Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 5:17
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 knew [it] not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.
( b) 17 19. if any one sin, and do any of the things which the Lord hath commanded not to be done ] The description of the sin in this case is the same as that in Lev 4:2; Lev 4:13; Lev 4:22; Lev 4:27. In what respect do these sins (which here require a Guilt-Offering) differ from those in ch. 4 for which a Sin-Offering is prescribed? The difference is indicated in the words ‘though he knew (‘wist’ A.V.) it not.’ They are not the same as the Heb. expression rendered unwittingly ( concerning his ignorance A.V.), for in Lev 5:18 they occur as a further qualification of a thing done ‘unwittingly.’ The sins of ch. 4. are those of which a person becomes conscious (Lev 4:14; Lev 4:23; Lev 4:28). In such case he must offer a Sin-Offering. But the case here supposed is that of one who fears that he has been guilty of some infringement of the Divine commands, but cannot specify it.
He brings a ram as Guilt-Offering (in the same manner as in the preceding case (15, 16)), but no restitution is demanded as the amount cannot be estimated, since the offence remains unknown. This sacrifice was called by the Jews ( ’shm tluy), lit. a suspended Guilt or Trespass-Offering. It was a voluntary offering, and relieved a troubled conscience. It is recorded of one pious Jew that he brought a sacrifice of this kind every day except on the day following the Great Day of Atonement.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Though he wist it not – Ignorance of the Law, or even of the consequences of the act at the time that it was committed, was not to excuse him from the obligation to offer the sacrifice.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Lev 5:17-18
Though he wist it not, yet is he guilty.
Sins of ignorance
It is supposed in our text that men might commit forbidden things without knowing it; nay, it is not merely supposed, but it is taken for granted, and provided for. The Levitical law had special statutes for sins of ignorance, and one of its sections begins with these words (Lev 4:2). It is first of all supposed that a priest may sin (Lev 4:3). As Trapp says, The sins of teachers are teachers of sins, and therefore they were not overlooked, but had to be expiated by trespass-offerings. Further on in the chapter (verse 22) it is supposed that a ruler may sin. Errors in leaders are very fruitful of mischief, and therefore they were to be repented of and put away by an expiatory sacrifice. It was also according to the law regarded as very likely that any man might fall into sins of ignorance, for in Lev 4:27, we read, And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord. The sin even of the commonest person was not to be passed over as a mere trifle, even though he could plead ignorance of the law. An enlightened conscience mourns over sins of ignorance, which it would never do if they were innocent mistakes. The word rendered ignorance may also bear the translation of inadvertence. Inadvertence is a kind of acted ignorance: a man frequently does wrong for want of thought, through not considering the bearing of his action, or even thinking at all. He carelessly and hastily blunders into the course which first suggests itself, and errs because he did not study to be right. There is very much sin of this kind committed every day. There is no intent to do wrong, and yet wrong is done. Culpable neglect creates a thousand faults. Evil is wrought by want of thought as well as want of heart. We do not take time enough to examine our actions; we do not take good heed to our steps. Life should be a careful work of art, in which every single line and tint should be the fruit of study and thought, like the paintings of the great master who was wont to say, I paint for eternity; but alas! life is often slurred over, like those hasty productions of the scene painter, in which present effect alone is studied, and the canvas becomes a mere daub of colours hastily laid on. We seem intent to do much rather than to do well; we want to cover space rather than to reach perfection. This is not wise. Oh that every single thought were conformed to the will of God! Now, seeing that there are sins of ignorance and sins of inadvertence, what about them? Is there any actual guilt in them? In our text we have the Lords mind and judgment.
