Definition of Sin - Part Two

Regarding the definition of sin I proposed in my previous post, someone may well say, "If sin is action or inaction against knowledge, then how do you explain the 'unintentional' sins of Leviticus 4:2 and Numbers 15:27-28?” An unintentional sin must be without knowledge, by definition."

If the meaning of "unintentional" in these passages is the modern meaning of the word, then the objector is correct. An unintentional act is one that is carried out by someone who does not "intend" to do it. This would be an accident and would surely be done without any thought about its rightness or wrongness. However, this is not what is meant by the word, "unintentional," as it is translated in the Scriptures. The Numbers passage gives a good clue as to what is meant by the word.

Numbers 15:28-31
And the priest shall make atonement before the Lord for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven. You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them. But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the Lord; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the Lord and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be on him.

This unintentional sin is set in opposition to a sin of defiance, a sin that causes blasphemy. The person who acts this way is described as one who despises the word of the Lord. In other words, if a sin is not unintentional, then it is defiant. Why? When it says, "You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally" and then "But the person who does anything defiantly," the passage is stating that there are two laws to be used, and no more options are given. All who act in defiance are to be punished by being cut off, and there is no atonement or sacrifice that can be made to make up for their sin. Therefore, if atonement or some kind of punishment other than being cut off is allowed to make up for a particular sin, then that sin must be of the unintentional variety. Again, there are no other options. They are only two laws.

For example, in Deuteronomy 22:28, if a man rapes an unengaged virgin, then he has a penalty to pay. Since he is not cut off from his people, he must have committed an unintentional sin, as defined in Numbers 15. It is hard to believe that rape is unintentional according to a common understanding of "unintentional." The act is done with knowledge and intent and is certainly no accident. However, it is not necessarily done defiantly, as in the defiant shaking of the fist at God.

The "unintentional" sin of the Old Testament is really sin that is not defiant, a sin that is committed with knowledge and intent but without direct contempt for God. Notice the following example:

Exodus 22:28-29
And if an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall surely be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall go unpunished. If, however, an ox was previously in the habit of goring, and its owner has been warned, yet he does not confine it, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death.

In the first ox goring case, the owner has no knowledge of the ox's goring potential, and he has no sin. By our common definition of the word, unintentional, we might say that the ox owner committed an unintentional act; he allowed a dangerous ox to gore someone. But since there is no punishment for his act, it is likely that God did not consider his ignorance to be sinful. It is only when the owner has knowledge of the ox's goring potential that he is liable and considered to be sinning. He knew of the problem, and chose to do nothing about it. Clearly the ox owner had knowledge or was at least responsible for that knowledge. This law provides a clear example of a truly unintentional act, which includes a transgression of the law, that is not considered a sin.

There is no truly unintentional sin. The phrase that is translated "sins unintentionally" in Leviticus 4 and Numbers 15 is better translated "sins in error." In other words, it is a sin that is considered an error, something done that does not reflect the attitude of the person committing it, and it is not an action that is done in defiance. In 1 Samuel 26:21, Saul uses a closely related word that is translated by the NASB as "error." Saul's actions were intentional by the standard of today's meaning of intentional. When the same word is used in Leviticus 4:13, however, it describes actions that are called unintentional in Leviticus 4:22, 4:27, and Numbers 15. Apparently, these "unintentional sins" are committed intentionally.

Someone may object and say that in Leviticus 4:14, 4:23, and 4:27, the sin had to be made known to the one who committed it, so the transgression must not have been committed with knowledge if the transgressor did not know of it. The objector would say that this is made clear in Leviticus 5:2-3 where a person is guilty for simply touching an unclean thing that is hidden from him.

In the cases listed in Leviticus chapter 5, and in other cases of "unintentional" sin, the offense is made known to the offender. It is impossible for an event to be made known, or revealed, to a person if he does not already know that the event occurred and if he caused the event himself. He may be reminded of an act that he had forgotten or be given evidence of an occurrence that he did not see or hear, but he must know about his own actions in order to remember the event.

If he truly did not remember something that he supposedly did, then he would deny the accusation, and perhaps be right in doing so. If he is persuaded that he did something based solely on evidence, but he still does not remember the event, then it could be said that it was made known to him in one sense. However, this kind of "knowledge," based only on evidence and not on self-witness, is probably not the kind of knowing that is in mind.

