Introduction
A vast literature arguing for a shift in the translation of חַטָּאת from “sin offering” to “purgation offering” has been part of Leviticus studies since the time of Milgrom.[1] In my own work on the חַטָּאת offerings I have detected a variety in the class of חַטָּאת offerings that remedy both sin and defilement and suggest flexibility should be taken in naming them. Over the years what was widely known in the Old Testament world has become a conversation in Old Testament studies, but it has been slower to surface in New Testament studies, particularly in work on Hebrews.[2] While the broader definition of the חַטָּאת offering has entered the world of monographs on Hebrews like those of Jamieson,[3] Ribbens,[4] and Bloor,[5] it finds its place in fewer commentaries, like that of Lane. Perhaps this is why “cleansing” and “sanctifying” in Hebrews 9:11-14 is often taken to be reference to sin’s defilement of the conscience, without regard to other dimensions of cleansing. With this state of things before us, we will ask about the lexical range of two words. To what degree does καθαρισμός specify forgiveness? And to what degree to ἁμαρτία indicate anything other than moral sins?
The range of καθαρισμός
Of the instances of καθαρισμός in the Testament, only one has 2Peter 1:9 uses it as a metaphor for forgiveness of sins, all others speak of actual purification. Of the 31 instances of καθαρίζω every one of the uses outside of Hebrews refers to “ceremonial” purification or sanctification except for 4 uses in James, 1Peter, and 1 John. Of the 5 instances in Hebrews, it is used in direct connection with purity/sanctification in three instances. Only in 1:3 and 10:2 is it used in connection with sin. In 10:2, it is used in connection with the ability of τοὺς λατρεύοντας or “worshippers” to be able to approach God, a context that would traditionally tend to include a purification component. In the New Testament, the only comparable use of cleansing for sin occurs in 1John 1:9. The takeaway is that “purification of sins” is an odd construction for the New Testament and καθαρισμός in the New Testament often refers to “ritual” cleansing.
In the Lxx the 94 instances of καθαρίζω speak of the cleansing of persons, the temple, or the land. While its use in Psalm 51 could cross into the category of sin, the problems of sin and impurity are present and especially relevant since they figure into the narrative that brought about the Psalm. The Lxx of Isaiah 53:10 says, καὶ κύριος βούλεται καθαρίσαι αὐτὸν τῆς πληγῆς· ἐὰν δῶτε περὶ ἁμαρτίας, ἡ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν ὄψεται σπέρμα μακρόβιον· καὶ βούλεται κύριος ἀφελεῖν
Or “the Lord was willing to cleanse him through blows if he might give himself concerning sin.”
Here it is not the servant that needs forgiving. Rather, through his suffering, he is consecrated to give himself as a sin offering. In proximity of a forgiveness passage, καθαρίσαι is used specifically to refer to cleansing and consecration.
Defilement and cleansing in the Greek world.
Going back to Homer, defilement was largely seen as material in nature. Yet there are several caveats to this statement. One is that a persons outer stain were seen to reflect or effect that ones inner person. In addition Homer sees a kind of cleansing that surpasses that of bathing, a ritual with lustrial water that produces in its subject a godlikeness.[6] In the 5th century BCE, the ideas of defilement became more complex in Greek society, and cleansings were used after childbirth, before offering sacrifice, and at the anniversaries of a death.[7]
The range of ἁμαρτία
We have already mentioned that חַטָּאת is used to describe the offerings that cleanse sins and impurities. Of course, just because the term carries over this way from the Hebrew does not mean that a writer, even a Jewish writer, would necessarily give it this meaning. The argument might be a little stronger were such a usage common to the Greek. In Aristotle’s poetics he used the term to describe an error of judgement. The word has been described to include character defects (Achilles), acts done in ignorance (Oedipus), and even excesses in virtue (Hippolytus). These situations or conditions will often lead to consequences if not the tragic end of the character. This use of ἁμαρτία appeared frequently enough in literature that it earned the nickname, “the tragic flaw.” That this term is now ridiculed due to its overuse only helps make the point. While English translations of the New Testament nearly always translate the word sin, the Greek certainly included sin and had a wider set of meanings.
