And if any one sin, and hear the voice of adjuration, and he is a witness whether he hath seen or known [it], if he do not give information, then he shall bear his iniquity.
Leviticus 5 opens the sin offering's list of everyday failures. It starts not with something a person did, but with something a person refused to say. A man who could settle a matter under oath stays quiet. God calls that silence sin, and the man carries the guilt until a sacrifice removes it.
The "voice of an oath" here is not a person swearing on his own initiative. It is an oath put on a witness by authority.
At the beginning of chapter 5 (v. 1) there is a kind of oath that is different from voluntary swearing: "And if a soul sin and hear the voice of an oath" (that is, administered by the magistrate), "and is a witness, whether he has seen or known of it, if he does not utter it" (that is, give his evidence), "then he shall bear his iniquity."
That distinction changes how the verse touches us. Swearing by choice is one thing; answering when lawful authority puts you on oath is another.
The Lord Himself said, "Do not take an oath at all," so we should not voluntarily take an oath — that is, of our own choice and will. But the Lord Himself stood before the high priest. The moment the high priest put Him under oath, He took the oath and answered, though He had been silent until then. It is not evil to swear before a magistrate; it is good. Swearing in any other way comes from evil. I would be denying God in the magistrate if I did not answer when he put me on oath. But to take an oath of my own will is to bring in God for nothing at all — that is, profanely. So the sin here in this verse is not uttering, that is, withholding evidence.
Nothing is done. That is exactly the problem.
Verse 1 is a sin of omission. One may hear and know of a matter of serious importance and yet not report it. The law calls this misprision, but before God it is sin. The "public adjuration" put him under solemn obligation to bear witness to what he knew was true.
Lying under oath is one thing. Refusing to answer is another, and a man can have tender reasons for it.
If a witness in a court of justice refused to answer when put on oath, he sinned. Everyone would condemn false evidence, and the law dealt with that in a different way (Deuteronomy 19:16-19). Here it is the refusal of a witness to answer on oath. This had to be dealt with as a sin. A witness might wish to be silent, in case he should convict a friend, or a relative. Such cases are not unknown. By the law, however, such a person would be guilty. God's name, through the oath, had been brought into the matter, so the witness was bound to answer.
The same failure shows up wherever God's people handle wrongdoing among themselves.
The first instance of guilt concerns a man who forgets that there is a "time to keep silence" and forgets also that there is a "time to speak." He has failed to disclose what he was responsible to make known. Among the people of God, those who could have borne witness have sometimes kept a shameful silence to shelter a wrongdoer.
Several writers see this law reaching its perfect fulfilment at Christ's trial, where He broke His silence the moment God's name was invoked.
The oath was all the more solemn for an Israelite, since the LORD lived among them to judge. It was not secret providence, or waiting for a final court day. He was there to deal with them according to His law and their relationship as His people. Even in a day of complete ruin, and in proceedings that mocked all righteousness, we hear our Lord speak. He was silent before man's deep hypocrisy and false witness. Yet He answered the wicked high priest at once when the priest put Him under oath, though He knew it would seal His condemnation to death.
The verse leaves the man carrying his own guilt. Verses 5 and 6 show what lifts it.
If any of these cases defiled him, God called him to "confess the sin he has committed" — not in a vague, general way. It is the first time we hear of it. Was it not due to carelessness before the LORD? But more: nothing except sacrifice could remove the stain.
The passage uses two names for the offering here. They do not mark out two different things:
after
You see that a trespass and a sin are very much the same. Sin and trespass are put together. He has sinned, and he is to bring, not a sin offering, but a trespass offering. That shows that a trespass is a sin, just as much as when it is called a sin. And in verse 6 the words "sin offering" and "trespass offering" both describe the same animal.
- Oath — authority puts this oath on a witness. Answering the magistrate honours God; swearing by your own will brings His name in for nothing.
- Silence — the sin is doing nothing. A man knows the truth and holds it back, often to shield someone he loves.
- Guilt — omission is not a lesser class of failure; the man who says nothing carries his own iniquity.
- Christ — silent under every false charge, He spoke as soon as the high priest put Him under oath, though the answer cost Him His life.
- Remedy — specific confession, then sacrifice; nothing less than a sacrifice removes the stain.
Or if any one touch any unclean thing, whether it be the carcase of an unclean beast, or the carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of an unclean crawling thing, and it be hid from him, -- he also is unclean and guilty;
Leviticus 5 lists cases where an Israelite becomes guilty. This one is about a man who touched something unclean and never noticed. Not knowing does not cancel the defilement. He has become unclean, and once he realizes his guilt, something must be done.
