Introduction
The trespass offering (see Lev. 5: 14 - 6: 7) is
closely linked with the sin-offering and follows immediately upon it
in the instruction in Leviticus. Indeed, where sins are specifically
described under the sin offering (see Lev. 5: 1-4), the sinner was
to “bring his trespass-offering to Jehovah for his sin which he hath
sinned” (v6), and “if his hand be not able to bring what is so much
as a sheep” then it says that “he shall bring for his trespass …”
(v7). Again, under the law of the sin-offering, we are told, “As the
sin-offering, so is the trespass-offering; [there shall] be one law
for them” (Lev. 7: 7).
However, though
closely linked, the trespass-offering and the sin-offering are
distinguished, and the question therefore arises, What is that
difference? Various
words are rendered trespass in the English Bible and these
also have to be carefully differentiated. The word pesha,
sometimes translated trespass (as in the AV of 1 Sam. 25: 28)
means transgression, revolt or rebellion and in
Leviticus only occurs in relation to the day of atonement (see Lev.
16: 16, 21). Another word, maal, occurring both as a noun and
a verb, is also sometimes translated trespass and refers to
unfaithfulness, treachery or breach of trust
(see Lev. 5: 15; 6: 2). It is used of Achan’s sin in Josh. 7: 1; 22:
20. However, the words used most frequently in Leviticus fall under
the heading of asham and its derivatives (see Lev. 5: 2, 3,
4, 6, 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19; 6: 4, 5, 6; 7: 1, 2, 5, 7) and these
refer either to the sin that produces guilt, or the
offering for that guilt (the trespass-offering is literally the
guilt-offering). Two Greek words are also translated
trespass in the AV of the NT: the verb
amartanw
(see Matt. 18: 15)
which means to miss the mark, and, more accurately, the noun
paraptwma
(see Matt. 6: 14),
which refers to a false step. It should also be noted that
those who compiled the Septuagint used a Greek word not found in the
NT (plemmeleia—sin
as discord) in relation to the trespass-offering (see Lev. 5: 15
etc.). Putting all this together, the trespass-offering deals
with the guilt in relation to unfaithfulness to God (either
directly, or indirectly through offending my neighbour). Whereas in
the sin-offering the objective is straightforward forgiveness (see
Lev. 4: 20, 26, 31, 35; 5: 10, 13), in the trespass-offering, that
forgiveness (see Lev. 5: 16, 18; 6: 7) is also accompanied by
restitution (see Lev. 5: 16; 6: 4, 5). Not only did it
require that the wrong be put right, but also that amends be paid to
the party that had been wronged.
Combined Offerings
Before considering the trespass offering proper,
it will be as well to consider Lev. 5: 1-13. That this falls under
the revelation of the sin-offering is clear from the absence of the
repeated expression, “And Jehovah spoke to Moses” (see Lev. 4: 1; 5:
14 etc.) which typically marks off one offering from another.
However, the passage also marks something of a transition as it
contains offerings which are described as both sin and
trespass offerings.
The section
commences with the description of specific sins in which God is
wronged: failing in adjuration, defilement and swearing rashly (see
Lev. 5: 1-4). Such specific sins have not been highlighted
before—just the more general “against any of the commandments of
Jehovah” (Lev. 4: 2; see vs. 13, 22, 27). This specific
unfaithfulness demanded a response that addressed both the need for
forgiveness, and the need for the wrong to be put right. Hence: “And
it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these, that he shall
confess wherein he hath sinned; and he shall bring his
trespass-offering to Jehovah for his sin which he hath sinned, a
female from the small cattle, a sheep or doe goat, for a
sin-offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him [to
cleanse him] from his sin” (Lev. 5: 5, 6). We have not heard of
confession of sin before this point, but a specific sin demands it.
And a particular sin ought to be accompanied by an awareness of the
particular way in which God has been wronged—hence the sacrifice is
viewed both as a sin-offering and a trespass-offering.
It would appear
that the three descending grades of offering described in vs. 6, 7
and 11 all fall under the response to the specific sins described in
vs. 1-4. In verse 7, the one “not able to bring what is so much as a
sheep” has his sin described as a “trespass”. His response was to be
two birds, one of which was “for a sin-offering”—however, there is
no mention of a ‘trespass-offering’. This suggests that the poverty
of the response was mirrored in an inability to make restitution to
God (unlike in v16), even though the wrong was recognised. Despite
this defect, the sinner was forgiven (see v10).
In the final
example (see vs. 11-13) there is not only no mention of a trespass
offering again, but the thought of ‘trespass’ is also dropped. Thus
this extreme poverty of soul has no real awareness of how God has
been wronged by the sin. Nonetheless, once more, the sinner is
forgiven (see v13).
