Keith Hunt - Law of the Offerings #5a - Page Thirteen   Restitution of All Things

  Home Previous Page Next Page

Law of the Offerings #5a

The Trespass Offering


                             by

                        Andrew Jukes


THE TRESPASS-OFFERING

We now come to the TRESPASS-OFFERING. Closely allied in its broad
principle to the Sin-offering, in certain particulars it as
decidedly differs from it. These particulars, though few in
number, are broadly marked, and full of teaching. 
The apprehension of them will bring out very definitely that
distinct aspect of Christ which the Trespass-offering is designed
to present to us.

I proceed at once, as before, to consider this Offering, FIRST,
in its distinctive character, and THEN in its varieties: 

The first, will give us the distinct aspect of Christ which is
intended by this particular offering, the second show the various
apprehensions which may be formed of this one aspect.

1. First then, AS TO THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER OF THIS OFFERING:

four particulars may at once be noted; the first having reference
to the broad distinction between the Trespass-offerings and the
whole class of sweet-savour offerings; the next bearing on the
general distinction between the offerings not of a sweet savour,
namely, the Sin and Trespass-offerings: the other two are more
definite, and have to do with certain details connected with and
flowing from the distinction between the nature of sin and
trespass, and their atonement.

(1.) On the first particular I need not here enter, for the
distinction between what was and what was not of a sweet savour
has so often been dwelt upon. I therefore merely notice the fact
that the Trespass-offering was NOT A SWEET SAVOUR. Christ is seen
here suffering for sins: the view of His work in the Trespass-
offering is expiatory.

The next particular, too, we have already considered, namely,
that THIS OFFERING was a TRESPASS-offering, as DISTINCT FROM a
SIN-offering.
We may, however, again advert to this, as the particulars given
there very definitely mark what constitutes trespass. If a man
wronged God; that was trespass: if he wronged or robbed his
neighbour, that was trespass. We read, - "If a soul commit a
trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the
Lord; .... then he shall make amends for the harm that he hath
done" (chap.5:15,16). Again, "If a soul sin, and commit a
trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour in that
which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing
taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour; or have
found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth
falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein:
then it shall be, because be bath sinned, and is guilty, that he
shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing
which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him
to keep, or the lost thing which he found" (chap.6:2-4).

Here trespass is defined as wrong done to God, or wrong done to a
neighbour: we read of "violently taking," "deceitfully getting,"
and "swearing falsely about that which is found." In every case
of trespass, wrong was done; there was an act of evil by which
another was injured. And the offering for this act, the
Trespass-offering, (in this a contrast to the Sin-offering,) was
offered by the offerer, not because he was, but because he had
DONE, evil. Accordingly, in the Trespass-offering we never get
sight of any particular person as a sinner: the ACT of wrong is
the point noticed and dwelt upon.

Such was trespass, actual wrong and robbery, and yet there might
be trespass, as well as sin, of which the trespasser was ignorant
(chap.5:15,17,19). This is remarkable. It shews how little man's
judgment, not only respecting what he is, but respecting what he
does, can be trusted. I observe that this unwitting trespass is
specially seen in cases of "wrong in holy things; " we do not
find an instance of it in cases of "wrong done to a neighbour."  
The reason is manifest: our natural conscience takes cognizance
of man and his claims far more readily than it is brought to
understand God's standard for all approaches to Him in holy
things. Thus when little is known of this standard, when little
is seen of the holy things, when trespass is thought of merely as
affecting man, then unwitting trespass will not be recognized.   

But let a man be led much into the sanctuary, and learn something
there of God's holiness, and he will find that the holy things
themselves, the very opportunities of worship, may, through our
weakness, open a door for trespass. Those who are most with God
will most confess, what to some seems quite incredible, that
often there has been unwitting trespass in the holiest acts of
work and worship. I believe there is not an act of any kind,
whether of praise, or prayer, or worship, or ministry, which may
not, through Satan's cunning, prove an occasion to the flesh to
bring forth some fruit of trespass. I need not particularize
instances; I doubt not each instructed Christian will recognize
some, 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
unrecognized: but other circumstances or fuller light have made
us conscious of it. Still the trespass is the same, recognized or
unrecognized: and our ignorance, though it leaves us unconscious
of evil, does not alter it.

And how solemn is the truth here taught us, that neither our
conscience, nor our measure of light, nor our ability, but the
truth of God, is the standard by which both sin and trespass are
to be measured. "Though he wist it not, yet is he guilty; he hath
certainly trespassed against the Lord" (chap.5:17,19). If man's
conscience or man's light were the standard, each man might have
a different rule. And, at this rate, right or wrong, good or
evil, would depend, not upon God's truth, but on the creature's
apprehension of it. At this rate, the filthiest of unclean beasts
could not be convicted of uncleanness, while it could plead that
it had no apprehension of that which was pure and seemly. But we
do not judge thus in the things of this world; neither does God
judge so in the things of heaven. Who argues that because swine
are filthy, therefore the standard of cleanliness is to be set by
their perceptions or ability; or that because they seem
unconscious of their state, therefore the distinction between
what is clean and unclean must be relinquished. No: we judge not
by their perceptions, but our own; with our light and knowledge,
not their ignorance, as our standard. 
God, in like manner, though in grace He finds means for pardoning
it, still judges evil as evil wherever He meets it. Our blindness
does not alter His judgment; for it is our sin and that alone
which has caused the blindness.

