Sin for most of us is a practical thing and we may tend to be a little impatient with anyone who attempts to define it with a multitude of words. Yet once we begin to try to talk about the source of sin we realise that slight differences of opinion on what sin is may make vast differences of apprehension as to where it springs from.
John says, “Sin is transgression of the law” and that seems perfectly simple and straightforward. But what is transgression of the law?
Take as an example the sin of stealing. If a shopper in a department store puts some goods in a basket before paying for them is it stealing ? If the store detective sees it, what does he do Before he can accuse the person of stealing he must follow the shopper out into the street. Even then it may turn out to be a genuine mistake or lapse of memory, the ring no intention to steal.
So stealing is not just the physical taking of someone else’s possessions, but it needs also a mental act or intention.
But must transgression be both physical and mental? Consider the same shopper who observes the store detective and returns the merchandise to its place ? No human judge could say that the shopper had stolen and restored because he would have no means of deciding whether the return was due to the realisation that the offence was detected or to a change of mind. Sin is, however, something that concerns God so that human bases of judgement are not altogether relevant. Jesus indicated that the real criterion was not what a man did but what he intended to do and would do given the opportunity. It may be that Jesus saw the offence in an even more general way so that it is not even the conscious conception of the physical act but the attitude of mind that would lead to it that he condemns.
Here we find ourselves in the almost unknown regions of the origins of human thought, but perhaps Paul’s definition may help us a little, for he said “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” He was dealing with actions that in themselves as physical activities were without moral significance, eating and drinking are part of the needful mechanics of life. The Pols were nothing and could be safely ignored by the properly enlightened, but Paul indicates that to act in a permissible way toward them for wrong reasons is sin. This is very clearly not a transgression of law in the way of breaking the rule about eating before idols.
Before we can crystallize our conception of sin we must consider the place of temptation and differentiate between the mental processes of the suggestion that is temptation and the suggestion that although lacking physical expression is sin.
James sees a progression, first lust then a movement in the direction of fulfilment, and then the fruit of such is sin, which finally will bring death.
Now, having recognised that sin need not be physical, we can see that the progression may be altogether within the mind. Unless we are unconscious, ideas are always being presented by the brain. Some of these are conditioned by our physical surroundings and some by an effort of will.
As an example, consider Peter’s trance at Joppa. When he was hungry’ he had a vision of food. And by way of contrast, Daniel understood by books the number of the years of Jeremiah’s prophecy.
Perhaps Peter’s trance experience is an illustration of our problem. His whole training led him to reject the idea presented to him by the voice “kill and eat.” He produced the rule by which he had lived and which he had always recognised as God’s law for him. It was not that the desire lo eat was itself improper, or that to kill in order to get food was illegitimate but that the circumstances were such that to follow out the command would be to satisfy human needs in a way that God had forbidden.
Perhaps then, we can define temptation as the arising of a legitimate desire in circumstances that suggest a way of achieving it that is contrary to God’s instructions.
There is at this point a decision to be made, to accomplish the desire or to obey the law. It may well be that in many instances there is no conscious choice because the constant applications of certain principles makes the choice so automatic that the person is not really aware that an alternative has been rejected. Even in those choices that are quite recognizable the reasons for the choice may be very mixed.
Eve had three very good reasons for eating of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, each of them arising from God given powers of anticipation and appreciation. The fruit was good for food—we still appreciate taste and savour even preferring to follow our tastes rather than follow the scientists in their calculations of value whether they be calories or vitamins. It was pleasant to the eye—even the barrow boys rely on the same desire when they polish their apples and arrange them skillfully in pyramids. The desire to be wise needs no introduction now when education is so much in the public mind.
All these desires are in themselves legitimate and God has continued to provide the means for a measure of their fulfilment and has promised that eventually all shall be taught of him.
The choice then becomes a choice of who decides how and when these desires shall be satisfied. Adam and Eve both decided to ignore God’s command and decide for themselves. It is perhaps significant that Adam has added to the sentence of death the cursing of the ground—because he hearkened to the voice of Eve. Here, very graphically, is portrayed the conflict in man, the voice of his own flesh and bone telling him to be a man and fulfill his desires as opportunity presents, and the voice of God that gives much freedom (of all the trees of the garden thou mayest freely eat) and but little restriction.
It is in this choice that sin lurks. Somehow the experience of Adam has taught us nothing, we still count an ounce of experience as worth a ton of theory, and we all learn that fire burns by being burnt and not by being taught. But in other words we are laws to ourselves. It is the “I” that decides for itself.
John’s definition of “Sin is transgression of the law,” is changed in the revised version to “sin is lawlessness.” This makes it more general, it is not the law of Moses, or the law of Christ or any other set of rules but rather any rule other than the personal desire of the individual. Presented with a choice the “I” chooses to go “My” way and sins.
Perhaps this may help us to understand how the whole world can be guilty of sin without having a detailed knowledge of the Gospel. It may help us, too, in our everyday life ; is our outwardly blameless life the product of a constant endeavour to please God, or is it but an expression of a faithless conformity — like the man who ate meat offered to idols, not because he thought he could. but because he saw it was the “done thing.”
All of us are biased in our own favour and in that bias lies the source of all our sin. In human governments the king can do no wrong for from him all law proceeds. Unhappily we think at times that we are kings over ourselves and forget we are creatures. The rule of our life is not in ourselves but in God who made us.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One