Leviticus Chapter 5

The Trespass Offering and the Guilt Offering

A. Specific Occasions Requiring the Trespass Offering

1. (Leviticus 5:1) Failing to Be a Truthful Witness, or Being a False Witness

“If a person sins in hearing the utterance of an oath, and is a witness, whether he has seen or known of the matter—if he does not tell it, he bears guilt.”

God’s law required not only the avoidance of falsehood but also the active proclamation of truth. When someone heard an oath and had knowledge of the matter, either by direct observation or reliable awareness, that person was responsible before God to testify truthfully. Silence in the face of falsehood was itself a sin. The moral principle established here shows that indifference or fear-driven silence in the cause of justice is equivalent to complicity in wrongdoing.

If a person failed to tell the truth when he had the opportunity, he bore guilt before the Lord. Truth in Israel was not optional or private; it was a divine standard that every covenant member was expected to uphold. Justice in the community depended on every individual doing their part to preserve honesty and integrity.

“In Israel all the people were to be involved in seeing that justice was done. Not to witness was a sin.” (Harris) The obligation was communal, not just personal. Every Israelite was called to maintain truth as a public duty.

John Trapp observed, “He shall suffer for his sinful silence; because he could, but would not, help the truth in necessity, but stand as if he were gagged by Satan.” This sharp statement reminds us that silence can serve the devil’s purposes as much as speech can serve God’s.

This principle extends spiritually to the believer’s witness for Christ. It is not enough to refrain from denying Him or from lying about our relationship with Him. Silence, when we have opportunity to declare His truth, is sin. The Christian is responsible to bear faithful witness of the gospel whenever the opportunity arises. As the Lord Jesus said, “Whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:32–33, NKJV).

Thus, to fail to testify of Christ when called upon—whether by conversation, circumstance, or conscience—is a spiritual parallel to the trespass of withholding testimony in Israel. Both are violations of divine truth.

2. (Leviticus 5:2–3) Ceremonial Uncleanness

“Or if a person touches any unclean thing, whether it is the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean livestock, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and he is unaware of it, he also shall be unclean and guilty. Or if he touches human uncleanness—whatever uncleanness with which a man may be defiled, and he is unaware of it—when he realizes it, then he shall be guilty.”

Ceremonial defilement represented a break in fellowship with God, not necessarily moral corruption but ritual separation from holiness. To touch an unclean thing—whether the carcass of an unclean animal, a dead body, or a person who was already unclean—made one unfit to approach the sanctuary until purification was made. This symbolized how even contact with death or corruption made man unworthy to come before the Holy God.

The law recognized that a person might become unclean unknowingly. Still, ignorance did not remove guilt. The defilement existed whether or not the person realized it at first. Once awareness came, he was to respond in obedience by offering a trespass offering. This pattern prefigures how conviction of sin under the Holy Spirit compels believers today to confess and be cleansed through the blood of Christ.

Clarke notes, “Either the dead body of a clean animal, or the living or dead carcass of any unclean creature. All such persons were to wash their clothes and themselves in clean water, and were considered as unclean till the evening, chapter 11:24–31. But if this had been neglected, they were obliged to bring a trespass-offering.” The requirement of cleansing stressed that holiness could not be taken lightly.

“When he realizes it, then he shall be guilty” does not mean that guilt begins at awareness, but that recognition brings accountability. The moment a person’s conscience is awakened to the offense, he must take action to be reconciled to God. This is the principle of confession and restoration: sin concealed is sin retained, but sin confessed is forgiven. As 1 John 1:9 declares, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

The trespass offering, therefore, served not only to restore ceremonial purity but also to teach Israel that holiness is relational and requires continual self-examination. The people of God must stay sensitive to defilement and respond quickly to conviction, lest uncleanness remain between them and the presence of God.

3. (Leviticus 5:4) Swearing a False Oath

“Or if a person swears, speaking thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or to do good, whatever it is that a man may pronounce by an oath, and he is unaware of it—when he realizes it, then he shall be guilty in any of these matters.”

