Chapter 5

1 He that sinneth in concealing his knowledge, 2 in touching an unclean thing, 4 or in making an oath. 6 His trespass offering, of the flock, 7 of fowls, 11 or of flour. 14 The trespass offering in sacrilege, 17 and in sins of ignorance.

1. If a soul sin. “If any one sins” (RSV). In the Hebrew Bible vs. 1–13 are joined to ch. 4, evidently for the reason that they deal with the same subject as ch. 4, that is, sin offerings. However, they are of a slightly different character, being borderline cases between sin and trespass offerings, partaking of the nature of both and called by both names.

The voice of swearing. Rather, “a public adjuration” (RSV). The setting is a court scene, where witnesses are called to testify. One refuses to testify and is declared guilty. There are times when unpleasant duties, ones we would prefer to avoid, must be performed.

In telling the truth, we should be careful lest we impute motives, and thus judge our brother. Care should be taken that the alleged facts are in reality facts, and not surmisings. Circumstantial evidence may point the way to the truth, but it may also be completely misleading. Let all beware of drawing unwarranted conclusions.

A case in point is that of a deacon who was seen by several members of the church on the Sabbath day hauling a small load of wood past the meetinghouse, dressed in his everyday clothes. Later he attended the service as if nothing had happened. He was promptly called in question, since the transgression was an open one, but gave no evidence of regret. There was no question as to the facts in the case, and he did not deny what he had done. The witnesses and the accused agreed on what had taken place. His action was a clear violation of the Sabbath. Then he explained.

Earlier that morning he had felt impressed to visit a widow and her two small children, whom he intended to take to Sabbath school. On arriving at the home he found the mother sick and the house without fuel. He went home, changed his clothes, and hauled a small load of wood to the needy family. This the witnesses had seen, but not knowing the circumstances they had drawn the conclusion that he was doing something on Sabbath that should not be done.

A witness is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He may not elaborate, he may not add, he may not detract, he may not judge the motives that prompted the act. Much injustice and sorrow would be avoided if this principle were more closely heeded.

2. Any unclean thing. People in ancient times did not have the medical knowledge now available. They had no way of knowing that by coming in contact with certain diseases they might become disease carriers. Thus the only safe principle was to avoid everything that looked suspicious. To transgress might lead to epidemics. As a health measure, this principle is still valid.

The Levitical laws were, of course, concerned primarily with moral and ceremonial “uncleanness.” At the same time, many of these regulations had a significance for men’s bodies as well as their souls. Inasmuch as the people were not prepared either to understand or to appreciate the physical aspect, fully at least, this value, though implied, is often not even mentioned. The word tame, translated “unclean,” is never used in the OT except in the setting of Levitical “uncleanness.” Here, in vs. 1 and 4, it is obvious that moral accountability is the object of concern. Inasmuch as the “uncleanness” of vs. 2 and 3 is classed with that of vs. 1 and 4, as being sin of the same type, it too must be essentially a matter of moral accountability. In the Levitical code “uncleanness” is essentially moral or ceremonial guilt, and may or may not imply actual physical “uncleanness.”

3. When he knoweth of it. A man might be ignorant and his act therefore considered excusable. But though ignorant, he might yet become a menace to others as a carrier of infection. Hence, in certain cases he might not be entirely innocent, and must be taught a lesson designed to impress him and others. Nevertheless, full guilt does not attach to one who is ignorant, unless he is willingly so, and had the opportunity of knowing better.

Some deliberately close their eyes to light, assuring themselves that, not seeing it, they are thereby relieved of responsibility for it. But in the judgment we shall all have to give an account, not only for what we know, but for what we might have known had we put forth the effort to learn.

4. If a soul swear. This does not refer to conversation but to the solemn confirmation of a promise to do or to refrain from doing certain things. When men entered into a contract or covenant there was mutual agreement, and this agreement they often confirmed with an oath. If one of the contracting parties forgets his promise, which he confirmed by an oath, or deliberately repudiates it, “when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.”

Failure to keep one’s word is a flagrant sin of our times, and appears to be on the increase. Of this Christians must beware. It is easy to fall in with the ways of the world, and to become slack in the standards God has set.

5. He shall confess. He is guilty, and knows it. A general confession will not suffice. It must be a confession of “that thing.” Nothing less will do.

6. His trespass offering. This consisted of a lamb or a kid of the goats, a female. These were offered in the regular manner, and the priest made atonement for the offerer concerning his sin.

7. Turtledoves. God is compassionate to those too poor to bring the usual sacrifice. The transgressor brought two birds to the priest, who first offered the one for a sin offering, and then the other for a burnt offering.

11. Fine flour. The guilty man might be too poor to bring either turtledoves or pigeons. But even the poorest could at least bring a small portion of flour. He was not to put oil or frankincense on it, for it would then have become a meat offering. Without these, it remained a sin offering.

The priest took a handful of the flour and burned it on the altar, in the same way as “offerings made by fire unto the Lord.” Lest it should be thought a meat offering, God repeats that it is “for a sin offering.”

Here we are confronted with an unusual situation—a sin offering without blood. But there is yet another remarkable thing about it: sin offerings, otherwise, never came on the altar. By way of emphasis, God repeats, “It is a sin offering.” How are we to explain the ritual difference God here permits?

According to Heb. 9:22, “without shedding of blood is no remission” of sin. That is the rule. Leviticus 5:11–13 presents an exception to the general rule. Not all things, but “almost all things are by the law purged with blood” (Heb. 9:22). The fact that in this case a bloodless sin offering effected atonement probably explains the “almost.”

To be sure, there can never be actual remission of sin apart from the blood of Christ. If so, Christ’s death would be in vain. But in type there were cases where remission and cleansing were effected without the immediate shedding of blood.

15. If a soul commit a trespass. The “holy things of the Lord” are the first fruits, tithes, gifts, and whatever else belongs to the service of God. The “trespass” here considered involved either withholding or diminishing, that is, paying less than was due. The offering required for this trespass was “a ram without blemish.” But this was not enough; the one who had trespassed must also make restitution and “add the fifth part thereto.” This provision was a deterrent to deliberate, if temporary, withholding. Where there was question as to the amount involved, the priest was to make an estimate. After restitution had been made, the priest made “an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering” (v. 16).

17. Things which are forbidden. The second situation is much like the first (vs. 14–16), but concerns “any of these things which are forbidden to be done.” These are things which, though not specifically mentioned, come under the displeasure of God.

God deals with principles rather than with details. The Ten Commandments deal with fundamental principles. The commandment “Thou shalt not steal” does not specify what it is that may not be taken. It is all-comprehensive. It does not say, “Thou shalt not steal great things”; it does not say, “Thou shalt not steal small things.” It merely says, “Thou shalt not steal.” Similarly, in the case before us God could have gone into detail. Had He done so, some might be tempted to think the things mentioned more serious than some that were omitted. So God includes all transgression in the statement “any of these things which are forbidden.” No one might plead ignorance. This may have seemed a “hard saying,” but it was just.

18. His ignorance. Ignorance is a thing to be repented of. Ignorance is not usually thought of as transgression. God has, and we are to have, compassion on the ignorant. But we are to do all in our power to make amends for our shortcomings.