8 A Theology of Sin for Today. John W. Mahony

8 A Theology of Sin for Today. John W. Mahony

8

A THEOLOGY OF SIN FOR TODAY

JOHN W. MAHONY

Elie Wiesel’s account of his experiences as a teenager in German concentration camps at the end of World War II is appropriately titled Night.1 His suffering in the face of radical human evil is shocking. The hate, bigotry, and personal abuse that he endured force us to confront our present shared human condition. It reminds us of our fallen condition and estrangement from God. Are we today above such inhumanity and cruelty? What about the more recent genocides in Somalia and Rwanda and Darfur (Sudan)? Night is a fitting metaphor for human evil. And it raises the question: How dark is the human heart? Is it possible that the horror of the Holocaust or other expressions of genocide actually reflect the darkness within each of us?

Darkness is a familiar biblical metaphor for human sinfulness and estrangement from God. It reflects God’s judgment (being cast into “outer darkness,” Matt. 8:12; see also 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 13) but also God’s absence from us.2 Beyond this, darkness describes the world system, which is antagonistic to God (Eph. 6:12, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against . . . world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places”3), as well as the darkness within each of us (Matt. 6:23, “If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!”).

In the writings of John, darkness and light are metaphysically and ethically contrasting metaphors. In 1 John 1:5, he describes sin as the absence of God: “This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.” Further, the incarnation is the coming of the Light, who “shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it” (John 1:5). Our world is a place of perpetual night.

In the ethical sense, humans embrace the “darkness” because their lifestyles are “evil” (3:19). We find comfort in the dark; it protects us from confronting our sinfulness. Jesus claimed: “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life” (8:12). Alternately, if we are not walking in the light, we are in the dark: “He who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes” (12:35). The good news is that the darkness has been overcome by the light: “He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son” (Col. 1:13; cf. 1 Pet. 2:9).

The study of human sin is an examination of this darkness from which believers have been rescued. We are initially struck by the depth of this darkness (just how “dark” is it anyway?) and the need to reexamine the biblical perspective. To accomplish this, we will begin with how the subject of sin is related to other areas of biblical teaching. This will give us a sense of how crucial the study of sin really is, as so many of the critical areas of the Christian faith rest upon a clear understanding of sin. The next section explores the post-fall descriptions of sin. Sin has many facets (actions, words, attitudes, even our present condition as humans), but these are simply perpetuations of sin; its essential nature is hidden in an avalanche of our dark reality. Finally, to expose the essence of sin, that is, what sin is to God, we will implement a pre-fall grid. The strategy here is to look at human sin from the perspective of the one who endured the full impact of temptation and defeated it. Jesus’ probation placed him in a position to undergo the severest challenges to his righteous character. From his vantage point, the essence of sin is simply a willful act of rebellion against God. As we shall see, the biblical metaphor of darkness is an apt description of sin’s consequences but is not sin in itself.

Locating Sin on a Theological Map

The systematic nature of biblical teaching is a critical ingredient in biblical interpretation. Gabriel Fackre contended that systematic theology is comprehensive, that it encompasses all aspects of biblical teaching; it is coherent in that it shows how doctrines fit together without contradiction; it is contextual in that it interacts with contemporary challenges and questions; and it is conversational in that it allows voices from the past and the present to dialogue.4

Christian thought, then, is a seamless whole reflecting unity, diversity, and mutuality. It is one of the tasks of systematic theology to articulate and explain these biblical truths. A critical preparation for that task is the orderly arrangement of the separate doctrines. Strategically, we seek to maintain organic unity while representing diversity and mutuality in a balanced way. B. B. Warfield summarized the task of Christian theologians: “It is the business of systematic theology to take the knowledge of God supplied to it by apologetical, exegetical, and historical theology, scrutinize it with a view to discovering the inner relations of its several elements, and set it forth in a systematic presentation, that is to say, as an organic whole, so that it may be grasped and held in its entirety, in the due relation of its parts to one another and to the whole, and with a just distribution of emphasis among the several items of knowledge which combine to make up the totality of our knowledge of God.”5

Historical Relationships

Interconnectedness, or mutuality of doctrines, and the impacts of individual doctrines are evident, first, historically. The doctrine of sin has been a major player among the different branches of Christendom. By the third century the Eastern and the Western churches differed in their understanding of original sin. The primary issue was guilt and the relationship between the human race and Adam (culminating in the Pelagian controversy).6

At the time of the Reformation, Protestantism reasserted a strong Augustinian understanding of sin against the more semi-Pelagian view of the Council of Trent. Centuries later, among the different Protestant groups sin became a key sticking point that identified the difference between liberals, who were openly Pelagian, and evangelicals.

Even into the present era, one of the clear distinctions between evangelicals, on one hand, and liberationists, process theologians, and most inclusivists, on the other, is the biblical teaching regarding sin. In the struggle between Calvinism and Arminianism, the central issue is soteriology. But even here a major difference is disparate interpretations of sin, specifically the issue of human ability versus human inability or the depth and nature of human depravity.

Theological Continua

Another way to calculate the importance of a biblical understanding of sin is through the use of a series of theological continua. For example, a high view of humanity (humans are basically good morally) and our capacity for good typically maintains a low view of sin’s serious effects upon humanity. Alternately, a heightened view of sin (humans are radically depraved) will result in a reduced view of human capacity for spiritual good.

The theological understanding of Christ’s work is also impacted by one’s view of sin. A milder view of sin tends to parallel a nonpunitive view of the atonement. When the cross is viewed as an answer to the wrath of God, a clearly heightened view of sin (human helplessness before a holy God) is the presupposition.

God’s grace is another area directly impacted by one’s view of sin. The more sinful we appear to ourselves, the more we recognize the strategic nature of God’s grace. In the matter of soteriology, a positive view of human ability coupled with an optimistic view of the human condition depreciates the need for salvation and opens the door for alternate interpretations of the nature of our deliverance from sin (e.g., liberationist definitions of salvation as deliverance from political, sexual, or racial exploitation). In terms of conversion, repentance and faith are directly related to the nature of sin. Thus, do we have the capacity to repent and believe, or are these capacities granted to us at conversion?

Finally, as became clear to Augustine, one’s view of predestination is impacted by one’s view of sin. A more severe view of sin prompts a more pronounced understanding of predestination and election. Alternately, modifications to God’s free unconditional election (conditional election, for example) are supported by a less stringent view of human depravity.

Visual Approach

Another approach is the use of concentric circles, much like the ripple effect on water when an object hits it. This visual technique can be applied to the entire scope of biblical teaching as well as to each individual area of thought. Functionally, each individual circle in the expanding set represents a doctrinal truth that can be stated as a proposition. This permits the inclusion of every facet of the doctrine, every detail touched upon in Scripture. Also, in a concentric set of circles, we are moving from the center so that the smaller the circle, the greater the impact on the expanding whole. The smallest circle is the most important. In the case of biblical teaching, the innermost circle is a foundational truth upon which everything else depends, often called a core truth. The formal name for this is taxonomy, the prioritizing of doctrine. Choosing a core belief grants us an interpretive key, much like a key motif, by which the other beliefs are arranged and interpreted.

If we apply the visual of concentric circles to the entire system of Christian teaching, the innermost circle is theology, the biblical teaching about God (see diagram 8.1). In terms of theology, which is typically the most strategic concept of Christianity (at the center of all Christian thought), the first circle includes God’s nature (his attributes and the Trinity). Here is also found big-picture concepts such as God’s will and his works.

With the decision to create humankind in God’s image, we encounter the second circle. Anthropology is the second circle because the creation of humanity is a work of God and therefore an aspect of theology. Further, both humanity and the problem of sin are defining characteristics of Christology, the third circle.7

The primary feature of anthropology is the creation of humankind, male and female, in God’s image. Sin then follows humankind’s creation, disrupting and corrupting the image as well as catastrophically impacting human existence. Human history, then, is the record of humankind’s rebellion against its creator. It also reminds us that all of creation—and humankind in particular—was made to glorify God as well as to enjoy life without sin.

