Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 5:14
And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying,
(This comment exends through Lev 6:7). The trespass-offerings as they are described in this section and in Lev 7:1-7, are clearly distinguished from the ordinary sin-offerings in these particulars:
(1) They were offered on account of offences which involved an injury to some person (it might be the Lord Himself) in respect to property. See Lev 5:16; Lev 6:4-5.
(2) they were always accompanied by a pecuniary fine equal to the value of the injury done, with the addition of one-fifth. Compare Num 5:5-8.
(3) the treatment of the blood was more simple. Compare Lev 4:5.
(4) the victim was a ram, instead of a female sheep or goat.
(5) there was no such graduation of offerings to suit the rank or circumstances of the worshipper as is set forth in Lev 4:3, Lev 4:32, etc.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Lev 5:14-19
If a soul commit a trespass.
The trespass-offering
I. As to the distinctive character of this offering.
1. It was not a sweet savour offering. Christ is here seen suffering for sins; the view of His work is expiatory.
2. It was a trespass as distinct from a sin-offering. Not the person, but the act of wrong-doing, is the point noticed and dwelt upon. And how solemn is the truth here taught us, that neither our conscience, nor our measure of light, nor our ability, but the truth of God, is the standard by which both sin and trespass are to be measured. Though he wist it not, yet is he guilty; he hath certainly trespassed against the Lord. If mans conscience or mans light were the standard, each man might have a different rule. And, at this rate, right or wrong, good or evil, would depend, not upon Gods truth, but on the creatures apprehension of it. At this rate, the filthiest of unclean beasts could not be convicted of uncleanness, while it could plead that it had no apprehension of that which was pure and seemly. But we do not judge thus in the things of this world; neither does God judge so in the things of heaven. Who argues that because swine are filthy, therefore the standard of cleanliness is to be set by their perceptions or ability; or that because they seem unconscious of their state, therefore the distinction between what is clean and unclean must be relinquished. No: we judge not by their perceptions, but our own; with our light and knowledge, not their ignorance, as our standard.
3. In the trespass-offering we get restitution, furl restitution for the original wrong. The amount of the injury, according to the priests valuation of it, is paid in shekels of the sanctuary to the injured person. The thought here is not that trespass is punished, but that the injured party is repaid the wrong. The payment was in shekels: these shekels of the sanctuary were the appointed standard by which Gods rights were measured; as it is said, And all thy estimation shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary. Thus they represent the truest measure, Gods standard by which He weighs all things. By this standard the trespass is weighed, and then the value paid to the injured person. And God and man, though wronged by trespass, each receive as much again from man in Christ through the trespass-offering. Whether honour, service, worship, or obedience, whatever God could claim, whatever man could rob Him of, all this has He received again from man in Christ, according to the priests estimation in shekels of the sanctuary. But man also was injured by trespass; and he, too, receives as much again. Christ for man as offerer of the trespass-offering, must offer to injured man the value of the original injury. And such as accept His offering find their loss through mans trespass more than paid. Has trespass wronged man of life, peace, or gladness, he may claim and receive through Christ repayment. For man to man, as for man to God, Christ stands the One in whom mans wrongs are remedied.
4. But this is not all. Not only is the original wrong paid, but a fifth part more is paid with it in the trespass-offering. Who would have thought that from the entrance of trespass, both God and man should in the end be gainers? But so it is. From man in Christ both God and man have received back more than they were robbed of. In this sense, where sin abounded, yea, and because sin abounded, grace did more abound.
II. The varieties or grades in this offering. These are fewer than in any other offering, teaching us that those who apprehended this aspect of Christs work, will apprehend it all very much alike. It will be remembered that in the sin-offering the varieties were most numerous and that because sin in us may be, and is, so differently apprehended; but trespass, the act of wrong committed, if seen at all, can scarce be seen differently. Accordingly, we find but one small variety in the trespass-offering, for I can scarce regard the two different aspects of trespass as varieties. These aspects are, first, trespasses against God, and then trespasses against our neighbour; but this distinction is more like the difference between the offerings than the varieties in different grades of the same. It simply points out distinct bearings of trespass, for which in each case the atonement seen is precisely similar. There is, however, one small yet remarkable difference between the two grades of the offering for wrongs in holy things. In the first grade, which gives us the fullest view of the offering, we read of the life laid down, the restitution made, and the fifth part added. But in the lower class, the last of these is unnoticed: the fifth part is quite unseen. And how true this is in the experience of Christians. Where the measure of apprehension is full, there not only the life laid down, and the restitution made in the trespass-offering, but all the truth also which is caught in the fifth part, will be seen as a consequence of trespass and a part of the trespass-offering. Not so, however, where the apprehension is limited: here there is no addition seen beyond the amount of the original trespass. (A. Jukes.)
The trespass-offering; or, substitution and restitution
I. The trespass-offering (or guilt-offering, R.V.) refers more especially to the evil actions which are the outcome of our corrupt nature: while the sin that is inherent in that nature, as descendants of fallen Adam, is fully met in the sin-offering–last considered. The evil deeds, or sins, met by the trespass-offering may be thus divided–as against God and against man.
II. a trespass . . . through ignorance, in the holy things of the lord, is the first mentioned. Here there is a similarity to the sin spoken of in chap. 4., for it is through ignorance. Who can measure the holiness of God, or know the extent of sin against such a Being? Perfect purity and holiness demand the same; but we are born in sin, shapen in iniquity (Psa 51:5); and who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one (Job 14:4). Hence, till the heart is changed by the grace of God (Rom 5:15; 1Co 15:10), the sin within is ever showing itself in evil actions; and even after we know the Lord we are apt to trespass in His holy things. In mens very religion, too, there may be sin. How often do they invent a worship of their own, not in accordance with Gods Word; a way of salvation which dishonours Him; a way of approach to Him other than He has given! If living for self, the world, or other purpose than Gods glory, we are robbing God. It may be through ignorance, but though he wist it not, yet he is guilty, and shall bear his iniquity (Lev 4:17-19), saith the Lord. There is thus no hope for us in ourselves, but He has met this (as all) our need in His Beloved Son, as shown in type before us, for the sinning one is bidden to bring–
1. A ram without blemish . . . for a trespass-offering (guilt-offering, R.V.), and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his ignorance . . . ; for he hath certainly trespassed against the Lord. Mark well the words certainly trespassed, though in ignorance. The same truth is here again shown, that no sin could be atoned for without the shedding of Jesus blood; but His was a full, perfect, and complete atonement, when He made His soul a guilt-offering (Isa 53:10, marg., R.V.; same word as verses 5:19, R.V.). He was delivered up for our trespasses (Rom 4:25; Rom 5:16, R.V.)
2. Shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, were also to be brought with the ram, to make amends for the harm . . . done in the holy thing. No lower standard than Gods could be accepted. Have we a just perception of Gods holiness?
3. A fifth part added. Who could do this in its full meaning? None but Jesus. And He brought more glory to God by redemption than could have accrued from creation. Christ was perfect in His obedience to Gods holy law, and gave rich surplus. He–the Antitype of trespass-offering (both of ram and silver, 1Pe 1:18-19)–was also Priest who made atonement or reconciliation (Rom 5:10-11; 1Jn 2:2); and the blessed result is–
4. Forgiveness (verses 16, 18) to all that believe (Act 13:38-39).
III. Wrong done to a neighbour is equally described as trespass against the Lord (Lev 6:1-7). This the unregenerate heart fails to see, but God pronounces it to be sin; and the truth of Heb 9:22 is once more brought before us; but, in contrast to the trespass against the holy things, in the case of wrong done to a neighbour–restitution with addition of fifth part must be made, before bringing the trespass-offering of a ram without blemish, with the estimation. The former teaches that only on the ground of blood shed could God accept the offerer, or the amends He would have him make; whereas, in the case of wrong done to a neighbour, amends must first be made to that neighbour before pardon can be sought of God. This is the lesson enforced by our Lord (Mat 5:23-24; Mat 6:14-15). See, too, Zaccheus ready to restore fourfold (Luk 19:8). To approach God with a wrong against a neighbour unredressed will not bring acceptance; while in the case of trespass against the Lord in holy things, pardon through Jesus must first be sought before amends for the harm done, can be accepted. Each must be according to Gods ordering, and then there is the same gracious promise of forgiveness (verses 16, 18, 6:7; Eph 4:32; Col 3:13).
IV. The law of the trespass-offering opens out some further details (Lev 7:1-7). It was to be–
1. Killed in the same place as the burnt-offering (Lev 1:5; Lev 1:11), that is, on the side of the altar northward before the Lord. It was the same Jesus in all, though different aspects and results of His death are presented in each.
2. The blood was to be sprinkled round about upon the altar. Only in the sin-offering was it to be poured out, as that offering presented a more comprehensive view of the fulness of the atonement.
3. The costliest parts were to be burned on the altar, as in the sin-offering, telling of the rich and intrinsic excellency of the Lord Jesus which could stand the searching fire of Gods holiness.
4. Most holy (Lev 6:25; Lev 6:29; Lev 7:1; Lev 7:6). The use of such an expression, in connection with sin-offering and trespass-offering is most striking. The more we meditate thereon the more we learn how the hearts affection, mind, inward parts, were all perfect in Jesus–hence He is a perfect Saviour. Lastly, the trespass-offering was–
5. To be eaten in the Holy Place, by every male among the priests, typifying the Church, as partakers of Him who bare their sins (1Pe 2:24), while the priest that maketh atonement was type of Jesus, thus seen to identify Himself with His people. (Lady Beaujolois Dent.)
Sacrilege
The trespass here indicated is sacrilege–mistake and misappropriation in the use of sacred things: a culpable trespass, whether done wittingly or unwittingly. From this rite we are taught–
I. The jealousy of Jehovah for the honour of his worship in the tabernacle.
II. The influence this jealousy was calculated to exert upon the worshippers in the tabernacle.
1. Sensitiveness of feeling.
2. Tenderness of conscience.
3. Scrupulousness of conduct. (F. W. Brown)
.
Reparation
I. Sin is a wrong done to god.
II. Sin is a wrong done to man. Amends must be made by–
1. Appropriate contrition.
2. Personal sacrifice.
3. Unreserved consecration: evincing itself in a holy, useful, Christly life. (F. W. Brown)
Error, though inadvertent, is guilty
I. A sophistry needing correction. This: that intention constitutes the quality of an action, whether conduct is criminal or not. But this declaration of guilt, though in the action he wist it not, testifies against a sweeping and all-inclusive application of that principle, viz., that intention qualifies action.
1. Ignorance may and does extenuate the guilt of an action. Knowledge deepens guilt (Joh 9:41; Joh 15:22). Ignorance alleviates it (Luk 23:34; Act 3:17; 1Ti 1:13).
2. Yet ignorance cannot excuse guilt. A man is not excused for breaking the laws of the land because he was ignorant of them. Nor is he innocent who trespasses, through error, against any ordinance of the Lord. And, if so in respect of ceremonial observances, much more so in relation to moral duties. Hence the curse stands against every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them (Gal 3:10).
3. God Himself refuses to condone such ignorance. His Word declares that men perish for lack of knowledge (Hos 4:6); and that though a people be of no understanding, He will not have mercy on them, and will show them no favour.
II. Mans uncomputed guilt.
1. Reckon up our remembered sins. They are more in number than the hairs of our head.
2. Add the sins realised at the time but now forgotten. Memory lets slip multitudinous trespasses.
3. Yet what can represent the number of our unrecognised sins, done in ignorance, done in error?
4. Deviations and defects also, which Gods eye alone detected, and which we too self-indulgently condoned.
III. Vast virtue needed in atonement.
1. Under the ceremonial arrangements for expiation, how manifold and minute and numerous were the regulations and provisions necessary to make atonement for sin!
2. When all sin had to be expiated by Christs one offering, what value it must needs possess! Yet by one offering the Saviour purged our sins.
(1) It summons us to faith. Look unto Me and be ye saved. Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.
(2) It incites us to grateful adoration. Unto Him that loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, &c. (Rev 1:5-6).
(3) It assures us of perfect redemption. There remaineth no more offering for sin, for the blood of Jesus Christ, Gods Son, cleanseth us from all sin. (W. H. Jellie.)
Gain by redemption
In the addition of the fifth part, as here set forth, we have a feature of the true trespass-offering, which, it is to be feared, is but little appreciated. When we think of all the wrong and all the trespass which we have done against the Lord; and, further, when we remember how God has been wronged of His rights in this wicked world, with what interest can we contemplate the work of the Cross as that wherein God has not merely received back what was lost, but whereby He is an actual gainer. He has gained more by redemption than ever He lost by the fall. The sons of God could raise a loftier song of praise around the empty tomb of Jesus than ever they raised in view of the Creators accomplished work. The wrong has not only been perfectly atoned for, but an eternal advantage has been gained by the work of the Cross. This is a stupendous truth. God is a gainer by the work of Calvary. Who could have conceived this? When we behold man, and the creation of which he was lord, laid in ruins at the feet of the enemy, how could we conceive that, from amid those ruins, God should gather richer and nobler spoils than any which our unfallen world could have yielded? Blessed be the name of Jesus for all this! It is to Him we owe it all. It is by His precious Cross that ever a truth so amazing, so divine, could be enunciated. (C. H. Mackintosh.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
And the Lord spake unto Moses,…. Out of the tabernacle of the congregation, Le 1:1 he continued to speak to him:
saying, as follows.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(Ch. 5:14-6:7)
(Note: In the original the division of verses in the Hebrew text is followed; but we have thought it better to keep to the arrangement adopted in our English version. – Tr.)
The Trespass-Offerings. – These were presented for special sins, by which a person had contracted guilt, and therefore they are not included in the general festal sacrifices. Three kinds of offences are mentioned in this section as requiring trespass-offerings. The first is, “ if a soul commit a breach of trust, and sin in going wrong in the holy gifts of Jehovah. ” , lit., to cover, hence the cloak, over-coat, signifies to act secretly, unfaithfully, especially against Jehovah, either by falling away from Him into idolatry, by which the fitting honour was withheld from Jehovah (Lev 26:40; Deu 32:51; Jos 22:16), or by infringing upon His rights, abstracting something that rightfully belonged to Him. Thus in Jos 7:1; Jos 22:20, it is applied to fraud in relation to that which had been put under the ban; and in Num 5:12, Num 5:27,it is also applied to a married woman’s unfaithfulness to her husband: so that sin was called , when regarded as a violation of existing rights. “ The holy things of Jehovah ” were the holy gifts, sacrifices, first-fruits, tithes, etc., which were to be offered to Jehovah, and were assigned by Him to the priests for their revenue (see Lev 21:22). with is constructio praegnans: to sin in anything by taking away from Jehovah that which belonged to Him. , in error (see Lev 4:2): i.e., in a forgetful or negligent way. Whoever sinned in this way was to offer to the Lord as his guilt (see Lev 5:6) a ram from the flock without blemish for a trespass-offering (lit., guilt-offering), according to the estimate of Moses, whose place was afterwards taken by the officiating priest (Lev 27:12; Num 18:16). “ money of shekels, ” i.e., several shekels in amount, which Abenezra and others have explained, no doubt correctly, as meaning that the ram was to be worth more than one shekel, two shekels at least. The expression is probably kept indefinite, for the purpose of leaving some margin for the valuation, so that there might be a certain proportion between the value of the ram and the magnitude of the trespass committed (see Oehler ut sup. p. 645). “ In the holy shekel: ” see Exo 30:13. At the same time, the culprit was to make compensation for the fraud committed in the holy thing, and add a fifth (of the value) over, as in the case of the redemption of the first-born, of the vegetable tithe, or of what had been vowed to God (Lev 27:27, Lev 27:31, and Lev 27:13, Lev 27:15, Lev 27:19). The ceremony to be observed in the offering of the ram is described in Lev 7:1. It was the same as that of the sin-offerings, whose blood was not brought into the holy place, except with regard to the sprinkling of the blood, and in this the trespass-offering resembled the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings.
The second case (Lev 5:17-19), from its very position between the other two, which both refer to the violation of rights, must belong to the same category; although the sin is introduced with the formula used in Lev 4:27 in connection with those sins which were to be expiated by a sin-offering. But the violation of right can only have consisted in an invasion of Jehovah’s rights with regard to Israel, and not, as Knobel supposes, in an invasion of the rights of private Israelites, as distinguished from the priests; an antithesis of which there is not the slightest indication. This is evident from the fact, that the case before us is linked on to the previous one without anything intervening; whereas the next case, which treats of the violation of the rights of a neighbour, is separated by a special introductory formula. The expression, “ and wist it not, ” refers to ignorance of the sin, and not of the divine commands; as may be clearly seen from Lev 5:18: “the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his error, which he committed without knowing it.” The trespass-offering was the same as in the former case, and was also to be valued by the priest; but no compensation is mentioned, probably because the violation of right, which consisted in the transgression of one of the commands of God, was of such a kind as not to allow of material compensation. The third case (Lev 6:1-7) is distinguished from the other two by a new introductory formula. The sin and unfaithfulness to Jehovah are manifested in this case in a violation of the rights of a neighbour. “ If a man deny to his neighbour ( with a double obj., to deny a thing to a person) a pikkadon (i.e., a deposit, a thing entrusted to him to keep, Gen 41:36), or , “ a thing placed in his hand ” (handed over to him as a pledge) “or , a thing robbed ” (i.e., the property of a neighbour unjustly appropriated, whether a well, a field, or cattle, Gen 21:25; Mic 2:2; Job 24:2), “ or if he have oppressed his neighbour ” (i.e., forced something from him or withheld it unjustly, Lev 19:13; Deu 24:14; Jos 12:8; Mal 3:5), “ or have found a lost thing and denies it, and thereby swears to his lie ” (i.e., rests his oath upon a lie), “ on account of one of all that a man is accustomed to do to sin therewith: ” the false swearing here refers not merely to a denial of what is found, but to all the crimes mentioned, which originated in avarice and selfishness, but through the false swearing became frauds against Jehovah, adding guilt towards God to the injustice done to the neighbour, and requiring, therefore, not only that a material restitution should be made to the neighbour, but that compensation should be made to God as well. Whatever had been robbed, or taken by force, or entrusted or found, and anything about which a man had sworn falsely (Lev 6:4, Lev 6:5), was to be restored “ according to its sum ” (cf. Exo 30:12; Num 1:2, etc.), i.e., in its full value; beside which, he was to “ add its fifths ” (on the plural, see Ges. 87, 2; Ew. 186 e), i.e., in every one of the things abstracted or withheld unjustly the fifth part of the value was to be added to the full amount (as in Lev 5:16). “ To him to whom it (belongs), shall he give it ” : in the day when he makes atonement for his trespass, i.e., offers his trespass-offering. The trespass (guilt) against Jehovah was to be taken away by the trespass-offering according to the valuation of the priest, as in Lev 5:15, Lev 5:16, and Lev 5:18, that he might receive expiation and forgiveness on account of what he had done.