When something is made known to someone in the context of this passage, it probably means that the person is told about the wrongness of an act that he remembers or knows that he carried out. In Leviticus 5:2-3 the person who touches the unclean thing either: (1) touched something that he did not realize was unclean and was later told that it was not clean or (2) touched something that was unclean not knowing what it was, and the object was identified later.

The person is declared to be guilty by the passage, but the nature of what caused the guilt is not clear. In the first possible scenario (#1), the person is clearly guilty, because he is responsible for knowing what is clean and what is not clean. This is sin according to the proposed definition. The second possibility (#2) involves true ignorance and is similar to the ox owner not knowing that his ox is in the habit of goring. In that similar event, the ox owner is not guilty of sin. Since the person in the Leviticus passage is guilty, and since a similar transgression in ignorance (the ox owner) did not produce guilt, the first scenario is more likely to be accurate than the second.

Although the second possibility could fit the scenario of 5:2-3, the option is not required, since another explanation is possible. In light of verse 4 of the chapter, where the sin is committed "thoughtlessly" and with knowledge, and in light of the ox owner's innocence in true ignorance, it is reasonable to conclude that the sins of verses 2 and 3 also are in the realm of knowledge responsibility and not of true ignorance. There are other verses that could be considered, but the arguments for and against the proposed definition of sin, in these cases, are similar.

Now for a summary of the preceding argument.

The objector's logic runs like this:

1. The proposed definition of sin is an act against knowledge.

2. The Bible says that there are unintentional (NASB) sins or sins of ignorance (KJV).

3. Unintentional acts are not "intended", so they are not against knowledge.

4. Therefore, there are sins that are not against knowledge, and the definition is faulty.

The rebuttal is as follows:

1. The "unintentional" sins are revealed in context to be sins that are not "defiant". These two categories encompass all sins, so any sin is either defiant or unintentional.

2. Defiant sins are punished by "cutting off".

3. Some sins that are clearly "intentional", by the common definition of the word, are not punished by "cutting off".

4. These sins must be put in the "unintentional" category, since they are not punished by cutting off.

5. Since there are intentional sins in the unintentional category, either the definition of intentional must change, or the name of the category must change.

6. Since the English translation should fit the common definitions of words, and since the word, unintentional, does not fit the common definition, the translation is a bad one.

7. Since the word should not be translated as unintentional, and, in fact, the sins described are intentional, the Bible does not affirm that there are unintentional sins.

8. The objector's second assumption is proven false, and since this assumption is necessary for his conclusion to be true, his objection cannot be sustained.

Definition of Sin - Part One

I have been asked by a couple of commenters to provide a definition of sin, so I will do that now.

The Greek word most often used for “sin” in the Bible is harmartia. Its root meaning is a missing of a mark or target, but such a definition reveals very little until the "mark" is identified. Theologically speaking, some would say that the mark is all of the character and attributes of God Himself, meaning that any action, word, or thought that is not equal to the manner, quality, or quantity with which God would perform the same action is sin. By this definition, for example, if a person does not love with the quantity or quality with which God would love, then he is sinning. This is a fair attempt at defining the mark and, by extension, sin, but it is flawed as follows.

A basic doctrine, which I will not defend here, is that there will be no sin in heaven. Yet, even in heaven no one will be able to hit the mark as it is defined above. No person will be able to love to the degree or with the quality with which God loves. If a person were able to match this and all of God's other character attributes, then he would be a god himself. Scripture does not allow for the possibility of a created being becoming a god, for there is only one god. If someone wishes to hold to this definition of sin, let him show that there will be sin in heaven or how he can attain to the character attributes of God when reaching heaven.

A second and perhaps more convincing way that this definition is flawed is in the lack of Scriptural backing for it. In fact, Scripture seems to define sin and the mark rather differently, and here is the definition I have put together based on biblical evidence.

A person sins only when he acts in opposition to what he knows is right or to what he should know is right. These acts are defined as any action taken in doing what is known to be wrong or in not doing what is known to be right, and this set of actions includes those which are in opposition to facts not known but for which an individual is responsible for knowing. These acts can be performed in thought, word, or deed.

