The Good News About SIN

Sin is a term that has a lot of rhetorical significance attached to it and I have wondered for some time if the modern English meaning has any connection to the meaning of the ancient Hebrew word. Its persistently undefined use in the text suggests some common understanding to original writers that is lost to modern readers who cannot differentiate between words like sin, evil, wickedness, and iniquity.

Now that I have completed one semester of Hebrew studies, I thought I would have a go at exploring my curiosity a bit further! For this project I chose to study the Hebrew word sin (חַטָּא) in its noun form (חַטָּאת).

I began the study by looking into Reuben Alcalay’s Complete English-Hebrew Dictionary which showed that multiple Hebrew words that get translated into English as “sin.” However, the Hebrew noun (חַטָּאת) is almost exclusively translated as “sin” or “sin offering.”[1] This word primarily appears in Leviticus and Numbers, though Ezekiel and the books of the Kings also have more than 15 references each.

I was surprised that the exact same noun could have two completely opposite meanings: sin and sin offering. A verse that showcases this double meaning of the noun is Leviticus 4:3 (אִם הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ יֶחֱטָא לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם וְהִקְרִיב עַל חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא פַּר בֶּן־בָּקָר תָּמִים לַיהוָה לְחַטָּֽאת׃). Notice that the same noun (חַטָּאת) is used for the sin and the sin offering. “If the priest that is anointed do sin (חַטָּא) according to the sin (אָשָׁם) of the people; then let him bring for his sin (חַטָּאת), which he hath sinned (חַטָּא), a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin (חַטָּאת) offering. (KJV) There is not a distinct indicator that the final (חַטָּאת) should also include the term “offering”.[2]

According to Levine, the root of this noun is ambiguous and may reflect a derivation from two different verbal stems, the Qal and the Piel, which may have opposite meanings.[3] Ernest Klein provides a list of derivative meanings from the root (חַטָּא), all of which revolve around the core meaning: to miss the mark.[4]

• · Qal: miss, miss the goal, sinned, incurred guilt

• · Hiphel: missed the mark, caused to sin, brought into guilt.

• · Piel: he bore a loss, made a sin-offering, cleansed or purified from sin.

• · Niphal: disinfected.

• · Pual: was cleansed was purified, was disinfected.

• · Hithpael: Purified himself, lost oneself, was bewildered.

The feminine noun (חַטָּאת) is formed from the verbal root by added a suffix tet.[5] In contrast with Klein’s focus on wrong, guilt, and purification, Ernst and Westermann place greater emphasis on failure and falling short. They highlight the parallel meanings in Akkadian “to miss, sin” and the Arabic “to commit an error,” emphasizing that “the criterion for ‘error’ is not particular commandments, but injury to a communal relationship.”[6]

They see the word (חַטָּא) “used almost exclusively to describe religious circumstances.”[7] Different terms are available to indicate violation of ethical functions (עָוֹן), outright rebellion (פֶּשַׁע), or wickedness (רֹעַ).[8] Van Gemeren wonders if the distinctiveness of the term (חַטָּא) is the emphasis on “unintentionality,” especially since the literal meaning of the term indicates a mistake (for example, the slingers of Judges 20:16 who “could sling stones at an hair breadth, and not miss (חַטָּא)).”

Bailey describes the meaning of (חַטָּא) in terms of ritual impurity rather than ethical violations and suggest that the English word “offense” might be a more appropriate translation.[9] They further note that the root of the word (חַטָּא) “is used synonymously with the verb ‘to purify’ (tihar)” and suggest that the sin offering may also be called the purgation offering.

For example, the sacrifice is used in connection with touching an “unclean” animal carcass (5:2), the process of childbirth (12:6-8), and experiencing abnormal skin eruptions (14:19) and genital discharges (15:14-15), hardly sinful acts within themselves! That is, the issue apparently is ritual “impurity” rather than ethical misconduct.

-Lloyd R. Bailey, Leviticus–Numbers, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2005), 69.