The remaining circles are directly impacted by sin. The biblical teaching about Christ structurally parallels the initial circle of theology in that the nature of Christ as God is preeminent. But the reality of human sin strategically impacts his incarnation and makes the cross the key to his display of God’s glory.

Finally, when we reach the doctrine of salvation, the very nature of salvation is defined against human sin. Thus each facet of salvation (election, effectual calling, regeneration, conversion, justification, perseverance, and glorification) is a divine response to the lost human condition.

Sin is the ultimate anti-God and anti-human. In an expressive way, the concentric format is a dramatic commentary on the horrific nature of sin and the devastating results of its unwanted intrusion.

The Post-Fall Reality

The strategic importance of sin theologically and practically prompts us to ask about the nature of sin itself. Typically, post-fall definitions of sin (that is, those that reflect our fallen condition) come from either lexical analyses of the biblical words or from the various biblical images for sin (such as disease, defilement, or debt). Christian confessional statements, articles of faith, and systematic theologies contain definitions that have been coalesced from biblical usage and historical precedents. More recent efforts to define sin, however, reflect the existential and realist contexts of the last century: “[Sin] is universal, tragic estrangement, based on freedom and destiny in all human beings, and shall never be used in the plural. Sin is separation, estrangement from one’s essential being.”8 Existentially, sin is a deep sense of dread or anxiety, the tension that arises from our finitude and the openness of the future.

The trend away from more objective statements about sin tends to cloud the issue of sin’s essence. Compared to the existential, man-centered approach to sin, classic doctrinal statements such as the Westminster Larger Catechism defined sin with a clear reference to God and his law: “Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.” Within the Roman Catholic tradition, Thomas Aquinas defined sin as “a word, deed, or desire which is against the eternal law.”9 John Calvin defined sin as “unfaithfulness.”10 James Arminius claimed that sin is “something thought, spoken, or done against the law of God, or the omission of something which has been commanded by that law to be thought, spoken or done.”11

Each of these definitions captures the essential meaning of sin as a violation of God’s law, covenant, or will. They also reflect a traditional understanding of the historicity of Adam and interpret the account of the fall in Genesis 3 quite literally.12 Consequently, sin is viewed more in relation to God. The perspective, however, is still post-fall.

A. H. Strong defined sin as the “lack of conformity to the moral law of God, either in act, disposition, or state.”13 In a subsequent clarification of the definition, he declared: “It therefore considers lack of conformity to the divine holiness in disposition or state as a violation of law, equally with the outward act of transgression.”14 “Lack of conformity,” however, is only true of humankind after the fall of Adam; the expression cannot be applied either to Adam before the fall or to the incarnate Son of God. From a pre-fall perspective, the essential nature of sin is expressed in a single act of rebellion; from a post-fall perspective, the violation of God’s law is only one component among innumerable others.

In regard to the post-fall perspective, then, sin possesses many different facets and expressions. The Scripture also uses an array of terms for sin and describes it in many different ways. The following is a summary of the biblical usage and serves as an exposition of the post-fall reality.

Sin Is Both a Failure to Glorify the Lord and an Active Rebellion against His Established Standards

This twofold reality reflects both the absence of God’s righteousness and the presence of human revolt. Every sin (thought, word, or action) possesses these dual components.

Lexical analysis of biblical terms clearly demonstrates this duality. Scripture uses many different words for sin, an indication of the richness and significance of the concept. The diversity of meaning among the Greek as well as the Hebrew terms, however, can be narrowed to two. The first are those expressions that view sin as a failure or a falling short. In this sense, sin is a failure to keep God’s law (anomia, “lawlessness,” 1 John 3:4), a lack of God’s righteousness (adikia, Rom. 1:18), an absence of reverence for God (asebeia, Rom. 1:18; Jude 15), a refusal to know (agnoia, Eph. 4:18), and, most notably, a coming short of the glory of God (hamartia, “missing the mark,” Rom. 3:23). Thus sin is the missing quality in any human action that causes it to fail to glorify the Lord fully. For example, can any of us affirm that we have wholly loved God as he requires? When the element of complete love for God, others, and even ourselves is missing from all our attitudes, motives, words, or actions, it makes them hideous before the Lord. Augustine called this negative aspect of sin a privation, an absence of the good quality that is inherent in creation. He also identified this privation as the essence of all sin.15

Another set of terms features the positive or active aspect of sin. Words such as paraptoma (trespass or deviation from a prescribed path), parabasis (to transgress), and parakoe (hearing that results in disobedience) emphasize dynamic resistance or disobedience in light of the commands of God. Adam’s act in the garden is characterized by each of these terms (Rom. 5:14, parabasis; v. 19, parakoe; vv. 15–18, paraptoma). In each case a broken law is the focus. Post-fall sin is both a failure to reflect God’s perfect standard as well as an active rebellion against his standards. The twofold aspect of sin was also referenced by Paul in Ephesians 2:1, in which he described spiritual death as expressed in “trespasses [paraptoma] and sins [hamartia].”

Sin Is Both Personal and Social

Sin by definition is a willful act. It began in the garden with an individual transgression. The different biblical terms apply primarily to personal sin. Even Paul’s teaching on the universality of sin in Romans 1–3 has reference to the actions or words of individuals.

Sin, however, is more than simply personal transgression. The post-fall reality also features societal wrongs. Specifically, social sin has two dimensions. First, each individual act of sin disturbs the entire human network. My individual words and actions set in motion social consequences. All human choices are interrelated. Frederick Buechner compared the human context to a spiderweb in which every disturbance “set the whole thing a-tremble.”16 The sin of one man, Achan, resulted in the defeat of Israel at a little place called Ai (Joshua 7).17 In the contemporary setting, it is not difficult to trace the repercussions of domestic violence, hate crimes, pornography, and divorce on families and the larger cultural context.

Social sin is also reflected in the societal structures that propagate the evils of prejudice, hate, and bigotry. What about the large publishing company that places undue pressure on editors and journalists to be the first with the story no matter how unethical their methods might be? Many situations come to mind in which a culture of deception is created to protect the organization. What about the institutions that are dominated by a culture of distrust, pitting employees against one another in a vicious circle of gossip and innuendo?

One major component of the prophetic ministry in Israel was the confrontation of societal sins, which violated the covenant and provoked the Lord’s judgment. From the cycle of apostasy to judgment to repentance to restoration, the period of the judges reflects the continual societal drift toward idolatry. Israel was brought under God’s judgment through the transgressions of Jeroboam: “He will give up Israel on account of the sins of Jeroboam, which he committed and with which he made Israel to sin” (1 Kings 14:16).

In the later prophets, Amos preached against injustice (5:12, “For I know your transgressions are many and your sins are great, you who distress the righteous and accept bribes and turn aside the poor in the gate”). Isaiah exposed the apostasy of the nation from God (Isa. 1:2–4), as well the corruption in the legal system (10:1–4). Jeremiah indicted the nation for its treatment of the fatherless (Jer. 5:28–29). The book of Jonah is an exposé of the downside of Jewish nationalism, a sectarianism that produced national distrust and hate.

Sin Is a Willful Act as Well as the Present State of Human Existence

The post-fall reality encompasses the entirety of our rebellious existence, what we do as well as who we are. Sin is a personal act. It arises from individual choice and is, therefore, a matter of personal responsibility (Ezek. 18:4). The student who cheats on an exam violates the code of conduct for the school but also violates the moral standards of God. The husband who betrays his marital vows by committing adultery is sinning willfully. In each case, a personal choice is made. Sin is a willful act.

