EXPOSITION
THE TRESPASS OFFERING (Leviticus 5:14-3, Leviticus 6:1-3). The new heading with which Leviticus 5:14 begins indicates that it is here and not at Leviticus 5:1 that the section on trespass offerings commences. Sin offerings and trespass offerings are not distinguished from each other in Psalms 40:6; Hebrews 10:8; and the classification of the sins which require one or the other offering has caused great perplexity to commentators. It would appear that, primarily, the trespass offering was reserved for those cases in which reparation had to be made. Thus, if a man failed to pay his tithes and offerings to the Lord (Hebrews 10:14), he must bring his trespass offering; or if he refused to restore a deposit to his neighbours (Leviticus 6:2), he must bring his trespass offering; and his trespass offering is not received until he has made satisfaction to the party wronged, and paid, as a fine, one-fifth of the value of the thing that he had appropriated. But the class of crimes for which the trespass offering was required came to be enlarged by the addition of other eases, similar in character to the first, but not identical, whereby wrong was done to the Lord (as by transgressing his commands otherwise than by withholding tithes and offerings, Hebrews 10:17), or to man (as by wronging a female slave, Leviticus 19:20, where the wrong is not estimated by money). These eases are distinguished with difficulty from those for which a sin offering is required. The same act might render it incumbent on a man to offer either a sin offering or a trespass offering, or both: the sin offering would teach the need of, and would symbolically effect, expiation for sin; the trespass offering would teach the necessity of, and would require at the offerer's hands, reparation for wrong. While the sin offering typified the expiation wrought upon the cross, the trespass offering typified the satisfaction for sin effected by the perfect life and voluntary death of the Saviour.
Leviticus 5:14, Leviticus 5:15
If a soul commit a trespass. Two previous conditions were required of the Israelite before he might offer his trespass offering.
1. He must make compensation for any harm or injury that he had done.
2. He must give to the injured party a fine equal to one-fifth (i.e; two-tenths) of the value of the thing of which he had deprived him, if the wrong was capable of being so estimated. In performing his sacrifice, he had
(1) to bring a ram to the court of the tabernacle;
(2) to present and to kill it:
while the priest
(1) cast the blood on the inner sides of the altar;
(2) burnt the internal fat and the tail;
(3) took the remainder to be eaten by himself and his brother priests and their sons in the court of the tabernacle (Leviticus 7:2-3).
The special lesson of the trespass offering is the need of satisfaction as well as of oblation, and thus it supplies a representation of one feature in the great Antitype, who was the "full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world." Through ignorance (see note on Le Leviticus 4:2).
Leviticus 5:15, Leviticus 5:16
Refer to sins of omission, offenses in the holy things of the Lord; that is, withholding tithes and offerings. The non-payment of tithes and offerings was looked upon as robbing Jehovah (Malachi 3:8), and therefore it is that a trespass offering, involving compensation, and not only a sin offering, is required to atone for the offense. The ram that is to be offered is to be of a value fixed by the priest (with thy estimation, i.e; according to the estimation of the priest), and the priest is to estimate it by shekels of silver; implying that its value must amount at least to shekels (in the plural), meaning two shekels (see Ezekiel 47:13, where "portions" means "more than one portion," i.e; "two portions"). The shekel is considered to be equal to 2s. 7d. The shekel of the sanctuary means the shekel according to its exact weight and value, while still unworn by traffic and daily use. Beside offering the rain, he is to make amends for the harm (or rather sin) that he hath clone in the holy thing, and.. . add the fifth part. The fifth part is probably appointed as being the same as two-tenths of the principal sum. Full satisfaction is the marked feature of the trespass offering. In Luke 19:8, "Zacchaeus stood, and said,… Behold, Lord,… if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore fourfold." He went far beyond his legal obligation in respect to compensation. (Cf. 2 Samuel 12:6, "He shall restore the lamb fourfold.")
Sins of commission may be atoned for by the trespass offering as well as sins of omission.