The writer to the Hebrews 9:7 makes a special note of the Yom Kippur as being for sins “committed in ignorance.” Commentators have taken as an inability for the sacrifice to remove intentional sin. This interpretation seems contrary to Leviticus 16:20-22 which specifies that the Yom Kippur deals both with the עָוֺן and the פֶּ֫שַׁע of the people. More to our point, modern interpretations have some difficulty imagining that unknown or unintentional sin might pose a unique problem. However, examples ancient Greece show this is the sort of thing that ἁμαρτία speaks of. In the Levitical system, there are many provisions that keep unknown or unintentional sin from being a fatal flaw that brings harm to the intermediary, the worshipper and the camp.
Because of its use for the חַטָּאת offering, ἁμαρτία is bound to impurity and to every shortcoming physical and moral in the LXX. In contrast, kαθαρίζω is normally used as cleansing and rarely as forgiveness in the New Testament. The inclusion of the category of cleansing in Hebrews 1:3 may simply be a reference to cleansing the stain of sin. However, the LXX rendering of ἁμαρτία offerings for both in sins and impurities was so pervasive that the inclusion of both classes of חַטָּאת -type offerings is a possibility.[8]
This does not prove that Hebrews 1:3 is about ritual purity. It does show the following- the use of cleansing in the LXX and NT is usually about purity and on the basis of that meaning, can also be used to speak metaphorically of forgiveness of sins. Sins and impurity occasion the same kinds of sacrifices, referred to in short-hand[9] as ἁμαρτία which makes inclusion of impurity in Hebrews 1:3 natural and thus not out of the question.
The function of cleansing in Hebrews 9:11-14
The question of cleaning and purification is much clearer in Hebrews 9:13-14, which is often subject to the anti-ceremonial bias in translation, making the presence of purity language unclear. Notice, first, that the process spoken of in Hebrews 9:13-14 comes after Christ has obtained eternal redemption, which speaks of liberation from and payment for sins, in 9:12. Next the writer moves on to Christ’s accomplishments having entered the greater and more perfect tabernacle. The NIV says that blood of bulls and goats and ashes of a red heifer moved people from being “ceremonially unclean” and sanctified them to be “outwardly clean.” This is not a move from “defilement” to cleanness as some translations say. Nor is it a move to “outward cleanness”- this is a modern overlay conflating cleanliness and godliness. The Greek says,
ῥαντίζουσα τοὺς κεκοινωμένους ἁγιάζει πρὸς τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς καθαρότητα or “the sprinkling of the flesh which has been made common is sanctifying the flesh unto cleanness.” The movement from clean to sanctification is not a move that involves forgiveness but an additional step of purification that allows one to enter the outer precincts of the sanctuary. So far, the writer has addressed Christ’s redemption of sins, and then presents washing for sanctification under the old system. Next, he presents the contrast of cleansing in Christ.
καθαριεῖ τὴν συνείδησιν ἡμῶν ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων εἰς τὸ λατρεύειν θεῷ ζῶντι.
This is not a purification for general reconciliation alone, but a purification “to serve the living God”. The writer of Hebrews speaks of it in the context of Christ’s entering the sanctuary, so it is a natural move to think he is moving to believers’ entry. However, the transition from consecration-to-draw-near and consecration-to-enter are also not a move from sin to forgiveness. Hebrews states this has already occurred in 9:12. Consecration to enter was previously only relegated to the sons of Aaron in the former system. It was common knowledge that even if the sons of Kohath took this prerogative to see the “holy things” they would die.[10] This cleansing of the conscience, or as 10:1 says “perfecting those who draw near” is a qualification of an additional level of purification that allows access to the LORD’s presence.
Worldview differences suggest by use of sin and cleansing
Our post-enlightenment to modern readings of the Bible have calcified the category divisions between “sin” and “impurity”, especially since the anti-ritualistic turn initiated by Wellhausen. The post-enlightenment tendency was to think that sin and defilement were two different problems, one spiritual, the other physical. The Robertson-Smith/Frazier perspective was that since morals and impurity were such unclear categories, it demonstrated a confusion in ancient thinking.[11] The post-Wellhausen tendency was to think of sin and defilement as two different problems, one spiritual, the other metaphorical and likely fictional.
