"When he realizes his guilt in any of these and confesses the sin," he shall bring a sin offering to the Lord, and the priest shall make atonement for him, "and he shall be forgiven" (a paraphrase of Leviticus 5:5–6, 10).

This was the Old Testament process for dealing with unintentional sins. When a person became aware of the sin, he was to confess it and bring a sacrifice to cover its penalty. Then he would be forgiven and made right with God. The sacrificial system chiefly addressed unintentional sins; for high-handed, defiant sins, the Law made no such provision. That is why we read in Hebrews 10:4, "it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

But in the New Testament, Christ is our one and forever sacrifice for all our sins, both unintentional and deliberate. What animal sacrifices could never do, the crucified body of Christ accomplished: "For by a single offering he has perfected for all time" those who are being sanctified (Hebrews 10:14). And since we have been forgiven all our sins in Christ, no further sacrifice is needed: "Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin" (Hebrews 10:18).

Yet when we sin in this life, we are still called to confess it — not for our salvation, but to restore right fellowship with God. Our right standing (justification) was secured by Christ's one sacrifice when we trusted in Him, but we still wrestle with our sinful nature (literally "flesh") on this side of heaven. So we continue to confess our sins, and Jesus, our High Priest, continually intercedes for us. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins" (1 John 1:9).

Before the new covenant in Christ, Israel had this elaborate sacrificial system to maintain right fellowship with God. Premeditated sins carried consequences — some required restitution, and some, like premeditated adultery or murder, carried the death penalty. King David should have died under the Law of Moses for his adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah. But God in grace forgave him, and he did not die (cf. 2 Samuel 12:13; Psalm 51:16–17), though he and his family and nation suffered other consequences (2 Samuel 12:10–14).

Therefore, whether under the old covenant or the new, a right standing with God could come only by His grace. In my understanding, the laws, sacrifices, and principles of obedience in both Testaments were for right fellowship with God in this life, never for right standing before Him. Justification — eternal salvation — comes only through Jesus Christ, by God's grace, received through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9).

Praise God for His salvation in Christ!

AI-Expanded Reflection

Leviticus 5 contains an important detail about confession that is easy to miss: "when he realizes his guilt in any of these and confesses the sin" (5:5). Confession was not optional; it was part of the process of atonement. The chapter also shows remarkable concern for the poor: a person who could not afford a lamb could bring two birds, and one who could not afford birds could bring a small amount of flour (5:7, 11). Access to forgiveness was not restricted by wealth.

The comment's distinction between unintentional and "high-handed" sins reflects Numbers 15:27–31, where deliberate, defiant sin is said to despise the word of the Lord. Yet as noted above, the Law did make provision for some deliberate wrongs, and the Day of Atonement covered all the people's sins. David's own testimony in Psalm 51 shows that he looked beyond the sacrificial system to God's mercy itself: "you will not delight in sacrifice... The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit" (51:16–17). The comment's conclusion — that right standing with God has always come by grace — is exactly Paul's argument from David in Romans 4:6–8.

If anyone sins by doing what the Lord commanded not to be done, though he did not know it, "he shall bear his iniquity" (a paraphrase of Leviticus 5:17).

Lack of knowledge does not remove guilt or the prospect of judgment. This was true for people in the Old Testament, in the New, and today. In other words, if people do not receive atonement (covering or forgiveness) for their sins, they will bear the full punishment of the guilty.

Paul writes that people the world over have at least enough knowledge of God to condemn them, though they may not have what is necessary to save them. The wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness of those who suppress the truth, for what can be known about God is plain to them; His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived in the things He has made, so they are without excuse; although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but became futile in their thinking (a paraphrase of Romans 1:18–21).

Ignorance is not bliss. It does not free the guilty from eternal punishment. Many of Paul's Jewish contemporaries were also ignorant. Even though they had a clearer knowledge of God than any other people, they were ignorant of the most important thing — God's way of salvation through Jesus Christ. Paul prayed for their salvation, testifying that they had a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge; being ignorant of God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness, for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes (a paraphrase of Romans 10:1–4).

In fact, many of the people and their leaders rejected Jesus at least partly because of misinformation. They thought He came from Galilee rather than Bethlehem, the birthplace prophesied for the Messiah. Some asked whether the Christ would come from Galilee, since the Scripture said He would come from David's offspring and from Bethlehem (cf. John 7:41–42). When Nicodemus asked whether their law judges a man without first hearing him, they replied, "Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee" (a paraphrase of John 7:50–52).

So, friends, let us not imagine that we will escape God's judgment because we were unaware of the truth or because a pastor or teacher taught us wrongly. As I have shared elsewhere, each of us will be held accountable for ourselves. So, unlike anything else we pursue in life, knowing God's Word must not be left to pastors, teachers, and professional ministers. We must all be experts in the Word.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Leviticus 5:17–19 is part of the law of the guilt (or "reparation") offering, and its emphasis is actually one of provision as well as warning. Unintentional sins were real sins that created real guilt, but God provided a way for them to be covered: the priest would make atonement for the unintentional mistake, "and he shall be forgiven" (5:18). Psalm 19:12 reflects the same humility: "Who can discern his errors? Declare me innocent from hidden faults." The Old Testament's recognition of unknown sin led not to despair but to a provision of grace.

