Continuing a chronological Bible study:
(Leviticus 5:1) "'And if a person sins and hears the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he has seen or known of it, if he does not tell it, then he shall bear guilt.'"
In the past few chapters, God had been instructing Moses on what to tell the people about how they should perform different types of sacrificial offerings. In the last chapter, He dealt with sin offerings for unintentional sins of commission, doing something the Lord commanded not to do, rather than sins of omission, not doing something the Lord said to do. However, He spoke of them all in general, as unintentional sins "through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD his God concerning things which should not be done" (Lev. 4:22). In this chapter the Lord described specific sins. First He spoke of a person who concealed the truth when he was a witness to an incident and heard a false testimony. Whenever a person who was a witness heard someone else swear an oath, if the witness did not tell what he had seen or known of the matter, he would bear guilt in the matter. Most of the old commentaries I read believed this was spoken of a person who had been called to testify before a judge--that was the voice of swearing. I'm not sure it means that he was necessarily called, but if he knew the truth about a matter concerning someone who had sworn one way or another, it was his duty to speak up. I think of people being called to testify in court who don't want to get involved, or even out of court, when people are asked about an incident at school or in the workplace, etc., and they don't want to get involved. This indicates it is the right thing to always get involved when you know the truth.
(2) "‘Or if a person touches any unclean thing, whether it is the
carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean livestock, or the
carcass of unclean creeping things, and he is unaware of it, he also
shall be unclean and guilty.'"
If a person touched any unclean thing, this verse speaking of touching the carcasses of unclean animals, even if he was unaware of it, he was still considered unclean and guilty of breaking the command not to touch such unclean animals. The carcasses of wild beasts were considered unclean. Some livestock, like horses and donkeys, were considered unclean, and so were creeping things like rodents and lizards and such.
(3) "'Or if he touches the uncleanness of man, whatever uncleanness with which a man may be defiled, and he is unaware of it; when he realizes it, then he shall be guilty.'"
Continuing the list of possible unclean things a person might touch, if he should touch an unclean person, like a dead body or a bleeding person or menstruous woman, even though unintentionally, as soon as he was aware of it, then he was considered guilty. I believe this applies to both verses 2 and 3, as I believe the two verses are a continuing thought about how a person might become unknowingly unclean by touching unclean animals or people. Even though he was unaware at the time he did it, he was still unclean and guilty of being unclean, but it wasn't until he realized it that he became guilty of breaking the command and needed to make an offering. Ignorance of the law only took a person so far. Obviously, if his sin was never found out, by himself or anyone else, then he would not have reason to offer a sacrifice. However, once it was found out, one could not claim ignorance and go free, but he must make an offering for his sin. God's Holy Spirit has a way of showing us our sins, and when that happened and a person was made aware of his unintentional sin by touching an unclean thing, then he knew he was guilty and must make atonement for his sin.
(4) "'Or if a person swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man may pronounce with an oath, and he is unaware of it, when he realizes it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.'"
If a person made a rash vow, swearing to do something evil or even something good, because it was a thoughtless oath made in the moment of passion, it might be forgotten and therefore become something of which the swearer would be ignorant. Perhaps in the heat of the moment he swore to do evil, although it would have been a grave sin to proceed with it, even if he refrained from doing so with a cooler head, he was still considered guilty for making the rash vow. Suppose a man vowed to do something good in the heat of emotion, and forgot his oath when circumstances changed, he was still considered guilty for making the oath.
(5) "'And it shall be when he is guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he has sinned in that thing; (6) And he shall bring his trespass offering to the LORD for his sin which he has sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin.'"
When a man was found to be guilty in one of the things before mentioned in this chapter, then he was to confess that he had sinned in that particular thing. I am reminded of a person, such as a child, who offers a general "I'm sorry", to which the parent might ask for what the child was sorry. It is important to confess and acknowledge the sin in order to truly repent. When the person was found guilty, after he confessed his sin, he was to bring a trespass offering to the Lord for the sin he had committed. His offering was to be a female of the flock, either a lamb of the sheep or a kid of the goats. The priest was then to make atonement for him.
The old commentaries I study were all abuzz with comments about the conflicting terms "trespass offering" and "sin offering" in the same sentence, as these were considered two distinct types of offerings. As sin and trespass both refer to an offense or transgression, I'm not sure it is as important an issue as some of the commentators suggested. Rather than suggest the translation was just wrong, I rather agree with Dr. John Gill who wrote in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, "it is generally thought there was a difference between a trespass offering and a sin offering; but it is not easy to say wherein the difference lies; and what has been observed by learned men is not very satisfactory: and certain it is, that the same offering is here called both a trespass offering and a sin offering". Scofield Reference Notes explained it this way, "The trespass-offerings have in view rather the injury which sin does than its guilt - which is the sin-offering aspect." There is a subtle difference, but they are very much connected. A trespass is a transgression that makes one guilty of sin against God.