Sins of Inadvertence
The first section of the trespass offering proper
(introduced with the words, “And Jehovah spoke to Moses”—Lev. 5: 14)
deals with wrong done to the Lord: “And Jehovah spoke to Moses,
saying, If any one act unfaithfully and sin through inadvertence in
the holy things of Jehovah, then he shall bring his
trespass-offering to Jehovah” (v15). Here the injured party (if we
can speak in that way) was God Himself. The man had failed in some
way to render God His due, God had suffered a loss, and the man was
to make amends by means of a trespass-offering. Wilful failure is
not in view (compare, for example, Mal. 1: 7: “Ye offer polluted
bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In
that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible” or Ezek. 23: 39:
“For when they had slaughtered their children unto their idols, they
came the same day into my sanctuary to profane it”). In relation
to God, only sins of which the offender had been ignorant
are dealt with as trespass: “If any one act unfaithfully and
sin through inadvertence …” (Lev. 5: 15, my emphasis).
Notice that this unwitting trespass is not provided for in the later
instruction concerning trespass against our neighbours (see Lev. 6:
1-7). The reason for this is that our conscience takes notice of
natural claims far more readily than it understands God’s standards
of how we are to approach Him. Only as being in the sanctuary do we
learn something of God’s holiness and become aware of how even the
very opportunities of service, praise and worship may, through our
weakness, open a door for trespass. Those who are closest to God
will confess what to others may seem incredible, namely that often
there has been wrong done to God in the holiest acts of work and
worship. There is not an act of any kind, whether of prayer or
ministry, which may not prove an occasion to the flesh to bring
forth some form of trespass. I do not doubt that any who are
spiritual will admit that there are often occasions where that which
has been done, either to the Lord or for the Lord, has afterwards
been discovered to have been mixed with trespass. At the time,
perhaps, the trespass has been unrecognised, but other circumstances
or fuller light have made us conscious of it. However, neither our
conscience, nor our measure of light, is the standard by which
trespass is to be measured, but the truth of God: “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” (Lev. 5: 17, my emphasis).
The mandated
trespass-offering in the case of holy things, was a ram: “then he
shall bring his trespass-offering to Jehovah, a ram without blemish
out of the small cattle” (v15; see also v18). Why a ram? At the
dedication of the priests, we read of a “ram of consecration” (Lev.
8: 22) and it seems fitting that the reverse situation of
desecration in holy things should also be met by the offering of
a ram. Of course, the
ram, like all sacrifices, speaks of Christ—the One who
always rendered what was due to God in perfection (“I do always the
things that are pleasing to him”—John 8: 29). He was “without
blemish” (Lev. 5: 15, 18).
Yet this is not
all. The ram that was offered was to be valued “according to thy
valuation by shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the
sanctuary, for a trespass offering. And he shall make
restitution for the wrong that he hath done in the holy things, and
shall add the fifth part thereto, and shall give it unto the priest”
(vs. 15, 16, my emphasis). Now in the sin-offering we read nothing
of money, nor any fifth part added—although in both sin and
trespass-offering a perfect victim bore the penalty and a sinless
one was judged for the sin (or trespass). However, in the
trespass-offering the original wrong is to be remedied, and thus we
have the additional thought of restitution. That is why we have
valuation according to the shekel of the sanctuary
(comp. Lev. 27: 25; Num. 18: 16 etc.)—restitution is to be made, not
according to how man might judge, but according to how God measures
things. Restitution and justice are distinct. God has been robbed,
and the penalty for such an infraction is death. Justice can claim
no more than the death of the victim—and yet its death will not
repair the loss sustained. Although the trespasser is judged (and
that judgement born by an innocent victim) the claim of trespass
remains unsatisfied. For that, we must have restitution. Thus God,
though wronged by man “in the holy things” (Lev. 5: 15), receives as
much again (and more) in the trespass-offering. In the offering of
Christ, God has full satisfaction. Thus where there
has been failure on our part, if we come before God in the spirit of
the trespass-offering, then God gets more from us than He did
originally, and Christ is magnified in our lives. In Leviticus, the
one guilty of trespass was to give his valuation of the sacrifice
and the fifth part added to “the priest” (v16)—the representative
of God—and thus the divine treasury was benefited. We see an example
of this in John Mark, who failed in service (see Acts 13: 13; 15:
37, 38) but is later described by Paul as “serviceable to me for
ministry” (2 Tim. 4: 11)—an enlarged contributor to the service of
God.
Why the fifth
part? The number
five is often associated with human weakness (see 1 Sam. 17: 40;
2 Sam. 4: 4 etc.) but also with the divine grace that meets that
weakness (see John 4: 18; 5: 2 etc.). This excess is also seen more
broadly in Benjamin’s portion being five times greater than his
brothers (see Gen. 43: 34) and the waters swarming with swarms of
living souls on the fifth day of creation (see Gen. 1: 20-23). A
fifth part is, of course a double tithe—two tenths (comp. Gen. 47:
24, 26; Exod. 22: 4, 7, 9; Lev. 27: 13, 15, 19). The fifth part
therefore seems a particularly appropriate figure in meeting the sin
of trespass.
