And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

And if any one sin, and do any of the things which Jehovah hath commanded not to be done; though he knew it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

If any one sin through ignorance, and do one of those things which by the law of the Lord are forbidden, and being guilty of sin, understand his iniquity,

And if any one sin and do against any of all the commandments of Jehovah what should not be done, and hath not known it, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

And if a soul shall sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he knew it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

And when any person sinneth, and hath done something against one of all the commands of Jehovah regarding things which are not to be done, and hath not known, and he hath been guilty, and hath borne his iniquity,

And if anyone does wrong, and does any of the things which the Lord has given orders are not to be done, though he has no knowledge of it, still he is in the wrong and he is responsible.

And if any one sin, and do any of the things which the LORD hath commanded not to be done, though he know it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

If a soul will have sinned through ignorance, and will have done one of those things which the law of the Lord prohibits, and, being guilty of sin, understands his iniquity,

Itaque si anima peccaverit, et fecerit unum ab omnibus praeceptis Jehovae, quae non sunt facienda, et non cognoverit, et deliquerit, et portaverit iniquitatem suam:

And if soul sin. Although the expressions seem to be general, as if he briefly confirmed what he had said before, yet it is necessary to connect them with the last sentence, or at least to restrict them to certain cases. The former exposition appears to me to be the right one; nor is there any absurdity in the repetition, to cut off all occasion for subterfuge from the disobedient. Still I do not deny that the reason which is added at the end, applies to all the modes of expiation of which he has been treating; viz., that although he may pretend ignorance who has fallen into sin inconsiderately, or who has not intentionally sinned, or who through forgetfulness has contracted any defilement, still he is guilty before God until he makes reconciliation. When therefore he again commands that a ram without blemish, and of full value should be offered, he once more shews how they must purge themselves who have been too stingy in their oblations. Immediately after he adds a reason common to all the other errors; as if he had said, that they are not absolved before God who offer the excuse of ignorance as a cover for their fault.

Though he wist it not - Ignorance of the Law, or even of the consequences of the act at the time that it was committed, was not to excuse him from the obligation to offer the sacrifice.

And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist [it] not, yet is he guilty, and shall (i) bear his iniquity.
(i) That is, remembers after that he has sinned when his conscience accuses him.

And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord,.... Respecting holy things:
though he wist it not; or did not know that he had transgressed a negative command:
yet he is guilty, and shall bear the iniquity; be chargeable with guilt, and is liable to punishment, and must make an atonement and satisfaction for it; see Luke 12:48.

if a soul sin . . . though he wist it not, yet is he guilty--This also refers to holy things, and it differs from the preceding in being one of the doubtful cases,--that is, where conscience suspects, though the understanding be in doubt whether criminality or sin has been committed. The Jewish rabbis give, as an example, the case of a person who, knowing that "the fat of the inwards" is not to be eaten, religiously abstained from the use of it; but should a dish happen to have been at table in which he had reason to suspect some portion of that meat was intermingled, and he had, inadvertently, partaken of that unlawful viand, he was bound to bring a ram as a trespass offering [Leviticus 5:16]. These provisions were all designed to impress the conscience with the sense of responsibility to God and keep alive on the hearts of the people a salutary fear of doing any secret wrong.

The former law concerns the alienation of holy things from sacred to common use; this may concern other miscarriages about holy things, and holy duties, as may be gathered from Leviticus 5:19, where this is said to be a trespass against the Lord, not in a general sense, for so every sin was; but in a proper and peculiar sense.