Leviticus 5:1–19

I. The offences here supposed are, 1. A man's concealing the truth when he was sworn as a witness to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Judges among the Jews had power to adjure not only the witnesses, as with us, but the person suspected (contrary to a rule of our law, that no man is bound to accuse himself), as appears by the high priest adjuring our Saviour, who thereupon answered, though before he stood silent, Mat 26:63, Mat 26:64. Now (Lev 5:1), If a soul sin (that is, a person, for the soul is the man), if he hear the voice of swearing (that is, if he be adjured to testify what he knows, by an oath of the Lord upon him, Kg1 8:31), if in such a case, for fear of offending one that either has been his friend or may be his enemy, he refuses to give evidence, or gives it but in part, he shall bear his iniquity. And that is a heavy burden, which, if some course be not taken to get it removed, will sink a man to the lowest hell. He that heareth cursing (that is, that is thus adjured) and betrayeth it not (that is, stifles his evidence, and does not utter it), he is a partner with the sinner, and hateth his own soul; see Pro 29:24. Let all that are called out at any time to bear testimony think of this law, and be free and open in their evidence, and take heed of prevaricating. An oath of the Lord is a sacred thing, and not to be dallied with. 2. A man's touching any thing that was ceremonially unclean, Lev 5:2, Lev 5:3. If a man, polluted by such touch, came into the sanctuary inconsiderately, or if he neglected to wash himself according to the law, then he was to look upon himself as under guilt, and must bring his offering. Though his touching the unclean thing contracted only a ceremonial defilement, yet his neglect to wash himself according to the law was such an instance either of carelessness or contempt as contracted a moral guilt. If at first it be hidden from him, yet when he knows it he shall be guilty. Note, As soon as ever God by his Spirit convinces our consciences of any sin or duty we must immediately set in with the conviction, and prosecute it, as those that are not ashamed to own our former mistake. 3. Rash swearing. If a man binds himself by an oath that he will do or not do such a thing, and the performance of his oath afterwards proves either unlawful or impracticable, by which he is discharged from the obligation, yet he must bring an offering to atone for his fully in swearing so rashly, as David that he would kill Nabal. And then it was that he must say before the angel that it was an error, Ecc 5:6. He shall be guilty in one of these (Lev 5:4), guilty if he do not perform his oath, and yet, if the matter of it were evil, guilty if he do. Such wretched dilemmas as these do some men bring themselves into by their own rashness and folly; go which way they will their consciences are wounded, sin stares them in the face, so sadly are they snared in the words of their mouth. A more sad dilemma this is than that of the lepers, "If we sit still, we die; if we stir, we die." Wisdom and watchfulness beforehand would prevent these straits. II. Now in these cases, 1. The offender must confess his sin and bring his offering (Lev 5:5, Lev 5:6); and the offering was not accepted unless it was accompanied with a penitential confession and a humble prayer for pardon. Observe, The confession must be particular, that he hath sinned in that thing; such was David's confession (Psa 51:4), I have done this evil; and Achan's (Jos 7:20), Thus and thus have I done. Deceit lies in generals; many will own in general they have sinned, for that all must own, so that it is not any particular reproach to them; but that they have sinned in this thing they stand too much upon their honour to acknowledge: but the way to be well assured of pardon, and to be well armed against sin for the future, is to be particular in our penitent confessions. 2. The priest must make atonement for him. As the atonement was not accepted without his repentance, so his repentance would not justify him without the atonement. Thus, in our reconciliation to God, Christ's part and ours are both needful.