VanGemeren observes that the Hebrew use of this term with a meaning of ritual purification is unique among semitic language groups.[10] Levine, supports this observation, identifying “purity of the sanctuary” as the foundational meaning of this term in Hebrew. “Improper execution of religious duties” or even “inadvertent offenses” could arouse the wrath of the deity since they might be seen as a betrayal of the covenant.[11]

The sin offering / purification offering served to “physically ritually decontaminate the tabernacle…which could be defiled by physical impurities and other kinds of impurities.”[12] Blood is not applied to the worshippers, but to the altar itself…and the passage in Leviticus 4 indicates that offenses by the priests required blood to be applied deeper into the holy place (scattered before the inner sanctuary itself), than offenses by a common person, which required purification of the altar that stood in the main courtyard. (This hierarchy of sin is fascinating to me as it places greater weight on a person’s role in society even when the action is the same).

According to the mythology of the Ancient Near East, if these sins were not atoned for, they could pile up over time until the divine presence could no longer stand to dwell with the people.[13] “Once the ancient worshipper sensed disconnection from the Deity, concrete action was taken to restore the relationship.”[14] Without such a remedy, it was possible that the deity would abandon the temple or cast the people themselves out of the land.[15]

This understanding of sin becomes theologically significant when the New Testament describes Jesus with the Greek word αμαρτία. There are 26 Hebrew expressions for sin that are rendered by only 6 Greek terms in the Septuagint – so the Greek word αμαρτία cannot be taken as an equivalent expression of the Hebrew (חַטָּאת).[16] Similar to (חַטָּא), αμαρτία derives its roots from archery,[17] but it has a much broader range of meanings that more closely reflect modern use.

The New Testament allows for this fuller range of meaning. However, Van Gemeren notes that the “sin offering” rationale informs the New Testament concept of atonement.[18] The etymological distinction between the Qal and the Piel thus becomes a question in 2 Corinthians 5:21 of whether Jesus became sin itself or a sin offering. Which one do you think it is?

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. - KJV
τὸν γὰρ μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν ἵνα ἡμεῖς γινώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ - TR

See https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2co/5/21/t_conc_1083021

Regardless of the answer, the concept of ritual cleansing is much different than the concept of guilt offerings through which a penalty must be paid.[19] Whereas modern readers might view sin in terms of guilt and punishment, the Hebrew term represents one’s inability to perfectly perform a covenant and provides a ritual to restore and maintain the connection between God and humanity whenever humans fall short. Instead of legal violations, the concept of sin is dealing with ritual and relationship.

I was curious to know if there was anything I could learn about the potential meanings of this term by analyzing a list of all the times the noun (חַטָּאת) appears in the Old Testament. Like the resources suggest, my findings indicate something quite specific and quite a bit different than modern English speakers might assume.

The direct and final outcomes of sin include the following religious realities:

• God does not answer (1 Samuel 14:37),

• God hides god’s face (Isaiah 59:2),

• the people are removed from the sight of God (2 Kings 24:3),

• and/or kicked out of the land (2 Chronicles 6:25).

Specific indications of sin, however, tend to be physical:

• locusts (Exodus 10:14),

• plagues (Leviticus 26:21),

• leprosy (Numbers 12:10),

• a dying child (2 Samuel 12:14),

• drought (2 chronicles 6:26),

• illness (Psalm 38:3),

• and blindness (Zephaniah 1:17).

Instead of being punishments, these occurrences serve to raise awareness that a breach of covenant has happened. Methods of purification/atoning for the contamination of the covenant include:

• sin offerings (e.g. Exodus 29:36 et al…),

• cleansing (Psalm 51:2),

• prayer, confession and repentance (2 Chronicles 6:26),

• or repentance and keeping God’s statutes (Ezekiel 18:21).

Surprisingly, there are only a few specific actions that are directly labelled as sin in the Old Testament (note this word study only includes appearances of the hebrew noun). All of them[20] carry ritual significance:

• oath breaking (Exodus10:17, 1 Samuel 14:38),

• making of golden calves (Deuteronomy 9:21, 1 Kings 12:30),

• usurping a prophet’s authority (Numbers 12:10),

• stealing god’s sacrifice (1 Samuel 2:17),

• forsaking God to serve Baal (Judges 10:10, 1 Kings 16:31),

• and building altars to other gods (Hosea 13:2).

This list looks quite a bit different than English speakers who might use sin to mean any “offence against moral codes” or “action against the laws and will of God.”[21] Especially surprising to me was the complete lack of any reference to sexual behavior!

