Leviticus 5 Study Notes

5:1-13 The remaining instructions for the sin offering provide four case examples (vv. 1-4) and the ritual procedure required (vv. 5-6), including special directives for the poor (vv. 5-13).

5:1-4 The four cases involve those who failed to testify in court (v. 1); those who became unclean through contact with an unclean animal (v. 2) or an unclean person (v. 3); and those who uttered an oath rashly (v. 4). The first and fourth of these cases of sin pertained to an oath, and the second and third cases regarded ceremonial uncleanness. One suggestion for why these four cases are treated as a separate category is that the person remained in his guilt for a prolonged time before he confessed (Jacob Milgrom).

5:1 A public call to testify (lit “voice of an oath”) indicates a judicial matter in which formal testimony is requested of those who have knowledge to contribute to a court proceeding. Typically, with an oath came a divine curse against someone who failed in his oath; in this case, the implied curse was that the person’s failure made him answerable to God (Pr 29:24). The sinner felt guilty, and he openly confessed his sin (Lv 5:5); this indicates that he had genuine remorse. Precisely why he failed to testify was left open to a number of possible scenarios, including complicity in the crime, neglect, or forgetfulness. The absence of the qualification “unintentional” (cp. 4:2) in the verse may mean that the sin could have been deliberate. The sin, however, could qualify for purging since the wrong was not as severe as the crime of bearing false witness and since the person showed remorse.

5:2 The possibility of touching an unclean creature was always a threat (11:24-28,35-40); therefore, it was common that a person might forget it or postpone the purification rite. For the unclean swarming creature, see the specifics in chap. 11.

5:3 For the purity laws that designate human uncleanness, see chaps. 12-15; 17:15-16; 18:19; cp. 1Sm 20:26; Ezk 22:10.

5:4 Rashly (Hb bata’) describes hurtful, hastily spoken words (Ps 106:33; Pr 12:18); here it indicates a careless oath, made regardless of whether it was virtuous or not. The oath was forgotten; it either could not be or should not be realized. Typically, an unfulfilled oath included a divine punishment. Even failure to fulfill an oath with an evil purpose resulted in personal guilt, because God required his people to speak truthful words, just as he is truthful (2Sm 22:31; Is 40:8; Rm 3:4). Because of the seriousness of this sin, oaths should be made only after careful thought (Nm 30:2; Dt 23:21-22; Ec 5:4-5).

5:5-6 Two measures were required of the offender for any of these four crimes. The root word for confess (Hb yadah) can also mean to “praise aloud” (Ps 7:17), indicating that confession involved declaring one’s sin publicly (Lv 16:21; 26:40; Nm 5:6-7; 1Jn 1:9). The penalty for guilt (Hb ’asham) was an animal offering. The word can also mean “guilt” (4:13; 5:16,18,19). It is called the “guilt offering” (or “restitution” offering; traditionally “trespass” offering) in 5:14-6:7.

5:7 On birds as a substitute offering, see note at 1:14.

5:8 Two birds were necessary since the regular sin offering required two acts (4:6-10): (1) the disposal of the blood, and (2) the burning of its internal organs and fat. The sin offering granted cleansing and acceptance with God, which was necessary before the burnt offering (indicating devotion) was appropriate.

5:11 Although the sin offering presented by the very poor was similar to the grain offering by the use of wheat flour, it is identified as a sin offering, not a grain offering (“a fire offering,” 2:16). Oil and incense that characterized the grain offering (see note at 2:1) were omitted from the sin offering since these elements signified the joy of worship. The amount of flour was small enough that the very poor could afford it. Rich (e.g., a leader) and poor alike were guilty of sin, but by God’s gracious provision all could be purified.

5:12 The burning of the memorial portion (2:2) corresponded to the burning of the sacrificial animal’s entrails in the regular offering procedure.

5:13 The remainder of the flour customarily belonged to the officiating priest (6:26); although this was a minimal amount, its consumption by the priest symbolized to the poor man that his offering had been accepted by God and that he had received forgiveness. It was the grace of the Lord, not the value of the offering, that procured forgiveness.

5:14-6:7 The penalty for guilt or guilt offering (5:15), sometimes translated “trespass” offering, remedied the sins of defrauding God’s “holy things” (5:14-19) or defrauding a person, which involved offending the Lord through a false oath (6:1-7). This offering addressed the damage of depriving someone of his rightful due; thus, monetary reparations were required. The precise shade of meaning for the word “guilt” is uncertain, meaning either the fact of guilt or the feelings of guilt.

The offering involved an assessment by the priest of the damages plus a surcharge payment of twenty percent. The restitution ritual varied for compensating damages against God and against a person. In addition to those listed here, the offering was required for the purification of a leper (14:12), payment for a sexual crime against a slave woman (19:20), and the purification ritual of a Nazirite (Nm 6:12).

5:15 The term offends (Hb ma‘al) means “acts treacherously,” which can describe sacrilege against God (Jos 7:1) or betrayal of another person (Nm 5:6). On sins committed unintentionally, see note at 4:1-2. Holy things refers broadly to any of those things that were consecrated to the Lord, such as unlawfully eating food dedicated to the Lord (22:14) and a Nazirite who became defiled (Nm 6:9-12). The ritual required compensation to the Lord by bringing the sacrificial animal to his representative, the priest. The ritual was like the sin offering (4:1-5:13; 7:7). The offender slaughtered the sacrificial animal at the main altar; the priest sprinkled blood on all its sides and burned up the fat, leaving the meat for the officiating priest to eat (7:2-7). The guilt offering included additional steps. The offender had to pay for the damages, as evaluated by the priest (27:12), according to the standard sanctuary shekel (27:3), with an additional twenty percent charge (5:16).

5:16 The payment was to the priest since the offense was against the Lord. On the word forgiven, see note at 4:20-21.

5:17 The second case was a transgression in which the person had desecrated something holy without knowing it. This distinguished the guilt offering from the sin offering, which described an offender who later came to realize his crime (4:2,22,27).

5:19 Before the Lord here means “against the Lord.”