(7) "'And if he is not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring to the LORD, for his trespass which he has committed, two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering.'"
If the person bringing the offering was for whatever reason unable to bring a lamb or kid, then he was to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons as his offering. This was most likely a provision for the poor who may not have possessed sheep or goats. In a later verse, provision would be made for those who might be so extremely poor that they could not even procure these birds. Two birds were to be offered, one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, with instructions as follows:
(8) "'‘And he shall bring them to the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first, and wring off its head from its neck, but shall not divide it completely.'"
The person bringing the offering of birds was to bring them to the priest, who would offer up the bird for the sin offering first. The priest would wring the bird's neck but was not to completely separate the head from the body.
(9) "'And he shall sprinkle some of the blood of the sin offering on the side of the altar, and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar; it is a sin offering.'"
As studied in Leviticus 1, Jewish tradition states that the bird
was killed by twisting back its head and piercing its neck with a nail. This nail puncture would allow blood to flow to be sprinkled on the side of the altar and the rest poured out at the base of the altar. This bird was offered as a sin offering.
(10) "'And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner; and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he has sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.'"
The second bird was to be offered as a burnt offering according to the manner prescribed in Leviticus 1:14-17, which described how to pluck away the bird's feathers and craw, split the bird down the middle without cutting it completely in two, and then burning it as a burnt sacrifice. In this way, atonement was made for the offerer's sin and that sin would be forgiven him.
(11) "'But if he is not able to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons,
then he who sinned shall bring for his offering one-tenth of an ephah of
fine flour as a sin offering; he shall put no oil on it, nor shall he put frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering.'"
If the offerer was unable to bring even two turtledoves or two pigeons, then he was to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour, which is called an omer elsewhere. An omer was about half a gallon. He was to put no oil nor any frankincense on it. This was probably partly to make it more affordable to the poor who were unable to offer lambs or birds, and also to distinguish it from a grain offering (Lev. 2). This offering of fine flour was to be a sin offering.
(12) "‘Then he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, a memorial portion, and burn it on the altar according to the offerings made by fire to the LORD; it is a sin offering. (13) And the priest shall make atonement for him, for his sin that he has sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him; and the rest shall be the priest's, as a grain offering.'"
The one offering the flour was to bring it to the priest, and the priest would take a handful of it and burn that on the altar. It was to be done in the same manner as other burnt offerings made by fire to the Lord, like the grain offering in Leviticus 2, where a handful memorial portion was to be burned on the altar, and the rest was given to the priest. The priest burned the memorial portion on the altar and made atonement for the offerer, for his sin he had committed in one of the ways listed in verses 1 through 4 above, and the sin would be forgiven him; this was a sin offering, an expiatory sacrifice for sin. The rest was given to the priest as with a grain offering.
(14) And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, (15) “If a person commits a trespass, and sins through ignorance, in the holy things of the LORD, then he shall bring to the LORD as his trespass offering a ram without blemish from the flocks, with your estimation by shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, as a trespass offering."
This appears to be a new topic that the Lord began with Moses. Although up to this point in this chapter, the sacrifices were called both sin offerings and trespass offerings (verse 6 above), it appears the Lord told Moses of a new law concerning sacrifices particularly known as trespass offerings. Trespasses appear to be against someone, causing injury to the one trespassed against. Most of the sins mentioned above don't involve doing something that caused harm to another, except for the one about withholding knowledge. My best guess is that sin is against God, and a trespass is against a person, but both are sins. Here the Lord spoke of a person who committed a trespass through ignorance, unintentionally, "in the holy things of the Lord". The holy things of the Lord included things like payment of first fruits and tithes, which benefited the priests and the sanctuary. The holy things were things consecrated to God and to holy uses, and to withhold them for common use, even unintentionally, was a trespass. He was to bring to the Lord as his trespass offering a ram without blemish. I differ a little in my opinion from the older commentaries I read, who mostly agreed that a fine was to be paid along with the ram, an amount determined by Moses. Although I may later find out there was more to it and it was as the commentators said, scripture looks to me as if it says that the ram was offered, and its value in shekels of silver was determined by Moses, and the ram alone was his trespass offering.
