The Guilt Offering. (Leviticus 5:14-6:7)

 The Bible discusses an intriguing concept known as "restitution." So what is it and when is it appropriate? Is restitution a prerequisite before  forgiveness is offered? If so, under what if any circumstances must one make restitution before being forgiven? In simpler terms, the question is about appropriateness. 

The primary passage for understanding this concept is in the Old Testament here in the book of Leviticus. However, there is a story in the New Testament that could create some confusion for some about this, so we are going to look at both passages today. 

Let's look first look at this familiar story for the gospel of Luke.

Then Jesus entered and passed through Jericho. Now behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus who was a chief tax collector, and he was rich. And he sought to see who Jesus was, but could not because of the crowd, for he was of short stature. So, he ran ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see Him, for He was going to pass that way. And when Jesus came to the place, He looked up and saw him, and said to him, “Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” So, he made haste and came down, and received Him joyfully. But when they saw it, they all complained, saying, “He has gone to be a guest with a man who is a sinner.” Then Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord, I give half of my goods to the poor; and if I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I restore fourfold.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham; for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

(Luke 19: 1-10)

This story raises a critical question: Is making restitution necessary to experience salvation? This account seems to suggest so. If that's indeed the case, when is making restitution appropriate? 

The whole topic of restitution can be perplexing if one believes that salvation is by grace through faith, as the Bible teaches then we are bound to ask the question. So, what is the purpose of restitution?

To understand the concept of restitution, let's drop back into the Old Testament and Leviticus chapter 5:14. The section introduces a trespass offering, also known as a guilt offering. These offering addresses unintentional sins against the Lord or another person. The common factor in this section is both cases is a particular sin that calls for restitution. 

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: “If a person commits a trespass, and sins unintentionally in regard to the holy things of the Lord, then he shall bring to the Lord as his trespass offering a ram without blemish from the flocks, with your valuation in shekels of silver according to the shekel of the sanctuary, as a trespass offering. And he shall make restitution for the harm that he has done in regard to the holy thing and shall add one-fifth to it and give it to the priest. So, the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him.

(Lev 5: 14-16)

The phrase "in regard to the holy thing" refers to anything dedicated to God by the Israelites, including the Tabernacle, its furnishings, offerings, houses, lands, and tithes. Violating these things, whether by eating unholy food, misusing dedicated items, failing to fulfil a promise, or failing to pay a vow, constitutes the sin against the Lord.

 In essence, it is withholding from the Lord what rightfully belongs to Him. This offering included neglecting to pay tithes, eating parts of a sacrifice reserved for priests, or failing to fulfil a vow to serve the Lord in a way you had promised. This sin is essentially appropriating something that belongs to the Lord for personal use.

In conclusion, restitution, particularly within the context of the trespass offering, addresses instances where one wrongfully appropriates something dedicated to the Lord for personal use. It involves acknowledging the fault, making amends, and restoring what rightly belongs to God.

However, hold in tension the fact that the New Testament, while acknowledging wrongdoing and saying making amends is important, it also says salvation is ultimately received through faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice.

The Leviticus passage deals with the idea of restitution through something referred to as "trespass offering." This term simply signifies something that involves going beyond the limits of what is right, constituting an act of misappropriation or denial of what is another's rightful due. That can pertain to the Lord or another person. 

This is crucial to comprehend, as when we hear "trespass," we often think of crossing someone's property line. While that is one valid meaning of the term, I want you to understand that the Hebrew word in this context is much broader.

It encompasses more than merely violating a property right; it encompasses all the other aspects I mentioned, i.e., using something that belongs to the Lord, or someone else for personal purposes. Property can be involved, but it's not just about property.

Another observation we need to make in these verses is that it also concerns an unintentional sin. We've discussed this before. The term itself conveys an error, something done unintentionally, without necessarily being aware at the time of committing it.

Additionally, we should note that an animal was to be offered. The specified animal for the guilt or trespass offering was typically a ram without defect. This ram had to hold the proper value in silver according to Jewish tradition, worth at least two silver shekels. An essential variation in this offering was that only an animal could be brought, they could also substitute the value of the animal in silver. 

But remember, there's more to violating what belongs to the Lord. The initial verses in this passage emphasize that if something belonging to the Lord was taken, sacrifices needed to be made.it talks about a case where along with the ram as a sacrifice, the wrongdoer had to make restitution by giving the priest the value of what was taken, plus 20%. 

