What is a trespass in the Bible?

Coming now to the trespass-offering, we learn what was needed when a trespass (maal) had been committed. Two revelations to determine this were given, the one in 5:14-19, the other in 6:1-7. The former of these treats of a trespass against the Lord, the latter deals with cases in which a neighbour had been injured. Both, however, have this feature in common, viz., that an injury had been sustained, for which amends by a money payment had to be made as well. A trespass, of course, was a sin (chattath,) but every sin was not a trespass, (maal.)

Of sins called by this name, the Scripture enumerates several. A wife guilty of unfaithfulness to her husband committed a trespass (Num. 5:27.) Aaron and Moses thus sinned at Meribah Kadesh (Deut. 32:51). Achan, the troubler of Israel, trespassed in the accursed thing (Joshua 7:1). Saul, too, is described as a trespasser, when disobedient about Amalek (1 Chron. 10:13). Ahaz thus sinned (2 Chron. 28:19) as well as Israel and Judah, when they turned to idolatry (1 Chron. 5:25; 2 Chron. 36:14). And those of the returned remnant who married strange wives were guilty on that account of trespass (Ezra 9:2). Now, in all these instances, we may trace the special feature of that sin for which a trespass-offering had to be brought. God, or man, was defrauded in one way or other of that which was their due.

First of all, I must be sure that my brother has actually trespassed against me. "If thy brother shall trespass against thee"-it is not if I think he has, or some "hear-say" that he has, but a definite case of one actually wronging another. It is not a case where both parties have wronged each other, but of one alone trespassing against the other. The word for "trespass" in the original Greek has the meaning of "missing the mark, to fail, do wrong, err or sin." The English meaning of the word is that of wilfully violating the rights of another, to pass the bounds of propriety or rectitude in the injury of another, or the violation of a positive law, rule, or custom.

While there is a strong correlation between the sin and trespass offerings, the distinguishable features belonging to each are sufficiently outstanding to permit of the following distinctions being made. Trespass refers to acts done against God or man, and to the root from which these acts proceed. No doubt it has been noticed, when considering the sin offering, that specific acts are not enumerated, since the primary object to which our thoughts are directed is the condemnation of that which is totally abhorrent to the holiness of God, and in the light of which man is shown to be a sinner; but with the trespass offering specific offences are recorded, and man is regarded as a transgressor.

Without question, all transgression is sin, but all sin does not necessarily partake of the character of trespass. It can be confidently affirmed therefore that in the sin offerings the condemnation of sin is the main point to be considered, whereas in the trespass offering the confession of sin is necessary. In the sin offering the victim and the offerer are identified, the laying on of hands on the head of the victim being the suited expression of this; but this was never done in cases of trespass, although confession, full and ample, was required.

(4) The Trespass Offering. Closely connected with the sin offering, as we have said, it differed from it chiefly in that it looked upon sin, not so much in its inherent essence as enmity against God, as in its resulting injury. God, for instance, has been robbed by man of that which belonged to Him, robbed of the obedience due Him; robbed of the glory which should have been His through creatures so marvelously adapted to show forth that glory. Man has taken the time which belonged to God and used it for himself. He has taken wealth, opportunities, position, everything which belonged to Another and applied it to his own use. In this way, his sin is a trespass against God. He has been unfaithful in the truth committed into his hands, and is guilty of the trespass.

From sins of inadvertence, violations of natural conscience, and those which become sins by statutory enactment, we pass on to another class, which under the law are called a trespass (maal), and had to be met in the manner revealed to Moses.

Trespasses might be committed against God, or against one's neighbour, so two revelations were vouchsafed to Israel respecting them. The first, in Leviticus 5:14-19, treats of trespasses against the Lord; the second, in Leviticus 6:1-7, of trespasses against a neighbour; and both have this feature in common, that besides the sacrifice which had to be brought, a money payment as well was enjoined on the offender as compensation for the harm that he had done.

