The LORD spoke to Moses, saying… Although we passed over 4:1 last week, we should not do so this week. 5:14 is identical to that verse, which should not surprise us since the phrase is used (with some variation) thirty-seven times in Leviticus. The sheer abundance of that refrain can easily lead to us barely noticing it. However, we are repeatedly told that these are Yahweh’s words to Moses as a reminder that this is indeed God’s holy word.

Therefore, as we endeavor to study this next portion of Leviticus, let Psalm 19:7 be our meditation: “The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul.” God’s law, His Torah, is perfect. This is the same word used in Leviticus to describe the animals as needing to be ‘without blemish.’ Our words are filled with impurity. This is why, after comparing the tongue to a raging fire, James 3:8 says plainly that “no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.” But praise the LORD that His word is not like us. His law is as spotless as the Lamb of God who fulfilled it perfectly on our behalf.

It also revives the soul. James Johnston notes that this phrase is “used for food that restores strength and vitality. There is the sense here that the Law of the Lord is our spiritual food” (208). But it can also mean that the Scriptures turn us back to God, bringing us back to the life and joy that we forsake through our sin. God’s law restores us to communion with Him. May He indeed revive our souls as we study His perfect law this morning.

---

Even though this is a much smaller text than last week, the offering is similar and would benefit from a similar structure of study. Thus, let us ask three questions of our text:

1) What is the problem being addressed?

2) What is the solution that is given?

3) What is the outcome?

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM BEING ADDRESSED?

As we noted previously, the final two of the five basic offerings differ from the first three. The burnt, grain, and peace offerings were voluntary offerings that could be given at anytime by a worshiper. The purification (or sin) and the guilt offerings were mandatory offerings that were required in response to certain situations or circumstances. And while the purification offering was required in response to ritual impurities, the focus in our previous text was upon unintentional sins. Like the purification offering, the guilt offering was commanded in response to particular sins; however, the types of sin differed.

Verse 15 gives us the key word for understanding the guilt offering: If anyone commits a breach of faith and sins unintentionally in any of the holy things of the LORD... The phrase ‘breach of faith’ is one word in Hebrews: ma’al. Breach is a good description because ma’al carries the idea of trespassing, of breaking trust and honor and doing what ought not to be done. It conveys the idea of treachery, unfaithfulness, or acting covertly against a covenant partner. For instance, Numbers 5 uses ma’al of an adulterous woman, saying that she “has broken faith with her husband” (v. 27), meaning she has transgressed the marriage covenant. In the context of Leviticus, the partner wronged is Yahweh himself.

The details of what sort of breach of faith is meant here are somewhat ambiguous. They are unintentional sins, so they are not committed in blatant rebellion against the LORD. They are also against the holy things of the LORD. Palmer gives a number of suggestions of what kinds of sins would fall under this category:

The guilt offering is the Lord’s provision for the unintentional violation of holy things, such as when someone inadvertently eats a portion of the firstfruits of his harvest or fails to redeem the firstborn of his male animals that rightly belong to the Lord (Num. 18:12-18). Or when someone other than a priest, such as a guest or daughter married outside of the priestly clan, partakes of the most holy sacrificial portions reserved for those who minister at the altar (Lev. 2:3; 6:25, 29; 7:1, 6; cf. 22:10-16). (872-873)

These examples all amount to fraud or theft against the LORD. The most important point to note is that they are unintentional. Even if they committed through neglect or carelessness, they are not committed in scornful rebellion.

Verse 17 gives us a second category: If anyone sins, doing any of the things that by the LORD’s commandments ought not to be done, though he did not know it, then realizes his guilt, he shall bear his iniquity.

