Hebrews 10:4 states that 'it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins'. However, the book of Leviticus introduced sin offerings for the purpose of atoning for sins (be they unintentional). How can these two statements be reconciled? I've read another thread on the same subject , but the answer provided simply seems to say that this problem is cleared up by the fact that the nature of the sin offering was a temporary removal of sin, while Jesus' sacrifice resulting in atonement was a *permanent* sacrifice. While this is of course true, Hebrews 10:4, in all translations I have seen, declares that the blood of animals cannot take away sin***s***, plural; this implies no sin whatsoever can be atoned by the sacrifice of animals.

Why does God allow monetary restitution (20 shekels of silver) for Sin Offering? I thought that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of the blood.

In Numbers 15:22-24, it talks about the community sinning unintentionally (v22) and the community not being aware of it (v24), how would the community know to give the specific burnt, grain, and drink offering? It's without their knowledge so unless there was a failure of something happening (Achan in Joshua 7), how would anyone know the community had sinned? I understand that a sin committed with or without knowledge of the law is still a sin but other than some outside event occurring or not occurring, how would anyone know? Also, since this is the community's sin, where does the offering come from? Does the community have a flock or herd of animals to choose from for their respective offerings? I assume if it's a personal offering, the animal comes from your flock or herd but that's just my assumption.

My question is essentially identical to the one in the Reddit post "[Simony and wedding fees](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAPriest/comments/dkl955/simony_and_wedding_fees/) ", which has yielded no satisfactory answer. Essentially, how are wedding fees charged by a church not an example of simony? I am of course excluding fees for unnecessary parts of the sacrament like a choir, photographers, etc. It seems that in researching this question, the most common answer I come across is along the lines of "the fee isn't for the sacrament itself, but rather for the space, time, etc." However, these fees are still inexorably linked to the sacrament, and ultimately must be paid to receive the sacrament. If a church were to offer a standard free Sacrament of Reconciliation, but confessors were required to pay a "confessional upkeep fee" in order to have their confession heard, I think people would consider this a clear case of simony. Another answer I hear goes "If a couple were truly unable to pay the fee, they could talk to the priest and have it waived. So the fee is really like an optional donation, similar to the collection basket being passed around at mass." Again, however, I believe that this is a different scenario. There is no concept of needing to donate to the collection at mass to receive communion. A person not able to make a contribution to the collection does not have to take their case up with the priest to receive communion. The act of receiving communion, and the act of making a contribution to the collection, are completely distinct events. The OP of the Reddit link has expressed these and other arguments much more fleshed out, so I recommend his question for reference. An example of the fees I am referring to can be found on page 11 of the St. Patrick Cathedral General Wedding Instructions/Guidelines in NY. Roman Catholic answers please.

Based on the following passages, it's my understanding that The New Testament clearly supports offering: 2 Corinthians 9 (NIV): > 6 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7 **Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver**. 8 And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. 9 As it is written: > >“They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor; > their righteousness endures forever.” > >10 Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. 11 **You will be enriched in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God**. Acts 2:44-47 (NIV): > 44 All the believers were together and **had everything in common**. 45 **They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need**. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. Acts 4:32-35 (NIV): > 32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. **No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had**. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. **For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need**. Acts 24:17 (NIV): > 17 “After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people **gifts for the poor and to present offerings**. ________________________ However, many denominations claim that Christians are **expected to give both tithes and offerings**, not just offerings (e.g. (https://www.daveramsey.com/blog/daves-advice-on-tithing-and-giving) , (https://stewardship.adventist.org/2015-19-3-tithe-and-offerings-it-all-about-worship) , (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/for-the-strength-of-youth/tithes-and-offerings?lang=eng) , (https://www.wpmbc.org/tithes-and-offering/)) . ________________________ **Question**: What is the biblical basis for claims that Christians are expected to give **both tithes and offerings** in the New Covenant, instead of just offering?

> [Genesis 4:4–5](http://biblehub.com/bsb/genesis/4.htm) [Berean Study Bible] > (4) The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering > (5) but He had no regard for Cain and his offering I'm in the middle of conversation with a Calvinist in a Christian Forum (in our language). First I ask that how come while both of them were totally depraved, but one of them (who is Abel) favored by God. After some back and forth respondings, to my surprise finally he said that it's because Abel is the elected one. And he gave me Hebrew 11:4 > **By faith** Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain's. > Through this he received approval as righteous, God himself giving > approval to his gifts; he died, but through his faith he still speaks. ([NRSV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11%3A4&version=NRSV)) He give the chronology like this :
1. God elect Abel before the foundation of the world.
2. He regenerate Abel in time and give him faith, don't know when but before the offering event
3. Those 2 points above causing Abel do a correct offering.
4. Now God has a reason to look with favor on Abel + his offering
5. and now God can give him approval as righteous through his offering. When I asked him if he has any reference from any Reformed Church's father, he said he would ask his Church about it. But so far he hasn't followed up. My question here is the same : *Is there any reference from any Reformed Church's father indicating that Abel was regenerated before the offering ?*

**Leviticus 21:16-23** > 16 The Lord said to Moses, 17 “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to > come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer > the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no > man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a > crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has > any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged > testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is > to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a > defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may > eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet > because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the > altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them > holy.’” Why would a loving God, who loves all people equally, seemingly discriminate against Aaron's descendants with these "defects"?