Leviticus 5:1-13 1. And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. 1. Quum autem anima peccaverit audiendo vocem juramenti, et ipsc sit testis, quod aut videtit, aut sciverit: nisi renuntitaverit, feret poenam iniquitatis suae. 2. Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty. 2. Aut si anima tetigerit aliquam remimmundam, sive cadaver ferae immundae, sive cadaver animalis immundi, sive cadaver reptilis immundi, idque latuerit eam, tum ipsc immundus erit, et deliquit.- 3. Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty. 3. Aut si tetigerit immunditiam hominis in omni immunditia ejus qua polluitur, et latuerit eum, et ipse cognoverit postea, deliquit. 4. Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these. 4. Aut anima si juraverit, proferendo labiis se malefacturam, aut benefacturam, et secundum omne quod profert homo juramento, et id latuerit eum, et ipse postea cognoverit: tunc delinquet in uno ex istis. 5. And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing: 5. Erit autem quum deliquerit in uno ex istis, et confessus fuerit id super quo peccavit. 6. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin. 6. Adducet oblationem pro delicto suo Jehovae, pro peccato suo quod peccaverit, foeminam de grege, agnam, aut capellam caprarum pro peccato: et expiabit eum sacerdos a peccato suo. 7. And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering. 7. Quod si facultas afferendae peendis defuerit ei, tunc adducet oblationem pro delicto suo quod peccavit, duos turtures, aut duos pullos columbae Jehovae, unum in hostiam pro peccato, et alterum in hostism holocausti. 8. And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first, and wring off his head from his neck, but shall not divide it asunder: 8. Afferetque illos ad sacerdotem, et offeret eum qui est in hostism pro peccato, priorem: et ungue secabit caput ipsius e regione cervicis ejus, et non separabit. 9. And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon 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. 9. Aspergetque de sanguine hostiae pro peccato super parietem altaris, et quod superest de sanguine exprimetur in basin ipsius altaris: oblatio pro peccato est. 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 hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him. 10. Alterum autem faciet holocaustum juxta morem: atque its expiabit eum sacerdos a peccato suo quod peccavit, et remittetur ei. 11. But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering. 11. Si vero non fuerit ei facultas offerendi duos turtures, aut duos pullos columbae, tunc afferet oblationem suam qui peccaverit, decimam partem epha similae in oblationem pro peccato: non ponet super eam oleum, neque ponet super cam thus, quia oblatio pro peccato est. 12. Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: it is a sin offering. 12. Afferet illam inquam ad sacerdotem: tune sacerdos accipiet ex ea plenum pugilium suum odorem ejus, et adolebit super altare ultra oblationes ignitas Jehovae: oblatio pro peccato est. 13. And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest's, as a meat offering. 13. Et expiabit eum sacerdos a peccato suo quod peccavit in uno de istis: et remittetur el, et erit sacerdoti sicut minha. 1. And if a soul sin. The three kinds of offense, to which Moses refers in the beginning of the chapter, seem to differ much from each other; for the first, when a person concealed a matter which he knew, could not arise from error, yet I include this concealment of which he treats under the head of error, by supposing it to have been when a person should be induced by shame or fear to connive at any crime or offense respecting which he might be interrogated, and so, without any design of perjuring himself, but by blinding himself, should withhold what he would have said, if he had duly examined the matter. Yet these words must be more narrowly discussed, respecting the meaning of which men are not well agreed. Some think that the word 'lh, [266] alah, is put for "execration," as though it were said, if any shall have heard a misdoing or detestable crime worthy of execration; yet their gloss is contradicted by what immediately follows, "Whether he hath seen or known it." Others indeed interpret it to mean an oath, yet improperly confine it to perjury, as if Moses stated that he was guilty who had heard a man perjuring himself, and had not opposed him, but had rather covered the perjury by his own connivance or silence. I rather subscribe, then, to their opinion who expound it as meaning "adjuration;" for the words will thus combine very well, "If any one, being summoned as a witness, shall have heard the voice of adjuration, whereby he shall be required in God's name to answer truly as to the matter proposed, and from favor, or good nature, or any other false pretext, as if he were enveloped in a cloud of error, shall conceal what, if he had paid diligent attention, he well knew, he shall be guilty." We must then here render the disjunctive particle as the conditional. Literally it is, "If any shall have heard the voice of adjuration, and (is) himself a witness." But wherefore should he say, "if he hath been a witness," and then add, "or have known it," as if he referred to different things? What I have said squares very well, that a person becomes himself guilty, who, when summoned as a witness, does not answer to a matter of which he is cognizant. Now, what does hearing the voice of adjuration mean, unless you understand that he is adjured by the mouth of a judge? We must observe, too, that the three kinds of sin which are first enumerated have a connection with each other, since they speak of sinners who are infected by the uncleanness of others; for, after Moses had commanded generally that offenses committed in error should be expiated, he now adds what had not been stated explicitly enough, that those also required atonement who had been polluted by the defilements of others. Thus this first will accord very well with the other two, i.e., that if any should make himself an accomplice in the offense of another, by indirect perjury, he should be unclean until he had offered a propitiation; for this is what the expression "bear his iniquity" conveys; as if Moses had said that he contracts guilt who shall have concealed a crime, respecting which he had been interrogated as a witness. 2. Or if a soul touch any unclean thing. This precept seems not only to be superfluous but also absurd; for Moses had already shewn sufficiently how uncleanness contracted by touching a dead body, or any other unclean thing, was to be purged, and had prescribed an easy and inexpensive mode of purification. This repetition appears, therefore, to be useless. But to impose a heavier punishment on an offense which is extenuated by the pretext of error, than where there is no allusion to error, is unjust. But we must remember that not only is the uncleanness itself here punished, but; the inadvertence, from whence it arose that he who was polluted omitted the purification. For it may be that those who thus lie torpid in their sins pollute for a season the service of God. No wonder, then, that a heavier punishment is inflicted, where error, springing from supine and gross security, begets still more sins, that thus believers may be aroused to greater vigilance. Let the reader, therefore, recollect that the offense which is now adverted to did not consist in the mere touching of a dead body, but in the thoughtlessness itself; for if all would diligently meditate on the Law of God, forgetfulness would not so easily steal over them, whereby the distinction between right and wrong is lost. The same is the reason for the following ordinance, where Moses subjects to the same punishment any one who shall have touched an unclean or defiled man: thus the very contact of a woman at a particular period produces pollution. 4. Or if a soul shall swear. The Gulf is also ascribed to error and ignorance, when a person does inconsiderately what he has promised not to do; for the oath is not in that case violated, which would be criminal; [267] but in this very carelessness there is enough of wrong, because sound religion would renew the recollection of the vow. Consequently, where no anxiety (to fulfill it) is shewn, there is no serious desire to do so. But this commandment was necessary, because it might often happen that men who had pledged their faith in a vow, and had broken it in thoughtlessness, would deem themselves released from every, and would in future give themselves up to indulgence, whereas they who arrive at such a pitch of licentiousness, harden themselves more and more, until at length they throw off all reverence for God. God would therefore have vows kept faithfully, lest those who despised them should thus rush into impiety. If then any one had thoughtlessly broken faith, he is commanded to make atonement to God; not on account of his levity, as some think, as if he had rashly promised what he might not, but on account of his neglect, because he had not given diligence to remember the vow at the proper time. Now if the Papists stupidly wrest this text after their custom, in order to establish the obligation of all kinds of vows, their confutation is easy; viz., that God requires this stedfastness only with respect to lawful vows duly made. We have already understood from the teaching of Moses, what is the rule of pious vow-making; whence we gather, that those which profane God's name are by no means to be kept; for if we set out with doing wrong, obstinacy in it is doubly wicked. In this passage, therefore, "to do evil" is not to perform any improper action, but to undertake something which would otherwise be disagreeable and burdensome to the flesh; such as to diminish domestic expenditure, or to deprive one's self of luxuries, or to determine upon abstinence from something which would gratify or profit us. 6. And he shall bring his trespass-offering. He proceeds with what we have already been considering, as to the removal of guilt by sacrifice; but he begins to make a distinction between the poor and the rich, which distinction applies also to what has gone before; hence it appears that the order is not exactly observed by Moses, since the cases which he inserts seem to interrupt the thread of his discourse; yet the fact remains…

