Leviticus · Chapter 5

V. 1. And hear-And for that is, as that particle is often used. For this declares in particular what the sin was. Or, namely, that of cursing, or blasphemy, or execration, as the word commonly signifies, and that either against one’s neighbour, or against God. This may seem to be principally intended here, because the crime spoken of is of so high a nature, that he who heard it, was obliged to reveal it, and prosecute the guilty. He hath seen-Been present when it was said. Or known-By sufficient information from others. His iniquity-That is, the punishment of it; so that word is oft used, as Genesis 19:15, Numbers 18:1.

Verse 1. If a soul sin] It is generally supposed that the case referred to here is that of a person who, being demanded by the civil magistrate to answer upon oath, refuses to tell what he knows concerning the subject; such a one shall bear his iniquity-shall be considered as guilty in the sight of God, of the transgression which he has endeavoured to conceal, and must expect to be punished by him for hiding the iniquity to which he was privy, or suppressing the truth which, being discovered, would have led to the exculpation of the innocent, and the punishment of the guilty.

Verse 1. And hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness — The meaning seems to be, If a person sin, in not revealing the voice of swearing, which he has seen, that is, been a witness to, or been present when it was said, or known by sufficient information from others. But it must be observed, that the word, hla, alah, here used, probably means cursing, blasphemy, or execration, and that either against one’s neighbour, or against God. This seems to be principally intended here, if not also, as many suppose, false swearing, for the crime spoken of is of so high a nature, that he who heard it was obliged to reveal it, and prosecute the guilty. Some think the expression ought to be rendered, The voice of adjuration, or being adjured in the name of God, when he is called to be a witness in a cause, to speak the truth. For in those countries the judges were wont to demand, in court, of accused persons or witnesses, in the name of God, to declare the whole truth; and this laid the same obligation upon them, as the administering an oath now does with us. See instances of this, Numbers 5:21; 1 Kings 8:31, and 22:16; Proverbs 29:24; Matthew 26:63. Whether he hath seen or known — That is, according to this last sense of the expression, if he be adjured to declare what he can say of the matter in question, whether upon his own knowledge, or from information of credible persons. If he do not utter it — If he suppress the truth, or be guilty of prevaricating, or dissimulation. He shall bear his iniquity — That is, the punishment of his iniquity; for the word nw[, gnavon, has frequently that meaning. Let him not think it is no offence to suppress the truth, when so solemnly called upon to declare it. He is unclean and guilty, and in token of his repentance let him offer such a sacrifice for his sin as is prescribed, (verse 6,) which belongs to this and all the following cases. The expression, Shall bear his iniquity, is very emphatic, and imports that guilt, like a grievous burden, shall lie heavy upon him. Houbigant, however, an acknowledged critic, prefers the former interpretation.

Verse 1. He shall bear his iniquity. Proverbs 29:24, seems to refer to this passage. “He that hears cursing, and betrays it not, hates his own soul.” The sons of Belial said, that they heard Naboth blaspheme God and the king. Both Satan and his servants will cite the scriptures to impose and deceive.

SIN AGAINST JUSTICE — CONCEALING TESTIMONY, 1.

1. Hear the voice of swearing — This does not refer to profaning the Divine name, but to the case of a witness who hears the magistrate adjuring the people to utter the truth for the promotion of justice. If he do not utter — If he refuses to testify. This is not perjury, but a suppressio veri, a withholding of the truth, which in law is regarded as culpable as the suggestion of a falsehood. Since justice depends on evidence, concealment of evidence is indicative of a sympathy with injustice. Bear his iniquity — The right word is used; it is iniquity — in-equity — a crime against right, the primordial basis of human society, which would be subverted by the universal practice of keeping back evidence. The iniquity which he shall bear is that which he screens from punishment by his silence. He has made himself a partaker of the crime.

V. 2. If it be hidden from him-If he do it unawares, yet that would not excuse him, because he should have been more circumspect to avoid all unclean things. Hereby God designed to awaken men to watchfulness against, and repentance for, their unknown, or unobserved sins. He shall be clean-Not morally, for the conscience was not directly polluted by these things, but ceremonially.