If now, in order to obtain a clear view of the much canvassed difference between the sin-offerings and trespass-offerings,
(Note: For the different views, see Bhr’s Symbolik; Winer’s bibl. R. W.; Kurtz on Sacrificial Worship; Riehm, theol. Stud. und Krit. 1854, pp. 93ff.; Rinck, id. 1855, p. 369; Oehler in Herzog’s Cycl.)
we look at once at the other cases, for which trespass-offerings were commanded in the law; we find in Num 5:5-8 not only a trespass against Jehovah, but an unjust withdrawal of the property of a neighbour, clearly mentioned as a crime, for which material compensation was to be made with the addition of a fifth of its value, just as in Lev 5:2-7 of the present chapter. So also the guilt of a man who had lain with the slave of another (Lev 19:20-22) did not come into the ordinary category of adultery, but into that of an unjust invasion of the domain of another’s property; though in this case, as the crime could not be estimated in money, instead of material compensation being made, a civil punishment (viz., bodily scourging) was to be inflicted; and for the same reason nothing is said about the valuation of the sacrificial ram. Lastly, in the trespass-offerings for the cleansing of a leper (Lev 14:12.), or of a Nazarite who had been defiled by a corpse (Num 6:12), it is true we cannot show in what definite way the rights of Jehovah were violated (see the explanation of these passages), but the sacrifices themselves served to procure the restoration of the persons in question to certain covenant rights which they had lost; so that even here the trespass-offering, for which moreover only a male sheep was demanded, was to be regarded as a compensation or equivalent for the rights to be restored. From all these cases it is perfectly evident, that the idea of satisfaction for a right, which had been violated but was about to be restored or recovered, lay at the foundation of the trespass-offering,
(Note: Even in the case of the trespass-offering, which those who had taken heathen wives offered at Ezra’s instigation (Ezr 10:18.), it had reference to a trespass (cf. vv. 2 and 10), an act of unfaithfulness to Jehovah, which demanded satisfaction. And so again the Philistines (1Sa 6:3.), when presenting gifts as a trespass-offering for Jehovah, rendered satisfaction for the robbery committed upon Him by the removal of the ark of the covenant.)
and the ritual also points to this. The animal sacrificed was always a ram, except in the cases mentioned in Lev 14:12. and Num 6:12. This fact alone clearly distinguishes the trespass-offerings from the sin-offerings, for which all kinds of sacrifices were offered from an ox to a pigeon, the choice of the animal being regulated by the position of the sinner and the magnitude of his sin. But they are distinguished still more by the fact, that in the case of all the sin-offerings the blood was to be put upon the horns of the altar, or even taken into the sanctuary itself, whereas the blood of the trespass-offerings, like that of the burnt and peace-offerings, was merely swung against the wall of the altar (Lev 7:2). Lastly, they were also distinguished by the fact, that in the trespass-offering the ram was in most instances to be valued by the priest, not for the purpose of determining its actual value, which could not vary very materially in rams of the same kind, but to fix upon it symbolically the value of the trespass for which compensation was required. Hence there can be no doubt, that as the idea of the expiation of sin, which was embodied in the sprinkling of the blood, was most prominent in the sin-offering; so the idea of satisfaction for the restoration of rights that had been violated or disturbed came into the foreground in the trespass-offering. This satisfaction was to be actually made, wherever the guilt admitted of a material valuation, by means of payment or penance; and in addition to this, the animal was raised by the priestly valuation into the authorized bearer of the satisfaction to be rendered to the rights of God, through the sacrifice of which the culprit could obtain the expiation of his guilt.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Law of the Trespass-Offering. | B. C. 1490. |
14 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 15 If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the LORD; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the LORD a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering: 16 And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him. 17 And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. 18 And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him. 19 It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the LORD.
Hitherto in this chapter orders were given concerning those sacrifices that were both sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, for they go by both names, v. 6. Here we have the law concerning those that were properly and peculiarly trespass-offerings, which were offered to atone for trespasses done against a neighbour, those sins we commonly call trespasses. Now injuries done to another may be either in holy things or in common things; of the former we have the law in these verses; of the latter in the beginning of the next chapter. If a man did harm (as it is v. 16) in the holy things of the Lord, he thereby committed a trespass against the priests, the Lord’s ministers, who were entrusted with the care of these holy things, and had the benefit of them. Now if a man did alienate or convert to his own use any thing that was dedicated to God, unwittingly, he was to bring this sacrifice; as suppose he had ignorantly made use of the tithes, or first-fruits, or first-born of his cattle, or (which, it should seem by ch. xxii. 14-16, is principally meant here) had eaten any of those parts of the sacrifices which were appropriated to the priests; this was a trespass. It is supposed to be done through mistake, or forgetfulness, for want either of care or zeal; for if it was done presumptuously, and in contempt of the law, the offender died without mercy, Heb. x. 28. But in case of negligence and ignorance this sacrifice was appointed; and Moses is told, 1. What must be done in case the trespass appeared to be certain. The trespasser must bring an offering to the Lord, which, in all those that were purely trespass-offerings, must be a ram without blemish, “of the second year,” say the Jewish doctors. He must likewise make restitution to the priest, according to a just estimation of the thing which he had so alienated, adding a fifth part to it, that he might learn to take more heed next time of embezzling what was sacred to God, finding to his cost that there was nothing got by it, and that he paid dearly for his oversights. 2. What must be done in case it were doubtful whether he had trespassed or no; he had cause to suspect it, but he wist it not (v. 17), that is, he was not very certain; in this case, because it is good to be sure, he must bring his trespass-offering, and the value of that which he feared he had embezzled, only he was not to add the fifth part to it. Now this was designed to show the very great evil there is in sacrilege. Achan, that was guilty of it presumptuously, died for it; so did Ananias and Sapphira. But this goes further to show the evil of it, that if a man had, through mere ignorance, and unwittingly, alienated the holy things, nay, if he did but suspect that he had done so, he must be at the expense, not only of a full restitution with interest, but of an offering, with the trouble of bringing it, and must take shame to himself, by making confession of it; so bad a thing is it to invade God’s property, and so cautious should we be to abstain from all appearances of this evil. We are also taught here to be jealous over ourselves with a godly jealousy, to ask pardon for the sin, and make satisfaction for the wrong, which we do but suspect ourselves guilty of. In doubtful cases we should take and keep the safer side.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 14-16:
This text begins the section regarding the Trespass Offering.
There is little distinction between the Sin Offering and the Trespass Offering, see Ps 40:6; Heb 10:8. The primary difference appears to be that the Trespass Offering was for offenses which required reparations to be made. The Sin Offering pictures the expiation for sin upon the cross, for all people. The Trespass Offering pictures the satisfaction for sin wrought by the life and death of Christ, on behalf of His own people.
God’s people do sin, even though they are saved, 1Jo 1:7- 2:3. But these transgressions will not send any to hell. These sins have been accounted to Christ, and He has paid for them, Ro 4:1-8.
“Trespass,” asham, “guilt… built offering.”
Two conditions must be met before one might offer his Trespass Offering: he must:
1. Make compensation for any harm or injury done;
2. Give to the injured party a payment of 20% (one-fifth) of the value of that which he had harmed, if possible to estimate this sum.
In making the Trespass Offering, the offerer must bring a ram to the tabernacle courtyard; and then offer the ram and slay it.
The priest’s function for the Trespass Offering: throw the blood on the inward sides of the altar, burn the inward fat and the tail, and then claim the remainder of the sacrifice for himself and his brethren to be eaten in the tabernacle courtyard (Le 7:2-7).
“Through ignorance,” see Le 4:2, and the comments thereon.
“In the holy things of the Lord,” refers to the withholding of tithes and offerings. Non-payment of tithes and offerings was tantamount to robbing God, Mal 3:8, and as such was a trespass, a willful violation which involved compensation.
The priest must fix the monetary value of the ram. 20% (one-fifth) of this value was to be added to the sacrifice, as a fine.
“Sheckel of the sanctuary” denotes an exact weight and value.
The text gives the conditions for an offering for sins of omission, knowing what to do but not doing it, see Jas 4:17.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
14. And the Lord spake unto Moses. The difference of the victim clearly shews, that another kind of offense is here referred to; for God now requires a male instead of a female. Before, He had been contented with an ewe lamb or a female kid; but inasmuch as a ram is more valuable, it follows that punishment is now awarded to a heavier offense. The heinousness of the fault depends upon the quality of the act; i.e., when a person shall have wronged not a mortal man merely, but God Himself, nor shall have transgressed only one of the Commandments of the first Table, but shall not have paid a vow, or shall have offered a defective victim, or shall have defrauded God of His right in any oblation; since this is what is meant by the clause “in the holy things of the Lord.” In this expression Moses includes both vows voluntarily made, as well as the legitimate oblations, such as tithes, first-fruits, the offering of the first-born; since in all these things the Israelites were strictly charged to deal most faithfully with God. If by chance avarice had blinded any one, so that in pursuit of personal gain he paid God less than he ought, his recklessness justly received a heavier punishment. Yet it must be understood, that the offense here referred to is one in which no fraud or evil deceit had place; for if any one had designedly and craftily appropriated what was sacred, the impiety of this sacrilege was not so easily expiated. But inasmuch as it often happens that the covetous and grasping are too ready to spare themselves, God enjoins a sacrifice in such a case, where private advantage has through thoughtlessness prevailed over religious feeling. The words, “with thy estimation,” some refer to Moses, others to the priest; but I prefer taking it passively for the estimation prescribed by God; which is called the estimation of the people, because they were bound to acquiesce in the Law appointed by Him, and not arbitrarily to alter the value. Moses estimates the ram at two shekels of the sanctuary, equivalent to four common shekels, (269) amounting in French money to about twenty-eight sols, ( asses.)
(269) “ Ainsi revienent a vingt huit sols de roy, ou environ;” thus they amount to twenty-eight sols of the king, or thereabouts. — Fr.Vide note, vol. 1 p. 483.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
f. TRESPASS OFFERING 5:146:7
(1)
ITS OCCASION
(a)
UNINTENTIONAL TRESPASS IN THE THINGS OF GOD Lev. 5:14-19
(b)
UNINTENTIONAL TRESPASS AGAINST MAN Lev. 6:1-7
(2)
ITS VICTIMA RAM Lev. 5:15; Lev. 5:18
(3)
ITS RITUAL
(a)
PRESENTATION OF THE RAM TO PRIEST Lev. 5:15; Lev. 6:6-7
(b)
MAKE RESTITUTION, PLUS AN ADDED FIFTH, TO THE PARTY WRONGED Lev. 5:16; Lev. 6:4-5
(c)
THE PRIEST OFFERS THE SACRIFICE TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HIM Lev. 5:18; Lev. 7:6-7
TRESPASS IN THINGS OF GOD 5:1419
TEXT 5:1419
14
And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying,
15
If any one commit a trespass, and sin unwittingly, in the holy things of Jehovah; then he shall bring his trespass-offering unto Jehovah, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to thy estimation in silver by shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass-offering:
16
and he shall make restitution for that which he hath done amiss in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest; and the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass-offering, and he shall be forgiven.
17
And if any one sin, and do any of the things which Jehovah hath commanded not to be done; though he knew it not, yet he is guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.
18
And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to thy estimation, for a trespass-offering, unto the priest; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning the thing wherein he erred unwittingly and knew it not, and he shall be forgiven.
19
It is a trespass-offering: he is certainly guilty before Jehovah.
THE TRESPASS OFFERING
5:146:7
The Occasions:
The Ritual Of The Trespass Offering:
Purpose: AtonementAcceptance.
6. Tabernacle building showing boards, bars, sockets, pillars, and the two rooms
7. Tabernacle building showing its four coverings and the hanging across the front.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 5:1419
96.
How is the word soul used in reference to man?
97.
Just what is the difference in the sin and the trespass?
98.
What is meant by the holy things of the Lord?
99.
Why a ram for a sacrifice?
100.
How do shekels of silver relate to the ram? Who decides on how much the ram is worth ?
101.
Try to imagine a specific case of a trespass in the holy things of the Lord, then imagine how restitution would be made. Discuss.
102.
Even if we cannot remember sinning against our neighbor and he should accuse us of a sin, what should we do?
103.
Notice in Lev. 5:19 that after a discussion of a violation against the law it is said that such was against the Lord. Discuss the relationship.
PARAPHRASE 5:1419
And the Lord said to Moses, If anyone sins by unintentionally defiling what is holy, then he shall bring a ram without defect, worth whatever fine you charge against him, as his guilt offering to the Lord. And he shall make restitution for the holy thing he has spoiled, or the tithe omitted, by paying for the loss, plus a twenty percent penalty; he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering, and he shall be forgiven. Anyone who disobeys some law of God without realizing it is guilty anyway, and must bring his sacrifice of a value determined by Moses. This sacrifice shall be a ram without blemish taken to the priest as a guilt offering; with it the priest shall make atonement for him, so that he will be forgiven for whatever it is he has done without realizing it. It must be offered as a guilt offering, for he is certainly guilty before the Lord.
COMMENT 5:1419
Lev. 5:14 We need to do our very best to define exactly what is involved in the trespass; and therefore understand the meaning of the trespass offering. We like best the thought that the sin offering related to public acts (at least as a general rule); trespass offerings relate to personal or private acts of sin. From the oft used phrase unwittingly or unintentional in both cases, it would seem that God knows that man is never ready to admit his guilt. Whether we intended it or not we are guilty and must have the sacrifice to be forgiven. Including all excuses and rationalizations you are yet undone and guilty before God! The term soul refers to the whole manhis aliveness. We sin with the man inside but we involve the man outside and the total man (soul) is responsible!
Lev. 5:15 Sin in the holy things of the Lord remind us of the question of Malachi, Will a man rob God? and then the hurt and surprised reply of Israelwherein have we robbed thee. In this very expression we have a good example of the trespass here involved. God answers through the prophet, In tithes and offerings have you robbed me. We could enter into an endless argument as to why they failed to tithe. God will have no such argument. You have sinned in the holy things of Godget a ram for a trespass offering!
Ecc. 5:6 offers another good example of a trespass involving worship. A man enters the assembly of worshippers. He wishes to be well thought of by those present so he makes a faith promise. In the day of Moses such a vow or promise must include a portion for the priest. When the priest asks for his portion the man denies he made such a promise. This is an obvious sin against God and must be repented of and forgiven.
It is not clear in the text just who sets the price on the value of the ram. Evidently the priest establishes the cost according to the shekel value of the sanctuary. It is easy to see that an unscrupulous priest could rob the offenders.
There are some points of comparison and contrast we need to keep before us: (1) the blood of the trespass offering is dashed against the sides of the altar of burnt offering and not placed upon the horns. We infer that the sin-offering was of a more public type and must be held up in view of all, but not the trespass offering. (2) A ram was substituted by God for Isaac as Abraham obeyed Godso here the ram is a substitute for the trespasses of all Israel and is a fitting type of our great substitute who became sin for us. (3) We need to remember that our Lord is not only typified in the sacrifices but by the priest who waits upon the altar. Because He eternally and continually ministers in the upper Holy Place for us we remain free from all condemnation. What peace such a thought provides for us! (4) According to the estimate of the sanctuary above how much was our Ram worth? Was He adequate? Yea, more than adequate. God is not only pleased to accept Him on our behalf, but well pleased to do so.
Lev. 5:16 We need once again to cite specific examples to understand the application or meaning of this verse. Read Exo. 34:26 (The first of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God.) Suppose a man ate the first fruits of his farm or garden and failed to bring it to the Lord? He must restore the amount and add one-fifth. Read Deu. 15:19The wool of the first-born sheep belongs to the Lord. Suppose a greedy Israelite takes the fleece for himself? The rule of the trespass offering becomes immediately applicable and should be followed; retain one fleece or several plus one-fifth more. The one-fifth payment was to be in the form of money. All was to be given to the priest. The amount of a double tithe is a double acknowledgement that the Lord has a portion and we must respect it and give it.
Can we see in this that all honor due God will be paid to Him and more? Once again we are so eternally grateful for the value of the blood of the Lamb without spot or blemish (1Pe. 1:18). He paid it all for us. The first tithe, His active obedience. The second, His passive obedience to all the Fathers will.
Lev. 5:17 We believe knowledge of what was right and what God required was always within reach of the worshipper; whereas he sinned in ignorance, it was a willful ignorance. He knew it not, but not because he needed to be ignorant. Nadab and Abihu were consumed not because they sinned only in ignorance but in defective high-handed ignorance. A particular type of sin is here considered, but the principle is the same. We defraud God in our worshipwe fail to discern the bodyor to sing with the Spiritnot because we could not but because we will not. When it happens we hardly know it has but we are responsible and need atonement lest we bear our iniquity.
Lev. 5:18-19 It would seem from what is said in these verses that the conscientious Jewish family would be often discussing their possible violations of the laws of God. To do this they would need to know Gods laws as found in His word. How often would a trespass offering be needed? Was there an annual or bi-annual trespass offering from each family? or was it more often? All such questions will be answered in subsequent study in this book but they are good to ask just here to give relevance to this regulation. We learn among other truths that God cannot and does not consider sin as a light matter.
FACT QUESTIONS 5:1419
127.
Define the difference between a sin and a trespass.
128.
God has a way of handling mans rationalizations concerning his sinhow does He do it?
129.
Specifiy two examples of sins in the holy things of God. Do we have a counterpart today?
130.
Who decides how much the ram is worth?
131.
Give two points of comparison and contrast in these verses for our appreciation of our Lord.
132.
Exo. 34:26 and Deu. 15:19 give good examples of where and when a sin against God could be committed. Discuss these examples.
133.
What principle or eternal truth is taught in restoring and paying a double tithe?
134.
Give up-to-date examples that prove we can sin unwittingly and yet be responsible.
135.
Show how a real desire to fulfill these laws would develop devotion and education.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(14) And the Lord spake unto Moses.As the introductory formula implies, this is another communication made to the lawgiver at a different time, and sets forth a further development of the laws respecting the trespass offering.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
DEFECTS IN HOLY THINGS, Lev 5:14-19.
15. Commit a trespass This is the first time that the word , to act treacherously, or to be faithless, is found in the Bible. By the use of a new term the sacred writer speaks of a peculiar kind of moral delinquency which flows from human infirmity, neglect, or cowardice.
