If the only thing most of us get out of this is what you said about how standing in awe of God we are (privileged) to be able to be , ( I said “privileged” on purpose, to keep killing legalism wherever I am) when we are in a church, a couple of episodes ago,it should be enough. But actually ,most of us are probably getting a lot more. Something I most always like to do though ,is parrallel the OT with the way things are in typical USA culture today. And up till now ,I never have ” got” the animal sacrifice thing. But this has made me think, that, —- Isn’t it it a good comparison to say that ,them sacrificing their ” goodies” is like people in the USA today, offering a bowl of ice cream ? I guess it is because I have always been taught that the sacrifices were types Christ, but I could never get the bloody Pagan corollary out of my my mind, but because of the things you have been saying, I am understanding that again, like you teach other places, God just used things that were common in the society at the time to to convey His ways. So now we could just use something like Ice cream. Just the thought that animal sacrifice was not ” Gods idea” brings comfort to my soul. But that he was just useing things that meant something to the culture at the time. Call me stupid, but I just never “”got” this. Thanks Mike
MSH
on September 21, 2015 at 10:08 pm
how much legalism are you running into?
mheiser
on September 9, 2016 at 7:39 pm
This was very interesting. Very few commentators say anything at all – and I have very detailed commentaries. The few that do say something acknowledge that the lemma is best understood as based on the Piel (I pasted in some of that discussion below from two sources for those who lack the context of the podcast for this question). But no one asks the question about how the “de-sin” (purify) implications of the Piel affect the understanding of Gen 4:7. My reference grammars also came up empty (they only discuss the lack of grammatical agreement between חַטָּאת and רֹבֵץ). And basically everyone notes that Gen 4:7 is “one of the most difficult and obscure biblical sentences” (Umberto Cassuto) – thanks!
As you note, there is Qal חטא and Piel חטּא (excluding the vowels here). It is the latter verb that means “decontaminate” and the former “to sin,” and yet the noun חַטָּאת has the daghesh. Since it is clear (by a simple search) that חַטָּאת can mean (in context) either “sin” or “sin [decontamination] offering,” the confusion is raised by the presence of the daghesh in the corresponding noun form.
The question is whether the semantics of the Piel verb consistently apply to the noun form. This isn’t a given. The daghesh in חַטָּאת tells us only what its derivation is, not what its meaning in context is. Since this form is indeed used of “sin” (i.e., some transgression) and “sin offering,” only context can guide us with respect to semantics. In Gen 4:7, the context disallows “a sin offering is crouching at the door.” Not only would such *technical* (priestly) vocabulary not fit the context (there was no priesthood), but the thing crouching is detrimental to Cain. A sin offering wouldn’t be detrimental to anyone. Consequently, the translator would opt for the semantic of “sin”.
Excerpts:
There are problems even with the translation sin offering. First, the term חַטָּאת, sin offering, is also one of the words for sin. For example, according to Lev 4:3, “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 (חַטָּאת) for the sin (חַטָּאת) he has committed” (cf. 5:6, etc.). The confusion this can cause even appears in certain NT passages where, because of this OT background (cf. the LXX in 4:3), one could translate the corresponding G word either “sin” or “sin offering.” For example, compare the NIV text and margin translations of Rom 8:3 (did God send Jesus “for sin” or to be “a sin offering”?) and 2 Cor 5:21 (did Jesus become “sin” or a “sin offering”?; cf. NT sec. 2). Moreover, the doubled middle radical of חַטָּאת suggests a derivation from the pi. vb. (to de-sin, decontaminate; cf. Hartley [55–57] and Milgrom [1991, 253–54]), not the q. (to sin).
Source: Willem VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 95.
