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.
And if his hand be not able to bring what is so much as a sheep, then he shall bring for his trespass which he hath sinned two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, to Jehovah; one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering.
Leviticus 5 lists sins that need a sin offering. The usual animal was a female lamb or goat from the flock. Verse 7 drops to a lower step. What if the guilty person cannot afford one? Does a cheaper offering mean a cheaper forgiveness?
The chapter takes account of what the offender can actually reach. Yet the option offered is never the option of coming empty-handed.
In the sin offering of chapter 5:1-13, God took notice of what the offender was able to bring to His altar. On such an occasion He normally asked for a life: a female of the flock, or, if the offender could not get that, two turtledoves or two young pigeons... The sinner might be able to bring very little. He still had to bring something, however small its money value, for he had no choice.
God does not treat the poor man as a lesser case. He gives him even more care.
The Lord was even more careful in His concern for the one who could not bring a sheep or goat. The victim's blood was sprinkled in an unusual way, or at least the account expresses it more fully. He valued the offering of less money worth for the sake of the conscientious soul. He gave a witness of acceptance as well as of sin judged and gone.
The wording here has puzzled readers, since the offering is named for guilt while the sacrifice described is a sin offering. The stated purpose settles it.
A question may arise here. Were the offerings described in Leviticus 5:1-13 sin offerings or trespass offerings? In verse 6 we read: "He shall bring his trespass offering [or guilt offering, ashamo] for his sin which he has sinned." The clue to any difficulty lies in the stated purpose for the offering. Here it was brought for his sin (Lev. 5:6-7, 11), so it was really a sin offering. Where the offender's guilt called for a trespass offering, we read that it was brought for that purpose (Lev. 5:15, 18; 6:6).
Birds cost almost nothing, and they come from the sky. Both facts say something about the offerer.
One who was unable to bring a lamb would be allowed to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons as a sacrifice. This pictures someone who is poor in his grasp of the value of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus as fully atoning for sin. At least he recognises that the Lord Jesus is from heaven (pictured by the birds), and so is above him. His understanding is weak, yet God receives his offering.
The verse splits the pair between two offerings, and gives them a set order.
It is interesting to see that when someone brought two birds, one counted as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering. This shows that the death of Christ in all its aspects is for the believer's blessing. Here the sin offering came first, and then the burnt offering. That follows the order in which the sinner realises the value of the death of Christ. First the sin offering, picturing clearance; then the burnt offering, picturing acceptance.
There is a real loss in the lower offering, but the loss is in the offerer's sight, not in the offering's worth.
Here again, the lowest form of an offering loses its own distinctness and blends with others. The second option blends with the burnt offering, the third with the meal offering. The stronger the faith, the less one can enjoy a vague grasp of Christ's work... The weaker it is, the more one is content with a misty view. Then the wonderful and instructive differences in its many relations disappear into a broad, hazy sense that it works. The value of Christ is the same to God, whatever shape the offering might take in His condescension.
The falling scale of offerings teaches two things at once.
...the poverty and confusion of man's thoughts are allowed their place. On the one hand, we may realise what it costs to fall short in grasping God's grace. On the other, we learn that this grace will still show itself as grace. God's actual acceptance of us does not depend, after all, on our grasp of it, but on His own estimate of the value of the work of His beloved Son.
- Poor, not excluded. God took account of what the offender could afford. But He never let him come with nothing. An offering was needed, whatever its price.
- Named guilt, truly sin. Though called a guilt offering, its stated purpose was "for his sin," so it stands as a sin offering.
- Birds from above. The cheapest sacrifice still points to the Lord Jesus, the One from heaven. God receives it even from a weak understanding.
- Cleared, then accepted. One bird dealt with the sin, the other secured acceptance. A sinner comes to see the death of Christ in that same order.
- Valued by God. Weak faith loses the clear distinctions and much of the joy. It does not lower the worth of Christ or the acceptance He gives.