Provision is here made for the poor of God's people, and the pacifying of their consciences under the sense of guilt. Those that were not able to bring a lamb might bring for a sin-offering a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons; nay, if any were so extremely poor that they were not able to procure these so often as they would have occasion, they might bring a pottle of fine flour, and this should be accepted. Thus the expense of the sin-offering was brought lower than that of any other offering, to teach us that no man's poverty shall ever be a bar in the way of his pardon. The poorest of all may have atonement made for them, if it be not their own fault. Thus the poor are evangelized; and no man shall say that he had not wherewithal to bear the charges of a journey to heaven. Now, I. If the sinner brought two doves, one was to be offered for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering, Lev 5:7. Observe, 1. Before he offered the burnt-offering, which was for the honour and praise of God, he must offer the sin-offering, to make atonement. We must first see to it that our peace be made with God, and then we may expect that our services for his glory will be accepted. The sin-offering must make way for the burnt-offering. 2. After the sin-offering, which made atonement, came the burnt-offering, as an acknowledgment of the great mercy of God in appointing and accepting the atonement. II. If he brought fine flour, a handful of it was to be offered, but without either oil or frankincense (Lev 5:11), not only because this would make it too costly for the poor, for whose comfort this sacrifice was appointed, but because it was a sin-offering, and therefore, to show the loathsomeness of the sin for which it was offered, it must not be made grateful either to the taste by oil or to the smell by frankincense. The unsavouriness of the offering was to intimate that the sinner must never relish his sin again as he had done. God by these sacrifices did speak, 1. Comfort to those that had offended, that they might not despair, nor pine away in their iniquity; but, peace being thus made for them with God, they might have peace in him. 2. Caution likewise not to offend any more, remembering what an expensive troublesome thing it was to make atonement.

