George Haydock
Lev 5:1 Swearing. We are accountable for the sins of others, to which we are accessory, as appears from this and part of the following chapter. No distinction of persons is here noticed. If any one, therefore, be witness to another’s promise, confirmed by oath, and, being cited to the bar, refuse to speak, he shall be guilty of sin, and offer the sacrifice proscribed (ver. 6,) for all the preceding cases. Restitution must also be made to the injured person. (Menochius) — But others suppose that no sacrifice was allowed for such an obstinate wretch as when not answered when the judge swore or adjured him. He was liable to be put to death. The associate of the thief fell under the like punishment as the thief himself, when he would not reveal the theft to the judge, Proverbs xxix. 24. Others again understand this swearing to mean blaspheming God. If the hearer do not reprehend him, he shall suffer as his accomplice. (Origen; Philo) — Junius thinks that the neglect of fraternal correction, was to be expiated by the sacrifice prescribed for the sins of ignorance, concerning which Moses is treating. But it seems that the person here mentioned was to die, as the words he shall bear his iniquity, commonly denote, chap. xix. 8.; &c. (Calmet) — When perjury prejudiceth another’s cause, we are bound to reveal what we know to the judge, if it can be done so as to avoid scandal. (Worthington) — Not. Hebrew editions read loa, instead of la, both here and in 34 other places; an irregularity unknown in some manuscripts, and to the Samaritan copy. Perhaps it may have been occasioned by lu, “to him,” being of the same sound with la. (Kennicott)
John Calvin
Lev 5:1
1.And if a soul sin.The three kinds of offense, to which Moses refers in the beginning of the chapter, seem to differ much from each other; for the first, when a person concealed a matter which he knew, could not arise from error, yet I include this concealment of which he treats under the head of error, by supposing it to have been when a person should be induced by shame or fear to connive at any crime or offense respecting which he might be interrogated, and so, without any design of perjuring himself, but by blinding himself, should withhold what he would have said, if he had duly examined the matter. Yet these words must be more narrowly discussed, respecting the meaning of which men are not well agreed. Some think that the word אלה, alah, is put for “execration,” as though it were said, if any shall have heard a misdoing or detestable crime worthy of execration; yet their gloss is contradicted by what immediately follows, “Whether he hath seen or known it.” Others indeed interpret it to mean an oath, yet improperly confine it to perjury, as if Moses stated that he was guilty who had heard a man perjuring himself, and had not opposed him, but had rather covered the perjury by his own connivance or silence. I rather subscribe, then, to their opinion who expound it as meaning “adjuration;” for the words will thus combine very well, “If any one, being summoned as a witness, shall have heard the voice of adjuration, whereby he shall be required in God’s name to answer truly as to the matter proposed, and from favor, or good nature, or any other false pretext, as if he were enveloped in a cloud of error, shall conceal what, if he had paid diligent attention, he well knew, he shall be guilty.” We must then here render the disjunctive particle as the conditional. Literally it is, “If any shall have heard the voice of adjuration, and (is) himself a witness.” But wherefore should he say, “if he hath been a witness,” and then add, “or have known it,” as if he referred to different things? What I have said squares very well, that a person becomes himself guilty, who, when summoned as a witness, does not answer to a matter of which he is cognizant. Now, what does hearing the voice of adjuration mean, unless you understand that he is adjured by the mouth of a judge? We must observe, too, that the three kinds of sin which are first enumerated have a connection with each other, since they speak of sinners who are infected by the uncleanness of others; for, after Moses had commanded generally that offenses committed in error should be expiated, he now adds what had not been stated explicitly enough, that those also required atonement who had been polluted by the defilements of others. Thus this first will accord very well with the other two, i.e., that if any should make himself an accomplice in the offense of another, by indirect perjury, he should be unclean until he had offered a propitiation; for this is what the expression “bear his iniquity” conveys; as if Moses had said that he contracts guilt who shall have concealed a crime, respecting which he had been interrogated as a witness.