And now I will provide the evidence for this definition.

John 9:41
Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, "We see; your sin remains."

In context, blindness refers to lack of knowledge of the truth. Here, the Pharisees are told that if they did not know the truth, "were blind," then they would have no sin. Therefore knowledge of right or wrong is a necessary component of sin.

John 15:20-24
Remember the word that I said to you, "A slave is not greater than his master." If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name's sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well.

Once again the revelation that is gained by experiencing the person and miracles of Christ is the difference between having sin and not having sin. If the persecutors had acted in the same way toward Jesus while not knowing of His works as they acted while knowing of His works, then they would not have sinned.

Romans 7:8-9
But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. And I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died.

Romans 4:15
for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, neither is there violation.

These passages also demonstrate that there is sin only with the knowledge of the law. When the knowledge of the law comes into the life of a person, because he is without God and therefore has only self to please, he rebels against the law. There is no “mark” to miss when the law has not made itself known. How can a target be missed when there is no target? It’s impossible.

The next passage has been used by some to show that there is sin without law.

Romans 5:13
for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

The argument is that since there is no law between Adam and Moses, and since death is the result of sin and death reigned from Adam until Moses, there must have been sin during that time. The previous verse says that "all sinned," so it must be possible to sin without the Law, or so the argument goes. When Paul implies that there was no law between Adam and Moses, he must be referring to the Mosaic law or he would not have ended the "lawless" period with a reference to Moses.

The whole point of the passage is that there was indeed a law during that time. Since "sin is not imputed when there is no law", there must be an explanation for the imputation that actually did exist during that time. We know that there was an imputation, because "death reigned". There was no Mosaic law yet, but there was a law that could be known. Romans 2:14-15 points out that the Gentiles could know the law of God instinctively without the written revelation and were responsible for it. Paul's point is that there was a law to be obeyed, and he used the concept that sin must have law present to prove that there must have been some kind of law in existence.

Here is more evidence for my definition of sin:

Romans 14:23
But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

In this passage, eating a certain substance is sin only if the one eating it believes the action to be sin. The converse is true also, if one believes that eating something is not sin, then it is not. How can the same action be sin for one person and not for the other? The answer is in the knowledge of the one eating. Here again, whether or not something is sin is based upon knowledge.

James 4:17
Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is sin.

This verse is, in reality, an "if-then" expression that can be restated like this, "If a person knows the right thing to do and does not do it, then to him it is sin". The following statement is also true in light of the verse: If a person knows a wrong thing that he should not do and does it, then to him it is sin. This is simple to prove, because it can always be said that knowing to not do a wrong action is the same as knowing to do the opposite act.

The following statement also follows from the verse in James. "If a person does not know the right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is not sin." Why? Because if knowledge wasn’t an essential part of defining sin, then James wouldn’t have included that phrase in his statement.

Therefore, James has succinctly stated the definition of sin that I proposed.

Also, notice that James says, "to him it is sin," not simply, "it is sin." Why did he write, "to him"? The simplest answer is, "because it may not be sin to someone else." To whom, then, would it not be sin? The answer would have to be, the one who did not know the right thing to do. Therefore, knowledge of right and wrong is necessary for sin to occur.

Since the biblical definition of sin includes knowledge, there is no sin without knowledge, or, at least, a responsibility to know. This definition does not exclude a person who knows he needs to know and yet refuses to learn. He knows what is right to do and doesn’t do it, so he is already in sin from the start.

A known law doesn’t have to be a biblically written law. As I mentioned before, we have a law written on our hearts. We instinctively know many rights and wrongs, and these likely include every moral law—lust, greed, coveting, lying, etc. So the person who breaks these moral laws, even though he has never read the Bible, is sinning.

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them. (Romans 2:14-15)

Still, what is or is not sin in an individual is up to God’s judgment, not ours. He knows the hearts of mankind and can sweep away all pretense. In my experience, I have seen people accusing themselves of sin when they are not sinning at all. They might say something that hurts someone’s feelings, but they didn’t know it to be a hurtful statement until after the fact. That is not sin, nor is anything that is done in love and faith. I have also seen people sin grievously and think that it is not sin. They excuse their behavior based on a skewed or completely broken understanding of God’s holiness and expectations. Their intentional blindness doesn’t change the fact that they are sinning.