Reflected in ancient world thinking, and still in many cultures not as affected by these western shifts are analogical and cosmological[12] worldviews, as opposed to dialogical and materialistic world views. In these worldviews, sin and impurity tend to be two classes of the same problem. This is reflected in the way the language was commonly used in both the Greek and the Hebrew. What bound together the חַטָּאת was not that it was either a sin offering or a purification offering, as it was both. Rather the class of sacrifice was unified in addressing separation from God that required blood application to purge the infraction whether the infraction one against God’s righteousness or against God’s holiness.
In a similar way, the Greek use of ἁμαρτία spoke of harm to one’s destiny resulting from a moral infraction, a personality flaw or crossing a taboo line. Once again, what bound the category was not whether the problem was moral, or purity related. It was ἁμαρτία because it diverted one’s destiny, a missing of the mark.[13]
This is descriptive of the analogical aspect of the difference, in which things are grouped together based on relatedness not contrasted. I have written on this elsewhere and will simply have to cite some sources below for now.
As regards the cosmological worldview, Peter Berger described its manifestation in the ANE as there being an over-arching heavenly order kept by heavenly powers. Humans can break this order by immorality,
Further Questions:
- What is the relationship between the statement that Christ has redeemed us from sin in Hebrews 9:12 and the cleansing in v13 and 14?
- If he is speaking of “cleansing from sin” without reference to cleansing from defilement, then,
- why does he use the parallel of the red heifer cleansing ritual (not for “sin”) and
- why does he use the parallel for the move from clean to sanctified- which is a higher level of cleansing specifically related to entering the Holy Presence?
- Lastly, if the writer does not intend a parallel with priestly consecration, why does he place the cleansing in the context of ritual service unto the living God- εἰς τὸ λατρεύειν?
[1] Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics, Continental Commentaries (Fortress Press, 2004). See also Klawans, Pure Violence (Harvard University, 2001), 140-142, Wenham, Leviticus (2009), Both Mathews, Leviticus (2009) and Ross, Holiness to the LORD, (2002) tend to use “purification offering.”
[2] Section 1 of my thesis includes a survey of over 40 Hebrews commentaries and their use of sources on Leviticus, it suggests a lack of interest in the developing understanding of the sacrificial system among commentators.
[3] R. B. Jamieson, Jesusʹ Death and Heavenly Offering in Hebrews, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 172 (Cambridge University Press, 2019), 131–32.
[4] Benjamin J. Ribbens, Levitical Sacrifice and Heavenly Cult in Hebrews, Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Für Die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, volume 222 (De Gruyter, 2016), 121.
[5] Joshua D. A. Bloor, Purifying the Consciousness in Hebrews: Cult, Defilement and the Perpetual Heavenly Blood of Jesus, The Library of New Testament Studies 675 (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2023), 55.
[6] Jean-Pierre Vernant, Myth and Society in Ancient Greece (Zone Books, 1990), 122.
[7] Vernant, Myth and Society in Ancient Greece, 123.
[8] In Numbers 8:7, the m’חַטָּאת for the cleansing of the Levites for service is translated by the LXX ὕδωρ ἁγνισμοῦ, or the “water of sanctification” a configuration that again breaks down our modern strict divisions between “ritual” and “moral” impurity.
[9] 2 Corinthians 5:21
[10] Numbers 4:20
[11] Ivana Petrovic and Andrej Petrovic, Introduction: In: Inner Purity and Pollution in Ancient Greek Religion Vol_I, n.d., 2, accessed November 7, 2025, https://www.academia.edu/30262742/Introduction_in_Inner_Purity_and_Pollution_in_Ancient_Greek_Religion_Vol_I. Petrovic and Petrovic also detail a similar phenomenon to that described by Bloor, but from the Greek perspective that required a right state of the heart of the worshipper when approaching the gods.
[12] Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (Open Road Media, 2011), 129–40.
[13] Petrovic and Petrovic, Introduction.