I. By the Divine declaration that sins of ignorance are really sins the commandment of god is honoured.
1. Enlarging upon this thought, I would observe that hereby the law is declared to be the supreme authority over men. The law is supreme, not conscience. Conscience is differently enlightened in different men, and the ultimate appeal as to right and wrong cannot be to your half-blinded conscience or to mine. If we break the law, although our conscience may not blame us, or even inform us of the wrong, yet still the deed is recorded against us; we must bear our iniquity. The law is also set above human opinion, for this man says, You may do that, and a second claims that he may do the other, but the law changes not according to mans judgment, and does not bend itself to the spirit of the age or the taste of the period. It is the supreme judge, from whose infallible decision there is no appeal. This exalts the law above the custom of nations and periods; for men are very wont to say, It is true I did so and so, which I could not have defended in itself; but then it is the way of the trade, other houses do so, general opinion and public consent have endorsed the custom; I do not therefore see how I can act differently from others, for if I did so I should be very singular, and should probably be a loser through my scrupulosity. Yes, but the customs of men are not the standard of right.
2. Note again, if a sin of ignorance renders us guilty, what must a wilful sin do? Do you not perceive at once how the law is again set on high by this?
3. Thus again, by the teaching of our text, men were driven to study the law: for if they were at all right-hearted they said, Let us know what God would have us do. We do not wish to be leaving His commands undone, or committing transgressions against His prohibitory precepts through not knowing better.
4. And you will see at once that this would lead every earnest Israelite to teach his children Gods law, lest his son should err through ignorance or indavertence. Fear of committing sins of ignorance was a spur to national education, and tended greatly to make all Israel honour the law of the Lord.
5. I close these thoughts by noting that to me the sin-revealing power of the law is wonderfully displayed as I read my text. What a law is this by which men are bound! How severe and searching! How holy and how pure must God Himself be!
II. By the teaching of the text the conscience is aroused.
1. Our ignorance is evidently very great. As the conies swarm in the holes of the rocks, the bats in the sunless caves of the earth, and the fish in the deep abysses of the sea, so do our sins swarm in the hidden parts of our nature. Who can understand his errors? Cleanse Thou me from secret faults!
2. The ignorance of very many persons is to a large degree wilful. Many do not read the Bible at all, or very seldom, and then without desiring to know its meaning. Even some professing Christians take their religion from the monthly magazine, or some standard book written by a human author and adopted by their sect, but few go to the Word of God itself; they are content to drink of the muddied streams of human teaching instead of filling their cups at the crystal fount of revelation itself. Now, if ye be ignorant of anything concerning Gods mind and will, it is not, in the case of any of you, for want of the Book, nor for want of a willing guide to instruct you in it; for, behold, the Holy Spirit waiteth to be gracious to you in this respect. Break in, O light eternal! Break in upon the dimness of our ignorance.
3. Now it will be vain for any man to say in his mind, as I fear some will do, God is hard in thus dealing with us. If thou sayest thus, O man, I ask thee to remember Gods answer. Christ puts your rebellious speech into the mouth of the unfaithful one who hid his talent. Wiser far is it to submit and crave for mercy.
4. Let us recollect, in order that our doctrine may appear less strange, that it is according to the analogy of nature that when Gods laws are broken, ignorance of those laws should not prevent the penalty falling upon the offenders.
5. It is of necessity that it should be according to this declaration. It is not possible that ignorance should be a justification of sin; for, first, if it were so, it would follow that the more ignorant a man was the more innocent he would be. If, again, the guilt of an action depended entirely upon a mans knowledge, we should have no fixed standard at all by which to judge right and wrong; it would be variable according to the enlightenment of each man, and there would be no ultimate and infallible court of appeal. Moreover, ignorance of the law of God is itself a bleach of law, since we are bidden to know and remember it. Can it be possible, then, that one sin is to be an excuse for another? If sins of ignorance are not sins, then Christs intercession was altogether a superfluity.
6. Once again, I am sure that many of us now present must have felt the truth of this in our own hearts. You who love the Lord and hate unrighteousness, must in your lives have come to a point of greater illumination, where you have said, I see a certain action to be wrong; I have been doing it for years, but God knows I would not have done it if I bad thought it wrong. Even now I see that other people are doing it, and thinking it right; but I cannot do so any more; my conscience has at last received new light, and I must make a change at once. In such circumstances did it ever come to your mind to say, What I have done was not wrong, because I did not know it to be wrong? Far from it. You have justly said to yourself, My sin in this matter is not so great as if I had transgressed wilfully with my eyes open, knowing it to be sin; but yet you have accused yourself of the fault and mourned over it.