Verse 2. Any unclean thing] Either the dead body of a clean animal, or the living or dead carcass of any unclean creature. All such persons were to wash their clothes and themselves in clean water, and were considered as unclean till the evening, Leviticus 11:24-31. But if this had been neglected, they were obliged to bring a trespass-offering. What this meant, see in Clarke’s notes on “Leviticus 7:38”.

Verses 2, 3. If it be hidden from him — If he did it unawares, yet that would not excuse him, because he should have been more circumspect to avoid all unclean things. Hereby God designed to awaken men to watchfulness against, and repentance for, their unknown, or unobserved sins. He shall be unclean — Not morally, for the conscience was not directly polluted by these things, but ceremonially. When he knoweth — As soon as he knoweth it, he must not delay to make his peace with God. Otherwise he shall be guilty — For his violation and contempt of God’s authority and command.

Ver. 2. If a soul touch any unclean thing. The carcase of a reptile, of an unclean beast, or a dead body. The daily impurities of the Hebrews were cleansed by washing, and by the evening sacrifice. But the law here respected a man’s approach to the sanctuary, or the eating of holy things.

INVOLUNTARY VIOLATION OF CEREMONIAL PURITY, 2-3.

2. If a soul touch — The soul is here put for the entire man. Any unclean thing — It is difficult for those who have not been ceremonially trained from infancy to group together things differing so widely as the moral turpitude just mentioned and the accidental and innocent contact with a dead mouse or snail, (Leviticus 11:23-43;) yet in the religious development and discipline of the Hebrews there was a perpetual commingling of offences, arbitrary, factitious, and temporal, with immutable and eternal moral principles. It is not for us to deny that this period of ceremonial pupilage was necessary. Things which would be unsuited to the Gospel dispensation, and even ridiculous in contrast with its spiritual sublimities, have their proper place in a law of temporal sanctions, chiefly or solely affecting the present life only. Shall be unclean — He was cut off for the time from certain religious and social privileges, and his citizenship in Israel was in abeyance. From these disadvantages, certain ritualistic acts alone could free him. These were not required in order to magnify the office of the priest, but to impress upon the people a sense of the personality and holiness of God, and of the reality of his covenant. In shadow they suggested the necessity of a spiritual cleansing from moral pollution. Guilty — The verb asham here expresses a different idea from the iniquity committed by the silent witness of wrong. It signifies primarily to be desert, to lie waste; hence, as applied to man, to fail in duty.

V. 3. When he knoweth-As soon as he knoweth it, he must not delay to make his peace with God. Otherwise he shall be guilty-For his violation and contempt of God’s authority and command.

Verses 2, 3. If it be hidden from him — If he did it unawares, yet that would not excuse him, because he should have been more circumspect to avoid all unclean things. Hereby God designed to awaken men to watchfulness against, and repentance for, their unknown, or unobserved sins. He shall be unclean — Not morally, for the conscience was not directly polluted by these things, but ceremonially. When he knoweth — As soon as he knoweth it, he must not delay to make his peace with God. Otherwise he shall be guilty — For his violation and contempt of God’s authority and command.

INVOLUNTARY VIOLATION OF CEREMONIAL PURITY, 2-3.

2. If a soul touch — The soul is here put for the entire man. Any unclean thing — It is difficult for those who have not been ceremonially trained from infancy to group together things differing so widely as the moral turpitude just mentioned and the accidental and innocent contact with a dead mouse or snail, (Leviticus 11:23-43;) yet in the religious development and discipline of the Hebrews there was a perpetual commingling of offences, arbitrary, factitious, and temporal, with immutable and eternal moral principles. It is not for us to deny that this period of ceremonial pupilage was necessary. Things which would be unsuited to the Gospel dispensation, and even ridiculous in contrast with its spiritual sublimities, have their proper place in a law of temporal sanctions, chiefly or solely affecting the present life only. Shall be unclean — He was cut off for the time from certain religious and social privileges, and his citizenship in Israel was in abeyance. From these disadvantages, certain ritualistic acts alone could free him. These were not required in order to magnify the office of the priest, but to impress upon the people a sense of the personality and holiness of God, and of the reality of his covenant. In shadow they suggested the necessity of a spiritual cleansing from moral pollution. Guilty — The verb asham here expresses a different idea from the iniquity committed by the silent witness of wrong. It signifies primarily to be desert, to lie waste; hence, as applied to man, to fail in duty.

