What is a trespass offering / guilt offering?

Leviticus 5:14 gives a new word of Jehovah to Moses, as we see in the beginning of Leviticus 6 also. Both sections however (Lev. 5:14-19 and Lev. 6:1-7) share the common principle of making amends, or restitution, and the common name of trespass or guilt-offering, which was necessarily a ram, the blood of which (as we learn from its law, Lev. 7) was sprinkled round about upon the altar, not poured out or shed at its base as with the sin-offering. The proper offerings for guilt or trespass, then, consist of two classes: first, wrongs done in the holy things of Jehovah (probably firstfruits, tithes, etc.), or by doing something against Jehovah's commands, afterwards found out; secondly, wrongs which Jehovah counts done against Him, though not sacrilegious or transgressive like the former, but acts of fraud and violence with deceit against men. In all such cases, besides an unblemished ram for the trespass-offering, with the payment of the value of the wrong that was done, a fifth was added according to the valuation of Moses, and given either to the priest in the former class, or to the party wronged in the second class.

Now we come to a new and necessary class of offerings. Unlike those which have hitherto occupied us, they were not voluntary nor for a sweet savour. They were compulsory, to clear the conscience, to make reparation, and to vindicate God's honour injured by wrongs in His people to God or man. Forgiveness was sought and secured thereby; and as it was needed by all from the highest to the lowest, so it was imperative on each guilty individual, and no less by the assembly as such when it had failed corporately.

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.

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.

The order of trespass,* or guilt offerings, was similar in certain respects to that of the sin offerings. Specific acts of sin are contemplated by it, as to which, spearing generally, some measure of restitution on man's part was possible. And when the possibility occurred the restitution was inflexibly required. Christ is without doubt the great Restorer for us before God. He has restored "that which" He "took not away," (Ps. 69:4) He has re-established all the trespass man has committed before God, and has added His part thereto; He has magnified the law (Isa. 42:21) which man had broken. Nevertheless there are sins both towards God and man which cannot be regarded as truly repented of by the transgressor unless restitution be made; for example, if a man rob God, or rob his neighbour, and there be genuine faith in the value of Christ's sacrifice respecting the forgiveness of that sin, there will be, as man's accompaniment to God's forgiveness, restitution. "Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." (James 2:17.) The forgiveness of God produces practical fruits in our everyday life. Our first duty to our fellow-men as forgiven of God is to make them honourable restitution for any specific wrong we may have caused them. "There can be no doubt, that as the idea of the expiation of sin, which was embodied in the sprinkling of the blood, was most prominent in the sin offering; so the idea of satisfaction for the restoration of rights that had been violated or disturbed came into the foreground in the trespass-offering." The practical bearing of the trespass offering on everyday life in Israel was all-important, and a similar quality is demanded by Christianity, in view of which the exhortation of St. James may be well laid earnestly to heart, "Be ye doers of the Word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." (James 1:22.)

From offerings which the people, if so minded, were permitted to bring, we pass on to others, which, because of acts done by them, were demanded by God, and are termed sin-offerings, or trespass-offerings, according to the character of the transgression. For God left it not to man to define the character of his act, nor the occasion on which he should bring offerings of this kind. Man might have enjoined such sacrifices where gross sins had been committed, but would have thought them needless, when error or ignorance could have been pleaded as an excuse for the offender. God acted in just the opposite way. For presumptuous sins there was no sacrifice provided, and nothing but death for the sinner to contemplate (Num. 15). For acts, many of which man would have excused, sin-offerings, or trespass-offerings, were enjoined. As the Holy One, God could not pass over the sin, as if it were of no moment. As the Gracious and Merciful One, He would not cut off the offender for that which was not done presumptuously. How different is God's standard from man's. Man is apt to measure his guilt by the character of his act, whether done wilfully or knowingly, and by the consequences which may ensue from it. God measures it by that which He is in Himself, who is light as well as love.

In connection with these offerings, three revelations were vouchsafed. All that concerned the sin-offering was given in one communication (4:1; 5:13). That which concerned the trespass-offering was given on two occasions (5:14-19, and 6:1-7). The offences for which sin-offerings were enjoined were acts done in violation of natural conscience (4), and such as became sins by divine enactment (5:1-13). The offences for which trespass-offerings were demanded were sins in connection with the Mosaic ritual, by which the Lord was defrauded (5:14-19), and sins by which the offender's neighbour was defrauded (6:1-7).

The trespass offering is first found in Lev. 5 and Lev. 6 concerning cases of wrong done to the Lord or to a neighbour. In these cases a man needed to offer a trespass offering — for a trespass against a neighbour encroached on the rights of God — and to make restitution also, with a fifth added. In Lev. 5:6-9 the same offering is called both a trespass offering and a sin offering; but in Lev. 14, for the cleansing of a leper, both a sin offering and a trespass offering were needful; and the same two offerings were to be brought if a Nazarite were defiled. Num. 6:10-12. It appears therefore that the trespass offering is a variety of sin offering.

The sin and trespass-offerings both speak of the judgment of sin, that judgment which is indeed no sweet savor to God, but His "strange work," not the delight of His love, but the necessity of His holiness. The sin-offering deals with sin in view of the divine nature; the trespass-offering, in view of the divine government. The words "sin" and "trespass" well convey this difference, the thought of restitution having a prominent place in the trespass-offering, as the sin-offering alone exhibits that necessary separation of God from sin which is at once the necessity of His nature, and its most awful punishment.

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?

There is another form of the Guilt offering, which meets treachery against a neighbour, or falsehood as to something lost. This Jehovah counted against Himself indirectly, as the former case affected Him directly. Ignorance is not supposed in question with a neighbour, as it might easily be alas! in the things forbidden to be done by the commandments of Jehovah. It is obvious that these seven verses, though a fresh precept which Jehovah spoke to Moses, are the proper conclusion of chapter 5 as in the Hebrew Bible. They ought not to be the opening section of Leviticus 6 as in the English Bible. Why the Revised V. did not rectify the mistake seems strange; as it shows how hampered they were by prejudice or restriction. For it severs the true complementary link with Leviticus 5:14-19, and interferes with the due order of the laws of the offerings which begin with what is thus made of Leviticus 6:8.