III. By the grand and awful truth of the text the sacrifice is endeared. Just according to our sense of sin must be our value of the sacrifice. Gods way of delivering those who sinned ignorantly was not by denying their sin and passing it over, but by accepting an atonement for it. Under the law this atonement was to be a ram without blemish. Our Lord had no sin, nor shade of sin. He is the spotless victim which the law requires. All that justice, in its most severe mood, could require from man by way of penalty our Lord Jesus Christ has rendered; for in addition to His sacrifice for the sin, He has presented a recompense for the damage, as the person who sinned ignorantly was bound to do. He has recompensed the honour of God, and He has recompensed every man whom we have injured. Has another injured you? Well, since Christ has given Himself to you, there is a full recompense made to you, even as there has been made to God. We may rest in this sacrifice. How supremely efficacious it is. It takes away iniquity, transgression, and sin. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Ignorance may be culpable
Some years ago through the mistake of a signalman an accident took place on the Metropolitan Railway, by which several persons lost their lives. At the inquiry it transpired that the signalman had in his possession a book of instructions which if they had been attended to the accident could not have occurred, but this book he confessed he had never read, hence the terrible accident. How many of the sins of professing Christians may be traced to similar culpable ignorance!
Knowledge of Gods law to be cultivated
A kindred error is that a man does right when he obeys his conscience–does what his conscience tells him is right; in other words, does what he thinks is right. If this be true then Saul was right when he made havoc of the Church, for he verily thought he was doing God service. We are, no doubt, bound to do what we think is right; but we are under equal obligations to have our thinking in regard to duty correct. God has given us reason, moral powers, and revelation that we may know our duty and do it. The intellect needs training that it may perceive what is true. The conscience needs training that it may perceive what is true; in other words, the minds power of perceiving both scientific and moral truth needs cultivating. It may err in regard to scientific truth. It may err in regard to moral truth. In regard to the latter we have an infallible standard in the Word of God, which, if rightly applied, will relieve us from error. We see why the Bible attaches so much importance to a knowledge of the truth. It is the condition of right perception in regard to duty.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Any of these things, to wit, concerning holy things, of which he is yet speaking, though with some difference and addition, as it may seem. The former law concerns the alienation of holy things from the sacred to a common use; and this may concern other miscarriages about holy things and holy duties, as may be gathered from Lev 5:19, where this is said to be a trespass against the Lord, not in a general sense, for so every sin war, but in a proper and peculiar sense.
Though he wist it not; for if he did it knowingly, he must die, Num 15:30.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
17-19. if a soul sin . . . though hewist it not, yet is he guiltyThis also refers to holy things,and it differs from the preceding in being one of the doubtfulcases,that is, where conscience suspects, though the understandingbe in doubt whether criminality or sin has been committed. The Jewishrabbis give, as an example, the case of a person who, knowing that”the fat of the inwards” is not to be eaten, religiouslyabstained from the use of it; but should a dish happen to have beenat table in which he had reason to suspect some portion of that meatwas intermingled, and he had, inadvertently, partaken of thatunlawful viand, he was bound to bring a ram as a trespass offering[Le 5:16]. These provisions wereall designed to impress the conscience with the sense ofresponsibility to God and keep alive on the hearts of the people asalutary fear of doing any secret wrong.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord,…. Respecting holy things:
though he wist it not; or did not know that he had transgressed a negative command:
yet he is guilty, and shall bear the iniquity; be chargeable with guilt, and is liable to punishment, and must make an atonement and satisfaction for it; see Lu 12:48.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Verses 17-19:
The Trespass Offering was required for sins of commission, as well as for sins of omission. the same conditions apply as above.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