And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall present that which is for the sin-offering first, and pinch off his head at the neck, but shall not divide it;
This verse belongs to a rule for the person who cannot afford a lamb. God takes two small birds instead — one for a sin offering, one for a burnt offering — and every step of the ritual carries meaning.
The order is deliberate. When someone brought more than one offering, the one dealing with sin always came first. There is a plain reason for it.
When Leviticus sets out the offerings themselves, it mentions the "burnt offering," "grain offering," and "peace offering" first, and then the "sin offering." But in practice, the individual worshipper presented his "sin offering" first, then his "burnt offering." He did this because he could not worship while sin was against him. He had to approach by the power of that which took it away.
A pair of birds costs far less than a lamb. Commentators read the smaller offering as a picture of the offerer himself.
God allowed someone who could not bring a lamb to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons as a sacrifice. This pictures a person who understands little of the value of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus as fully atoning for sin. At least he recognises that the Lord Jesus is from heaven (pictured by the birds), and therefore above him. His understanding is weak, yet God receives his offering.
The priest kills the bird by hand. Writers differ on what the act pictures. One sees the cruelty of the cross falling on the gentlest of creatures:
The dove pictures Him as holy and undefiled, filled with tenderness and love. The priest put the bird to death by wringing off its head — the type of the violence done to Him, who was so tender and loving.
Another links the head to the mind, and sees a limit on what the offerer can grasp:
The priest was to wring off the birds' heads, which symbolises the intelligence being set apart. He could not divide the parts of the bird in any other way, for the birds speak of the heavenly character of the Lord Jesus, which is above our ability to discern.
With a bull or a sheep, the priest cut the offering into parts. Here he opens the bird, but never takes it apart.
In the sacrifice of the bird, as has been said, we do not have the dividing of the offering into its parts. The priest first removed everything that might in any way suggest earthly food or earthly connection, so that the type might speak only of Him who came down from heaven. He split the bird partly open, laying bare its inward parts, but did not divide it, for the reason already suggested. He pressed its blood out against the side of the altar. How wonderful to think of Him! Every drop of His blood coursed through His veins for His Father's glory, and all of it was wrung from Him at the cross — still, however, infinitely acceptable.
The cheaper offering is not a lesser one. God gave it more care, not less.
Jehovah was even more careful in His concern for the man who could not bring a sheep or goat. The priest sprinkled the victim's blood in an unusual way, or at least Scripture gives fuller expression to it. The offering of less monetary value He prized for the conscientious soul, and He gave a witness of acceptance as well as of sin judged and gone.
But God will not waive the offering. Poverty changes the price, never the principle.
The Lord told them He must have a sacrifice, or an offering. But in His grace He arranged that its cost should not be beyond the reach of the poorest. If a sin could have been passed over without an offering, surely this was the moment to announce it. Here the offerer was too poor to buy a living creature for God's altar. But there is no hint of such a thought on God's part anywhere in the Word.
God accepts the poorest offering in full. But a small grasp of Christ costs the believer something.
The stronger the faith, the less one can be satisfied with a vague grasp of Christ's work. Such a person seeks, treasures and enjoys God's side as well as our own, in the fullness of divine revelation. The weaker faith is, the more content one is with a hazy view. In that view, the wonderful and instructive differences in the many aspects of that work fade into a broad but foggy sense of its power. The value of Christ is the same to God, whatever shape the offering took in God's condescension.
- Sin first. The priest handles the sin offering bird first. No one can worship while sin still stands against him.
- Birds for the poor. Two birds replace the lamb. The offerer sees little of Christ's sacrifice, yet still owns Him as the One from heaven.
- Head wrung off. Commentators differ. Some see violence done to the gentlest of victims. Others see the offerer's understanding set aside.
- Not divided. The larger victims were cut into pieces. The bird stays whole, because the heavenly glory of Christ is above what we can take apart.