While this may sound similar, it does not require the restitution that the breach of faith in verse 15 demanded. So how is this different? The key seems to be the phrase though he did not know it. I think Wenham’s suggestion is correct:

[The worshiper] ‘feels guilty’ and starts to suffer for it, i.e., ‘bears his iniquity.’ This then is an instance of a suspected trespass against sacred property, one of the most dreaded sins in antiquity. Someone suspects he has sinned, but does not know exactly how. In his uncertainty he fears the worst, and therefore a reparation offering must be brought, a ram or its equivalent (in money). (108)

The third and final category is found in 6:2-3:

If anyone sins and commits a breach of faith against the LORD by deceiving his neighbor in a matter of deposit or security, or through robbery, or if he has oppressed his neighbor or has found something lost and lied about it, swearing falsely–in any of all the things that people do and sin thereby–

This category of ma’al is a transgressing of what belongs to someone else. It may have been a matter of deception regarding a deposit or security. This likely describes a scenario where a person is given something to safeguard for someone else, but when the time comes to return the item, they are deceptive and steal it, perhaps by saying that it was lost. It may also have through plain robbery of someone else’s property. Or maybe it was through oppression or fraud, which could be done through withholding a worker’s wages, using unjust scales, and similar schemes. The fourth and final scenario is finding something lost and lying in order to keep it. The connective glue is that all are forms of cheating another person out of their property.

Yet even though these transgressions are committed against a neighbor, notice that the breach of faith is against the LORD. Of course, it is certainly the case that every sin is ultimately a sin against God because it is a breaking of His holy law. David understood that when he prayed, “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what was evil in your sight” (Psalm 51:4). However, there is a more specific matter happening here, as revealed by the words swearing falsely. In these scenarios listed, the sinner not only defrauded his neighbor; he also lied about doing so when questioned, even swearing by Yahweh’s name. The first phrase of verse 5 confirms this.

Notice that this sin is not called unintentional. While it may not have been done with a high hand toward the LORD, the person clearly did not accidentally swear falsely in the same way that a person might accidentally eat meat dedicated to the priests. Mathews notes:

It is not clear how the person “realized” his crime. We surmise that he came to acknowledge his guilt because of his injured conscience. His remorse for his behavior led to his confession. (62)

These are the three scenarios that require the guilt offering to be made: breaches of faith or transgressions.

The Old Testament contains sobering parallels. In Joshua 7, Achan is put to death for taking some of the devoted spoil from Jericho, items that had been placed under the ban and dedicated to the LORD. His sin was not merely theft; it was a direct violation of God’s explicit command and an act of covenant treachery. In 2 Samuel 6 (also recorded in 1 Chronicles 13), Uzzah is struck dead when he puts out his hand to steady the Ark of the Covenant. On the surface, his action might seem understandable, even necessary. But God had given explicit commands about how the Ark was to be transported and who could touch it. By disregarding those commands, even in the moment, Uzzah committed a breach against what was holy. These examples teach that doing what ought not to be done in relation to God’s holy things, especially with deceit or disregard for his Word, is a grave sin that the guilt offering addresses.

A vivid New Testament example of such a breach is found in Acts 5 with Ananias and Sapphira. In that period many in the early church were selling property and bringing the full proceeds to the apostles to meet the needs of fellow believers. Ananias and Sapphira sold a piece of land but secretly kept back part of the proceeds, bringing only a portion while claiming to give it all (Acts 5:1–2). Peter confronts Ananias with sharp clarity: “Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the proceeds? … You have not lied to men but to God.” The issue was not that they failed to give every penny. Peter explicitly notes that the land and its profit were theirs, and they were free to do with it what they wanted. But they deceitfully presented themselves as more generous than they were, attempting to deceive both the church and God himself. Their punishment, immediate death, underlines the seriousness of a breach of faith toward the LORD.

We should thus ask ourselves as well: What has God set apart for himself in my life, and am I keeping it holy? One obvious application is in our stewardship of money. While the New Testament does not bind believers to the Old Testament tithe, the principle of generous, honest giving remains. We too can become guilty of a breach of faith against the LORD in at least two ways: 1) Pretending to give more than we do, in order to gain status or praise, as Ananias and Sapphira did. This is giving laced with deceit. Or even simply giving in order to be seen by others, which is corrupting the offering with pride. 2) Withholding what rightly belongs to the LORD — refusing to give in accordance with God’s commands and the needs of his people. Malachi 3 calls this “robbing God.”

