Math. 27: 3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, what is that to us? see thou to that”.

The above scripture is the confession and testimony of Judas Iscariot after he has betrayed Jesus. Now do you know the strength of the statement he just made when he said, I have betrayed THE INNOCENT BLOOD? He didn’t say ‘an’ innocent blood but THE ..

It is from the word = athoos, ath’-o-os in the Greek, Meaning “not guilty:–innocent” and it is taken from the root word (. a ) a, al’-fah of Hebrew origin; the first letter of the alphabet; figuratively, the first: –Alpha. And that speaks of the very first blood Adam had before the fall. The original blood that is without corruption, sin.. It’s completely free of sin and any such thing that is associated with sin.

The innocent Blood is the ‘apha’ blood, the very first and original blood. Yes, Jesus had no sin in his blood system while he walked the earth. He was completely innocent. Therefore he was not a sinner not even on the cross.

But God “made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him”. 2 Cor.5: 21.

Again like I said previously, the words tajx chattath, and tajx chattaah, frequently as used signify sin; but it can be observed that more than a hundred places in the Old Testament where they are used, it meant ‘sin-offering’ ,and this is what the Apostle translated ‘amartia’ here in 2 Cor.5:21, saying… “He hath made him to be sin (amartian, A SIN-OFFERING) for us, who knew no sin”.

Here are some examples.. Exo.29: 14 But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering.

Lev.4: 3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.

2 Chron.29: 20 Then Hezekiah the king rose early, and gathered the rulers of the city, and went up to the house of the LORD.

21 And they brought seven bullocks, and seven rams, and seven lambs, and seven he goats, for a sin offering for the kingdom, and for the sanctuary, and for Judah. And he commanded the priests the sons of Aaron to offer them on the altar of the LORD.

Now you can see that, the ‘sin offering’ was not the one that committed the crime but it is being used to pacify God to avoid His wrath on the sinner and so set him free. Like the sin offering by Hezekiah for the kingdom. Meaning the sin offering was offered on behalf of the kingdom that has sinned. But the sin offering is not the sinner. Even so Jesus was offered as a sin offering but he was not the sinner, nor did he commit any sin, he was without sin dear people!

The Septuagint translates the Hebrew word by amartia in ninety-four places in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, where a sin-offering is meant. Same thing we see in 2 Cor 5:21. So the right translation here ought to be an offering for sin. But that it may be plainly seen that sin-offering, not sin, is the meaning of the word in this verse.

Now let me show you another very perfect example of this application which men have also wrongly misinterpreted for us in relation to the sacrifice of Cain in Gen. Chapter 4.

Gen.4: 3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: {flock: Heb. sheep, or, goats}

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Have we not being told that Cain brought bad offerings to God hence his sacrifices was rejected? And we used this to preach in order to provoke people to give more especially in times of so called Annual Thanksgiving in our Churches.? But what really went wrong with Cain’s offering.

Hear this my friend, Vs.4..says,. Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock], meaning he brought an additional offering, One was the ‘minchah’ i.e a gratitude offering; and then he brought the (twrkbm mibbechoroth) which is “the first-born of his flock”, and by that speaking to God that he is a sinner that needs forgiveness and therefore professed faith in the promised Messiah that is to come.

So we read “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh” Heb.11: 4

Notice that it is “God testifying of his gifts GIFTS”,showing it is more than one. Can you see it? So it’s speaking of the gratitude offering and the sin offering which he offered, this, Cain did not include in his sacrifice, and so claiming self-righteousness before God hence his offering was like not accepted.

Again the word should read.. “By FAITH Abel offered (pleiova yusian,) a MORE or GREATER sacrifice; that is what the word stands for, not a more excellent as the translators will want us to believe. It was the addition that was stressed not the quality.

So Abel by adding a sacrifice to it paid a proper regard to the will of God just the way it has then been revealed, acknowledged himself a sinner, and therefore nullifying the Divine anger of God’s judgment and so showing forth the death of Christ till he came.

In Verse 7. God wasn’t necessarily quarrelling with Cain, but rather was telling Cain not to be angry with his brother, that it was the addition of the offering that made Abel’s offering to be accepted and that being angry with his brother will not solve the problem, rather he should look unto God to whom the offering was supposed to be offered, and has the power to acquit or condemn. Same problem Judas Iscariot had of repenting towards men instead of God when he went to the priests.

So when God said. . “sin lieth at the door”. he wasn’t telling Cain that the sin of killing his brother through anger was at his doorsteps and that he should rule over it, but rather “a sin-offering lieth at thy door” for that is what the phrase (tajx xtpl lappethach chattath robets), means ;in other words there is an animal proper to be offered as an atonement for sin now couching at the door of thy fold.

So God by his mercy provided and informed him that “a sin offering” (Ubr robets, is a word used to express the lying down of a quadruped, an animal that has four legs.) was lying at the door of his fold.

And when he said.. “And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” It is not that Cain should rule over sin, but rather, he was telling Cain that, Abel’s desire will still be unto Cain he being the senior.

By Implication, Cain your birthright as the elder has not been taken away from you so don’t get angry with your junior brother even though his offering has been accepted, besides I have made a sin offering available to you that I can accept, just go offer him to me. All these was said to pacify Cain from being angry, but Cain still failed,.

Same way men are rejecting the Lamb of God that he has offered freely to all men to pacify his own anger and it is still being rejected as the saviour of the world.

Jesus was an innocent sin- offering provided by God for the sins of men. Stop calling Jesus a sinner.