This verse is the second of the three cases. Commentators see each one as a different kind of failure:
In Leviticus 5:1-6 we have three specific cases. In principle they seem to cover every kind of failure in the practical ways of God's people. The first is failure as a witness. The second is failure to stay separate. The third is failure in sobriety or self-control.
The law already provided a washing for this defilement. The man never used it, because he never knew he needed it.
The second case that called for the sin-offering of Leviticus 5 came from touching a carcass. It might be an unclean animal, wild or tame, or an unclean creeping thing. The man did not know what he had done, so he never purified himself. God did provide a cleansing for such defilement, and chapter 11 sets it out. But the man who did not know he needed it, and so never used the washing commanded there, had to bring his sin-offering — for he had sinned… How often might an Israelite say, "I did not mean to do this or that"; but he had done it, so God demanded the sacrifice. God's nature had to be considered, and not the intention of the sinful creature… But if the standard was strict, God's grace was abundant. He decided what sacrifice should be brought, so that the priest might make atonement for the man, for the sin he had sinned, and it would be forgiven him. This showed God's own desire for the man to be forgiven.
The measure is God's, and it rises as our privileges rise.
We cannot touch what is unclean without being polluted. God judges according to His thoughts, and not according to ours. The more we raise the measure of our privileges, the more we raise also the measure of our holiness.
The man does not stay in the dark. Once he sees what he has done, two steps follow. One of them appears here for the first time in the Bible.
If in any of these cases he was defiled, he was called on to "confess the sin he has committed," not in some vague general way. It is the first time we hear of it. Was it not due to carelessness before the LORD? But more than that: nothing but sacrifice could remove the stain… The priest was to make atonement for him, to clear him from his sin.
Commentators read this rule as a picture of the company we keep.
Touching an unclean thing was only a ceremonial defilement. But it pictures for us any association we make that is morally corrupt. If we identify ourselves with others who live corruptly, this defiles us too.
A believer needs washing he never thought to ask for.
Sins are not harmless because unknown. They are still sins, as the law of sacrifice shows. The dust of a defiling world settles on us silently. Conscience is a mirror, and it grows dull before we notice. We need the basin and towel in the Lord's hand (John 13). We need them not only when we are aware of evil, but because we are so little aware of it.
All these offerings point to one person.
These details teach us something. Sins against the LORD and wrongs done to our neighbour are not all equally serious. Yet every one of them needs a sin-offering. They all bring Christ to mind, as the One who took our sins upon Himself. He is our sin and trespass-offering.
- Contact defiles. Touching what is unclean makes a person unclean. This case is about staying separate, and the same holds for the company we keep.
- Ignorance does not clear. God's nature sets the standard, not the sinner's intention. He judges by His thoughts, not ours.
- Conscience is not the gauge. The dust settles silently, so cleansing is needed most where we feel it least.
- Confession comes first. When it comes to light, the man names the sin itself, not sin in general. This is the Bible's first mention of confessing.
- Only sacrifice removes it. Nothing but the offering takes away the stain. Every offering points to Christ, who took our sins upon Himself.
or if he touch the uncleanness of man, any uncleanness of him by which he is defiled, and it be hid from him, when he knoweth [it], then he is guilty.
Leviticus 5 moves from sin in general to everyday cases. This one is about a man made unclean by touching another person's uncleanness, and he does not notice at the time. Two questions follow. How can a man be guilty of what he never knew he did? And what must he do once he knows?
This verse sits in the middle of three sample failures.
In Leviticus 5:1-6 we have three specific cases. In principle they seem to cover every kind of failure in the practical life of God's people. The first is failure as a witness. The second is failure to keep separate. The third is failure in sobriety or self-control.
Verses 2 and 3 belong to the second group: contact he should have avoided. One writer lists the sources of that defilement.
Then came cases of defilement from contact with death — unclean animals, cattle, or crawling things. There was also the uncleanness of a person, whatever form it took.
This uncleanness is ceremonial, not a moral fault in the person touched. Even so, it had real consequences.
Ceremonial uncleanness had a large place in the Jewish ritual. Lev. 5:3. It required a person to stay outside the camp for a time, and in many cases he had to bring an offering before he could be restored. It is a picture of the moral uncleanness that cuts a person off from communion with God and from the assembly.
Applied to us, the point lands on the company we keep and the things we attach ourselves to.
Touching an unclean thing was of course only ceremonial defilement. But it pictures for us any ties we make that are morally corrupt. If we join ourselves with others who live in corruption, we will be defiled by it too.