I have said many times that Christians don’t sin. The Bible makes that clear (1 John 5:18). Yet, I know people, who I believe are Christians, who think they sin, but they are calling things sin that are merely mistakes that occur due to lack of knowledge. So what’s wrong with calling something sin that isn’t really sin? It leads people to believe that real Christians commit real sins, and that can give sinners a false sense of security that they really are saved when they are not.

Readers of this blog might want to describe a scenario or a moral choice and ask, “Is this sin?” I’m not sure how well I will be able to answer questions like those, because not having an intimate acquaintance with a particular person’s heart, I am not qualified to make judgments in many cases. Still, I will try to help with sincere queries.

Next time, the Lord willing, I will raise typical objections to this definition of sin and show that the definition stands.

If Anyone Sins

As a reminder, the purpose of this series is to show how teachers often twist, alter, or ignore Bible text in order to defend sinful behavior in themselves and their congregants. They believe that all Christians sin and will continue to sin for the rest of their lives. Of course, the Bible flatly contradicts that notion, but the teachers seem unable or unwilling to see this.

One of the most commonly used passages is the first verse of 1 John chapter two.

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

These teachers usually quote the verse out of context in order to alter the real meaning. In order to interpret this verse, it’s crucial to understand the context. As I explained in my previous post, the first chapter provides a gospel message, an explanation of how to gain fellowship with God and eternal life. This happens when a person confesses his sin (1 John 1:9) and is cleansed of all sin.

So, in chapter two, when John says, “I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin,” he is indicating that the gospel he has presented has this purpose. He has provided this gospel so that his readers won’t sin.

That’s what acting on the gospel message does. It makes people holy. It provides the means to stop sinning, because the blood of Jesus cleanses from all sin (chapter one verses 7 and 9).

Does the blood of Jesus cleanse only some sin but not all? Of course not. It cleanses all sin, thereby making the believer holy and without sin. If they actually do sin, that would mean that they didn’t heed the gospel message that he provided, for that was its purpose.

Here is where the confusion arises. John then gives us this very scenario. What happens if someone actually does sin?

It is essential for us to identify the people in mind, and the pronouns John uses help us understand his meaning. Most people paraphrase the verse in this fashion.

“John wrote this so that we wouldn’t sin, but if we do, we have an advocate with the Father, so we’re forgiven.”

Or, “This was written so that you won’t sin, but if you do, you’re forgiven because of Jesus, your advocate.”

These are both inaccurate representations of what John is teaching. Remember, John gave them the message so that they would not sin, but if anyone does sin, that person is in the group that is described in 1:6, in darkness, needing a savior. Notice the change in pronouns in the chapter two verse, "I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins ... "

John changes from second person, "you", to third person, "anyone". The one who sins is not meant to be part of the group addressed.

When John wrote, “my little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin,” he then assumes that his readers have accepted this gospel and are now Christians. If he had meant the following "anyone" to refer to his readers, it would have made more sense for him to say, "If any of you sins ... "

This is the reason he says that "we" have an Advocate instead of "he" has an Advocate. He is referring to someone outside the “we” group. The sinning person does not have an Advocate with the Father, because he is an unbeliever. The Christians are the ones with the Advocate, and this Advocate can be shared with the sinning person.

The person who sins could be an unbelieving member of the church or one who has left the congregation, so John is telling the Christians what to do in this situation. This brings chapter 1 verse 9 back into the light, part of the message that he gave to the readers. The Christians are supposed to share the gospel message of chapter 1, the good news of their Advocate. They are to communicate this message to those who are sinning.

The news of the advocate is to be shared, because He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, not just for the sins that John's readers had committed in the past. The Christians had their sins forgiven already, but it was important for them to announce the availability of this forgiveness to "anyone" who sins. This "anyone" would not be part of the “we” who had believed the message, but they would be considered part of the "whole world," anyone who is not assumed to be a Christian.

Therefore, the implication of the possibility of a sinning Christian in "that you may not sin" is removed, because John has apparently placed "anyone" who actually does sin out of the addressed group by the use of the third person pronoun.