V. 4. If a soul swear-Rashly, without consideration either of God’s law, or his own power or right, as David did, 1 Samuel 25:22. To do evil-To himself, to punish himself either in his body, or estate, or something else which is dear to him. Or rather to his neighbour. And it be hid from him-That is, he did not know, or not consider, that what he swore to do, was or would be impossible, or unlawful: When he discovers it to be so, either by his own consideration, or by information from others, whether it was good or evil which he swore to do.

Verse 4. To do evil, or to do good] It is very likely that rash promises are here intended; for if a man vow to do an act that is evil, though it would be criminal to keep such an oath or vow, yet he is guilty because he made it, and therefore must offer the trespass-offering. If he neglect to do the good he has vowed, he is guilty, and must in both cases confess his iniquity, and bring his trespass-offering.

Verse 4. If a soul swear — Rashly and unadvisedly, without consideration, either of God’s law or of his own power or right, as David did, 1 Samuel 25:22: so the following word, acbl, lebattee, rendered pronouncing, properly signifies, Psalm 106:33. The meaning is, Whosoever shall, in a passion or otherwise, make an oath to do a person an injury, or to do him a kindness, and afterward, forgetting his oath, shall fail in the performance, so soon as he recollects himself he shall make atonement for his offence. In the case of threatening private revenge, or to do evil in any other way, the oath ought to be recalled, as being a thing in itself unlawful. But the person who thus rashly uttered that oath was involved in guilt, and needed to have his sin expiated. And for a similar reason he was punishable, if with an oath he promised to do any thing that was not in his power. It may also be understood of a person’s making a vow to do something either beneficial or hurtful to himself, as to fast, or afflict himself. For that is the sense of swearing to do evil, or to his own hurt. And it be hid from him — That is, if through forgetfulness he neglect punctually to perform what he promised on oath. When he knoweth it, he shall be guilty in one of these — As soon as he recollects himself, and comes to the knowledge of such an omission, he shall be obliged to expiate his offence by sacrifices, being guilty in one of these; that is, in one of the things which are forbidden to be done.

Ver. 4. If a soul swear, that is lightly and foolishly, or pronounce a rash word. Rash vows of hurting ourselves, or our neighbours, are here declared to be very sinful. Men had better repent of the rashness, than have bitter cause to repent of the vow and the sin.

INADVERTENCY IN OATHS, 4-5.

4. If a soul swear… to do evil — This refers to an inconsiderate vow. In the light of subsequent knowledge it is found that the performance of the vow would be evil. In this dilemma he must refrain from that evil deed. Nevertheless his broken vow must be accounted a fault to be atoned for by a trespass offering. Or to do good — The good may have become impracticable by reason of circumstances hid from him when the vow was made, or because of neglect or procrastination till the opportunity has passed by. Keil extends the inadvertency in oaths to any thing affirmed with an oath without due reflection, and afterwards discovered to be a deviation from the truth.

V. 5. In one of these things-In one of the three forementioned cases, either by sinful silence, or by an unclean touch, or by rash swearing. He shall confess-Before the Lord in the place of public worship. And this confession is not to be restrained to the present case, but by a parity of reason, and comparing of other scriptures, to be extended to other sacrifices for sin, to which this was a constant companion.

Verse 5. He shall confess that he hath sinned] Even restitution was not sufficient without this confession, because a man might make restitution without being much humbled; but the confession of sin has a direct tendency to humble the soul, and hence it is so frequently required in the Holy Scriptures, as without humiliation there can be no salvation.