17. And if soul sin. Although the expressions seem to be general, as if he briefly confirmed what he had said before, yet it is necessary to connect them with the last sentence, or at least to restrict them to certain cases. The former exposition appears to me to be the right one; nor is there any absurdity in the repetition, to cut off all occasion for subterfuge from the disobedient. Still I do not deny that the reason which is added at the end, applies to all the modes of expiation of which he has been treating; viz., that although he may pretend ignorance who has fallen into sin inconsiderately, or who has not intentionally sinned, or who through forgetfulness has contracted any defilement, still he is guilty before God until he makes reconciliation. When therefore he again commands that a ram without blemish, and of full value should be offered, he once more shews how they must purge themselves who have been too stingy in their oblations. Immediately after he adds a reason common to all the other errors; as if he had said, that they are not absolved before God who offer the excuse of ignorance as a cover for their fault.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(17) And if a soul sin.To guard the Israelites most effectually against making profane use of anything dedicated to the sanctuary and its service, it is here further enacted in Lev. 5:17-19, that a trespass offering is to be brought when a man only suspects that he had used things which belonged to the Lord, though he can no longer remember what particular holy property it was, which he used for his own purpose. In the canonical exposition, which obtained during the second Temple, of these sacrificial laws, the trespass offering enacted here is called The Doubtful Offering, in contradistinction to the one enacted in Lev. 5:14-16, which is called The Certain Offering.
These things.That is, the holy things of the Lord specified in Lev. 5:15.
Though he wist it not, i.e., is uncertain about it. Thus, for instance, he might be in doubt whether or not his transgression consisted in not delivering the first-fruit to the sanctuary, or in having used some other sacred property. (Comp. Gen. 20:5, &c, 2Sa. 20:1, &c.)
Yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.Still, he feels that he may be guilty of the transgression, and consequently is burdened with the weight of his iniquity. (See Lev. 5:1.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
17. If a soul sin though he wist it not The case described in Lev 5:17-19 differs from the preceding in the fact that this sin of ignorance never comes to knowledge, while there is ground for suspecting that the sin may have been committed. In this case the person is not to give himself the benefit of the doubt, but he should make amends for the hypothetical delinquency. The example cited by the rabbins is that of a person who has grounds for suspecting that he has eaten suet, or fat of the inwards, intermingled with other food. His conscience can be relieved of the doubt only by bringing a ram as a trespass offering. Thus that principle is divinely established which is cogently argued by Bishop Butler, namely, that doubt in religious matters involves proof enough to incite to the performance of religious duties, and to criminate the doubter if he refuses. See Rom 14:23, note. CONCLUDING NOTE.
Opponents of that central doctrine of both the Levitical and Christian dispensations, the vicarious atonement, endeavour to invalidate it by an objection drawn from this chapter, namely, the prominence given to defilements not moral, but merely bodily and external, as contact with the carcass of an unclean beast. But an attentive examination will show that this prominence is seeming rather than real. These ceremonial impurities appear to be of the greatest importance, because they are minutely defined and broadly spread out before the reader. But it will be found that the mention of them is only supplementary, lest the people should suppose that such comparatively trifling offences against the law of purity were not included. This must be evident to him who reads the preceding chapter, where it is said in regard to the priest, the prince, the congregation, and the private individual, if they sin “against any of the commandments of God,” let the prescribed sin offering be made. Here it requires no minute definition of sin, since the decalogue had been written on the tables of stone, a visible expression of the older decalogue written on the tablets of the heart. It was impossible for the Hebrews to understand “the commandments of God” in any other sense than the moral precepts and prohibitions given on Mount Sinai. These were prominently before their minds, and for infractions of these chiefly was the blood of the victims to be shed. Again, when the symbolical nature of ceremonial institutions shall be correctly unfolded, there will be found a moral element deeply embodied in them, for the sake of which alone these shadowy rites were instituted, the uncleanness of a man prefiguring the filthiness of “the flesh and spirit,” and the dead body fore-showing the natural corruption of the unregenerate heart, styled by St. Paul, “the body of this death.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Lev 5:17. Though he wist it not Though he knew it not. It is the same word as has been used throughout the chapter, and refers to sins of ignorance.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
DISCOURSE: 124
THE TRESPASS-OFFERING A TYPE OF CHRIST
Lev 5:17-19. 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. If is a trespass-offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the Lord.