Scripture also teaches that knowledge affects accountability. Jesus said the servant who knew his master's will and did not do it would receive a severe beating, while the one who did not know would receive a light one: "Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required" (Luke 12:47–48). Paul says God "overlooked" times of ignorance but now commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). The comment's conclusion — that we are each responsible to seek and know God's truth for ourselves — fits both emphases: ignorance does not make us innocent, and greater light brings greater responsibility.

Friends,

From time to time I come across some good studies in the Scriptures that help me appreciate some of the more difficult texts to read. The site bible.org is one of those sites that provide a lot of good biblical studies. Here is one of them on the subject of the guilt offering. I encourage you also to read the other studies in the series on Leviticus: Sacrifice and Sanctification, written by various authors on the site.

The Guilt Offering (Leviticus 5:14–6:7; 7:1–6)

Study By: Donald E. Curtis

From the Series: Leviticus: Sacrifice and Sanctification

Introduction [57]

Guilt has two distinct aspects: legal and emotional. Legal guilt is the outcome of a legal or a moral violation. If I break the law or a moral code, I am “guilty” of breaking it. Put another way, the breaking of law or code imparts guilt to the law breaker. Emotional guilt is the outcome of the conscience that God has given us. It is the spiritual organ that causes us to feel pain when we do wrong. Rightly tuned, it is a good thing to have. As Hebrews 5:14 says, “But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.”

Legal and emotional guilt may be paired in any one of four ways:

1. No legal guilt with no guilt feelings. This, of course, is where we would like to be all the time. I have neither broken a law nor do I have any sense of conviction.

2. No legal guilt with guilt feelings. This can come about by a misunderstanding of the intent of a law, or it can be a sign of an overly sensitive conscience. A girl, raised with the teaching that make-up is of the devil, who tries a little blush, may feel guilty.

3. Legal guilt with no guilt feelings. On the good side, this comes from convicting an innocent person. On the serious side, this comes from the reprobate who feels bad for being caught in his or her law breaking, but has no sense of wrongdoing. As Proverbs 30:20 says, “This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth, and says, ‘I have done no wrong.’”

4. Legal guilt with guilt feelings. Not the best place to be but it certainly presents cause for hope. It’s the stuff from which repentance comes.

The story of Stephen in the Book of Acts gives us an example of wrong legal guilt for which the legally guilty person has no guilt feelings. Stephen was brought before the Sanhedrin, for being one of Jesus’ followers. They found him guilty of blasphemy and stoned him. Stephen was legally guilty as far as the Jewish criminal justice system was concerned. He had incurred a legal debt that demanded his death. From the standpoint of a higher truth, however, he was not guilty, and in fact, his conscience was not inflamed at all.

The men who stoned Stephen took their own clothes and placed them at the feet of a man named Saul. Saul did not feel guilty either; in fact, Scripture says he approved of the stoning of Stephen. Saul was quite innocent before the Sanhedrin, yet he was morally guilty before a higher Truth.

It’s clear that guilt is a complex subject that affects all of us. We are, of course, in the best of situations when code and conscience, at the level of highest truth, are in agreement. Note again Hebrews 5:14” But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.” A properly functioning conscience is a mark of maturity.

Guilt is universal. We have all felt guilty and have been guilty. If we examine the philosophies of the world, we find that, whereas many of them do not recognize the biblical concept of sin, they will invariably recognize the concept of guilt and try to deal with it. This includes not only many religions but also the fields of psychology and psychiatry. This demonstrates the degree to which guilt and guilt feelings trouble the human race.

Some religious groups stir up guilt as a means of control. They seek to expand the scope of guilt.

Conversely, Humanistic philosophies try to narrow the scope of guilt. They do not affirm valid guilt except in regard to violating the space, privacy, or short-term welfare of another person.

Psychiatry often takes the blame-shifting approach to guilt feelings. The comedian Anna Russell wrote a poem that pokes fun at this.

I went to my psychiatrist to be psychoanalyzed
To find out why I killed the cat and blacked my husband’s eyes.
He laid me on a downy couch to see what he could find
And here’s what he dredged up from my subconscious mind.

When I was one my mommy hid my dolly in a trunk
And so it follows naturally that I am always drunk.
And when I was two I saw my father kiss the maid one day
And that is why I suffer now from kleptomaniae.

At three I had the feeling of ambivalence toward my brothers
And so it follows naturally I poison all my lovers.
But I am happy now I’ve learned a lesson this has taught
That everything I do that’s wrong is someone else’s fault.58

Although true Christianity offers a solution to guilt, there is a caricature of Christianity that portrays it as a producer of guilt feelings instead. This has led some to attack Christianity as being harmful to good mental health, as the following quote from The Humanist magazine demonstrates. The article it comes from is called “The Fundamentalist Anonymous Movement.”

