Over the years, I have repeatedly been made aware of the lack of knowledge among believers regarding the subject of sin. As a whole, believers today cannot give an accurate, biblical definition of what sin is, nor do they consider the topic to be of significant importance. Preachers also offer little light upon the subject, for if and when they do speak of sin they do so vaguely, treating it as a general problem within society, without ever clearly establishing within the minds of their hearers what it actually is.
Yet a proper definition of sin is essential to a proper
Christian experience, for if we do not know what sin consists in, how do we
know what salvation consists in? For salvation necessarily deals with deliverance
from the practice and penalty of sin.
But if we do not know what sin is, how will we know if we have been
saved from it? Likewise, if we rely only upon our own opinions and imaginations
in our defining of sin, and ignore what the Scripture says regarding the same,
is it not certain that both our repentance and consecration will be incomplete
and unacceptable?
Sadly, this is indeed the case for many professing
believers. Their repentance is
incomplete at best, and in many cases non-existent. They profess to have a new life in Christ,
yet continue in a life of self-indulgence, while failing to see the
incompatibility of the two.
But the Scripture indeed clearly
defines sin so that there should be no doubt as to what it consists in. There are certain verses that we shall
consider which establish its definition.
The first definition is our text, taken from the following verse.
Whosoever committeth
sin transgresseth also the law: for sin
is the transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4
This is no doubt the most important verse in establishing
the biblical definition of sin. Simply
stated, sin is the transgression of
the law. We need not argue and debate
over what is and is not sin, for it is clear that sin consists in a violation
of the Law of God
But what is meant here by “the law?” Is this the Law of Moses? Is this the Levitical law with all of its
rite and ceremony? Is it the civil law
given by Moses to the Israelites?
I have commented upon this in earlier articles, and so will
be brief here. The “law” which John
refers to is the moral Law of God. The Moral Law is that divine principle to
which all moral agents should conform.
It is no arbitrary decree, but rather the eternal rule of conduct which
emanates from the very character and moral nature of God. The Law of Moses, which may be considered to
be all of the commandments which he delivered from God to the Israelites, is
based upon this law. The Ten
Commandments as well proceed from this law, serving as a practical and specific
exposition of man’s moral duty as it pertains to both God and man. According to the Lord, this moral law is
summed up in two commandments:
Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. And,
Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself. Matthew 22:37,
39
Christ states that the first of these two commandments is
the first of all commandments with
regard to importance- that it is the “Great” commandment, and in conjunction
with the second, defines the whole of man’s moral responsibility- for, He
declares, “On these two commandments hang
all of the Law and the prophets” Mattthew 22:40.
Thus we see that the Moral Law consists in supreme love for
God and in proper love for our neighbour as well. This love does not consist in mere emotion,
but rather is that love which seeks the happiness and welfare of another without
seeking personal gain. We are therefore
to love God supremely, considering his happiness to be of infinitely greater importance than that of our own,
and to also consider our neighbour’s happiness as of equal value to our own.
Thus, all actions whereby men pursue their own happiness and welfare at
the expense of others- whether God or their fellow man- all actions which
cannot be harmonized with supreme love for God and love for mankind are transgressions
of the law, and as such, are sins.
For sin is the transgression of the law.
The second definition of sin that we will consider is found
in the Epistle to the Romans:
… for whatsoever is
not of faith is sin. Romans
14:23
If one will read the entire text of Romans 14, he will see
that Paul is addressing matters of personal conscience. According to Paul, some men had a clear
conscience regarding the eating of various types of meats, while others were
restrained in conscience to eat only vegetables. Likewise, some considered certain days of the
year to be of greater importance than others and were bound in conscience to
observe those days accordingly. Others
however, did not consider one day to be of greater significance than another
and were thus free with regard to conscience to treat every day alike.
Thus, the statement whatsoever
is not of faith refers to those actions which one cannot harmonize with his
own conscience before God. Hence, doubtful actions, those actions which
one partakes in without a clear sense as to whether they are indeed acceptable
or not, are sinful actions.
Now someone could raise the objection that because there may
exist differences regarding what one man’s conscience may dictate in comparison
to his neighbour's, that conscience is not a reliable standard in the defining
of what is and is not sin. To this I
would say that if conscience is not
reliable in the defining of sin for the whole of mankind, it most certainly is for the
individual! No man can violate his own sense of right and wrong and at the same
time possess a consciousness of the approval of God.
Furthermore, the discrepancies in conscience of which Paul
speaks have to do with practices, and
not with absolutes such as morality,
chastity, sobriety, and temperance.
These discrepancies are the product of differences in culture, religious
observances, customs, and in upbringing.