Of course every trespass was a sin, though every sin was not a trespass. A recompense being demanded showed that the rights of the one sinned against were not to be ignored; but a sacrifice being also enjoined, showed that a trespass against one's neighbour was not a matter which could be hushed up, or compromised, without any acknowledgment of the guilt before God. The injured party received back that of which he had been wrongfully deprived, with a fifth part of its value in addition, a fine imposed on the offender by the law of his God. But besides the restitution to the injured party, the death of the appointed victim had to take place to make atonement for the guilty person, that he might be forgiven. The forgiveness of his neighbour was one thing; the forgiveness of God was another thing, and with nothing less than that was the offender to be contented. Thus the Lord would teach His people, that their acts of sin had to be viewed in connection with their responsibility to Him, and not merely as they might affect the one sinned against on earth. Many a man might be defrauded without much personal inconvenience to him flowing from it; but a trespass committed against such an one was a trespass against Jehovah, and could only be atoned for as the law directed. How fully were the rights of property to be respected by those who were privileged to be called the people of the Lord. Are Christians sufficiently alive to that of which the Israelite under the law was constantly reminded?

A trespass-offering then supposed the commission of an act by which the Lord or the man's neighbour had been wronged. Of this class of sins we have several examples in the Old Testament. A wife unfaithful to her husband was guilty of a trespass against him; for she defrauded him of his rights. (Num. 5:12.) Aaron, too, and Moses were guilty of this sin at Meribah-Kadesh, when they did not sanctify the Lord in the midst of the children of Israel. (Deut. 32:51.) Similarly Achan, and after him Saul, were convicted of a trespass when they kept back from the destruction to which God had devoted them - the one some property of the Amorites, the other some of the spoil of the Amalekites. (Joshua 22:20; 1 Chron. 10:13.) Again, Uzziah was a trespasser in the holy things of the Lord when he presumed to officiate at the altar of incense, a service only lawful for the priests. (2 Chron. 26:18.) And Ahaz and Manasseh stand out as shameful instances of trespassers; for they turned their backs openly on the worship of God. (2 Chron. 28:19, 22; 2 Chron. 29:19; 2 Chron. 33:19.) But not only were individuals guilty of such a sin; for the nation was convicted of it, both when they turned to idolatry before the Babylonish captivity, and when the remnant intermarried with the people of the countries around them, after the Lord had in mercy allowed them to return to their land. (1 Chron. 5:25; 2 Chron. 36:14; Ezek. 20:27-28; Ezra 9:2, 4; Ezra 10:6; Neh. 13:27.) Separation to God should have characterized them, but in that they had grievously failed. Lastly, Zedekiah is charged by Ezekiel with this sin (Ezek. 17:20) when he broke his covenant with the king of Babylon, to which the Lord was made a party, by his swearing in God's name to keep it.

We may discern another shade of evil met in the Trespass offering as compared with the more general and public one for sin. The word for the latter is chata which literally signifies departure from right; whereas asham which is translated trespass expresses guilt. It was an act of treachery (maal) in the holy things of Jehovah, though supposed to be done not presumptuously but through inadvertence. Still, though not a moral wrong before the eyes of others, it was a secret perfidy against Him with Whom they stood in holy relationship, and guilt was contracted thereby.

But man in the realm of action has some choice. He may conform fully to God’s laws for him, or he may not. When he diverges from the will of God and exerts his own will it is sin, and “sin is lawlessness.” Sin is missing the mark. Transgression is trespass, or overstepping the mark, breaking a positive command. Iniquity is perverseness, a deeper shade of guilt.

TRESPASS GODWARD (vv. 15-19)

The trespass offering deals with sin also, but not simply in its general evil character, rather in its being injurious either to God or to people. These are said to be sins of ignorance also. In this section sin in sacred things is first mentioned. For this a ram without blemish was to be offered, and also silver according to the proper estimation of the injury done. The trespass must be fully paid for, but a fifth part also added. Only this could be considered making proper amends.

TRESPASS GODWARD (vv. 15-19)

The trespass offering deals with sin also, but not simply in its general evil character, rather in its being injurious either to God or to people. These are said to be sins of ignorance also. In this section sin in sacred things is first mentioned. For this a ram without blemish was to be offered, and also silver according to the proper estimation of the injury done. The trespass must be fully paid for, but a fifth part also added. Only this could be considered making proper amends.

There is a sensible difference in the offerings which follow. It would seem that the sin-offering is more connected with nature, although it might be proved by a particular sin; and that the trespass-offering is more connected with that which, while it might be in the holy things of Jehovah, or at least against Him, involved the offender in a fault or wrong towards his neighbour, and needed amends as well as a confession of guilt in the offering. On this however there is no call for discussion at present. There might be a kind of mingling of the two things, and to this there seems to be regard in the beginning of Leviticus 5:1-13. There is nothing more astonishing than the accuracy of the word of God when we submit humbly as well as honestly search into it.