(True indeed, sin or trespass is still sin or trespass, whether
you know it or not, hence as Paul declared, "All have sinned and
come short of the glory of God" - some more some less, but all
are sinners in need of God's grace and mercy and salvation
through Jesus Christ. Not one person can be cleansed and
justified and be saved in any other way but through REPENTANCE of
sin and trespass, and accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior. I have
covered all this in great depth in many other studies. As this
is a fundamental truth of the Bible, then it leads us, or should
lead us, to find the answer to the question of what happens to
those who are never by God, called out of blindness, or who have
lived and died never even hearing the name of Jesus, let alone
having the Bible to read and understand. Millions, down through
the ages have lived and died, NEVER having a CHANCE to be saved.
Are they LOST forever? Will they not also have a chance to
understand the way of God, and see Christ as their Savior? Yes,
THEY WILL !! The truth of the PLAN of God for every person who
has ever been formed, and how God will in the end, give EVERYONE
a clear calling to REPENTANCE of sin and being saved through
Jesus, is explained in other studies on this Website - Keith
Hunt).

Such is trespass, and such the measure of it, a measure ever
apparently widening according to our knowledge; for He who calls
us, leads us to see as He sees, not only His grace, but our own
deep and constant need of it, But, blessed be God, He that
convinces of sin, testifies of Him also by whose Offering sins
are pardoned. He that sees Jesus in the Trespass-offering, sees
trespass met; for Christ has confessed it, borne its judgment,
paid its penalty. Not only was "His soul an offering for sin," -
in this we get the Sin-offering, - but "He was wounded for our
transgressions" (compare Isaiah 53:5,10) the judgment for
trespass was also laid upon Him. Here, as in the Sin-offering, He
stood "the just for the unjust," (1 Peter 3:18) confessing the
wrongs of His people as His wrongs; and for those wrongs He made
full restitution; and we in Him have satisfied God. All this,
however, is so nearly allied to the Sin-offering, that I pass it
as briefly as may be, to go on to those particulars which are
more definite, and specially characteristic of the
Trespass-offering.

These are two. In the Trespass-offering, besides the life laid
down, the value of the trespass, according to the priest's
valuation of it, was paid in shekels of the sanctuary, to the
injured party. Then, in addition to this, a fifth part more, in
shekels also, was added to the sum just spoken of, which,
together with the amount of the original wrong or trespass, was
paid by the trespasser to the person trespassed against
(chap.5:15,16 and 6:5,6). These particulars, respecting the
payment of money in connexion with the offering, are not only
very definite, but very remarkable.     

It may be well, therefore, before we consider them separately, to
note how distinctly all this differed from the Sin-offering.

In the Sin-offering we see nothing of money: there was no
estimation by the priest nor any fifth part added. Indeed, from
the nature of the case, there could be neither of these, for they
depend entirely on the nature of trespass. In the Sin-offering
the offerer was a sinner: and his sin was met and judged in the
victim. A perfect victim bore the penalty; a sinless one was
judged for sin. In all this the one thought presented to us is
sin receiving its rightful wages. We see due judgment inflicted
on the sinner's substitute; and this having been inflicted,
justice is satisfied. In the Trespass-offering, with the
exception of "trespass" instead of "sin," we have all this
precisely the same as in the Sin-offering. The victim's life is
given for trespass: judgment is inflicted, and so far justice is
satisfied. But in the Trespass-offering, there is more than this,
- arising as we shall see, out of the nature of trespass, the
original wrong or evil remedied: and further, a fifth is added to
it.

Observe, in the Trespass-offering the wrong inflicted is made up
and restored by the offerer. According to the priest's valuation,
the injured party receives his own, or the value of it, back
again. Nor is this all; more than the original loss is repaid:
the loss is more than remedied. These two most interesting
particulars, specially characterizing, as they do, the atonement
of the Trespass-offering, result directly and immediately from
the distinction between sin and trespass. The apprehension of
this distinction is absolutely necessary, if we would understand
what remains of the Trespass-offering.

Sin then, I repeat, is the evil of our nature; and the offering  
or this, the Sin-offering, is for what we ARE. In the case of
trespass the offering is for what we have DONE, for actual wrong
committed against someone.

Now, it follows from the distinct nature of these things, that
the atonement or satisfaction for each must differ, in measure at
least; for that which would fully satisfy justice in reference to
sin, would by no means do so in reference to trespass. In the
case of sin - that is, our sinful nature, where no actual robbery
or wrong had been committed against any one, justice would be
fully satisfied by the death and suffering of the sinner. But the
mere suffering and death of the sinner would not make
satisfaction for the wrong of trespass. For the victim merely to
die for trespass, would leave the injured party a loser still.

The trespasser indeed might be punished, but the wrong and injury
would still remain. The trespasser's death would not repair the
trespass, nor restore those rights which another had been robbed
of. Yet, till this was done, atonement or satisfaction could
scarcely be considered perfect. Accordingly, to make satisfaction
in the Trespass-offering, there is not only judgment on the
victim, but restitution also: the right of which another had been
defrauded is satisfied; the wrong fully repaid.

To illustrate this. Suppose some noxious creature. It IS evil:
for this it merits death: the infliction of death would be
judgment of the evil, and justice here could claim no more. But
suppose this creature had also done evil and robbed us; its mere
death will not repair the injury. Satisfaction for this will not
be complete unless the injury done is made good in all points.   

In a word, ATONEMENT for TRESPASS implies RESTITUTION; without
this, though the trespasser is judged, the claim of trespass
remains still unsatisfied. 

But in Christ man has made full satisfaction. God is not a
loser even from the wrong of trespass. Nor this only. He receives
even more. But let us look at the distinct particulars.

In the TRESPASS-offering we get restitution, FULL RESTITUTION for
the ORIGINAL wrong. 

                           ....................

TO BE CONTINUED


  Home Previous Page Top of Page Next Page

 
Navigation List:
 

 
Word Search:

PicoSearch
  Help