What are the "unintentional sins"?

Explanation:

In the books of Leviticus and Numbers we find a distinction between unintentional sins and deliberate sins. Unintentional sins are described as sins that people commit without knowing it.⁵ Once the sin is made known to the perpetrator, the perpetrator is to offer sacrifices (Leviticus 4:2–17). For example, in Leviticus 4:22 we read that when a ruler commits a sin by unintentionally failing to obey the commands of the Lord, and then has his sin pointed out to him (Leviticus 4:23), he and the priest are to offer sacrifices for atonement (Leviticus 4:23–26). On the other hand, the person who sins with a high hand, that is, the person who sins deliberately, blasphemes the Lord and is to be cut off (Numbers 15:30).⁶

It is likely that the author of Hebrews has this distinction in mind in Hebrews 9:7. The clue that he has this distinction in mind is the fact that he uses the Greek noun ἀγνόημα, literally unintentional sin, to describe the type of sin for which the high priest offers blood.

Counterargument:

The problem with this view is that in the Old Testament, there is not only a distinction between unintentional and deliberate sins, but there also seems to be a distinction between regular offerings for sin and the annual Day of Atonement. When it comes to regular offerings for sin, the offerings are made once the sin is known to the perpetrator. On the other hand, the Day of Atonement was an annual event, conducted on the tenth day of the seventh month (Leviticus 16:29), that was enacted by God as a special event. The author of Leviticus says that the purpose was to make the people clean through atonement, and the people would be clean before the Lord from all their sin (Leviticus 16:30). Notice that Leviticus makes no mention of the distinction between unintentional and deliberate sins. Rather, the author states that the Day of Atonement was meant to cleanse from all sins.

Why is this distinction between the regular offerings for sin and the Day of Atonement important? Because the author of Hebrews also makes this distinction. In Hebrews 9:6 he writes that the priests do their work continually. We know that the priest was involved in offering sacrifices for unintentional sins, so this could be one of the activities he is referring to. Then he states that the high priest goes into the Holy Place once a year—referring to the Day of Atonement—to make sacrifices for unintentional sins. The author of Hebrews knows his Old Testament well, so he must know that the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement were for all sins. Thus, he is likely not distinguishing between unintentional and deliberate sin but uses ἀγνόημα to refer to sin in general.

Response to counterargument:

While it is true that there is a distinction between unintentional and deliberate sins in the Old Testament, there is no indication that the Day of Atonement cleansed the people from both.⁷ Rather, when the text states that the Day of Atonement will cleanse the people מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם (from all your sins), this might simply indicate all of the unintentional sins that the perpetrators were not aware they committed. We know that the Old Testament distinguishes between unintentional and deliberate sins. Unintentional sins come in two types. First, there are unintentional sins that the perpetrator does not know he has committed. Second, there are the unintentional sins that have been made known to the perpetrator. Both types are sins against God, but sacrifices can only be made by the latter because the former are not even aware of their sin. Still, the sins have been committed, and the Day of Atonement covers these.

On the other hand, there seems to be only one type of deliberate sin, that is, sin of a high hand, which means deliberate defiance. If a sin is committed in deliberate defiance, and there is no repentance, how can those sins be atoned for? In this case, the sacrifice is inherently rejected; otherwise the sin would not be classified as deliberate defiance. Thus, when Leviticus 16:30 states that the Day of Atonement is for all sins, this likely does not include deliberate sins characterized as committed with a high hand.

Response to response to counterargument:

There is no indication from Leviticus 16:30 that the sins of a high hand were not atoned for on the Day of Atonement. All we know is that the text says the people were cleansed from all sins.⁸

Explanation:

The Mishna is a collection of Jewish writings meant to capture the oral traditions of the Pharisees as they were taught between 516 BC and AD 70. Thus, the writings offer a window into how the Jews interpreted various aspects of the Old Testament. Mishna, Yoma 8.9 states that Death and Yom Kippur atone for sins when accompanied by repentance (Yom Kippur is a transliteration of the Hebrew term for Day of Atonement). In other words, the Day of Atonement atones for sins when there was repentance. This implies that unintentional sins were the object of the Day of Atonement.⁹

Counterargument:

The problem with this view is that Yoma 8.9 does not state that unintentional sins were atoned for on the Day of Atonement. Rather, it states that sins accompanied by repentance were atoned for. Is there an important difference between unintentional sins and sins followed by repentance? Certainly. Unintentional sins are sins conducted in ignorance. Eventually, circumstances reveal the sin to the sinner, and sacrifice is made for atonement. On the other hand, deliberate sins were committed in an act of personal defiance; that is to say, one knows the command and deliberately disobeys. When these sins came to light, the perpetrator was to be removed from the community (Numbers 15:30). Still, Yoma 8.9 reveals that there might be more to deliberate sins. For example, imagine someone sins deliberately, but on the Day of Atonement, after witnessing the sacrifices and hearing the prayers, is cut to the heart and repents. This person sinned deliberately and yet, atonement was available due to future repentance. In other words, Yoma 8.9 does not state that the Day of Atonement is only for unintentional sins; it states that the day is for repentant sinners 

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is that it presses the authors of the Torah and of Hebrews for distinctions that might not be intended. There is a distinction in the Old Testament between sins done in ignorance and sins committed deliberately, but this cannot be the whole story. Scripture states that the heart is deceitful above all things (Jeremiah 17:9), and there are plenty of stories of deliberate sins that are eventually forgiven (2 Samuel 11:1–27). If in the Old Testament, atonement was only available for sins done unintentionally, either the people in the Old Testament were either morally superior to the rest of us or hardly any sins were atoned for. Neither option seems likely. Maybe the distinction is between unintentional sins and intentional sins that are accompanied by repentance on the one hand, and intentional sins that are not accompanied by repentance on the other. If this is the case, the distinction between unintentional and deliberate is overly simplistic.

Explanation:

When the author of Hebrews states that the high priest offered blood for the sins of himself and the people, he uses the Greek noun ἀγνόημα to denote sin. While the term is not found in any other passage in the New Testament, some lexicons gloss the word as unintentional sin.¹⁰ Still, when we look to the Jewish authors of the Septuagint for their use of the Greek noun ἀγνόημα, we find that they equate the noun with sin in several passages. For example, in Judith 5:20 the author asks, “Now therefore, my Lord and governor, is there is any ἀγνόημα (ignorance) in this people and they ἁμαρτία (sin) against their God…?” In this example, ἀγνόημα is equated with sin. There are other examples as well, including Sirach 23:2, Tobit 3:3, and 1 Maccabees 13:39, where ἀγνόημα and ἁμαρτία are used synonymously.¹¹ The point here is not to say that there is no distinction in the Bible between unintentional sins and deliberate sins as they are presented in Leviticus 4:1–35 and Numbers 15:1–41 (see Interpretation 1, argument 1). Rather, the point is that these distinctions become somewhat blurred over time so that the Greek noun ἀγνόημα is synonymous with sin. Whether the author of Hebrews could articulate a robust doctrine of sin that captures the theological nuance of sin is not the point. The point is Jesus Christ’s sacrifice is far superior to the old sacrificial system (Hebrews 9:11–12). Whereas the old sacrificial system was not an adequate means of propitiation, Jesus Christ entered the sanctuary once and by his blood secured eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12).

Counterargument:

It might be that the terms ἀγνόημα and ἁμαρτία are sometimes used synonymously, but when it comes to the Torah, we find there is a distinction. In fact, in Numbers 15:30 the author explains that the person who sins with a high hand, that is, deliberately, should be excluded. The narrator then explains what happened to a certain man who broke the Sabbath to collect sticks (Numbers 15:32). It seems the man must have committed a sin with a high hand, because the man is stoned for his sin.¹² The fact is, the author of Hebrews knows the Torah well, and there is a distinction between unintentional sins and deliberate sins. Thus, he uses the Greek noun ἀγνοημα to explain that in the Old Testament, only sins of ignorance could be atoned for.

Response to counterargument:

First, the fact that there is a distinction between unintentional sins and deliberate sins in Leviticus 4:1–35 and Numbers 15:1–41 does not mean that the author of Hebrews is making this distinction. We have already seen that the term ἀγνόημα can be used synonymously with the term ἁμαρτία (sin). Further, when we investigate how the Septuagint writers characterize the unintentional sins described in Leviticus 4:2, we find that they use the Greek term ἁμαρτία in each case. It is simply the Greek word for sin. If there was a strong distinction between unintentional sin and deliberate sin, we might find the authors of the Septuagint using the term ἀγνόημα for unintentional sin in Leviticus 4:2. This does not mean that there is no difference between sin and sin with a high hand (Numbers 15:30), but it does suggest that the lines are blurred between unintentional sin and sin.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness of this view is that the term ἁμαρτία is a much more common term for sin in the New Testament. In fact, the author of Hebrews uses the term ἁμαρτία a total of twenty-four times, but he only uses the term ἀγνόημα once (Hebrews 9:7). For this reason, it seems as though the author wants his audience to draw a connection between the Day of Atonement as described by Hebrews 9:7 and unintentional sins.