A careless or rash vow was not treated lightly in the eyes of God. Even when a person spoke thoughtlessly with his lips, whether in anger, emotion, or overconfidence, the vow or oath made was still binding before the Lord. The law emphasized that words carry moral weight and accountability. The tongue, though small, can set great matters in motion, and a vow made without careful reflection could still bring guilt if it was broken or left unfulfilled.

When Scripture says, “If a person swears, speaking thoughtlessly with his lips,” it teaches that impulsive promises, even those not made with evil intent, are serious in God’s sight. Words uttered hastily or without consideration reveal the fallen tendency of man to speak before thinking. Proverbs 10:19 declares, “In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, but he who restrains his lips is wise.” God’s standard holds man accountable for the words he speaks, especially when invoking an oath before Him.

The passage continues, “When he realizes it, then he shall be guilty in any of these matters.” Awareness of the sin brought the obligation to repent and to seek atonement through the trespass offering. Once a man recognized that he had failed to keep his word, his responsibility before God was not to rationalize or ignore the matter, but to confess his failure and seek forgiveness. This principle endures for believers today. When we recognize our broken promises—whether to others or to the Lord—we must confess them as sin and seek restoration through the cleansing blood of Christ.

It is common in the Christian life to make vows or commitments with good intentions but fail to follow through. These may include promises such as:

• To spend more time in prayer and communion with God.

• To intercede more faithfully for others.

• To devote more time to devotional reading and the study of Scripture.

• To grow in personal evangelism and witness.

• To be more faithful in tithing or giving.

• To live as a more consistent Christian example before others.

• To show greater patience toward family and children.

• To walk in purity, avoiding sin in thought and deed.

Such vows are not necessarily wrong. Often, they represent a sincere moment of conviction or renewal stirred by the Holy Spirit. Ecclesiastes 5:4–6 gives solemn counsel: “When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for He hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin.”

Therefore, when a believer makes a promise before the Lord and fails to keep it, the proper response is confession, not despair. The broken vow should lead to repentance and renewed dependence on the grace of Christ. His blood covers the failure, restoring fellowship and enabling faithfulness moving forward. As the Apostle John wrote, “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).

Rash speech dishonors God, but humble confession restores His favor. The trespass offering foreshadowed this grace—the truth that even when we fail in our words or vows, there is mercy through the atonement God has provided. The believer’s duty is to walk carefully before God, measuring his words, keeping his commitments, and living in continual awareness of divine accountability.

B. The Trespass Offering

1. (Leviticus 5:5) Preparation for the Trespass Offering

“And it shall be, when he is guilty in any of these matters, that he shall confess that he has sinned in that thing.”

When a person became aware of his sin, realizing that he had violated God’s commandment, he was to confess that specific sin before making his offering. The phrase “when he is guilty” carries the sense of “when he realizes his guilt.” Although guilt existed from the moment the trespass occurred, awareness of guilt brought moral accountability. It was not until the sinner recognized his wrongdoing that he could approach God with repentance and atonement.

Confession was a necessary step in the preparation for the trespass offering. Without confession, the sacrifice would have been a mere ritual, void of spiritual meaning or efficacy. Confession means to “say the same thing,” or to agree with God about the nature of one’s sin. It is an act of humility in which the sinner acknowledges that his actions have transgressed divine law. The confession demonstrated not only awareness of sin but also contrition and submission to God’s authority.

Meyer insightfully wrote, “Confession is taking God’s side against ourselves. It is the act of judging evil in the light of the Throne. It is like the unpacking of a box, in which one begins with the lighter things at the top, and works steadily down to the heavy articles underneath.” This captures the idea that true confession is not superficial but thorough. It brings hidden sin to light, layer by layer, until the conscience is fully unburdened.

The Hebrew word translated “confess” derives from a root meaning “to expose or reveal.” As Rooker notes, it can mean both “confess” and “praise.” The connection lies in the direction of the act: if toward man, it is confession; if toward God, it is praise. True confession therefore glorifies God, because it acknowledges His holiness and justice while admitting our failure to meet His standard.

In the New Testament, confession remains a vital part of Christian fellowship with God. First John 1:9 declares, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Similarly, James 5:16 commands believers, “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” While believers are not commanded to confess to a priest, confession before God and, when appropriate, before others remains essential for cleansing, humility, and restoration of fellowship.