Verse 5. In one of these things — In one of the three forementioned cases, either by sinful silence, or by an unclean touch, or by rash swearing. He shall confess — Before the Lord, in the place of public worship. And this confession is not to be restrained to the present case, but, by a parity of reason, and comparing of other scriptures, to be extended to other sacrifices for sin, to which this was a constant companion.

Ver. 5. Confess that he hath sinned. So in Numbers 5:7. The papists turn this to their own purpose. Agat pœnitentiam pro peccato. He shall do penance for his sin; whereas ver. 6 prescribes no penance, except a lamb from the flock. Repentance must be “towards God.”

5. He shall confess — Confession is the natural expression of true penitence, breaking down pride and promoting the virtue of humility, an essential of true piety. For the traditional form of confession, see note on Leviticus 4:4. Sinned in that thing — The public acknowledgment of specific sins is much more difficult than the vague confession of sinfulness, easily made, because it does not isolate the sinner from a sinful race. While a general confession of sins is required, there are occasions demanding their individual and specific disclosure both to God and man.

V. 6. His trespass-offering-But how comes confession and a sacrifice to be necessary for him that touched an unclean thing, when such persons were cleansed with simple washing, as appears from Leviticus 11:25,28,32,40,43, and Numbers 19:7,8,10,19? This place speaks of him that being so unclean did come into the tabernacle, as may be gathered by comparing this place with Numbers 19:13, which if any man did, knowing himself to be unclean, which was the case there, he was to be cut off for it; and if he did it ignorantly, which is the case here, he was upon discovery of it to offer this sacrifice.

Verse 6. His trespass-offering — But how come confession and sacrifice to be necessary for him that touched an unclean thing, when such persons were cleansed with simple washing, as appears from Leviticus 11., and Numbers 19.? This place speaks of him that being so unclean did come into the tabernacle, as may be gathered by comparing this place with Numbers 19:13; which if any man did, knowing himself to be unclean, which was the case there, he was to be cut off for it; and if he did it ignorantly, which was the case here, he was, upon discovery of it, to offer this sacrifice.

TRESPASS OFFERING THEREFOR, 6-13.

6. Trespass offering… sin offering — These are here apparently used as equivalent or convertible terms. This constitutes the difficulty of discriminating between them confessed by Gesenius. He has scriptural grounds for viewing them as essentially identical in Leviticus 7:7, where it is said “as is the sin offering so is the trespass offering, there is one law for them.” Keil endeavours to maintain a difference by denying that asham, trespass offering, or rather guilt or debt offering, in this verse and the following, “means either guilt offering or debitum, (Knobel,) but culpa, guilt, or delictum, offence. But this meaning would not make good sense if substituted for trespass offering in this verse. Keil reads the next verse thus: “he shall bring as his guilt, that is, for the expiation of his guilt.” This is approved by Fairbairn, who resolves this double star into two distinct orbs by assuming that the asham, as an offering, is not spoken of till verse 14, and then is limited to offences admitting of some sort of an estimation and recompense, and quotes Numbers 5:5-8 in proof. This view is now generally concurred in, also, by Hengstenberg, Keil, Bahr, Kurtz, and others. Professor Murphy’s distinction is this, in brief: in propitiation are two distinct things — expiation, the payment of the penalty, and satisfaction, the performance of the righteousness due to the law. The sin offering typifies chiefly the expiation, and the trespass offering the obedience or satisfaction. Every moral offence is both a sin and a trespass, hence both offerings may be made for the same act. But, if this theory be correct, both offerings ought to be made for every sin, in order to its perfect propitiation.

V. 7. Not able-Through poverty. And this exception was allowed also in other sin-offerings. For a sin-offering-Which was for that particular sin, and therefore offered first: before the burnt-offering, which was for sins in general; to teach us not to rest in general confessions and repentance, but distinctly and particularly, as far as we can, to search out, and confess, and loath, and leave our particular sins, without which God will not accept our other religious services.

Verse 7. If he be not able to bring a lamb] See the conclusion of Clarke’s note on “Leviticus 1:16”.

