Old Testament Sacrifices
Part 1
This is the beginning of a short series based on extensive reading over the last few years on the Levitical system of the Old Testament. It is not meant to be a formal theological paper, but rather a collection of observations accumulated from my own study of the biblical text, along with material gathered from scholarly resources.
WARNING: This gets deep and nerdy. Proceed at the risk of having to think.
I have heard at different times in my life that under the “old system” (the Mosaic law), if you sinned, you had to figure out which sacrifice to offer to pay for your sin. “The bigger the sin, the bigger the sacrifice.” Or that you had to keep track of all your sins, and bring sacrifices in keeping with the number of times you had sinned.
But is that really how things worked in the system set forth in Leviticus? Or does that come from reading Leviticus through eyes influenced by Reformation-era lenses, in reaction to the Roman Catholic system of confession to a priest with assigned acts of penance?
The first thing that we have to keep in mind is that the system of sacrifices to atone for, or cleanse from, sins, was only for unintentional sins. Murder, blasphemy, sorcery/witchcraft, idolatry, adultery, and other sins that could only conceivably be committed in a premeditated, defiant manner (what the King James Version translators called “sinning with a high hand”) had no sacrifice available to atone. The defiant sinner was to be “cut off from his people,” which may have taken place via capital punishment (usually stoning) or expulsion from the congregation of Israel, which also carried a very likely chance of death (surviving alone in the Ancient Near East was not something many could pull off).
Yes, there are different types of animals (each with a different economic value) specified for sin offerings in Leviticus 4–6. But the difference in the animal required is not based on the sin committed, but rather on the social position of the offender.
If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the Lord a young bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed. (Lev 4:3)
If the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord’s commands, even though the community is unaware of the matter, when they realize their guilt and the sin they committed becomes known, the assembly must bring a young bull as a sin offering and present it before the tent of meeting. (Lev. 4:13–14)
When a leader sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the commands of the Lord his God, when he realizes his guilt and the sin he has committed becomes known, he must bring as his offering a male goat without defect. (Lev. 4:22–23)
If any member of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord’s commands, when they realize their guilt and the sin they have committed becomes known, they must bring as their offering for the sin they committed a female goat without defect. (Lev. 4:27–28)
If an individual who needed to be cleansed from the impurity an unintentional sin caused could not afford a goat or lamb, they could bring two doves or two young pigeons (Lev. 5:7). Note that the different kind of animal offered had nothing to do with the weight or gravity of the unintentional sin, but with the economic capacity of the person seeking atonement.
The reason for the difference in animals based on one’s position in Israelite society was likely twofold. First, the closer one was allowed to come to the Most Holy Place, the greater the danger from contamination and ceremonial uncleanness. Second, the higher one’s position in leadership, the more responsibility one bears, and the more one’s sins affect more people. Jewish scholar Jacob Milgrom writes:
The violation of a prohibitive commandment generates impurity and, if severe enough, pollutes the sanctuary from afar. This imagery portrays the Priestly theodicy that I have called the priestly Picture of Dorian Gray. It declares that while sin may not scar the face of the sinner, it does scar the face of the sanctuary. This image graphically illustrates the Priestly version of the old doctrine of collective responsibility: When the evildoers are punished, they bring down the righteous with them. Those who perish with the wicked are not entirely blameless, however. They are inadvertent sinners who, by having allowed the wicked to flourish, have also contributed to the pollution of the sanctuary. In particular, the high priest and the tribal chieftain, the leaders of the people, bring special sacrifices (4:9*, 23*), for their errors cause harm to their people (4:3* and 10:6*). Thus, in the Priestly scheme, the sanctuary is polluted (read: society is corrupted) by brazen sins (read: the rapacity of the leaders) and also by inadvertent sins (read: the acquiescence of the “silent majority”), with the result that God is driven out of his sanctuary (read: the nation is destroyed).[1]
Note that the sin offering for the high priest, and that for when the entire Israelite community sins, are the same: a young bull. The sin of the high priest, who is the people’s representative before YHWH, has the same effect on the Israelite community as the whole community itself sinning, and thus requires the same sacrifice to cleanse the sacred space of the Tabernacle/Temple of the contamination caused by sin. Old Testament scholar L. Michael Morales writes:
We find that when either the whole congregation sins collectively, or when the high priest, who represents the whole congregation as mediator, sins, then blood must be sprinkled seven times before the veil in the holy place, and put on the horns of the altar of incense in the holy place, with the rest poured out at the base of the altar in the courtyard. When, however, the transgressor is an individual leader or common Israelite, blood is not brought into the holy place but rather is put on the horns of the altar in the courtyard, with the rest poured out on its base.[2]
We’ll pick up the discussion next week with part 2.
[1] Jacob Milgrom, A Continental Commentary: Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2004), 14–15.
[2] L. Michael Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?: A Biblical Theology of the Book of Leviticus, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 37, New Studies in Biblical Theology (England; Downers Grove, IL: Apollos; InterVarsity Press, 2015), 131.