Matthew Poole
Lev 5:1
And hear; and for that is, as that particle is often used, as Gen_13:15 1Ch_21:12, compared with 2Sa_24:13; for this declares in particular what the sin was. The voice of swearing; either,
1. Of adjuration upon oath, when the judge adjures a witness to speak the whole truth; of which see Mat_26:63. But this seems too much to narrow the sense; and this and the other laws, both before and after it, speak of private sins committed through ignorance. Or,
2. Of false swearing before a judge. But that is expressly forbidden, Lev_6:3. Or rather,
3. Of cursing, or blasphemy, or execration, as the word commonly signifies; and that either,
1. Against one’s neighbour, as 2Sa_16:7; or,
2. Against God, as Lev_24:10,11; which may seem to be principally intended here, because the crime here spoken of is of so high a nature, that he who heard it was obliged to reveal it, and prosecute the guilty. And though God be not here mentioned, yet the general word is here to be understood of the most famous particular, as it is frequently in all authors, of which there are many instances.
Whether he hath seen; being present when it was said.
Or known, by sufficient information from others. He shall bear his iniquity, i.e. the punishment of it, as that word is oft used, as Gen_19:15 Num_18:1. See of this phrase Lev_17:16 20:20 Isa_53:11.
Albert Barnes
Lev_5:1
Swearing – Adjuration. The case appears to be that of one who has been put upon his oath as a witness by a magistrate, and fails to utter all he has seen and heard (compare the marginal references. and Pro_29:24; Num_5:21).
John Calvin
Lev 5:4
4.Or if a soul shall swear. The Gulf is also ascribed to error and ignorance, when a person does inconsiderately what he has promised not to do; for the oath is not in that case violated, which would be criminal; but in this very carelessness there is enough of wrong, because sound religion would renew the recollection of the vow. Consequently, where no anxiety (to fulfill it) is shewn, there is no serious desire to do so. But this commandment was necessary, because it might often happen that men who had pledged their faith in a vow, and had broken it in thoughtlessness, would deem themselves released from every, and would in future give themselves up to indulgence, whereas they who arrive at such a pitch of licentiousness, harden themselves more and more, until at length they throw off all reverence for God. God would therefore have vows kept faithfully, lest those who despised them should thus rush into impiety. If then any one had thoughtlessly broken faith, he is commanded to make atonement to God; not on account of his levity, as some think, as if he had rashly promised what he might not, but on account of his neglect, because he had not given diligence to remember the vow at the proper time. Now if the Papists stupidly wrest this text after their custom, in order to establish the obligation of all kinds of vows, their confutation is easy; viz., that God requires this stedfastness only with respect to lawful vows duly made. We have already understood from the teaching of Moses, what is the rule of pious vow-making; whence we gather, that those which profane God’s name are by no means to be kept; for if we set out with doing wrong, obstinacy in it is doubly wicked. In this passage, therefore, “to do evil” is not to perform any improper action, but to undertake something which would otherwise be disagreeable and burdensome to the flesh; such as to diminish domestic expenditure, or to deprive one’s self of luxuries, or to determine upon abstinence from something which would gratify or profit us.
Matthew Poole
Lev 5:4
If a soul swear, to wit, rashly, without consideration, either of God’s law, or his own power or right, as David did, 1Sa_25:22.
To do evil; either,
1. To himself, to wit, to punish himself, either in his body, or estate, or something else which is dear to him. Or rather,
2. To his neighbour, as 1Sa_25:22 Act_23:12.
Or to do good, to wit, to his neighbour, as Mar_6:23, when a man either may not or cannot do it, which may frequently happen.
And it be hid from him, i.e. he did not know, or not consider, that what he swore to do, was or would be impossible or unlawful.
When he knoweth of it; when he discovers it to be so, either by his own consideration, or by information from others.
In one of these; either in the good or evil which he swore to do.
John Gill
Lev 5:4 Or if a soul swear,…. A rash or vain oath:
pronouncing with his lips; not in his heart, as Jarchi notes; not saying within himself that he would do this, or that, or the other thing, but expressing his oath plainly and distinctly, with an audible voice:
to do good, or to do evil; which was either impossible or unlawful for him to do; whether the good or evil he swears to do is to himself or to another; whether he swears to do good to himself, and evil to another, or, good to another, and evil to himself, see Psa_15:4. The Targum of Jonathan paraphrases it,”whatsoever a man expresses, whether of anything present or future;”as if he swears he has done such and such a thing, whether good or evil; or that he will do it, be it what it will, and it is not in the power of his hands to do it, or, if he did it, it would be doing a wrong thing:
whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; he has forgot that he ever swore such an oath:
and when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these; when he is told of it, and it is made clearly to appear to him, that he did at such a time, and in such a place, deliver out a rash oath concerning this, or the other thing, then he shall be chargeable with guilt in one of these; either in rashly swearing to do good when it was not in his power, or to do evil, which would have been unlawful. The Targum of Jonathan is,”if he knows that he has falsified, and repents not, he is guilty.”