TOUCHING ANY THING UNCLEAN. (Lev 5:2-3) if a soul touch any unclean thing--A person who, unknown to himself at the time, came in contact with any thing unclean, and either neglected the requisite ceremonies of purification or engaged in the services of religion while under the taint of ceremonial defilement, might be afterwards convinced that he had committed an offense.

FOR SWEARING. (Lev 5:4-19) if a soul swear--a rash oath, without duly considering the nature and consequences of the oath, perhaps inconsiderately binding himself to do anything wrong, or neglecting to perform a vow to do something good. In all such cases a person might have transgressed one of the divine commandments unwittingly, and have been afterwards brought to a sense of his delinquency.

it shall be, when he shall be guilty . . . that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing--make a voluntary acknowledgment of his sin from the impulse of his own conscience, and before it come to the knowledge of the world. A previous discovery might have subjected him to some degree of punishment from which his spontaneous confession released him, but still he was considered guilty of trespass, to expiate which he was obliged by the ceremonial law to go through certain observances.

he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord for his sins which he hath sinned--A trespass offering differed from a sin offering in the following respects: that it was appointed for persons who had either done evil unwittingly, or were in doubt as to their own criminality; or felt themselves in such a special situation as required sacrifices of that kind [BROWN]. The trespass offering appointed in such cases was a female lamb or kid; if unable to make such an offering, he might bring a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons--the one to be offered for a sin offering, the other for a burnt offering; or if even that was beyond his ability, the law would be satisfied with the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense.