The complete purpose of John's "message" is now clear. The first purpose is to make sure that the people in the audience receive the gospel, become cleansed from all unrighteousness, and sin no more. The second purpose is to encourage them, once they are cleansed, to give the gospel message previously stated to anyone who does sin.

Notice the "And" in "And if anyone sins ... " The word is kai in Greek. This connective makes the twofold explanation more clear. If John had meant for the second part of the verse to be applied to Christians who have already received the gospel, the connective would have been "but," alla or de in Greek.

“But” is an adversarial connective, one that is meant to introduce the result of an opposite action. The first part of the verse says that John intends for his reader to refrain from sin. If John were going to explain what would happen if the opposite of this occurred, he would have said, "But if anyone (or any of you) sins ... " He chose "and," which means "in addition to this." Therefore, the second part of the verse is the second portion of his purpose statement, something that adds a separate, new idea. It is not the consequence or remedy for the failure of the first idea.

He is saying that there are two purposes for his message. One, believe the message so that you will stop sinning. Two, share this message with people who are sinning, because Jesus died for them, too.

This interpretation provides a more reasonable flow into verse 3, an explanation of how to tell who is truly a believer, by an examination of their actions.

By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked. (1 John 2:3-6)

This is crystal clear. The person who actually sins is not a true Christian. This way, the audience is able to identify who actually needs this message, and the purpose can be put into practice. They can share the great advocate with the sinner so that he can be saved and stop sinning.

If actual Christians still sinned, then these three verses wouldn’t make any sense at all. The standard for telling a Christian from a non-Christian is obedience, so if sin continues in a Christian, then we would have to remove these verses from the text. They would be wrong.

The overwhelming testimony of the apostle John is that Christians are always obedient:

We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him. (1 John 5:18)

They are exactly like Jesus in their conduct:

By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. (1 John 4:17)

And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. (1 John 3:3)

And those who sin are of the devil and in slavery:

He that committeth sin is of the devil, for the devil sinneth from the beginning, For this purpose the son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. (1 John 3:8)

Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.” (John 8:34)

I urge readers to evaluate John’s message and cast aside the words of teachers who hold to a form of godliness but deny its power (2 Timothy 3:5). I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin, and I hope you will accept it and carry this message to others, this message of the great Advocate who can cleanse anyone from all sin.

Next time, I will explore Romans chapter seven. When it comes to teachers grasping for excuses to sin, Romans seven is probably the most frequently misused passage in the Bible.

Cleansed from All Sin

First John 1:8 is the verse most commonly used (actually, misused) in attempts to undermine or deny biblical holiness. It has become a trump card, of sorts. Teachers quote a single verse and believe there is nothing more to be said. They believe it wipes out dozens and dozens of passages that teach the practical reality of sinless Christianity.

Of course, the verse is always quoted out of context, and the abusers twist the verse to say exactly the opposite of what the passage teaches.

Here is the verse by itself: “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.” And sometimes verse 10 is also used. “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.”

Here is the context:

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us-- what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete. (1 John 1:1-4)

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. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. (1 John 1:5-10)

The first four verses state the reason for John’s letter, to proclaim what he has seen so that his readers can have the fellowship of eternal life. He wants to proclaim the gospel message. Then, verses 5 through 10 contain that message: “This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you …” and the rest follows to the end of the chapter.

So, verses 5 through 10 contain a message that conveys what is necessary to gain fellowship and eternal life.

The first point is that God is light and there is no darkness in Him. That is the bedrock of the message.

The second point follows logically. If we say that we have fellowship with God and walk in the darkness, obviously we are lying. Why? Because there is no darkness in Him. This helps us see that “we” in this context cannot mean only Christians, as some assert. Since fellowship with God is equated with having eternal life, the person who walks in darkness must not be a true Christian, so "we" cannot be "we Christians." The intent must be a larger “we,” such as “we people.” This understanding of “we” fits every verse in this passage.

The third point also follows and adds a cleansing act. If we walk in the Light, we have fellowship with God and the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin.

Many teachers jerk the next verse out of its context and destroy the meaning of the entire passage. Remember, this is a gospel message designed to bring eternal life. John has established that if a person walks in the light, he will be cleansed of his sin and granted eternal life. So, this passage is designed to show an unbeliever the way of salvation. An unbeliever must admit that he has sin in order to be cleansed. So if he says he has no sin, he is deceiving himself, and the truth is not in him.