John Gill
Lev 5:5 And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things,…. Before expressed in the preceding verses; the Targum of Jonathan is,”in one of the four things,”which Ben Gersom particularly mentions in the oath of witness, or the pollution of the sanctuary, or the pollution of its holy things, or a vain oath:
that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing; not make confession of sin in general, but of that particular sin he is guilty of; and this he was to do before he brought his offering, or at least at the time of his bringing it; for without confession his offering would be of no avail; and which he made, as Ben Gersom says, by laying his hand on the head of the offering, thereby signifying and declaring his guilt, and that he deserved to die as the creature would about to be sacrificed for him; or he might make a verbal confession and acknowledgment of his offence. Fagius, from the Jewish writers, has given us the form of it, which was this;”I beseech thee, O Lord, I have sinned, I have done wickedly, I have transgressed before thee, so and so have I done; and, lo, I repent, and am ashamed of what I have done, and I will never do the same again.”Though perhaps this form may be of too modern a date, yet doubtless somewhat like this was pronounced; and they make confession of sin necessary to all sacrifices, and say (x), atonement is not made by them without repentance and confession. (x) Maimon. Hilchot Teshubah, c. 1. sect. 1.
Adam Clarke
Lev 5:5
He shall confess that he hath sinned – Even restitution was not sufficient without this confession, because a man might make restitution without being much humbled; but the confession of sin has a direct tendency to humble the soul, and hence it is so frequently required in the Holy Scriptures, as without humiliation there can be no salvation.
John Calvin
Lev 5:14-15
14.And the Lord spake unto Moses. The difference of the victim clearly shews, that another kind of offense is here referred to; for God now requires a male instead of a female. Before, He had been contented with an ewe lamb or a female kid; but inasmuch as a ram is more valuable, it follows that punishment is now awarded to a heavier offense. The heinousness of the fault depends upon the quality of the act; i.e., when a person shall have wronged not a mortal man merely, but God Himself, nor shall have transgressed only one of the Commandments of the first Table, but shall not have paid a vow, or shall have offered a defective victim, or shall have defrauded God of His right in any oblation; since this is what is meant by the clause “in the holy things of the Lord.” In this expression Moses includes both vows voluntarily made, as well as the legitimate oblations, such as tithes, first-fruits, the offering of the first-born; since in all these things the Israelites were strictly charged to deal most faithfully with God. If by chance avarice had blinded any one, so that in pursuit of personal gain he paid God less than he ought, his recklessness justly received a heavier punishment. Yet it must be understood, that the offense here referred to is one in which no fraud or evil deceit had place; for if any one had designedly and craftily appropriated what was sacred, the impiety of this sacrilege was not so easily expiated. But inasmuch as it often happens that the covetous and grasping are too ready to spare themselves, God enjoins a sacrifice in such a case, where private advantage has through thoughtlessness prevailed over religious feeling. The words, “with thy estimation,” some refer to Moses, others to the priest; but I prefer taking it passively for the estimation prescribed by God; which is called the estimation of the people, because they were bound to acquiesce in the Law appointed by Him, and not arbitrarily to alter the value. Moses estimates the ram at two shekels of the sanctuary, equivalent to four common shekels, amounting in French money to about twenty-eight sols,
Albert Barnes
Lev 5:14
(This comment exends through Lev_6:7). The trespass-offerings as they are described in this section and in Lev_7:1-7, are clearly distinguished from the ordinary sin-offerings in these particulars:
(1) They were offered on account of offences which involved an injury to some person (it might be the Lord Himself) in respect to property. See Lev_5:16; Lev_6:4-5.
(2) they were always accompanied by a pecuniary fine equal to the value of the injury done, with the addition of one-fifth. Compare Num_5:5-8.
(3) the treatment of the blood was more simple. Compare Lev_4:5.
(4) the victim was a ram, instead of a female sheep or goat.
