s representative to God. Therefore he occupied a position of extreme importance and his sin could of had repercussions that could have involved the entire nation. He could have committed a sin in such a way as to bring guilt on the entire nation. The sin of Aaron, as the high priest who let the children of Israel build a golden calf, is one such example. That was a case of the high priest leading the nation into idolatry. He was the teacher of Israel, and he could also cause the nation to stray from God in morals and in doctrine. Therefore, his sin carried more grievous consequences. He had been anointed before God as His special representative; he was called “the anointed priest” (Leviticus 4:3).
The second level of responsibility was the “whole Israelite community” (Leviticus 4:13). The high priest could lead the whole congregation into sin, but he would be the one most held accountable by God. In this second level the sin by the whole congregation could be committed against the protest of the high priest. The congregation could fall into idolatry. It was possible for the nation to apostatize from God. The third level of responsibility was the civil “leader” (Leviticus 4:22). That could be a ruler, a judge, one of the princes of Israel, and in later years, even the king. These civil leaders carried strong influences upon the nation and their sins were more significant.
The fourth level of responsibility was for the common Jew, who was called the commoner, the ordinary member of the Jewish community. Therefore, the position or the rank of the person aggravated the sin committed, intensified the guilt and increased the obligation for atonement.
“And Begin At My Sanctuary
Animals Demanded for
Each Level of Responsibility
The four levels of responsibility dictated the kind of animal that would be used in the sacrifice. The first level was the high priest. His sacrifice had to be a bull. This was the most expensive and most highly appraised animal sacrificed in Israel. The implication was automatic. The more grievous the sin, the greater the guilt, and such demands more rigid atonement processes. For the whole congregation the bull was also the animal that was required. The civil ruler’s sacrifice had to be a male goat. For the common man the sacrifice had to be a female goat.
In case the common man did not have a female goat, he could provide a ewe lamb. Leviticus 5:7 tells us: “If he cannot afford a lamb, he is to bring two doves or two young pigeons . . .” Verse 11 adds: “If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering.” Evidently, this was for an extremely pour individual. A tenth of an ephah was about three quarts of ground flour.
Hebrews 9:22 affirms that without the shedding of blood, according to the Law of Moses, there was no remission of sin. Of course, there is no blood in the tenth of an ephah of flour, but it was accepted in lieu of, or in the place of, the regular sin offering where blood would be offered. The fact is that God would accept this poor man’s sacrifice, and then the priest would proceed to offer the blood-shedding sacrifice that would make atonement for his sin (Leviticus 5:13). He would be forgiven. God made arrangements for the poor man. No man was excluded from salvation simply because he did not have enough money to provide the animal that ordinarily was required. No poor man was going to be excluded from redemption because of his poverty. Since the last alternate sacrifice of the poor man was a tenth of an ephah of fine flour, caution is taken in Leviticus 5 to distinguish it from the regular first-fruit sacrifices. “It is a sin offering,” was stated three times.
Sprinkling of Blood –
Each Level of Responsibility
The sprinkling of the blood was different for the levels, at least for some of them. For the high priest the blood was to be sprinkled on the horns of the altar of incense in the Holy Place. That ritualistic distinction reappeared later in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 9:24). When the blood was taken into the Holy Place the body was burned outside camp. If it was not taken into the Holy Place, then other disposition would be made of the body. However, for the high priest the blood had to be sprinkled on the horns of the altar of sweet incense. That was the altar of prayer.
Those horns were the elevated part of the altar—the most God-ward pointing part of the altar of sweet incense. The Jews were to be impressed with the fact of the centrality of atonement in the sin offering. The place of sprinkling brought atonement to the forefront and imposed a greater sense of guilt. Thus the blood was brought closer and closer to the very residence of God. He symbolically resided behind that curtain of separation between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place in the Hebrew Tabernacle. They called the Most Holy Place the Shikenah, the place of divine presence.
Both for the High Priest and the whole congregation the blood was sprinkled on the horns of the altar of sweet incense. Atonement was central to both levels. It is evident that when the sin of the High Priest brought guilt on the whole nation or when the whole nation sinned, atonement had to assume a much more significant position in their theology and in their thinking.
For the ruler, the blood was sprinkled on the horns of the altar of burnt offerings in the courtyard of the tabernacle. Even the horns of that altar were pointing toward heaven, the real residence of God. The horns of both the altar of incense and of burnt offerings rose from each of the four corners of this sacrifice. It was not sprinkled on the horns of the altar, and the same was true for the commoner—on the horns of the altar of burnt offerings in the courtyard.
Disposition of the Body
of Sacrificial Animal
The laws regulating the distribution of the sacrificial body also demonstrated the gravity of sin for the High Priest and for the whole community. The levels of responsibility were built into the arrangements laid down for the disposal of the bodies of the sacrificial animals. The writer of Hebrews also built strong typology from the Levitical laws—typology that related to Christ (Hebrews 13:11). Since the atoning blood of the two bulls sacrificed for the High Priest and for the community was taken into the Holy Place, typology demanded that the bodies be burned outside the camp. In fulfillment of that typology or of that symbolism, the Hebrew writer adds: “And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood” (Hebrews 13:12). He was crucified outside the city of Jerusalem, which was a sign of the rejection by the people who clamored for His crucifixion.
The body of the bull for both the priest and the whole congregation was burned outside the camp. It was not placed upon the altar of burnt offerings and fumed or incensed unto God as a sweet savor. The fires of this sacrifice did not ascend to God. The fires that consumed these bulls were the fires of seraph, the fires of divine vengeance upon the sin that had been committed by such a great number of people in the nation of Israel. Therefore, that sin sacrifice had to be burned outside the camp.