(16) “And he shall make amends for the harm that he has done in the holy thing, and shall add one-fifth to it and give it to the priest; and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him."
In addition, the person making the trespass offering was to make amends for the harm he had done and was to add one-fifth of the value of the ram and give it to the priest. That is why a value had to be determined, so that one-fifth could be calculated. The priest would then make atonement for him "with the ram of the trespass offering". It seems pretty clear to me that it was only the ram that was the offering, and not the ram and a fine determined by Moses. The offering was the ram, and an additional restitution was one-fifth of the value of the ram to the priest. Once again I will add that most of the commentators I read suggest differently, and may have said so with a knowledge of historical tradition, but I have written what I gather from the scripture text alone.
(17) "And if a soul sins, and commits any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD, though he does not know it, yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity."
This seems to be a slightly different case than that of verse 15. In this case it is said a person sinned in doing things that are forbidden by the commandments, but it did not say they were holy things. As in verse 15, he sinned through ignorance, and in this verse it stated he didn't even know he was sinning at the time. Ignorance is no excuse, and he is guilty and must bear his iniquity.
(18) “And he shall bring to the priest a ram without blemish from the flock, with your valuation, as a trespass offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his ignorance in which he erred and did not know it, and it shall be forgiven him. (19) It is a trespass offering; he has certainly trespassed against the LORD.”
As in verse 15, the one who sinned must bring a ram without blemish to the priest. While it appears that Moses was to estimate the ram's value, nothing is said about paying any restitution. In this case, it appears no financial harm was done, and the offering of the unblemished ram was enough for atonement of the sin. This was considered a trespass offering for a trespass against the Lord.
(Leviticus 6:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) “If a soul sins and commits a trespass against the LORD, and lies to his neighbor about what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or has deceived his neighbor, (3) Or has found that which was lost and lies concerning it, and swears falsely; in any one of these things that a man may do in which he sins,"
The Lord now spoke to Moses about trespasses a person might willfully make. A person sinned and committed a trespass against his neighbor if something of his neighbor's was delivered to him for safekeeping and he lied about it, or if the thing belonged to them both in a partnership and he lied about it, or if he took something of his neighbor's in violence, or if he cheated his neighbor in some way, or if he found something his neighbor had lost and lied about finding it; any of these things were considered trespasses against his neighbor.
(4) "Then it shall be, because he has sinned and is guilty, that he shall restore what he took violently away, or the thing which he has deceitfully gotten,
or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he
found, (5) Or all that about which he has sworn falsely; he shall restore its full value, and shall add one-fifth more to it, and give it to whomever it belongs, on the day of his trespass offering."
If a man was guilty of a trespass against his neighbor in any of the ways mentioned in verses 2-3, then he was to restore to the owner the full value of the thing taken or about which he lied, plus one-fifth of the value. A couple of the commentaries I read pointed out that this must be a case of a private matter worked out between neighbors, or a case of conscience in the person who trespassed, because Exodus 22:7-9 said that if convicted by the judges, the trespasser would have to pay double to the owner. In this case, the full value plus one-fifth must relate to a private settled matter and was to be done in conjunction and on the same day as the trespass offering.
(6) “And he shall bring his trespass offering to the LORD, a ram without blemish from the flock, with your valuation, as a trespass offering, to the priest. (7) And the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven for any one of these things that he may have done in which he trespasses.”
In addition to paying the owner full value plus one-fifth, the trespasser must bring as his trespass offering to the Lord a ram without blemish to the priest. Moses was again to estimate the value of the ram. I will take note that again some of the old commentaries wrote that there was an amount of money paid in silver, as well as the ram offered. I don't really see that in scripture, but then again, why did Moses estimate the value of the offering when there was no money to be added to it? The priest would make atonement for the trespasser after he brought his prescribed offering, and his trespass was forgiven him.
Up to and including this point, the Lord had been directing Moses to instruct the people concerning their sacrifices. As he next turned to instructions for the priests, I will end this post in the middle of this chapter. This section of scripture has dealt mainly with trespass offerings. At the beginning of chapter 5, it is difficult to tell exactly at what point the Lord transitioned from sin offerings to trespass offerings, and I will state again that even the "experts" are not in exact agreement about the difference in the two offerings. I will close with Matthew Henry's summary of the verses included in this post:
"This chapter (chapter 5--my parenthetical note), and part of the next (chapter 6), concern the trespass-offering. The difference between this and the sin-offering lay not so much in the sacrifices themselves, and the management of them, as in the occasions of the offering of them. They were both intended to make atonement for sin; but the former was more general, this applied to some particular instances."