(5) there was no such graduation of offerings to suit the rank or circumstances of the worshipper as is set forth in Lev_4:3, Lev_4:32, etc.
John Gill
Lev 5:15 If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance in the holy things of the Lord,…. In the payment of tithes, or offering first fruits as he ought, by withholding them, or any part of them, or through eating of sacred things he ought not:
then shall he bring for his trespass unto the Lord; for it being a trespass in holy things, it might be properly called a trespass to or against the Lord; unless this is rather to be understood of the offering brought to the Lord for his trespass as follows:
a ram without blemish out of the flocks; out of the sheep and not the goats, as Ben Gersom observes; and this being for sacrifice, or for a trespass in holy things though ignorantly done, an offering of more value is required than for sins of ignorance in other cases, Lev_5:6 a type of Christ, who for his strength may be compared to a ram, and to one without blemish, for his purity and holiness, and to a choice one, selected out of the flock, for his being chosen out from among the people:
with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering; that is, either an estimation was to be taken of the damage done in the holy things, an account of which was to be brought along with the ram, and the cost paid; or else the ram brought was to be of the value of, or worth shekels of silver; and the least of many being two, as Aben Ezra and Ben Gersom observe, the sense is, that the ram brought for the trespass offering should be at least worth two shekels of silver; so Jarchi and Ben Gersom.
John Calvin
Lev 5:16
16.And he shall make amends for the harm. Hence it more plainly appears, as I have recently stated, that they, who withheld anything of God’s full right, are said to have sinned “in the holy thing;” since they are commanded to make restitution with the addition of a fifth part. Yet let my readers remember, that those who are compelled to make restitution, are not such as have fraudulently embezzled the sacred things, but those who under some vain pretext have flattered themselves for a time, so as to be unaffected by any conviction of their fault. The object therefore of this sacrifice, was to arouse the people to attention, so that postponing their private advantage, they should freely pay what was due to God. Theirs is but foolish trifling who think that Moses, having before spoken of sins (peccata), now prescribes the mode of making expiation for delinquencies (delicta), since he uses the same words indifferently on all occasions, and also designates all the victims by the same name. But to make out a delinquency to be greater than a sin is a piece of gross ignorance; nor does it need a long refutation, since it manifestly appears that in this passage a special rule is delivered as to the means of obtaining pardon when a person through thoughtlessness has not reflected that he has omitted to discharge in full either his vows or oblations.
John Gill
Lev 5:16 And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing,…. This seems to favour the sense of the word “estimation”, in the preceding verse, as understood of the estimate of the damage done in the holy things, which belonged to the priests, for which recompense was to be made according as the damage was valued:
and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest; besides paying the whole damage, he was to give a fifth part of the whole to the priest; which was ordered to show the evil nature of the sin of sacrilege, though done ignorantly, and to make men careful and cautious of committing it: the fifth part, according to the Jewish writers (f), is the fourth part of that of which a man eats, (“viz.” of the holy things,) which is the fifth of the whole; thus, if he eats the value of a penny, he pays the penny and the fourth part of one, and so it is in all the fifths mentioned in the law; or, as Ben Gersom on the place expresses it, if he has had profit by the holy things to the value of four shekels, he pays five shekels; for the fifth of the shekels they add the fifth part to the four shekels; in this he observes, all are alike, the priest, the anointed, the prince, and a private person, for the law makes no difference between them in this:
and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering; by offering it up for him:
and it shall be forgiven him; after he has paid the whole damage, and a fifth part besides, and offered the trespass offering for atonement; See Gill on Lev_5:10.
(f) Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Trumot, c. 6. 1.