And if a soul sin,.... The soul is put for the person, and is particularly mentioned, as Ben Melech says, because possessed of will and desire: and hear the voice of swearing; or cursing, or adjuration; not of profane swearing, and taking the name of God in vain, but either of false swearing, or perjury, as when a man hears another swear to a thing which he knows is false; or else of adjuration, either the voice of a magistrate or of a neighbour adjuring another, calling upon him with an oath to bear testimony in such a case; this is what the Jews (r) call the oath of testimony or witness, and which they say (s) is binding in whatsoever language it is heard: and is a witness; is able to bear witness to the thing he is adjured about: whether he hath seen or known of it; what he has seen with his eyes, or knows by any means: of such a case, the Jews observe (t), that there may be seeing without knowing, or knowing without seeing, and in either case a man ought to bear witness: if he do not utter it; tell the truth, declare what he has seen or known: then he shall bear his iniquity; he shall be charged with sin, and be obliged to acknowledge his offence, and bring a trespass offering for it: it is said (u), that the witnesses are not guilty of the oath of the testimony, but in these ten cases; if they are required; if the testimony is concerning goods; if the goods are movable; if he that requires binds himself to pay for their testimony only, in case they bear witness; if they refuse after required; if they refuse in the sanhedrim; if the adjuration or oath is made there by the name of God, or his titles; if knowledge of the testimony goes before the oath; if he particularizes his witnesses in the time of the oath, or at the time of the requirement; and if the oath is in a language they understood. (r) Misn. Sotah, c. 7. 1.((s) Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. T. Bab. Sotah, fol. 33. 1.((t) T. Bab. Shebuot, fol. 33. 2. & 34. 1.((u) Maimon. Hilchot, Shebuot, c. 9. sect. 3.

Or if a soul touch any unclean thing,.... Meaning an Israelite, for only such were bound by this law, which pronounced a person unclean that touched anything that was so in a ceremonial sense; this is the general, including whatsoever by the law was unclean; the particulars follow: whether it be a carcass of an unclean beast, as the camel, the coney, the hare, and the swine, Leviticus 11:2. or a carcass of unclean cattle; as the horse, and the ass, which were unclean for food, and their dead carcasses not to be touched, Leviticus 11:26. or the carcass of unclean creeping things: such as are mentioned in Leviticus 11:29. and if it be hidden from him; that he has touched them; or the uncleanness contracted by touching, he having inadvertently done it; or being ignorant of the law concerning such uncleanness: he also shall be unclean; in a ceremonial sense, by thus touching them: and guilty; of a breach of the command which forbids the touching of them: this is by way of prolepsis or anticipation; for as yet the law concerning unclean beasts, and creeping things, and pollution by touching them, was not given: Jarchi and Gersom interpret this guilt, of eating of holy things, and going into the sanctuary when thus defiled: in the Jewish Misnah (w) it is said, the word "hidden" is twice used, to show that he is guilty, for the ignorance of uncleanness, and for the ignorance of the sanctuary. (w) Misn. Shebuot, c. 2. sect. 5.

Or if he touch the uncleanness of man,.... The dead body of a man, or the bone of a dead body, or a grave, or any profluvious or menstruous person: whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal: not morally, but ceremonially: and it be hid from him; he is not sensible that he has touched any thing ceremonially unclean: when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty: acknowledge his guilt, and offer a sacrifice for it, as after directed.

Or if a soul swear,.... A rash or vain oath: pronouncing with his lips; not in his heart, as Jarchi notes; not saying within himself that he would do this, or that, or the other thing, but expressing his oath plainly and distinctly, with an audible voice: to do good, or to do evil; which was either impossible or unlawful for him to do; whether the good or evil he swears to do is to himself or to another; whether he swears to do good to himself, and evil to another, or, good to another, and evil to himself, see Psalm 15:4. The Targum of Jonathan paraphrases it,"whatsoever a man expresses, whether of anything present or future;''as if he swears he has done such and such a thing, whether good or evil; or that he will do it, be it what it will, and it is not in the power of his hands to do it, or, if he did it, it would be doing a wrong thing: whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; he has forgot that he ever swore such an oath: and when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these; when he is told of it, and it is made clearly to appear to him, that he did at such a time, and in such a place, deliver out a rash oath concerning this, or the other thing, then he shall be chargeable with guilt in one of these; either in rashly swearing to do good when it was not in his power, or to do evil, which would have been unlawful. The Targum of Jonathan is,"if he knows that he has falsified, and repents not, he is guilty.''

