Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 6:1-7

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;

3 Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein:

4 Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found,

5 Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.

6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest:

7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.

A few days ago we started examining what I have called the “higher trespass offering,” and the offenses described for it seemed ambiguous. I mentioned in that initial post that the descriptions become much clearer in this chapter. Here we see that if an Israelite cheated something away from his neighbor, in any way, that would make him guilty of having “deceitfully gotten,” and he would remain guilty until this higher trespass offering was made.

There are many ways in which a man might be guilty of this, and the verses go at some length to describe them, but what is most important is that principle of “deceitfully gotten.” In whatever way you managed to acquire your neighbor’s possession, if it was “deceitfully gotten,” you are in the wrong.

It is interesting to note that a cost was applied to the sin itself in how the perpetrator must “add the fifth part” of the item’s value to its restoration. This is different from the laws of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” where the restitution was meant to be exactly equal to the offense. The key difference between those laws and these is that “an eye for an eye” applied to the destruction and replacement of another person’s property. In today’s case, no permanent destruction took place, so the original item could be returned without replacement. If that was the end of it, then there would be no consideration for the inconvenience to the victim or the ill-gotten benefit of the perpetrator. By telling the perpetrator to “add the fifth part,” you essentially turned the theft into a pricey loan, and the victim gets a rich return.

I have included these first seven verses with my analysis of Chapter 5 because they clearly belong with the second half of that chapter. Verse 8 begins an entirely new subject, and so ought to be considered the true beginning of the next chapter. Thus, I will take my usual intra-chapter interlude here and resume my scriptural analysis next week.

SacrificeEligible oblationStepsExplanation
Higher trespass offeringRam, moneyRestitution for taking from one’s neighbor. Possibly other special cases also.
Ram presumably slaughtered and burnedPresumably spiritual cleansing or restoration
Payment of moneyRestitution for damage and a fine

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:25-27

25 If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.

26 If thou at all take thy neighbour’s raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down:

27 For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious.

The special considerations for the poor and vulnerable continue in these verses. Usury means interest, and so God is stating that any money loaned to a poor man must not carry any interest. The poor man would pay back the same amount that he borrowed, no more. Why would anyone give a loan without interest? Presumably as an act of aid and kindness. If a person wanted to be kind, why not simply give the money in full? Perhaps to protect the honor of the borrower, or because having one’s money returned back allows for helping even more people with the same resource over and over.

It is further stated that if a neighbor offers his cloak as collateral on something, you must not keep it from him overnight. He will use it to keep warm through the night, and presumably give it back as continued collateral in the morning until he has returned the goods or money that it stands for.

In both of these laws, we see compassion, not greed, as the basis for loaning to the poor and one’s neighbor. It is to let someone be helped out for a little bit with what you have, at no loss to them. These laws show that even if we are not doing a full-blown charity, we can still help, expecting nothing in turn.