HOMILETICS
The trespass offering
differs from the sin offering in that it was not allowed to be presented until reparation had been made for the evil done by him who desired to offer it. Its special lesson to the Israelite was that satisfaction for sin is necessary for restoration to communion as well as sacrifice.
ITS TYPICAL LESSON. Satisfaction implies that there is a debt due which must be paid. The debt is due to God; the debtor is man. Christ took upon himself the payment of the debt, which man could not pay. tie paid it in two ways:
1. By bearing the punishment due for its non-payment by man.
2. By rendering in his own person that perfect obedience which man had failed to render, and by that failure had become a helpless debtor. Having compensated for man's disobedience by the perfect obedience of his life, he bore the punishment still due for that previous disobedience by the sacrifice of his death. Thus man's forgiveness became not only a matter of mercy on God's part, but of his justice. (See St. Ansehn's 'Cur Dens Homo?' and Archbishop Thomson's 'Essay on the Death of Christ' in 'Aids to Faith.')
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Chapter 5:14-6:7
Restitution as inculcated in the trespass offering.
comp. Philippians 4:8, Philippians 4:9; Luke 19:8; Matthew 5:23, Matthew 5:24. The trespass offering, in emphasizing the idea of restitution, is needful to complete the list of sacrifices. Without the just dealing this sacrifice demands, the personal consecration, fellowship, and atonement would savour of what was unreal and vain. God's mercy secures morality, and his Word condemns every desire to enjoy his grace and the fruits of injustice at the same time. Let us, then, notice—
I. THE POSSIBILITY OF WRONGING BOTH GOD AND MAN UNINTENTIONALLY. This passage presents this possibility. An Israelite might miscalculate the amount of his offerings, and find, on examination, that he has defrauded his God. This omission must be made good. Or again, he might commit, through want of thought, something God had forbidden, and for this sin of commission he must make restitution according to the estimation of the priest. The possibility of wronging a fellow-man unintentionally is too obvious to require illustration.
Of the first wrong we have, in these gospel times, an instance in defective liberality on the part of Christians. How many fail to calculate how much they owe to God! Systematic beneficence is a general principle, but it is applied only in the rough, and a faithful analysis will generally prove that God has been defrauded. We defraud God also in the matter of time and of work. We grudge him his own day; we give him stinted service. A quite appreciable defalcation under such heads as these might be made out against most of us.
Again, unintentional wrong is often done a neighbour in, for example, an unexpected failure in business. There are many, let us believe, who reach bankruptcy without intending it. They erred with the very best intentions, and through faulty management allowed their affairs to become hopelessly involved. But the loss suffered by a man's neighbours is not the less real because of his good intentions. Nor will these good intentions pass as good bills with the wronged neighbour's creditors.
II. LET US NOTICE THE POSSIBILITY OF DELIBERATELY WRONGING OUR NEIGHBOUR. We have intentional trespass against man brought out in the opening verses of the sixth chapter. We have here such sins contemplated as falsity in trust, robbery, oppression, and tergiversation about property which has been found. Here the intention as well as the act is at fault.
Our present mercantile immoralities afford ample illustrations. In fact, business qualities are regarded by many as consisting in the advantage which a man is able, legally, to take of his neighbour. Men, without sufficient courage to become highway robbers, can take advantage of a neighbour behind the hedge of some blundering act of parliament.
III. THE LAW OF MOSES DEMANDED RESTITUTION IN ALL THESE CASES AS A CONDITION OF PARDON. Unless the trespassers brought the amount of the defalcation, with a double tithe in addition, and the prescribed ram for a trespass offering, God refused them pardon and fellowship.
The case of Zacchaeus is in point. His interview with Jesus led to the desire of restitution arising naturally in his heart. "If 1 have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold" (Luke 19:8). God's forgiveness is not independent of moral feeling. God will not forgive trespass so as to encourage the continuance of injustice. There must be restitution and compensation, or he will not grant pardon.
