Leviticus 5:19

This paragraph explains the main principles of the guilt offering. Even if someone did not know they did something wrong, they were still guilty and had to give the right guilt offering. This rule applied to both sacred property (set apart for God) and ordinary property (Leviticus 5:14–16; 6:1–7).

The guilt offering (called ’asham in Hebrew, meaning “guilt”) dealt with cases of property loss or damage. This could be either holy property set apart for God (Leviticus 5:14–16) or ordinary property belong to a person (6:1–7). The offering required both replacement and repayment for the loss (5:16; 6:5).

This offering could be called a “penalty offering” because the ram served as a penalty. It could also be called a “replacement offering” because a person had to replace the loss before offering the ram. In the guilt offering, the loss was not only a failure in God's eyes, as with the sin offering (5:14–6:7). It was also a loss of property to another person or to the sanctuary. Compare Matthew 5:23–24.

if a soul sin . . . though he wist it not, yet is he guilty--This also refers to holy things, and it differs from the preceding in being one of the doubtful cases,--that is, where conscience suspects, though the understanding be in doubt whether criminality or sin has been committed. The Jewish rabbis give, as an example, the case of a person who, knowing that "the fat of the inwards" is not to be eaten, religiously abstained from the use of it; but should a dish happen to have been at table in which he had reason to suspect some portion of that meat was intermingled, and he had, inadvertently, partaken of that unlawful viand, he was bound to bring a ram as a trespass offering [Lev 5:16]. These provisions were all designed to impress the conscience with the sense of responsibility to God and keep alive on the hearts of the people a salutary fear of doing any secret wrong.




Next: Leviticus Chapter 6

Hitherto in this chapter orders were given concerning those sacrifices that were both sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, for they go by both names, Lev 5:6. 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 Lev 5:16) 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 Lev 22:14-16, 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 10:28. 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 (Lev 5:17), 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.

Leviticus 5:14-19

14. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

14. Loquutus est insuper Jehova ad Mosen, dicendo:

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:

15. Anima quum praevaricata fuerit praevaricationem, et peccaverit per errorem in una re ex sanctificationibus Jehovae, adducat oblationem pro delicto suo Jehovae, arietem perfectum de pecudibus, secundum aestimationem tuam argenti siculorum, secundum siculum sanctitatis pro delicto.

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.

16. Et quod peccaverit in sanctificatione reddet, et quintam partem ipsius addet ei, tradetque illud sacerdoti, sacerdos vero expiabit eum in ariete oblationis pro delicto: et remittetur ei.

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.

17. Itaque si anima peccaverit, et fecerit unum ab omnibus praeceptis Jehovae, quae non sunt facienda, et non cognoverit, et deliquerit, et portaverit iniquitatem suam:

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.

18. Tunc adducet arietem immaculatum de pecudibus, secundum aestimationem tuam in oblationem pro delicto ad sacerdotem, et expiabit eum sacerdos ab errore suo quem per errorem commisit, neque intellexit, et remittetur el.

19. It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the LORD.

19. Delictum est, delinquendo deliquit Jehovae.

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.)

16. And he shall make amends for the harm. Hence it more plainly appears, as I have recently stated, that they, who withheld anything of God's full right, are said to have sinned "in the holy thing;" since they are commanded to make restitution with the addition of a fifth part. Yet let my readers remember, that those who are compelled to make restitution, are not such as have fraudulently embezzled the sacred things, but those who under some vain pretext have flattered themselves for a time, so as to be unaffected by any conviction of their fault. The object therefore of this sacrifice, was to arouse the people to attention, so that postponing their private advantage, they should freely pay what was due to God. [270] Theirs is but foolish trifling who think that Moses, having before spoken of sins (peccata), now prescribes the mode of making expiation for delinquencies (delicta), since he uses the same words indifferently on all occasions, and also designates all the victims by the same name. But to make out a delinquency to be greater than a sin is a piece of gross ignorance; nor does it need a long refutation, since it manifestly appears that in this passage a special rule is delivered as to the means of obtaining pardon when a person through thoughtlessness has not reflected that he has omitted to discharge in full either his vows or oblations.

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.

Footnotes:

[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.

[270] This is the gloss of Bonfrerius in Poole's Synopsis.

He hath certainly trespassed - And because he hath sinned, therefore he must bring a sacrifice. On no other ground shall he be accepted by the Lord. Reader, how dost thou stand in the sight of thy Maker? On the subject of this chapter it may be proper to make the following reflections. When the infinite purity and strict justice of God are considered, the exceeding breadth of his commandment, our slowness of heart to believe, and our comparatively cold performance of sacred duties, no wonder that there is sinfulness found in our holy things; and at what a low ebb must the Christian life be found when this is the case! This is a sore and degrading evil in the Church of God; but there is one even worse than this, that is, the strenuous endeavor of many religious people to reconcile their minds to this state of inexcusable imperfection, and defend it zealously, on the supposition that it is at once both unavoidable and useful - unavoidable, for they think they cannot live without it; and useful, because they suppose it tends to humble them! The more inward sin a man has, the more pride he will feel; the less, the more humility. A sense of God's infinite kindness to us, and our constant dependence on him, will ever keep the soul in the dust. Sin can never be necessary to the maintenance or extension of the Christian life, it is the thing which Jesus Christ came into the world to destroy; and his name is called Jesus or Savior because he saves his people from their sins. But how little of the spirit and influence of his Gospel is known in the world! He saves, unto the uttermost, them who come unto the Father through him. But alas! how few are thus saved! for they will not come unto him that they might have life. Should any Christian refuse to offer up the following prayer to God? "Almighty God, unto whom all hearts be open, and from whom no secrets are hid, cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy name, through Christ our Lord. Amen." - The Liturgy.

It is a trespass offering,.... An offering for a trespass committed:

he hath certainly trespassed against the Lord; though committed ignorantly, and therefore an offering must be brought; for no sin of any kind must be overlooked, passed by, or forgiven, without a sacrifice, or without atonement made by sacrifice: or, "he shall offer a trespass offering to the Lord", or before the Lord, as Onkelos; or before the Word of the Lord, as Jonathan; and Maimonides out of Siphri (g) observes, that whereas it is said, a trespass or trespass offering to the Lord, it was not lawful for the priests to eat of it.

(g) Maimon. in Misn. Temurah, c. 7. sect. 6.

(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." מעל, lit., to cover, hence מעיל 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 מעל, 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). חטא with מן is constructio praegnans: to sin in anything by taking away from Jehovah that which belonged to Him. בּשׁגגה, 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). שׁקלים כּסף "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 (כּחשׁ with a double ב 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 יד תּשׂוּמת, "a thing placed in his hand" (handed over to him as a pledge) "or גּזל, 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" אשׁמתו בּיום: 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 (Sa1 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.