The verse says the defilement was hidden from him. That did not make it harmless; it only delayed his ability to deal with it.
In verses 2, 3 we see the person unclean without knowing it. Yet he is guilty, but he cannot act as guilty until he knows it. God cannot look at sin. If I have a spot on my back, God cannot have me with that spot on. Someone may help me to get rid of it, but I am unclean with it.
The same trouble reaches us: we notice far too little.
Sins are not harmless because unknown. They are still sins, as the law of sacrifice witnesses. The dust of a defiling world settles on us quietly, and it dulls the mirror of conscience before we are aware. We need the basin and towel in the Lord's hand (John 13) — not only when we are aware of evil, but because we are so little aware of it.
God had already given a remedy for this defilement: washing with water. The offering became necessary only when a man skipped that washing.
It was the same for a man who had touched the uncleanness of another person without knowing it. God had also commanded washing with water for that case (see chapter 15). If the man neglected the washing, he still had to bring the offering and handle it as the law directed. How careful these directions should have made the people... How often might an Israelite say, "I did not mean to do this or that"; but he had done it, so God demanded the sacrifice. What had to be considered was God's nature, not the intention of the sinful creature. The standard of the sanctuary is very different from any that man would have set up. But if the standard never bent, God's grace was abounding.
Knowing is the turning point. It calls for two things: naming the sin out loud, and a sacrifice. (The quotes below follow an older English translation of verse 6.)
If in any of these cases he was defiled, he was called on to "confess wherein he has sinned," not in a vague general way. It is the first time we hear of it. Was it not due to carelessness before the LORD? But more; nothing but sacrifice could remove the stain. "And he shall bring his trespass offering to the LORD for his sin which he has sinned." What could be more specific for clearing his guilt away?
That raises a question: is a trespass something different from a sin?
You see that a trespass and a sin are very much the same... He has sinned, and he is to bring, not a sin offering, but a trespass offering... And in verse 6 the words "sin offering" and "trespass offering" describe the same animal.
- Contact. This verse is the second of three sample failures: failure to keep separate. The defilement comes by touching what he should have avoided.
- Defilement. Ceremonial uncleanness pictures moral uncleanness, and moral uncleanness breaks communion with God. So the warning is about corrupt company we tie ourselves to.
- Hidden. The man is guilty before he knows it. He just cannot act on guilt he has not yet found.
- Known. Knowing is the turning point. It calls for confession that names the actual sin, not a vague admission.
- Cleansed. God had already provided washing. Neglect it, and nothing but sacrifice could remove the stain — yet grace abounded where the standard never bent.
Or if any one swear, talking rashly with the lips, to do evil or to do good, in everything that a man shall say rashly with an oath, and it be hid from him, when he knoweth [it], then is he guilty in one of these.
Leviticus 5 lists everyday failures that leave a person guilty before God. The fourth is a word: an oath blurted out with the lips. How can careless speech count as sin? And what happens when guilt is real long before the man notices it?
The verse catches the careless speaker whichever way his oath pointed.
In verse 4 of our chapter we have the third form of sin specified: talking rashly with the lips, to do evil or to do good, in anything a man may say rashly with an oath. If it was to do evil, he ought never to have said it; if it was to do good, he ought not to have said it without doing it. The more rash a man is in his speech, the more likely he is to strengthen what he says with an oath. Peter was very rash when people challenged him about his link with Jesus the Galilean. He denied with an oath, "I do not know the man"; and at the third challenge he began to curse and swear. A man whose words and ways are shaped in subjection to the Spirit and word of God does not speak rashly with his lips. He pays attention to the word, "Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil" (Matt. 5:37). Indeed, James says, "If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body."
Not every oath is wrong. What matters is whether a court required it or the man chose to swear.
The Lord Himself said, "Do not take an oath at all," so we should not voluntarily take an oath — that is, of our own choice and will. But the Lord Himself stood before the high priest. The moment the high priest put Him under oath, He took the oath and answered, though He had been silent before. It is not evil to swear before a magistrate, but good; otherwise it comes from evil. I would be denying God in the magistrate if I did not answer when he put me under oath. But to take an oath of my own will is to bring God in for nothing at all — that is, profanely.
The man here meant to keep his word. It made no difference to his guilt.
If a man swore rashly, intending to keep his oath but finding out afterwards that he could not, he too had to bring his sin offering. How careful these directions should have made the people. A rash oath meant a sacrifice... How often an Israelite might say, "I did not mean to do this or that"; but he had done it, so God required the sacrifice. What counted was God's nature, not the intention of the sinful creature.
Guilt does not wait for the man to notice it. Something has to break the silence.