IV. AT THE SAME TIME, THAT RESTITUTION SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS MERITORIOUS, THE LAW REQUIRED A TRESPASS OFFERING IN ADDITION. There have been cases of restitution by bankrupts and other trespassers, but they are so blazed abroad in the newspapers, that the public is ready to set them down as meritorious, and almost supererogations. But the Divine Law excluded all possibility of boasting, by attaching a trespass offering to the restitution. A ram must be brought; confession of sin must be made over it in the usual fashion; it must be slain; its blood must be sprinkled as in the former cases; the choice portions are dedicated to God on his altar; and the remainder eaten by the priests.
All this was to show that, even for such an act as restitution, atonement was needful. It could not stand alone; it had no inherent merit; it was only tardy justice; and for the wrong there is need of atonement as well as reparation. And surely the same great truth meets us in the Christian life. Jesus as the Trespass Offering—and this is the phraseology employed in Isaiah 53:10 regarding him—must encircle us with his merits, even when we are conscientiously making restitution. It is as penitents we should do this. Even though the world glories in the reparation of wrong as something in its view most meritorious, the persons making reparation should do so in a penitent spirit, having regard always to the atoning merits of the Saviour.
V. THE COURAGE NECESSARY TO MAKE RESTITUTION MUST BE SUSTAINED BY THE FEARLESS PROCLAMATION OF GOD'S LAW. A certain antinomianism is encouraged, if not proclaimed, by a loose presentation of God's gospel. Immoralities are tolerated in commerce on the part of professing Christians, that go far to defeat the mission of Christianity. It is essential, in these circumstances, that we should cultivate the courage of men, and sustain their resolutions to be honest and just in making all possible restitution. God requires no less honesty in his gospel than he did in his Law. He never meant his pardon to be enjoyed along with the fruits of wrong-doing. These must be surrendered if it is to be enjoyed. "If it is absolutely impossible to be saved by the works of the Law, it is not less impossible to be saved without the works of faith, for faith without works is no faith at all." We must consequently think on "whatsoever things are honest" (Philippians 4:8), and remember our Saviour's words, "If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift" (Matthew 5:23, Matthew 5:24).—R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE
Trespass amended.
I. To WITHHOLD FROM GOD HIS DUES IS SINFUL. The rigour of Leviticus may well sharpen that perception of sin which is so apt to become dim. God is wealthy, and yet will not submit tamely to robbery. Minute instructions were given concerning the offering of tithes, etc; for the use of his servants at the tabernacle, and for his glory; and to omit such offerings and to employ them in profane uses is here counted as acting covertly, as faithless dealing. For it was a condition of the covenant that the people should purchase their exemption from entire devotedness, by recognizing that it was incumbent on them to support those engaged wholly in God's service; and to neglect this condition was, in truth, a breach of trust. It is not less needful today that Christians should contribute of their substance to the carrying on of the work of the Church. Nor is it less important to call attention to the trespass committed by failing to present to God the emotion he claims. Many imagine that they are comparatively faultless if they abstain from open notorious wickedness, and they overlook their fatal omissions in the matter of religious service, affection, and faith. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart," etc. "Trust ye in the Lord for ever." Not to confess Christ is considered as denying him. Besides, it is in the passage before us assumed that the property which ought to have been devoted to the Lord has been consumed for personal enjoyment. And similarly, we may argue that the love and time and strength not used as required for God, are lavished upon other objects, and a wrong is done to our Father in heaven.
II. TO COMMIT A TRESPASS UNINTENTIONALLY DOES NOT PREVENT THE NECESSITY OF AN ATONEMENT. This is a lesson frequently enforced in the Law. "Though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity" (verse 17). Evidences of the same Divine Law are visible in the consequences that follow mistakes in life, where accidental errors, wrong judgments, hasty steps, are productive of as injurious effects as if the word or action had been planned with utmost deliberation, and its result foreseen. Any other arrangement might augment men's carelessness, and prove in the end more harmful than the apparently inequitable law. We are taught the infinite importance that attaches to our actions, linked on as they are with a chain of invariable results. To sin is to run counter to widespreading principles; it is not a little matter that may be contemned; it makes a breach in the fortress of right and justice, and this breach must be repaired ere the offender can be regarded as on the side of the eternal verities. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." If not the transgressor, then an unblemished ram must be slaughtered as his substitute, that blood may cleanse the stain, and cover the transgressor from wrath. How easy is the way made under the gospel, whereby, after the sin offering of Christ, all our sins are forgiven us for his name's sake!
III. ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE WRONG DONE MUST BE FOLLOWED BY AN ENDEAVOUR To AMEND IT. The high priest is to value the "harm," and a fifth being added to the amount, the priest receives it as compensation. The offender has gained nothing by his sin. Sin never profits in the end. The restitution is thorough. We may reasonably distrust the sincerity of a repentance that is unaccompanied by reformation. When conscience money is brought, then the confession and desire of the offender to undo the evil wrought, as far as possible, are patent. The atonement and the restitution together procure the forgiveness of the supplicant. What avails it that men have learnt their "trespass," unless it lead to amendment? Knowledge is designed to be the forerunner of action. Like electricity, it furnishes light and moving power.—S.R.A.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Trespass in sacrilege.
The verses now under consideration form a distinct matter of revelation, or were communicated to Moses at a separate time. This we infer from the opening words, "And the Lord spake unto Moses," comparing them with like expressions twice used already (see Le Leviticus 1:1; Leviticus 4:1).
I. WILFUL SACRILEGE WAS PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH.
1. It is fraud "in the holy things of the Lord."
(1) These are such things as belong to him by requirement of his Law or by solemn dedication. Thus he claims half a shekel per head ransom money when the people are numbered (Exodus 30:11-2). He claims the firstborn or a redemption for it (Exodus 34:11, Exodus 34:20; Numbers 18:16). He claims the firstfruits of the harvest (Leviticus 23:10-3; Proverbs 3:9). He claims tithes (Leviticus 27:30-3).
The treasures of the temple of whatever kind were also holy things.
(2) To withhold any of these dues, or to profane by eating that which belonged to the priests, was a sacrilege, and, if wittingly done, exposed the criminal to death (see Le Leviticus 22:14-3; comp. Leviticus 22:9).
2. This was the crime of Achan.
(1) Joshua's adjuration devoted all the spoils taken at Jericho to the Lord (Joshua 6:17-6). Achan, therefore, not only incurred the curse of the adjuration, but was also guilty of sacrilege. He is, therefore, said to have "transgressed the covenant of the Lord" (Joshua 7:11, Joshua 7:15).
(2) His punishment was consequently signal. For his sake the children of Israel were smitten before the men of At, and the anger of the Lord. was only averted from the nation by their stoning and burning Achan, his family, and all pertaining to him (Joshua 7:24-6).
3. This also was the crime of Ananias and Sapphira.
(1) Under the glorious influences of the Holy Spirit at the Pentecost, the Church agreed to have all things in common, to which Ananias and Sapphira were consenting parties. They accordingly sold a possession which had been thus devoted to God, but secretly reserved part of the price placing the balance only at the apostles' feet.
(2) This crime was miraculously punished with death. The punishment evinced that the sprat of the Law is still in the gospel. Query: How does this bear upon those who have vowed that a proportion of their revenue should be sacred to God, but with increasing prosperity have become worldly, and withdrew the hand (see Malachi 3:8-39)?
II. SACRILEGE THROUGH INADVERTENCY ADMITS OF REPARATION.
1. In cases that are undoubted.
(1) This class of cases is described verse 15: "If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the Lord," etc. He knows what he did, though ignorant that it was sacrilege, but is now better informed.
(2) His duty now is clear: "He shall bring for his trespass unto the Lord a ram without blemish out of the flocks." He brings a male, probably in recognition that his sin was an interference with things concerning rulers ecclesiastical. "With thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering."
(3) But how are we to understand this? It may mean that payment may be made in money or silver, according to the estimated value of the harm sustained by the trespass. Some read, "by thy estimation two shekels of silver," etc; which would be a restoring fourfold, half a shekel being the atonement money. This is given to the temple (see Exodus 30:13). "And he shall add to it a fifth, and give it to the priest." With this he is accepted.