Although I’m sure there’s much more to find from further study, this initial dive into the concept of sin through the Hebrew term (חַטָּאת) provided to be quite inspiring. It seems to align with the Christian theological principle of original sin that recognizes a human tendancy to fall short of everything we could be in our lives and relaitonships. Instead of a call to moral judgement, the term for sin provides a way of acknowledging a common human experience and providing a way forward.

No archer will always hit their target. Likewise, none of God’s people can fully keep the covenant. We all fall short of our goals in one way or another, and the concept of sin along with the sin offering serves as a beautiful reminder that God always makes a way for us to get back up and try again.

(for those who want just a little more complexity)

For subscribers (thank you for sponsoring my research)! I have added an additional section of my analysis on the Hebrew verbal form (חַטָּא), which does add additional complexity to the study. Keep scrolling to the end…just beyond the footnotes!

[1] John R. Kohlenberger III and James A. Swanson, The Hebrew-English Concordance to the Old Testament (with the New International Version) (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 522–26.

[2] The two terms are exactly the same. See John Joseph Owens, Analytical Key to the Old Testament, vol. 1, Genesis–Joshua (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989), 440.

[3] “The Masoretes consistently pointed the second root consonant, tet, with a dagesh, but in fact the Hebrew consonants allow for two distinct nouns: (I) hata’t, a noun based on the Kal stem and a variant of Hata’ah, “sin fault, offense”; (2) hatta’t, a noun based on the Piel stem, literally “an offering to remove an offense, to purify.” In biblical Hebrew, the Piel stem may signify the undoing, or elimination of the very act, or state, conveyed by the Kal stem of the same verb.” Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 20.

[4] Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987), 213.

[5] Ibid

[6] Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, eds., Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, vol. 1, trans. Mark E. Biddle (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 406, 409.

[7] Ibid, 407

[8] Willem A. Van Gemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), s.v. “Sin.”

[9] “For example, the sacrifice is used in connection with touching an “unclean” animal carcass (5:2), the process of childbirth (12:6-8), and experiencing abnormal skin eruptions (14:19) and genital discharges (15:14-15), hardly sinful acts within themselves! That is, the issue apparently is ritual “impurity” rather than ethical misconduct”. Lloyd R. Bailey, Leviticus–Numbers, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2005), 69.

[10] Van Gemeren.

[11] Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 19-22.

[12] Van Gemeren, 95.

[13] Bailey, 71.

[14] Ibid, 79.

[15] Bailey notes references to sin in Ezekiel 40-48 referr to ritual ‘sins’ that had caused Israel to be cast out of the land, 72.

[16] Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, eds., Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, vol. 1, trans. Mark E. Biddle (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 411.

[17] See Joel B. Green et al., eds., Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), s.v. “Sin,” accessed December 6, 2025, ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/upsce-ebooks/detail.action?docID=836115.

[18] Van Gemeren, 101.

[19] Van Gemeren, 95.

[20] Aside from three unusual uses in Proverbs (which requires further genre analysis), three instances where sin is against another person (always phrased as a question aka. “How did this breach of relationship happen?”), and three instances where sin offerings were required for natural biological processes (touching a carcass, genital issues, and childbirth).

[21] H. S. Versnel, “sin,” Oxford Classical Dictionary, last modified March 7, 2016, accessed December 6, 2025,

Alcalay, Reuben. The Complete English-Hebrew Dictionary. Israel: Prayer Book Press, 1962.

Bailey, Lloyd R. Leviticus–Numbers. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2005.

Green, Joel B., Jacqueline Lapsley, Rebekah Miles, and Allen Verhey, eds. Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/upsce-ebooks/detail.action?docID=836115.

Hall, Joan Houston, ed. Dictionary of American Regional English. Vol. 4, P–Sk. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2002.

Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann, eds. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Vol. 1. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.

Klein, Ernest. A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987.

Kohlenberger, John R., III, and James A. Swanson. The Hebrew-English Concordance to the Old Testament (with the New International Version). Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

Levine, Baruch A. Leviticus. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989.

Owens, John Joseph. Analytical Key to the Old Testament. Vol. 1, Genesis–Joshua. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989.

Van Gemeren, Willem A., ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997.

Versnel, H. S. “sin.” Oxford Classical Dictionary. Last modified March 7, 2016. Accessed December 5, 2025. https://oxfordre.com/classics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-5945.