Every act of sin, however, flows from a sinful condition or state of existence, which is also sin. Hardness of heart and unbelief are sin (Heb. 3:12, “. . . an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God”). Personal sins are not simply isolated events. All of our actions and words reflect who we are (Matt. 7:17, “The bad tree bears bad fruit”). We are fully responsible for our acts of sin as well as the state of sin in which we exist, even though we cannot change who we are (“Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil,” Jer. 13:23).

The Bible also uses the terms sin and sins in a carefully nuanced way (e.g., 1 John 1:8–10). One is the condition of sin and the other refers to the separate acts of sin. Robert Culver clarified this distinction:

A careful reading of Scripture discovers a crucial distinction between sin and sins. This may be clearly perceived in connection with two similar sounding but subtly different passages, viz.: “. . . he will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21); “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). The former, “sins,” has obvious reference to the many evil deeds of “people.” The latter reference, “the sin of the world,” speaks of the world’s guilt before God in which all men share.18

The theological explanation for this is called original sin. This doctrine includes the historic act of treason committed by Adam in the garden (Gen. 3:1ff.), the fact that all people enter human existence alienated from God (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1) and are declared guilty because of Adam’s sin, and the continuing state of rebellion against God in which we live and from which all sinful acts arise. We are “by nature children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3). “Original sin is not a sin which one commits. It resides in the very nature and being of man so that, even if not a single evil thought ever passed a person’s mind, no idle word ever crossed his lips, and no evil deed issued from his hands, man's nature would still be corrupt because of this sin. It is born in us and is the source of all actual sins, whether they consist of evil thoughts, words, or deeds.”19 Phillip Hughes explains: “The doctrine of original sin postulates that the first sin of the first man, Adam, which was the occasion of the fall, is in a certain sense the sin of all mankind, and that accordingly human nature is infected by the corruption of that sin and the human race as a whole bears its guilt.”20

Sin Reflects the Deep Corruption of the Human Heart

The Bible uses a number of graphic metaphors to describe the human condition in sin, theologically called depravity. Physical maladies such as blindness (absence of sight), deafness (absence of hearing), and muteness (absence of the ability to speak) highlight a vital missing component in each case. These physical conditions are not sinful in themselves (Jesus clearly indicates this in John 9) but serve as depictions of the spiritual condition of sinners. Metaphors for sin abound and serve as a great source for understanding human depravity. Gary Anderson documents the shift in metaphors from the OT emphasis upon sin as a burden to the NT emphasis upon debt (Matt. 6:12, “And forgive us our debts . . .”).21

Among these descriptions of the human condition, few are more graphic than the biblical analysis of the human heart. Jesus pictures the heart as a fountain pouring forth all forms of sin (Matt. 15:19–20; Mark 7:21–22). In Jeremiah 17:9 the heart is described as deceitful, desperately sick, and completely opaque: “Who can understand it?” The great wickedness that preceded the flood came from the corruption of the heart (Gen. 6:5; 8:21). Proverbs 21:4 declares, “Haughty eyes and a proud heart, the lamp of the wicked, is sin.” Evil practices begin in the heart (Ezek. 11:21, “But as for those whose hearts go after their detestable things and abominations, I will bring their conduct down on their heads,” declares the Lord GOD”). In Hosea 10:2, people are accounted guilty because their hearts are “faithless.”

Jesus taught that the one who wrongfully desires a woman in his heart commits the act of adultery with her from the “heart” (Matt. 5:28). Paul claimed that “because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” (Rom. 2:5). The writer of Hebrews called the heart “unbelieving” (Heb. 3:12). Interpreted holistically, the heart is not a separate mechanism in humans but is the entire person viewed from the deepest aspect of his or her being. Thus the sinful activities of an individual’s life mirror the condition of the individual’s heart before God.

Sin Simultaneously Involves Commission, Omission, and Imperfection

Sin is easily categorized as a deed done, a deed left undone, or a deed done with the wrong motive. When thinking of sin as commission (the deed done), we are talking about doing or saying or thinking the wrong thing. For example, when I was younger, I broke a window, lied to my dad about it, and blamed my brother for it. That lying was sin: I broke a moral code, knowingly and freely.

Sin as omission, on the other hand, is not doing or saying or thinking the right thing. Blaming my brother and failing to tell the truth is also moral fault.

Further, imperfection is refraining from doing or saying or thinking the wrong thing but instead doing or saying or thinking the right thing with the wrong motive or attitude. Using the broken-window incident from my personal life, had I told my dad the truth because I wanted to avoid the consequences, I would have acted correctly but without the best motives and therefore imperfectly.

All moral acts are judged by the standard of God’s holy character expressed in his moral precepts. The Scottish Puritan John Colquhoun defined the moral law as “the declared will of God, directing and obliging mankind to do that which pleases him, and to abstain from that which displeases him.”22 The Ten Commandments are typically seen as the published expression of God’s moral law.23 Lying, stealing, killing, committing adultery, and disrespecting the sovereign Lord are overt acts. Breaking them constitutes the commission of a crime against the highest moral standard. Eight of the ten foundational codes are stated negatively in order to mark specific moral boundaries. But perhaps the commandments were also intended to be moral guides. For example, the prohibition against murder also seems to include the principle of the sanctity of human life. Thus failing to do all that we can to enhance human life is also sin and falls into the categories of omission and imperfection. Each sin in varying degrees includes commission, omission, and imperfection simultaneously.

Two reasons for this application of the law are apparent. One actually comes from the way the fourth (Sabbath keeping) and fifth (honoring parental authority) commandments are stated. They are positive in nature (that is, they are broken by failing to comply). Disobeying these commands constitutes omission. Consequently, failure to keep the Sabbath is also expressed as an overt act. Not reverencing the Sabbath denotes certain actions, words, or thoughts. Further, any lack of compliance from the heart (“Love . . . with all your heart”) is to keep the Sabbath imperfectly.

The other reason is the summary of the commandments given by Jesus (Matt. 22:36–40; Mark 12:29–31). Love is a positive command. The bar Jesus sets for obedience regarding the first four commandments is to love God “with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” Thus, have we ever fully complied with God’s moral requirements? Jesus brings motives and attitudes into the mix. As a result, in the matter of the ninth commandment (no lying), are we always truthful to others and to ourselves? Have we reverenced God to the fullest of our ability (commandments 1–4)? When “OMG” is common even in our Christian culture, are we respecting his name and person completely?

Sin Includes Our Dispositions and Our Acts of Disobedience

Within each sinful action or nonaction is a set of attitudes and motives that are sinful as well. Greed is at the heart of stealing. Elisha’s servant Gehazi followed the greed of his heart by lying to Naaman and receiving money and clothing that Elisha had previously refused. Upon his return, he faced the haunting question from Elisha: “Where have you been, Gehazi?” (2 Kings 5:25). Murder is an expression of hate. Joseph was almost killed and was sold into slavery because his brothers hated him (Gen. 37:4–5).

Jesus clearly links the attitude with the action (Matt. 5:21–22). The first epistle of John declares that the one who hates his brother walks about in darkness (2:11) and is a murderer (3:15) and a liar (4:20). Lust in the heart not only can lead to adultery and sexual immorality but is also treated with similar seriousness as the act of adultery itself (Matt. 5:28; note vv. 29–30, in which Jesus calls for radical steps in dealing with lust).

Sin Includes Guilt

Normally evil is classified into two types. One is natural evil (disasters and disease that are not tied to personal choice). Catastrophic events are called evil because of their often devastating effects. Natural evil is not directly produced by human sinfulness but is a result of it in a more general sense (Rom. 8:19–22). Yet, through the restraint of common grace, God’s purposes are still served by it (Isa. 45:7, “The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity [rendered “evil” in the KJV]; I am the LORD who does all these”).