And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things,.... Before expressed in the preceding verses; the Targum of Jonathan is,"in one of the four things,''which Ben Gersom particularly mentions in the oath of witness, or the pollution of the sanctuary, or the pollution of its holy things, or a vain oath: that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing; not make confession of sin in general, but of that particular sin he is guilty of; and this he was to do before he brought his offering, or at least at the time of his bringing it; for without confession his offering would be of no avail; and which he made, as Ben Gersom says, by laying his hand on the head of the offering, thereby signifying and declaring his guilt, and that he deserved to die as the creature would about to be sacrificed for him; or he might make a verbal confession and acknowledgment of his offence. Fagius, from the Jewish writers, has given us the form of it, which was this;"I beseech thee, O Lord, I have sinned, I have done wickedly, I have transgressed before thee, so and so have I done; and, lo, I repent, and am ashamed of what I have done, and I will never do the same again.''Though perhaps this form may be of too modern a date, yet doubtless somewhat like this was pronounced; and they make confession of sin necessary to all sacrifices, and say (x), atonement is not made by them without repentance and confession. (x) Maimon. Hilchot Teshubah, c. 1. sect. 1.

And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, for the sin which he hath sinned,.... To make atonement for it; this was typical of the sacrifice of Christ, whose soul was made an offering for sin, "Asham" a trespass offering, Isaiah 53:10 where the same word is used as here: a female from the flock, a lamb, or kid of the goats, for a sin offering; 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; and such as were men of substance, and capable of it, were to bring a female lamb or kid; it being for sins of ignorance, a sacrifice of a less value was admitted; yet it must be a lamb, typical of Christ the Lamb of God; and atonement cannot be made, even for sins of ignorance, but by the blood and sacrifice of Christ: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin; that is, by offering his sacrifice for him, which was a type of the atonement made by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without spot and blemish.

And if he be not able to bring a lamb,.... He is not possessed of a lamb, nor able to purchase one: then he shall bring for his trespass which he hath committed, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the Lord; either the one or the other; these were common, and in great plenty in the land of Israel, as Maimonides (y) observes, which was the reason of their being ordered, since to be had cheap. The turtledoves were larger, as the Targum of Jonathan calls them, being older, and the pigeons lesser, being young; or the one were grown, and not little, and the other little, and not grown, as the Jewish writers (z) observe; and either of them were proper emblems of Christ in his purity, innocence, and meekness, by whom an atonement is made both for the rich and poor: one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; one of the turtle doves or pigeons, whichsoever were brought, was offered up as a sin offering, and the other that remained was offered up as a burnt offering; so that the poor man had two sorts of offerings out of what he brought, when the rich had but one; and may denote the completeness of his sacrifice, and the full atonement made by it. (y) Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 46. (z) Maimon & Bartenora in Misn. Cholin, c. 1. sect. 5.

And he shall bring them unto the priest,.... Either two turtledoves, or two young pigeons: who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first; that which is chosen for it, as the Targum of Jonathan; and this choice was made, not by the priest, but by the man that brought the offering, who separated it, and said, lo, this is a sin offering, and after that said, lo, this is a burnt offering (a); the sin offering was offered first, which was to make atonement for sin, and then the burnt offering, to denote the divine acceptance of it; and so Ben Gersom observes, it was proper to offer the sin offering first, to atone for his sin, that after he (God) was appeased this way, he might receive his gift; for the burnt offering was as a gift. Jarchi compares it to an advocate, who first goes in to appease, and when he has appeased, the gift goes in after him: and wring off his head from his neck, but shall not divide it asunder: be it a turtledove or a young pigeon, so it was to be served; the head was not to be separated from the body, but was nipped by the nail of the priest "in" the neck, as it might be rendered (b); over against the neck, as the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan render it; the hinder part, or what is behind the throat, as Jarchi and Ben Molech interpret it; so that the part which was nipped was the neck; and this nip was made so large, as that the blood was let out by it, as appears from the following verse Leviticus 5:9, and yet the head was not divided from the body; the head hung by a piece of skin on the back part; of the manner of performing this, and the mystery of it; see Gill on Leviticus 1:15. (a) Ib. (Maimon & Bratenora) in Misn. Zebachim, c. 10. sect. 4. (b) Vid. Noldium, p. 611. No. 1637.