THE ceremonial law was intended to lead men to Christ, and was calculated to do so in a variety of ways. It exhibited Christ in all his work and offices, and directed every sinner to look to him. Moreover, the multitude of its rites and ceremonies had a tendency to break the spirits of the Lords people, and to make them anxiously look for that period, when they should be liberated from a yoke which they were not able to bear, and render unto God a more liberal and spiritual service. It is in this latter view more especially that we are led to consider the trespass-offering, which was to be presented to God for the smallest error in the observation of any one ordinance, however ignorantly or unintentionally it might be committed. In order to elucidate the nature and intent of the trespass-offering, we shall,
I.
Shew the evil of sins of ignorance, and the remedy prescribed for them
It is often said that the intention constitutes the criminality of an action. But this principle is not true to the extent that is generally supposed.
It is certain that ignorance extenuates the guilt of an action
[Our Lord himself virtually acknowledged this, when he declared that the opportunities of information which he had afforded the Jews, greatly enhanced the guilt of those who rejected him [Note: Joh 9:41; Joh 15:22.]. And he even, urged the ignorance of his murderers as a plea with his heavenly Father to forgive them; Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do [Note: Luk 23:34.]. St. Peter also palliated their crime upon the very same principles; I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers [Note: Act 3:17.]. And St. Paul speaks of himself as obtaining mercy because what he had done was done ignorantly and in unbelief [Note: 1Ti 1:13.]: whereas if he had done it, knowing whom he persecuted, he would most probably never have obtained mercy.]
But it is equally certain that ignorance cannot excuse us in the sight of God
[A man is not held blameless when he violates the laws of the land because he did it unwittingly: he is obnoxious to a penalty, though from the consideration of his ignorance that penalty may be mitigated. Nor does any man consider ignorance as a sufficient plea for his servants faults, if that servant had the means of knowing his masters will: he rather blames that servant for negligence and disrespect in not shewing greater solicitude to ascertain and perform his duty.
With respect to God, the passage before us shews in the strongest light, that even the slightest error, and that too in the observance of a mere arbitrary institution, however unintentionally committed, could not be deemed innocent: on the contrary, it is said, He shall bring his offering; he hath certainly trespassed against the Lord. Much more therefore must every violation of the moral law be attended with guilt, because there is an inherent malignity in every transgression of the moral law; and because mans ignorance of his duty, as well as his aversion to duty, is a fruit and consequence of the first transgression. Hence is there an eternal curse denounced against every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them [Note: Gal 3:10.].
It is yet further evident that ignorance is no excuse before God, because St. Paul calls himself a blasphemer, and injurious, and a persecutor, yea, the very chief of sinners, for persecuting the Church, notwithstanding he thought he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus [Note: Act 26:9 with 1Ti 1:15.]. And God declares that men perish for lack of knowledge [Note: Hos 4:6.], and that, because they are of no understanding, he will therefore shew them no favour [Note: Isa 27:11.].]
The only remedy for sins, how light soever they may appear to us, is the atonement of Christ
[The high-priest was appointed particularly to offer for the errors of the people [Note: Heb 9:7 with Eze 45:19-20.]. And as soon as ever an error, or unintentional transgression, was discovered, the person guilty of it was to bring his offering [Note: The offering was to be of proper value according to the priests estimation. Lev 27:2-8.], and to seek for mercy through the blood of atonement. There was indeed a distinction in the offerings which different persons were to bring; which distinction was intended to shew that the degrees of criminality attaching to the errors of different people, varied in proportion as the offenders enjoyed the means of information.