The other form of evil is moral evil. Sin is moral evil. We use the terms bad (focus on the natural consequences) and wrong (focus on a broken moral law) to distinguish the two forms of evil.24 Moral evil is a violation of a specific moral law by one who acts willfully.25 The act makes us guilty before God. Guilt is the companion of broken law. Herein is the reason guilt is universal: Adam’s act in the garden constitutes all guilty before God.

Guilt has two aspects. One is personal responsibility. Traditionally, theologians refer to this blameworthiness as potential guilt.26 It is the guilt that follows an actual sinful act, reflected in guilty feelings. The other aspect of guilt is liability to punishment (called actual guilt). “All sin makes us guilty before God: it is not as if we can rebel or disbelieve or be prideful and self-centered ‘just a little,’ too little actually to incur guilt; for guilt comes from turning in the wrong direction, however small the following step (Matt. 5:19; James 2:10).”27

Sin Is a Personal Affront to the God of the Bible and His Righteous Character

Isaiah’s sinfulness became apparent when he encountered God’s holiness (Isaiah 6). The same was true for Peter in the presence of Christ (Luke 5:8). Sin is not measurable except in light of God’s character and law. James Orr writes:

Sin, in other words, is not simply a moral, but is peculiarly, a religious conception. Sin is transgression against God; the substitution of the creature will for the will of the Creator; revolt of the creature will from God. It is this relation to God which gives the wrong act its distinctive character as sin (Ps. 51:4). It is, therefore, only in the light of God’s character as holy—perfected, in Christ’s teaching in the aspect of Fatherly love—and of God’s end for man, that the evil quality and full enormity of sinful acts can be clearly seen.28

Sin therefore is egregious and beyond human depiction. We can judge wrongs (pedophilia, substance abuse, senseless and wanton acts of violence and sexuality) only from our limited context (how wrong they appear to us and how devastating the consequences might be). God’s estimation of the wrongness of our sin is made in regard to the splendor of his own holiness. Righteousness is the standard of moral uprightness that God expects of all people (Ps. 96:10, 13; Jer. 9:24). It is God’s holiness as applied to his relationship with his moral creatures. Righteousness is therefore the moral measure he uses to evaluate all our acts, words, and thoughts.

Ralph Venning, in his classic work on sin, The Plague of Plagues, notes the relationship of sin to God’s holiness: “On the contrary, as God is holy, all holy, only holy, altogether holy, and always holy, so sin is sinful, all sinful, only sinful, altogether sinful, and always sinful (Gen. 6:5).”29

Essentially, because it is against God, sin is a “radical evil.”30 The extremity of sin’s wickedness is exposed when seen in the light of the entire biblical revelation. A series of measurements will help us see sin’s perversity. First, as we have seen, sin can be measured by the holiness of the one from whom we have revolted; it violates the Creator. Sin is the very antithesis of God’s moral character. Next, it is measured by the height from which we have fallen—the perfect righteousness and complete enjoyment of God that Christ possessed, as well as the depths to which we have come as a race; it violates God’s intent for us. Third, sin is measured by the length to which the Father went to redeem us; it violates the Son on the cross. His grace is most amazing when seen from the perspective of our demerit. Along with this, fourth, sin can be measured by the end for which we were created; it violates God’s image in us. Christ is the bearer of the image, but so are we. How are we doing in relation to that task? How far short of that have we come? Fifth, we can measure the darkness of sin by the destination to which fallen humanity is rightfully headed (Rev. 20:11–15). Finally, the measure of sin from a missional perspective is the unfinished task to which he calls his representatives. Our mission is to be light bearers in a dark world, a world of over seven billion individuals, most of whom live each day in complete spiritual darkness because of sin. How close are we to getting the gospel to the more than seven billion people who now share the planet?

Sin Is a Rogue Element in God’s Creation

Augustine understood sin as a privatio boni, the “privation of good.” Accordingly, “good” characterizes God’s creation (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). For Augustine sin is the negation of that good. Sin does not actually exist but appears in the absence of the good. Consequently, sin is not a feature of the created world. In his work The City of God, he illustrates his meaning with silence and darkness. He writes: “Silence and darkness may be perceptible to us, and it may be true that silence is perceived through the ears, and darkness through the eyes. Yet silence and darkness are not percepts [species], but the absence [privatio] of any percept.”31

Thus sin is not a substance created by God but is an absence within the good which he did create.32 Further, sin arose through willful choices made by creatures whom God had created. The only avenue through which sin appears in creation is the open door of free choice. Consequently, sin is parasitic, a negative quality that has no actual existence in the created world but usurps the moral structures that God has instituted. In the similar case of viruses, the parasite requires a host to live. In the same way, sin is a moral virus and exists only in the context of the good purposes of God.

Sin Is a Failure to Image the Creator to the World

Heaven and earth are perpetually demonstrating God’s glory (Ps. 19:1–6). Humankind is the highest of God’s earthly creation and shares the responsibility of spreading the fame of the triune God. We join with all nature in declaring the wonders of our great God. We bear the image of the one who created us. Because of the shared image we have been given dominion over the created order. Gerhard von Rad observes about this noble function: “Just as powerful earthly kings, to indicate their claim to dominion, erect an image of themselves in the provinces of their empire where they do not personally appear, so man is placed upon earth in God’s image as God’s sovereign emblem. He is really only God’s representative, summoned to maintain and enforce God’s claim to dominion over the earth.”33

Humankind’s role of imaging God before the creation was horribly disrupted by the fall of Adam. First, the fall placed the entire creation out of sync with God’s basic moral design (Rom. 8:20, “For the creation was subjected to futility”). The original intent for God’s image bearers was to be benevolent rulers, not malicious tyrants. The effect on creation ecologically is striking. Leon Morris notes: “Lacking the purpose for which it was designed, it has no purpose.”34 Instead of being a source of perpetual delight, creation is at odds with us. Paul goes on to describe the expectancy that grips creation in anticipation of “the revealing of the sons of God” (v. 19). C. S. Lewis pictures this beautifully in his series The Chronicles of Narnia, in which the return of human monarchs along with Aslan restores Narnia.

The corrupting of the image by Adam’s fall also brought social collapse. The three cycles of emerging human cultures in Genesis 4–11 expose the violence and injustice of the fallen world. Advances in toolmaking and the domestication of animals are turned to selfish pursuits. Paul Jewett observes that “not only does increased killing follow immediately upon the use of metals, but also the city that was a sign of a newly settled life (4:17) soon becomes the city with a tower that symbolizes human ambition overreaching itself (11:4).”35

The task of believers as restored image bearers is still the exercise of dominion in two strategic arenas. First, we are under a cultural mandate based upon Genesis 1:28. Family, church, human government, business, agriculture, and education are avenues through which the glory of Christ is expressed. It is our task to pursue his glory in all of these areas. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 10:5, “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.” Kenneth Myers writes:

Man was fit for the cultural mandate. As the bearer of his Creator-God's image, he could not be satisfied apart from cultural activity. Here is the origin of human culture in untainted glory and possibility. It is no wonder that those who see God's redemption as a transformation of human culture speak of it in terms of re-creation.36

The cultural mandate is an empty appeal without the other critical task we have as image bearers. Transforming culture begins with transforming the hearts of sinners. The gospel of Christ has that renovating power. Although the priority rests with the Great Commission, our responsibility to all creation is clear.

