Roots of Worship (Part 5): The Restitution Offering

Quick Overview

Some sins damage sacred space and relationships; they call for restoration, not just repentance. The Restitution (asham) Offering addressed offenses against “the Lord’s holy things,” violations of His commands, and false oaths. Scholars note two categories: Sancta Trespass: defiling what belongs to God, and Oath Violation: swearing falsely and thus desecrating His Name. Offenders brought an unblemished ram and repaid what was lost plus one‑fifth. The ram’s blood was sprinkled, and the fat burned, while the priest ate the rest. By restoring what was taken, this offering taught Israel that profaning God’s holiness leads to ruin; it ultimately points to Christ, the perfect image of God, who became flesh and made final restitution for our sins.

---

At first glance, this offering seems like a subcategory or an addition to the Sin Offering, which is a conclusion drawn by some because of its description, saying “the restitution offering is like the sin offering; the law is the same for both….” [Lev 7:7]. However, this verse mainly refers to the fact that in both cases, the priest can eat that which is not a part of the memorial portion. A deeper look into the asham sacrifice will reveal its significance within the Mosaic Law and the fact that its purpose, execution and even its name are still a subject of debate among scholars. The asham offering is generally translated to Trespass Offering, Guilt Offering or Restitution Offering. Milgrom analyzes this offering, saying that “the asham sacrifice differs from all others by its unique use with the verb hšyb ’return, restore’ (Num 5:7f.; 18:9; cf. 1 Sam 6:3, 4, 8, 17 and CD 9:13-14). The inference may at once be drawn that the context of the asham is a legal situation: damage has been done and restitution is ordered.”¹ Because of this and the information presented during the course of this article, this article will adopt the name “Restitution Offering.”

The Reason for the Restitution Offering

Scholars are divided over the main difference between the reason for the Sin Offering and for the Restitution Offering. Some say that “one common thread binding asham cases is that they are offenses against the sacred…”² However, since all sins oppose God’s holiness, it still fails to capture a specific category of sins covered by the Restitution Offering. Others note that “…the sin offering is occasioned by inadvertent sin either corporately or individually, the guilt offering arises from the offender’s trespass upon YHWH’s inherent rights or privileges.”³

The Bible presents the standard cases requiring a Restitution Offering in Leviticus 5 and 6. Initially, this passage appears to suggest three categories:

1. Offense of “the Lord’s holy things.”

2. Violation of prohibited things.

3. Deception of one’s neighbor by a false oath.

The first two leave no room for intentional sins, and the third one arguably involves a conscious sin. Although this seems like a straightforward interpretation based on the English translation, Milgrom points out something interesting about the way the second category, as presented here, is introduced. An English translation reads: “if someone sins and without knowing it violates any of the Lord’s commands concerning anything prohibited, he bears the consequences of his guilt” [Lev 5:17]. Milgrom argues that the Hebrew participle translated to “if” (wĕʾ im) “…indicates that this case…is integrally connected with and subsumed under the preceding case…wĕʾim supplements the previous passage.”⁴ This makes our former “second category” an addition to the first category.

Milgrom’s Two Categories

Based on this, Milgrom presents two categories for the Restitution Offering, which has become a common reference point in biblical scholarship.

Category 1: Sancta Trespass

The term “Sancta” refers to “the Lord’s holy things” as it is generally translated in the English Bibles. Although the Bible does not give us a clear-cut definition, “…the posterior tannaitic⁵ literature point to the widest possible meaning of qodšê YHWH (5:15), namely, all of the sancta, major and minor, from the time of their dedication until, if they be food, they are eaten or incinerated.”⁶ In his “Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance,” Milgrom presents various examples from Scripture. One of them is when King Uzziah grew arrogant and started acting “…unfaithfully against the Lord his God by going into the Lord’s sanctuary to burn incense on the incense altar” [2 Chr 26:16]. This was a violation against the Lord’s “sancta,” because he performed a rite only the High Priest could do [Exod 30:9–10]. Another example of a Sancta Trespass is when, under Zedekiah, “all the leaders of the priests and the people multiplied their unfaithful deeds, imitating all the detestable practices of the nations, and they defiled the LORD’s temple that He had consecrated in Jerusalem” [2 Chr 36:14]. Simply put, according to Milgrom, a Sancta Trespass is when something consecrated by God, belonging to Him, is defiled.