At long last, the best kept secret in America is being revealed to the public: the fundamentalist experience can be a serious mental health hazard to perhaps millions of people. … At this time, more than ten thousand people, hardly a significant number compared to the population from which it claims to come, have called or written us. Even though they come from all fifty states and constitute a cross-section of American society, there is a common list of complaints that we hear again and again: years of overwhelming guilt, fear, and anxiety after leaving the fundamentalist fold, loneliness, chronic depression, low self-esteem, years in therapy, and sometimes even attempts at suicide.59

They are saying that fundamentalists are really pouring on the guilt. Although there are some religious groups, Christian and otherwise, that use guilt to manipulate their members, we still have to realize that guilt feelings are God-given, just like our emotions of fear and anger. All emotions, however, have been warped by sin. Just as there are those who develop sinful anger patterns or are too fearful, there are those who have destructive guilt. Then again, there are others who do not feel guilty enough. What seems clear is that a proper balance must be the goal to which we strive for our mental, emotional, and spiritual health.

The Guilt Offering and the Sin Offering

Leviticus chapters 4 through 7 present the Sin and Guilt offerings. The two themes intermingle throughout. Thus, the Bible, contrary to our modern culture, closely ties sin and guilt together. Look at how both relate to each other in the following texts.

Leviticus 5:5–6 When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

Leviticus 5:15 When a person commits a violation and sins unintentionally in regard to any of the Lord’s holy things, he is to bring to the Lord as a penalty a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value in silver, according to the sanctuary shekel. It is a guilt offering.

Notice the two passages! On the one hand, if a person is guilty he may need to bring a sin offering. On the other hand, if a person sins, he may need to bring a guilt offering. The two concepts are seemingly inseparable.

Guilt Offerings in Israel’s History

The Bible describes a number of occasions when guilt offerings were made. A guilt offering was part of the ceremonial cleansing of a leper. A guilt offering was required when a man or woman, under a Nazirite vow, came in contact with a dead person and unintentionally broke their vow.

The most interesting illustration is told in 1 Samuel 6. The Philistines had captured the ark of God. Their excitement turned to dismay as problems mounted from their having the ark in their possession. In particular, their god Dagon kept falling over and the people suffered from tumors. Their recourse was to “invent” a guilt offering, presumably for sinning against the Lord’s holy things.

1 Samuel 6:1–5 Now the ark of the Lord had been in the country of the Philistines seven months. And the Philistines called for the priests and the diviners, saying, “What shall we do with the ark of the Lord? Tell us how we shall send it to its place.” And they said, “If you send away the ark of the God of Israel, do not send it empty; but you shall surely return to Him a guilt offering. Then you shall be healed and it shall be known to you why His hand is not removed from you.” Then they said, “What shall be the guilt offering which we shall return to Him?” And they said, “Five golden tumors and five golden mice according to the number of the lords of the Philistines, for one plague was on all of you and on your lords. So you shall make likenesses of your tumors and likenesses of your mice that ravage the land, and you shall give glory to the God of Israel; perhaps He will ease His hand from you, your gods, and your land.

Another example is related at the end of the Book of Ezra. The exiles had returned from their captivity, and guilt and sin offerings had been made. Afterwards, the leaders came to Ezra and told him that the priests, Levites, and others had married foreign wives. Ezra 9:2 says, “They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness.” Ezra was so distraught at the marring of the racial purity of Israel that he literally pulled his own hair out. He asked the Levites to repent and put away their foreign wives. Many offered guilt offerings. They perhaps had sinned without knowledge or had violated the holy things of God, i.e. “the holy race.”

Structure of Our Text

The passages in Leviticus that concern the guilt offering have the following structure:

1. Leviticus 5:14–16 The Guilt Offering is required for violating the Lord’s holy things.

2. Leviticus 5:17–19 The Guilt Offering is required when one sins without knowing it.

3. Leviticus 6:1–7 The Guilt Offering is required for extortion or robbery.

4. Leviticus 7:1–6 The details of the Guilt Offering.

The Lord’s Holy Things

Leviticus 5:14–16 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “If a person acts unfaithfully and sins unintentionally against the LORD'S holy things, then he shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD: a ram without defect from the flock, according to your valuation in silver by shekels, in terms of the shekel of the sanctuary, for a guilt offering. He shall make restitution for that which he has sinned against the holy thing, and shall add to it a fifth part of it and give it to the priest. The priest shall then make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering, and it will be forgiven him.”

What are the Lord’s holy things?

1. The Lord’s name is holy. We are commanded to not misuse it or take it in vain. Swearing falsely by the name of the Lord violates and brings dishonor to the Lord. In the Lord’s prayer, we pray for the sanctity of the Lord’s name.

2. The Sabbath was to be kept holy. An unintentional Sabbath violation would be one of the things that required a guilt offering.

3. The offerings and the temple rites were holy. Much of the temple ceremony dealt with maintaining its holy character. An improperly trained priest could violate any part of the ordinance and be guilty. Leviticus 19 directs that any remains of the peace offering were to be burned on the third day. Leviticus 19:7,8 says, “So if it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an offense; it will not be accepted. And anyone who eats it will bear his iniquity, for he has profaned the holy thing of the Lord; and that person shall be cut off from his people

4. National purity was holy. The Israelites were to be holy just as their Lord God was holy. Not maintaining purity in their worship of the one true God and by their inter-marrying, they violated the Lord’s holy things.

What are some of the Lord’s holy things for Christians?