And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar,.... Or "wall" (c) it is asked (d),"what is the wall at which the rest of the blood is wrung out? this is the lower wall, namely, the half of the height of the altar below, under the thread (of scarlet that goes round the middle of the altar) that the rest of the blood may be squeezed at the bottom of the altar, and because of this the sin offering of the fowl is below,''that is, the sprinkling of its blood. And so Ben Gersom observes; from hence we learn, says he, that the sprinkling of the sin offering of the fowl was in the lower part of the altar; and I think this sprinkling, adds he, was not in the length, but in the breadth: and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar; the blood sprinkled was that which dropped from it when nipped by the priest; this here was squeezed out by him, and was shed at the foot of the altar; so that the altar had all the blood, and nothing but the blood of the fowl, all the rest belonged to the priest (e): this might be an emblem both of the drops of blood which fell from Christ in the garden, and of the shedding of his blood upon the cross, whereby remission of sin was obtained, and atonement made: it is a sin offering; an offering whereby sin was typically expiated and stoned. (c) , Sept. "super parietem", Pagninus, Montanus, Junius & Tremellius, Piscator, Drusius; "ad parietem", Tigurine version. (d) Maimon. in Misn. Zebachim, c. 6. sect. 4. (e) Misn. ib.

And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner,.... That is, the second turtledove or young pigeon, after the other was made a sin offering; and the manner according to which this was offered was not according to the rite or manner of the bird chosen first for a sin offering, as the Targum of Jonathan, but according to the burnt offering of the fowl in Leviticus 1:15 so Jarchi and Ben Gersom: and the priest shall make an atonement for him, for his sin which he had sinned, and it shall be forgiven him; upon the atonement made; and so forgiveness of sin with God proceeds upon the atonement made by the blood of Christ, Hebrews 9:22. God never took one step towards it, without a regard to Christ the propitiation for sin; he promised it with a view to him; there is no instance of pardon under the Old Testament but in this way, and God always has respect to Christ in pardon, it is for his sake; and this way of forgiveness best provides for the glory of the divine perfections; there can be no better way, or infinite wisdom would have used it; there could be no other way, considering the council and covenant of peace; to pardon, without atonement and satisfaction, is not consistent with the purity, justice, and veracity of God; and to observe this great truth, the phrase is afterwards frequently repeated,

But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons,.... Which is supposing a man to be in the poorest circumstances he can well be; and such is the grace and goodness of God, that he has provided for the atonement and forgiveness of the poorest, as well as of the rich: then he that hath sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; which is an omer, Exodus 16:36 and is as much as a man can eat in one day, as Aben Ezra remarks: he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; to distinguish it from the common meat offering, which had both, Leviticus 3:1 and to make it as easy, and as little chargeable to the poor as possible, both oil and frankincense being things of value; and some think that these were prohibited, to show that atonement and forgiveness, and even the salvation of men, are not owing to grace in them, comparable to oil, or to their prayers, signified by frankincense, and so to any or all of their duties, but to Christ alone, and his atoning sacrifice: or these were forbidden, because emblems of joy and gladness, and therefore not so proper at a confession of sin, and humiliation for it: or rather to show how disagreeable and offensive sin was to the Lord, being contrary to grace, of which oil was an emblem, and far from being acceptable to him, which frankincense might signify; and therefore being prohibited, might denote how unacceptable, yea nauseous, sin is to him; which agrees with the reason given: for it is a sin offering, and therefore must not be honoured, as Jarchi, or must have everything removed from it that is beautiful and amiable, as Ben Gersom, such as oil and frankincense.

Then shall he bring it to the priest,.... The flour just as it was, not kneaded and made into a cake, as appears by what follows: and the priest shall take his handful of it; as much of the flour as he could hold in one hand: even a memorial thereof; to bring to mind his sin, and the goodness of God in admitting of an offering for it, and forgiving it upon that: and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the Lord; in the same manner as other burnt offerings were made: it is a sin offering; or an expiatory sacrifice for sin.