Category 2: Oath Violation

Some might interpret this category as contradicting the “…fundamental premise of the Priestly Code, that there can be no sacrificial expiation for the presumptuous sinner…”⁷ as prescribed in Numbers 15:30. In light of this, Milgrom appeals to God’s statement in Leviticus 19:12, saying “you must not swear falsely by My name, profaning the name of your God; I am Yahweh.” He argues that by swearing a false oath, “…not only does the offender deny he has wronged his fellow; he denies it under oath…the Lord has been made an accomplice to the defrauding of man.”⁸ In addition to that, Ezekiel 17 shows that God considers despising an oath “…treachery he committed against Me” [Ezek 17:20]. Where the offender in category 1 desecrates God’s property, the offender in category 2 desecrates God’s name. According to Milgrom, it is very clear that the Restitution Offering therefore “…concerns religious and not civil law...All that matters to the priestly legislator is to enumerate those situations whereby the defrauding of man leads, by a false oath, to the 'defrauding' of God.”⁹ The presumptuous act itself (e.g. theft, fraud, etc.) by which the offender wronged his neighbor is not covered by the Restitution Offering.

Committing a Sacrilege (maʿal)

Milgrom ties the sins covered by the Restitution Offering together with the word maʿal. This is “…the legal term for the wrong that is redressed by the ʾāšām offering.”¹⁰ Examples are the conditional phrases in Leviticus 5 and 6, saying “If someone offends by sinning unintentionally in regard to any of the LORD’s holy things…” [Lev 5:15] and “When someone sins and offends the Lord by deceiving his neighbor…” [Lev 6:2] and the verse “He acted unfaithfully against the Lord his God by going into the Lord’s sanctuary to burn incense on the incense altar” [2 Chr 26:16] discussed earlier. “Offends” and “acted unfaithfully” are translations of the Hebrew word maʿal. Although this word is never defined in the Bible, Milgrom argues that from “…the use of maʿal in the rabbinic texts, and similar contexts in ancient Near Eastern documents, it will be shown that the noun maʿal means ‘sacrilege,’ the verb maʿal means ‘commit sacrilege’…”¹¹ This word is consistently used to describe a sin against God, not man. He points to a tannaitic definition, saying that “’maal means (that the object undergoes) alteration.’ The alteration is clearly of status. The sancta has been desecrated; it is now profane.”¹² “maal, then, means trespassing upon the divine realm either by poaching on his sancta or breaking his covenant oath…”¹³

The Slave-Woman

Some object to Milgrom’s statements, saying that “…not all cases which require the guilt offering can be made to fit his two stringent categories…”¹⁴ One biblical case that allegedly does not fit into Milgrom’s framework is the man who has intercourse with a betrothed slave-woman.

If a man has sexual intercourse with a woman who is a slave designated for another man, but she has not been redeemed or given her freedom, there must be punishment. They are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. However, he must bring a ram as his restitution offering to the LORD at the entrance to the tent of meeting. Leviticus 19:20–21

In this case, God likewise prescribes the Restitution Offering to the offender. For this reason, Associate Professor and Chair of Old Testament, Kyle C. Dunham, suggests that the occasion for the Restitution Offering is more likely to be “…a violation of rights, either of the rights of YHWH through misappropriation of sacred items or the rights of other humans through confiscation or misuse of property usually involving deception.”¹⁵ Instead of a restitution of sancta, this offering “…served to answer the need of restitution by restoring the necessary equilibrium between God and humanity and consequently between one person and another.”¹⁶

Milgrom calls this passage “A Borderline Case,” saying that “any attempt to understand the asham requirement in this case is blocked by the ambiguous legal status of the slave-girl.”¹⁷ In any other case, the penalty for this offense would have been death, but this punishment is rejected in the same passage. Had she been an unbetrothed slave, “…the question of the death penalty would not have arisen at all. Instead, since a slave girl is considered chattel—in all law codes of the ancient Near East—her owner should have been awarded damages.”¹⁸ However, the case at hand does not require a compensation for the owner. The need for a Restitution Offering indicates a maʿal. Milgrom points out that “...throughout the ancient Near East, adultery is conceived as a crime not just against the husband but also against the gods”¹⁹ and points to Genesis 20:6; 26:10; 39:9b. Considering this and passages such as Hosea 4:2-3 and Jeremiah 7:9, Milgrom concludes that “…it can be presumed that the contracting of betrothal/marriage…was a religious as well as a civil act, subject to the jurisdiction of the divine.”²⁰ And since the death penalty could not be enacted, due to the slave status of the woman, he asks the question “How else shall expiation be made to God? The answer is simple. It cannot: there is no alternative.”²¹

The Sacrifice

Now this is the law of the restitution offering; it is especially holy. Leviticus 7:1

Contents

The wording with regard to the sacrifice sparks debate as to what the offender ought to offer for each case. Maintaining Milgrom’s categories, the instructions surrounding the Sancta Trespass require the offerer to bring an unblemished ram from the flock according to the valuation of the priest and make restitution, adding a fifth of its value to it. The question is whether the ram is required to carry the estimated value of the sin, plus a fifth, or if any monetary payment is involved. Milgrom rejects the former, posing questions such as:

• How could the priest find this ram?