Sin Invites the Wrath of God

Romans 1:18 openly declares: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” God’s wrath is an expression of his holiness or moral purity. Therefore, his wrath “is simply his instinctive holy indignation and settled opposition of his holiness to sin, which, because he is righteous, expresses itself in judicial punishment.”37 Martin Luther writes:

The source of God's wrath is the fact that men are altogether godless and ungodly in their life and behavior; and that is what brings down God's wrath. Man does not know God and despises him. This is the wellspring of all evil, the ferment that produces sin, the bottomless pit of iniquity, we might even say. What evils are bound to exist where God is not known and despised!38

Just as all sin possesses negative/passive and positive/active aspects, it invites a negative and positive response from God. In Matthew 25:41, Jesus describes the final judgment of the lost: “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.’” The negative element is the removal from the sinner of all of God’s favor and presence forever: “Depart from Me.” This is the ultimate privation. Sinners have lived with a desire to have God’s absence, and now they have it. Millard Erickson paraphrases the exchange between God and the sinner: “Sin is man’s saying to God throughout life, ‘Go away and leave me alone.’ Hell is God’s finally saying to man, ‘You may have your wish.’ It is God’s leaving man to himself, as man has chosen.”39

The second response is the positive imposition of punishment: “. . . into the eternal fire.” Humankind openly rebels and transgresses God’s moral will. Consequently, the sovereign Lord institutes punishment. The scene of the final judgment of humankind in Revelation 20:11–15 pictures the same scene: the judge on a throne, the judged standing before him, and the judgment in the lake of fire. They are cast away from his presence and punished forever in the lake of fire.

The cross of Christ grants certainty of God’s withdrawal of his presence and the infliction of punishment upon sinners. If he did not spare his own Son, will he spare those who hate him? The only response of a holy God to sin is judgment. Venning observes: “What a hell of wickedness that must be which none but God can expiate and purge!”40

Sin Had a Definite Beginning in Human History and Will Finally Be Defeated

The biblical story arises out of three historical events: the creation of the universe, the intrusion of sin, and the redemption accomplished by Christ. It is a drama in three parts: the happy beginning, the tragic rebellion, and the spectacular finish. The story begins with a plan to create a world that reflects the wonder and majesty of the Creator (Rev. 4:11). Everything he creates is “good.” The crown of that creation bears his exclusive image and is declared “very good” (Gen. 1:31). In this idyllic world God communes with his creation in perfect harmony.

With the appearance of sin, first among spirit beings who have been created to serve God, then among his personal image bearers, it seems that the Creator has lost control of his creation. With the sin of the first couple in Eden, however, he immediately begins a retrieval project. Instead of destroying all that he has created, he begins the slow, tedious process of recovering the world and the people he created. Each new step toward final reclamation reflects his personal involvement. In an amazing act of personal sacrifice and love he sends his Son into the fallen world of sinners. Through his death and resurrection, the Creator triumphs over all his enemies. His glory is brilliantly displayed and his people freed from terrible enslavement to the flesh, the world, and the Devil. Finally, the victorious Lord returns as the triumphant king and, in a final display of awe-provoking power, puts an end to all sin from his creation.

What an incredible story it is! The entire sweep of human history is his-story. John writes:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” (Rev. 21:1–4)

The Pre-Fall Paradigm

Traditionally, the strategy to uncover the essence of sin involves projecting what we know about sin from the Scriptures as well as our own post-fall experience upon pre-fall Adam. For us, all sin originates in an unbelieving, proud heart (other options adopted by theologians beyond pride and unbelief include anxiety, selfishness, sensuality, sloth, and falsehood). But is unbelief or pride the root of Adam’s sin? We are certainly not disputing that unbelief and pride played a role in the temptation. But to raise questions (reflecting human doubt) and lean toward going one’s own way (human pride) were not sin for Adam until he acted upon them by taking the fruit. Adam’s sin was coterminous with the intrusion of death as God’s judgment (Gen. 2:17). During the temptation in Eden it is supposed (by Augustine, for example) that Adam became proud and yielded to his unbelief, which resulted in taking the forbidden fruit. The implication is that Adam entered the post-fall state of unbelief, which is sinful, and was corrupted before he actually ate the fruit. But for Adam unbelief was a choice; he chose not to continue believing by disobeying a direct command of the Creator. Adam’s rebellious act is the root of all sin, not his pride.

Adam’s context is clarified when viewed from the perspective of Christ’s sinless human character. In this regard Jesus is the clearest expression of pre-fall humanity and grants us insight into the moral uprightness of pre-fall Adam. Jesus’ motives and attitudes throughout his earthly life lined up with his sinless nature. The same is true of Adam. It is clear that Adam remained sinless even as he contemplated eating the fruit. He became a sinner only when he chose to defy the command of the covenant Lord. The temptation he encountered sought to lead him to act independently of the sovereign Creator, but not because he was already corrupted by pride and unbelief. If so, he would have been a sinner before he actually sinned. The issue raised is the goodness of the original creation, as well as Adam’s original righteousness. If Adam were created immature (as Irenaeus held) or were morally neutral (as Arminians contend), his original righteousness is challenged. It appears to make God the real author of sin because Adam lacked the ability to pursue righteousness within the context of a righteous, sinless nature. Strategically, a pre-fall grid or christological perspective clarifies for us Adam’s perspective regarding temptation and sin.

Understandably, Satan appealed to the first pair’s areas of sinless human limitation such as their desire to learn and experience new things (moral uprightness does not require omniscience), perhaps even their sense of entitlement given their image-bearing position in creation and the exclusive capacity of choice between all options. Adam had a unique position in relation to the rest of creation. Satan’s scheme then was to provoke them to question the Creator, especially in the light of a “forbidden” fruit. The Creator had drawn a line. Thus, Satan’s intent was to cause the pair to feel that the Creator was withholding something good from them. The prospect was that this fruit contained the key to all knowledge, which they certainly were created to pursue, as well as the portal to their own divinity. Adam faced a choice: to obey the Creator or to disregard God’s prohibition and act upon his own initiative.

Perhaps, as C. S. Lewis explains it, Adam and Eve “wanted some corner in the universe of which they could say to God, ‘This is our business, not yours.’ But there is no such corner. They wanted to be nouns, but they were, and eternally must be, mere adjectives.”41 All we can affirm with certainty is that sin for Adam was an act of rebellion, eating the fruit that God had commanded him not to eat. He chose a path not ordained by God, and that deviation in act produced total deviation in his nature. He may have “wanted some corner of the universe” independently of God, but we have no certainty of that. We are still left to question why a sinless being chose sin.

Measuring Adam’s pre-fall state by Christ’s sinless life may make this approach appear odd, initially. The implementation of Christ as a grid does not substantially change what we already know about sin, but it certainly clarifies the inward state of Adam during the temptation. In this way, the essence of sin is given a needed objectivity. Here is the overview: Adam’s sin was an act of rebellion against a stated command of God, committed in a specific context in which an ultimate choice had to be made, a choice with devastating consequences. This choice was made by a righteous and therefore qualified representative for whom disobedience was an act of his entire person and a total contradiction of his moral direction.

Several critical features of this proposal need some comment. First, all sinning began with an act of rebellion. Basic to this disobedience is the presence of a positive and a negative component. The positive component is the assertion of personal rights, and the negative component is the rejection or overthrow of the rights of the one who gave the command. All disobedience carries these twin features.

Another aspect of our proposed definition is the existence of a stated command. Obviously, the command has an authority figure who issued it. Further, the one who was given the command understood it and had a clear choice to obey or disobey. The direction of his nature was toward righteousness.

Third, the essence of sin can only be viewed in the move from righteousness to unrighteousness. This requires a specific context for testing and an appointed representative who is entirely righteous. Finally, such disobedience has devastating effects, intensively (total depravity), extensively (universal), and eternally (nonstop, endless punishment in hell).

Covenantal Context

One of the most prominent features of the divine-human relationship is its covenantal context. God relates to all people through the instrument of a covenant. Biblical covenants were inaugurated through appointed mediators or representatives (Noah, Abraham, Moses). In the instance of moral probation, the Lord appointed two representatives. “Theologically speaking, the two Adams constitute the beginning and the end of the human society.”42 Actually, representation is clearly indicated by Paul in Romans 5:12ff.