Traditionally חטאת has been rendered “a sin offering.” But on the basis that חַטָּאת is built on the piel of חטא, which carries the opposite meaning of the qal, namely “de-sin, expunge, decontaminate, purify,” Milgrom has challenged that rendering and proposed that a more accurate translation is “a purification offering” (VT 21 [1971] 237 = SCTT 67–69). This position is supported by the use of חִטֵּא, “cleanse,” in a description of the action of presenting a חטאת, “purification offering.” For example, in Ezek 43:20–23 (cf. Lev 8:14–15) חטא (4x) depicts the “de-sinning” of the altar by the act of כפר, “expiation,” so that after seven days of these rites it is טהר, “cleansed,” and מלא יד, “consecrated” (43:26). Ezek 45:18 has מקדשׁ, “the sanctuary,” as the object of חטא, “cleanse,” with the presentation of חטאת, “a purification offering”; afterward in v 20 it states that כפר, “expiation,” has been made for it (cf. Lev 14:49, 52). According to Num 19:17–19, one who has become unclean by contact with a corpse becomes חטא, “purged,” and טהר, “clean,” after being sprinkled twice, on the third and seventh days, with a solution that includes dust from the ashes of חטאת, “a purification offering.” Further, the hithpael of חטא carries the meaning “purify oneself.” In Num 19:12, 13, 20, a person who touches a corpse must take steps to purify himself in order that he might be clean (cf. Num 31:19, 20, 23; 8:21). Milgrom’s proposal to translate חטאת, “a purification offering,” is a much better rendering for this term in Eng., which unfortunately does not have a word that is closer to its literal meaning “de-sin.” This name identifies the specific function of this sacrifice without blurring it with other sacrifices offered to expiate certain kinds of sins, particularly the reparation offering (אשׁם).
Source: John E. Hartley, Leviticus (vol. 4; Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 55.
Joshua Andrew Jourdain
on September 10, 2016 at 3:09 am
You have no idea how clutch your timing is 🙂 (Thank you. This is going to be very useful. I’m compiling some documentation to sort out some issues with my elders in my church regarding atonement). You’re the man. Btw, this is one of the longest responses that I’ve seen you give. We need more of your wisdom in the church, so please don’t be afraid to unload like this in the future! PLEASE SIR, I WANT SOME MORE… hebrew instruction ??? 🙂 yes. more hebrew instruction. Bless you.
If the only thing most of us get out of this is what you said about how standing in awe of God we are (privileged) to be able to be , ( I said “privileged” on purpose, to keep killing legalism wherever I am) when we are in a church, a couple of episodes ago,it should be enough. But actually ,most of us are probably getting a lot more. Something I most always like to do though ,is parrallel the OT with the way things are in typical USA culture today. And up till now ,I never have ” got” the animal sacrifice thing. But this has made me think, that, —- Isn’t it it a good comparison to say that ,them sacrificing their ” goodies” is like people in the USA today, offering a bowl of ice cream ? I guess it is because I have always been taught that the sacrifices were types Christ, but I could never get the bloody Pagan corollary out of my my mind, but because of the things you have been saying, I am understanding that again, like you teach other places, God just used things that were common in the society at the time to to convey His ways. So now we could just use something like Ice cream. Just the thought that animal sacrifice was not ” Gods idea” brings comfort to my soul. But that he was just useing things that meant something to the culture at the time. Call me stupid, but I just never “”got” this. Thanks Mike
how much legalism are you running into?
This was very interesting. Very few commentators say anything at all – and I have very detailed commentaries. The few that do say something acknowledge that the lemma is best understood as based on the Piel (I pasted in some of that discussion below from two sources for those who lack the context of the podcast for this question). But no one asks the question about how the “de-sin” (purify) implications of the Piel affect the understanding of Gen 4:7. My reference grammars also came up empty (they only discuss the lack of grammatical agreement between חַטָּאת and רֹבֵץ). And basically everyone notes that Gen 4:7 is “one of the most difficult and obscure biblical sentences” (Umberto Cassuto) – thanks!
As you note, there is Qal חטא and Piel חטּא (excluding the vowels here). It is the latter verb that means “decontaminate” and the former “to sin,” and yet the noun חַטָּאת has the daghesh. Since it is clear (by a simple search) that חַטָּאת can mean (in context) either “sin” or “sin [decontamination] offering,” the confusion is raised by the presence of the daghesh in the corresponding noun form.