In these differences, there is both liberty and responsibility. For him who has no specific convictions
regarding such practices, liberty. But
to him who is convinced of the importance of these practices, responsibility-
responsibility to observe what he believes to be right in the sight of God.
But with regard to moral
issues, there naturally exists
solidarity of conscience within society as to what is right and wrong. By naturally I mean that state of mind prior to the sinner’s determination to
rewrite eternal moral codes to suit his own lusts. To be sure, once sinners are bent on justifying
their rebellion against God, this solidarity of conscience is silenced,
confusion as to right and wrong settles in, and the defining of morality is
left to the subjectivity of the depraved mind.
But if men will be honest, they will acknowledge that there
exists a general consciousness in man as to right and wrong. For if a man is no murderer, no thief, no
adulterer, no hater of God, no idolater, no liar, does he have an issue with
the Ten Commandments? Does he disagree
with moral law? Is he at odds with what society in general regards as proper
conduct? Thus, conscience is a reliable
standard in determining what is right and wrong, and any actions which violate
it are therefore necessarily sinful.
For whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
For the third definition of sin we will return to the first
epistle of John:
All unrighteousness is sin…
I John 5:17
This is a simple, concise definition: All unrighteousness is sin. Now righteousness
consists in right conduct, right behaviour, right actions, and uprightness of
character. Unrighteousness is thus a
deviation from these. Hence, all that is contrary to proper conduct, all that deviates from sound behaviour, all that is inconsistent with
uprightness of character, is sin.
Now this definition implies two self-evident truths. Firstly, that there indeed exists a definitive standard whereby
righteousness and unrighteousness are determined- otherwise, no action could be
classified as either or. Secondly, men are
capable of distinguishing between the two- otherwise they would not be
accountable.
What then is to be gained by engaging in life-long debates
regarding what is and is not sin? What advantage is there in challenging God,
fighting against the Scripture, in justifying one’s self, in endless
circumventions of one’s moral duty? In
the end, God will of necessity prevail, will uphold his own standards, and will
judge accordingly, while the sinner will be forced to acknowledge the truth
which he knew all along, but was
determined to suppress.
For it is written:
As I
live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall
confess to God. Romans 14:11
We will now move to the fourth definition of sin, taken from
the Epistle of James.
Therefore to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to
him it is sin. James 4:17
This definition of sin once again deals with the
transgressing of that which we know to be right or good. However, in this case, the emphasis is not
upon the doing of that which we know
to be wrong, but rather the failure to do
that which we know to be right. It is
not so much the sin of commission
that is here addressed, but the sin of neglect- for sin not only consists in the doing of bad, but also in the withholding of doing good. Thus, they who glory in having done no evil against
their neighbour may have cause for sorrow in having done him no good as well. For if one knows to be generous, but instead refrains, or knows to be
compassionate, but instead hardens his heart, or knows to deny himself for the
sake of Christ, but rather preserves his own comforts- to him it is sin.
The last definition that we will consider is from the Book
of Proverbs.
The thought of foolishness is sin. Proverbs 24:9
This definition may require some explaining. We are told in this verse that sin consists
in the thought of foolishness. But does
the Scripture mean that every foolish
thought that enters the mind is sin? Is
every ungodly thought which arises within us necessarily sinful? Although it is difficult to always discern
properly as to which thoughts are and
which thoughts are not sinful, one fact must be accepted:
there must exist the possibility for
the mind to incur foolish or ungodly thoughts without necessarily
transgressing. Otherwise, temptation
could not exist. For temptation is the
suggestion or thought to do
wrong. But if the suggestion is in
itself sin, then no distinction exists between temptation and
transgression. But the Scripture
certainly makes a distinction between the two.
So what does this verse from Proverbs mean? The thought
of foolishness implies the devising of folly. It is the meditation upon a course of action
that is contrary to godly wisdom. It is
that moment in which the mind rejects the counsel of God to pursue a path contrary to it.
It is the consideration and subsequent choice to abandon the restraint
of conscience and reason, for the unrestrained course of passion, emotion, and
impulse. Thus all reasoning of the mind
which leads away from the wisdom of God and inclines toward inappropriate
actions is both foolish and sinful.
For the thought of
foolishness is sin
From the verses which we have considered, we have established
for us a five-fold, biblical
definition of sin, and should therefore no longer be in the dark as to what sin
does and does not consist in. It is the transgression of the (moral) law (1John 3:4). It is whatsoever
that is not of faith (Rom.14:23). It is all
which may be considered unrighteousness
(1John 5:17). It is that knowing to do good and doing it not (James
4:17), and lastly, it is the reasoning of the mind which is contrary to the
revealed wisdom of God- the thought of
foolishness (Prov.24:9).
Now with sin defined, there should also come a better understanding of what salvation must be, hopefully resulting in a clearer
path toward sanctification.