We would also do well to consider that the New Testament calls our bodies the temple of the Holy Spirit. To treat our bodies with contempt or neglect is a defilement of what God has set apart to be holy to Him.

God has given us everything, including our time. Setting aside regular time for communion with him, hearing his Word, responding in prayer, gathering with his people, is part of what he is due. When we consistently withhold this from him for the sake of lesser pursuits, we are in effect trespassing on what belongs to him. Likewise, neglecting the gathered worship of the church is not a harmless omission; it is failing to give God the honor he commands in Hebrews 10:25.

Ultimately, the guilt offering points to the reality that our lives belong entirely to God. We sin when we withhold any part of ourselves, whether our resources, our time, our loyalty, or our worship, and act as though we are our own. These breaches of faith call for confession, restitution where possible, and trust in the greater sacrifice of Christ, who has made full atonement for every believer’s guilt.

WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

So, what is the solution outlined in our text? Notice there’s kind of a two-part solution given to us. We’ll start in verse 15, which says: if anyone commits a breach of faith and sins unintentionally in regard to any of the holy things, he shall bring to Yahweh as his compensation a ram without blemish from the flock.

Notice the ESV footnote says “or its equivalent,” meaning the ram can be brought or the equivalent value in silver shekels according to the shekel of the sanctuary. That’s probably the best way to understand this: the person can bring a ram without blemish or its equivalent in silver shekels for a guilt offering.

Back to verse 15, the worshipper is commanded to bring a ram. Then, in verse 18, after the second instance of sin, where the person may not know exactly what his sin was but his conscience is stricken by guilt or he realizes his guilt, it says: He shall bring to the priest a ram without blemish from the flock, or its equivalent, for a guilt offering, and the priest shall make atonement for him.

Then, in chapter 6, after discussing fraud against others, verse 4 says: If he sins and realizes his guilt and restores what he took by robbery or what he got by oppression or the deposit committed to him or the lost thing he found, or anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full and add a fifth to it and give it to the one to whom it belongs on the day he realizes his guilt. Then he shall bring to the priest as his compensation to Yahweh a ram without blemish from the flock or its equivalent for a guilt offering.

So this is the only offering that uses a ram, and I love what Andrew Bonar says about this:

The trespass [or guilt] offering was always a ram. It was meant to remind Israel of Abraham’s offering of Isaac, when a ram was substituted. The blood of the ram was always put on the sides of the altar, unlike the sin offering, where blood was put on the horns, reflecting a more public nature of the sin offering.

The guilt offering is the only one that is a ram, one of the most expensive gifts one could give, and surely the Israelites would think of Isaac being spared by the ram’s sacrifice. The offering given to Yahweh in forgiveness of sins. The ram is the compensation to Yahweh, a ram without blemish.

Notice that in all the other sacrifices, the ritual procedure is described in detail, slaughtering the animal, pressing the hand on it, and so forth. But here, it simply says to bring a ram or its equivalent and make it right. Nothing else is described.

Gordon Wenham is correct when he says:

The ritual side of the reparation offering is described much more briefly than with other sacrifices. It is difficult to be sure of the exact procedure. The brevity may correspond to the relative unimportance of the ritual. The value of the animal presented was more important than the procedure at the altar.

That fits well here. The ritual wasn’t as important as bringing the ram or its equivalent in silver. The point wasn’t the blood or the ritual, but the payment of a debt to God.

Wenham also points out that the burnt offering, sin offering, purification offering, and guilt offering all deal with sin, but each with a different view. The burnt offering addresses sin generally, focusing on substitutionary atonement. The purification offering addresses sin as a corruption that makes one unclean, requiring purification by blood. The guilt offering presents sin as a debt, a cosmic debt that must be paid. So the ram or its silver equivalent is given as Yahweh’s portion. The emphasis is not on blood or ritual, but on paying the debt that the sinner owes God for transgressing and dishonoring Him as king.