Holy things of the Lord This relates to deficiencies in the tithes, firstfruits, sacrifices, vows, redemption of the firstborn, and other sources of revenue to the priests, which have occurred through forgetfulness or negligence. Those who had erroneous judgments or short memories in respect to their dues to the house of God a numerous class, which, unfortunately, did not become extinct with Judaism were to be enlightened and convicted of their delinquencies, and excited to make amends and seek forgiveness.
With thy estimation The person addressed is Moses, who here represents the priest. The “estimation” is the assessed amount of the deficiency, which, with a fifth added, and a perfect ram besides for a sin offering, was deemed a sufficient indemnity for the past and safeguard for the future. When we see the sin “in the holy things of the Lord” committed by careless or covetous Christians, we are inclined to wish that the Gospel were a system of precepts instead of principles precepts prescribing the exact payment of a certain proportion of income to the Lord’s treasury, instead of broad principles easily forgotten or misapplied. Yet the Gospel, the law of liberty, has its compensations in the many noble characters which this system of spiritual freedom develops, while the preceptory religion of the Hebrews sadly failed to eradicate that “covetousness which is idolatry.” Mal 3:8-10.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Three Revelations Made By God To Moses All Related To Guilt/Compensation Offerings ( Lev 5:14 to Lev 6:7 ).
Three revelations are now made concerning the guilt offering and when it should be offered. Two of the three are introduced by the words, ‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying.’ They may have been given on two separate occasions. They were probably added here to connect with the previous reference to the Guilt Offering. In that instance no compensation was payable, although instead confession was required. In these examples the question of compensation raises its head.
Guilt Offerings With Compensation For Sanctuary Offences ( Lev 5:14-19 ).
Reference is made here to two types of offence against the sanctuary.
Lev 5:14
‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,’
This indicates a new revelation, rather than it being a continuation of what went before. It confirms that it is describing Yahweh’s requirements. It deals with offences against the Sanctuary.
Lev 5:15-16
‘If any one commit a breach of faith, and sin unwittingly, in the holy things of Yahweh, then he shall bring his guilt offering to Yahweh, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to your estimation in silver by shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a guilt offering, and he shall make restitution for that which he has done amiss in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part to it, and give it to the priest; and the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering, and he shall be forgiven.’
The sins in question here are ‘unwitting’ sins with respect to the sanctuary, sins which might result from carelessness, or forgetfulness, or a false ‘shrewdness’, or pure lethargy. In some way the person has stepped out of line. It may be that they have failed to bring their offerings as due, or have brought lower level ones when they were well enough off to bring higher level ones, grain instead of birds, birds instead of a sheep. Or perhaps in some other way they have ‘profited’ from a failure to fulfil all their religious responsibilities according to the Law. But clearly the person’s conscience has now disturbed him, or he has been ‘found out’ and it is thus a question of making amends, paying restitution and offering the correct guilt offering.
The offering he must bring is a ram, a male sheep and thus of a higher level than the female sheep of the purification for sin offering. Here there are no alternatives offered. This may suggest that a poor man would not be expected to commit this breach of faith, which could suggest that being parsimonious is what is mainly in mind. There has been a failure to meet proper dues. Indeed, as well as it being without blemish, the value of the ram necessary is to be calculated by the priest according to how much loss the sanctuary is considered to have suffered. Then a further one fifth of that value has to be paid to the priest to compensate the priest for what in most cases he would have lost. After that the ram is to be offered as a guilt offering. We are given no details but it is probable that it is offered in a similar way as that described in Lev 5:6-9, or it may be as a purification for sin offering (Lev 7:7).
We have here an indication that when men have sinned against God in holy things by holding back from Him what is His due, the sacrifice has to be of sufficient value to cover the level of sin. We can therefore see clearly at what value God had assessed Jesus Christ Who was sufficient to meet the failures in this way of the whole world, and more, an incalculable amount.
Lev 5:17
‘And if any one sin, and do any of the things which Yahweh has commanded not to be done, though he knew it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.’
This, due to its direct connection with Lev 5:15-16 would seem to refer to someone who has sinned against the Sanctuary in some other way than financial, otherwise it would be little different from Lev 4:27. They in one way or another consider that they have offended against holy things, they have done what Yahweh has commanded not to be done. Now their conscience has smitten them. This may well especially have in mind those with a tender conscience, who become concerned about small details, with the aim of enabling them to obtain peace of mind for their guilty conscience. But there would be others as well who had sinned in this way more certainly. Either way they accept their guilt and that they must be punished accordingly (must ‘bear their guilt’).
Lev 5:18-19
‘And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to your estimation, for a guilt offering, to the priest, and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning the thing wherein he erred unwittingly and knew it not, and he shall be forgiven. It is a guilt offering. He is certainly guilty before Yahweh.’
Again the offering is to be a ram without blemish, its required value to be estimated by Moses (‘your estimation’) according to the level of the failure. Its purpose is to remove the person’s guilt. Although the correct value ram has to be offered there is no extra compensation required. The sanctuary has not suffered financial loss. The priest will offer the ram as he would a purification for sin offering, and make atonement for the person in question, and he will be forgiven. It is a guilt offering.
“He is certainly guilty before Yahweh.” This comment may reflect that because this is a sin against the sanctuary there can be no question that he is guilty before Yahweh.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Trespass-offerings in Case of Ignorance.
v. 14. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, v. 15. if a soul commit a trespass, v. 16. And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, v. 17. And if a soul sin and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord; v. 18. And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass-offering, unto the priest; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, v. 19. It is a trespass-offering; he hath certainly trespassed against the Lord.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
THE TRESPASS OFFERING (Lev 5:14-19, Lev 6:1-7). The new heading with which Lev 5:14 begins indicates that it is here and not at Lev 5:1 that the section on trespass offerings commences. Sin offerings and trespass offerings are not distinguished from each other in Psa 40:6; Heb 10:8; and the classification of the sins which require one or the other offering has caused great perplexity to commentators. It would appear that, primarily, the trespass offering was reserved for those cases in which reparation had to be made. Thus, if a man failed to pay his tithes and offerings to the Lord (Heb 10:14), he must bring his trespass offering; or if he refused to restore a deposit to his neighbours (Lev 6:2), he must bring his trespass offering; and his trespass offering is not received until he has made satisfaction to the party wronged, and paid, as a fine, one-fifth of the value of the thing that he had appropriated. But the class of crimes for which the trespass offering was required came to be enlarged by the addition of other eases, similar in character to the first, but not identical, whereby wrong was done to the Lord (as by transgressing his commands otherwise than by withholding tithes and offerings, Heb 10:17), or to man (as by wronging a female slave, Le 19:20, where the wrong is not estimated by money). These eases are distinguished with difficulty from those for which a sin offering is required. The same act might render it incumbent on a man to offer either a sin offering or a trespass offering, or both: the sin offering would teach the need of, and would symbolically effect, expiation for sin; the trespass offering would teach the necessity of, and would require at the offerer’s hands, reparation for wrong. While the sin offering typified the expiation wrought upon the cross, the trespass offering typified the satisfaction for sin effected by the perfect life and voluntary death of the Saviour.
Lev 5:14, Lev 5:15
If a soul commit a trespass. Two previous conditions were required of the Israelite before he might offer his trespass offering.
1. He must make compensation for any harm or injury that he had done.
2. He must give to the injured party a fine equal to one-fifth (i.e; two-tenths) of the value of the thing of which he had deprived him, if the wrong was capable of being so estimated. In performing his sacrifice, he had
(1) to bring a ram to the court of the tabernacle;
(2) to present and to kill it:
while the priest
(1) cast the blood on the inner sides of the altar;
(2) burnt the internal fat and the tail;
(3) took the remainder to be eaten by himself and his brother priests and their sons in the court of the tabernacle (Lev 7:2-7).
The special lesson of the trespass offering is the need of satisfaction as well as of oblation, and thus it supplies a representation of one feature in the great Antitype, who was the “full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.” Through ignorance (see note on Le Lev 4:2).
Lev 5:15, Lev 5:16
Refer to sins of omission, offenses in the holy things of the Lord; that is, withholding tithes and offerings. The non-payment of tithes and offerings was looked upon as robbing Jehovah (Mal 3:8), and therefore it is that a trespass offering, involving compensation, and not only a sin offering, is required to atone for the offense. The ram that is to be offered is to be of a value fixed by the priest (with thy estimation, i.e; according to the estimation of the priest), and the priest is to estimate it by shekels of silver; implying that its value must amount at least to shekels (in the plural), meaning two shekels (see Eze 47:13, where “portions” means “more than one portion,” i.e; “two portions”). The shekel is considered to be equal to 2s. 7d. The shekel of the sanctuary means the shekel according to its exact weight and value, while still unworn by traffic and daily use. Beside offering the rain, he is to make amends for the harm (or rather sin) that he hath clone in the holy thing, and.. . add the fifth part. The fifth part is probably appointed as being the same as two-tenths of the principal sum. Full satisfaction is the marked feature of the trespass offering. In Luk 19:8, “Zacchaeus stood, and said, Behold, Lord, if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore fourfold.” He went far beyond his legal obligation in respect to compensation. (Cf. 2Sa 12:6, “He shall restore the lamb fourfold.”)
Lev 5:17-19
Sins of commission may be atoned for by the trespass offering as well as sins of omission.
HOMILETICS
Lev 5:14-19
The trespass offering
differs from the sin offering in that it was not allowed to be presented until reparation had been made for the evil done by him who desired to offer it. Its special lesson to the Israelite was that satisfaction for sin is necessary for restoration to communion as well as sacrifice.
ITS TYPICAL LESSON. Satisfaction implies that there is a debt due which must be paid. The debt is due to God; the debtor is man. Christ took upon himself the payment of the debt, which man could not pay. tie paid it in two ways:
1. By bearing the punishment due for its non-payment by man.
2. By rendering in his own person that perfect obedience which man had failed to render, and by that failure had become a helpless debtor. Having compensated for man’s disobedience by the perfect obedience of his life, he bore the punishment still due for that previous disobedience by the sacrifice of his death. Thus man’s forgiveness became not only a matter of mercy on God’s part, but of his justice. (See St. Ansehn’s ‘Cur Dens Homo?’ and Archbishop Thomson’s ‘Essay on the Death of Christ’ in ‘Aids to Faith.’)
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Chapter 5:14-6:7
Restitution as inculcated in the trespass offering.
comp. Php 4:8, Php 4:9; Luk 19:8; Mat 5:23, Mat 5:24. The trespass offering, in emphasizing the idea of restitution, is needful to complete the list of sacrifices. Without the just dealing this sacrifice demands, the personal consecration, fellowship, and atonement would savour of what was unreal and vain. God’s mercy secures morality, and his Word condemns every desire to enjoy his grace and the fruits of injustice at the same time. Let us, then, notice
I. THE POSSIBILITY OF WRONGING BOTH GOD AND MAN UNINTENTIONALLY. This passage presents this possibility. An Israelite might miscalculate the amount of his offerings, and find, on examination, that he has defrauded his God. This omission must be made good. Or again, he might commit, through want of thought, something God had forbidden, and for this sin of commission he must make restitution according to the estimation of the priest. The possibility of wronging a fellow-man unintentionally is too obvious to require illustration.
Of the first wrong we have, in these gospel times, an instance in defective liberality on the part of Christians. How many fail to calculate how much they owe to God! Systematic beneficence is a general principle, but it is applied only in the rough, and a faithful analysis will generally prove that God has been defrauded. We defraud God also in the matter of time and of work. We grudge him his own day; we give him stinted service. A quite appreciable defalcation under such heads as these might be made out against most of us.
Again, unintentional wrong is often done a neighbour in, for example, an unexpected failure in business. There are many, let us believe, who reach bankruptcy without intending it. They erred with the very best intentions, and through faulty management allowed their affairs to become hopelessly involved. But the loss suffered by a man’s neighbours is not the less real because of his good intentions. Nor will these good intentions pass as good bills with the wronged neighbour’s creditors.
II. LET US NOTICE THE POSSIBILITY OF DELIBERATELY WRONGING OUR NEIGHBOUR. We have intentional trespass against man brought out in the opening verses of the sixth chapter. We have here such sins contemplated as falsity in trust, robbery, oppression, and tergiversation about property which has been found. Here the intention as well as the act is at fault.
Our present mercantile immoralities afford ample illustrations. In fact, business qualities are regarded by many as consisting in the advantage which a man is able, legally, to take of his neighbour. Men, without sufficient courage to become highway robbers, can take advantage of a neighbour behind the hedge of some blundering act of parliament.
III. THE LAW OF MOSES DEMANDED RESTITUTION IN ALL THESE CASES AS A CONDITION OF PARDON. Unless the trespassers brought the amount of the defalcation, with a double tithe in addition, and the prescribed ram for a trespass offering, God refused them pardon and fellowship.
The case of Zacchaeus is in point. His interview with Jesus led to the desire of restitution arising naturally in his heart. “If 1 have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold” (Luk 19:8). God’s forgiveness is not independent of moral feeling. God will not forgive trespass so as to encourage the continuance of injustice. There must be restitution and compensation, or he will not grant pardon.
IV. AT THE SAME TIME, THAT RESTITUTION SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS MERITORIOUS, THE LAW REQUIRED A TRESPASS OFFERING IN ADDITION. There have been cases of restitution by bankrupts and other trespassers, but they are so blazed abroad in the newspapers, that the public is ready to set them down as meritorious, and almost supererogations. But the Divine Law excluded all possibility of boasting, by attaching a trespass offering to the restitution. A ram must be brought; confession of sin must be made over it in the usual fashion; it must be slain; its blood must be sprinkled as in the former cases; the choice portions are dedicated to God on his altar; and the remainder eaten by the priests.
All this was to show that, even for such an act as restitution, atonement was needful. It could not stand alone; it had no inherent merit; it was only tardy justice; and for the wrong there is need of atonement as well as reparation. And surely the same great truth meets us in the Christian life. Jesus as the Trespass Offeringand this is the phraseology employed in Isa 53:10 regarding himmust encircle us with his merits, even when we are conscientiously making restitution. It is as penitents we should do this. Even though the world glories in the reparation of wrong as something in its view most meritorious, the persons making reparation should do so in a penitent spirit, having regard always to the atoning merits of the Saviour.
V. THE COURAGE NECESSARY TO MAKE RESTITUTION MUST BE SUSTAINED BY THE FEARLESS PROCLAMATION OF GOD‘S LAW. A certain antinomianism is encouraged, if not proclaimed, by a loose presentation of God’s gospel. Immoralities are tolerated in commerce on the part of professing Christians, that go far to defeat the mission of Christianity. It is essential, in these circumstances, that we should cultivate the courage of men, and sustain their resolutions to be honest and just in making all possible restitution. God requires no less honesty in his gospel than he did in his Law. He never meant his pardon to be enjoyed along with the fruits of wrong-doing. These must be surrendered if it is to be enjoyed. “If it is absolutely impossible to be saved by the works of the Law, it is not less impossible to be saved without the works of faith, for faith without works is no faith at all.” We must consequently think on “whatsoever things are honest” (Php 4:8), and remember our Saviour’s words, “If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift” (Mat 5:23, Mat 5:24).R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE
Lev 5:14-16
Trespass amended.
I. To WITHHOLD FROM GOD HIS DUES IS SINFUL. The rigour of Leviticus may well sharpen that perception of sin which is so apt to become dim. God is wealthy, and yet will not submit tamely to robbery. Minute instructions were given concerning the offering of tithes, etc; for the use of his servants at the tabernacle, and for his glory; and to omit such offerings and to employ them in profane uses is here counted as acting covertly, as faithless dealing. For it was a condition of the covenant that the people should purchase their exemption from entire devotedness, by recognizing that it was incumbent on them to support those engaged wholly in God’s service; and to neglect this condition was, in truth, a breach of trust. It is not less needful today that Christians should contribute of their substance to the carrying on of the work of the Church. Nor is it less important to call attention to the trespass committed by failing to present to God the emotion he claims. Many imagine that they are comparatively faultless if they abstain from open notorious wickedness, and they overlook their fatal omissions in the matter of religious service, affection, and faith. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart,” etc. “Trust ye in the Lord for ever.” Not to confess Christ is considered as denying him. Besides, it is in the passage before us assumed that the property which ought to have been devoted to the Lord has been consumed for personal enjoyment. And similarly, we may argue that the love and time and strength not used as required for God, are lavished upon other objects, and a wrong is done to our Father in heaven.
II. TO COMMIT A TRESPASS UNINTENTIONALLY DOES NOT PREVENT THE NECESSITY OF AN ATONEMENT. This is a lesson frequently enforced in the Law. “Though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” (verse 17). Evidences of the same Divine Law are visible in the consequences that follow mistakes in life, where accidental errors, wrong judgments, hasty steps, are productive of as injurious effects as if the word or action had been planned with utmost deliberation, and its result foreseen. Any other arrangement might augment men’s carelessness, and prove in the end more harmful than the apparently inequitable law. We are taught the infinite importance that attaches to our actions, linked on as they are with a chain of invariable results. To sin is to run counter to widespreading principles; it is not a little matter that may be contemned; it makes a breach in the fortress of right and justice, and this breach must be repaired ere the offender can be regarded as on the side of the eternal verities. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” If not the transgressor, then an unblemished ram must be slaughtered as his substitute, that blood may cleanse the stain, and cover the transgressor from wrath. How easy is the way made under the gospel, whereby, after the sin offering of Christ, all our sins are forgiven us for his name’s sake!
III. ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE WRONG DONE MUST BE FOLLOWED BY AN ENDEAVOUR To AMEND IT. The high priest is to value the “harm,” and a fifth being added to the amount, the priest receives it as compensation. The offender has gained nothing by his sin. Sin never profits in the end. The restitution is thorough. We may reasonably distrust the sincerity of a repentance that is unaccompanied by reformation. When conscience money is brought, then the confession and desire of the offender to undo the evil wrought, as far as possible, are patent. The atonement and the restitution together procure the forgiveness of the supplicant. What avails it that men have learnt their “trespass,” unless it lead to amendment? Knowledge is designed to be the forerunner of action. Like electricity, it furnishes light and moving power.S.R.A.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Lev 5:14-19
Trespass in sacrilege.
The verses now under consideration form a distinct matter of revelation, or were communicated to Moses at a separate time. This we infer from the opening words, “And the Lord spake unto Moses,” comparing them with like expressions twice used already (see Le Lev 1:1; Lev 4:1).
I. WILFUL SACRILEGE WAS PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH.
1. It is fraud “in the holy things of the Lord.”
(1) These are such things as belong to him by requirement of his Law or by solemn dedication. Thus he claims half a shekel per head ransom money when the people are numbered (Exo 30:11-16). He claims the firstborn or a redemption for it (Exo 34:11, Exo 34:20; Num 18:16). He claims the firstfruits of the harvest (Lev 23:10-14; Pro 3:9). He claims tithes (Lev 27:30-32).
