Keil and Delitzsch pointed out that ancient Near Easterners offered certain offerings before God incorporated these into the Mosaic Law. Moses previously mentioned burnt offerings in Genesis 12:7; 13:4, 18; 22; 26:25; 33:20; and 35:1-7, and peace offerings in Genesis 31:54 and 46:1. However the sin and trespass offerings were new.
They ". . . were altogether unknown before the economy of the Sinaitic law."38
The structure of the chapters dealing with the sin and trespass offerings differs from that describing the burnt, meal, and peace offerings. Also the opening words of this chapter introduce a new section. These differences help us appreciate the fact that these two offerings are in a class by themselves while sharing some of the similarities of the first three. The sacrificial victim was the organizing principle in chapters 1-3 with revelation about the more valuable animals leading off each chapter. In 4:1-6:7 the most important factor is the type of sin that called for sacrifice, and the status of the sinner is a secondary factor.
"Whereas the main issue in the burnt, grain, and fellowship offerings was the proper procedure to be followed, the main issue in the discussion in the sin and guilt offerings is the occasion that would require these sacrifices."39
There were two types of occasions that called for the sin offering: unwitting or inadvertent sins (ch. 4) and sins of omission (5:1-13). We could subdivide this section on the sin offering as follows.40
Inadvertent sin ch. 4
Introduction 4:1-2
Blood sprinkled in the holy place 4:3-21
For the high priest 4:3-12
For the congregation 4:13-21
Blood smeared on the brazen altar 4:22-35
For the tribal leader 4:22-26
For the ordinary Israelite offering a goat 4:27-31
For the ordinary Israelite offering a lamb 4:32-35
Sins of omission 5:1-13
A lamb or goat offering 5:1-6
A bird offering 5:7-10
A flour offering 5:11-13
The sin (purification, Heb. hatta't) offering dealt with unintentional sins. The translation "sin offering"is a bit misleading since the burnt, peace, and trespass offerings also atoned for sin.
"Propitiation of divine anger . . . is an important element in the burnt offering. Restitution . . . is the key idea in the reparation [trespass] offering. Purification is the main element in the purification [sin] sacrifice. Sin not only angers God and deprives him of his due, it also makes his sanctuary unclean. A holy God cannot dwell amid uncleanness. The purification offering purifies the place of worship, so that God may be present among his people."41
"The root ht'for sin' occurs 595 times in the Old Testament, and Leviticus, with 116 attestations, has far more occurrences than any other Old Testament book. This section (fifty-three attestations) is the heaviest concentration of the discussion of sin' in the Bible."42
Like the burnt and meal offerings this one was compulsory, but the Israelites offered it less frequently (cf. Num. 28-29). The most important feature of this offering was the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice.
Three notable distinctivesstand out.
1. This offering was not a soothing aroma. It was for expiation, namely, to make amends. The offerer ritually charged the sacrificial animal with his sin (cf. Isa. 53:5; 1 Pet. 2:24). The animal had to be without defect (cf. 1 Pet. 2:22). The offerer executed God's judgment for sin on the sacrificial substitute when he slew it. In every sin offering an innocent substitute replaced the sinner (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21).
A problem arises in verse 31 where Moses referred to this non-soothing offering as a soothing aroma. One commentator suggested that a copyist accidentally transferred the statement from the discussions of the peace offering in chapter 3.43Another believed it was the burning of the fatty tissue, not the whole sin offering, that was the soothing aroma.44
2. The priest burned outside the camp the skin and other parts that he did not eat or burn on the altar. He burned the fat on the altar. God evidently regarded it as the best part of the animal. The priest ate most of the flesh (6:26; cf. Heb. 13:11-13; Matt. 27:46).
3. This offering dealt with most unintentionally committed sins (cf. 5:14-16). These oversights demonstrated a sinful nature. Any sin committed unwittingly (4:2, 13, 22, 27; 5:2-4) proved the need for this offering and demonstrated a sinful nature.
God permitted several varietiesof this offering.
1. God permitted the offering of less expensive animals or flour (5:11) by the poor. However everyone had to offer this sacrifice since everyone committed unintentional acts of sin. Flour did not express the cost of expiation as well as a blood sacrifice did, but God permitted it for the very poor.