There is, of
course, a second category of direct trespass against Jehovah that is
brought before us: “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” (Lev. 5: 17).
Here the fifth part is not mentioned at all, and there is no
addition beyond the amount of the original trespass. This inadequacy
is perhaps accounted for by the difference in the wording between
“the holy things of Jehovah” (v15) and “the commandments of Jehovah”
(v17)—the former implying a deeper sense of what is God’s due.
Divine grace, of course, is able to overlook the lack, and the
trespasser in the second example is just as much “forgiven” (v18) as
in the first (see v16).
Trespass against Man
In chapter 6, we have the instruction regarding
trespass against man, and a clear distinction is made
between it and trespass against God, by the words, “And Jehovah
spoke to Moses, saying …” (Lev. 6: 1). God’s glory demands that
trespass against man must always occupy a lower place than trespass
against God. Nonetheless, while a dividing line is clearly made, it
also just as apparent that God joins them together, and wrongs
against a neighbour were to be regarded as wrongs against Jehovah:
“If any one sin and act unfaithfully against Jehovah,
and lie to his neighbour …” (v2, my emphasis). Jehovah took notice
of these things and bound up the rights of His people with His own
name. Nor was the sacrifice demanded a lesser one, for “his
trespass-offering shall he bring to Jehovah, a ram without blemish
out of the small cattle” (v6). The restitution was also to be
equally full: “then it shall be, if he hath sinned and transgressed,
that he shall restore what he robbed or that in which he hath
defrauded, or the deposit, or the lost thing which he found, or all
that about which he hath sworn falsely; and he shall restore it in
the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto; to [him
to] whom it belongeth shall he give it, on the day of his
trespass-offering” (vs. 4, 5)—where principal means the
whole. None of these sins were sins of inadvertence (as in
Jehovah’s holy things) for a man cannot in ignorance tell a lie,
swear falsely, commit an act of violence, deceive his neighbour or
find a lost thing and deny it. All these things lie within the range
of the feeblest conscience. Of course, in the holy things the
offering takes prominence (being mentioned first), but when human
rights were interfered with, restitution naturally occupied the
foremost place, and the offering is spoken about afterwards.
However, while restitution might satisfy the wronged man, it is the
blood that forms the basis of restored communion with God: “And the
priest shall make atonement for him before Jehovah,
and it shall be forgiven him concerning anything of
all that he hath done so as to trespass therein” (v7, my emphasis).
The Law of the Trespass-Offering
There is also the law of the trespass-offering in Lev. 7: 1-7 to consider. This is not mere repetition of
what has gone before as it contains significant new
information—nothing, for example has been said before about “every
male among the priests” (v6) eating it. Notice too, how in the law
of the offerings the order differs from the order previously. In
Lev. 3, we find the peace-offering placed before the
sin and trespass-offerings of Lev. 4-6, but the law of the
peace-offering in Lev. 7: 11 is placed after the law
of the trespass-offering in Lev. 7: 1 and the law of the
sin-offering in Lev. 6: 24. The lesson conveyed is that before the
peace-offering can be enjoyed (which speaks of communion with God
and my brethren), anything which hinders communion with one another,
or produces self-occupation must be removed.
The first thing
that is stressed in the law of the trespass-offering is that “it is
most holy” (Lev. 7: 1). This is to guard against any thought of this
as a ‘lesser’ offering—and this is strengthened by the fact that “in
the place where they slaughter the burnt-offering” (which was wholly
for God) “shall they slaughter the trespass-offering” (v2). The
trespass-offering was a picture of the death of Christ and must
therefore be given its due place of honour. See too the emphasis
placed on the presentation of the fat (see vs. 3-5)—its burning
speaking of God’s satisfaction in the death of Christ.
Nor was the
trespass-offering restricted to those personally identified with the
trespass. What we read is that, “Every male among the priests shall
eat thereof” (v6). The whole priestly house was involved—in type,
not just the individual Christian, but the Assembly itself (for
priestly service is the privilege of every believer today, not a
limited caste). To condemn a brother for his trespass is easy and
natural; to identify ourselves with him in confessing and mourning
the failure, is a mark of the “spirit of meekness” (Gal. 6: 1).
Conclusion
In conclusion, let us thank God for these precious
OT Scriptures that open up the truth of what God has done and is
doing for us. May we indeed walk in accordance with
what the Holy Spirit would teach us from the Scriptures, rendering
both God and man their due when we fail. That way, we will render
glory to God in our lives.