Verse 7. Not able — Through poverty. And this exception was allowed also in other sin-offerings. For a sin-offering — Which was for that particular sin, and therefore offered first before the burnt-offering, which was for sins in general; to teach us not to rest in general confessions and repentance, but distinctly and particularly, as far as we can, to search out, and confess, and loathe, and leave our particular sins, without which God will not accept our other religious services.

7. Not able to bring a lamb — For the adjustment of the Divine requirements to human ability, see Leviticus 1:14, note. One for a sin offering — This brings the sinner into reconciliation with God. The other for a burnt offering — This typifies the complete consecration of the reconciled sinner, soul, body, and spirit, unto Him who hath redeemed him with his precious blood. The sin sacrifice symbolically brings the penitent offerer into the state of justification, and the whole burnt sacrifice, in like manner, initiates him into entire sanctification.

Verse 8. But shall not divide it] See Clarke’s note on “Leviticus 1:16”.

8. The sin offering first — This direction is important, as it determines the order of the sacrifices. See Introduction, (5.)

V. 9. It is a sin-offering-This is added as the reason why its blood was so sprinkled and spilt.

Verses 9, 10. It is a sin-offering — This is added as the reason why its blood was so sprinkled and spilt. According to the manner — Or order, appointed by God. The priest shall make an atonement — Either declaratively, he shall pronounce him to be pardoned; or typically, with respect to Christ.

TRESPASS OFFERING THEREFOR, 6-13.

6. Trespass offering… sin offering — These are here apparently used as equivalent or convertible terms. This constitutes the difficulty of discriminating between them confessed by Gesenius. He has scriptural grounds for viewing them as essentially identical in Leviticus 7:7, where it is said “as is the sin offering so is the trespass offering, there is one law for them.” Keil endeavours to maintain a difference by denying that asham, trespass offering, or rather guilt or debt offering, in this verse and the following, “means either guilt offering or debitum, (Knobel,) but culpa, guilt, or delictum, offence. But this meaning would not make good sense if substituted for trespass offering in this verse. Keil reads the next verse thus: “he shall bring as his guilt, that is, for the expiation of his guilt.” This is approved by Fairbairn, who resolves this double star into two distinct orbs by assuming that the asham, as an offering, is not spoken of till verse 14, and then is limited to offences admitting of some sort of an estimation and recompense, and quotes Numbers 5:5-8 in proof. This view is now generally concurred in, also, by Hengstenberg, Keil, Bahr, Kurtz, and others. Professor Murphy’s distinction is this, in brief: in propitiation are two distinct things — expiation, the payment of the penalty, and satisfaction, the performance of the righteousness due to the law. The sin offering typifies chiefly the expiation, and the trespass offering the obedience or satisfaction. Every moral offence is both a sin and a trespass, hence both offerings may be made for the same act. But, if this theory be correct, both offerings ought to be made for every sin, in order to its perfect propitiation.

V. 10. According to the manner-Or order appointed by God. The priest shall make an atonement-Either declaratively, he shall pronounce him to be pardoned; or typically, with respect to Christ.

Verse 10. He shall offer the second for a burnt-offering] The pigeon for the burnt-offering was wholly consumed, it was the Lord’s property; that for the sin-offering was the priest’s property, and was to be eaten by him after its blood had been partly sprinkled on the side of the altar, and the rest poured out at the bottom of the altar. See also Leviticus 6:26.

Verses 9, 10. It is a sin-offering — This is added as the reason why its blood was so sprinkled and spilt. According to the manner — Or order, appointed by God. The priest shall make an atonement — Either declaratively, he shall pronounce him to be pardoned; or typically, with respect to Christ.

10. According to the manner — See Leviticus 1. 13-17.

V. 11. The tenth part of an ephah-About six pints. He shall put no oil, neither frankincense-Either to distinguish these from the meal-offerings, Leviticus 2:1, or as a fit expression of their sorrow for their sins, in the sense whereof they were to abstain from things pleasant; or to signify that by his sins he deserved to be utterly deprived both of the oil of gladness, the gifts, graces and comforts of the Holy Ghost; and of God’s gracious acceptance of his prayers and sacrifices, which is signified by incense, Psalm 141:2.