2. People with higher social and economic status had to bring more expensive sacrifices illustrating the principle that privilege increases responsibility. Evidently any sin that the high priest committed in private or in his public capacity brought guilt on the whole nation (cf. 10:6; 22:16).45
3. God allowed procedural differences as well (e.g., where the priest sprinkled the blood, how he burned the fat, etc.) depending on the offerer's position in the nation.
The sin offering covered only sins committed unintentionally. This category included sins done by mistake, in error, through oversight or ignorance, through lack of consideration, or by carelessness. That is, this sacrifice covered sins that sprang from the weakness of the flesh (cf. Num. 15:27-29). It did not cover sins committed with a "high hand,"namely, in haughty, defiant rebellion against God. Such a sinner was "cut off from among his people"(Num. 15:30-31). Many reliable commentators interpret this phrase to mean the offender suffered death.46Not all deliberate sins were "high handed,"however, only those committed in defiant rebellion against God.
"The sin offerings did not relate to sin or sinfulness in general, but to particular manifestations of sin, to certain distinct actions performed by individuals, or by the whole congregation."47
Note the promises that the offering would atone for these sins (4:26, 31, 35; 5:10).
Scholars have understood the meaning of "atonement,"from the Hebrew root kpr, in three different ways. Most of them have believed that it is related to the Arabic cognate meaning "to cover."Another possibility is that the verb means "to wipe or purge."A third view is that the verb means "to ransom."Probably the second and third views are best since they go back to the Hebrew root rather than to the Arabic cognate. Both these interpretations are valid depending on the context. However, the idea of covering is also frequently present.48
Most commentators understand this sacrifice as the principal expiatory offering in ancient Israel.49Nevertheless references to this offering in the text consistently connect it with purification. Sin defiles people and, particularly, God's sanctuary. Animal blood was the means of purification. The pollution of sin does not endanger God but human beings. Textual evidence points to the burnt offering as the principal atoning sacrifice in Israel.50
The idea that sin pollutes and defiles seems very strange in the modern world. Notwithstanding Leviticus reveals that sins pollute the place where they take place (cf. 18:24-30; Deut. 21:1-9).
The relationship of 5:1-13 to chapter 4 is a problem. I have suggested one solution above: these sin offerings deal with sins of omission rather than inadvertent sin. One scholar suggested another explanation.
"Modern critics tend to regard 5:1-13 as the poor man's' offering, the option given to the offender of 4:27-35 who cannot afford the prescribed flock animal. This interpretation, however, is beset with stylistic and contextual difficulties: . . . My own hypothesis is herewith submitted: The graduated hatta't[sin offering] is a distinct sacrificial category. It is enjoined for failure or inability to cleanse impurity upon its occurrence. This the sin of which he is guilty' (5:6, 10, 13) is not the contraction of impurity but its prolongation."51
This relationship continues to be the subject of some debate. Wenham summarized this section well.
"The purification [sin] offering dealt with the pollution caused by sin. If sin polluted the land, it defiled particularly the house where God dwelt. The seriousness of pollution depended on the seriousness of the sin, which in turn related to the status of the sinner. If a private citizen sinned, his action polluted the sanctuary only to a limited extent. Therefore the blood of the purification offering was only smeared on the horns of the altar of burnt sacrifice. If, however, the whole nation sinned or the holiest member of the nation, the high priest, sinned, this was more serious. The blood had to be taken inside the tabernacle and sprinkled on the veil and the altar of incense. Finally over the period of a year the sins of the nation could accumulate to such an extent that they polluted even the holy of holies, where God dwelt. If he was to continue to dwell among his people, this too had to be cleansed in the annual day of atonement ceremony (see Lev. 16)."52
Under the New Covenant the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses the believer from all sin (cf. Heb. 9-10; 1 Pet. 1:2; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 7:14). Thus this offering is now obsolete for the Christian. However sin in the believer's life can grieve the indwelling Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30). Furthermore the New Testament reminds us that judgment is still proportionate to responsibility (cf. Luke 12:48; James 3:1). For us confession is a prerequisite to cleansing for fellowship (1 John 1:9) even though Christ's death has brought purification from sin's condemnation.