This isn’t about a Christian claiming not to have sin. It’s about someone making this claim who still needs to be cleansed. If this wasn’t the case, then verse 7 makes no sense at all. It says that the blood cleanses from all sin. It’s gone. What sin would be remaining? None. Did Jesus do a poor job in cleansing from all sin? Of course not.

So these teachers have this completely backwards. It doesn’t say that Christians cannot claim sinlessness. The passage is teaching the exact opposite. All Christians are cleansed from all sin. It is the one who hasn’t been cleansed yet who cannot make such a claim.

And verse 9 gives the solution for the one who hasn’t been cleansed yet: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Again, this is a complete cleansing. The sin is gone. Verse 9 is a conversion passage, what someone needs to do to be saved and gain the eternal life that John desires for his readers.

Those who teach the false interpretation of verses 8 and 10 have to contradict verses 7 and 9. Does Jesus cleanse from all sin or not? Of course He does. Therefore, a Christian has no sin. Those who have not been cleansed need to confess their sins so that they, too, can be cleansed from all sin and be saved.

This passage is a gospel message, and those who need cleansing are the ones in mind in verse 8 and 10. These teachers twist the passage completely around. The passage teaches complete sinlessness, and these teachers make it their trump card to prove that sinlessness is impossible. This seems quite backwards to me.

And even more amazing is that some use 1 John 1:8 to assert that people who believe they live without sin are not Christians at all! They say, “if you think you’re now sinless as a Christian, then the truth is not in you, so you’re not a real Christian.” This passage teaches that believers are cleansed from all sin, and these teachers use it to say the exact opposite, that only those in sin are believers. Again, this is backwards.

Simple logic also demonstrates that these teachers’ understanding of this verse is off the mark. If verses 8 and 10 mean that it is improper to say you have completely stopped sinning, the “have no sin” and “have not sinned” phrases must have a definite time frame involved. For example, if I say that I have not sinned in the last year, someone may say, “But 1 John 1:10 would call you a liar for saying that you have not sinned.”

If, however, I changed the time frame to claiming that I have not sinned in the last 10 seconds, would 1 John 1:10 apply? I am making the same kind of statement but with a different time claim. Many would say that it is reasonable to claim a sinless ten seconds. If even this is denied, the argument could be divided into microseconds, and the teacher would have to admit that he could not claim a sinless fraction of time of very minute proportions.

Some would believe even this, that they are constantly sinning in every iota of time. This would mean that Christians are always sinning, in direct contradiction to numerous descriptions in Scripture of a Christian's actual behavior:

We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him. (1 John 5:18)

By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. (1 John 4:17)

By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him (1 John 2:3-4)

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? (Romans 6:1-2)

And I could list many more.

These teachers would also have to admit that they are never obedient. That’s where the logic of their interpretation must take them.

The only reasonable interpretation is that if a person claims that he has never sinned, and by this thinks that he does not need a savior, he is deceiving himself and makes God a liar, because he directly contradicts Romans 3:23, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Next time, I will move to chapter two of 1 John to show that John was consistent in his teaching that complete sinlessness is the standard for every real Christian. Stay tuned.

Illegitimate Sons?

The following passage is often misused by Bible teachers as they attempt to show that all Christians continue sinning.

You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin; and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, "My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor faint when you are reproed by Him; For those who the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives." It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?

But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness. (Hebrews 12:4:11)

These false teachers explain that God disciplines us because of the sins we commit, and since all true sons of God are disciplined, that must mean that all true Christians sin. Supposedly, anyone who doesn’t undergo this discipline due to their own sin must not be a true son.

As is the case with many false doctrines, the teachers fail to consider the passage in it larger context, and they bring a preconceived doctrine to the text, causing them to miss the obvious meaning.

Sin is mentioned only once in this passage, “You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin.” I can’t see how teachers come up with the idea that this sin is instigated by the person being disciplined. Resisting your own sin to the point of shedding blood? Frankly, avoiding sin is much easier than that.

The larger context reveals what the writer is talking about. He has just finished a long description of people who have been faithful, from Abel in chapter 11, verse 4, to, as the chapter ends, a list of those who suffered because of their faith.