This is the concept of restitution, which includes a 20% fine on top. One source highlighted that not only did restitution have to be made, but a penalty equal to a fifth of the stolen value had to be paid as well. 

When a sin could be monetarily compensated, the offender had to bring not only the offering but also compensation in property or silver, along with a 20% fine. 

This then serves as warning and a reminder to everyone that sin is unprofitable and costly. It underscores that if you took something, you will have to pay it back, plus an additional 20%. 

This acts as a deterrent, showcasing the costly consequences of such actions. The distinctive aspect of this offering, compared to the other four we've previously discussed, is that restitution had to be made for the committed sin to the one who suffered the loss followed by the  presenting of the offering to the Lord for the offence itself. This is the biblical doctrine of restoration.

There's more. In verses 17 through 19, it talks about another sin against the Lord. Only this time, it's not a sin against His property, like the Tabernacle or part of the offering that belonged to Him. 

“If a person sins, and commits any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord, though he does not know it, yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity. And he shall bring to the priest a ram without blemish from the flock, with your valuation, as a trespass offering. So, the priest shall make atonement for him regarding his ignorance in which he erred and did not know it, and it shall be forgiven him. It is a trespass offering; he has certainly trespassed against the Lord.”

(Leviticus 5: 17-19)

Back in verse 14, it mentioned the "holy thing" pertaining to the Lord. Now, we're talking about commandments of the Lord. In the first part of this section that pertains to the Lord, it's about His property. In the second part, it's about His commandments. 

So, if people were unaware that they were committing some kind of a trespass related to a divine command, they were still guilty, even though they didn't know they were doing it. And when they became aware of it, they needed to deal with it. 

I've mentioned this before, but ignorance of the law is no excuse. A simple illustration is speeding. If you're not aware that you're speeding, you're still guilty. This comes straight from the Judeo-Christian judicial system, and it serves as a great illustration. You might not be aware of it in the moment, but you're guilty, and the fine will have to be paid.

You see guilt, like sin, in the biblical sense, is not just a feeling, or something that you did or did not do; it is a condition, a state we all live in.

Let me explain that, because it's very important. We talk about guilt in two different ways. In one sense, we are guilty—that is objective guilt, because we did something wrong. In this type of case, it's legal guilt, where we're guilty before the judge. But there is emotional guilt or psychological guilt, it's a feeling of guilt. Now, notice that the person who committed the sin was unaware of it, and yet he's called guilty at that point. So, this is no emotional guilt; it is just legal guilt, whether they know it or not. You're guilty; if broke the law. 

So in verse 18:, the priest shall make atonement for that type of sin in ignorance in which he erred and did not know it, and it shall be forgiven him. That is the trespass offering. The individual has certainly trespassed against the Lord." So, the solution to breaking the underlying commandment, even that which  you were unaware of, the priest would make a sacrifice as an atonement, and you were thereby forgiven. So, the penalty was a blood sacrifice.

Now, this type of offering spills over into Chapter 6, and in the next case, it's a violation of property rights against people, not the law. 

So, look at chapter 6, Verse 1:

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying “If a person sins and commits a trespass against the Lord by lying to his neighbour about what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or about a pledge, or about a robbery, or if he has extorted from his neighbour, or if he has found what was lost and lies concerning it, and swears falsely—in any one of these things that a man may do in which he sins: then it shall be, because he has sinned and is guilty, that he shall restore what he has stolen, or the thing which he has extorted, or what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or the lost thing which he found, or all that about which he has sworn falsely. He shall restore its full value, add one-fifth more to it, and give it to whomever it belongs, on the day of his trespass offering.”

(Lev 6: 1-5)

Here is the procedure if you took property, extorted it or even lost something when it was given to you for safekeeping and then you lied about it. Then you had to do two things. One, you had to bring a blood sacrifice. And secondly, you had to restore the price, and that also included a 20% penalty.

The case here is that it involves taking property not that belonged to the Lord but that belonged to another human being.. So, since the violation was against the human property rights, the restitution payment and fine was given to the owner on the day the offender presented his guilt offering.

So, I want to emphasize this has to do with property. 

Verse 6: 

And he shall bring his trespass offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish from the flock, with your valuation, as a trespass offering, to the priest.