Throughout church history, genuine confession of sin has always accompanied spiritual revival. During the revival at Ephesus in Acts 19:17–20, “many that believed came, and confessed, and showed their deeds. Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men.” When conviction of sin grips the heart, confession becomes the natural response, and it clears the way for renewal and deeper fellowship with the Lord.

Confession therefore was not an optional formality in the trespass offering; it was the moral prerequisite that made the offering meaningful. Without genuine acknowledgment of sin, no sacrifice could be accepted. In both the Old and New Testaments, confession stands as the doorway through which repentance, cleansing, and reconciliation must pass.

2. (Leviticus 5:6–7) Presenting the Trespass Offering

“And he shall bring his trespass offering to the LORD for his sin which he hath committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin. And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons; the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering.”

Once confession was made, the next step was to bring the appropriate sacrifice before the Lord. The offering symbolized both the acknowledgment of trespass and the desire for restored fellowship. The text specifies a “female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats” for the sin offering. The use of a female animal (in contrast to the male required for the burnt offering) suggests that the focus here was not on strength or vigor but on the relational breach caused by sin and the necessity of reconciliation.

A trespass represents the unlawful crossing of a boundary established by God. Just as a person may step onto forbidden ground in the natural sense, sin is the spiritual act of crossing into territory that belongs to God alone. Humanity’s rebellion in Eden began as a trespass—disregarding God’s command and claiming autonomy. Every sin thereafter is a repetition of that same boundary violation. The trespass offering thus emphasized the restoration of fellowship with God after such moral intrusion.

According to verse 5, the offering had to be preceded by confession. Without confession, the sacrifice would have been mere ceremony, lacking repentance and sincerity. Rooker notes, “The necessity of confession indicated that forgiveness for the Israelite could not be attained simply by following the prescribed procedure given for a sacrifice. This would be tantamount to magic, which the Old Testament condemns.” Israel’s worship was relational, not mechanical; it was a covenantal exchange between a holy God and a repentant people.

For those unable to afford a lamb, God provided an accessible alternative—two turtledoves or two young pigeons. This reveals the mercy and inclusiveness of the divine law. The poor were not excluded from atonement; their means were accommodated so that all might approach the Lord. One bird served as a sin offering to atone for guilt, and the other as a burnt offering, symbolizing renewed consecration.

The dual nature of the offering underscores two truths: forgiveness and restoration. The sin offering addressed the guilt of the trespass, cleansing the sinner. The burnt offering expressed renewed devotion and surrender, signifying that the forgiven individual now belonged wholly to God once again.

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ fulfills both aspects perfectly. His sacrifice not only removes guilt but also restores fellowship. Through His blood, the believer is reconciled to God, cleansed from all sin, and empowered to walk within divine boundaries. As Hebrews 9:14 declares, “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

3. (Leviticus 5:8–10) The Priest Presents the Trespass Offering of the Poor Man

“And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first, and wring off his head from his neck, but shall not divide it asunder. And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering. And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.”

The law graciously provided a way for the poor man to find atonement for his trespass. If he could not bring a lamb or goat, he was permitted to bring two birds. The first bird served as the sin offering, emphasizing atonement and cleansing, while the second bird was the burnt offering, signifying renewed dedication and fellowship with God.

The priest was instructed to “offer that which is for the sin offering first.” The order was deliberate and theologically significant. Atonement must always precede consecration. Before a man could offer himself in devotion to God, his sin had to be addressed. The sinner could not be reconciled to God through good intentions or moral reform until guilt was removed through the blood of sacrifice. Thus, the priest first offered the bird for sin, wringing off its head and sprinkling its blood upon the altar. Blood represented life, and the shedding of blood pointed to the substitutionary death required to satisfy divine justice.

Hebrews 9:22 affirms this principle: “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” The act of sprinkling blood symbolized the application of the atonement, not merely the death of the victim. The altar received the blood, and thereby the guilt of the sinner was transferred and covered.

After the sin offering was made, the second bird was offered “as a burnt offering according to the prescribed manner.” This offering represented the worshipper’s restored relationship with God. Having been forgiven and cleansed, he could now dedicate himself fully to the Lord in gratitude. The burnt offering was wholly consumed upon the altar, symbolizing complete surrender.