John Calvin
Lev 6:1-7
1.And the Lord spake unto Moses.Moses now no longer treats of the means of expiating errors when the sinner is guilty through thoughtlessness; but he prescribes the mode of reconciliation, when any one shall have wilfully and designedly offended God. And this is well worthy of notice, lest those who may have been guilty of voluntary sin should doubt whether God will be propitiated towards them, provided they make application to the one sacrifice of Christ, in which consists the entire substance of the shadows of the Law. We must indeed beware lest we indulge ourselves under the cover of God’s clemency and readiness to pardon, — for the lust of the flesh provokes us to sin more than enough, without the addition of this snare, — nor is it less than a blasphemous insult to God to take occasion and license for sin, from the fact of His willingness to pardon. Let then the fear of God reign in us, which will repress our wicked desires like a rein, so that we should not wilfully fall into sin; and let His mercy rather engender the hatred and detestation of sin in our hearts, than incite us to audacity. Yet, at the same time, we must prudently take heed, lest if we imagine God to be inexorable to our voluntary sins, this excessive severity should overthrow the hope of salvation even in those who are the holiest. For even now-a-days there are some madmen who deny pardon to all who may have chanted to fall through the infirmity of the flesh, since to morose men this severity has its charms, and by this hallucination Novatus greatly troubled the Church of old. But if we all honestly examine ourselves, it will plainly appear that those rigid censors, who affect the reputation of sanctity by immoderate asperity, are the grossest hypocrites. For if they would abandon their pride, and examine into their lives, which of them would find himself free from concupiscence? and whose conscience must not often smite him?
It is then monstrous blindness to exalt men, clothed in human flesh, to such a pitch of perfection, as that their conscience should not convict them of any fault or blame. And nothing is more pestilent than this imposture of the devil, excluding from the hope of pardon those who knowingly and willingly have sinned; since there is not one even of God’s best servants, in whom the corrupt affections of the flesh do not sometimes prevail; for although they be neither adulterers, nor thieves, nor murderers, yet there is none whom the last Commandment of the Law — “Thou shalt not covet,” — does not convict of sin. And assuredly the more advance one has made in endeavors after purity, the more he feels and acknowledges that he is still very far from reaching its goal. Therefore, unless we would purposely close the gate of salvation against us, we must hold that God is placable towards all, who trust that their sin is forgiven them by the sacrifice of Christ; for God is neither changed, nor is our condition worse than that of the fathers, whereas under the Law God appointed sacrifices for the expiation even of voluntary offenses. Hence it follows, that although we are convicted of voluntary sin, yet a remedy is set before us in the Gospel for procuring pardon: else would these ancient figures be more than delusive, which had no other object than to be testimonies and mirrors of the grace which was finally manifested to us in Christ. If there ought to be a mutual agreement between the external representation of grace under the Law, and the spiritual effect which Christ brought in, it plainly appears that sins are no less forgiven to us now, than to the ancient people; and thus that believers are reminded by this symbol, that they are not to despair of reconciliation, whilst they take no pleasure in their sins; but rather that they should boldly seek for pardon in the perpetual sacrifice which constantly renders God favorable to all the godly. And surely since repentance and faith are the sure pledges of God’s favor, it cannot be but that they should be received into His grace who are endued with these two gifts. Besides, the remission of sins is an inestimable treasure, which God has deposited in His Church, to be the peculiar blessing of His children; as the Confession of Faith declares, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the forgiveness of sins.” Nor would what Paul proclaims concerning the embassy entrusted to him be consistent, unless Christ’s satisfaction daily propitiated God towards believers. (2Co_5:20.)
The question here is not about some trifling offense, but about the crime of unfaithfulness, doubled by the addition of perjury. It is true that perfidy, or deceit, or violence, are first mentioned, to mark the grossness of the sin; but the guilt lies chiefly in the profanation of God’s name when the injury done to man is sheltered under a false oath. At any rate, he is admitted to pardon who has both iniquitously deceived his brother and has impiously abused God’s name. Hence it appears that God spares wretched sinners although they may have contaminated themselves by faithlessness, and have aggravated the crime committed against men by sacrilege, having insulted God through their perjury. But although Moses only enumerates transgressions of the Eighth Commandment, still he teaches, according to his usual manner, by synecdoche what must be done in the case of other offenses also. If, then, anything shall have been taken away by violence, or by fraud, and perjury has been superadded, he commands not only that satisfaction should be made to the neighbor who is defrauded, but that the price of atonement should also be offered to God. And the reason for this is expressly given, because not only has a mortal man been injured, but God has also been offended, who would have men conduct themselves justly and reverently towards each other; and then the crime is carried to extremity by the violation of God’s sacred name. The sacrifice is not indeed required from a thief or robber, or from the denier of a deposit, or the appropriator of anything lost, unless they have also perjured themselves; yet the words of Moses are not without their weight: if any one, by the denial of a deposit, or by theft, or robbery, shall have “committed a trespass against the Lord;” whereby he signifies, that whenever an injury is inflicted on men, God in their person is offended, because every transgression of the Law violates and perverts His justice.