The treasures of the temple of whatever kind were also holy things.
(2) To withhold any of these dues, or to profane by eating that which belonged to the priests, was a sacrilege, and, if wittingly done, exposed the criminal to death (see Le Lev 22:14-16; comp. Lev 22:9).
2. This was the crime of Achan.
(1) Joshua’s adjuration devoted all the spoils taken at Jericho to the Lord (Jos 6:17-19). Achan, therefore, not only incurred the curse of the adjuration, but was also guilty of sacrilege. He is, therefore, said to have “transgressed the covenant of the Lord” (Jos 7:11, Jos 7:15).
(2) His punishment was consequently signal. For his sake the children of Israel were smitten before the men of At, and the anger of the Lord. was only averted from the nation by their stoning and burning Achan, his family, and all pertaining to him (Jos 7:24-26).
3. This also was the crime of Ananias and Sapphira.
(1) Under the glorious influences of the Holy Spirit at the Pentecost, the Church agreed to have all things in common, to which Ananias and Sapphira were consenting parties. They accordingly sold a possession which had been thus devoted to God, but secretly reserved part of the price placing the balance only at the apostles’ feet.
(2) This crime was miraculously punished with death. The punishment evinced that the sprat of the Law is still in the gospel. Query: How does this bear upon those who have vowed that a proportion of their revenue should be sacred to God, but with increasing prosperity have become worldly, and withdrew the hand (see Mal 3:8-12)?
II. SACRILEGE THROUGH INADVERTENCY ADMITS OF REPARATION.
1. In cases that are undoubted.
(1) This class of cases is described verse 15: “If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the Lord,” etc. He knows what he did, though ignorant that it was sacrilege, but is now better informed.
(2) His duty now is clear: “He shall bring for his trespass unto the Lord a ram without blemish out of the flocks.” He brings a male, probably in recognition that his sin was an interference with things concerning rulers ecclesiastical. “With thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering.”
(3) But how are we to understand this? It may mean that payment may be made in money or silver, according to the estimated value of the harm sustained by the trespass. Some read, “by thy estimation two shekels of silver,” etc; which would be a restoring fourfold, half a shekel being the atonement money. This is given to the temple (see Exo 30:13). “And he shall add to it a fifth, and give it to the priest.” With this he is accepted.
2. In cases that are doubtful.
(1) These are described verse 17: “And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord; though he wast it not, yet,” etc. He suspects that he may have trespassed in sacrilege, but is not sure; “Yet is he guilty.” The very doubt makes him guilty.
(2) This principle is recognized in the precepts of the New Testament. Paul doubtless deduced from this Law his declarations, that “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin,” and that “He that doubts is damned,” or condemned.
(3) This person also must bring a ram with his estimation for the hypothetical harm; but in this case there is no addition of the fifth. Learn that ignorance is a crime, as it leads to transgression: therefore study God’s Law. Cultivate a tender conscience.J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Lev 5:15, Lev 5:16
Restitution to God.
The trespass for which “God spake unto Moses” that the children of Israel should make atonement, was an offense in which there was present the element of reparable wrong-doing. Something, it was contemplated, would be done which could be in some respects made good, and where this was possible it was to be done. In most cases this would refer to wrong done to man; but here we have the truth that God may be wronged, and that he condescends to receive restitution at our hands. We may look at
I. SIN REGARDED AS A DEBT WHICH IS DUE TO GOD. Jehovah was sovereign Lord of the Hebrew commonwealth, and actual proprietor of all; anything withheld from those who were his ministers was a sacred due withheld, a debt undischarged. Our God is he:
1. Who has placed us under immeasurable obligationby creation, preservation, benefaction, fatherly love, Divine interposition.
2. To whom we owe everything we are and haveour hearts and lives.
3. From whom we have withheld that which we shall never be able to pay: our reverence, gratitude, obedience, submission; “ten thousand talents” (Mat 18:24). But there are some special defaults:
II. ARREARS IS HOLY THINGS. “If a soul commit a trespass.; in the holy things of the Lord” (Lev 5:15). The Israelites were under many injunctions; they probably received professional instruction from the Levites, as well as religious teaching at home (Deu 6:7). But they might be betrayed into ignorance or fall into forgetfulness, and they might come short of their duty
(1) in the offerings they were to bring to the altar,
(2) in the contributions they were to make to the ministers of God.
They might ignorantly rob God in offerings and in tithes, as they even did intentionally (Mal 3:8). We also may fall far short of what we should bring to God; we may take a totally inadequate view
(1) of the nature of the worship we should render,
(2) of the frequency of our devotional engagements,
(3) of the contribution we should give to the support of the Christian ministry,
(4) of our due share in the maintenance of the cause and the extension of the kingdom of Christ. Thus we may ignorantly but guiltily (Lev 5:17) fall short of our sacred obligations.
III. THE ATONEMENT WHICH MUST BE FIRST PRESENTED. First of all, there was the offering “not without blood” to be made: the ram must be brought by the offender, and” the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram. and it shall be forgiven him.” First, we must plead the atoning blood of the slain lamb, seeking and finding forgiveness through the Saviour’s sacrifice. But this is not all; there is
IV. THE RESTITUTION WHICH SHOULD SUBSEQUENTLY BE MADE. The Jew was required to “make amends for the harm he had done in the holy things,” and not only to give an equivalent to that which he had withheld, but to “add the fifth part thereto;” he was not only to make up, but do more than make up for his default. We cannot and we need not attempt to act according to the letter of this injunction, hut we may and should act in the spirit of it, by letting our consciousness of past deficiency in the worship and the service of Christ incite us to multiplied endeavours in the future. In looking back we recall negligences to attend the sanctuary, to come to the table of the Lord, to worship God in the secret chamber of devotion; therefore let us seek his face and his favour with constancy and earnestness in the days to come. We have not served his cause and our generation according to the measure of his bountiful dealings with us; therefore let us open our hand freely, and give far more generously than we should otherwise have done to those various agencies of beneficence which are turning the wilderness of wrong into the garden of the Lord.C.
Lev 5:17
Unconscious sin.
Is there not something here contrary to our generally received ideas respecting sin? Can a man sin “though he wast it not”? The text suggests
I. THAT WE COMMONLY CONNECT WITH OUR IDEA OF SIN THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT AT the TIME OF TRANSGRESSION. Sin is only possible to intelligent, responsible beings; it implies the power of discernment; it is usually followed by self-reproach; it seems, at first sight, to involve a consciousness in the soul of error and wrong-doing at the moment of commission. Hence men expect to be excused if they can say they did not know it was wrong at the time, etc.
II. THAT THIS THOUGHT ABOUT SIN IS BASED ON TRUTH. It is true:
1. That sin is a willful departure from rectitude: it is the soul consenting to commit some one of “those things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord.” Where the will does not consent, there is no moral character in the act at all.
2. That the less there is of knowledge, the less there is of guilt (Luk 12:48).
3. That in the absence of all possible knowledge, there is entire freedom from guilt. “Where no law is, there is no transgression” (Rom 4:15). Scripture confirms what our reason declares, that there can be no condemnation where there are no means of knowing “the commandments of the Lord.” But we are hound to remember for ourselves, and to impress on others, the opposite aspect, viz.
III. THAT THIS TRUTH IS SUBJECT TO VERY GRAVE QUALIFICATIONS.
1. Attainable knowledge not gained involves sin. The Jews ought to have known that it was obligatory on them, and highly beneficial to them, to be loyal to Jehovah, to be obedient to his servant Moses, to receive the exhortations of the prophets; their ignorance was culpable, and therefore their errors were sinful. So with their nonrecognition of Jesus Christ. So with our ignorance of that which is most binding on us and most beneficial to us. We ought to know that the service of Christ is the chief duty and the supreme blessing; in our ignorance is our guilt.
2. Needless forgetfulness is sin. It was criminal on the part of the Jews of the prophetic age to forget the merciful and mighty interpositions of God in earlier days; on the part of those of our Lord’s day to forget the mighty works by which he proved himself to be the very Son of God. It is criminal on our part to forget those vital truths of which God’s Word reminds us.
3. The blunting of our spiritual perceptions is sin. When we are blind to the truth which is before us, because our prejudice, or our pride, or our passion, or our worldly interests distort our vision, or because long continuance in folly has blunted our spiritual powers, we are guilty: we “know not what we do,” even when we are crucifying a Messiah; but the guilt in the action lies chiefly in the existence of these enfeebled or perverted faculties, and, though we “wist not,” yet we “are guilty” in the sight of God.
IV. THAT UNCONSCIOUS SIN CARRIES ITS PENALTY WITH IT. “He shall bear his iniquity.” The penalty is threefold:
1. The displeasure of Godhis condemnation.
2. Serious harm done to our own soul.
3. Awaking, soon, to the conviction that we have done grievous wrong to others,it may be a reparable, but it may be an irreparable, wrong.C.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Verses 14-chapter 6:7
The trespass offerings.
Distinguished as:
1. Being violations of rights of property, either religious or non-religious property.
2. Including a fine, apportioned by the priest, for restoration.
3. Without distinction of persons or circumstances.
4. The victim, a ram without blemish from the flocks, and the atonement both sacred as producing. Divine forgiveness, and secular as including pecuniary indemnity; the blood being in this case merely swung against the side of the altar, not smeared on the horns.
Lev 5:17
The unwitting trespass.
“Though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.”
I. THE ABSOLUTE PERFECTION OF THE DIVINE LAW. It must be maintained:
1. As a revelation of the character of God.
2. As a basis on which the moral law is placed.
3. As a means of convincing man of sin, separating the idea of guilt from arbitrary, capricious, local, individual, emotional respects.
II. THE INFINITE FULNESS OF THE DIVINE COMPASSION.
1. Atonement is provided not only for sins repented of and confessed, but for offenses unwittingly committed. God is thus represented as the shield of his creature, amid, the working out of his inscrutable will in the universe.
2. The mind obtains wonderful peace when it is assured that all possible liabilities are foreseen and averted.
3. Forgiveness is not a mere doing away of sin in the conscience, but a removal of the burden from the life. The Law has nothing more against us.R.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
E.TRESPASS OFFERINGS
Lev 5:14 to Lev 6:7
Note.In the division of chapters in the Hebrew Bible this section is rightly all included in Leviticus 5.
14And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 15If a soul commit a trespass [do a wrong1], and sin through ignorance [inadvertence2] in [taking from3] the holy things of the Lord; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the Lord a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with [according to4] thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering; 16and he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done [sin that he hath committed5] in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him.
17And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. 18And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with [according to4] thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance [inadvertence2] 19wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him. It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the Lord.
Lev 6:1-2.And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul sin, and commit a trespass [do a wrong1] against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour, in that [and deny to his neighbor that6] which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship [or a pledge7] or in [omit in] a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived [oppressed8]his neighbour; 3or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it [denieth it6] and sweareth falsely: in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: 4then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully [oppressively8] gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, 5or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.9 6And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with [according to10] thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: 7and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord: and it shall be forgiven him for anything of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lev 5:15. . The word being different from the so frequently recurring in this chapter in a technical sense, it is better to change the translation. Otherwise commit a trespass is a sufficiently good translation, as no English word embodies the idea of secrecy or stealth conveyed by the original.
Lev 5:15. = through inadvertence. See Note 1 on Lev 4:2.
Lev 5:15. a constructio prgnans = taking, or diminishing from the holy things.
Lev 5:15. . The preposition often has the sense given in the A. V. with but according to (as in the next word but one) seems here the better rendering. The evident sense is that the ram was to be of a certain value, and this was to be determined by an estimation. The restitution for the harm done, with its added fifth, is prescribed in the following ver., and does not come into view here. The Sam. text preserves the exact form of the Hebrew, but all the ancient versions, while changing the form of expression, give the sense according to; they also neglect to translate the = thy.
Lev 5:15. . The preposition often has the sense given in the A. V. with but according to (as in the next word but one) seems here the better rendering. The evident sense is that the ram was to be of a certain value, and this was to be determined by an estimation. The restitution for the harm done, with its added fifth, is prescribed in the following ver., and does not come into view here. The Sam. text preserves the exact form of the Hebrew, but all the ancient versions, while changing the form of expression, give the sense according to; they also neglect to translate the = thy.
Lev 5:16. This is the only place in Lev. in which is rendered by any other word than sin in the A. V. This should be conformed to the usage.
Lev 6:2. construed with a double of the person and of the thing, = to deny a thing to a person. The word means to lie (Lev 19:11, etc.), but the other rendering expresses more exactly the sense here, and is the more usual.
Lev 6:2. = a thing given in pledge, a pawn, different from the trust just before. The construction is with the same verb, and is sufficiently expressed without the special translation of , so that the in of the A. V. may be omitted throughout.
Lev 6:2. lit. to press, to squeeze, hence to oppress. A new verb being hero introduced the construction with the series of ends. The derived noun , Lev 6:4, bears the same sense = that which has been oppressively obtained.
Lev 6:5. The Heb. word meaning either trespass or trespass offering, the marg. of the A. V. is hardly accurate in writing Heb. in the day of his trespass.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The general distinction of the trespass from the sin offering has already been pointed out: in the trespass offering the idea of the harm done was more prominent, in the sin offering that of the sin committed. Accordingly the trespass offering was usually accompanied by amends for the harma fifth (a double tithe) being added as penalty. In case the person against whom the wrong was done was already dead without a kinsman to receive the compensation, the amends and penalty were to be paid to the priest (Num 5:8). The ritual differed in several respects from that of the sin offering: the blood was treated as in the burnt and peace offerings; the only victim here allowed was a ram; there was no gradation either in the victim or the ritual according to the rank of the offender; nor were any alternative offerings allowed in case of poverty. The reason for the last provision results necessarily from the nature of the offering. Elsewhere we find the same trespass offering prescribed for unchastity with a slave (Lev 19:20-22), and in later times offered by those who, on the return from the captivity, had taken strange wives (Ezr 10:19); the same also (not a he-lamb, as in the A. V.) is commanded with a some what different ritual on occasion of declaring the cleansing of a leper (Lev 14:12; Lev 14:21), and also with a ram of a year old for the victim in case of unintentional defilement by a dead body during a Nazarite vow (Num 6:9-12).
Three cases are specified which demand a trespass offeringthe first two having reference more directly to wrong done towards God (Lev 5:15-19), and the third, including several varieties of offence, having reference to wrong done to men (Lev 6:2-7).
Lev 5:14. And the LORD spake.This formula marks a fresh communication and distinctly separates the trespass offering from the sin offering which has occupied the whole of the previous communication from Lev 4:1. The whole law of the trespass offering is not, however, contained in this communiction, but only that part of it relating to wrongs done toward God. Wrongs done toward man are the subject of a separate communication (Lev 6:1-7).
Lev 5:16-17. The first case of the trespass offering.
Lev 5:15. Through inadvertence, as in Lev 4:2; Lev 4:13; Lev 4:22.
In taking from the holy things.See Textual note 3. The holy things were the first-fruits, tithes, or gifts of any kind connected with the service of the sanctuary or the support of its priests, by the withholding of which the Lord is said to suffer loss. The restitution and penalty are mentioned Lev 22:14 without mention of this offering, which is presupposed.
A ram.The invariable trespass offering (except in the special cases Lev 14:12; Num 6:12) which does not at all appear in the list of victims for the sin offering in Lev 4:1 to Lev 5:13.
According to thy estimation.See Textual note 4.The pronoun thy must be considered as used impersonally; or if it be taken personally, then it is addressed to Moses, and of course to any one to whom this duty should afterwards belong in his place.
Shekels.The Vulg. and many commentators understand the plural to stand for two, as the A. V. has explained the plural in Eze 47:13; others, as Aben-Ezra, Abarbanel, etc., understand it less definitely as meaning at least two shekels. The notion of Oehler (p. 478) and Keil (in loc.) that the value of the ram was purposely left indefinite, that there might be room to vary it according to the gravity of the trespass, although advocated by Michaelis (Art. 244), is clearly wrong. It is opposed to the fundamental idea of all sacrifice, which excludes such correlation; and is entirely unnecessary, since the compensation and forfeit (Lev 5:16) were separately required. Moreover, the variation in the value of the ram would be very small in comparison with the variation in trespasses. The text was intended to fix the lowest limit of the value of a ram that could be allowed, and the estimation was for the purpose of determining whether he came up to the standard. The plural is plainly to be understood as meaning two shekels, or at least two shekels. Knobel.
Shekel of the Sanctuary.See Exo 30:13; Exo 38:24, etc.
Lev 5:16. And he shall make amends.He shall give the first-fruits or tithes, or whatever he had withheld or taken from sacred dues, or its value. And shall add the fifth part thereto as a penalty or forfeit.Theodoret here refers to the example of Zaccheus. The justice of such additional payment is everywhere recognized in the Hebrew and all other laws. It is in this, and not in the ram, that the penalty is proportioned to the offence. This having been done, and reparation made, then, with the ram, the priest shall make an atonement.
On the ritual of this sacrifice see Lev 7:1-6.
Lev 5:17-19. The second case of the trespass offering.
This second case probably differed from the first as sins of commission differ from those of omission. The formula by which the trespass is expressed is substantially the same as in Lev 4:22; Lev 4:27 in regard to the sin to be expiated by the sin offering. From its connection, and from its being expiated by the trespass offering, it is supposed to include all those transgressions against the theocratic law which could be compensated by money or other payment; yet in this case alone no mention is made of compensation, partly because it was evident from the foregoing that it was required when it could be given, and partly because it included also cases in which pecuniary compensation could not be given, but punishment must be inflicted in some other way. (See Lev 19:20.) Lange, however, urges that this omission is a serious difficulty against the view of the trespass offering which has here been given. He considers that the trespass offering relates to participation in guilt in contradistinction to an original offence, and thinks this is indicated by the description of these sins as sins of ignorance. He says these sins of ignorance belong specifically to the category of participation in guilt. It must be remembered, however, that all sins for which any offering was allowed were sins of ignorance, or rather of inadvertence.
Lev 6:1-7. The third case of the trespass offering.
From the formula of Lev 6:1 this appears as a separate divine communication, on account of the different character of the sins enumerated. All sin is indeed against God, yet those which follow belong to that class of offences against Him which also work harm to men.
The first three verses contain an enumeration of specific wrongs; Lev 6:4-5 provide for amends for the harm done with the added penalty; and Lev 6:6-7 for atonement by means of the trespass offering. This communication bears the fame relation to the foregoing which Lev 5:1-13 bears to chap. 4.
