In the transition cases of Leviticus 5:1-13, the offering seems to be called both a trespass and a sin-offering (compare verses 6-7, and 9,11-12); yet only a connecting particle opens the section. The former class regarded sin in itself where the conscience was bad from the first; the transitional class that follows treats rather of sin viewed in its consequences, and admits of consideration, which the first class did not with a single and slight exception. But here we have an option of unexampled largeness, and the more to be noticed because sin was in question.
When the sin came to be known, the guilty person confessed it, bringing a female lamb or kid; if his hand were insufficient for this, two turtle-doves or two young pigeons – one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering; and if his hand reached not to this, the tenth of an ephah of flour was brought by the sinner, but no oil nor frankincense, as it was a sin-offering. The priest grasped his handful, its memorial, and burnt it on the altar in expiation for his sin which should be forgiven, retaining the rest as an oblation. Here again, what compassion for the poor in divine things! Yet there is the nicest care of holiness, not only where conscience at once told the tale of sin, but where it may not have been bad until it knew the consequence of overlooking some ordinance of government or legal purity. When it thus became bad, there must be both confession and sin-offering in order to forgiveness.
On the other hand, God would not let circumstances hinder the poorest from the comfort of atonement as well as the duty of confession. The offering of fine flour for sin is exactly the exception which proves the rule, as it was manifestly owing to destitution on the offerer’s part, and only a graciously-allowed substitute for a bloody offering otherwise indispensable. A soul may feel its need of atonement, and look to Christ as a sin-bearer without anything like a full perception of His blood and death: will the grace of God shut out from the effects of His work because of untoward circumstances which hindered more knowledge? Assuredly I do not think so.
The former (Introduction to the Old Testament 1:267) says, “Whosoever wishes to ascertain the points of difference between these two classes of offerings must carefully read Leviticus 5:14-26 and Leviticus 7:1-10, relating to the trespass-offering; and Leviticus 5:1-13; Leviticus 6:17-23, which refer to the sin-offering. He should particularly guard against the mistake of referring Leviticus 5:5-6 to the trespass-offering, since it relates to the sin-offering alone. The passage says, that if one be guilty in any of the things mentioned in Leviticus 5:1-4, he shall confess that he has sinned, and bring his אְֵשָׁםו his debt, his due compensation, or simply his offering. The word has the same sense in Leviticus 5:15; Numbers 5:7. Nothing can be more incorrect than to affirm with Kitto, that the same offerings are called interchangeably sin-offerings and trespass-offerings in Leviticus 5:6-9. אָשָׁם has three meanings – namely, guilt, as in Genesis 26; debt, or what is due for contracting for guilt; and sacrifice for certain sins, that is, sin-offering. Thus the term אָשָׁם is not appropriated to trespass-offerings wherever it occurs, but is of wider significance. The occasions on which the two classes of offerings were made cannot with truth be pronounced the same; nor were the ceremonies alike, though these assertions have been made.”
Dr. Fairbairn (Typ., 2, pg. 348) remarks truly that the section to the end of verse 13 was added to the end of Lev. 5 without the formula, “Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying.” But does he not go too far in asserting that it was to specify certain occasions in which it should be presented, and to make provision for the destitute? Is it not plain that Leviticus 4 is the full ordinary case of sin in error, but against commandments of Jehovah, doing what ought not to be done? and that Leviticus 5:1-13 is an appendix of defilement through Jehovah’s ordinance, rather than a violation of natural conscience? These cases of refusal under adjuration (1), ceremonial uncleanness (2-3), and the breaking of rash oaths (4), are specified in a way which is not seen in the more solemn sin-offering, which was also general. Hence, being peculiar, we have a variety of offerings quite as distinct from the usual sin-offering as from the formal trespass-offering where separation was made. It is true that in these appended cases “sin-offering” is used (Leviticus 5:6-9, 11-12); but I do not think it correct to say that a “trespass-offering” in verse 6 is a mere mistranslation, or that the expression in the original is the same in verse 7. For although אָשָׁם is not always determinately a trespass-offering, but is used more generally, sometimes for guilt and its punishment, yet it can hardly be assumed without good reason where we are on ground so precise as the distinct offerings. And to me it is evident that the word is not used in exactly the same way in Leviticus 5:6-7, “for his sin” (עַל הַםָּאו) following in the former case, not in the latter, which makes all the difference, and justifies, I think, the Authorized Version, the Samaritan, De Wette, Dr. Benisch, and Mr. Young. The Vulgate is vagueness itself; the LXX and the Targum of Onkelos seem to favor Dr. Fairbairn, and so probably Luther. Thus ancients and moderns differ, and the point is evidently not easy to decide. The word may be used in a general rather than its specific sense.)
Leviticus 5:14 gives a new word of Jehovah to Moses, as we see in the beginning of Leviticus 6 also. Both sections however (Lev. 5:14-19 and 6:1-7) share the common principle of making amends, or restitution, and the common name of trespass or guilt-offering, which was necessarily a ram, the blood of which (as we learn from its law, Lev. 7) was sprinkled round about upon the altar, not poured out or shed at its base as with the sin-offering. The proper offerings for guilt or trespass, then, consist of two classes: first, wrongs done in the holy things of Jehovah (probably firstfruits, tithes, and so forth), or by doing something against Jehovah’s commands, afterward found out; secondly, wrongs which Jehovah counts done against Him, though not sacrilegious or transgressive like the former, but acts of fraud and violence with deceit against men.
In all such cases, besides an unblemished ram for the trespass-offering, with the payment of the value of the wrong that was done, a fifth was added according to the valuation of Moses, and given either to the priest in the former class, or to the party wronged in the second class.