- Price lowered. God lowers the price but never cancels the offering. He values the sacrifice by His own estimate, not the offerer's.
and he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin-offering on the wall of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar it is a sin-offering.
Leviticus 5 makes room for a worshipper too poor to bring a lamb, and verse 9 tells the priest what to do with the blood of the bird he brings instead. Why does this blood go on the side of the altar and not on the horns, and does a cheaper offering buy a smaller forgiveness?
Chapter 5 deals with sins a person may not notice at first. One writer shows how wide God's allowance runs here, and how what the offerer can afford sets the offering:
But here we have a choice wider than anything seen before, and it stands out all the more because sin was in question. Once the person knew his sin, he confessed it and brought a female lamb or young goat. If he could not afford that, he brought two turtledoves or two young pigeons — one for a sin offering, the other for a burnt offering. If he could not reach even that, he brought a tenth of an ephah of flour… Here again, what compassion for the poor in the things of God! Yet the care for holiness is exact.
In chapter 4 the priest put blood on the four horns of the altar. Here it goes on the side of the altar — older translations say the wall. One writer weighs what each placing says:
Instead of putting some of the blood on the horns of the altar, the priest sprinkles it on the side of the altar. In chapter 4:25, 30, 34, the blood on the four horns seems to be a fourfold public memorial of atonement accomplished — a record set on the symbols of power, held up to view and so beyond question or doubt. But in chapter 5:9 the blood on the side of the altar would dry up and burn there. It was not so much a record as an owning of the fire's claim on life. So this offering, though it is a step up from the fine flour, does not witness to known atonement and forgiveness as strongly as the lowest of the sin offerings in chapter 4.
The remaining blood runs down to the foot of the altar. That spot matters, because the fire burns above it:
The fire always burns on the altar, showing the consuming judgment of God. It is below that fire that the blood is poured out. This points to the blessed truth that our Lord Jesus Christ laid down His life — His blood — under the judgment of God. His death was not only the giving up of life. He died in connection with the righteous wrath of God against sin, placing Himself under it.
Verse 9 handles the first bird; the second becomes a burnt offering. The two birds together teach the poorest offerer more than pardon:
Clearly a sinner of the lowest class is meant to know what acceptance is, as well as to know forgiveness… So these pictures show us grace meeting a sinner — every believing sinner, learned or unlearned. Grace brings him the truth that he himself is accepted in the sweet aroma of his substitute, rather than only the bare truth of that righteous repair made to God for his sin, which is the ground of forgiveness.
The closing words of the verse insist the bird counts as the real thing. Poverty changed the size of the gift, never the necessity of it:
No sin could be forgiven without a sacrifice or offering for sin. That marks out this part of the instructions about sacrifice… No degree of poverty could draw out compassion without an offering. A person might grasp very little of sin, and so very little of atonement; still, if he touched what was evil, guilt was there. On the other hand, if he was honest in owning it… his poor grasp does not stand in the way of perfect forgiveness.
One writer draws out what this lower scale of offerings means for the offerer:
So it is clear that here we have only the sign of the start of a descending scale of offerings. In it the poverty and confusion of man's thoughts are allowed their place. On one side, we are to see what it costs to fall short in grasping divine grace. On the other, we learn that grace will still show itself as grace. God's actual acceptance of us is not measured, after all, by our grasp of it, but by His own estimate of the worth of the work of His beloved Son.
- Reach. The offering is scaled to the offerer's hand — lamb, then birds, then flour — so that no one in Israel was too poor to come.
- Required. Poverty lowered the price but never removed the need: without a sin offering there was no forgiveness.
- Side. Blood on the side rather than on the horns gives a quieter witness than chapter 4. It owns the fire's claim on life instead of standing as a public memorial.
- Base. The blood drained beneath the burning altar pictures a life laid down under God's judgment on sin.
- Reckoning. The two birds bring both forgiveness and acceptance. God measures both by the worth of His Son's work, not by the offerer's grasp of it.