The passage concludes, “And it shall be forgiven him.” This divine assurance confirmed that atonement had been accepted. The poor man stood on equal footing with the wealthy man who offered a lamb. Forgiveness was not purchased by the value of the offering, but by obedience and faith in God’s prescribed way. This truth reflects the gospel: salvation is not based on the magnitude of one’s offering, but on faith in the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ, whose blood cleanses from all sin (1 John 1:7).

The order and simplicity of this ritual teach that God does not measure a man by his possessions, but by his faith. Whether a lamb or two pigeons, whether a rich man or a poor man, forgiveness came through the same process—confession, substitution, and faith in the atoning blood.

4. (Leviticus 5:11–13) The Priest Presents the Trespass Offering of the Poorest Man

“But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering. Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: it is a sin offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest’s, as a meat offering.”

Here, the mercy and accessibility of God’s law reach their fullest expression. Even the poorest Israelite, unable to afford a lamb, goat, or even two birds, was not excluded from the opportunity for forgiveness. He was permitted to bring an offering of fine flour—one-tenth of an ephah (approximately two quarts)—as a sin offering. The value of the gift mattered far less than the sincerity of the heart that brought it.

This provision demonstrates that atonement was never about wealth or status, but about faith and repentance. God’s forgiveness was open to every Israelite, regardless of economic position. The poorest sinner who desired reconciliation could find it through obedience to God’s gracious provision.

However, the offering of flour was unique. It was explicitly said, “He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.” In contrast to the normal grain offerings, where oil and frankincense symbolized joy and thanksgiving, these were omitted because the context was one of repentance, not celebration. As Rooker observed, “In the normal presentation of the grain offering these elements would accompany the sacrifice and would accentuate the joy of the occasion. Because in this exceptional case the grain offering was being substituted for the sin offering; those elements that would be associated with joy are omitted.”

The priest was to take a handful of the flour as a memorial portion and burn it upon the altar. The remainder belonged to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering. This act sanctified the offering and acknowledged the sincerity of the poor man’s repentance. God accepted it as a sin offering, even without blood, because it represented the contrite heart of one who desired cleansing and forgiveness.

Psalm 51:16–17 expresses this truth perfectly: “For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” The poor man’s flour offering was acceptable not because of its intrinsic value but because of the broken and humble heart behind it.

The text again concludes, “It shall be forgiven him.” Forgiveness was granted on the same basis as all other offerings—faith and obedience to God’s command. The principle here is timeless: salvation and forgiveness are always by grace through faith, not by material merit.

Morgan insightfully observed the other side of this truth: “If a man’s means sufficed for the appointed lamb or a goat, and he brought two turtle doves or pigeons, or a tenth part of an ephah of fine flour, such action would show that he had no adequate sense, either of his own sin, or of the Divine grace.” To bring less than what one could afford revealed a lack of reverence for the gravity of sin and the mercy of God.

Finally, this passage raises an important question often asked today: why do the Jewish people no longer offer sacrifices? The historical answer lies in the destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70. As Harris explains, “Indeed, when the second temple fell, the rabbis, denied an altar in Jerusalem, came to the conclusion that gifts and prayers were as acceptable as animal sacrifice.” From that time forward, rabbinic Judaism emphasized good works, prayer, and study as substitutes for sacrifice. Yet according to the Word of God, atonement has always required the shedding of blood.

Thus, while Israel looks for an altar yet to come, the Christian rejoices in the finished work of Christ, the Lamb of God, who provided eternal atonement once and for all. Hebrews 10:10 declares, “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

C. The Guilt Offering

1. (Leviticus 5:14–16) The Procedure for the Guilt Offering

“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the LORD; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the LORD a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering: and he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him.”

The guilt offering (also called the trespass offering) addressed a specific kind of sin—one involving desecration or misuse of the holy things of the LORD. It was similar to the sin offering in procedure but differed in purpose. While the sin offering dealt with defilement in general, the guilt offering required restitution when sacred things had been violated. This included the misuse, neglect, or withholding of things consecrated to God.