The question is whether the semantics of the Piel verb consistently apply to the noun form. This isn’t a given. The daghesh in חַטָּאת tells us only what its derivation is, not what its meaning in context is. Since this form is indeed used of “sin” (i.e., some transgression) and “sin offering,” only context can guide us with respect to semantics. In Gen 4:7, the context disallows “a sin offering is crouching at the door.” Not only would such *technical* (priestly) vocabulary not fit the context (there was no priesthood), but the thing crouching is detrimental to Cain. A sin offering wouldn’t be detrimental to anyone. Consequently, the translator would opt for the semantic of “sin”.
Excerpts:
There are problems even with the translation sin offering. First, the term חַטָּאת, sin offering, is also one of the words for sin. For example, according to Lev 4:3, “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 (חַטָּאת) for the sin (חַטָּאת) he has committed” (cf. 5:6, etc.). The confusion this can cause even appears in certain NT passages where, because of this OT background (cf. the LXX in 4:3), one could translate the corresponding G word either “sin” or “sin offering.” For example, compare the NIV text and margin translations of Rom 8:3 (did God send Jesus “for sin” or to be “a sin offering”?) and 2 Cor 5:21 (did Jesus become “sin” or a “sin offering”?; cf. NT sec. 2). Moreover, the doubled middle radical of חַטָּאת suggests a derivation from the pi. vb. (to de-sin, decontaminate; cf. Hartley [55–57] and Milgrom [1991, 253–54]), not the q. (to sin).
Source: Willem VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 95.
Traditionally חטאת has been rendered “a sin offering.” But on the basis that חַטָּאת is built on the piel of חטא, which carries the opposite meaning of the qal, namely “de-sin, expunge, decontaminate, purify,” Milgrom has challenged that rendering and proposed that a more accurate translation is “a purification offering” (VT 21 [1971] 237 = SCTT 67–69). This position is supported by the use of חִטֵּא, “cleanse,” in a description of the action of presenting a חטאת, “purification offering.” For example, in Ezek 43:20–23 (cf. Lev 8:14–15) חטא (4x) depicts the “de-sinning” of the altar by the act of כפר, “expiation,” so that after seven days of these rites it is טהר, “cleansed,” and מלא יד, “consecrated” (43:26). Ezek 45:18 has מקדשׁ, “the sanctuary,” as the object of חטא, “cleanse,” with the presentation of חטאת, “a purification offering”; afterward in v 20 it states that כפר, “expiation,” has been made for it (cf. Lev 14:49, 52). According to Num 19:17–19, one who has become unclean by contact with a corpse becomes חטא, “purged,” and טהר, “clean,” after being sprinkled twice, on the third and seventh days, with a solution that includes dust from the ashes of חטאת, “a purification offering.” Further, the hithpael of חטא carries the meaning “purify oneself.” In Num 19:12, 13, 20, a person who touches a corpse must take steps to purify himself in order that he might be clean (cf. Num 31:19, 20, 23; 8:21). Milgrom’s proposal to translate חטאת, “a purification offering,” is a much better rendering for this term in Eng., which unfortunately does not have a word that is closer to its literal meaning “de-sin.” This name identifies the specific function of this sacrifice without blurring it with other sacrifices offered to expiate certain kinds of sins, particularly the reparation offering (אשׁם).
Source: John E. Hartley, Leviticus (vol. 4; Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 55.
You have no idea how clutch your timing is 🙂 (Thank you. This is going to be very useful. I’m compiling some documentation to sort out some issues with my elders in my church regarding atonement). You’re the man. Btw, this is one of the longest responses that I’ve seen you give. We need more of your wisdom in the church, so please don’t be afraid to unload like this in the future! PLEASE SIR, I WANT SOME MORE… hebrew instruction ??? 🙂 yes. more hebrew instruction. Bless you.