1. The Lord’s Name. As stated above, Jesus taught us to pray “Hallowed be Thy name.”

2. The Gospel. Paul says in Galatians 1:8, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!”

3. Our Bodies. As Paul says again in 1 Corinthians 6:19–20, “Or, do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own. For you have been bought with a price: therefore, glorify God in your body”

4. The Lord’s Supper. In 1 Corinthians 10:14f, Paul associates the table of the Lord and partaking of it with the “most holy” offerings in Leviticus:

Therefore, my dear friends flee from idolatry. I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of one loaf. Consider the people of Israel: do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?

There is more to be said about the holiness of the Lord’s Supper. In 1 Corinthians 11:27–29, Paul writes:

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Many would say that this means we are not to partake of the Lord’s table with unconfessed sin, but I do not think that is true. Paul says, whoever eats or drinks in an “unworthy manner.” If we take both this passage and what we see in Leviticus, the Lord’s table is one of the most holy things of the Lord. We are to regard it as holy.

I am certainly not saying there is a transubstantiation of the elements when we serve the Lord’s table. But it is “most holy” for us. Paul clearly associates this with the body and blood of the Lord Jesus. Paul says it is a “participation” in the body and blood of Christ, and through the one loaf, it is a communion among us with fellow believers. I think we recognize it is emblematic of the Lord’s death and resurrection; we recognize it as one of the symbols of our salvation, but we sometimes lose sight of the fact it is also holy.

All of us are believer priests and may eat—both men and women. The Levitical priests would violate the Lord’s holy things if they ate anything with blood in it. Yet we freely participate in both the body and the blood of Christ. Here’s why: when the priest ate the guilt offering, he was ingesting the sin of the offerer to make atonement for him. The blood was excluded because the life was in the blood, and the life had to be shed because of guilt. For us, Christ has made the perfect atonement. We partake of His sinless body and drink His life, which is in His blood.

Guilt for Unknown Sin

Leviticus 5:17–19 Now if a person sins and does any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, though he was unaware, still he is guilty and shall bear his punishment. He is then to bring to the priest a ram without defect from the flock, according to your valuation, for a guilt offering. So the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his error in which he sinned unintentionally and did not know it, and it will be forgiven him. It is a guilt offering; he was certainly guilty before the LORD.

Unknown sin is a class of unintentional sin. A sin can be unknown because you didn’t know that an action violated the Lord’s command. It could also be because circumstances hid from you the sinful nature of your actions. Here is an example:

When Isaac had been there a long time, Abimelech king of the Philistines looked down from a window and saw Isaac caressing his wife Rebekah. So Abimelech summoned Isaac and said, “She is really your wife! Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’?” Isaac answered him, “Because I thought I might lose my life on account of her.” Then Abimelech said, “What is this you have done to us? One of the men might have slept with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us” (Genesis 26:8–10).

One debate in our modern age is between situational ethics and absolute morals. Between Abimelech and Isaac, there was no such debate. A Philistine would have been guilty of adultery if he had slept with Rebekah, even though the situation suggested differently. Incidentally, this is the first occurrence of the word “guilt” in the Scriptures.

Another incident that combines elements of unknown sin and the Lord’s holy things occurs in Joshua chapter 9. The Gibeonites, marked by the Lord for destruction by the Israelites, dressed up and pretended to be from a distant land. They asked Joshua to make a treaty with them. Though Joshua asked some probing questions, he did not inquire before the Lord before making the treaty, and he swore by the Lord to make the treaty. When the truth became known, Joshua stood by the treaty he had made by swearing on the Lord’s name, but obviously he was guilty of an unknown violation of the Lord’s commands. In this case, the guilt was incurred in ignorance. Ignorance, however, is no excuse. The guilt exists and must be dealt with.

Will any of us ever know the Scriptures in such a way, or be so led by the Spirit, as to never commit an unknown sin and thus incur guilt in our lives? Probably not. Anyone who says we can live sinlessly before our resurrection has a shallow view of the human heart and no understanding of God’s righteous character. This offering demonstrates God’s grace to the Israelite by making a provision for not knowing it all, not understanding it all, and feeling a sense of God’s righteousness and of falling short, yet not knowing why.

In a study on Proverbs that Dr. Bruce Waltke taught many years ago, he described four Hebrew words translated “fool” in Proverbs. They are: (a) pethi: Naive, simple one, not committed; (b) kesil: Dull insensitive, foolish; (c) evil: A hater of wisdom; (d) qalas: The scoffer. These words suggest a continuum between the ignorant and uncommitted, and the premeditated sinner. Everything we do falls somewhere within this continuum.

Intentional sin is brash, bold, direct, premeditated, and consuming. There are many descriptions of those who plan the next day’s evil when they go to sleep at night. One of my favorites is found in Isaiah 5:18–23:

Woe to those who draw sin along with cords of deceit and wickedness as with cart ropes, to those who say, “Let God hurry, let Him hasten His work so we may see it. Let it approach, let the plan of the Holy One of Israel come, so we may know it.” Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight. Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks, who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice to the innocent.

Extortion Etc.

