Leviticus 5: Poverty and Sinning

Leviticus chapter 5 is in some sense just a continuation of chapter 4. But the editors put in a chapter break because, even though chapter 5 is still about sin offerings, it is about when to bring them and what to do if you're poor. Both aspects of the chapter are quite interesting, and I will begin with the issue of poverty.

As a brief outline, verses 7-13 say that if one is too poor to bring a lamb (or a goat) for a sin offering one may bring two pigeons or two turtledoves instead. One of the birds serves as a sin offering, the other as a burnt offering according to chapter 1 procedures. Then, if one is also too poor to bring birds as an offering, one is to bring 1/10 of an ephah of fine flour without oil. The memorial portion is to be sacrificed, and the rest is for the priest. While I am sure very interesting things could be discovered by looking at the particulars of the offering procedures (for instance, why must the sin offering of grain be given without oil?), I will attempt to address the following question: why are different offerings acceptable if one is poor?

To answer my question, I think we must contemplate the reason that sacrifices are necessary in the first place. One potential explanation is that, according to the true normative ethical principles, sacrificing a bull in a certain way is the only way to compensate for a sin when one is a priest (and so on and so forth for the other sacrifices). If this kind of view were correct, it would be strange that a poor person can sacrifice birds or flour instead of a goat or a lamb since, presumably, according to the correct ethical principles, goats and lambs, not birds and flour, are acceptable sin offerings for commoners. It seems like the poor person should just be out of luck. Of course, it is not as though there is no room for ethical principles that would track poverty in this case (the 'ought-implies-can' principle is a good example). But as I have suggested already in previous posts, I find it plausible to think that the sacrificial procedures are serving a primarily symbolic function. If that is so, then we needn't think that the sacrifices are satisfying independent demands of morality or justice. Rather, the sacrifices are made to God, and so God is accepting them for crimes against Him. Also, it is His prerogative to forgive debts incurred by these crimes before they are fully paid (or to defer full payment until later when a fully sufficient sacrifice is made by someone else).

So on this view outlined above, the main purpose of the sacrifices is something other than just meeting the demands of morality. What then is their purpose? Given the repeated emphasis on atonement, forgiveness, and pleasing aromas, it is reasonable to think that sacrifices are meant to remind those giving them of their symbolic and relational meanings, and to provide a way to repair a relationship with God through forgiveness and atonement. Also, notice that repentance is required to repair relationships when one party has wronged another. If these are the goals of the sacrificial system, then it makes perfect sense to have procedures for the poor that they can fulfill. After all, no is really meeting the demands of morality in the first place, but rather receiving forgiveness through a procedure meant to induce repentance.

With this interpretation, I think we can also explain the repeated emphasis on offering sacrifices only after realizing one's guilt (ch.4 v.13-14, 22-23, 27-28; ch.5 v.5-6). The assumption in chapters 4 and 5 is that the guilt is there whether one realizes it or not, but it won't do to just offer sacrifices periodically just in case. If I have been right so far, this is because the sacrificial system is forgiveness-based and aimed to producing repentance in a way that makes a restored relationship with God possible. (Interestingly, notice that the system as I have characterized it doesn't provide a mechanism for internal reform even though it seems to require it to operate properly.)

At this point one might object that I've forgotten something very important. That is that many sins occur between humans. Take Leviticus 5:1 for example. Here, one human sins against another human by failing to testify in court. Even if we grant that this involves a sin against God since God is the proper owner of both the offender and offended, and since the objectively valuable image of God has not been respected (and since God's binding commandment has been broken), there is also an offense against another person. What about justice for that person? One possibility is that there will be laws later in the book about punishments for this kind of behavior (I don't remember Leviticus all that well and the section headings aren't very helpful in this case, but I know that Deuteronomy has things to say about court proceedings). But consider this as well. Who is the subject of the greater wrong? The person wronged in court, or God? Presumably it is God. And if God sees fit to forgive on the basis of repentance, which is (hopefully) demonstrated in the offering of a sacrifice, on what grounds could the wronged person withhold forgiveness? Thus, while it is not explicitly mentioned, the interpretation I have given of the sacrificial system has built into it the grounds for the sort of interpersonal forgiveness commanded in the New Testament.

What I have tried to argue is that the concessions for poverty made in chapter 5 of Leviticus are clues to the moral grounding of the sacrificial system in general. I have tried to say that we can explain certain features of commandments about sacrifices very well by taking the sacrifices to be morally insufficient to right the wrongs committed against God. Instead, God is offering forgiveness conditional on the offering of sacrifices which are meant to produce repentance that makes a relationship with God possible. Importantly, I have tried to make my argument from Leviticus, not from the New Testament (though of course I received some guidance from New Testament ideas).

Well, I'm sure that I've given you way more than enough for now! I hope you have a wonderful day, and God bless!