Forgive us our debts vs. sin vs. trespasses

[drivenfuture]

I recently heard a sermon where a pastor used the phrase trespass--and explained this passage to be related to boundaries and boundary setting--whereas I have always believed this to be more on the line of debts--concerning sinning against one another. To me these seem to be completely different teachings. Your thoughts?

 

[alexander284]

I recently heard a sermon where a pastor used the phrase trespass--and explained this passage to be related to boundaries and boundary setting--whereas I have always believed this to be more on the line of debts--concerning sinning against one another. To me these seem to be completely different teachings. Your thoughts?

Actually, I've always taken it in the same sense as that pastor.

In my mind's eye, I even imagine a sign with the words, "no trespassing."

 

[Mikey]

I recently heard a sermon where a pastor used the phrase trespass--and explained this passage to be related to boundaries and boundary setting--whereas I have always believed this to be more on the line of debts--concerning sinning against one another. To me these seem to be completely different teachings. Your thoughts?

yeah the debts is the traditional scottish way of say it and the way i say it. trespasses is common in england (and the world?) the translation of sins i thought as a modern generic term.


to me the passage is more about forgiving trasgressions that are done to you as God has forgiven you of your transgressions. focusing on the translation seems to make it about more than it is.

.

 

[Aaron]

The law prescribes both a sin and a trespass offering. The law of the sin offering is Lev. 4:1 through 5:13. The law of the trespass offering is Lev. 5:14 - 6:7.

Though the terms sin and trespass are often used interchangeably, and that's not a sin, btw, technically they are not the same thing. Sin is the transgression of the law. God, and God alone is the offended party. Trespass is the damage or injury that results, and God and man are the injured or damaged parties. In the trespass offering, damages were assessed and the guilty party had to make restitution and pay penalties. The guilty party is a debtor to the damaged parties.

I don't believe our Lord interchanged the terms in the Prayer. He is not saying forgive our sins as we forgive. Who could be saved? And it makes grace conditional upon one's works. And the one praying is a child of God, as he addresses God as his Father. So the sins are forgiven. The idea, in my mind, is, forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.

 

[Dave G]

I recently heard a sermon where a pastor used the phrase trespass--and explained this passage to be related to boundaries and boundary setting--whereas I have always believed this to be more on the line of debts--concerning sinning against one another. To me these seem to be completely different teachings. Your thoughts?

I mostly agree with you...
But it is highly dependent upon context.

I personally understand that "trespass" is to commit an offense against a person or a set of rules:
Trespass:

verb
verb: trespass; 3rd person present: trespasses; past tense: trespassed; past participle: trespassed; gerund or present participle: trespassing

1.​

enter the owner's land or property without permission.
"there is no excuse for trespassing on railroad property".

2. archaic•literary
commit an offense against (a person or a set of rules).
"a man who had trespassed against Judaic law"


noun
noun: trespass; plural noun: trespasses

1.​

Law
entry to a person's land or property without their permission.
"the defendants were guilty of trespass"

2.​

archaic•literary
a sin or offense.
"the worst trespass against the goddess Venus is to see her naked and asleep"

 

[Dave G]

For example:

" And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;" ( Colossians 2:13 ).

The Greek word found here is, "παράπτωμα" ( from the root, "παραπίπτω" ) transliterated as " paraptōma" and carries over into the English as:

1) Offense.
2) Sin.
3) Fault
4) Fall.

It depends upon whether it is used as a verb or a noun.
Also, there is a difference between "ὀφείλημα" as found in Matthew 6:12, and " "παράπτωμα" as found in Matthew 6:14, IMO...but it isn't much.

" After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
15 but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."


"Debtors" in Matthew 6:12 traces itself to "debt - that which is owed", or a personal offense toward another that results in payment being required...
and the repayment actually results in settling the debt.
"Trespass" is anything that goes over the bounds of the Law, whether against God or men, and results in an offense that personal payment may not be possible or able to cover.


So, believers are forgiven their trespasses in Colossians 2:13, and Christ made the payment...
Since we are not able to.
It requires something that we do not have:

Perfect obedience to His Law and a perfect standing before Him in heart.

His was the only payment that God regards as forgiving our trespasses, and that payment is then "imputed" to us as believers.

 

[Van]

When we fail to do or think as God wills for us to do or think, we "miss the mark" and thus store up wrath, our punishment for our miss-deeds in the afterlife. If we did a rigorous study of all the places "sin" or "trespass" is found it might be hard to find a unifying definition. We have cases where individuals "know" what God expects and they choose to violate the requirement, i.e. a volitional sin, as Adam did. Logically we might refer to these actions as "trespasses." Or when someone goes against their own conscience, and treats others differently from the way they expect to be treated, i.e. they want forgiveness but are unwilling to forgive. Is this a trespass, a volitional sin?