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “When a person sins and acts unfaithfully against the LORD, and deceives his companion in regard to a deposit or a security entrusted to him, or through robbery, or if he has extorted from his companion, or has found what was lost and lied about it and sworn falsely, so that he sins in regard to any one of the things a man may do; then it shall be, when he sins and becomes guilty, that he shall restore what he took by robbery or what he got by extortion, or the deposit which was entrusted to him or the lost thing which he found, or anything about which he swore falsely; he shall make restitution for it in full and add to it one-fifth more. He shall give it to the one to whom it belongs on the day he presents his guilt offering. Then he shall bring to the priest his guilt offering to the LORD, a ram without defect from the flock, according to your valuation, for a guilt offering, and the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he will be forgiven for any one of the things which he may have done to incur guilt” (Leviticus 6:1–7)

According to Leviticus, if you cheat your neighbor, you need to bring a guilt offering. If you find property and do not return it, you need to bring a guilt offering. Along with the guilt offering, you also return what was stolen, plus 20 percent.

I am immediately reminded of the words of Jesus: “Therefore if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift” (Matthew 5:23, 24). The gift Jesus is referring to may be a peace offering or a tithe. Regardless, it is made worthless by the offense someone has received from you.

Legal and Moral Debt—Handling Guilt Biblically

Guilt is legal and/or moral debt. Both the Levitical offerings and Christianity claim to resolve guilt in our lives. But the enemies of the church are able to accuse us of generating huge amounts of guilt. What gives? Are we innocent of the charge? Mostly so, but partly not. The emotion of guilt, like anger and fear, can be distorted by sin. An overactive conscience is one of the liabilities of spiritual warfare, especially as we draw nearer and nearer to God. Neither do Christianity’s detractors understand that a deadened conscience is also damaging to the person.

How do we handle guilt biblically? For true guilt—whether against the Lord or man, whether known or unknown—the Levitical combination of restitution and the guilt offering absolved the offender of all legal and moral debt. For the Christian, restitution and the death of Jesus Christ, our guilt offering (Isaiah 53:10) also absolves us of legal and moral debt. This statement is important because one of the reasons we carry our guilt is that we refuse to recognize that the debt has been paid.

When I was a teenager, I was hired as a lifeguard, but did not take my position as seriously as I should have. One day I was sitting on the sidelines of the pool talking with some girls (rather than up in the chair). Suddenly I saw a man running along the edge of the pool, in violation of the rules. I blew my whistle, but he didn’t quit running. Instead, he dove into the pool and brought up a young boy out of the water. His face was very blue. The Lord was good to me; the boy revived quickly and no permanent harm came to him. This is an illustration of the kind of guilt that can be damaging to us if we don’t leave it behind. I can’t bring up the memory of this incident without reliving it very vividly. I repented right away, and after that time became a conscientious lifeguard. But it would be pointless to condemn myself each time I remembered the situation. I sinned, incurred guilt, and repented. Jesus, my guilt offering, paid my debt to God. Therefore, I can let the past be the past and move on with a clear conscience.

Here are some concrete ideas for handling guilt:

1. Our conscience must be correctly trained. It must alert us when we have failed to do, as we ought. This requires faithful teaching:

1 Timothy 1:3, 5 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer … The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

Hebrews 5:11–12, 14 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk not solid food! … But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

2. Not all of our sin will be known to us. This is really an extension of the first point, but it also covers those times when we just feel unworthy. The sin nature is a deep, festering pool. Now that we know the Lord instituted an offering for this, we may have confidence that this is normal and covered by the cross.

3. Confession is better than denial. First John 1:9 validates the role confession has in the life of the believer. It contains the promise of cleansing, and by faith, we know that our known failings will eventually be behind us, and our unknown failings brought to light and cleansed. Confessing unknown sinfulness is appropriate.

4. When restitution is possible, make it. When restitution is offered, accept it. Restitution is what uniquely distinguishes the guilt offering from the sin offering. Restitution brings healing, and cancels the legal and moral debt on the horizontal level between men.

5. Learn the lesson, and leave it behind you. I suspect that it is here that we drop the ball. But consider the Israelite who appears before the priest with the property of his neighbor, plus 20 percent of its value in grain, plus the ram. When all has been offered, what else is there to do? The moral and legal debt is paid. What more can he do? Nothing. Continuing to carry it around as baggage is not faith and may violate the holiness of the guilt offering and the atonement of the priest.

For the believer, our guilt offering is Jesus Christ. Restitution is our responsibility, and confession and cleansing are offered to us. Even if it is a recurring sin, we need to confess it and leave the guilt behind us.

Christ Our Guilt Offering

We are guilty of violating the Lord’s holy things. We are guilty of unknown sins, and we have wronged our neighbors. The good news comes from the prophet Isaiah who wrote:

Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many and he will bear their iniquities (Isaiah 53:10–11).

Messiah was prophesied to be our guilt offering. The word “justify” means to declare “not guilty.” The moral and legal debt is canceled, but there is more. The author of Hebrews wrote:

And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts; and I will write them on their minds.” Then He adds: “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.” And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:10–18).

Jesus Christ, our sin offering, is the eternal solution to our guilt. He offered Himself for your guilt, but you must acknowledge your guilt and accept this guilt offering He made for you. Then you can rejoice in the knowledge that you will be made holy.

