What is a sin offering?

THE SIN OFFERING. This and the trespass offering stand apart from all the other offerings. In the burnt offering and the peace offering the offerer came as a worshipper, and by the imposition of hands became identified with the acceptability and acceptance of the victim: whereas in the sin offering the victim was identified with the sin of the offerer.

The sin offering was to make an atonement for sin — to avert judgement from the offerer. This general characteristic is always the same, though the details differ, as will be seen in the following table:-

In the sin and trespass offerings which follow (Lev. 4 — Lev. 6:7) we have another line of truth, in which the person ("soul") as well as the nature of the offence are characteristically prominent. It is not now the truth of Christ's dedication of Himself in death as well as life to God; neither is it the eucharistic character of the thank or peace offering in praise, vow or free-will. We have here vicarious offerings for sin, a substitute for the sinner. Different measures are defined.

Pursuing our investigation into the history of sacrifice, we now come to that one called the sin-offering (chattath), and which, next to the burnt-offering, was more frequently called for than any other; though till the law was given this sacrifice had no place in any ritual. Offerings for sins committed were previously known. Job offered them, and the Lord accepted them (Job 42); but a sin-offering, distinct in its treatment from that of a burnt-offering, was only appointed by the ritual which the Lord instituted by Moses. Now, this is in perfect harmony with what we have already traced out. The institution of animal sacrifice was of God. The knowledge that blood could shelter men from divine judgment was also from God. Now, we learn of the aspect of the Lord's atoning death, in which He is viewed as the sinner's substitute, made sin for us, who in Himself knew no sin; but in this, as in other cases, the type falls short of the antitype. The sin-offering was for the most part for sins committed through ignorance, the only exception to that being the case of an unwilling witness in a court of justice. For the man who sinned presumptuously there was nothing to expect, according to the law, but death. (Num. 15:30-31.) That God could provide a sacrifice for a sinner the law of the sin-offering indicates; but it also shows us that more is really wanted than the law could provide. A substitute to make atonement for even presumptuous sins is the only thing that could meet our case; and, thank God, nothing less than that has He provided by the death of His Son on the cross.

Provision for sins of the deepest dye manifests the abounding grace of our God. The call, on the other hand, under the law for an offering for a sin done through ignorance proclaimed the holiness of God, and the call for an offering for every such sin told out plainly that God would not pass over even one, unless a sacrifice was offered up for it. "I was not aware of it," the offender might truly have said, but the law was in exorable; for Jehovah could make no compromise with evil. Little sins then, as people speak of (measuring their sins by a standard of their own), we shall look for in vain in God's law, or God's word; for apart from the death of His Son no sin could ever have been forgiven. How brightly, then, His grace shines out who has provided such a Lamb for the sacrifice! Brightly too did His grace shine out under the law, limited though it then was in its provisions; for instead of cutting off by death every one who sinned, God made a distinction between an act of frailty, which is sin, and the presumptuous deeds of a man who would act after the dictates of his own evil will. Had the Lord acted simply in righteousness, every sinner must have been cut off; for there is no child of Adam who has not sinned (1 John 1:10); and king Solomon bears witness that in his day no one kept the law perfectly. (1 Kings 8:46.) The Lord then provided the sin-offering - a token that on the ground of an accepted sacrifice He could act in grace towards one who had sinned.

The Sin Offering was required for sins committed in ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord. The offerer was held guilty, whether he knew of the sin or not. Indeed "a sin of ignorance" supposed no knowledge of the offense. An offering presented supposed subsequent enlightenment.

The sin offering was for sins of ignorance, or inadvertence. These are things that we do not realize are sin and we easily fall into such things unintentionally. Why do we do this? Because we have a sinful nature inherited from Adam which leads even a believer into things he does not approve of. This gives him the struggle of Romans 7, as expressed in verse 19, "For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice." We are not responsible for having the sinful nature, for we were born with it, but we are responsible for letting it express itself. Therefore, when one in Israel realized that he had sinned, however unintentional it had been, he must bring an offering to God.

There were two orders of sin offerings — that of sin, and that of trespass or guilt — and these, while a necessity on the offerer's part, were on Jehovah's part an expression of abhorrence of sin, but also of its forgiveness.