Lev 6:2. If a man deny to his neighbor that which was delivered him. is a deposit, a thing entrusted to be kept. The sin in this case would consist either in denying the receiving it at all, or denying that it was received in trust, or refusing to restore it.
A pledge.This differs from the former in not being simply a trust, but a security, a pawn. It is not separately mentioned in Lev 6:4.
Lev 6:3. Sweareth falsely.When he denies that he has found a lost thing, and is put upon his oath, he swears to his lie, . This false swearing refers also to all the wrongs mentioned before, and the guilt of the false oath, added to the wrong done, brings the offence into the category of sins against the Lord.
Lev 6:5. In the day of his trespass offering.The amends for the wrong done was to be made to the person wronged at the same time that the offender sought the divine forgiveness. The penalty for the wrong and the ritual of the offering are the same as in chap. 5.
In Exo 22:1-9 a series of wrongs is enumerated much like those here mentioned with the general law that the restitution should be double (Lev 6:4; Lev 6:9), while in particular cases it rose to four and five-fold. The distinction between the penalty as given there and here appears to lie in the fact that there the offender was only brought to any restitution by a conviction before the judges (Lev 6:9); while here, although it is not distinctly so declared yet, every thing implies that the acknowledgment of the wrong is voluntary. There is no mention of conviction, and the whole connection is with sins of inadvertence or impulse which were afterwards acknowledged, and for which forgiveness was sought by the offender.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
I. From the law of the trespass offering it is clear that guilt was not removed by the mere act of compensation (with penalty added) for the harm done; nor, on the other hand, could an atonement be offered for that guilt until such compensation had been made. Here are brought, out the two principles which everywhere, under the old and the new dispensation alike, are concerned in the forgiveness of transgression. There must be both the desire, as far as possible, to make amends for the harm done; and there must be also the sacrifice divinely appointed for the covering of the sin. Neither of these can avail alone, because both are essential to that state of holiness, that conquest over the evil, by which alone man can be at one with God. The sacrifice of Christ is all-sufficient for the forgiveness of sin; but the sinner can only avail himself of its benefits when, Christ-like, he himself seeks to conquer the evil.
II. Wrong done to man is itself sin against God. It is impossible to separate the command to love God from that of loving our neighbor also. 1Jn 3:20-21.
III. In those sins against others for which atonement was provided in the trespass offering, there was the additional sin of a false oath. This was certainly a moral offencea sin in the full sense of the word. In view of this, it is impossible to look upon the offences for which sacrifices were appointed as mere ceremonial or theocratic offences. They everywhere appear as true sins, moral transgressions, and this is most clearly shown by including the false oath among them.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
There is no true repentance for wrong done to man which is not accompanied by restitutionand none for having taken from the things of the Lord, or for having failed to give all that should have been given to Him, except in restoring it in overflowing measure; yet while this may make amends for the harm done, forgiveness of the sin must still be sought through propitiation.
In the trespass offering the ritual of the blood was like that of the burnt or the peace offeringinferior to that of the sin offering. This shows that while wrong must of necessity involve sin, yet it does not, in itself considered, stand on the same footing as sin; the moral element in transgression is always the more important. One cannot indeed really offend against man without also offending against God; yet the offence which has God directly for its objective point must necessarily be more serious, since it involves a deeper tort than that which is directed only against man.
The sin offering was lessened by successive stages for the poor, and the very poor, that it might be brought within the reach of all; for all must have propitiation for sin; but the trespass offering is unvaried, the same for all; because if one cannot make amends for the wrong he has done, it must, be let alone,an inferior gift cannot set things right.
Wrong, like sin, may be committed through inadvertence. Still it must be atoned for. Good intentions will not repair the wrong.
For sin done with a high hand, presumptuously, no sacrifice was provided, because the offender deliberately set himself in opposition to God; but for offences against man, such as those here enumerated, some of which must have been done deliberately, a sacrifice is allowed, because even such intentional wrongs do not constitute the same attitude of opposition to God. They may be done, through passion or covetousness, without reflection upon their moral bearings. Therefore, on repentance, restitution, and propitiation, they may be forgiven.
Origen applies the law of trespass in abstracting from sacred things to the faithfulness required of the Christian minister in regard to gifts for holy uses committed to his trust; and then further to the hearing of Gods word as a sacred gift, for the use of which men are responsible, and for the misuse of which they become guilty.
Footnotes:
[1]Lev 5:15. . The word being different from the so frequently recurring in this chapter in a technical sense, it is better to change the translation. Otherwise commit a trespass is a sufficiently good translation, as no English word embodies the idea of secrecy or stealth conveyed by the original.
[2]Lev 5:15. = through inadvertence. See Note 1 on Lev 4:2.
[3]Lev 5:15. a constructio prgnans = taking, or diminishing from the holy things.
[4]Lev 5:15. . The preposition often has the sense given in the A. V. with but according to (as in the next word but one) seems here the better rendering. The evident sense is that the ram was to be of a certain value, and this was to be determined by an estimation. The restitution for the harm done, with its added fifth, is prescribed in the following ver., and does not come into view here. The Sam. text preserves the exact form of the Hebrew, but all the ancient versions, while changing the form of expression, give the sense according to; they also neglect to translate the = thy.
[5]Lev 5:16. This is the only place in Lev. in which is rendered by any other word than sin in the A. V. This should be conformed to the usage.
[6]Chap. 6. Lev 6:2. construed with a double of the person and of the thing, = to deny a thing to a person. The word means to lie (Lev 19:11, etc.), but the other rendering expresses more exactly the sense here, and is the more usual.
[7]Lev 6:2. = a thing given in pledge, a pawn, different from the trust just before. The construction is with the same verb, and is sufficiently expressed without the special translation of , so that the in of the A. V. may be omitted throughout.
[8]Lev 6:2. lit. to press, to squeeze, hence to oppress. A new verb being hero introduced the construction with the series of ends. The derived noun , Lev 6:4, bears the same sense = that which has been oppressively obtained.
[9]Lev 6:5. The Heb. word meaning either trespass or trespass offering, the marg. of the A. V. is hardly accurate in writing Heb. in the day of his trespass.
[10]Lev 6:15. . The preposition often has the sense given in the A. V. with but according to (as in the next word but one) seems here the better rendering. The evident sense is that the ram was to be of a certain value, and this was to be determined by an estimation. The restitution for the harm done, with its added fifth, is prescribed in the following ver., and does not come into view here. The Sam. text preserves the exact form of the Hebrew, but all the ancient versions, while changing the form of expression, give the sense according to; they also neglect to translate the = thy.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Observe the magnitude of sin, even the sin of ignorance, riseth proportion, according to the sanctity of the person offended. 1Sa 2:25 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
spake. This formula denotes another communication made at a different time, and gives a further development of the laws of the trespass offering. Note that in this book Jehovah “spake” at thirty-five “sundry times”, and in ten “divers manners” (see App-10):
(1) To Moses alone (Lev 5:14; Lev 6:1, Lev 6:19; Lev 8:1; Lev 14:1; Lev 22:26; Lev 23:26).
(2) To Moses, to speak to Aaron alone (Lev 16:1).
(3) To Moses, to speak to “Aaron and his sons” (Lev 6:8, Lev 6:24; Lev 22:1).
(4) To Moses, to speak to “the priests, the sons of Aaron” (Lev 21:1).
(5) To Moses, to speak to “Aaron and his sons, and in all the children of Israel” (Lev 17:1; Lev 21:16 (Compare Lev 5:24); Lev 22:17).
(6) To Moses, to speak to “the children of Israel” (Lev 1:1; Lev 4:1; Lev 7:22, Lev 7:28;
Lev 12:1; Lev 18:1; Lev 20:1; Lev 23:1, Lev 23:9, Lev 23:23; Lev 24:1, Lev 24:13; Lev 25:1; Lev 27:1).
(7) To Moses, to speak “to all the congregation of the children of Israel” (Lev 19:1).
(8) To Moses and Aaron conjointly (Lev 13:1; Lev 14:33).
(9) To Moses and Aaron, to speak to “the children of Israel” (Lev 11:1; Lev 15:1).
(10) To Aaron alone (Lev 10:8).
The reasons for these distinctions will be seen from the respective contexts.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Trespass-Offerings and Restitution
Lev 5:14-19; Lev 6:1-7
The root idea of the Hebrew word for trespass is failure of duty through negligence. In addition to the sin itself, which is against God, as the august Custodian of the law and order of the universe, the injury, which such negligence inflicts upon ones neighbor, must be met by a compensation and fine. Any sum which another has lost through us should, of course, be repaid, and a fifth part added, if required. But probably, the main lesson of the trespass-offering is that we cannot injure any fellow-creature without offending against God. Our offence penetrates beyond the thin veil of humanity and the visible universe into the unseen Holy.
In dealing with all failures in regard to our fellows, there are three points, therefore, always to bear in mind: First, we must confess the sin to God; second, we must seek out our brother and confess to him, and ask his forgiveness, that we may win him, as our Lord said, Mat 18:15; and, third, we must make restitution, with an addition. This was the teaching under the Law. Should it be less under the Gospel of love?
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Lecture V The Trespass Offering
The offering which we are now to consider presents what we might call the primary aspect of the work of the cross. It meets the awakened sinner as the answer to his fears, when troubled about his trespasses, anxiously inquiring, How can I be saved from the legitimate consequences of my sins? Every sin is an offence to the majesty of heaven. It is a trespass against the holy government of God, and righteousness demands that amends be made for it, or else that the trespasser be shut away from Gods presence forever. A trespass may also be against our fellow-men, but even in that case the sin is primarily against God. David trespassed most heinously against his soldier-friend, Uriah the Hittite, and against Bathsheba herself, and in a wider sense against all Israel. But in his prayer of confession, Ps. 51, he cried out from the depths of his anguished heart, Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight. And so keen is his sense of the wickedness of it all that he realizes the blood of bulls and of goats can never wash out the stain, and so he cries, looking on in faith to the cross of Christ, Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. It is this aspect of the cross that is brought before us in the trespass offering.
In the thirteen verses of Lev 5:14-19; Lev 6:1-7 we have the reason for, and the character of, the trespass offering. First we read, If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the Lord; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the Lord a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering: and he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him. This is the first aspect of the trespass. It is something done against the Lord Himself; but, as in the case of the sin offering, it is done through ignorance. So again we are reminded that God looks upon all sin as springing from the ignorance that is in man; unless in the final refusing of the Lord Jesus Christ, the great Sin Offering. To do this is to be guilty of wilful and eternal sin. An Israelite might sin in the holy things of the Lord in various ways. For instance he might underestimate the size of his annual crop, and so ignorantly bring to the priest a lesser tithe than the law demanded. But when the truth of the condition of things was brought to his attention he was not to pass over the offence as a matter of no moment, but he was to bring a trespass offering, and with it the estimated amount, to which he added by direction of the priest the fifth part. The trespass offering was offered in accordance with the law, and the silver was given to the priest to be brought into the sanctuary of Jehovah. Thus where sin abounded grace did much more abound. And if we may so say, God actually received more because of the mans blunder than He would have received apart from it. How clearly this comes out in the work of the Cross! By it God has received far more glory than He ever lost by mans sin. In Psalm 69 we hear the Holy Sufferer on Calvary saying, Then I restored that which I took not away. We had robbed God; He became our trespass offering, and He, thereby, made amends to God for all the wrong we had done, and added the fifth part thereto. For we are not to think for a moment of the sufferings of our Saviour as though they barely sufficed to atone for our transgressions. There was in that work of Calvary such infinite value that it not only met all the actual sins of all who would ever believe in Him, but there was over and above that such value as will never be drawn upon by all the repentant sinners in the universe of God.
The unblemished ram for a trespass offering tells of the Holy One who was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth. Here was the Prince of the flock, the tall stately ram, submitting to death in order to atone for our guilt. He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.
In verses 17-19 we read, And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him. It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the Lord. Here the important truth that is emphasized is that Gods Word is the standard of judgment, not my knowledge of it. The soul that committed any offence ignorantly, anything forbidden in the law of God, was guilty, even though he knew it not, and apart from the trespass offering he must bear his iniquity. It is not that God is going to hold men responsible for light they never had, but He does hold them responsible to avail themselves of the light He has given. He gave the law to Israel; they were guilty, therefore, if they ignored it and did not become acquainted with its commandments. Having Moses and the prophets they were responsible to hear them, as Abraham declares to the rich man in Hades. And then today, what shall we say of those who have the whole Word of God, and yet allow the Bible to lie neglected in their homes, and never even take the trouble to seek to know the mind of the Lord? How guilty will they be judged in the coming day who have deliberately ignored this divine revelation and so fail to learn the will of God!
In Bunyans immortal allegory it was as the man Graceless read in the Book that he realized the weight of the burden upon his back. And it is as the truth of the Word of God is brought to bear upon the consciences of sinners that they feel their sins and cry out for deliverance, and, thank God, when the load of our sins is thus brought home to us, the trespass offering is nigh at hand. We have but to come to God pleading the merits of the atoning work of His beloved Son to find there full atonement for all our iniquities.
In chap. 6:l-7 we have the other side of things, sin against ones neighbor. But even that is a trespass against the Lord, and so we are told; If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbor in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbor; or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein : then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering. Here, too, the principle noted above is found. Man himself benefits by the provision of the trespass offering. The one who had been wronged was really better off than before, after the sin had been confessed and the fifth part had been added to that which was returned when the offerer brought his trespass offering to the Lord. For as in the previous case, if he had deceitfully robbed his neighbor, or had found something that was lost and had hidden it intending to keep it himself, or had in any other way wronged or defrauded another, his trespass offering was not acceptable to God unless he made full restitution by returning the thing that he had deceitfully gotten and then adding to it the fifth part. How wondrously does this bring out the matchless grace of God. Throughout the eternal ages it will be seen that, as Tennyson puts it, in The Dreamer,
Less shall be lost than won.
For God maketh even the wrath of man to praise Him, and the remainder of wrath He doth restrain. The skeptic may ask sneeringly, Why did a righteous and omnipotent God ever permit sin to raise up its hideous head in the universe, thus defiling the heavens and the earth? But the work of the cross is the answer to it all. Mans relationship to God as a redeemed sinner is far greater and more blessed than the mere relationship of creature to Creator. And the grace of God has been magnified in the great trespass offering of the cross in a way it never could have been known if sin had never come in at all.
How precious the words of verse 7, And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done In trespassing therein. Do these words come to any poor, anxious, troubled soul? Do you wonder sometimes if you have sinned beyond all hope of mercy? Oh, be persuaded, if you will but come to God bringing the trespass offering, that is, putting your hearts trust in the Lord Jesus, looking to Him alone for salvation, every sin will be forgiven; all that you have done will be blotted out forever, and be in Gods sight as if it had never been.
Years ago at the close of a great meeting in Chicago where Gipsy Rodney Smith was the preacher, a strong man came weeping up the aisle at the close of the evangelists address, sobbing out the story of his sin and shame. To the gipsy who sought to help him he exclaimed, Oh, sir, my sin is too great ever to be forgiven. Quick as a flash the preacher said, But His grace is greater than all your sin. Dr. Towner, the beloved hymn-writer and musician, who was standing by, caught the words, and as he walked home that night they took form in his heart and mind, and he composed the chorus:
Grace, grace, Gods grace,
Grace that is greater than all our sin.
The melody of the verses was also given to him, and he jotted them down when he reached his home. The next day he gave them to Julia Johnston, who has written so many precious songs of praise, and she composed the verses of the well-known hymn bearing the title of the chorus. The first stanza of it reads:
Marvelous grace of our loving Lord,
Grace that exceeds all our sin and our guilt,
Yonder on Calvarys mount outpoured,
There where the blood of the Lamb was spilt.
Through the years since, the song has borne its story of grace greater than all our sins, to tens of thousands of anxious souls. This indeed is the message of the trespass offering.
In chap. 7:1-7 we have the law of the trespass offering. As in the case of the sin offering, we are twice told that it is most holy. God would never have left the least room for the thought that the humanity of our blessed Saviour was ever defiled by sin. We are told of Him, He knew no sin, and, He did no sin, and, In Him is no sin. How carefully God guarded this! Even on the very morning of His trial and throughout the day of His execution it was manifest. Pitates wife sent the message, Have thou nothing to do with that just Man. Pilate himself declared, I find no fault in Him; the thief upon the cross exclaimed, This Man hath done nothing amiss; and the Roman centurion, awed by the marvelous events of that dreadful hour, declared, Certainly this was a righteous Man. And yet we see the Just One suffering for us the unjust, that He might bring us to God!
The trespass offering was to be killed at the altar and the blood sprinkled round about the altar. Certain parts of the victim were burned upon the altar, thus going up to God as an expression of divine judgment against our sins, while other parts were eaten by the priests in the holy place, as in the case of the sin offering, for we are told, As the sin offering is, so is the trespass offering: there is one law for them: the priest that maketh atonement therewith shall have it. Every believer is a priest to-day, and it is the hallowed privilege of every one of us to feed upon the trespass offering. We do this as we read the Word of God and meditate upon what it reveals as to the atoning work of our Lord Jesus Christ in order to put away all our sins and trespasses and fit us for the presence of a holy God.
Psalm 69 most fittingly links with these Levitical instructions. It is the psalm of the trespass offering; it gives us our blessed Lord going to the cross, rejected of men, bearing the judgment due to our sins. It is there, as already mentioned, we hear Him saying, I restored that which I took not away. He confessed our sins as His own, and He can say, The zeal of Thine house hath eaten Me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached Thee are fallen upon Me. It is in verses 20 and 21 of this psalm that we read, Reproach hath broken My heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none. They gave Me also gall for My meat; and in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink. How plainly this shows that it was on the cross that His soul passed through the anguish here depicted, and as we contemplate Him as the great Trespass Offering we exclaim with the psalmist, This also shall please Jehovah better than an ox or bullock that hath horns and hoofs (ver. 31). What the sacrifices of old could not accomplish, namely, the actual putting away of sin, has been accomplished through the finished work of our Lord Jesus, that one offering, never to be repeated, which He made on our behalf upon the accursed tree. We cannot add to this finished work, and, thank God, we cannot take from it. It stands alone in its marvelous completeness. In it God has found infinite satisfaction, and in it the believing sinner finds satisfaction too. The answer of the old monk to the young man who came to the monastery gate inquiring what he should do to put away his sins, is in full accord with the truth of the trespass offering. The aged man replied, There is nothing left that you can do. And he then endeavored to show his inquirer how fully Christ had met every claim of God against the sinner there upon the Cross. To attempt to put away our own sins is but folly and ignorance combined.
Not what these hands have done
Can cleanse this guilty soul;
Not what this toiling flesh has borne
Can make my spirit whole.
Not what I think or do
Can give me peace with God;
Not all my prayers, or toil, or tears,
Can ease this awful load.