• What if the sin weighs more than the value of the most valuable ram?²²

Zooming in on the Hebrew term bĕʿerkĕkā (= according to your valuation), he argues that every time this term is used “…a monetary payment is stipulated (Lev 27 [twenty-one times]; Num 18:16).”²³ In addition to that, 2 Kings 12:16 proves that at least some form of monetary payment was involved in the process of the Restitution Offering. For this reason, it seems most likely that both a monetary restitution and the sacrificial ram were to be presented. “The priest charges the supplicant the amount of the desecrated sanctum…plus the amount needed to purchase the requisite ʾāšām animal.”²⁴ The one who committed Oath Violation likewise made full restitution for it, adding a fifth of its value to it. The verbs yĕšallem (= make restitution) and wĕšillam ʾōtô (= he shall restore it) show that the restitution did not have to be the same object, but could be its monetary equivalent.²⁵ In the case of an Oath Violation, the money belonged to the offended. After this, the offender brought an unblemished ram from the flock.

Sacrificial Process

The animal was sacrificed in a similar way as the Fellowship Offering, except the presence of the offerer was not required. The ram was therefore sacrificed by the priest at the Altar of Burnt Offering, and its blood was sprinkled on all sides of the altar. The fat was removed and burned as a fire offering to the Lord [Lev 7:1–5]. The remainder was for the officiating priest to eat it in a holy place [Lev 7:6–8].

Meaning & Significance

Speak to the entire Israelite community and tell them: Be holy because I, Yahweh your God, am holy. Leviticus 19:2

Rather than a subcategory of the Sin Offering, the Restitution Offering deals with the defilement of God’s possessions or His Name. Although God cannot be captured with or displayed as anything material, He commanded Moses and the Israelites to build a sanctuary with dedicated objects that represented Him and gave spiritual access to Him through detailed rituals and sacrifices. Where the Sin Offering dealt with the violation of the law, the Restitution Offering dealt with the defilement of His Name. Any action that led to a desecration of anything representing God’s holiness required atonement and restitution.

Where surrounding cultures relied on their spiritual objects, the Israelites relied on the Name of Yahweh. Profaning His Name would not affect God’s divine status, but would lead to the downfall of His people. Scripture repeatedly teaches that “the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” [Prov 9:10]. Profaning a temple object or ritual would not affect the object in any significant way, since the object itself is not what makes it holy. The danger of the sins covered by the Restitution Offering is that they cause God’s people to drift away from Him due to the light treatment of His holiness. The ignorance of the weight of His sanctity will cause a people to rely on themselves rather than God or make Him equal to foreign gods. God’s throne is not moved by the attitude of His people, but His “…people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” [Hos 4:6]. The entirety of the law was meant to demonstrate God’s holiness to a sinful people by making a representation of His nature here on earth. “The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith” [Gal 3:24]. Now He has given us His Son. “The Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We observed His glory, the glory as the One and Only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” [John 1:14]. Anyone who beholds Him, beholds God Himself [John 14:9; John 12:45], for “He is the image of the invisible God…” [Col 1:15]. Now we see Him and behold His holiness, and whenever we fail to do so, He is the sacrifice that has made the restitution for our sin.

Footnotes

1. Jacob Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 13–14.

2. James W. Watts, “Leviticus’ Rhetorical Presentation of the Sin and Guilt Offerings,” TheTorah.com, October 6, 2019, https://www.thetorah.com/article/leviticus-rhetorical-presentation-of-the-sin-and-guilt-offerings.

3. Kyle C. Dunham, “The Sin Offering and the Guilt Offering of the Levitical Cult: Their Occasion, Nature, and Distinction,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 28 (2023): 5.

4. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 3, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008), 331.

5. "Tannaic" means "relating to the Tannaim", a group of early Jewish sages and teachers of the Mishnah and Talmud. The word is sometimes spelled "tannaic" (tannaic) and is capitalized when referring to this specific historical group.

6. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 84.

7. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 85.

8. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 100–101.

9. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 320.

10. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 320.

11. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 24.

12. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 21.

13. Dunham, “The Sin Offering and the Guilt Offering,” 19.

14. Dunham, “The Sin Offering and the Guilt Offering,” 19.

15. Dunham, “The Sin Offering and the Guilt Offering,” 21.

16. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 130.

17. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 130.

18. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 132.

19. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 135.

20. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 132.

21. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 326.

22. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 326.

23. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 326.

24. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 327.

25. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 338.

Bible translation: The Holy Bible: Holman Christian Standard Version. (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2009).