Reminders of Jesus’ role as our representative occur throughout his ministry. At his baptism Jesus identified with the people he had come to redeem (Matt. 3:15). Jesus’ moral test was to learn “obedience” (Heb. 5:8) in order to become an understanding high priest (2:17–18). His complete obedience, called “active obedience,” fulfilled all the moral law’s demands.43 Christ’s substitutionary work on the cross, called “passive obedience,” is identified by Paul as representational (Rom. 5:18–19). Even his victorious resurrection is realized in believers because he represents us (1 Cor. 15:22).

These two representatives were uniquely positioned and parallel each other in many ways. They were image bearers in the highest sense of the expression. Both were perfect reflections of God’s design for humanity. They also were righteous in character, with no propensity to sin. Second, Adam and Christ experienced humanness in total dependence upon the Creator. They were alive spiritually and lived solely to serve the purposes of God. According to Paul, God’s original design was the production of “good works” (Eph. 2:10). Next, the covenant representatives were both posse non peccare (able not to sin) and posse peccare (able to sin). They are the only humans who stood in that unique position with regard to sin. Finally, both representatives experienced testing, called “probation.” The agent, goal, and substance of the tests were the same.

The outcomes of the tests were very different, however. In this regard, Adam failed the test by disobeying God’s command; he made a single wrong choice. Christ, on the other hand, maintained obedience throughout his life; he perpetually chose righteousness. There are other differences. For example, Adam’s physical context was pristine; Christ came into a very fallen world. Adam had no religious traditions and history to influence his decisions; Christ came during a time of severe religious scrutiny. Adam possessed an untested righteous character; Christ also possessed an untested righteous character as a human but had the righteous character of God (non posse peccare, not able to sin) as well. Jesus was, after all, God in the flesh. He was holy and as God was even beyond temptation. But he was tempted because he was completely human. The two natures of Christ granted him the capacity to face real temptation as well as an infinite capacity to experience it. Here is our primary reason for exploring the essence of sin through the lens of Christ.

Application of the Lens

Three matters are clear from Scripture: Christ was fully human, he was completely sinless, and he was God incarnate. These three features of the “lens” qualify him for testing and permit him to experience the full measure of testing. He encountered sin just as Adam did, yet with a great deal more at stake and with a great deal more intensity. Failure would have jeopardized his mission to glorify the Father and redeem sinners, thus unleashing the wrath of God upon all humans with no hope of redemption for them. Christ was completely human by choice; he was also sinless by nature and by choice. The perpetual submission of his will in the sacrifice of his human life is the basis of our redemption (Heb. 10:10).

First of all, Christ’s humanity granted him the capacity to be tested. Through the incarnation, Christ experienced all the limitations of human existence. He was limited physically by time and space, by the simple process of maturation (Luke 2:40), by human dependence upon the physical world around him (hunger, thirst, weariness, anxiety, fear, weeping), and the threat of disease or injury (from the common cold to tooth decay to blisters from working with his hands). Jesus was limited mentally. He had to learn (vv. 40, 52) and often asked for information (John 11:34). Although he had great clarity about end-time events, he admitted that he did not know the time of his return (Matt. 24:36). Jesus was also limited psychologically. He endured emotions generated by his enemies’ hatred and rejection as well as the unbelief and the helpless condition of the people he came to save. Finally, he was limited within his human spirituality. He spent many nights in prayer and worship (Mark 1:35; Matt. 14:23) and lamented that he was unable to share some deep spiritual truths with the disciples (John 16:12). Each of these areas came into play during his many tests.

Christ was also the fullest and clearest expression of the image of God. When viewed dimensionally, the original image has three components. First, the structural aspect is composed of rationality, morality, volition, emotion, creativity, and spirituality.44 Jesus reflected each of these components and kept them in perfect balance. In structure we parallel Christ, even though we are fallen.

Next is the functional capacity of the image. This is the operational hub. Sinners are spiritually “dead,” which is reflected in our “trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1). The original capacity to desire God and pursue him in righteousness was lost in the fall. We have no contingent righteousness through which the image of God in us is directed. Jesus, however, was righteous, and the operation of the image in him was motivated and even compelled by a hatred of sin and a love for holiness. Dimensionally, then, this was the God-orientation of the image.

Third, the image granted humankind dominion over the created order. Jesus exercised this dominion in stopping a raging storm, walking on water, and multiplying bread and fish. Eugene Merrill also notes the interesting account of Jesus’ temple tax in the mouth of a fish (Matt. 17:27). He observes: “Though again one might plead miracle here, it could equally as well be explained as the natural consequence of the sinless Man invoking the privilege of the original creation covenant in which he was to have dominion over ‘the fish of the sea.’”45

Jesus was not only fully human but was also sinless and, therefore, completely unique. In all of his thoughts, attitudes, motives, words, and actions, he was without fault before a holy God (“And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him,” John 8:29). He challenged the religious elite of his day, “Which one of you convicts Me of sin?” (v. 46). Even in the context of human limitations and challenges he lived fully to honor and magnify the Father.

His followers clearly asserted his righteous character. Peter, who knew him best, declared that Jesus “committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth” (1 Pet. 2:22). As sinless (as incredible as that sounds for a human), Jesus is called an example (hupogrammatos—a tracing model used in writing or drawing): “For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps . . . [because there was not] . . . any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously,” vv. 21–23). Jesus’ sinless life then became a paradigm for all humans, defining what it is to be fully human. Paul and John also affirmed his sinless character: “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21), and “in Him there is no sin” (1 John 3:5).

The third feature of the christological lens was Christ’s divine nature. Jesus was a human with two distinct natures. Every act or thought of the person of Christ involved a human nature and a divine nature. Both were apparent throughout his human existence and remain intact in eternity. Possessing both natures uniquely qualified him as our high priest, who offered himself as a propitiation for sins. The human nature granted him the capacity to die for us, and the divine nature made the sacrifice effective on our behalf. Other facets of his earthly ministry required the two natures. His teaching ministry as a unique and final revelation of the Father was contingent on the human context and the divine authorization. His assertions of authority and kingship in relation to the kingdom of God as the “Son of Man” hinge upon both natures.

In the context of his temptation, we are hesitant to introduce the deity of Christ. On the one hand, there are the scriptural declarations that God is not tempted by sin (James 1:13). On the other hand, we know that the temptations that Jesus faced throughout his life were real. So did he simply experience these challenges as a human? It seems more comfortable to limit the temptation to the human nature.

But the reality is that through the incarnation God united himself to our humanity, even in its fallen nature. The incarnation granted the divine nature the vehicle through which he experienced certain things, such as suffering, death, and even temptation. The human nature matures morally and in every other way. Moral maturity for a human is contingent upon moral testing. Christ’s divine and human natures cooperated at each step in that progression. In fact, throughout his entire life Jesus faced the intensification of this testing, culminating at the cross. Thus, he was perpetually being confronted with choices that fueled growth. But as God, these choices took on a much deeper meaning. Ultimacy became a feature of every choice he made. Obedience to the Father’s will was his option, and the Father’s honor was the goal.

Facing the Moral Chasm

I have vivid memories of my first trip to the Grand Canyon. My biggest concern on those trips was whether the motel had a swimming pool! So stopping to look at a huge hole in the ground did not have much appeal. While I certainly did not appreciate all that I was seeing, the sheer expanse left a real impression. The distance to the other side registered with me when I threw a rock out over the canyon (which you are not supposed to do). My rock dropped harmlessly about fifty feet away. I missed the other side by about ten miles! The chasm was so much wider than I thought. But what about our sin and the chasm that it creates between God and us? What is it about the nature of sin that creates such distance? Is it the infinite moral perfection of the one offended? Or is it in the contradiction that sin is before him?

