² tn Or “trespass.”

¹ tn Heb “concerning every kind [thing] of trespass.”

¹ tn Heb “trespasses a trespass” (verb and direct object from the same Hebrew root מַעַל, maʿal). See the note on 5:15.

⁴ tn Or “falls, trespasses,” the same word used in vv. 15, 17, 18, 20.

² tn Heb “in their trespassing which they trespassed in me.” See the note on Lev 5:15, although the term is used in a more technical sense there in relation to the “guilt offering.”

¹ sn These other sacrifices would be so-called peace or fellowship offerings whose ritual required a different use of the blood from that of burnt (sin and trespass) offerings (cf. Lev 3; 7:11-14, 19-21).

¹ tn Heb “trespasses a trespass” (verb and direct object from the same Hebrew root, מַעַל, maʿal); cf. NIV84 “commits a violation.” The word refers to some kind of overstepping of the boundary between that which is common (i.e., available for common use by common people) and that which is holy (i.e., to be used only for holy purposes because it has been consecrated to the Lord, see further below). See the note on Lev 10:10.

² sn When a person trespassed in regard to something sacred to the Lord, reparation was to be made for the trespass, involving restitution of that which was violated plus one-fifth of its value as a fine. It is possible that the restoration of the offering and the additional one-fifth of its value were made as a monetary payment (see, e.g., B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 150). See the regulations for the “guilt offering” in Lev 5:16; 6:5 [5:24 HT] and the notes there.

³ tn The verb is מַעַל (maʿal), which means to “defraud, violate, trespass against,” or “to deal treacherously, do an act of treachery.” In doing any sin that people do, the guilty have been unfaithful to the Lord, and therefore must bring him a sacrifice.

⁶ sn The primary purpose of the guilt offering was to “atone” (see the note on Lev 1:4 above) for “trespassing” on the Lord’s “holy things” (see later in this verse) or the property of others in the community (Lev 6:1-7 [5:20-26 HT]; 19:20-22; Num 5:5-10). It was closely associated with reconsecration of the Lord’s sacred things or his sacred people (see, e.g., Lev 14:12-18; Num 6:11b-12). Moreover, there was usually an associated reparation made for the trespass, including restitution of that which was violated plus one-fifth of its value as a fine (Lev 5:16; 6:5 [5:24 HT]). See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 1:557-66.

⁴ tn The word used here for this violation is אָשָׁם (ʾasham). It can be translated “guilt, to be guilty”; it can also be used for the reparation offering. The basic assumption here is that the individual is in a state of sin—is guilty. In that state he or she feels remorse for the sin and seeks forgiveness through repentance. See further P. P. Saydon, “Sin Offering and Trespass Offering,” CBQ 8 (1946): 393-98; H. C. Thompson, “The Significance of the Term ʾAsham in the Old Testament,” TGUOS 14 (1953): 20-26.

⁶ sn Has brought Greeks…unclean. Note how the issue is both religious and ethnic, showing a different attitude by the Jews. A Gentile was not permitted to enter the inner temple precincts (contrast Eph 2:11-22). According to Josephus (Ant. 15.11.5 [15.417]; J. W. 5.5.2 [5.193], cf. 5.5.6 [5.227]), the inner temple courts (the Court of the Women, the Court of the Sons of Israel, and the Court of the Priests) were raised slightly above the level of the Court of the Gentiles and were surrounded by a wall about 5 ft (1.5 m) high. Notices in both Greek and Latin (two of which have been discovered) warned that any Gentiles who ventured into the inner courts would be responsible for their own deaths. See also Philo, Embassy 31 (212). In m. Middot 2:3 this wall was called “soreq” and according to m. Sanhedrin 9:6 the stranger who trespassed beyond the soreq would die by the hand of God.

² tn See the note on Lev 5:15 above. The primary purpose of the “guilt offering” (אָשָׁם, ʾasham) was to “atone” (כִּפֶּר, kipper, “to make atonement,” see v. 18 below and the note on Lev 1:4) for “trespassing” on the Lord’s “holy things,” whether sacred objects or sacred people. It is, therefore, closely associated with the reconsecration of the Lord’s holy people as, for example, here and in the case of the corpse contaminated Nazirite (Num 6:11b-12). Since the nation of Israel was “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” to the Lord (Exod 19:6; cf. the blood splashed on all the people in Exod 24:8), the skin diseased person was essentially a member of the “holy nation” who had been expelled from the community. Therefore, he or she had been desecrated and the guilt offering was essential to restoring him or her to the community. In fact, the manipulation of blood and oil in the guilt offering ritual procedure for the healed person (see vv. 14-18 below) is reminiscent of that employed for the ordination offering in the consecration of the holy Aaronic priests of the nation (Exod 29:19-21; Lev 8:22-30).

⁶ sn The historical background behind the statement We cannot legally put anyone to death is difficult to reconstruct. Scholars are divided over whether this statement in the Fourth Gospel accurately reflects the judicial situation between the Jewish authorities and the Romans in 1st century Palestine. It appears that the Roman governor may have given the Jews the power of capital punishment for specific offenses, some of them religious (the death penalty for Gentiles caught trespassing in the inner courts of the temple, for example). It is also pointed out that the Jewish authorities did carry out a number of executions, some of them specifically pertaining to Christians (Stephen, according to Acts 7:58-60; and James the Just, who was stoned in the 60s according to Josephus, Ant. 20.9.1 [20.200]). But Stephen’s death may be explained as a result of “mob violence” rather than a formal execution, and as Josephus in the above account goes on to point out, James was executed in the period between two Roman governors, and the high priest at the time was subsequently punished for the action. Two studies by A. N. Sherwin-White (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 1-47; and “The Trial of Christ,” Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament [SPCKTC], 97-116) have tended to support the accuracy of John’s account. He concluded that the Romans kept very close control of the death penalty for fear that in the hands of rebellious locals such power could be used to eliminate factions favorable or useful to Rome. A province as troublesome as Judea would not have been likely to be made an exception to this.