The text in Leviticus 5:16 says: He shall make restitution for what he has done amiss in the holy thing and shall add a fifth to it and give it to the priest.

In verses 17–19, where the person doesn’t know the exact sin, restitution isn’t mentioned. But in chapter 6, verses 1–7, restitution is commanded again: If he sins and realizes his guilt and restores what he took by robbery, oppression, lost property, or falsely sworn oath, he shall restore it in full and add a fifth and give it to the rightful owner on the day he realizes his guilt. So not only must he compensate Yahweh with the ram, but he must also make restitution to the person wronged.

For example, if someone failed to offer their firstborn as required, upon confessing, they must bring the offering to God and pay an additional 20% (a fifth) as restitution. This is a double tithe: the tithe is 10%, so a fifth is 20%. If the sin was against a person, like stealing land, the sinner must restore the land and add 20% restitution.

This beautifully illustrates how sin requires response, sin is vertical (against God) but also horizontal (against others). When we commit a tangible wrong against our neighbor, confession to God is not enough; we must make restitution, as far as we are able. And if you remember, we saw this same principle in Exodus but with a notable difference. Consider Exodus 22:7-9:

If a man gives to his neighbor money or goods to keep safe, and it is stolen from the man’s house, then, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, the owner of the house shall come near to God to show whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor’s property. For every breach of trust, whether it is for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a cloak, or for any kind of lost thing, of which one says, ‘This is it,’ the case of both parties shall come before God. The one whom God condemns shall pay double to his neighbor.

Notice that this is a scenario that resembles Leviticus 6:2 yet notice the much higher restitution. He needed to pay double (200%) rather than 120% as commanded in our text. Is this a contradiction? Not at all. What is the difference between these two passages? Exodus describing what happens if someone is condemned by God when both parties stand before Him (likely through a judge). Thus, 200% restitution was expected, if the person was condemned in court. But our text in Leviticus is giving us a scenario were the person’s conscience leads them to confess their sin and make restitution without the court demanding it. In that case, the restitution was smaller: 120%.

Do you see what’s happening? In His law, the LORD was incentivizing His people to confess and repent of their sins freely, for the penalty was less than if they were publicly condemned. Indeed, many parents still practice this principle of discipline, and now we know that there is biblical basis for it. Confession does not necessarily entirely remove the consequence of sin; however, parents should make the consequence significantly less for the repentant child than the child whose sin is merely exposed.  

There is a beautiful New Testament example of restitution in the story of Zacchaeus, the rich tax collector. When Jesus visits his house, Zacchaeus responds: “Behold, Lord, half of my goods I give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone, I restore it fourfold.”

This is amazing. Under the law, confessing guilt meant paying back what was owed plus 20% or even another 100% if caught in sin. Zacchaeus goes beyond that, offering 400%. This shows the effect of the gospel; the Holy Spirit renews our hearts so that we are generous and abundant in restitution.

Just as it is difficult to love enemies or pray for persecutors, so too it requires the Holy Spirit’s power to repent and make things right with those we have wronged. Even so, this Old Testament principle remains in effect today. If we have wronged someone (physically, financially, or even in reputation) we must both repent before God and also make things right with the person. Jesus told us in Matthew 5:23–24:

So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Of course, full reconciliation is a two-way street. We cannot control whether another person forgives us or not. But if we have wronged someone, we should seek forgiveness and make restitution where necessary. A believer should not claim that his or her forgiveness in Christ means no longer needing to repay an offense.

So, the guilt offering provides a solution: a ram for the vertical relationship between the sinner and God, and restitution for the horizontal relationship between the sinner and his neighbor.

WHAT IS THE OUTCOME?

The outcome of this offering, much like the purification offering, is no less beautiful. In verse 16, it says, And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering, and he shall be forgiven. Going down to verse 18, it says, The priest shall make atonement for him for the mistake he made unintentionally, and he shall be forgiven. The last example, in Leviticus 6:6, repeats this: he shall bring to the priest as compensation to Yahweh a ram without blemish from the flock, or its equivalent, as a guilt offering. The priest shall make atonement for him before Yahweh, and he shall be forgiven for any of the things one may do that cause guilt.