For the civil ruler, the sacrificial body was not burned outside the camp. The blood was not taken into the Holy Place. The same was true for the common man. Neither was the body placed upon the altar to be incensed to God. The officiating priest was the one who received the body as his privileged portion out of the sacrifices to be offered to God. Leviticus 7:7 says the same law applies both to the sin and the trespass offerings. It belonged to the priest who made atonement for them. So the priest got this sacrificial body.
He didn’t need to remove the wave breast or the elevated thigh because he got the whole animal. Leviticus 6:29 tells us that all of the male priests of the Levitical family had the privilege of partaking of the resulting sacrificial banquet that was hosted by God. Though the sacrifice was not sweet savor, it was nevertheless most holy. It belonged to the officiating priest, and it was to be eaten in the Holy Place, or “in a holy place” as the Hebrew text says. That was in the courtyard of the tent of meeting—the Tabernacle, (Leviticus 6:26).
The purpose of eating this sacrifice in the courtyard of the Tabernacle was basically the same as in the festive banquet of the peace offering. Only this time, there was a difference in the participants of the banquet. It was there that God was seen as the Host of the sacrificial feast. God was once again conducting a festive banquet in celebration of the priest and of his participation in the restoration of the ruler and commoner back into fellowship with Himself.
Maybe you can imagine the celebration that broke out in heaven when Jesus, the Great High Priest, had accomplished the redemptive process necessary for salvation to the human family of ages past, present and future. When Jesus returned to heaven, it is evident from the study of Revelation that all heaven broke out into festive celebration. Revelation 5:9-10 says, “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.”
Evidently, God wanted to establish in typology, in shadow system, the glories of the future Messiah and His triumphant return to heaven after His atoning sacrifice had reconciled the family of men to God.
Ritual of the Sin Offering
Let us again look at the stages of the sacrifice. There was the stage of presentation. It is evident that the purpose was different in this stage of presentation from the presentation stage of the burnt and peace offerings. Here the community or the individual was seeking atonement.
The second stage was the laying on of hands symbolically transferring the guilt incurred by the sin. The third stage introduced the first deviation in the ritual. There had to be the confession of the specific sin that had been committed. Leviticus 4:4 tells us that this sacrifice was to be offered at the door of the tent of meeting. Then the specific sin had to be confessed. In the case of the whole congregation the sins were confessed by the elders of the various tribes.
Then there was the laying on of the hand. Again, in the event the whole congregation had committed a sin, the elders of each of the tribes would come and lay their hands on the sacrifice as representatives of the tribes. Then they would confess the specific sin that caused the apostasy of the nation from their fellowship with God. Then they would slay the sacrifice for basically the same purpose as God had intended in the other sacrifices—to concur with God’s judgment against the sin. The blood would be sprinkled then by the priest in the way already explained, on the horns of the altar of incense or the altar of burnt offerings according to the four levels of responsibility. Then the burning of the fat was presented as a fragrant odor unto God, His sweet savor portion of this sacrifice.
Though this sacrifice belonged to the “most holy” category and did not belong to the fragrant odor class, the fat was nevertheless a “pleasing aroma” to God. The reason being that the sinners had obviously repented. The sin had been publicly confessed. The atoning sacrifice had been offered and accepted. Forgiveness had been granted. Then the fat went up before God as the only sweet savor portion of the sacrifice. He was pleased that fellowship had been restored between Himself and the sinner.
The next stage was the disposition of the body. The bodies of the sacrificial bulls for the high priest and the whole community were burned outside the camp. The bodies of the ruler’s sacrifice and that of the commoner’s were consumed by the priestly clan in the courtyard of the Tabernacle in festive celebration. That completes the stages of the ceremonial of the sin offering.
Christ and the Sin Offering
He Is the Anti-Typical Sin Offering
The Whole Book of Hebrews is
Dedicated to This Concept
In II Corinthians 5:21 Paul said, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” It was the sinless innocence of Christ that qualified Him to be our flawless sin sacrifice.
In Matthew 20:28, the apostles had been discussing again who was the greatest in the kingdom. Jesus, of course, indicated in that context that the greatest is he who becomes the servant: “. . . just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” That word “many” stands for multitudes. In Matthew 26:28 in the institution of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus said, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” In I Peter 1:18-19, the apostle said: “. . . you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.” In I Peter 2:24, we are told by the apostle that Jesus “. . . bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.”
In Romans 8:1-2 the apostle said, “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.” He then explained that the Law once violated could not suspend its penalty of death. But God was able to transfer—not suspend—the penalty of our sin to Jesus on the basis of our obedient faith. So the apostle affirms that God did condemn our “sin in the flesh” in Jesus. That is the reason there “is now no condemnation.” It is simply because there was condemnation of our sin in Jesus (cf verse 3). God had sent His own Son “in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.”
It was in the sin offering of Christ that God condemned our sin. God treated Him as though He had committed our sins. Isaiah 53:5 says: “. . . the punishment that brought us peace was upon him . . .” He bore the consequences of all our wrong. Hebrews 9:14 assures us that Jesus was the lamb without blemish to cover the sins of the world.
The sacrifice of Christ covered all the sins of all men of all ages, not just the Jewish age or the Christian age. Matthew 1:21 explains why He was named Jesus. It is “. . . because he will save his people from their sins.” “His people” include the redeemed of all ages. In John 1:29, in introducing Jesus to His disciples, John the Baptist said: “Look, the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” It seems that the forerunner of Jesus rolled the innumerable sins of the whole world into one great package—called “the sin.” Then he affirmed that it was Jesus, as the God-provided substitute, who would bear that sin.