If a priest erred, he must bring a bullock for an offering [Note: Lev 4:3.] ; if a ruler erred, he must offer a male kid [Note: Lev 4:22-23.] ; if one of the
common people erred, he must bring a female kid, or a female lamb [Note: Lev 4:27-28; Lev 4:32.], or, if he could not afford that, he might bring two young pigeons. And, to mark yet further the superior criminality of the priest, his offering was to be wholly burnt, and its blood was to be sprinkled seven times before the veil of the sanctuary, and to be put upon the horns of the altar of incense; whereas the offerings of the others were to be only in part consumed by fire; and their blood was not to be sprinkled at all before the veil, and to be put only on the horns of the altar of burnt-offering [Note: Lev 4:6-7; Lev 4:12 comp. with Lev 4:25-26; Lev 4:30-31.]. Further still, if a person were so poor as not to be able to afford two young pigeons, he might be supposed to have still less opportunities of information, and was therefore permitted to bring only an ephah of fine flour; part of which, however, was to be burnt upon the altar, to shew the offerer what a destruction he himself had merited [Note: 2.]. And this is the excepted case to which the Apostle alludes, when he says, with his wonted accuracy, that almost all things are by the law purged with blood [Note: Heb 9:22.].
But, under the Gospel, there is no distinction whatever to be made. We must now say, without any single exception, that without shedding of blood there is no remission. We need Christ as much to bear the iniquity of our holy things, as to purge our foulest transgressions [Note: Exo 28:38.]: there is no other fountain opened for sin [Note: Zec 13:1.], no other way to the Father [Note: Joh 14:6.], no other door of hope [Note: Joh 10:9.], no other name whereby we can be saved [Note: Act 4:12.]. Christ is the Ram [Note: See the text.], caught in the thicket [Note: Alluding to Gen 22:13.], if we may so speak, who must be our substitute and surety, whether our guilt be extenuated by ignorance, or aggravated by presumption.]
This point being clear, we proceed to,
II.
Suggest such reflections as naturally arise from the subject
A more instructive subject than this cannot easily be proposed to us. It leads us naturally to observe,
1.
What a tremendous load of guilt is there on the soul of every man!
[Let but the sins, which we can remember, be reckoned up, and they will be more than the hairs of our head. Let these be added, which we observed at the time, but have now forgotten, and oh, how awfully will their numbers be increased! But let all the trespasses, which we have committed through
ignorance, be put to the account; all the smallest deviations and defects which the penetrating eye of God has seen, (all of which he has noted in the book of his remembrance,) and surely we shall feel the force of that question that was put to Job, Is not thy wickedness great? are not thine iniquities infinite [Note: Job 22:5.] ? If we bring every thing to the touchstone of Gods law, we shall see, that there is not a just man upon earth who liveth and sinneth not [Note: Ecc 7:20.] ; and that in many things we all offend [Note: Jam 3:2; Pro 24:16.] ; so that there is but too much reason for every one of us to exclaim with the Psalmist, Who can understand his errors? O cleanse thou me from my secret faults [Note: Psa 19:12.] ! Let none of us then extenuate our guilt, or think it sufficient to say, It was an error [Note: Ecc 5:6.]: but let us rather humble ourselves as altogether filthy and abominable [Note: Psa 14:3.], as a mass of corruption [Note: Rom 7:18; Isa 1:5-6.], a living body of sin [Note: Rom 7:14; Rom 7:24.].]
2.
How awful must be the state of those who live in presumptuous sins!
[The evil of sins committed ignorantly, and without design, is so great, that it cannot be expiated but by the blood of atonement: what then shall we say of presumptuous sins? how heinous must they be! Let us attend to the voice of God, who has himself compared the guilt contracted by unintentional, and by presumptuous sin; and who declares that, though provision was made under the law for the forgiveness of the former, there was no remedy whatever for the latter: the offender was to be put to death, and to be consigned over to endless perdition [Note: Num 15:27-31.]. Let none then think it a light matter to violate the dictates of conscience, and the commands of God; for, in so doing, they pour contempt upon Gods law, yea, and upon God himself also [Note: Num 15:27-31.]: and the time is quickly coming, when God shall repay them to their face [Note: Deu 7:10; Ecc 11:9.] ; and shall beat them, not like the ignorant offender, with few stripes, but, as the wilful delinquent, with many stripes [Note: Luk 12:48.]. Let this consideration make us cry to God in those words of the Psalmist, Keep thy servant from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me; so shall I be undefiled and innocent from the great offence [Note: Psa 19:13.].]