The expression “If a soul commit a trespass” literally means “if one trespass a trespass,” using both the verb and noun from the same Hebrew root. This intensifies the idea of personal offense against God’s holiness. Peter-Contesse notes that this emphatic repetition underscores the gravity of the act—it was not merely an accidental slip but a moral breach in relation to God’s property or worship.

The phrase “in the holy things of the LORD” included firstfruits (Leviticus 2:14; 23:9–14), the firstborn (Leviticus 27:26–27), the tithe (Leviticus 27:30–33; Deuteronomy 14:22–29), and vowed offerings (Leviticus 27:1–25; Numbers 30:1–16). Any neglect, delay, or misuse of these offerings constituted a trespass against God. Since these belonged exclusively to Him, to withhold them was equivalent to defrauding the Lord.

The offender was commanded to bring a ram without blemish as a trespass offering, together with restitution. The value of restitution was assessed “in shekels of silver according to the shekel of the sanctuary,” which was the official standard of weight used for sacred transactions. Moreover, the offender had to “add the fifth part thereto,” meaning he must repay the full amount plus twenty percent.

Coates captures the moral force of this law: “If one has been unfaithful in the holy things of Jehovah it is not enough that one should confess and bring a sin-offering. Restitution must be made for the wrong done; it must be put right. There was something due to God that was not rendered in its season, and things will not be right until it is rendered.”

The principle is timeless. When a believer wrongs another person or withholds what belongs to God, repentance is not complete without restitution. Zacchaeus understood this when he said to Jesus, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.” (Luke 19:8). True repentance manifests itself in a willingness to make things right.

This offering also carried a practical aspect: the priest who officiated the sacrifice was permitted to keep the hide of the ram (Leviticus 7:8). Even in the priest’s portion, we see God’s order and provision in all matters of worship.

Thus, the guilt offering taught three vital lessons: sin violates God’s holiness, restitution is required for true repentance, and atonement is provided only through the blood of a perfect substitute. The offender’s guilt could not be erased by payment alone; the ram’s blood was still necessary, foreshadowing Christ’s perfect satisfaction of both divine justice and moral debt. As Isaiah 53:10 says of the Messiah, “When thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.”

2. (Leviticus 5:17–19) The Necessity of the Guilt Offering Even When a Person Did Not Know They Had Sinned

“And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him. It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the LORD.”

This portion emphasizes that ignorance did not absolve guilt. Even when a person sinned “though he wist it not,” he remained guilty before God and bore iniquity until atonement was made. Sin in ignorance still violated God’s law and desecrated His holiness, even if the offender was unaware of it at the time.

This principle upholds the objective nature of divine law. Sin is not defined by human awareness but by God’s revealed standard. Spurgeon aptly warned, “If the guilt of an action depended entirely upon a man’s knowledge, we should have no fixed standard at all by which to judge right and wrong. The art of forgetting would be diligently studied, and ignorance would become an enviable inheritance.” Moral law cannot be reduced to personal perception; it exists independent of human awareness.

However, the law also distinguished between willful and ignorant sin in the degree of punishment. Jesus affirmed this in Luke 12:47–48: “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.” Ignorance may lessen the degree of guilt but never removes it altogether.

Therefore, a trespass offering was required even for unintentional violations. The offender was to bring a ram without blemish, and the priest would make atonement on his behalf. The blood of the sacrifice provided covering for both known and unknown sins, symbolizing the sufficiency of divine grace to cleanse all unrighteousness.

Spurgeon added, “Ignorance of the law of God is itself a breach of law, since we are bidden to know and remember it.” Every believer is responsible to seek understanding of God’s Word. Neglecting that responsibility results in moral failure, whether conscious or not.

This aspect of the guilt offering foreshadows Christ’s perfect atonement for our hidden faults and unrecognized sins. David prayed in Psalm 19:12, “Who can understand his errors? Cleanse thou me from secret faults.” The blood of Christ not only covers the sins we know but also those we are blind to. Through Him, the conscience is purged from all guilt—conscious and unconscious alike.

Thus, the guilt offering in Leviticus 5:14–19 teaches that holiness demands both awareness and accountability, that restitution is part of repentance, and that even sins of ignorance require atonement. Only through the blood of Christ, our perfect Ram without blemish, can complete forgiveness be secured.