Perhaps a new perspective will help. We will approach the issue using Christ’s sinless humanity as our grid. Since Jesus possessed a sinless human nature that was united to an absolutely holy divine nature, what would have constituted sin to him? I realize that the immediate reaction to this approach may be skepticism. Clearly, Jesus did not sin, but he was confronted with it on a regular basis. What if he had caved in to the Devil? It appears that the chasm is best seen as the Son of God in the flesh facing the lure and possibility of disobeying his Father’s will and choosing to do it anyway. His failure to obey at any point would have been incomprehensible and catastrophic. But so is sin. We are confronted with the ultimacy of sin.

From the wilderness to the long days of ministry with no place to lay his head, from Gethsemane to the cross, his human will, desires, and purposes were brought into perpetual conformity with the Father’s. Jesus as the divine Son “learned obedience from the things which suffered” and was made “perfect” in the process (Heb. 5:8). John Brown asserts that this process was not reforming, as if Christ needed the discipline. Further, it was not primarily educational in the sense that he needed to learn how painful human suffering is, especially in regard to obedience. Rather, the expression “learned obedience” refers to his gaining experiential knowledge of suffering and the consequent fullness of obedience that he offered to the Father on the cross.46

What can we learn from Christ’s continual probation that will help us in our search for the essence of sin? The first factor is the covenant in which he operated. The covenant of grace or redemption is a helpful format for interpreting the eternal arrangement between the Father and the Son through which God’s people are redeemed. The Son embraced this covenant completely and lived to fulfill every stipulation that the Father imposed. The cross is at the heart of it. But his perpetual obedience that led to the cross qualified him to enter the office of our Great High Priest and present himself as the sacrifice for sin.

An analogy might be helpful. In virtually all human endeavors, rules define the activity. This is especially true in relationships. Marriage, for example, the highest human relationship, is built upon love, trust, and loyalty (also true in all wholesome relationships). But rules are required to provide structure and definition. Love is a motive for action and requires more than mere feeling to give it direction and purpose. For a husband to declare his love for his wife while he physically abuses her is not love at all. Jesus tied love to rules: “He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me” (John 14:21), and, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word” (v. 23). Many other areas can be listed where relational rules apply: one’s job, ministry, school, citizenship, even sports.

Rules define relationships. In sports, for example, some rules are basic. For example, respect for the other players, officials, coaches, and the game itself is a basic criterion. The fairness rule also applies: no performance-enhancing drugs! Then within each sport there are rules that apply only to that contest. When a participant violates a rule, a penalty is imposed.

But Jesus was obviously doing more than playing a game; he was conforming himself to a specific covenantal relationship. Thus, in this ultimate context in which the majesty of God and the future state of sinners were in view, the stakes were high and the consequences eternal. From this perspective, any violation of the covenant nullified it; sin then is any covenant-voiding act.

The second factor in Jesus’ probation is the temptation itself. According to Mark’s Gospel, immediately after Jesus was baptized by John he heard the Father’s affirmation and was compelled by the Spirit to go away into the wilderness (1:9–12). Matthew and Luke fill in the details for us. Through the three tests the Devil apparently questioned Jesus’ identity, played upon a confusion of his desires, and challenged his future.47 Certainly Jesus was prompted to exercise his prerogative to choose a different path than the one laid out for him by the Father. But in each case (bread-pinnacle-nations) an alternate choice was a violation of the covenant of grace and a violation of his relationship with the Father.

At the heart of each challenge was the prospect of violating God’s will and breaking covenant with him. In the case of the bread, he was challenged to yield to his human hunger, thereby placing himself under its control instead of trusting the provision of the Father. In the second test, he was taken to the pinnacle of the temple and challenged to jump in order to demonstrate his true identity to the crowd below. The lure was the basic human need for personal affirmation or self-worth. Satan even quoted a biblical promise. But had Jesus given in, he would have been placing his personal vindication above his Father’s designed path of humiliation. Finally, Satan gave him a glimpse of all the nations and offered them to Jesus for a simple act of worship. In this case, the Devil played to Jesus’ desire to be the deliverer. In a not so subtle way Satan was seeking to receive honor from the Son of God and to defeat the purpose of redemption that Jesus was sent to accomplish. In each case, sin for Christ would have been the free exercise of his will against the Father’s will expressed through an act.

A third factor is Jesus’ special freedom to act. Jesus possessed actual freedom of alternate choice. Consequently, Jesus had the capacity to act in accord with his sinless human nature or to act in contradiction of it. Only two individuals possessed this exclusive capacity: Christ and Adam. Both are unique in human history, both acted within the context of a specific divine covenant, and both acted as representatives. This is the reason that the element of human will is crucial in the redemption of sinners. Hebrews 10:10 asserts that it is “by this will [Christ’s willing obedience within the covenant that] we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Heart of the Matter

Several matters become clear about the nature of sin from an incarnational perspective. First, the perspective supports our initial contention that the essence of sin is the violation of a specific command of God. Sin’s essential features appear in the choice to disobey God. The movement by Adam or Christ from obedience to disobedience possessed two separate and distinct dimensions. First is the rejection of the command and the one who issued it. In this regard sin is a perpetual declaration of human freedom from God. The other dimension is the assertion of personal rights in setting an independent moral course. Any act of disobedience by Jesus would have possessed these two features. Sin then is both disregard and defiance. It disregards the rights and position of the Creator and defies the Creator by crossing a boundary he has set. The scene is much like the clay rising up against the potter and usurping the potter’s rights over it (Rom. 9:21). In the case of Jesus, sin would only have occurred had he acted upon his own authority in defiance of the Father’s purpose. In the context of temptation it was not sin for him to desire to satisfy his hunger when Satan proposed turning the stones to bread (or any of the other invitations for that matter). Would he be truly human and not desire the bread, or the sense of self-worth, or the deliverance of those he came to save? It was only in the act that sin is found and defined for us.

Second, from a post-fall perspective sin has many expressions. Attitudes, motives, thoughts, words, and deeds done and undone are all called sin in the Bible. But from the perspective of Jesus and the fall of Adam, the root from which all sins emerge is an historical act of rebellion against God. Thus, Adam’s covenant violation makes all expressions of sin covenant violations. My son works at a local college as the intramural director. Among his responsibilities is overseeing the students’ use of the facilities for basketball and other activities. Recently, he closed down the sports facility because of another activity on campus. A few students decided to play basketball and, because the facilities were locked, broke in. When my son arrived, the students were well-behaved, treating the facility respectfully as if he had been there the entire time. One problem remained. They violated the rules by breaking in. Thus, everything they did after that was a violation. They were on the wrong side of the rules. So are we in Adam. We are on the wrong side of a broken covenant and therefore everything we do, think, or feel is a continuing violation of that covenant. And every covenant violation is sin.

Finally, sin is essentially a contradiction. Viewed within a pre-fall grid, Jesus faced the ultimate incongruity. He had no desire to disobey his Father; rather, he loved him and desired only to honor him. Imagine facing the person you love the most and holding in your hand a loaded pistol. Then someone tells you to shoot him. The very thought of that is repulsive to you, but you still have the choice. Sin is choosing to follow the contradiction. Further, there was no rational basis to sin for Jesus. With nothing to gain from it and everything to lose, it was still an option. Jesus had no weak point in his will or his moral direction that created a propensity toward sin. Yet he possessed the prerogative to choose. That wrong choice is sin. Thankfully, the apostle Paul offers us good news: “Even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men . . . [and] through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:18–19).

Conclusion

“Past the point of no return, the final threshold / The bridge is crossed, so stand and watch it burn / We've passed the point of no return.” These lines from The Phantom of the Opera express what we have all felt at times. Life is filled with those moments, like stepping across a line with no chance of turning back. It is that feeling of finality just as one skis or bungee jumps for the first time: the point of no return. Wedding vows or signatures on a mortgage have a similar finality.