Verse 11. Tenth part of an ephah] About three quarts. The ephah contained a little more than seven gallons and a half.

Verse 11. The tenth part of an ephah — About six pints. He shall put no oil, neither frankincense — Either as a fit expression of his sorrow for his sins, in the sense whereof, he was to abstain from things pleasant; or to signify, that by his sins he deserved to be utterly deprived both of the oil of gladness, the gifts, graces, and comforts of the Holy Ghost, and of God’s gracious acceptance of his prayers and sacrifices, which is signified by incense, Psalm 141:2.

11. Turtledoves… pigeons — See chap. 1, notes, also Introduction, (4) The tenth… ephah… flour — The most impoverished person was supposed to be able to present three quarts of sifted wheat or barley flour for the disburdening of his conscience. No oil… neither… frankincense — The addition of these would make a mincha, or bread offering, Leviticus 2:2, a eucharistic sacrifice, which could be offered only by one in a state of acceptance with God. The sinner must secure pardon before he offers praise. Says Kurtz: “Oil and incense symbolized the Spirit of God and the prayers of the faithful; the meat offering, always good works; but these are then only good works and acceptable to God when they proceed from the soil of a heart truly sanctified. The sin offering, however, was pre-eminently the atonement offering; the idea of atonement came out so prominently that no room was left for others. The consecration of the person, and the presentation of his good works, to the Lord, had to be reserved for another stage in the sacrificial institute.” How strikingly this corroborates the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification as a work distinct from justification. Jesus, the great Sin Offering, so fills the vision of the penitent sinner that there is no room for the consideration of his other office, by which he is made unto the believer “wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification.”

DEFECTS IN HOLY THINGS, 14-19.

TRESPASS OFFERING THEREFOR, 6-13.

6. Trespass offering… sin offering — These are here apparently used as equivalent or convertible terms. This constitutes the difficulty of discriminating between them confessed by Gesenius. He has scriptural grounds for viewing them as essentially identical in Leviticus 7:7, where it is said “as is the sin offering so is the trespass offering, there is one law for them.” Keil endeavours to maintain a difference by denying that asham, trespass offering, or rather guilt or debt offering, in this verse and the following, “means either guilt offering or debitum, (Knobel,) but culpa, guilt, or delictum, offence. But this meaning would not make good sense if substituted for trespass offering in this verse. Keil reads the next verse thus: “he shall bring as his guilt, that is, for the expiation of his guilt.” This is approved by Fairbairn, who resolves this double star into two distinct orbs by assuming that the asham, as an offering, is not spoken of till verse 14, and then is limited to offences admitting of some sort of an estimation and recompense, and quotes Numbers 5:5-8 in proof. This view is now generally concurred in, also, by Hengstenberg, Keil, Bahr, Kurtz, and others. Professor Murphy’s distinction is this, in brief: in propitiation are two distinct things — expiation, the payment of the penalty, and satisfaction, the performance of the righteousness due to the law. The sin offering typifies chiefly the expiation, and the trespass offering the obedience or satisfaction. Every moral offence is both a sin and a trespass, hence both offerings may be made for the same act. But, if this theory be correct, both offerings ought to be made for every sin, in order to its perfect propitiation.

V. 13. As a meal offering-As it was in the meal-offering, where all, except one handful, fell to the share of the priests. And this is the rather mentioned here, because in the foregoing sacrifices, Leviticus 4:3, &c. Leviticus 4:13, &c. the priest had no part reserved for him.

TRESPASS OFFERING THEREFOR, 6-13.

