A reader points us to Numbers 18:9-10, inquiring how this accords with our comment regarding Hebrews 13 that sin offerings were not to be eaten. (As in “Beasts Whose Blood is Brought into the Sanctuary,” May 1981 BT.)

The answer is that some sin offerings were eaten, and some were not. The kind referred to by Paul in Hebrews 13 could not be eaten because they were burned. The kind of sin offering which was to be burned rather than eaten is distinguished by what is done with the blood. If the blood of the sin offering was brought into the tabernacle, applied to atone or reconcile, then it was the kind of sin offering which was to be burned. (As on the Day of Atonement.) Otherwise, it might be eaten.

The law which forbids eating certain sin offerings is contained in Leviticus 6:30.

“No sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.”

On the other hand, most sin offerings were not of this type and were to be eaten. Numbers 18:9-10 and Leviticus 6:25-29 both show this. In fact, Leviticus 10:16-20 records one occasion when Moses was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar for not eating the sin offering. He said: “… behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy: ye should indeed have eaten it …” (NASB)

In Hebrews 13 Paul informs us that we have the privilege of being offered as an atonement sin offering.

He wrote:

“We have an altar, [for our use – to be sacrificed on. What kind of sacrifice do we become on the altar] [The kind … ] whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle [because] the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned [instead of eaten] …” (Hebrews 13:10, 11)

Download PDF