We shall elsewhere see more about the restitution to be made in case of theft or robbery, especially when a person has been found guilty. This point, however, is alone referred to directly in this passage, viz., that whoever injures or inflicts a loss upon his brother, incurs guilt and condemnation before God; but if he proceeds to such a pitch of obstinacy, as to cover his crime by falsely appealing to the sacred name of God, he is polluted by double iniquity, so that compensation of the damage is not sufficient, but he must also make atonement to God. But we must understand this of those who, having escaped from the fear of punishment, voluntarily repent. The notion of some commentators who alter the copula into the disjunctive particle, and consider perjury to be one of the various sins referred to, I reject as foreign to the meaning of Moses. Others explain it thus: “If any shall have committed robbery or theft, or shall have sworn falsely about a thing lawful in itself:” but I do not see why the words should be wrested thus; besides, their mistake is refitted by the context itself, in which restitution is coupled with the sacrifices, and this could not be applicable unless perjury were conjoined also with fraud or violence. Nor does the disjunctive particle which follows help them; for after he has commanded what was taken away by force or deceit to be restored, because all the various points could not be separately expressed, it is added, “Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely,” not as if the guilt of perjury had been contracted in any other matters, but that he might cut away all means of subterfuge, which the repetition also confirms; for, after having introduced the crime of swearing falsely, he again, as if more clearly explaining what he had said, commands the restitution of the principal, together with the fifth part. But what is it that he commands to be restored except what the deceiver had kept back under cover of his oath? Of this a clearer exposition will be found under the Eighth Commandment.
A satisfaction is therefore enjoined to be made towards men together with the offering. Nor is it without reason that God commands them to make up the loss on the day when the offering is made, lest hypocrites should promise themselves impunity after having enriched themselves by the property of another. It was indeed permitted them to restore their property to others before they propitiated God by the sacrifice; but God will not have His altar defiled, which would be the case if thieves or robbers offered victims belonging to others. He would, therefore, have the hands of those who sacrifice cleansed from pollution. And surely those who offer a victim to God out of spoils unjustly obtained, in some measure implicate Him as a participator in their crime. Hence may profitable instruction be drawn, viz., that hypocrites busy themselves in vain in reconciling God to themselves, unless they honestly restore what they have unjustly taken. Meanwhile we must observe the distinction in the words of Moses between the satisfaction made to men and the sin-offering which propitiates God; for we gather from hence, as I have said, that they obtain not pardon from God who desire to remain enriched by their stolen property; and yet that God is not appeased by anything but sacrifice. Clear proof of this latter point may be gathered from the whole Law, which prescribes but one means of reconciling God, i.e., when the sinner makes atonement for himself by offering a victim. Hence the diabolical figment as to satisfactions is refuted by which the Papists imagine that they are redeemed from God’s judgment; for although God shall have remitted the guilt, they still think that the liability to punishment remains, until the sinner shall have delivered himself by his own works. To this end they have invented works of supererogation, to be meritorious in redeeming from punishment; hence, too, purgatory has come into existence. But when you have studied all the writings of Moses, and diligently weighed whatsoever is revealed in the Law as to the means of appeasing God, you will find that the Jews were everywhere brought back to sacrifices. Now, it is certain that whatever is attributed to sacrifices is so much taken away from men’s own works. But if it were not God’s intention to down His ancient people to outward ceremonies, it follows that it is only by the one Mediator, through the outpouring of His blood, that men are absolved from all liability either to guilt or punishment, so as to be restored to favor by God.
Matthew Poole
Lev 6:2
This sin, though directly committed against man only, is here emphatically said to be done against the Lord; not only in general, for so every sin against man is also against the Lord, whose image in man is thereby injured, and whose law, which obligeth us to love, and fidelity, and justice to other men, is thereby violated; but in a more special sense, because this was a violation of human society, whereof God is the author, and president, and defender; see Num_5:6; and because it was a secret sin, of which God alone was the witness and judge; see Act_5:4; and because God’s name was abused in it by perjury, Lev_6:3.
