Lev. 5:20-26 (6:1-7)
There is another form of the Guilt offering, which meets treachery against a neighbor, or falsehood as to something lost. This Jehovah counted against Himself indirectly, as the former case affected Him directly. Ignorance is not supposed in question with a neighbor, but it might easily be alas! in the things forbidden to be done by the commandments of Jehovah. It is obvious that these seven verses, though a fresh precept which Jehovah spoke to Moses, are the proper conclusion of chapter 5 as in the Hebrew Bible. They ought not to be the opening section of chapter v as in the English Bible. Why the Revised V. did not rectify the mistake seems strange; but it shows how hampered they were by prejudice or restriction. For it severs the true complementary link with chapter:14-19, and interferes with the due order for “the laws of the offerings” which begin with what is thus made verse 8 of chapter 6.
“And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, If anyone sin, and commit a perfidy against Jehovah, and lie to his neighbor as to a matter of trust, or a loan, or a robbery, or a cheat to his neighbor; or have found what was lost and lieth therein, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein, then it shall be, if he hath sinned and hath trespassed that he shall restore what he robbed, or what he defrauded, or the trust entrusted to him, or the lost thing which he found, “or all about which he swore falsely; and he shall restore it in the principal and shall add the fifth part more thereto; to whom it belongeth shall he give it on the day of his trespass-offering. And his trespass offering he shall bring to Jehovah, a ram without blemish out of the flock according to thy valuation as a trespass offering unto the priest. And the priest shall make atonement for him before Jehovah, and it shall be forgiven him concerning anything of all he did to trespass therein” (vers. 20-26).
What grace on Jehovah's part thus to regard wrongs against a neighbor as wrongs against Himself also, and to require a reparation and a like Trespass offering! Yet was it due to His glory and needed by man that a distinct ordinance should draw the line between them. The trespass against a neighbor brought out a new speech from Jehovah to Moses, instead of being a simple appendage as verses 17-19 were to verses 14-16, an appendage which refused to allow the excuse of ignorance in the holy things of Jehovah.
Yet there is, as might be expected, no small variety in these wrongs which demanded a Trespass offering. The first form of the guilt here denounced appears to be a failure in private trust. It might be any valuable or document of use, committed to the custody of a friend; it might be only an animal, or a book lent, an ax borrowed, or money confided however little. But Jehovah took notice and bound up the trustful Israelite's rights with His own name. The next would seem to be a matter public, of barter, or of virtual partnership perhaps in business, where the evil done was not viewed as a wrong but as a failure in responsibility, however fair in appearance. Here our version like the Septuagint renders it “in fellowship,” as distinct from the preceding case of private trust. The Vulgate translates loosely and confounds the two. The better Jewish authorities distinguish the second as a loan, from the former as a deposit. Then we have a violent exercise of power, followed by one of deceit as in withholding wages, &c.: both apt to be common and covering many a failure which Jehovah resented. Next, we have the finding of what one's neighbor lost, and falsehood about it, even to perjury.
In every such case Jehovah demanded a Trespass offering as rigorously as in His holy things. Not only must there be restitution of the principal, but a double tithe, or fifth part, rendered as a penalty. And as His own honor was concerned, in the failure to maintain the holy relationship of Israel, an unblemished ram was prescribed as the one unvarying Trespass offering permissible. By this, and this only, the priest should make atonement for the guilty offerer, “and it shall be forgiven him,” with the striking addition here only “for any one of all which he did to trespass therein.”
But it is well to take note of the difference in the order prescribed between the guilt in Jehovah's holy things (14-19) and that incurred in the cases of one's neighbor (20-26), with which we are immediately concerned. In the former the offering took the first place; in the latter the reparation. Both were required. Jehovah regarded either as His dishonor: and the ram was equally necessary as the reparation with the added fifth part. But the difference of order was made to impress the Israelite's heart with what touched Jehovah directly as compared with what was indirect in defrauding the neighbor. Who but God could have provided thus holily for His people in distinctions so nice and profitable? Neither Moses nor Aaron, nor Samuel nor David, still less men later in a dark, fallen, and comparatively careless state. It was Jehovah from the beginning.
It was not yet nor could be under the law to proclaim remission of sins absolutely and forever to every believer. This awaited the Lord Jesus and His accomplished work of redemption in the gospel. For “the blood of Jesus Christ, God's Son, cleanseth us from every sin.” But it was no niggardly comfort the righteous Jehovah even then and thus gave the penitent Israelite, conscious of having sinned shamefully, and of desecrating the holy standing of His people.