And the priest shall make an atonement for him,.... By burning the handful of flour brought by him, as an emblem of the painful sufferings of Christ, whereby he made atonement for the sins of his people: as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these; for whatsoever sin he had committed in any of the above cases, Leviticus 5:1, and it shall be forgiven him; upon the foot of the atonement made; See Gill on Leviticus 5:10, and the remnant shall be the priest's as a meat offering; the whole tenth part of an ephah of fine flour was the priest's, excepting the handful he took and burnt, just as in the case of a common meat offering, Leviticus 2:3.

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.

sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the Lord, &c.--This is a case of sacrilege committed ignorantly, either in not paying the full due of tithes, first-fruits, and similar tribute in eating of meats, which belonged to the priests alone--or he was required, along with the restitution in money, the amount of which was to be determined by the priest, to offer a ram for a trespass offering, as soon as he came to the knowledge of his involuntary fraud.

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

And the Lord spake unto Moses,.... Out of the tabernacle of the congregation, Leviticus 1:1 he continued to speak to him: saying, as follows.

If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance in the holy things of the Lord,.... In the payment of tithes, or offering first fruits as he ought, by withholding them, or any part of them, or through eating of sacred things he ought not: then shall he bring for his trespass unto the Lord; for it being a trespass in holy things, it might be properly called a trespass to or against the Lord; unless this is rather to be understood of the offering brought to the Lord for his trespass as follows: a ram without blemish out of the flocks; out of the sheep and not the goats, as Ben Gersom observes; and this being for sacrifice, or for a trespass in holy things though ignorantly done, an offering of more value is required than for sins of ignorance in other cases, Leviticus 5:6 a type of Christ, who for his strength may be compared to a ram, and to one without blemish, for his purity and holiness, and to a choice one, selected out of the flock, for his being chosen out from among the people: with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering; that is, either an estimation was to be taken of the damage done in the holy things, an account of which was to be brought along with the ram, and the cost paid; or else the ram brought was to be of the value of, or worth shekels of silver; and the least of many being two, as Aben Ezra and Ben Gersom observe, the sense is, that the ram brought for the trespass offering should be at least worth two shekels of silver; so Jarchi and Ben Gersom.

And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing,.... This seems to favour the sense of the word "estimation", in the preceding verse, as understood of the estimate of the damage done in the holy things, which belonged to the priests, for which recompense was to be made according as the damage was valued: and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest; besides paying the whole damage, he was to give a fifth part of the whole to the priest; which was ordered to show the evil nature of the sin of sacrilege, though done ignorantly, and to make men careful and cautious of committing it: the fifth part, according to the Jewish writers (f), is the fourth part of that of which a man eats, ("viz." of the holy things,) which is the fifth of the whole; thus, if he eats the value of a penny, he pays the penny and the fourth part of one, and so it is in all the fifths mentioned in the law; or, as Ben Gersom on the place expresses it, if he has had profit by the holy things to the value of four shekels, he pays five shekels; for the fifth of the shekels they add the fifth part to the four shekels; in this he observes, all are alike, the priest, the anointed, the prince, and a private person, for the law makes no difference between them in this: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering; by offering it up for him: and it shall be forgiven him; after he has paid the whole damage, and a fifth part besides, and offered the trespass offering for atonement; See Gill on Leviticus 5:10. (f) Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Trumot, c. 6. 1.

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 Luke 12:48.

And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock,.... See Gill on Leviticus 5:15. with thy estimation for a trespass offering to the priest; along with the offering was to be brought an estimate of whatsoever damage had been done through the breach of any of the commands of God, where damage could take place, that so recompense be made as before directed; or else the ram brought was to be valued, and examined whether it was worth two shekels of silver, as before explained; see Gill on Leviticus 5:15 but no fifth was required as in the former cases: and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred, and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him; See Gill on Leviticus 5:10 this is what the Jews call "Asham Talui", doubtful trespass offering.

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.