No option as to their nature or value was permitted, both were precisely regulated by divine law. The importance of this principle cannot be too earnestly observed. No offering was possible unless it was exactly that which Jehovah had commanded. But nevertheless provision was made for poverty; still the provision was of divine institution. The poor and the rich were equally called to obedience. A high position called for a costly offering; a lower one, an offering less valuable. The most important offering was that of the "anointed priest," the high priest, since an error committed in his service might be "to the sinning of the nation"; for by his position of official nearness to God his sin would affect God's relationship with the whole of the people. The next in importance was that of the whole assembly; lessening in value came the offering of a ruler; and in the offering of an ordinary person, and one who was poor, the scale descended to its lowest. All the sins provided for were such as had been committed in error; the law knowing no forgiveness for high-handed sin — "without mercy," in such cases, the sinner was put to death. (Heb. 10:28.)

The sin offering was presented to God in a similar way to the burnt offering. The offerer laid his hand upon it; he identified himself with it, or, as the sequel shows, he transferred his sin to it, and it was then killed before Jehovah. The disposal of the blood followed. For this disposal in the greater of the sin offerings three distinct acts took place. The anointed priest first took some of the blood within the Holy, and sprinkled it seven times before the vail that hung before Jehovah's throne. Next, he placed some of the blood upon the horns of the golden altar. Lastly, he poured out the mass of the blood at the foot of the altar of burnt offering.

These are divided into two classes: the burnt and peace offerings are of "sweet savor." The peace-offering speaks of peace with God accomplished and communion attained the burnt-offering, which all goes up as sweet savor, of the perfection of the work which accomplishes this, ― of obedience found in absolute devotedness to the will of God. These we shall have in Luke and John respectively and of their application to these we shall have to speak by and by. In the two other offerings, the sin and trespass, the judgment of sin is the side dwelt upon, the necessary result of divine holiness, but which cannot be (as judgment) a sweet savor to God. Between these, again, there is this difference: that in the sin-offering sin is dealt with fully as that in the trespass-offering, whether as regards God or man, it is treated rather as injury, the exact amount of which is estimated by the priest as having the mind of God, and made up with overpayment. In the sin-offering the thought is of expiation in the full sense in the trespass-offering of reparation.

The sin and trespass-offerings both speak of the judgment of sin, that judgment which is indeed no sweet savor to God, but His "strange work," not the delight of His love, but the necessity of His holiness. The sin-offering deals with sin in view of the divine nature; the trespass-offering, in view of the divine government. The words "sin" and "trespass" well convey this difference, the thought of restitution having a prominent place in the trespass-offering, as the sin-offering alone exhibits that necessary separation of God from sin which is at once the necessity of His nature, and its most awful punishment.

From offerings which the people, if so minded, were permitted to bring, we pass on to others, which, because of acts done by them, were demanded by God, and are termed sin-offerings, or trespass-offerings, according to the character of the transgression. For God left it not to man to define the character of his act, nor the occasion on which he should bring offerings of this kind. Man might have enjoined such sacrifices where gross sins had been committed, but would have thought them needless, when error or ignorance could have been pleaded as an excuse for the offender. God acted in just the opposite way. For presumptuous sins there was no sacrifice provided, and nothing but death for the sinner to contemplate (Num. 15). For acts, many of which man would have excused, sin-offerings, or trespass-offerings, were enjoined. As the Holy One, God could not pass over the sin, as if it were of no moment. As the Gracious and Merciful One, He would not cut off the offender for that which was not done presumptuously. How different is God's standard from man's. Man is apt to measure his guilt by the character of his act, whether done wilfully or knowingly, and by the consequences which may ensue from it. God measures it by that which He is in Himself, who is light as well as love.

The remainder of the chapter is occupied with the law of the sin offering. Verse 25 shows how closely it was linked with the burnt offering, and just because it had definite reference to sin its holiness is specially emphasized. Both offerings found their fulfilment in the sacrificial death of Christ, but the burnt offering typified the Godward side of it, more connected with propitiation, while the sin offering typified the manward side, connected with substitution.

Parts of the sin offering were to be eaten by the males of the priestly families, but only in the tabernacle and its court and not in their homes. But to this there was an exception. If the blood had been brought into the holy place for reconciliation, as was to be the case when the priest himself sinned or the whole congregation was involved in sin, then none of it was to be eaten. The body of the animal was to be burned without the camp, as we saw in chapter 4. In ordinary cases the priests did eat, and this may remind us today that though the sin may be on the part of another the saint in priestly condition may take it home to himself, while helping the other. We find something in the spirit of this when we read Galatians 6:1-2.