If someone has sinned in any of these ways, the moment comes "when he knows it." The Searcher of all hearts handles the probe of conviction with great skill. It reaches the conscience through the word. A cloud comes over the joy of communion. Our spiritual strength fails. Our faith grows clearly weaker, and we lose our freedom in the Lord's service, in prayer, and in fellowship with the saints.
Once the man knows, two things follow. The first of them appears here for the first time in the Bible.
If he was defiled in any of these cases, he had to "confess the sin he has committed," not in a vague, general way. This is the first time we hear of it. Was it not due to carelessness before Jehovah? But more: nothing but sacrifice could remove the stain. "And he shall bring his trespass offering to Jehovah for his sin which he has sinned" (an older wording of verse 6).
What about the man too poor to bring even two pigeons? God did not simply excuse him.
Here we have the most desperate need of all: even pigeons are beyond his means. But grace has its resource for the least condition of faith. His pity was shown, not by dispensing with an offering, but by suiting it to the need.
The smallest offering carried the same promise as the largest, because of what it pictured.
The standard could not bend, but God's grace was abundant. The person who brought only the flour offering had the same assurance of atonement and forgiveness as those who could bring a larger offering. For the flour offering spoke of the man Jesus Christ, made sin for us, who Himself has borne the divine judgment due to the sins committed by His people.
- Word — A rash oath is sin whichever way it runs: wrong to swear to evil, wrong to swear to good and not do it.
- Will — Answering a magistrate under oath is right. Swearing by your own choice brings God in for nothing.
- Guilt — Good intentions do not cancel the wrong. God's nature is the measure, not what the man meant.
- Knowledge — Guilt is real before anyone feels it. Conviction comes through the word, and joy, strength and freedom fade until he faces it.
- Grace — Confession names the exact sin. The offering bends to the poorest, and it pictures Christ bearing the judgment for His people.
And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these, that he shall confess wherein he hath sinned;
Verses 1–4 list ways an Israelite could fall into guilt without meaning to. Verse 5 is the hinge: once he realizes what he has done, he must say it out loud.
The words "any of these" point back to verses 1–4. One writer sees in those cases a map of practical failure:
In Leviticus 5:1-6 we have three specific cases. In principle they appear to cover every kind of failure in the practical ways of God's people. The first is failure as a witness. The second is failure to maintain separation. The third is failure in sobriety or self-control.
Each case in this chapter is a sin the person did not notice at the time. One writer traces what happens once he knows:
If someone has sinned in any of these ways, the moment comes "when he realizes his guilt." The Searcher of all hearts uses the probe of conviction with great skill, and it reaches the conscience through the word. A cloud comes over the joy that communion brings. Our spiritual strength grows feeble. Our faith visibly weakens, and we surrender our liberty in the service of the Lord, in prayer and in fellowship with the saints.
The verse does not ask for a vague admission of being a sinner. It asks him to name the sin he has committed. One writer notes how exact this must be, and that here we meet confession for the first time in the Bible:
How was a man who feared God to feel in such a case, when the sin came before his soul? Was he not guilty? If he was defiled in any of these cases, he had to "confess the sin he has committed," not in a vague, general way. This is the first time we hear of confession. Was the sin not due to carelessness before the LORD? But more; nothing but sacrifice could remove the stain.
Another writer adds what makes such confession good:
When such things came to a person's attention, he was to confess that he had sinned in that matter. How good it is when a person confesses like that and adds no excuses!
The command here is to confess, not to plead. One writer ties that difference to a New Testament promise:
But then, "if any man sin," what is to be done? The inspired apostle gives a full and most blessed answer: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Confession is the way to keep the conscience free. The apostle does not say, "If we pray for pardon, He is gracious and merciful to forgive us." … A Christian who has gone wrong in thought, word, or deed might pray for pardon for days and months and still have no assurance from 1 John 1:9 that he was forgiven. But the moment he truly confesses his sin before God, he can know by simple faith that he is perfectly forgiven and perfectly cleansed.
Confession does not stand alone. Verse 5 runs straight into verse 6, and the offering there carries two names at once:
You see that a trespass and a sin are very much the same. The two, sin and trespass, are put together. He has sinned, and he is to bring, not a sin offering, but a trespass offering. That shows a trespass is a sin, just as much as when it is called a sin. And in verse 6 the expressions "sin offering" and "trespass offering" are applied to the same animal.
This writer is quoting an older translation. It reads "trespass offering" in verse 6, where the ESV words the offering differently.
- Discovered — the sins here are hidden ones. Nothing moves until "he realizes his guilt," and that knowledge reaches the conscience through the word.