Thy blood alone, Lord Jesus,
Can cleanse my soul from sin;
Thy Word alone, O Lamb of God,
Can give me peace within.
And so we come to the end for the present of our meditation upon these five offerings and their typical import. I have not attempted to go into them exhaustively; others have done that, and their writings are easily available and well worth careful and thoughtful consideration. I have simply sought to emphasize the great outstanding truths in regard to the Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ suggested by the sacrifices of old, and I trust not without profit to every one of us. Oh, to know more of Him and to appreciate in a fuller way His wondrous work which has meant so much to God and which is the basis of our eternal blessing!
Here we see the dawn of heaven,
While upon the cross we gaze;
See our trespasses forgiven,
And our songs of triumph raise.
So sang Sir Edward Denny, and so may each penitent believer sing, as he stands by faith by the sacrifice of the trespass offering.
-H. A. Ironside
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
5. The Trespass Offering
CHAPTERS 5:14-6:7
1. The trespass against Jehovah (Lev 5:14-19)
2. The trespass against man (Lev 6:1-7)
The brief section which gives instruction concerning the trespass offering contains twice the statement, Jehovah spake unto Moses (Lev 5:14 and Lev 6:1). Sin is here looked upon as an injury done. The trespass offering was always a ram without a blemish out of the flock (verses 15, 18; 6:6). First the wrong is mentioned done in holy things of Jehovah or something done against His commands, and secondly, wrongs done against his neighbor, which Jehovah also reckons as done against Himself. There is no need to define the wrong done in the holy things of Jehovah. The word trespass in the Hebrew means to act covertly. It was no doubt an attempt to defraud Jehovah in the holy things, as defrauding is prominent in connection with the wrong done to the neighbor. The offering of the ram, which, of course, typifies Christ, is not described here, but in chapter 7:1-10. But another feature is made prominent which contains a most interesting truth. Restitution had to be made in each trespass against Jehovah and against man, and in each case the fifth part of the whole had to be added. In the wrong done against Jehovah the fifth part was given to the priest; and in the wrong done against the neighbor the one who had been defrauded received it. This shows forth the blessed effect of the redemption work of Christ. He has not only restored what He took not away, but added more to it. God manifested thus His gracious power by giving greater blessing to His people and bringing greater glory to Himself.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Leviticus 5:14 – 6:7
These verses contain the doctrine of the trespass offering, of which there were two distinct kinds, namely, trespass against God, and trespass against man. “If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the Lord, then shall he bring for his trespass unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering.” Here we have a case in which a positive wrong was done, in the holy things which pertained unto the Lord; and, albeit this was done “through ignorance,” yet could it not be passed over. God can forgive all manner of trespass, but He cannot pass over a single jot or tittle. His grace is perfect, and therefore He can forgive all. His holiness is perfect, and therefore He cannot pass over anything. He cannot sanction iniquity, but He can blot it out, and that, moreover, according to the perfection of His grace, and according to the perfect claims of His holiness.
It is a very grave error to suppose that, provided a man acts up to the dictates of his conscience, he is all right and safe. The peace which rests upon such a foundation as this will be eternally destroyed when the light of the judgement-seat shines in upon the conscience. God could never lower His claim to such a level. The balances of the sanctuary are regulated by a very different scale from that afforded by the most sensitive conscience. We have had occasion to dwell upon this point before, in the notes on the sin offering. It cannot be too strongly insisted upon. There are two things involved in it. First, a just perception of what the holiness of God really is; and, secondly, a clear sense of the ground of a believer’s peace, in the divine presence.
Whether it be a question of my condition or my conduct, my nature or my acts, God alone can be the Judge of what suits Himself, and of what befits His holy presence. Can human ignorance furnish a plea, when divine requirements are in question? God forbid. A wrong has been done “in the holy things of the Lord;” but man’s conscience has not taken cognisance of it. What then? Is there to be nothing more about it? Are the claims of God to be thus lightly disposed of? Assuredly not. This would be subversive of every thing Like divine relationship. The righteous are called to give thanks at the remembrance of God’s holiness. (Psalm 97: 12) How can they do this? Because their peace has been secured on the ground of the full vindication and perfect establishment of that holiness. Hence, the higher their sense of what that holiness is, the deeper and more settled must be their peace. This is a truth of the most precious nature. The unregenerate man could never rejoice in the divine holiness His aim would be to lower that holiness, if he could not ignore it altogether. Such an one will console himself with the thought that God is good, God is gracious, God is merciful; but you will never find him rejoicing in the thought that God is holy. He has unholy thoughts respecting God’s goodness, His grace, and His mercy. He would fain find in those blessed attributes, an excuse for his continuing in sin.
On the contrary, the renewed man exults in the holiness of God. He sees The full expression thereof in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is that holiness which has laid the foundation of his peace; and, not only so, but he is made a partaker of it, and he delights in it, while he hates sin with a perfect hatred. The instincts of the divine nature shrink from it, and long after holiness. It would be impossible to enjoy true peace and liberty of heart, if one did not know that the claims connected with “the holy things of the Lord” had been perfectly met by our divine Trespass Offering;. There would ever be, springing up in the heart, the painful sense that those claims had been slighted, through our manifold infirmities and shortcomings. Our very best services, our holiest seasons, our most hallowed exercises, may present something of trespass “in the holy things of the Lord” – “something that ought not to be done.” How often are our seasons of public worship and private devotion infringed upon and marred by barrenness and distraction! Hence it is that we need the assurance that our trespasses have all been divinely met by the precious blood of Christ. Thus, in the ever-blessed Lord Jesus, we find One who has come down to the full measure of our necessities as sinners by nature, and trespassers in act. We find in Him the perfect answer to all the cravings of a guilty conscience, and to all the claims of infinite holiness, in reference to all our sins and all our trespasses; so that the believer can stand, with an uncondemning conscience and emancipated heart, in the full light of that holiness which is too pure to behold iniquity or look upon sin.
“And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him.” (Lev. 5: 16) In the addition of “the fifth part,” as here set forth, we have a feature of the true Trespass Offering, which, it is to be feared, is but little appreciated. When we think of all the wrong and all the trespass which we have done against the Lord; and, further, when we remember how God has been wronged of His rights in this wicked world, with what interest can we contemplate the work of the cross as that wherein God has not merely received back what was lost, but whereby He is an actual gainer. He has gained more by redemption than ever He lost by the fall. He reaps a richer harvest of glory, honour, and praise, in the fields of redemption, than ever He could have reaped from those of creation. “The sons of God” could raise a loftier song of praise around the empty tomb of Jesus than ever they raised in view of the Creator’s accomplished work. The wrong has not only been perfectly atoned for, but an eternal advantage has been gained, by the work of the cross. ‘This is a stupendous truth. God is a gainer by the work of Calvary. Who could have conceived this? When we behold man, and the creation of which he was Lord, laid is ruins at the feet of the enemy, How could we conceive that, from amid those ruins, God should gather richer and nobler spoils than any which our unfallen world could have yielded. Blessed be the name of Jesus for all this. It is to Him we owe it all. It is by His precious cross that ever a truth so amazing, so divine, could be enunciated. Assuredly, that cross involves a mysterious wisdom “which none of the princes of this world knew; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1 Cor. 2: 8) No marvel, therefore, that round that cross, and round Him who was crucified thereon, the affections of patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, and saints, have ever entwined themselves. No marvel that the Holy Ghost should have given forth that solemn but just decree, “If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.” (1 Cor. 16: 22) Heaven and earth shall echo forth a loud and an eternal amen to this anathema. No marvel that it should be the fixed and immutable purpose of the divine mind, that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil. 2: 10, 11)
The same law in reference to “the fifth part” obtained in the case of a trespass committed against a man, as we read, “If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord,* and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or have deceived his neighbour, or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offerings) (Lev. 6: 2-5)
{*There is a fine principle invoked in the expression, “against the Lord.” Although the matter in question was a wrong done to one’s neighbour, yet the Lord looked upon it as a trespass against himself. Everything must be viewed in reference to the Lord. It matters not who may be affected, Jehovah must get the first place. Thus, when David’s conscience was pierced by the arrow of conviction, in reference to his treatment of Uriah, he exclaims, “I have sinned against the Lord.” (2 Sam. 12: 13) This principle does not, in the least, interfere with the injured man’s claim.}
Man, as well as God, is a positive gainer by the cross. The believer can say, as he gazes upon that cross, “Well, it matters not how I have been wronged, how I have been trespassed against, how I have been deceived, what ills have been done to me, I am a gainer by the cross. I have not merely received back all that was lost, but much more beside.”
Thus, whether we think of the injured, or the injurer, in any given case, we are equally struck with the glorious triumphs of redemption, and the mighty practical results which flow from that gospel which fills the soul with the happy assurance, that “all trespasses” are “forgiven,” And that the root from whence those trespasses have sprung, has been judged “The gospel of the glory of the blessed God” is that which alone can send forth a man into the midst of a scene which has been the witness of his sins, his trespasses, and his injurious ways – can send him back to all who, in anywise, have been sufferers by his evil doings, furnished with grace, not only to repair the wrongs, but, far more, to allow the full tide of practical benevolence to flow forth in all his ways, yea, to love his enemies, to do good to them that hate him, and to pray for them that despitefully use him and persecute him. Such is the precious grace of God, that acts in confession with our great Trespass Offering. – such are its rich, rare, and refreshing fruits!
What a triumphant answer to the caviller who could say, “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” Grace not merely cuts up sin by the roots, but transforms the sinner from a curse into a blessing; from a moral plague, into a channel of divine mercy; from an emissary of Satan, into a messenger of God; from a child of darkness, into a son of the light; from a self-indulgent pleasure-hunter, into a self-denying lover of God; from a slave of vile, selfish lusts, into a willing-hearted servant of Christ; from a cold, narrow-hearted miser, into a benevolent minister to the need of his fellow-man. Away, then, with the oft repeated taunts, “Are we to do nothing?” – “That is a marvellously easy way to be saved” – “According to this Gospel we may live as we list.” Let all who utter such language behold yonder thief transformed into a liberal donor, and let them be silent for ever. (See Eph. 4: 28) They know not what grace means. They have never felt its sanctifying and elevating influences. They forget that, while the blood of the trespass offering cleanses the conscience, the law of that offering sends the trespasser back to the one whom he has wronged, with” the principal” and “the fifth” in his hand. Noble testimony this, both to the grace and righteousness of the God of Israel! Beauteous exhibition of the results of that marvellous scheme of redemption, whereby the injurer is forgiven, and the injured becomes the actual gainer! The conscience has been set to rights, by the blood of the cross, in reference to the claims of God, the conduct must be set to rights, by the holiness of the cross, in reference to the claims of practical righteousness. These things must never be separated. God has joined them together, and let not man put them asunder. The hallowed union will never be dissolved by any mind which is governed by pure gospel morality. Alas! it is easy to profess the principles of grace, while the practice and power thereof are completely denied. It is easy to talk of resting in the blood of the trespass offering, while “the principal” and “the fifth” are not forthcoming. This is vain, and worse than vain. “He that doeth not righteousness is not of God.” (1 John 3: 10)
Nothing can be more dishonouring to the pure grace of the gospel than the supposition that a man may belong to God, while his conduct and character exhibit not the fair traces of practical holiness. “known unto God are all his works,” no double; but He has given us, in His holy word, those evidences by which we can discern those that belong to Him. “The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His: and, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” (2 Tim. 2: 19) We have no right to suppose that an evildoer belongs to God. The holy instincts of the divine nature are shocked by the mention of such a thing. People sometimes express much difficulty in accounting for such and such evil practices on the part of those whom they cannot help regarding in the light of Christians. The word of God settles the matter so clearly and so authoritatively, as to leave no possible ground for any such difficulty. “In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.’ It is well to remember this, in this day of laxity and self-indulgence. There is a fearful amount of easy, uninfluential profession abroad, against which the genuine Christian is called upon to make a firm stand, and bear a severe testimony – a testimony resulting from the steady exhibition of “the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ unto the glory and praise of God.” It is most deplorable to see so many going along the beaten path – the well-trodden highway of religious profession, and yet manifesting not a trace of love or holiness in their conduct. Christian reader, let us be faithful. Let us rebuke, by a life of self-denial and genuine benevolence, the self-indulgence and culpable inactivity of evangelical yet worldly profession. May God grant unto all His true-hearted people abundant grace for these things!
Let us now proceed to compare the two classes of trespass offering; namely, the offering on account of trespass “in the holy things of the Lord,” and that which had reference to a trespass committed in the common transactions and relations of human life. In so doing, we shall find one or two points which demand our attentive consideration.
And, first, the expression, “if a soul sin through ignorance,” which occurs in the former, is omitted in the latter. The reason of this is obvious. The claims which stand connected with the holy things of the Lord, must pass, infinitely, beyond the reach of the most elevated human sensibility. Those claims may be, continually, interfered with – continually trespassed upon, and the trespasser not be aware of the fact. A man’s consciousness can never be the regulator in the sanctuary of God. This is an unspeakable mercy. God’s holiness alone must fix the standard, when God’s rights are in question.
Oh the other hand, the human conscience can readily grasp the full amount of a human claim, and can readily take cognisance of any interference with such claim. How often may we have wronged God, in His holy things, without ever taking a note of it in the tablet of conscience – yea without having the competency to detect it. (See Mal. 3: 8) Not so, however, when man’s rights are in question. The wrong which the human eye can see, and the human heart feel, the human conscience can take notice of. A man, “through ignorance” of the laws which governed the sanctuary of old, might commit a trespass against those laws, without being aware of it, until a higher light had shone in upon his conscience. But a man could not, “through ignorance,” tell a lie, swear falsely, commit an act of violence, deceive his neighbour, or find a lost thing and deny it. These were all plain and palpable acts, lying within the range of the most sluggish sensibility. Hence it is that the expression, “through ignorance” is introduced, in reference to “the holy things of the Lord,” and omitted, in reference to the common affairs of men. How blessed it is to know that the precious blood of Christ has settled all questions whether with respect to God or man – our sins of ignorance or our known sins! Here lies the deep and settled foundation of the believer’s peace. The cross has divinely met ALL.
Again, when it was a question of trespass “in the holy things of the Lord,” the unblemished sacrifice was first introduced; and, afterward “the principal” and “the fifth.” This order was reversed when it was a question of the common affairs of life. (Comp. Lev. 5: 15, 16 with Lev. 6: 4-7) The reason of this is equally obvious. When the divine rights were infringed, the blood of atonement was made the great prominent matter. Whereas, when human rights were interfered with, restitution would naturally assume the leading place in the mind. But, inasmuch as the latter involved the question of the soul’s relation with God, as well as the former, therefore the sacrifice is introduced, though it be last in order. If I wrong my fellow man, that wrong will, undoubtedly, interfere with my communion with God; and that communion can only be restored on the ground of atonement. Mere restitution would not avail. It might satisfy the injured man, but it could not form the basis of restored communion with God. I might restore “the principal” and add “the fifth,” ten thousand times over, and yet my sin remain, for “Without shedding of blood is no remission.” (Heb. 9: 22) Still, if it be a question of injury done to my neighbour, then restitution must first be made. “If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” (Matt. 5: 23, 24)*
{*From a comparison of Matt. 5.23, 24 with Matt. 18. 21, 22, we may learn a fine principle, as to the way in which wrongs and injuries are to be settled between two brothers. The injurer is sent back from the altar, in order to have his matters set straight with the injured one; for there can be no communion with the Father so long as my brother “hath ought against me” But, then, mark the beauteous way in which the injured one is taught to receive the injurer. “Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, until seven times; but, until seventy times seven.” Such is the divine mode of settling all questions between brethren. “Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. (Col 3: 13)}
There is far more involved in the divine order prescribed in the trespass offering, than might, at first sight, appear. The claims which arise out of our human relations must not be disregarded. They must ever get their proper place in the heart. This is distinctly taught in the trespass offering. When an Israelite had, by an act of trespass, deranged his relation with Jehovah, the order was, sacrifice and restitution. When he had, by an act of trespass, deranged his relation with his neighbour, the order was, restitution and sacrifice. Will any one undertake to say this is a distinction without a difference? Does the change of the order not convey its own appropriate, because divinely appointed, lesson? Unquestionably. Every point is pregnant with meaning, if we will but allow the Holy Ghost to convey that meaning to our hearts, and not seek to grasp it by the aid of our poor vain imaginings. Each offering conveys its own characteristic view of the Lord Jesus, and His work; and each is presented in its own characteristic order; and we may safely say, it is, at once, the business and the delight of the spiritual mind to apprehend both the one and the other. The very same character of mind which would seek to make nothing of the peculiar order of each offering, would also set aside the idea of a peculiar phase of Christ in each. It would defy the existence of any difference between the burnt offering and the sin offering ; and between the sin offering and the trespass offering; and between any or all of these and the meat offering or the peace offering. Hence, it would follow that the first seven chapters of the Book of Leviticus are all a vain repetition, each successive chapter going over the same thing. Who could cede ought so monstrous as this? What Christian mind could suffer such an insult to be offered to the sacred page? A German rationalist or theologian may put forth such vain and detestable notions; but those who have been divinely taught that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God,” will be led to regard the various types, in their specific order, as so many variously-shaped caskets, in which the Holy Ghost has treasured up, for the people of God, “the unsearchable riches of Christ.” There is no tedious repetition, no redundancy. All is rich, divine, heavenly variety; and all we need is to be personally acquainted with the great Antitype, in order to enter into the beauties and seize the delicate touches of each type. Directly the heart lays hold of the fact that it is Christ we have, in each type, it can hang, With spiritual interest, over the most minute details. It sees meaning and beauty in everything – it finds Christ in all. As, in the kingdom of nature, the telescope and the microscope present to the eye their own special wonders, so with the word of God. Whether we look at it as a whole, or scrutinise each clause, we find that which elicits the worship and thanksgiving of our hearts.
Christian reader, may the name of the Lord Jesus ever be more precious to our hearts! Then shall we value everything that speaks of Him everything that sets Him forth – everything according a fresh insight into His peculiar excellency and matchless beauty.
NOTE – The remainder of Lev. 6, together with the whole of Lev. 7, is occupied with the law of the various offerings to which reference has already been made. There are, however, some points presented in the law of the sin offering and the trespass offering which may be noticed ere we leave this copious section of our book.