57 This message was preached by Don Curtis (email) an excellent student of the Scriptures, teacher, and good friend. Don graduated from Pennsylvania State University in 1974 with a degree in Philosophy. He has since become a Senior Computer Programmer with the IBM Corporation. For a number of years, Don and his family attended Community Bible Chapel in Richardson, Texas, until his job took him to Atlanta, Georgia. Partly from Bob Deffinbaugh’s influence, biblical studies and teaching have become a passion in his Christian life. Don is currently an elder and teacher at Cobb Vineyard Christian Fellowship in Kennesaw, GA.

58 Adams, Jay E., Competent to Counsel, 1971, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, p. 8.

59 Luce, James J. D., “The Fundamentalists Anonymous Movement,” The Humanist, January/February 1986, pp. 11, 12.

AI-Expanded Reflection

This extended study brings together two questions that are often separated: what is actually owed because of wrongdoing, and what a person feels about that wrongdoing. Its distinction between objective guilt and the experience of guilt is a useful starting point. A person may be deeply troubled by an action that was not wrong, or remain emotionally untroubled by an action that seriously injured another. The pastoral task is therefore neither to eliminate every uncomfortable feeling nor to assume that every uncomfortable feeling accurately reports God’s verdict. Conscience needs formation, and wrongdoing needs an answer that reaches beyond mood.

The examples involving Stephen and Saul sharpen the distinction between a community’s judgment and moral truth. Acts presents false witnesses against Stephen and shows Saul approving his death. The witnesses lay their own garments at Saul’s feet, rather than stripping Stephen’s clothes for that purpose. More broadly, a human condemnation does not establish guilt before God, and social approval does not establish innocence. That principle should make churches careful about their own verdicts. A group can create an atmosphere of accusation that feels authoritative while misrepresenting both the facts and the Lord whose name it invokes.

Leviticus 5:14–6:7 gives the discussion a concrete material center. The guilt offering addresses a breach that may involve holy property, an unknown violation, or deceit against a neighbor. Restitution means that the wrong is not treated merely as an inward feeling between the offender and God. What was taken must be returned, with an additional fifth where prescribed. The injured person’s loss matters. The text explicitly calls deception of a neighbor unfaithfulness against the Lord, joining the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the offense without allowing either to absorb the other.

This also qualifies a common oversimplification about sacrifice and intentional sin. Leviticus 6 includes robbery, extortion, and false swearing. The person’s return, acknowledgment, restitution, and offering distinguish the case from a settled, defiant rejection of God’s authority. The provision is not a license to calculate the cost of future wrongdoing, but it does show that the sacrificial system cannot be described as addressing only accidents. The study’s detailed treatment of these cases supplies an important corrective to that narrower picture.

The category of the Lord’s holy things should likewise be defined carefully. Leviticus 5:15–16 concerns a specific sacrilege and its repayment. Broader applications to God’s name, the gospel, Christian bodies, and the Lord’s Supper may be theologically fruitful, but they are applications rather than an exhaustive definition supplied by that law. The discussion of Ezra should not turn covenant holiness into a doctrine of biological superiority. Ezra’s crisis concerns covenant unfaithfulness and the religious life of the community; it does not authorize Christians to rank human worth by ancestry. The source’s language of racial purity requires that distinction.

The Lord’s Supper application gains force when read in the immediate setting of 1 Corinthians 11. Paul confronts a gathering in which some eat abundantly while others are humiliated and left hungry. Discerning the body therefore cannot be detached from the way the community treats its members. Reverence for Christ’s body and blood includes recognizing the seriousness of the meal and refusing conduct that contradicts the communion it proclaims. The study is right that an unworthy manner is not the same as possessing personal worthiness apart from grace. Yet this does not make moral self-examination unnecessary; Paul explicitly commands it, within a context that names concrete wrongs.

The explanation that a priest literally ingests the offerer’s sin should also be handled as interpretation rather than an explicit physiological account. Leviticus 10:17 associates priestly eating with bearing the congregation’s guilt, but the ritual relationship should not be reduced to a material transfer of sin into the digestive system. Christian participation in the Lord’s Supper likewise must be explained in relation to Christ’s finished work and the particular sacramental understanding being argued, not by assuming that one reconstructed mechanism settles all theological questions.

The study’s criticism of psychiatry and humanistic approaches reflects its historical polemical setting. The satirical poem is retained as a quotation supplied in the original, but satire is not evidence that mental health treatment consists of shifting blame. NIMH describes psychotherapy as helping people identify and change troubling emotions, thoughts, and behaviors. Responsible treatment can address distorted guilt while also helping a person act more truthfully and responsibly. Spiritual care and appropriate clinical help need not be rivals. Persistent distress should not automatically be interpreted as refusal to believe the gospel. NIMH, Psychotherapies

The lifeguard story illustrates a particularly important distinction between remembering a wrong and remaining condemned by it. Repentance can include learning a serious lesson, changing practice, and accepting that the memory remains emotionally vivid. A recurring memory does not prove that Christ’s forgiveness has failed or that the person is deliberately rejecting it. At the same time, receiving forgiveness does not erase every practical consequence or every responsibility toward those affected. The aim is a conscience able to remember truthfully without treating the past as an unpayable spiritual debt.