Moral failures also have a point of no return. The word that haunts me at times is don’t. With every bad decision I can hear that word ringing in my mind: “Just don’t do it.” Sin is like that. A word is spoken in haste, impossible to retrieve. One click of the mouse and one enters the world of porn, or online gambling, or illegal prescription drugs: “Just don’t do it.” Some decisions have more devastating consequences: pulling the trigger, leaving your spouse, giving away your virginity, or perhaps pushing the button to launch a nuclear weapon. There is a point of no return.

In the matter of sin, Christ makes this perfectly clear. Christ left heaven and entered the “before/after” historical context of humankind. Every decision he made on earth had a before and after. Christ is the image of God. He was righteous. Righteousness was a constituent feature of his nature, not because he was the incarnate God but because he was fully human, as God intended us to be. His righteousness granted him a special relationship with God. It also offered him a freedom to act morally that we as sinners do not have. Christ had the capacity to change his basic disposition toward God. All he needed to do was assert his personal right to act independently of God and refuse to submit to his will.

We are proposing that Adam possessed the same freedom to act. He was righteous and enjoyed a transparent relationship with the Creator. Yet he had the capacity to turn from that relationship by an act of rebellion. And he did. We also know by studying the life of Christ that Adam was no moral wimp. He was not deceived as Eve was (1 Tim. 2:9–15). He acted deliberately and maliciously. He did not cave to a weakness in his nature or his motives. We may never fully understand the reason for his action, but the fact of it is beyond dispute. He crossed the line. Crossing God’s moral barrier is sin.

Adam passed the ultimate point of no return. His treacherous act is subsequently replicated in every sinful attitude and treasonous motive we possess and every godless thought, word, and action we commit. The root of all sin and the essence of sin itself is the act of turning from God in rebellion, an uprising that continues to the present moment. Thanks be to God that the uprising will be defeated and the rebellious will be judged and appropriately punished.

1 Elie Wiesel, Night (New York: Hill & Wang, 1958). He encapsulates his experience: “Never shall I forget that night, the first night in the camp, that turned my life into one long night seven times sealed” (34).

2 Robert H. Gundry, “New Wine in Old Wineskins: Bursting Traditional Interpretations in John’s Gospel (Part Two),” BBR 17/2 (2007): 285–96. Gundry notes: “Jesus compares sunlight with himself as the light of eternal salvation (see 8:12, ‘the light of life,’ and 1:4: ‘in him was life and the life was the light of human beings’; also Ps 27:1: ‘Yahweh is my light and my salvation’). By contrast, then, stumbling in the darkness of night represents falling into eternal damnation, inaugurated by ‘the resurrection of judgment’ as opposed to ‘the resurrection of life’ (John 5:29; compare 3:36).”

3 Scripture quotations in this chapter are from The New American Standard Bible®. Copyright © The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995. Used by permission.

4 Gabriel Fackre, “The Revival of Systematic Theology,” Int 49/3 (1995): 230.

5 B. B. Warfield, “The Task and Method of Systematic Theology,” in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981), 91–92.

6 David L. Smith, With Willful Intent: A Theology of Sin (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1994), 22. For more on the historical theology of sin, see in this volume Gerald Bray, “Sin in Historical Theology,” 163–85.

7 The concentric circles also mirror the progress of biblical revelation, a format used in many systematic theologies.

8 Donald Capps, The Depleted Self: Sin in a Narcissistic Age (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 45.

9 Systematic Theology, 2.1, Q. 71.

10 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, Library of Christian Classics, 20–21 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 2.1.4.

11 H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology, vol. 2 (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1952), 86.

12 See John W. Mahony, “Why an Historical Adam Matters for a Biblical Doctrine of Sin,” SBJT 15/1 (2011): 60–79.

13 A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, 8th ed. (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1907), 549.

14 Ibid.

15 Augustine, City of God, 9.13. Augustine was convinced that sin arose out of a corrupted will. He wrote: “Our first parents fell into open disobedience because already they were secretly corrupted; for the evil act had never been done had not an evil will preceded it.” Thus, “the wicked deed, then—that is to say, the transgression of eating the forbidden fruit—was committed by persons who were already wicked.”

16 Quoted from Walter J. Burghardt, “All Sin Is Social,” The Living Pulpit (October–December, 1999): 42.

17 In Josh. 7:10–11 the corporate responsibility of the entire nation is unquestionable: “So the LORD said to Joshua, ‘Rise up! Why is it that you have fallen on your face? Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them. And they have even taken some of the things under the ban and have both stolen and deceived. Moreover, they have also put them among their own things.’” Achan was personally guilty, but the Lord held all the people responsible.

18 Robert Culver, Systematic Theology (Fearn, Ross-shire, UK: Christian Focus, 2005), 339; emphasis original.

19 Walter Nagel, “Sin as the Cause of God’s Wrath,” CTM (October 1, 1952): 28.

20 Phillip E. Hughes, The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 125.

21 Gary Anderson, Sin: A History (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010).

22 John Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel (Orlando, FL: Soli Deo Gloria, 1999).

23 W. T. Conner, The Gospel of Redemption (Nashville: Broadman, 1945), 13.

24 Henry Clarence Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, rev. Vernon D. Doerksen (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 171–72. Cf. Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984), 412; William Dembski, The End of Christianity (Nashville: Broadman, 2009), 27–46.

25 The Old Testament distinguishes between intentional and unintentional sins, but both incur guilt. Leviticus 4–5 affirms that unintentional sins constitute the person guilty and require atonement (4:3, 22, 27). In Ps. 19:12 David used a progression of sins beginning with “errors” (unintentional wrongs), then deliberate sin (“presumptuous sins”), and finally “great transgression.” Stuart Perowne notes: “This completes the climax, which begins with involuntary, and advances to hidden, presumptuous, and at length ruling sins, which leave a man their hopeless slave.” J. J. Stewart Perowne, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1966), 227. Morally, ignorance is no excuse for sin. All sin is against God and is morally wrong.

26 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1947), 232. He defined it as the “inherent quality of the sinner’s demerit, ill-desert, which renders him worthy of punishment.”

27 Marguerite Shuster, The Fall and Sin: What We Have Become as Sinners (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 135.

28 James Orr, Sin as a Problem of Today (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910), 7–8.

29 Ralph Venning, The Plague of Plagues (London: Banner of Truth, 1965), 31.

30 Ted Peters, Sin: Radical Evil in Soul and Society (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994).

31 Augustine, City of God, in Writings of Saint Augustine, trans. Gerald G. Walsh and Grace Monahan (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1952), 12.7.

32 Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 44–56.

33 Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, trans. John H. Marks (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 57.

34 Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 321.

35 Paul K. Jewett and Marguerite Shuster, Who We Are: Our Dignity as Human (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 357.

36 Kenneth A. Myers, All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1989), 38.

37 Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 639.

38 Nagel, “Sin as the Cause of God’s Wrath,” 28.

39 Millard Erickson, “Is Hell Forever?” Bibliotheca Sacra 152/607 (1995): 259–72. See also Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson, eds., Hell under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004).

40 Venning, The Plague of Plagues, 110.

41 C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: Macmillan, 1962), 80.

42 Marguerite Schuster, The Fall and Sin: What We Have Become as Sinners (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 8.

43 John Gill, Body of Divinity (Atlanta: Turner Lassetter, 1965), 400. Gill writes: “It [Christ’s active obedience] was wrought out in the room and stead of his people; he obeyed the law, and satisfied it in all its demands, that the righteousness of it might be fulfilled in them, or for them, in him, as their head and representative; hence he, being the end of the law for righteousness unto them, it is unto them and comes upon them.”

44 Hughes, The True Image, 51–64.

45 Eugene Merrill, “A Theology of the Pentateuch,” in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1991), 18.

46 John Brown, An Exposition of the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Oliphant, 1862), 249–50.

47 Russell D. Moore, Tempted and Tried: Temptation and the Triumph of Christ (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), 25–59.

↑ Back to top