3.
How desperate is the condition of those who make light of Christs atonement!
[Under the law, there was no remission even of the smallest error, but through the blood of atonement. Nor can any sin whatever be pardoned, under the gospel dispensation, but through the sacrifice of Christ Yet, when we speak of Christ as the only remedy for sin, and urge the necessity of believing in him for justification, many are ready to object, Why does he insist so much on justification by faith? But the answer is plain: You are sinners before God; and your one great concern should be to know how your sins may be forgiven: now God has provided a way, and only one way, of forgiveness; and that is, through the atonement of Christ: therefore we set forth Christ as the one remedy for sin; and exhort you continually to believe in him. Consider then, I pray you, what the true scope of such objections is: it is to rob Christ of his glory, and your own souls of salvation. Remember this, and be thankful, that the atonement is so much insisted on, so continually set before you. Pour not contempt upon it: for, if they who despised Moses law died without mercy, of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing [Note: Heb 10:28-29.] ? Yes, to such wilful transgressors, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation to consume them [Note: Heb 10:26-27.].]
4.
How wonderful must be the efficacy of the blood of Christ!
[Let only one mans sins be set forth, and they will be found numberless as the sands upon the sea-shore: yet the blood of Christ can cleanse, not him only, but a whole world of sinners, yea, all who have ever existed these six thousand years, or shall ever exist to the very end of time: moreover, his one offering can cleanse them, not merely from sins of ignorance, but even from presumptuous sins, for which no remedy whatever was appointed by the law of Moses [Note: Act 13:39.]. What a view does this give us of the death of Christ! O that we could realize it in our minds, just as the offender under the law realized the substitution of the animal which he presented to the priest to be offered in his stead! Then should we have a just apprehension of his dignity, and a becoming sense of his love. Let us then carry to him our crimson sins [Note: Isa 1:18.], not doubting but that they shall all be purged away [Note: 1Jn 1:7.] ; and we may rest assured that, in a little time, we shall join the heavenly choir in singing, Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, be glory and dominion for ever and ever [Note: Rev 1:5-6.].]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
Lev 5:17 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.
Ver. 17. Though he wist it not. ] Ignorance, though invincible and unavoidable, well may excuse a tanto, but not a toto Luk 12:48
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
any = any one of these things specified in Lev 5:15.
wist it not = knew it not. This effectually disposes of the fallacy that it is only sincerity that matters. Note the repetition of the words in verses: Lev 5:17-19 to emphasize this.
iniquity. Hebrew. ‘avah. App-44.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
a soul sin: This case is supposed to differ from the preceding, merely in that the person concerned was not certain whether he had or had not committed the trespass. It is therefore called by the Hebrews a doubtful trespass offering. Lev 5:1, Lev 4:2-4, Lev 4:13, Lev 4:22, Lev 4:27
though: Lev 5:15, Psa 19:12, Luk 12:48, Rom 14:23
yet is he: Lev 5:1, Lev 5:2, Lev 4:2, Lev 4:13, Lev 4:27
Reciprocal: Exo 28:43 – bear not iniquity Lev 7:18 – bear Num 5:6 – When Num 19:13 – purifieth Eze 18:20 – bear
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 5:17. The former law concerns the alienation of holy things from sacred to common use; this may concern other miscarriages about holy things and holy duties, as may be gathered from Lev 5:19, where this is said to be a trespass against the Lord, not in a general sense, for so every sin was, but in a proper and peculiar sense.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
5:17 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 {i} bear his iniquity.
(i) That is, remembers after that he has sinned when his conscience accuses him.