In none of the offerings is Christ’s personal holiness more strikingly presented than in the sin offering. “Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering. in the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the Lord: it is most holy . . . . . .Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy…All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy.” (Lev. 6: 25- 29) So also in speaking of the meat offering, “it is most holy, as is the sin offering, and as the trespass offering.” This is most marked and striking. The Holy Ghost did not need to guard with such jealousy, the personal holiness of Christ in the burnt offering; but lest the soul should, by any means, lose sight of that holiness, while contemplating the place which the Blessed One took in the sin offering, we are, again and again, reminded of it by the words,” it is most holy.” Truly edifying and refreshing it is to behold the divine and essential holiness of the Person of Christ shining forth in the midst of Calvary’s profound and awful gloom The same point is observable in “the law of the trespass offering. (See Lev. 7: 1, 6) Never was the Lord Jesus more fully seen to be “the Holy One of God” than when He was “made sin” upon the cursed tree. The vileness and blackness of that with which He stood identified on the cross, only served to show out more clearly that He was “most holy.” Though a sin-bearer, He was sinless. Though enduring the wrath of God, He was the Father’s delight. Though deprived of the light of God’s countenance, He dwelt in the Father’s bosom. precious mystery! Who can sound its mighty depths How wonderful to find it so accurately shadowed forth in “the law of the sin offering ‘”
Again, my reader should seek to apprehend the meaning of the expression, “all the males among the priests shall eat thereof.” The ceremonial act of eating the sin offering, or the trespass offering, was expressive of full identification. But, to eat the sin offering – to make another’s sin one’s own, demanded a higher degree of priestly energy, such as was expressed in all the males among the priests.” “And the Lord spake unto Aaron, Behold, I also have given thee the charge of mine heave offerings, of all the hallowed things of the children of Israel; unto thee have I given them by reason of the anointing, and to thy sons, by an ordinance for ever. This shall be thine of the most holy things, reserved from the fire: every oblation of theirs, every meat offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs, and every trespass offering of theirs, which they shall render unto me, shall be most holy for thee and for thy sons. In the most Holy place shalt thou eat it; every male shall eat it: it shall be holy unto thee. and this is thine; the heave offering of their gift, with all the wave offerings of the children of Israel: I have given them unto thee, and to thy sons, and to thy daughters with thee, by a statute for ever: every one that is clean in thy house shall eat of it.” (Num. 18: 8-11)
It demanded a larger measure of priestly energy to eat of the sin or trespass offering, than merely to partake of the heave and wave offerings of gift. The “daughters” of Aaron could eat of the latter. None but the “sons” could eat of the former. In general, “the male,” expresses a thing according to the divine Idea: “the female,” according to human development. The former gives you the thing in full energy; the latter, in its imperfection. How few of us have sufficient priestly energy to enable us to make another’s sin or trespass our own! The blessed Lord Jesus did this perfectly. He made His people’s sins His own, and bore the judgement thereof, on the cross. He fully identified Himself with us, so that we may know, in full and blessed certainty, that the whole question of sin and trespass has been divinely settled. If Christ’s identification was perfect, then, the settlement was perfect, likewise; and that it was perfect, the scene enacted at Calvary declares. All is accomplished. The sin, the trespasses, the claims of God, the claims of man – all have been eternally settled; and, now, perfect peace is the portion of all who, by grace, accept as true the record of God. It is as simple as God could make it, and the soul that believes it is made happy. The peace and happiness of the believer depend wholly upon the perfection of Christ’s sacrifice. It is not a question of his mode of receiving it, his thoughts about it, or his feelings respecting it. It is simply a question of his crediting, by faith, the testimony of God, as to the value of the sacrifice. The Lord be praised for His own simple and perfect way of peace! May many troubled souls be led by the Holy Spirit into an understanding thereof!
We shall here close our meditations upon one of the richest sections in the whole canon of inspiration. It is but little we have been enabled to glean from it. We have hardly penetrated below the surface of an exhaustless mine. If, however, the reader has, for the first time, been led to view the offerings as so many varied exhibitions of the great Sacrifice, and if he is led to cast himself at the feet of the great Teacher, to learn more of the living depths of these things, I cannot but feel that an end has been gained for which we may well feel deeply thankful.
Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch
Lev 5:14 to Lev 6:7. The Trespass or Guilt Offering.This is of two kinds, though the principle of amendment is the same. The first kind is stated vaguely; committing a trespass (the word means acting unfaithfully or treacherously; it is coupled with sinning unwittingly in Lev 5:15; Lev 5:17). The offence consists in treating what is Yahwehs as if it were not Yahwehs, i.e. in-correctness, really unintentional, connected with some offering. If not unintentional, the penalty is different (Num 15:30). The offerer is not said to kill the guilt offering; though elsewhere, the offerers act of killing is carefully mentioned, and it seems to be implied in Lev 7:2. The second case is intentionaltrickery in a matter of deposit or pledge (RVm), or theft, or oppression, or keeping anothers property, or falsehood; all these are trespasses against Yahweh, and as such must be atoned for by a trespass or guilt offering. This offering consists in restitution and, in the first case, amends; the restitution is a ram; the amends is one fifth of the value of the ram. In the second case, the object held back is itself restored with an addition of one-fifth of its value; and a ram is offered to Yahweh as well. The amends necessitates a valuation; this is to be made in sanctuary shekels (see on Lev 27:16-25). Lev 5:17-19 seems to add nothing to the preceding; there is no mention of amends, and guilt offering is spoken of, with reference to the subjects of sin offering in Leviticus 4. Perhaps it is an older fragment; cf. Ezr 10:19, where for the sin of marrying foreign wives, a ram is offered by the people for their guilt. In the case of trespass against ones neighbour, the procedure is parallel; in this case, the restitution is mentioned before the ram of the guilt offering. But the latter is as necessary as the former; all morality is the concern of Yahweh, and in every trespass He is injured. This is one of the few references to social morality in P. The earlier prophets refer to little else, and Ezekiel, in ch. 18, confines his catalogue to non-ritual offences, to be purged only by repentance.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
5. The trespass offering 5:14-6:7
The structure of Lev 4:1 to Lev 6:7 indicates that this offering has a close relationship to the sin offering. This offering removed the guilt of certain sins that involved trespassing against God. Trespassing means going beyond the limits of what is right. The Hebrew word ’asham, translated "guilt," also means "reparation." It may be helpful to think of this offering as a reparation or compensation offering since other sacrifices also deal with guilt.
"Guilt in the biblical sense is not just a feeling but a condition. There may be known transgressions that bring feelings of guilt, but there is also the condition of guilt before God, caused by sins known or unknown. Sometimes a hardened sinner has few feelings of guilt when he is the most guilty." [Note: Harris, p. 551.]
This chapter is divisible into two parts: the trespass offering for inadvertent sin (Lev 5:14-19), and the trespass offering for deliberate sin (Lev 6:1-7). There is a further distinction in Lev 5:14-19 between trespasses that someone committed with sure knowledge of his guilt (Lev 5:14-16) and those that someone committed with only suspected knowledge of his guilt (Lev 5:17-19).
"From all these cases it is perfectly evident, that the idea of satisfaction for a right, which had been violated but was about to be restored or recovered, lay at the foundation of the trespass offering, and the ritual also points to this." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 2:316.]
The identity of the "holy things" (Lev 5:15) is problematic. The phrase evidently refers to anything dedicated to God by the Israelites, including the tabernacle, its furnishings, the offerings, houses, lands, and tithes (cf. ch. 27). [Note: Jacob Milgrom, "The Compass of Biblical Sancta," Jewish Quarterly Review 65 (April 1975):216.] Violating these things would have involved eating holy food (cf. Lev 22:14), taking dedicated things, and perhaps failing to fulfill a dedicatory vow or failing to pay a tithe.
The situation described in Lev 5:17-19 evidently involved an instance of suspected trespass against sacred property. Someone suspected that he had sinned but did not know exactly how. [Note: Wenham, The Book . . ., p. 108.] This sacrifice pacified oversensitive Israelite consciences. Stealing sacred property was one of the most dreaded sins in antiquity. [Note: Jacob Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The "Asham" and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance, pp. 76-77.]
The third type of offense (Lev 6:1-7) involved not only stealing property but lying about it when confronted. The real offense was not only taking the property but trespassing against God’s holy name by swearing falsely about one’s innocence.
"It seems likely that atonement for deliberate sins was possible where there was evidence of true repentance, demonstrated by remorse (feeling guilty), full restitution (Lev 5:23 [4]), and confession of sin (cf. Num 5:6-8)." [Note: Wenham, The Book . . ., p. 109. Cf. Luke 19:8.]
The major distinctives of this offering were these.
1. It was not a soothing aroma offering.
2. The Israelites were to offer it when they had wronged someone-either God (Lev 5:15; Lev 5:17) or God and man (Lev 6:2). Every trespass against one’s neighbor involved a trespass against God, but not every trespass against God involved a trespass against one’s neighbor (cf. Psa 51:1-4). Even though the offender may not have been aware of his trespass, he was still guilty. When he became aware of his sin or even suspected his guilt, he needed to bring this offering. This repentance reduced the guilt of the crime to that of an involuntary act. [Note: See Jacob Milgrom, "The Priestly Doctrine of Repentance," Revue Biblique 82 (April 1975):186-205.]
3. The offending Israelite had to pay restitution to the injured party in some cases (Lev 5:16; Lev 6:5). The guilty party had to restore whatever the victim of his sin had lost.
4. In addition to restitution the offender had to add 20 percent (Lev 5:16; Lev 6:5). This policy applied in the ancient Near East outside Israel in some cases (cf. Gen 47:26). God considered the fifth part a debt the offender owed because of his offense, not a gift to the victim. The victim ended up better off in one sense than he was before the offense. Reparation is evidence of true repentance (cf. Mat 3:8; Mat 5:23-24; Luk 19:8-9).
There is much less description of the ritual involved in presenting this offering compared to the others (cf. Lev 7:1-7).
The only significant variations in this offering were that only a ram or a male lamb was acceptable (cf. Lev 5:14-19; Lev 14:12-20; Lev 19:21-22; Num 6:12). Evidently if a person could not bring a ram or a lamb he could substitute the value of the animal in silver. [Note: E. A. Speiser, Oriental and Biblical Studies, pp. 124-28; B. A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, pp. 124-28.] There were more options in most of the other sacrifices.
"The reparation offering thus demonstrates that there is another aspect of sin that is not covered by the other sacrifices. It is that of satisfaction or compensation. If the burnt offering brings reconciliation between God and man, the purification or sin offering brings purification, while the reparation offering brings satisfaction through paying for the sin.
"The sacrificial system therefore presents different models or analogies to describe the effects of sin and the way of remedying them. The burnt offering uses a personal picture: of man the guilty sinner who deserves to die for his sin and of the animal dying in his place. God accepts the animal as a ransom for man. The sin offering uses a medical model: sin makes the world so dirty that God can no longer dwell there. The blood of the animal disinfects the sanctuary in order that God may continue to be present with his people. The reparation offering presents a commercial picture of sin. Sin is a debt which man incurs against God. The debt is paid through the offered animal." [Note: Wenham, The Book . . ., p. 111.]
These various models help clarify why sin is so bad. Christians do not need to try to compensate God for our offenses against Him since He has accepted the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as full payment for our debt (cf. 2Co 5:19; Eph 2:1; Eph 2:4-5; Col 2:13). Nevertheless we have a responsibility to recompense others against whom we trespass (cf. Mat 5:23-24; Mat 6:12).
"Anyone who violates the covenant by defrauding the LORD or another person must confess the sin and make full restitution in order to find full forgiveness and restoration." [Note: Ross, p. 152.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
THE GUILT OFFERING
Lev 5:14; Lev 6:7; Lev 7:1-7
As in the English version, so also in the Hebrew, the special class of sins for which the guilt offering is prescribed, is denoted by a distinct and specific word. That word, like the English “trespass,” its equivalent, always has reference to an invasion of the rights of others, especially in respect of property or service. It is used, for instance, of the sin of Achan (Jos 7:1), who had appropriated spoil from Jericho, which God had commanded to be set apart for Himself. Thus, also, the neglect of Gods service, and especially the worship of idols, is often described by this same word, as in 2Ch 28:22; 2Ch 29:6, and many other places. The reason is evident; for idolatry involved a withholding from God of those tithes and other offerings which He claimed from Israel, and thus became, as it were, an invasion of the Divine rights of property. The same word is even applied to the sin of adultery, {Num 5:12; Num 5:27} apparently from the same point of view, inasmuch as the woman is regarded as belonging to her husband, who has therefore in her certain sacred rights, of which adultery is an invasion. Thus, while every “trespass” is a sin, yet every sin is not a “trespass.” There are, evidently, many sins of which this is not a characteristic feature. But the sins for which the guilt offering is prescribed are in every case sins which may, at least, be specially regarded under this particular point of view, to wit, as trespasses on the rights of God or man in respect of ownership; and this gives us the fundamental thought which distinguishes the guilt offering from all others, namely, that for any invasion of the rights of another in regard to property, not only must expiation be made, in that it is a sin, but also satisfaction, and, so far as possible, plenary reparation of the wrong, in that the sin is also trespass.
From this it is evident that, as contrasted with the burnt offering, which preeminently symbolised full consecration of the person, and the peace offering, which symbolised fellowship with God, as based upon reconciliation by sacrifice; the guilt offering takes its place, in a general sense, with the sin offering, as, like that, specially designed to effect the reinstatement of an offender in covenant relation with God. Thus, like the latter, and unlike the former offerings, it was only prescribed with reference to specific instances of failure to fulfil some particular obligation toward God or man. So also, as the express condition of an acceptable offering, the formal confession of such sin was particularly enjoined. And, finally, unlike the burnt offering, which was wholly consumed upon the altar, or the peace offering, of the flesh of which, with certain reservations, the worshipper himself partook, in the case of the guilt offering, as in the sin offering, the fat parts only were burnt on the altar, and the remainder of the victim fell to the priests, to be eaten by them alone in a holy place, as a thing “most holy.” The law is given in the following words: {Lev 7:3-7} “He shall offer of it all the fat thereof; the fat tail, and the fat that covereth the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the caul upon the liver, with the kidneys, shall he take away: and the priest shall burn them upon the altar for an offering made by fire unto the Lord: it is a guilt offering. Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it shall be eaten in a holy place: it is most holy. As is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering: there is one law for them: the priest that maketh atonement therewith, he shall have it.”
But while, in a general way, the guilt offering was evidently intended, like the sin offering, to signify the removal of sin from the conscience through sacrifice, and thus may be regarded as a variety of the sin offering, yet the ritual presents some striking variations from that of the latter. These are all explicable from this consideration, that whereas the sin offering represented the idea of atonement by sacrifice, regarded as an expiation of guilt, the guilt offering represented atonement under the aspect of a satisfaction and reparation for the wrong committed. Hence, because the idea of expiation here fell somewhat into the background, in order to give the greater prominence to that of reparation and satisfaction, the application of the blood is only made, as in the burnt offering and the peace offering, by sprinkling “on the altar (of burnt offering) round about”. {Lev 7:1} Hence, again, we find that the guilt offering always had reference to the sin of the individual, and never to the congregation; because it was scarcely possible that every individual in the whole congregation should be guilty in such instances as those for which the guilt offering is prescribed.
Again, we have another contrast in the restriction imposed upon the choice of the victim for the sacrifice. In the sin offering, as we have seen, it was ordained that the offering should be varied according to the theocratic rank of the offender, to emphasise thereby to the conscience gradations of guilt, as thus determined; also, it was permitted that the offering might be varied in value according to the ability of the offerer, in order that it might thus be signified in symbol that it was the gracious will of God that nothing in the personal condition of the sinner should exclude anyone from the merciful provision of the expiatory sacrifice. But it was no less important that another aspect of the matter should be held forth, namely, that God is no respecter of persons; and that, whatever be the condition of the offender, the obligation to plenary satisfaction and reparation for trespass committed, cannot be modified in any way by the circumstances of the offender. The man who, for example, has defrauded his neighbour, whether of a small sum or of a large estate, abides his debtor before God, under all conceivable conditions, until restitution is made. The obligation of full payment rests upon every debtor, be he poor or rich, until the last farthing is discharged. Hence, the sacrificial victim of the guilt offering is the same, whether for the poor man or the rich man, “a ram of the flock.”
It was “a ram of the flock,” because, as contrasted with the ewe or the lamb, or the dove and the pigeon, it was a valuable offering. And yet it is not a bullock, the most valuable offering known to the law, because that might be hopelessly out of the reach of many a poor man. The idea of value must be represented, and yet not so represented as to exclude a large part of the people from the provisions of the guilt offering. The ram must be “without blemish,” that naught may detract from its value, as a symbol of full satisfaction for the wrong done.
But most distinctive of all the requisitions touching the victim is this, that, unlike all other victims for other offerings, the ram of the guilt offering must in each case be definitely appraised by the priest. The phrase is, {Lev 5:15} that it must be “according to thy estimation in silver by shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary.” This expression evidently requires, first, that the offerers own estimate of the value of the victim shall not be taken, but that of the priest, as representing God in this transaction; and, secondly, that its value shall in no case fall below a certain standard; for the plural expression, “by shekels,” implies that the value of the ram shall not be less than two shekels. And the shekel must be of full weight; the standard of valuation must be Gods, and not mans, “the shekel of the sanctuary.”
Still more to emphasise the distinctive thought of this sacrifice, that full satisfaction and reparation for all offences is with God the universal and unalterable condition of forgiveness, it was further ordered that in all cases where the trespass was of such a character as made this possible, that which had been unjustly taken or kept back, whether from God or man, should be restored in full; and not only this, but inasmuch as by this misappropriation of what was not his own, the offender had for the time deprived another of the use and enjoyment of that which belonged to him, he must add to that of which he had defrauded him “the fifth part more,” a double tithe. Thus the guilty person was not allowed to have gained even any temporary advantage from the use for a while of that which he now restored; for “the fifth part more” would presumably quite overbalance all conceivable advantage or enjoyment which he might have had from his fraud. How admirable in all this the exact justice of God! How perfectly adapted was the guilt offering, in all these particulars, to educate the conscience, and to preclude any possible wrong inferences from the allowance which was made, for other reasons, for the poor man, in the expiatory offerings for sin!
The arrangement of the law of the guilt offering is very simple. It is divided into two sections, the first of which {Lev 5:14-19} deals with cases of trespass “in the holy things of the Lord,” things which, by the law or by an act of consecration, were regarded as belonging in a special sense to Jehovah; the second section, on the other hand, {Lev 6:1-7} deals with cases of trespass on the property rights of man.
The first of these, again, consists of two parts. Lev 5:14-16 give the law of the guilt offering as applied to cases in which a man, through inadvertence or unwittingly, trespasses in the holy things of the Lord, but in such manner that the nature and extent of the trespass can afterward be definitely known and valued; Lev 5:17-19 deal with cases where there has been trespass such as to burden the conscience, and yet such as, for whatsoever reason, cannot be precisely measured.