6. Trespass offering… sin offering — These are here apparently used as equivalent or convertible terms. This constitutes the difficulty of discriminating between them confessed by Gesenius. He has scriptural grounds for viewing them as essentially identical in Leviticus 7:7, where it is said “as is the sin offering so is the trespass offering, there is one law for them.” Keil endeavours to maintain a difference by denying that asham, trespass offering, or rather guilt or debt offering, in this verse and the following, “means either guilt offering or debitum, (Knobel,) but culpa, guilt, or delictum, offence. But this meaning would not make good sense if substituted for trespass offering in this verse. Keil reads the next verse thus: “he shall bring as his guilt, that is, for the expiation of his guilt.” This is approved by Fairbairn, who resolves this double star into two distinct orbs by assuming that the asham, as an offering, is not spoken of till verse 14, and then is limited to offences admitting of some sort of an estimation and recompense, and quotes Numbers 5:5-8 in proof. This view is now generally concurred in, also, by Hengstenberg, Keil, Bahr, Kurtz, and others. Professor Murphy’s distinction is this, in brief: in propitiation are two distinct things — expiation, the payment of the penalty, and satisfaction, the performance of the righteousness due to the law. The sin offering typifies chiefly the expiation, and the trespass offering the obedience or satisfaction. Every moral offence is both a sin and a trespass, hence both offerings may be made for the same act. But, if this theory be correct, both offerings ought to be made for every sin, in order to its perfect propitiation.

V. 15. A trespass-Against the Lord and his priests. Through ignorance-For if a man did it knowingly, he was to be cut off, Numbers 15:30. In the holy things-In things consecrated to God, and to holy uses; such as tithes and first-fruits, or any things due, or devoted to God, which possibly a man might either with-hold, or employ to some common use. A ram-A more chargeable sacrifice than the former, as the sin of sacrilege was greater. With thy estimation-As thou shalt esteem or rate it, thou, O priest; and at present, thou, O Moses, for he as yet performed the priest’s part. And this was an additional charge and punishment to him; besides the ram, he was to pay for the holy thing which he had with-held or abused, so many shekels of silver as the priest should esteem proportionable to it.

Verse 15. In the holy things of the Lord] This law seems to relate particularly to sacrilege, and defrauds in spiritual matters; such as the neglect to consecrate or redeem the firstborn, the withholding of the first-fruits, tithes, and such like; and, according to the rabbins, making any secular gain of Divine things, keeping back any part of the price of things dedicated to God, or withholding what man had vowed to pay. See a long list of these things in Ainsworth.

With thy estimation] The wrong done or the defraud committed should be estimated at the number of shekels it was worth, or for which it would sell. These the defrauder was to pay down, to which he was to add a fifth part more, and bring a ram without blemish for a sin-offering besides. There is an obscurity in the text, but this seems to be its meaning.

Verse 15. A trespass — Against the Lord and his priests. Through ignorance — For if a man did it knowingly, he was to be cut off, Numbers 15:30. In the holy things — In things consecrated to God, and to holy uses; these were many, and by various ways a man might be guilty, even unwittingly, with respect to them; such as tithes and first-fruits, or any thing due or devoted to God, which possibly a man might either withhold, or employ to some common use. A ram — A more chargeable sacrifice than the former, as the sin of sacrilege was greater. With thy estimation — As thou, O priest, shalt esteem or rate it; and at present, thou, O Moses, for he as yet performed the priest’s part. And this was an additional charge and punishment to him; besides the ram, he was to pay for the holy thing which he had withheld or abused, so many shekels of silver as the priests should esteem proportionable to it.

Ver. 15. If a soul commit a trespass—in holy things. The LXX read plhmmeleia, which refers to some fraud, by withholding the tenths for the support of the sanctuary and its ministers, whether of corn or of the firstlings of his flock, he was here not only enjoined to restore it, but to add a fifth part as a fine for his fault. The whole tribe of Levi gave up their land; they had no lot but forty eight cities. Hence in fact, the people only cultivated the lands of the levites, while the levites, in return, devoted their lives to the instruction of the people: to rob the levites therefore was to rob the Lord. Malachi 3:8.