To keep, to wit, in trust. Or in fellowship, Heb. or in putting of the hand. Which may be either,
1. Another expression of the same thing immediately going before, which is very frequent in Scripture; and so the sense is, when one man puts any thing into another man’s hand to keep for him; and when he requires it, to restore it to him. Or,
2. A distinct branch, which seems more probable, and so it belongs to commerce or fellowship in trading, which is very usual, when one man puts any thing into another’s hand, not to keep it, as in the foregoing word or member, but to use and improve it for the common benefit of them both, in which cases of partnership it is easy for one to deceive the other, and therefore provision is here made against it. And this is called a putting of the hand, because such agreements and associations used to be confirmed by giving or joining their hands together, Jer_1:15 Gal_2:9. Compare Exo_23:1.
Taken away by violence, to wit, secretly; for he seems to speak here of such sins as could not be proved by witness.
Or hath deceived his neighbour, got any thing from him by calumny, or fraud, or circumvention; for so the word signifies.
Adam Clarke
Lev 6:2
Lie unto his neighbor, etc. – This must refer to a case in which a person delivered his property to his neighbor to be preserved for him, and took no witness to attest the delivery of the goods; such a person therefore might deny that he had ever received such goods, for he who had deposited them with him could bring no proof of the delivery. On the other hand, a man might accuse his neighbor of detaining property which had never been confided to him, or, after having been confided, had been restored again; hence the law here is very cautious on these points: and because in many cases it was impossible to come at the whole truth without a direct revelation from God, which should in no common case be expected, the penalties are very moderate; for in such cases, even when guilt was discovered, the man might not be so criminal as appearances might intimate. See the law concerning this laid down and explained on Exo_22:7 (note), etc.
John Wesley
Lev 6:2 If a soul sin – This sin, though directly committed against man, is emphatically said to be done against the Lord, not only in general, for so every sin against man is also against the Lord, but in a special sense, because this was a violation of human society, whereof God is the author, and president, and defender: and because it was a secret sin, of which God alone was the witness and judge: and because God’s name was abused in it by perjury. To keep – In trust. Or in fellowship – Heb. Or in putting of the hand: that is, commerce or fellowship in trading, which is very usual when one man puts any thing into another’s hand, not to keep it, but to improve it for the common benefit of them both, in which cases of partnership it is easy for one to deceive the other, and therefore provision is made against it. And this is called a putting of the hand, because such agreements used to be confirmed by giving or joining their hands together. By violence – Secretly; for he seems to speak here of such sins as could not be proved by witness. Or hath deceived – Got any thing from him by calumny, or fraud, or circumvention; so the word signifies.
John Gill
Lev 6:3 Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it,…. Who having found anything lost, at once concludes it his own, and converts it to his own use, never inquiring after the proprietor of it, or taking any method to get knowledge of him, and restore it to him; but so far from that, being suspected of finding it, and charged with it denies it: Maimonides (k) gives a reason why a lost thing should be restored, not only because so to do is a virtue in itself praiseworthy, but because it has a reciprocal utility; for if you do not restore another’s lost things, neither will your own be restored to you:
and sweareth falsely; which is to be understood, not of the last case only, but of all the rest, or of anyone of them, as it follows:
in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein; by unfaithfulness in a trust, cheating, defrauding, lying, and false swearing.
(k) Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 40.
Adam Clarke
Lev 6:3
Have found that which was lost – The Roman lawyers laid it down as a sound maxim of jurisprudence, “that he who found any property and applied it to his own use, should be considered as a thief whether he knew the owner or not; for in their view the crime was not lessened, supposing the finder was totally ignorant of the right owner.” – Digestor, lib. xlvii., Tit. ii., de furtis, Leg. xliii., sec. 4.
On this subject every honest man must say, that the man who finds any lost property, and does not make all due inquiry to find out the owner, should, in sound policy, be treated as a thief. It is said of the Dyrbaeans, a people who inhabited the tract between Bactria and India, that if they met with any lost property, even on the public road, they never even touched it. This was actually the case in this kingdom in the time of Alfred the Great, about a. d. 888; so that golden bracelets hung up on the public roads were untouched by the finger of rapine. One of Solon’s laws was, Take not up what you laid not down. How easy to act by this principle in case of finding lost property: “This is not mine, and it would be criminal to convert it to my use unless the owner be dead and his family extinct.” When all due inquiry is made, if no owner can be found, the lost property may be legally considered to be the property of the finder.