2. In cases that are doubtful.
(1) These are described verse 17: "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 wast it not, yet," etc. He suspects that he may have trespassed in sacrilege, but is not sure; "Yet is he guilty." The very doubt makes him guilty.
(2) This principle is recognized in the precepts of the New Testament. Paul doubtless deduced from this Law his declarations, that "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin," and that "He that doubts is damned," or condemned.
(3) This person also must bring a ram with his estimation for the hypothetical harm; but in this case there is no addition of the fifth. Learn that ignorance is a crime, as it leads to transgression: therefore study God's Law. Cultivate a tender conscience.—J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Leviticus 5:15, Leviticus 5:16
Restitution to God.
The trespass for which "God spake unto Moses" that the children of Israel should make atonement, was an offense in which there was present the element of reparable wrong-doing. Something, it was contemplated, would be done which could be in some respects made good, and where this was possible it was to be done. In most cases this would refer to wrong done to man; but here we have the truth that God may be wronged, and that he condescends to receive restitution at our hands. We may look at—
I. SIN REGARDED AS A DEBT WHICH IS DUE TO GOD. Jehovah was sovereign Lord of the Hebrew commonwealth, and actual proprietor of all; anything withheld from those who were his ministers was a sacred due withheld, a debt undischarged. Our God is he:
1. Who has placed us under immeasurable obligation—by creation, preservation, benefaction, fatherly love, Divine interposition.
2. To whom we owe everything we are and have—our hearts and lives.
3. From whom we have withheld that which we shall never be able to pay: our reverence, gratitude, obedience, submission; "ten thousand talents" (Matthew 18:24). But there are some special defaults:—
II. ARREARS IS HOLY THINGS. "If a soul commit a trespass.; in the holy things of the Lord" (Leviticus 5:15). The Israelites were under many injunctions; they probably received professional instruction from the Levites, as well as religious teaching at home (Deuteronomy 6:7). But they might be betrayed into ignorance or fall into forgetfulness, and they might come short of their duty
(1) in the offerings they were to bring to the altar,
(2) in the contributions they were to make to the ministers of God.
They might ignorantly rob God in offerings and in tithes, as they even did intentionally (Malachi 3:8). We also may fall far short of what we should bring to God; we may take a totally inadequate view
(1) of the nature of the worship we should render,
(2) of the frequency of our devotional engagements,
(3) of the contribution we should give to the support of the Christian ministry,
(4) of our due share in the maintenance of the cause and the extension of the kingdom of Christ. Thus we may ignorantly but guiltily (Leviticus 5:17) fall short of our sacred obligations.
III. THE ATONEMENT WHICH MUST BE FIRST PRESENTED. First of all, there was the offering "not without blood" to be made: the ram must be brought by the offender, and" the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram.… and it shall be forgiven him." First, we must plead the atoning blood of the slain lamb, seeking and finding forgiveness through the Saviour's sacrifice. But this is not all; there is—
IV. THE RESTITUTION WHICH SHOULD SUBSEQUENTLY BE MADE. The Jew was required to "make amends for the harm he had done in the holy things," and not only to give an equivalent to that which he had withheld, but to "add the fifth part thereto;" he was not only to make up, but do more than make up for his default. We cannot and we need not attempt to act according to the letter of this injunction, hut we may and should act in the spirit of it, by letting our consciousness of past deficiency in the worship and the service of Christ incite us to multiplied endeavours in the future. In looking back we recall negligences to attend the sanctuary, to come to the table of the Lord, to worship God in the secret chamber of devotion; therefore let us seek his face and his favour with constancy and earnestness in the days to come. We have not served his cause and our generation according to the measure of his bountiful dealings with us; therefore let us open our hand freely, and give far more generously than we should otherwise have done to those various agencies of beneficence which are turning the wilderness of wrong into the garden of the Lord.—C.
Unconscious sin.