15. Commit a trespass — This is the first time that the word l[m, to act treacherously, or to be faithless, is found in the Bible. By the use of a new term the sacred writer speaks of a peculiar kind of moral delinquency which flows from human infirmity, neglect, or cowardice. Holy things of the Lord — This relates to deficiencies in the tithes, firstfruits, sacrifices, vows, redemption of the firstborn, and other sources of revenue to the priests, which have occurred through forgetfulness or negligence. Those who had erroneous judgments or short memories in respect to their dues to the house of God — a numerous class, which, unfortunately, did not become extinct with Judaism — were to be enlightened and convicted of their delinquencies, and excited to make amends and seek forgiveness. With thy estimation — The person addressed is Moses, who here represents the priest. The “estimation” is the assessed amount of the deficiency, which, with a fifth added, and a perfect ram besides for a sin offering, was deemed a sufficient indemnity for the past and safeguard for the future. When we see the sin “in the holy things of the Lord” committed by careless or covetous Christians, we are inclined to wish that the Gospel were a system of precepts instead of principles — precepts prescribing the exact payment of a certain proportion of income to the Lord’s treasury, instead of broad principles easily forgotten or misapplied. Yet the Gospel, the law of liberty, has its compensations in the many noble characters which this system of spiritual freedom develops, while the preceptory religion of the Hebrews sadly failed to eradicate that “covetousness which is idolatry.” Malachi 3:8-10.

Verse 16. Shall make amends] Make restitution for the wrong he had done according to what is laid down in the preceding verse.

V. 17. The former law concerns the alienation of holy things from sacred to common use; this may concern other miscarriages about holy things, and holy duties, as may be gathered from Leviticus 5:19, where this is said to be a trespass against the Lord, not in a general sense, for so every sin was; but in a proper and peculiar sense.

Verse 17. The former law concerns the alienation of holy things from sacred to common use; this may concern other miscarriages about holy things and holy duties, as may be gathered from verse 19, where this is said to be a trespass against the Lord, not in a general sense, for so every sin was, but in a proper and peculiar sense.

17. If a soul sin… though he wist it not — The case described in verses 17-19 differs from the preceding in the fact that this sin of ignorance never comes to knowledge, while there is ground for suspecting that the sin may have been committed. In this case the person is not to give himself the benefit of the doubt, but he should make amends for the hypothetical delinquency. The example cited by the rabbins is that of a person who has grounds for suspecting that he has eaten suet, or fat of the inwards, intermingled with other food. His conscience can be relieved of the doubt only by bringing a ram as a trespass offering. Thus that principle is divinely established which is cogently argued by Bishop Butler, namely, that doubt in religious matters involves proof enough to incite to the performance of religious duties, and to criminate the doubter if he refuses. See Romans 14:23, note.

CONCLUDING NOTE.

Opponents of that central doctrine of both the Levitical and Christian dispensations, the vicarious atonement, endeavour to invalidate it by an objection drawn from this chapter, namely, the prominence given to defilements not moral, but merely bodily and external, as contact with the carcass of an unclean beast. But an attentive examination will show that this prominence is seeming rather than real. These ceremonial impurities appear to be of the greatest importance, because they are minutely defined and broadly spread out before the reader. But it will be found that the mention of them is only supplementary, lest the people should suppose that such comparatively trifling offences against the law of purity were not included. This must be evident to him who reads the preceding chapter, where it is said in regard to the priest, the prince, the congregation, and the private individual, if they sin “against any of the commandments of God,” let the prescribed sin offering be made. Here it requires no minute definition of sin, since the decalogue had been written on the tables of stone, a visible expression of the older decalogue written on the tablets of the heart. It was impossible for the Hebrews to understand “the commandments of God” in any other sense than the moral precepts and prohibitions given on Mount Sinai. These were prominently before their minds, and for infractions of these chiefly was the blood of the victims to be shed. Again, when the symbolical nature of ceremonial institutions shall be correctly unfolded, there will be found a moral element deeply embodied in them, for the sake of which alone these shadowy rites were instituted, the uncleanness of a man prefiguring the filthiness of “the flesh and spirit,” and the dead body fore-showing the natural corruption of the unregenerate heart, styled by St. Paul, “the body of this death.”

Verse 19. 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 endeavour 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 Saviour 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.

LEVITICUS