And then there is the whole bag of worms with regard to sins of commission versus sins (or trespasses) of omission. If we know what God expects and we do not do it, that is called a sin. Say we skip church to watch a Sunday morning playoff game.

Perhaps more study and less pontification is the known will of God.

 

[Van]

"Parabasis" is used for going against the will of God knowingly or unknowingly. Compare Romans 5:14 and 1 Timothy 2:14. Both failures are sometimes translated as transgressions. Without a consistent basis of translation, we end up muddled.

 

[Van]

Another word (Paraptōma} also is used to indicate volitional transgression and unknowing transgression and an individual's opinion of how another should behave toward them, which is pretty far afield from volitional transgression of the known will of God.

Since this word is used to mean different things in different contexts, using a consistent translation for each meaning would help clarify the confusion produced by inconsistent translation.

Matthew 6:14 uses the word in reference to an individuals opinion about how others should act toward him or her. Let's translate this usage as "apparent lapse."

Now in Matthew 6:15 the same word is used to indicate God's judgement against a person for their thought or action. The context does not limit the error to a knowing violation of God's will, thus this meaning could be translated as "offense."

In Mark 11:25 we find the same meaning (known or unknown violations) thus "offense" works. Ditto for Romans 4:25.

But in Romans 5:15 we have reference to Adam's volitional sin, thus "transgression" conveys the intended meaning.

Romans 5:16 again makes reference to both known and unknown errors, so "offenses" fits the bill.

Romans 5:17 makes reference to Adam's volitional sin, thus "transgression" is the best choice. Ditto for Romans 5:18.

Now in Romans 5:20 we gain the interesting insight that a volitional sin (a knowing transgression of God's revealed law} is a sin. So not all sins are transgressions, but all offenses and transgressions are sins. More on this problematic insight later.

At Romans 11:11 we have the Jews rejecting Christ as the Messiah, probably unknowingly, so "offense" works. Ditto for Romans 11:12.

At 2 Corinthians 5:19 again "offense" works best.

In Galatians 6:1, the idea is others know a sibling in Christ has erred, thus pointing to the idea of a known transgression.

Ephesians 1:7 addresses all our deviations, both known and unknown so "offenses" fits again.

In Ephesians 2:1 the idea seems to make a distinction between volitional trespasses and unknowing sins, so "trespasses" works.

At Ephesians 2:5 both errors are in view (known and unknown) so "offenses" works. Ditto and ditto again for Colossians 2:13.

Final point, returning to Romans 5:20 and the distinction of a particular kind of sin (knowingly violating God's will) in light of Romans 4:15. The idea, in my opinion, is that the Law increased our awareness of our offenses and increased our offenses because of the added penalty of volitional sin.

 

[Van]

Another Greek word (Parabasis) is frequently also translated as "transgression." Taken literally, the meaning seems to be to "step aside" and is also translated as "turning away." Since confusion is produced when different Greek words are translated into the same English word or phrase, we can go with volitional violation rather than transgression. Here are the 7 places "parabasis" appears in the NT:
Romans 2:23 which indicates we seem to dishonor God when we volitionally violate His Law.
Romans 4:15 indicates where there is no Law, there is no volitional violation of the Law.
Romans 5:14 indicates that people stilled died even though they had not sinned like Adam's volitional violation.
Galatians 3:19 indicates the Law was added for the sake of volitional violations, because an awareness of our violations leads the lost to Christ.
1 Timothy 2:14 indicates Eve, being deceived fell into a volitional violation.
Hebrews 2:2 indicates if there is no escape from just punishment for volitional violations of the Law and disobedience of the will of God, we therefore should seek salvation.
Hebrews 9:5 indicates Christ's death provided redemption from volitional violations, resulting in eternal life for those called into Christ.

 

[Van]

Returning to Luke 11:4, where we ask our Father to forgive our knowing or unknowing sins and then we ourselves forgive those "indebted" to us. Quid pro quo expectations in loving relationships is anathema. We might think our siblings in Christ "owe" us or are "indebted" to us because of the service (material or spiritual) that we have rendered to others. But that view is as "unchristian" as it gets. When we render service to others, we are to view it as service to God, and see it as our honor, rather than work that puts God or others in our debt.

So on the one hand, when we treat others with benevolence, our expectation might be reciprocal behavior, but we must know we did not put them in debt to us and totally forgive everyone we wrongly expected should repay.