Is there not something here contrary to our generally received ideas respecting sin? Can a man sin "though he wast it not"? The text suggests—
I. THAT WE COMMONLY CONNECT WITH OUR IDEA OF SIN THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT AT the TIME OF TRANSGRESSION. Sin is only possible to intelligent, responsible beings; it implies the power of discernment; it is usually followed by self-reproach; it seems, at first sight, to involve a consciousness in the soul of error and wrong-doing at the moment of commission. Hence men expect to be excused if they can say they did not know it was wrong at the time, etc.
II. THAT THIS THOUGHT ABOUT SIN IS BASED ON TRUTH. It is true:
1. That sin is a willful departure from rectitude: it is the soul consenting to commit some one of "those things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord." Where the will does not consent, there is no moral character in the act at all.
2. That the less there is of knowledge, the less there is of guilt (Luke 12:48).
3. That in the absence of all possible knowledge, there is entire freedom from guilt. "Where no law is, there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15). Scripture confirms what our reason declares, that there can be no condemnation where there are no means of knowing "the commandments of the Lord." But we are hound to remember for ourselves, and to impress on others, the opposite aspect, viz.—
III. THAT THIS TRUTH IS SUBJECT TO VERY GRAVE QUALIFICATIONS.
1. Attainable knowledge not gained involves sin. The Jews ought to have known that it was obligatory on them, and highly beneficial to them, to be loyal to Jehovah, to be obedient to his servant Moses, to receive the exhortations of the prophets; their ignorance was culpable, and therefore their errors were sinful. So with their nonrecognition of Jesus Christ. So with our ignorance of that which is most binding on us and most beneficial to us. We ought to know that the service of Christ is the chief duty and the supreme blessing; in our ignorance is our guilt.
2. Needless forgetfulness is sin. It was criminal on the part of the Jews of the prophetic age to forget the merciful and mighty interpositions of God in earlier days; on the part of those of our Lord's day to forget the mighty works by which he proved himself to be the very Son of God. It is criminal on our part to forget those vital truths of which God's Word reminds us.
3. The blunting of our spiritual perceptions is sin. When we are blind to the truth which is before us, because our prejudice, or our pride, or our passion, or our worldly interests distort our vision, or because long continuance in folly has blunted our spiritual powers, we are guilty: we "know not what we do," even when we are crucifying a Messiah; but the guilt in the action lies chiefly in the existence of these enfeebled or perverted faculties, and, though we "wist not," yet we "are guilty" in the sight of God.
IV. THAT UNCONSCIOUS SIN CARRIES ITS PENALTY WITH IT. "He shall bear his iniquity." The penalty is threefold:
1. The displeasure of God—his condemnation.
2. Serious harm done to our own soul.
3. Awaking, soon, to the conviction that we have done grievous wrong to others,—it may be a reparable, but it may be an irreparable, wrong.—C.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Verses 14-chapter 6:7
The trespass offerings.
Distinguished as:
1. Being violations of rights of property, either religious or non-religious property.
2. Including a fine, apportioned by the priest, for restoration.
3. Without distinction of persons or circumstances.
4. The victim, a ram without blemish from the flocks, and the atonement both sacred as producing. Divine forgiveness, and secular as including pecuniary indemnity; the blood being in this case merely swung against the side of the altar, not smeared on the horns.
The unwitting trespass.
"Though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity."
I. THE ABSOLUTE PERFECTION OF THE DIVINE LAW. It must be maintained:
1. As a revelation of the character of God.
2. As a basis on which the moral law is placed.
3. As a means of convincing man of sin, separating the idea of guilt from arbitrary, capricious, local, individual, emotional respects.
II. THE INFINITE FULNESS OF THE DIVINE COMPASSION.
1. Atonement is provided not only for sins repented of and confessed, but for offenses unwittingly committed. God is thus represented as the shield of his creature, amid, the working out of his inscrutable will in the universe.
2. The mind obtains wonderful peace when it is assured that all possible liabilities are foreseen and averted.
3. Forgiveness is not a mere doing away of sin in the conscience, but a removal of the burden from the life. The Law has nothing more against us.—R.