Isaiah 53:10–11 and Hebrews 10 provide the study’s deepest source of hope. The servant bears iniquity, and Christ’s offering is presented as sufficient rather than endlessly repeated. Restitution is therefore a fruit of repentance and responsibility toward the neighbor, not a supplement that completes an inadequate atonement. When repair is possible, we should pursue it; when full repair is impossible, inability does not place a repentant believer beyond mercy. Nor does the cancellation of guilt before God automatically cancel civil obligations or entitle the offender to immediate trust from those harmed.

A mature response combines several practices: name the actual wrong, distinguish it from accusations unsupported by truth, confess without evasion, repair what can be repaired, and receive the sufficiency of Christ. A community can assist by refusing both manipulation through guilt and the easy dismissal of harm. The goal is more than feeling better. It is a truthful freedom in which the forgiven person can love, serve, and accept accountability without attempting to pay God again for a debt Christ has already answered. That freedom is the constructive destination of the study’s concern with conscience, holiness, and restitution.

Trespass offering. Sin offering. Burnt offering. Consecration offering. Grain offering. Peace offering. Vow offering. Voluntary offering. Wave offering. All of these dealt with some combination of moral obligation, relations with others, the nation of Israel, the conduct of the priesthood, and sin.

What is it about fat and blood that God cautioned the Israelites not to consume? As the last verses of chapter 7 make clear, these portions belonged to God specifically. It would not surprise me if the surrounding nations used fat and blood in their religious rituals, and this was one of God's ways of setting Israel apart. Looking at Israel's dietary laws more broadly, they forbid a number of things, and I suspect some of these prohibitions relate to the religious practices of neighboring peoples.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The reason Leviticus itself gives for the blood prohibition is more specific than the comment's guess, and it recurs: the life of the creature is in the blood, and God gave it for making atonement on the altar (Leviticus 17:11). Blood is withheld from ordinary consumption because it has been designated for something else. That reasoning is theological rather than merely distinguishing, though the distinguishing effect was real as well.

The fat has a parallel logic — the fat portions are described as the LORD's, offered on the altar as a pleasing aroma. In both cases the prohibition marks off what has been reserved rather than identifying something inherently contaminating, which is a different rationale from the hygienic or cultural explanations often proposed.

We've finally reached one of the verses Jehovah's Witnesses use to prohibit blood transfusions.

Leviticus 7:26–27 prohibits eating the blood of any bird or animal, on penalty of being cut off from the community (a paraphrase). Leviticus 17:13–14 similarly instructs that any hunted animal's blood must be drained and covered with earth, since a creature's life is in its blood — which is why Israel was told not to eat it (a paraphrase).

The Watchtower Society has revised its position on blood transfusions several times since its original mandate. The original prohibition covered all blood products, whole or partial. Now they permit plasma components or blood cell fractions, but not whole blood, whole plasma, red blood cells, white blood cells, or platelets — meaning whole red blood cells can't be transfused, but if broken into pieces, the internal components (like hemoglobin) can be. Similarly, individual plasma components like immunoglobulins and clotting factors are permitted, though whole plasma itself isn't.

Several issues arise from this policy. First, and most fundamentally: how is receiving a blood transfusion equivalent to "eating" blood in the first place? Many call this a matter of interpretation, but that's a considerable stretch, especially since Jewish scholars themselves don't generally read the prohibition this way. Second, how do blood components differ meaningfully from the whole — if ancient Israelites had eaten only certain blood components, would that somehow have been acceptable to God? Why allow plasma components like immunoglobulins and clotting factors, but not whole plasma, when the only real difference is water content — is "the life of the creature" somehow located specifically in that water? Why allow fragments of cellular components but not whole cells, when the only difference is the cell membrane — is "life" contained in the membrane, but not what's inside it? And since DNA resides in the cell nucleus, and many associate "life" specifically with DNA, why permit platelet transfusions at all, since platelets lack a nucleus entirely? There's also the matter of Witnesses being prohibited from donating blood themselves, while willing to accept components from non-Witness donors — and being prohibited even from storing their own blood in advance for a planned surgery.

This whole shift — allowing plasma and cellular components while still banning whole plasma or whole cells — doesn't hold together logically. If transfusion truly equals eating blood, all transfusions should be banned; if it doesn't, all should be permitted. This particular compromise may genuinely help individual Witnesses facing a difficult medical decision, offering an acceptable, life-saving alternative — but it doesn't change the fact that the Watchtower Society's underlying policy doesn't hold up well under close scrutiny, and a complete reversal would likely be seen as compromising the organization's own credibility, especially given the Witnesses who've already died refusing transfusions under the earlier, stricter policy.

Ultimately, though, the real question isn't whether blood transfusion specifically is prohibited under the Mosaic Law — it's whether Christians are governed by Mosaic Law at all, a question already addressed elsewhere in this project's discussion of Exodus 19–21. Paul's own teaching in Colossians is directly relevant here: no one should judge us over food, drink, festivals, or Sabbaths, since these were only ever a shadow of what was coming, with the reality found in Christ — and no one should disqualify us through false humility or manufactured spirituality either, since such regulations, however wise they may appear, hold no real power to restrain sinful indulgence (a paraphrase of Colossians 2:16–23).

