Charles Ellicott Commentary Leviticus 6

And the Lord spoke. —Like Leviticus 5:14, which begins with the same introductory formula, this is a further communication made to the lawgiver in which other instances are specified which require a trespass offering. It is repeatedly stated, in some of our best commentaries, that Leviticus 6:1-7 form part of Leviticus 5 in the Hebrew Bible, and that our translators unfortunately adopted the division of the Septuagint, instead of following the Hebrew. Nothing can be more erroneous than this statement.

The Hebrew Scriptures in manuscript have no division into chapters at all. The text is divided into sections, of which there are no less than 669 in the Pentateuch. The book of Leviticus has ninety-eight of these sections, while in our Authorised Version it has only twenty-seven chapters. The divisions into chapters, now found in the Hebrew Bibles, were adopted in the fourteenth century by the Jews from the Christians for polemical purposes, and the figures attached to each verse are of a still later period.

And commit a trespass against the Lord. —It will be seen that the trespass against God is, strictly speaking, a violation of the rights of a neighbor’s property. As fraud and plunder are most subversive of social life, a crime of this sort is described as an insult to God, who is the founder and sovereign ruler of His people.

In that which was delivered to him to keep. —To deposit valuable property with a neighbor was, and still is, a common practice in the East where no responsible establishments exist for the reception of private treasure. Hence, when a man went on a journey, he concealed his precious things underground. This was connected with the danger of forgetting the spot where they were hidden, when search and digging had to be resorted to.

This not only accounts for the fact that treasure is called in Hebrew by a name which denotes hidden, or things that people customarily hid underground, but also explains such allusions as hidden riches of secret places (Isaiah 45:3), and searchest for her as for hid treasure (Proverbs 2:4), dig for it more than for hid treasure (Job 3:21).

To avoid this danger, people entrusted their treasure to the custody of a neighbor. It is this practice to which the text before us refers, and it is from this practice that the apostle took the expression when he declares, I am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day (2 Timothy 1:12; see also Leviticus 6:14, and 1 Timothy 6:20).

Or in fellowship. —Literally, or in something that is placed in the hand; that is, put in his hand, a deposit. It is similar in nature to the trust mentioned in the preceding clause, for which reason it is not repeated in the general recapitulation of the offenses in Leviticus 6:4-5.

Or in a thing taken away in violence. —Having specified two cases of embezzlement in connection with things voluntarily handed over to the defrauder, two other frauds are presented, in which the offender took possession of his neighbor’s property by violence and extortion.

Or have found. —The fifth instance presented is of property which was neither entrusted nor exacted but accidentally found. For the law on lost property, see Exodus 23:4; Deuteronomy 22:1–3.

And sweareth falsely. —This refers to all the five instances specified—that is, if he denies with an oath that property had been entrusted to him, that he had robbed, or exacted, or found anything.

Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty. —Better, And it shall come to pass, when he has so sinned, and acknowledged his guilt. (See Leviticus 4:22.) That is, when he has committed any of the aforementioned offenses, and denied the sin with an oath, but afterwards voluntarily acknowledges his guilt without having been found out.

That he shall restore that ... which he hath deceitfully gotten. —Better, then he shall restore, etc.

And shall add the fifth part more thereto. — The first thing the offender must do, when he realizes and confesses his guilt, is to make restitution of the property he had embezzled—if he still has it, or, if that is impossible, to pay its value as estimated by the authorized tribunal. Besides this, the offender is to add a fifth part of the principal to compensate for the loss the owner sustained during the interval.

It will be seen that in Exodus 22:1-9, when a person was guilty of any of the offenses specified here, the offender was condemned to make fourfold restitution. In contrast, in the passage before us, the penalty is reduced to the restitution of the principal with the addition of a fifth part.

The reason for this difference is that the law in Exodus deals with a culprit who is convicted of his crime in a court of justice by means of witnesses. In contrast, the law before us deals with an offender who, through compunction of mind, voluntarily confesses his offense, and whose guilt for this offense could not have been proven without this voluntary confession. It is this difference that constitutes it a case for a trespass offering .

In the day of his trespass offering. — A better rendering is on the day of his guilt. That is, as soon as he acknowledges his guilt and brings the sacrifice for his offense, he is to make the requisite restitution.