John Wesley
Lev 6:4 Is guilty – This guilt being manifested by his voluntary confession upon remorse, whereby he reapeth this benefit, that he only restores the principal with the addition of a fifth part; whereas if he were convicted of his fault, he was to pay double, Exo_22:9.
John Gill
Lev 6:5 Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely,…. In all and each of the above cases, in which he had committed a trespass and denied it, and to the denial adds a false oath, and yet after all acknowledges it:
he shall even restore it in the principal; whatsoever he has embezzled, or cheated another of, or detained from the right owner, the whole of that was to be restored:
and shall add the fifth part more thereto; to the principal, see Lev_5:16 but Maimonides (l) says, this was an instruction to add a fifth to a fifth; and Aben Ezra takes the word to be plural, and observes, that the least of many is two, and so two fifths were to be added to the principal, but the first sense seems best:
and give it unto him to whom appertaineth; as, to his neighbour, who had deposited anything in his hands; or his partner, he had any ways wronged; or whomsoever he had defrauded in any respect; or the proprietor of lost goods; Ben Gersom observes, it was not to be given to his son, nor to his messenger: in the case of taking anything away by violence, though but the value of a farthing, it is said, that he shall be obliged to bring it after him (from whom he has taken it) even unto Media (should he be there); he shall not give it to his son, nor to his messenger, but he may give it to the messenger of the sanhedrim; and if he dies, he must return it to his heirs (m):
in the day of his trespass offering; when he brings that, but restoration must first be made: the Targum of Jonathan renders it, in the day he repents of his sin: and so Aben Ezra interprets it,”in the day he returns from his trespass;”when he owns and confesses it, is sorry for it, and determines to do so no more. Maimonides observes (n), that one that takes away anything by violence (which is one of the cases supposed) is not fined so much as a thief; he only restores the principal; for the fifth part is for his false oath; the reasons of which are, because robbery is not so frequently, and is more easily committed, and is more open, and against which persons may guard and make resistance, and the robber is more known than a thief who steals secretly; see Exo_22:1.
(l) In Misn. Trumot, c. 6. sect. 1. (m) Misnah Bava Kama, c. 9. sect. 6. (n) Ut supra, (l)) c. 41.
John Wesley
Lev 6:5 In the day – It must not be delayed, but restitution to man must accompany repentance towards God. Wherever wrong has been done, restitution must be made, and till it is made to the utmost of our power we cannot look for forgiveness; for the keeping of what is unjustly got, avows the taking: And both together make but one continued act of unrighteousness.
John Gill
Lev 6:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord,…. That is, to the tabernacle of the Lord, to the altar of the Lord in it, and to his priest ministering therein, as it follows:
a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering unto the priest; the same offering that was ordered for a trespass through ignorance, Lev_5:16 typical of the sacrifice of Christ offered up both for sins of ignorance and wilful transgressions, for his blood cleanses from all sin; see Gill on Lev_5:16; the phrase “with thy estimation”, used there also Lev_5:16, is here interpreted by Ben Gersom of two shekels, the value the ram was to be of, brought for the trespass offering.
John Calvin
Lev 6:7
7.And the priest shall make an atonement. From this form of expression also, which frequently occurs, we must learn that the victim in itself was not the price of redemption, but that expiation was founded on the priesthood. For they have foolishly and falsely invented the notion that men work something themselves in the sacraments, whereas their virtue and effect proceeds from quite another quarter. The offering, therefore, properly speaking, is passive rather than active as regards man. The force of this will be more clearly understood from the delusion of the Papists. They are indeed compelled to acknowledge that in the sacraments men are passive, in so far as they receive the grace there offered to them; but they presently pervert this doctrine, by inventing their opus operatum, as they call it. But, lest the people should think that they bring from their own stores (domo) the price of their redemption, Moses constantly inculcates that it is the peculiar office of the priest, to appease God, and to blot out sin by expiation. It is also worthy of observation that he adds, “before the Lord,” for by this clause the profane notion is refuted, that men are purged by the legal sacrifices only civilly, as they say, i.e., before men, as if there were no spiritual promise included in them. Now, if this were so, the fathers would have been confirmed in the confidence of pardon by no external symbols, than which nothing can be more absurd; but by this one clause all ambiguity is removed, when Moses declares that they were absolved “before the Lord.”
A 'Goula Blogger 