this source. The burnt-offering was the only sacrifice which non-Israelites were allowed

to bring. 51

The Emperor Augustus had a daily burnt-offering brought for him of two lambs and a

bullock; and ever afterwards this sacrifice was regarded as indicating that the Jewish

nation recognised the Roman emperor as their ruler. Hence at the commencement of the

Jewish war Eleazar carried its rejection, and this became, as it were, the open mark of the

II. The sin -offering.--This is the most important of all sacrifices. It made atonement for

the person of the offender, whereas the trespass-offering only atoned for one special

offence. Hence sin -offerings were brought on festive occasions for the whole people,

but never trespass-offerings (comp. Num 28, 29). In fact, the trespass-offering may be

regarded as representing ransom for a special wrong, while the sin -offering symbolised

general redemption. Both sacrifices applied only to sins 'through ignorance,' in

opposition to those done 'presumptuously' (or 'with a high hand'). For the latter the law

provided no atonement, but held out 'a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery

indignation.' By sins 'through ignorance,' however, we are to understand, according to

the Rabbis, not only such as were committed strictly through want of knowledge, but

also those which had been unintentional, or through weakness, or where the offender at

the time realised not his guilt. The fundamental difference between the two sacrifices

appears also in this --that sin -offerings, having a retrospective effect on the

worshippers, were brought at the various festivals, and also for purification in such

defilements of the body as symbolically pointed to the sinfulness of our nature (sexual

defilement, those connected with leprosy, and with death). On the other hand, the

animal brought for a trespass-offering was to be always a male (generally a ram, which

was never used as a sin -offering); nor was it lawful, as in the sin -offering, to make

substitution of something else in case of poverty. These two particulars indicate that

the trespass-offering contemplated chiefly a wrong, for which decided satisfaction was

to be made by offering a male animal, and for which a definite, unvarying ransom was to

be given.

However, in reference both to sin - and to trespass-offerings, the Rabbinical principle

must be kept in view--that they only atoned in case of real repentance. Indeed, their

first effect would be 'a remembrance of sins' before God (Heb 10:3). All sin -offerings

were either public or private (congregational or individual). The former were always

males; the latter always females, except the bullock for the high-priest's sin of ignorance

(Lev 4:3), and the kid for the same offence of a 'ruler' (Lev 4:22). They were further

divided into fixed, which were the same in the case of rich and poor, and varying, which

'ascended and descended' according to the circumstances of the offerer. 'Fixed'

sacrifices were all those for sins 'through ignorance' against any of the prohibitory

commands (of which the Rabbis enumerate 365); 52 for sins of deed, not of word; or else

for such which, if they had been high-handed, would have carried the Divine

punishment of being 'cut off' (of which the Rabbis enumerate 36).

The 'varying' sacrifices were those for lepers (Lev 14:21); for women after childbirth (of

which concession to poverty Mary, the mother of Jes us, availed herself) (Luke 2:24; Lev

12:8); for having concealed a 'thing known' (Lev 5:1); for having unwittingly sworn

falsely; and for having either unwittingly eaten of what had been consecrated, or gone

into the Temple in a state of defilement. Lastly, there were 'outer' and 'inner' sin -

offerings, according as the blood was applied to the altar of burnt-offering or brought