By “the holy things of the Lord” are intended such things as, either by universal ordinance or by voluntary consecration, were regarded as belonging to Jehovah, and in a special sense His property. Thus, under this head would come the case of the man who, for instance, should unwittingly eat the flesh of the firstling of his cattle, or the flesh of the sin offering, or the shew bread; or should use his tithe, or any part of it, for himself. Even though he did this unwittingly, yet it none the less disturbed the mans relation to God; and therefore, when known, in order to his reinstatement in fellowship with God, it was necessary that he should make full restitution with a fifth part added, and besides this, sacrifice a ram, duly appraised, as a guilt offering. In that the sacrifice was prescribed over and above the restitution, the worshipper was reminded that, in view of the infinite majesty and holiness of God, it lies not in the power of any creature to nullify the wrong God-ward, even by fullest restitution. For trespass is not only trespass, but is also sin; an offence not only against the rights of Jehovah as Owner, but also an affront to Him as Supreme King and Lawgiver.
And yet, because the worshipper must not be allowed to lose sight of the fact that sin is of the nature of a debt, a victim was ordered which should especially bring to mind this aspect of the matter. For not only among the Hebrews, but among the Arabs, the Romans and other ancient peoples, sheep, and especially rams, were very commonly used as a medium of payment in case of debt, and especially in paying tribute.
Thus we read, {2Ki 3:4} that Mesha, king of Moab, rendered unto the king of Israel “a hundred thousand lambs, and a hundred thousand rams, with the wool,” in payment of tribute; and, at a later day, Isaiah {Isa 16:1, R.V} delivers to Moab the mandate of Jehovah: “Send ye the lambs for the ruler of the land unto the mount of the daughter of Zion.”
And so the ram having been brought and presented by the guilty person, with confession of his fault, it was slain by the priest, like the sin offering. The blood, however, was not applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering, still less brought into the Holy Place, as in the case of the sin offering; but {Lev 7:2} was to be sprinkled “upon the altar round about,” as in the burnt offering. The reason of this difference in the application of the blood, as above remarked, lies in this, that, as in the burnt offering, the idea of sacrifice as symbolising expiation takes a place secondary and subordinate to another thought; in this case, the conception of sacrifice as representing satisfaction for trespass.
The next section (Lev 5:17-19) does not expressly mention sins of trespass; for which reason some have thought that it was essentially a repetition of the law of the sin offering. But that it is not to be so regarded is plain from the fact that the victim is still the same as for the guilt offering, and from the explicit statement (Lev 5:19) that this “is a guilt offering.” The inference is natural that the prescription still has reference to “trespass in the holy things of the Lord”; and the class of cases intended is probably indicated by the phrase, “though he knew it not.” In the former section, the law provided for cases in which though the trespass had been done unwittingly, yet the offender afterward came to know of the trespass in its precise extent, so as to give an exact basis for the restitution ordered in such cases. But it is quite supposable that there might be cases in which, although the offender was aware that there had been a probable trespass, such as to burden his conscience, he yet knew not just how much it was. The ordinance is only in so far modified as such a case would make necessary; where there was no exact knowledge of the amount of trespass, obviously there the law of restitution with the added fifth could not be applied. Yet, none the less, the man is guilty; he “bears his iniquity,” that is, he is liable to the penalty of his fault; and in order to the reestablishment of his covenant relation with God, the ram must be offered as a guilt offering.
It is suggestive to observe the emphasis which is laid upon the necessity of the guilt offering, even in such cases. Three times, reference is explicitly made to this fact of ignorance, as not affecting the requirement of the guilt offering: (Lev 5:17) “Though he knew it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity”; and again (Lev 5:18), with special explicitness, “The priest shall make atonement for him concerning the thing wherein he erred unwittingly and knew it not”; and yet again (Lev 5:19), “It is a guilt offering: he is certainly guilty before the Lord.” The repetition is an urgent reminder that in this case, as in all others, we are never to forget that however our ignorance of a trespass at the time, or even lack of definite knowledge regarding its nature and extent, may affect the degree of our guilt, it cannot affect the fact of our guilt, and the consequent necessity for satisfaction in order to acceptance with God.
The second section of the law of the guilt offering {Lev 6:1-7} deals with trespasses against man, as also, like trespasses against Jehovah, requiring, in order to forgiveness from God, full restitution with the added fifth, and the offering of the ram as a guilt offering. Five cases are named (Lev 6:2-3), no doubt as being common, typical examples of sins of this character.
The first case is trespass upon a neighbours rights in “a matter of deposit”; where a man has entrusted something to another to keep, and he has either sold it or unlawfully used it as if it were his own. The second case takes in all fraud in a “bargain,” as when, for example, a man sells goods, or a piece of land, representing them to be better than they really are, or asking a price larger than he knows an article to be really worth. The third instance is called “robbery”; by which we are to understand any act or process, even though it should be under colour of legal forms, by means of which a man may manage unjustly to get possession of the property of his neighbour, without giving him due equivalent therefore. The fourth instance is called “oppression” of his neighbour. The English word contains the same image as the Hebrew word, which is used, for instance, of the unnecessary retention of the wages of the employee by the employer; {Lev 19:13} it may be applied to all cases in which a man takes advantage of anothers circumstances to extort from him any thing or any service to which he has no right, or to force upon him something which it is to the poor mans disadvantage to take. The last example of offences to which the law of the guilt offering applied, is the case in which a man finds something and then denies it to the rightful owner. The reference to false swearing which follows, as appears from Lev 6:5, refers not merely to lying and perjury concerning this last-named case, but equally to all cases in which a man may lie or swear falsely to the pecuniary damage of his neighbour. It is mentioned not merely as aggravating such sin, but because in swearing touching any matter, a man appeals to God as witness to the truth of his words; so that by swearing in these cases he represents God as a party to his falsehood and injustice.
In all these cases, the prescription is the same as in analogous offences in the holy things of Jehovah. First of all, the guilty man must confess the wrong which he has done, {Num 5:7} then restitution must be made of all of which he has defrauded his neighbour, together with one-fifth additional. But while this may set him right with man, it has not yet set him right with God. He must bring his guilt offering unto Jehovah (Lev 6:6-7); “a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to the priests estimation, for a guilt offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven: concerning whatsoever he doeth so as to be guilty thereby.”
And this completes the law of the guilt offering. It was thus prescribed for sins which involve a defrauding or injuring of another in respect to material things, whether God or man, whether knowingly or unwittingly. The law was one and unalterable for all; the condition of pardon was plenary restitution for the wrong done, and the offering of a costly sacrifice, appraised as such by the priest, the earthly representative of God, in the shekel of the sanctuary, “a ram without blemish out of the flock.”
There are lessons from this ordinance, so plain that, even in the dim light of those ancient days, the Israelite might discern and understand them. And they are lessons which, because man and his ways are the same as then, and God the same as then, are no less pertinent to all of us today.
Thus we are taught by this law that God claims from man, and especially from His own people, certain rights of property, of which He will not allow Himself to be defrauded, even through mans forgetfulness or inadvertence. In a later day Israel was sternly reminded of this in the burning words of Jehovah by the prophet Malachi: {Mal 3:8-9} “Will a man rob God? yet ye rob me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with the curse: for ye rob me, even this whole nation.” Nor has God relaxed His claim in the present dispensation. For the Apostle Paul charges the Corinthian Christians. {2Co 8:7} in the name of the Lord, with regard to their gifts, that as they abounded in other graces, so they should “abound in this grace also.” And this is the first lesson brought before us in the law of the guilt offering. God claims His tithe, His first fruit, and the fulfilment of all vows. It was a lesson for that time; it is no less a lesson for our time.
And the guilt offering further reminds us that as God has rights, so man also has rights, and that Jehovah, as the King and Judge of men, will exact the satisfaction of those rights, and will pass over no injury done by man to his neighbour in material things, nor forgive it unto any man, except upon condition of the most ample material restitution to the injured party.
Then, yet again, if the sin offering called especially for faith in an expiatory sacrifice as the condition of the Divine forgiveness, the guilt offering as specifically called also for repentance, as a condition of pardon, no less essential. Its unambiguous message to every Israelite was the same as that of John the Baptist at a later day: {Mat 3:8-9} “Bring forth fruit worthy of repentance: and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father.”
The reminder is as much needed now as in the days of Moses. How specific and practical the selection of the particular instances mentioned as cases for the application of the inexorable law of the guilt offering! Let us note them again, for they are not cases peculiar to Israel or to the fifteenth century before Christ. “If anyone deal falsely with his neighbour in a matter of deposit”; as, e.g., in the case of moneys entrusted to a bank or railway company, or other corporation; for there is no hint that the law did not apply except to individuals, or that a man might be released from these stringent obligations of righteousness whenever in some such evil business he was associated with others; the guilt offering must be forthcoming, with the amplest restitution, or there is no pardon. Then false dealing in a “bargain” is named, as involving the same requirement; as when a man prides himself on driving “a good bargain,” by getting something unfairly for less than its value, taking advantage of his neighbours straits; or by selling something for more than its value, taking advantage of his neighbours ignorance, or his necessity. Then is mentioned “robbery”; by which word is covered not merely that which goes by the name in polite circles, but all cases in which a man takes advantage of his neighbours distress or helplessness, perhaps by means of some technicality of law, to “strip” him, as the Hebrew word is, of his property of any kind. And next is specified the man who may “have oppressed his neighbour,” especially a man or woman who serves him, as the usage of the word suggests; grinding thus the face of the poor; paying, for instance, less for labour than the law of righteousness and love demands, because the poor man must have work or starve with his house. What sweeping specifications! And all such in all lands and all ages, are solemnly reminded in the law of the guilt offering that in these their sharp practices they have to reckon not with man merely, but with God; and that it is utterly vain for a man to hope for the forgiveness of sin from God, offering or no offering, so long as he has in his pocket his neighbours money. For all such, full restoration with the added fifth, according to the law of the theocratic kingdom, was the unalterable condition of the Divine forgiveness; and we shall find that this law of the theocratic kingdom will also be the law applied in the adjudications of the great white throne.
Furthermore, in that it was particularly enjoined that in the estimation of the value of the guilt offering, not the shekel of the people, often of light weight, but the full weight shekel of the sanctuary was to be held the invariable standard; we, who are so apt to ease things to our consciences by applying to our conduct the principles of judgment current among men, are plainly taught that if we will have our trespasses forgiven, the reparation and restitution which we make must be measured, not by the standard of men, but by that of God, which is absolute righteousness.
Yet again, in that in the case of all such trespasses on the rights of God or man it was ordained that the offering, unlike other sacrifices intended to teach other lessons, should be one and the same, whether the offender were rich or poor; we are taught that the extent of our moral obligations or the conditions of their equitable discharge are not determined by a regard to our present ability to make them good. Debt is debt by whomsoever owed. If a man have appropriated a hundred pounds of another mans money, the moral obligation of that debt cannot be abrogated by a bankrupt law, allowing him to compromise at ten shillings in the pound. The law of man may indeed release him from liability to prosecution, but no law can discharge such a man from the unalterable obligation to pay penny for penny, farthing for farthing. There is no bankrupt law in the kingdom of God. This, too, is evidently a lesson quite as much needed by Gentiles and nominal Christians in the nineteenth century after Christ, as by Hebrews in the fifteenth century before Christ.
But the spiritual teaching of the guilt offering is not yet exhausted. For, like all the other offerings, it pointed to Christ. He is “the end of the law unto righteousness,” {Rom 10:4} as regards the guilt offering, as in all else. As the burnt offering prefigured Christ the heavenly Victim, in one aspect, and the peace offering, Christ in another aspect, so the guilt offering presents to our adoring contemplation yet another view of His sacrificial work. While, as our burnt offering, He became our righteousness in full self-consecration; as our peace offering, our life; as our sin offering, the expiation for our sins; so, as our guilt offering, He made satisfaction and plenary reparation in our behalf to the God on whose inalienable rights in us, by our sins we had trespassed without measure.
Nor is this an over refinement of exposition. For in Isa 53:10, where both the Authorised and the Revised Versions read, “shall make his soul an offering for sin, ” the margin of the latter rightly calls attention to the fact that in the Hebrew the word here used is the very same which through all this Levitical law is rendered “guilt offering.” And so we are expressly told by this evangelic prophet, that the Holy Servant of Jehovah, the suffering Messiah, in this His sacrificial work should make His soul “a guilt offering.” He became Himself the complete and exhaustive realisation of all that in sacrifice which was set forth in the Levitical guilt offering.
A declaration this is which holds forth both the sin for which Christ atoned, and the Sacrifice itself, in a very distinct and peculiar light. In that Christs sacrifice was thus a guilt offering in the sense of the law, we are taught that, in one aspect, our sins are regarded by God, and should therefore be regarded by us, as debts which are due from us to God. This is, indeed, by no means the only aspect in which sin should be regarded; it is, for example, rebellion, high treason, a deadly affront to the Supreme Majesty, which must be expiated with the blood of the sin offering. But our sins are also of the nature of debts. That is, God has claims on us for service which we have never met; claims for a portion of our substance which we have often withheld, or given grudgingly, trespassing thus in “the holy things of the Lord.” Just as the servant who is set to do his masters work, if, instead, he take that time to do his own work, is debtor to the full value of the service of which his master is thus defrauded, so stands the case between the sinner and God. Just as with the agent who fails to make due returns to his principal on the moneys committed to him for investment, using them instead for himself, so stands the case between God and the sinner who has used his talents, not for the Lord, but for himself, or has kept them laid up, unused, in a napkin. Thus, in the New Testament, as the correlate of this representation of Christ as a guilt offering; we find sin again and again set forth as a debt which is owed from man to God. So, in the Lords prayer we are taught to pray, “Forgive us our debts; so, twice the Lord Himself in His parables” {Mat 18:23-35 Luk 7:41-42} set forth the relation of the sinner to God as that of the debtor to the creditor; and concerning those on whom the tower of Siloam fell, asks, {Luk 13:4} “Think ye that they were sinners (Greek debtors,) above all that dwelt in Jerusalem?” Indeed so imbedded is this thought in the conscience of man that it has been crystallised in our word “ought,” which is but the old preterite of “owe”; as in Tyndales New Testament, where we read, {Luk 7:41} “there was a certain lender, which ought him five hundred pence.” What a startling conception is this, which forms the background to the great “guilt offering”! Man a debtor to God! a debtor for service each day due, but no day ever fully and perfectly rendered! in gratitude for gifts, too often quite forgotten, oftener only paid in scanty part! We are often burdened and troubled greatly about our debts to men; shall we not be concerned about the enormous and ever accumulating debt to God! Or is He an easy creditor, who is indifferent whether these debts of ours be met or not? So think multitudes; but this is not the representation of Scripture, either in the Old or the New Testament. For in the law it was required, that if a man, guilty of any of these offences for the forgiveness of which the guilt offering was prescribed, failed to confess and bring the offering, and make the restitution with the added fifth, as commanded by the law, he should be brought before the judges, and the full penalty of law exacted, on the principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth!” And in the New Testament, one of those solemn parables of the two debtors closes with the awful words concerning one of them who was “delivered to the tormentors,” that he should not come out of prison till he had “paid the uttermost farthing.” Not a hint is there in Holy Scripture, of forgiveness of our debts to God, except upon the one condition of full restitution made to Him to whom the debt is due, and therewith the sacrificial blood of a guilt offering. But Christ is our Guilt offering.
He is our Guilt offering, in that He Himself did that, really and fully, with respect to all our debts as sinful men to God, which the guilt offering of Leviticus symbolised, but accomplished not. His soul He made a guilt offering for our trespasses! Isaiahs words imply that He should make full restitution for all that of which we, as sinners, defraud God. He did this by that perfect and incomparable service of lowly obedience such as we should render, but have never rendered; in which He has made full satisfaction to God for all our innumerable debts. He has made such satisfaction, not by a convenient legal fiction, or in a rhetorical figure, or as judged by any human standard. Even as the ram of the guilt offering was appraised according to “the shekel of the sanctuary,” so upon our Lord, at the beginning of that life of sacrificial service, was solemnly passed the Divine verdict that with this antitypical Victim of the Guilt offering, God Himself was “well pleased”. {Mat 3:17} Not only so. For we cannot forget that according to the law, not only the full restitution must be made, but the fifth must be added thereto. So with our Lord. For who will not confess that Christ not only did all that we should have done, but, in the ineffable depth of His self-humiliation and obedience unto death, even the death of the cross, paid therewith the added fifth of the law. Said a Jewish Rabbi to the writer, “I have never been able to finish reading in the Gospel the story of the Jesus of Nazareth; for it too soon brings the tears to my eyes!” So affecting even to Jewish unbelief was this unparalleled spectacle, the adorable Son of God making Himself a guilt offering, and paying, in the incomparable perfection of His holy obedience, the added fifth in our behalf! Thus has Christ “magnified this law” of the guilt offering, and “made it honourable,” even as He did all law. {Isa 42:21}
And, as is intimated, by the formal valuation of the sacrificial ram, in the type, even the death of Christ as the guilt offering, in one aspect is to be regarded as the consummating act of service in the payment of debts Godward. Just as the sin offering represented His death in its passive aspect, as meeting the demands of justice against the sinner as a rebel under sentence of death, by dying in his stead, so, on the other hand, the guilt offering represents that same sacrificial death, rather in another aspect, no less clearly set forth in the New Testament; namely, the supreme act of obedience to the will of God, whereby He discharged “to the uttermost farthing,” even with the added fifth of the law, all the transcendent debt of service due from man to God.
This representation of Christs work has in all ages been an offence, “the offence of the cross.” All the more need we to insist upon it, and never to forget, or let others forget, that Christ is expressly declared in the Word of God to have been “a guilt offering,” in the Levitical sense of that term; that, therefore, to speak of His death as effecting our salvation merely through its moral influence, is to contradict and nullify the Word of God. Well may we set this word in Isa 53:10, concerning the Servant of Jehovah, against all modern Unitarian theology, and against all Socinianising teaching; all that would maintain any view of Christs death which excludes or ignores the divinely revealed fact that it was in its essential nature a guilt offering; and, because a guilt offering, therefore of the nature of the payment of a debt in behalf of those for whom He suffered.
Most blessed truth this, for all who can receive it! Christ, the Son of God, our Guilt offering! Like the poor Israelite, who had defrauded God of that which was His due, so must we do; coming before God, confessing that wherein we have wronged Him, and bringing forth fruit meet for repentance, we must bring and plead Christ in the glory of His person, in all the perfection of His holy obedience, as our Guilt offering. And therewith the ancient promise to the penitent Israelite becomes ours, {Lev 6:7} “The priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven; concerning whatsoever he doeth so as to be guilty thereby.”