So, the clear outcome of the guilt offering is forgiveness, sins are atoned for. Atonement literally means “at-one-ment,” repairing a relationship that was broken. But the phrase he shall be forgiven is in the passive voice, which is significant. It is not the priest granting forgiveness, nor the guilt offering itself securing forgiveness. Rather, it is passive: he shall be forgiven. Who is doing the forgiving? God. It is God’s grace that grants forgiveness.

Now, of course, we don’t have guilt offerings today. Or do we?

Isaiah 53 provides a beautiful use of this concept. This chapter describes the suffering servant of Yahweh, Jesus Christ.

He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces,
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
He was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Notice the beautiful picture here, similar to Isaac, who was willing to be sacrificed by his father Abraham. Isaac was a young man who could have resisted, but he trusted his father and the Lord, believing he would be brought back. In the same way, Jesus Christ, the greater Isaac, was willingly sacrificed. Unlike Isaac, who was spared by the ram provided by God, Jesus was the Lamb slaughtered to take our place.

The worshipper in the Old Testament would lay hands on the animal, identifying with it, saying, “This animal represents me; it takes my place.” That is what Jesus did perfectly. He took our place, being “pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed for our iniquities.” Yahweh laid our iniquity upon Him as He suffered.

Isaiah 53 continues in verses 9-10, but notice 10 particularly:

They made his grave with the wicked,
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.
Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Notice that verse 10 is the turn of the passage. It begins by saying that it was the will of God to crush His Son and put Him to grief in our place, but it ends by saying that He will see His offspring, prolong His days, and the will of Yahweh shall prosper through Him. This clearly implies the resurrection (and exaltation!) of Christ, since dead men cannot see their offspring and certainly cannot have their days prolonged. Indeed, verse 11 shows clearly that exaltation, not humiliation, is now in view.

Out of the anguish of his soul,
he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one,
my servant, make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.

How does the text shift from the humiliation of Christ to the His exaltation? The turn happens in the third line of verse 10. Now the text could be translated in one of two ways. It could be as the ESV has it: “when his soul makes an offering for guilt.” Or it could be: “When you make his soul an offering for guilt.” The first references Christ’s will, while the second emphasizes the Father’s will. Bob Fyall writes, “The Father and Son are both involved; it may be that the phrase, with its possible reference to both, emphasizes both the Father’s will and the Son’s acceptance of it” (EEC, Vol. VI, 329).

Either way, the point remains the same. Jesus became a guilt offering for us. The emphasis on His soul becoming a guilt offering is fitting. Since Leviticus 2, the references to ‘anyone’ who brings an offering is the Hebrew word for soul (nephesh). Thus, Christ is no mere animal given as payment for our sins. While Israelite souls brought animals to make atonement for their sins, Jesus brings Himself. He is a nephesh making atonement for our nephesh.

This is the great and final guilt offering, the true and better guilt offering: Jesus Christ bearing the iniquities of His people and making many righteous. He takes our unrighteousness and gives us His righteousness. This is often called the double imputation of Christ: He takes our sin, and we receive His righteousness in exchange. And that is the finished product: forgiveness.

Brothers and sisters, as we come to the Table of our King, let us marvel at Christ. Although our sin is a breach of faith against God Almighty, Jesus Himself the guilt offering made for us. Indeed, just as the guilt offering is about reconciliation and restoration between both God and our fellow men, so the bread and cup point toward are vertical and horizontal peace in Christ. In the cup, we are reminded of our peace with God, for Christ is both the true Isaac and the true ram, providing Yahweh’s justice with its full compensation. In the bread, we are reminded of our peace with one another, for Christ has destroyed the wall of hostility between men and has given us His Spirit who empowers us to make restitution for the sins that we ourselves have committed.