The structure of 4:1-6:7 indicates that this offering has a close relationship to the sin offering. This offering removed the guilt of certain sins that involved trespassing against God. Trespassing means going beyond the limits of what is right. The Hebrew word asham, translated "guilt,"also means "reparation."It may be helpful to think of this offering as a reparation or compensation offering since other sacrifices also deal with guilt.
"Guilt in the biblical sense is not just a feeling but a condition. There may be known transgressions that bring feelings of guilt, but there is also the condition of guilt before God, caused by sins known or unknown. Sometimes a hardened sinner has few feelings of guilt when he is the most guilty."53
This chapter is divisible into two parts: the trespass offering for inadvertent sin (5:14-19), and the trespass offering for deliberate sin (6:1-7). There is a further distinction in 5:14-19 between trespasses that someone committed with sure knowledge of his guilt (5:14-16) and those that someone committed with only suspected knowledge of his guilt (5:17-19).
"From all these cases it is perfectly evident, that the idea of satisfaction for a right, which had been violated but was about to be restored or recovered, lay at the foundation of the trespass offering, and the ritual also points to this."54
The identity of the "holy things"(v. 15) is problematic. The phrase evidently refers to anything dedicated to God by the Israelites including the tabernacle, its furnishings, the offerings, houses, lands, and tithes (cf. ch. 27).55Violating these things would have involved eating holy food (cf. 22:14), taking dedicated things, and perhaps failing to fulfill a dedicatory vow or pay a tithe.
The situation described in verses 17-19 evidently involved an instance of suspected trespass against sacred property. Someone suspected that he had sinned but did not know exactly how.56This sacrifice pacified oversensitive Israelite consciences. Stealing sacred property was one of the most dreaded sins in antiquity.57
The third type of offense (6:1-7) involved not only stealing property but lying about it when confronted. The real offense was not so much taking the property as trespassing against God's holy name by swearing falsely about one's innocence.
"It seems likely that atonement for deliberate sins was possible where there was evidence of true repentance, demonstrated by remorse (feeling guilty), full restitution (v. 23 [4]), and confession of sin (cf. Num. 5:6-8)."58
The major distinctivesof this offering were these.
1. It was not a soothing aroma offering.
2. The Israelites were to offer it when they had wronged someone--either God (5:15, 17) or God and man (6:2). Every trespass against one's neighbor involved a trespass against God, but not every trespass against God involved a trespass against one's neighbor (cf. Ps. 51:1-4). Even though the offender may not have been aware of his trespass he was still guilty. When he became aware of his sin or even suspected his guilt, he had to bring this offering. This repentance reduced the guilt of the crime to that of an involuntary act.59
3. The offending Israelite had to pay restitution to the injured party in some cases (5:16; 6:5). The guilty party had to restore whatever the victim of his sin had lost.
4. In addition to restitution the offender had to add 20 percent (5:16; 6:5). This policy applied in the ancient Near East outside Israel in some cases (cf. Gen. 47:27). God considered the fifth part a debt the offender owed because of his offense, not a gift to the victim. The victim ended up better off in one sense than he was before the offense.
There is much less description of the ritual involved in presenting this offering compared to the others (cf. 7:1-7).
The only significant variationsin this offering were that only a ram or a male lamb were acceptable sacrifices (cf. 5:14-19; 14:12-20; 19:21-22; Num. 6:12). Evidently if a person could not bring a ram or a lamb he could substitute the value of the animal in silver.60There were more options in most of the other sacrifices.
"The reparation offering thus demonstrates that there is another aspect of sin that is not covered by the other sacrifices. It is that of satisfaction or compensation. If the burnt offering brings reconciliation between God and man, the purification or sin offering brings purification, while the reparation offering brings satisfaction through paying for the sin.
"The sacrificial system therefore presents different models or analogies to describe the effects of sin and the way of remedying them. The burnt offering uses a personal picture: of man the guilty sinner who deserves to die for his sin and of the animal dying in his place. God accepts the animal as a ransom for man. The sin offering uses a medical model: sin makes the world so dirty that God can no longer dwell there. The blood of the animal disinfects the sanctuary in order that God may continue to be present with his people. The reparation offering presents a commercial picture of sin. Sin is a debt which man incurs against God. The debt is paid through the offered animal."61
Christians do not need to try to compensate God for our offenses against Him since He has accepted the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as full payment for our debts (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19; Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13). Nevertheless we have a responsibility to recompense others against whom we trespass (cf. Matt. 5:23-24; 6:12).