Lord, let us not merely have the "appearance of wisdom," but true, godly wisdom.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Setting aside the specific medical-policy critique, the underlying exegetical question this comment raises — whether "eating blood" in Leviticus meaningfully extends to modern medical transfusion — is worth engaging on its own terms. The original prohibition sits in a context explicitly about eating flesh with its lifeblood still in it, tied to sacrificial worship and pagan blood-rituals common among Israel's neighbors (cf. Leviticus 17:10–12) — a dietary and ritual-purity concern, not a medical one, since blood transfusion as a life-saving procedure obviously didn't exist as a category the original audience or author could have had in mind. That doesn't settle every denomination's own internal application of the verse, which remains their own theological decision to make, but it does suggest the specific comparison between ancient dietary law and modern emergency medicine involves a genuine category difference worth taking seriously in any careful reading of the text.

Wow, that was refreshing! I hadn't connected "for they know not what they do" with the unintentional sin offerings before. Wow.

AI-Expanded Reflection

That connection extends a step further worth adding — if Jesus's prayer on the cross echoes the category of unintentional sin the sacrificial system was built to cover, His own death simultaneously covers the far larger category the old system never could: willful, premeditated sin, which is exactly what this same batch of comments elsewhere identifies as having no sacrificial remedy at all under the Law. Jesus's single sacrifice doesn't just extend the old system's reach — it closes the very gap the old system was structurally unable to close.

Friends, as you read about the various sacrifices and offerings, keep something in mind: there's no offering for willful, premeditated sin — or where one exists, it comes attached to a requirement for restitution. Isn't it remarkable that this elaborate sacrificial system was designed to handle only unintentional and accidental sin? Yet most of us don't even count that category as sin at all.

So what happened to those who sinned deliberately? Execution, being cut off from the community, or restitution well beyond what was taken. Even on the cross, Jesus prayed that the Father would forgive those responsible, since they didn't know what they were doing (a paraphrase of Luke 23:34) — but what about those who did know? Perhaps we get a clue from His words to Pilate — that Pilate would have no power over Him at all if it hadn't been given from above, and therefore the one who handed Jesus over bore the greater sin (a paraphrase of John 19:11). Judas is called "the one doomed to destruction" in John 17:12 — his was certainly a premeditated sin.

Where, then, is our hope? We've all knowingly and willfully sinned, not just once, but often — and there's no animal sacrifice available for that. As Hebrews teaches, it's impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to actually take away sin (a paraphrase of Hebrews 10:14). The writer even quotes Psalm 40, that God never desired sacrifice and offering, nor took pleasure in burnt offerings and sin offerings (a paraphrase of Hebrews 10:5–6) — echoing David's own words in Psalm 51, written after his sin of murder and adultery, that God takes no delight in sacrifice or burnt offerings (a paraphrase of Psalm 51:16). So there truly is no sacrifice available for willful sin. Thankfully, that isn't the end of the story.

Hebrews also quotes the Greek version of that same Psalm 40 passage, which reads, "but a body you prepared for me." What body? The writer identifies it as the one body of Jesus Christ — sacrifices and offerings God never desired, though prescribed by the Law, are set aside so that God's actual will could be accomplished instead, and by that will, believers are made holy once for all through the offering of Christ's own body (a paraphrase of Hebrews 10:5, 8–10).

Praise the Lord — we've been forgiven of sins the Law itself could never actually remove. The New Covenant, ratified by Christ's blood, sets aside the Old Covenant of the Mosaic Law — what the Law was powerless to accomplish, Christ accomplished for us as an effective sin offering, so the Law's righteous requirement could finally be fully met in us (cf. Romans 8:1–4).

David understood something of this even in his own day, appealing not to sacrifice, since God takes no pleasure in it, but to a broken and contrite heart, which God will never despise (a paraphrase of Psalm 51:16–17). What was David appealing to? Not the Law — it had no provision for his willful sin; by its terms, he should have died. Instead, he appealed to grace, offering not the blood of bulls and goats, but a genuinely broken spirit. So although not spelled out as explicitly as in the New Testament, true forgiveness in the Old Testament was always, ultimately, a matter of grace too — what Paul later tells the Ephesians was equally true for the ancients: salvation by grace through faith, not by works, so no one can boast (a paraphrase of Ephesians 2:8–9). As Christians, then, we don't live because we've obeyed, but because Christ obeyed for us. As John puts it, we love because He first loved us (1 John 4:19).

So let's wake each morning offering God humble, heartfelt praise and thanks for the wonderful grace by which we're saved through Jesus Christ our Lord.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Worth adding one further piece to David's own example, since it directly bridges the sacrificial system's actual limits and the grace this comment describes: David's confession specifically follows Nathan's confrontation over exactly the kind of premeditated sin — adultery and murder — this comment identifies as having no sacrificial remedy under the Law at all (2 Samuel 12:1–13). David's survival after confessing wasn't the Law working as designed; it was God's forgiveness operating entirely outside what the Law provided for, centuries before Christ made that same kind of forgiveness available on a permanent, universal basis. David's story isn't just an illustration of this principle — it may be Scripture's clearest Old Testament preview of grace reaching precisely the category of sin the sacrificial system itself was never built to cover.