(Leviticus 6: 6)

Now this is similar to what we saw in Chapter five. You give the offering to the priest. That's the basis of the forgiveness. But then verse seven says.

So, the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven for any one of these things that he may have done in which he trespasses.”

(Lev 6: 7)

So, the basis of forgiveness is clearly spelled out. It's the animal sacrifice, not the restitution. But you still have to make the restitution. 

Did that come out right? The basis of the forgiveness was the sacrifice, not the restitution, but you still had to make restitution. The distinctive feature of the guilt offering was the restitution payment and the fine to the wrong party, either man or God. The ram of the guilt offering was not part of the restitution but was the sacrifice presented before God for the atonement of the sin, the restation with the  20% fine settled things with the other person . That little distinction really is important.

The restitution was not the basis of forgiveness; the sacrifice was. 

I hope I haven’t confused you. In ancient Israel, if you committed a sin against God or people that involved property, they were to give a trespass offering, make full restitution, and pay a 20% penalty. 

I began today  by asking, what is this restitution concept in the Bible? And the answer is, it has to do with property. It doesn't involve other kinds of sins, as we've seen when looking at the other offerings. But when property is involved, there is a restitution penalty.

Now, having gone through this passage, I want to make some observations. 

Firstly, the trespass offering was similar to the sin offering. Yet, there are several important differences. In the trespass offering, lambs were offered, and the blood was sprinkled around the altar of the burnt offering. The priest was required to make a special valuation of the ram offering for the trespass. It was offered in cases of trespass committed against holy things, dishonesty, or falsehood in a breach of trust, or robbery connected with deceit, what we would today call fraud, falsehood in reference to things lost or found. The offering demonstrates the need for restitution, but this particular offering focuses on restitution, and the critical issue is it’s about property.

I said earlier, when I first introduced the concept of the 20%, that this illustrates that sin is meant to be not just unprofitable but costly. So, if there's anything we should learn, it's that this story teaches us sin is has a cost. Now, I'll come back to that in a second. Because one of the things I need to clarify, and that is why I started out by reading the story of Zacchaeus. Is that the case, can we say because he made restitution, remember he said, "I’ll give back fourfold," and Jesus said, "Salvation has come to this house," 

Listen again to the closing verses of the Zacchaeus passage because there is a little phrase in it that can very easily pass someone by. Luke chapter 19 verse 8 and 9., 

Then Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord, I give half of my goods to the poor; and if I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I restore fourfold.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham; for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

What does it say? "Salvation come to this house 'cause you're a son of Abraham." What's being a son of Abraham got to do with this? And the answer is Abraham is the one who trusted the Lord. Genesis 15-6 says, Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. That verse gets quoted in Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews. That verse is the verse that the writers of the New Testament point to, to say that salvation is solely by faith.

Luke 19 is not teaching that you have to make restoration in order to be saved. Zacchaeus got saved because he, like Abraham, trusted the Lord. Salvation is by faith. But having done that, he then offered that if he had taken anything, he wouldn't just give 20%, he would give back fourfold. 

In other words, he was going way above and beyond what the Mosaic law required. Now, how much of this applies to us? There is no reference to restitution anywhere else in the New Testament.

So, while it's not a requirement for forgiveness or salvation then, but when you have taken something that has a monetary value, then maybe that should be repaid. As a matter of fact, we're not required to do it to be forgiven. But the New Testament says the things written before were written for our learning. It's not written to us, but it's written for us.

The illustration I've used before, you're going down the motorway and speeding is also a good illustration when it comes to us on this level as well. So if you drive too fast, then slow down.

The Old Testament is not written to us. It's written to the Jews, but it's written for our learning and education. So, I think we can learn from this is that there is a place for restitution. It's not required for salvation, but there is a place that when you've taken somebody's property or something of value that you can place a value on, then restitution is perhaps appropriate. 

Our whole judicial system based on the Judeo-Christian concept.  

I want to end on this note. Sin is costly. It costs God because it robs him of service, worship, obedience, and glory. And sin also robs human beings of life, peace, gladness, and fellowship with God. 

In this trespass offering, the Lord Jesus not only restored what had been stolen through man's sin, but he added more back. 

But now through the finished work of we're better off in Christ than we could have ever been under the Old Testament law.

So, sin is costly, and it will always cost you more than anything you might think you got out of it in the first place.