- Confessed — he must name the sin itself, "not in a vague, general way." This is the first time Scripture calls for confession.
- Not just prayed — asking for pardon is not the same as confessing. The promise of forgiveness belongs to confession.
- Covered — words alone left the stain. "Nothing but sacrifice could remove" it, and the offering that follows is called both a sin offering and a trespass offering.
- Restored — hidden guilt clouds joy, strength and freedom. Confession clears the conscience, and the one who confesses knows he is "perfectly forgiven and perfectly cleansed."
and he shall bring his trespass-offering to Jehovah for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the small cattle, a sheep or doe goat, for a sin-offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him [to cleanse him] from his sin.
Leviticus 5 lists sins a person may not notice at the time: silence when called to testify, contact with something unclean, a rash oath. Verse 6 tells him what to do once he sees his guilt, and raises three questions: why speak the sin out loud, why a female animal, why two names for one offering?
Verse 5 tells the man to confess. Verse 6 tells him to bring. One writer notes that Scripture records this demand here for the first time, and that it must be specific. (These writers quote an older translation, which says "trespass offering" for "compensation" and "Jehovah" for "the LORD.")
If in any of these cases he was defiled, he was called on to "confess wherein he has sinned," not in a vague general way. It is the first time we hear of it. Was it not due to carelessness before Jehovah? But more: nothing but sacrifice could remove the stain. "And he shall bring his trespass offering to Jehovah for his sin which he has sinned." What could be more specific for clearing his guilt away?
The verse gives one animal two labels — compensation for the sin, and sin offering. It does not ask for two animals.
You see that a trespass and a sin are very much the same... The two, sin and trespass, are put together. He has sinned, and he is to bring, not a sin offering, but a trespass offering. Then again, "for his sin which he has sinned… a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering." That shows a trespass is a sin, just as much as when it is called a sin. And verse 6 applies both terms, "sin offering" and "trespass offering," to the same animal.
Other writers keep the two apart, and draw the difference like this:
The trespass offering speaks of sin as an injury that calls for restitution. The sin offering speaks of what God, because of His holiness, cannot look at, but must put away from Him.
The animal here is not a bull or a ram but a female lamb or goat. Commentators differ on what that signals. One links it to value, and to how the sin was committed:
The female sacrifice was counted as of less value. In Leviticus 5 it begins with a female. In the first place, there was no bad conscience in doing it.
Another writer sees something in the female that the male could not have carried:
As the male suggested headship, strength and responsibility, the female suggests nature and dependence... Christ would also take the place of complete dependence on God, giving up any rights of His own. So the female may suggest a lower grade, as being of less value. Yet it carries special features that the higher aspect suggested by the male could not have shown.
after
The offerer does not make his own atonement. He hands the matter to the priest.
The priest had not committed the sin; on the contrary, he had made atonement for it... So Christ gives us the fullest comfort. He is Himself spotless, and He has made atonement, yet He identified Himself with all our faults and sins... The one who drew near came with confession and humbling of himself. But the priest took up his guilt and judgment. They never reached the judgment seat of God, so they did not affect the relation between God and the offender.
The offering here is a modest one. That does not limit what the man who brings it may learn.
Clearly a sinner of the lowest class is meant to know what acceptance is, as well as forgiveness... So these figures show grace meeting a sinner — every believing sinner, learned or unlearned. Grace gives him the truth of his own acceptance in the sweet savour of the substitute. It does not merely give him the bare truth of that righteous repair to God for his sin, which is the ground of forgiveness.
One phrase repeats through the chapter, and its timing matters.
With everything done at the altar that had to be done, the offerer could go back to his tent. He was not left uncertain about his condition. He was sure of God's forgiveness, and the Lord Himself told him so. "It shall be forgiven him" declared it (Lev. 4:20, 31, 35; Lev. 5:10, 13, 16, 18; Lev. 6:7). That was God's gracious announcement once atonement had been made — but, let the reader note, not before it was made.
- Guilt found. The sins here come to light late — done without a bad conscience at the time, they must be faced once seen.
- Guilt named. Confession here is specific, not a vague admission of being a sinner; it is the first time Scripture asks for it.
- Guilt carried. He brings a female lamb or goat, and the same animal answers to both names, trespass and sin — a trespass is a sin.
- Guilt transferred. The priest did not commit the sin, yet he makes the atonement. He takes up the guilt, and it never reaches God's judgment seat.
- Guilt gone. "It shall be forgiven him" is God's own word, spoken once the sacrifice is made. With forgiveness comes acceptance in the sweet savour of the substitute.