Others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground. (Hebrews 11:36-38)

In the chapter twelve passage, then, the writer is comparing his readers to those he wrote about earlier. His readers had not yet resisted sin to the point that these other people did, to the point of shedding blood. This sin is not their own sin; it is the sin of others, the sin of their persecutors.

The verse immediately preceding the chapter 12 section makes this obvious.

For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. (Hebrews 12:3)

It is crystal clear that this is talking about the sin of the persecutors, not the sin of those being disciplined.

Therefore, being disciplined as a son means that God is using persecutions to shape the son, to make him strong, to allow him to share in God’s holiness.

It’s important to understand that holiness is not merely sinlessness. It is being set apart for a purpose, to act according to all that God has in mind for us. We cannot complete that task until we are made ready for it, and our preparation includes suffering, often at the hands of sinners.

This happened even to Jesus.

For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. (Hebrews 2:10)

Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation (Hebrews 5:8-9)

Jesus endured this discipline, the sin that others brought against Him. As verse 3 in chapter 12 says, we are to “consider Him,” the one who endured the sin of others. Obviously we are being told to consider Him as an example, the reason being to endure as He endured, not regarding our own sin, but with reference to the sins of others.

Teachers who use this passage to indicate that all sons of God continue in sin are destroying the true meaning. The passage is meant to encourage obedient followers who are suffering at the hand of persecutors. It is telling them that faithful people have had it worse, and they made it through. There is a cloud of witnesses surrounding them (Hebrews 12:1) to counteract the sin that also surrounds. Follow in the footsteps of the forerunners, the enduring martyrs. Their light will lead the way.

What is an Oracle of Fire?

I decided to call this new blog "Oracles of Fire" because of the development of a character in my Oracles of Fire series. Before I began the first book, Eye of the Oracle, the Oracle of Fire label came to me out of the blue. I didn't know what it meant, and it wasn't until I wrote the final book, The Bones of Makaidos, that I realized what it was all about.

The ideas became clear as I continued my recent study of the book of Jeremiah. This passage was particularly insightful.

For each time I speak, I cry aloud; I proclaim violence and destruction, because for me the word of the Lord has resulted in reproach and derision all day long. But if I say, "I will not remember Him Or speak anymore in His name," then in my heart it becomes like a burning fire shut up in my bones; and I am weary of holding it in, and I cannot endure it. (Jeremiah 20:8-9)

Do you feel that fire? Do you know what it's like to carry the word of God burning within, so hot that it has to come out? But what happens when you speak it? What happens when you, motivated by love for those around you, warn them of the destruction to come? What is their reaction to a word that is unpleasant, that doesn't fit in with the popular doctrines of the day?

Reproach? Derision? And does the worst of the venom come from the church? If so, don't be dismayed or discouraged. The same thing happened to Jesus and His disciples. Wherever they went to spread the gospel, they were opposed by the religious leaders of the day. The hypocrites didn't want to hear the truth.

Telling an unpopular truth will bring you injury--in reputation, in cultural standing, and possibly even in personal safety. But if you are an Oracle of Fire, you won't be able to stay silent. God has called you to speak, and you will suffer for being obedient to His call.

But you cannot let that stop you. You have to speak up. The truth burns like a fire within you. You cannot endure seeing truth and righteousness maligned by the very people who are supposed to uphold it. Falsehood that leads people astray ignites a fire in your belly that cannot be extinguished. You feel like you're being eaten up inside.

For me, the fire burns hottest when the people who are called by the name of Jesus are blaspheming Him daily, pretending He can't see their sin, and even teaching people that rebelling against a holy God is normal behavior that certainly happens every day in word, thought, and deed. This is a lie that is leading countless souls into Hell.

We have to rescue these souls. We have to tell the truth, no matter what personal consequences we suffer. The fire burning within will never let us rest until we shout the truth from every rooftop in all of creation.

If you are an Oracle of Fire, you feel this passion, but you must be ready to count the cost.

Here is a passage from The Bones of Makaidos, one Oracle teaching a new Oracle what it's all about.

Speak the truth. Live the truth. Be the truth. Never let the faithless ones change any of those three principles. Remember that you are an Oracle of Fire, as is every faithful follower of our Lord. For all true disciples possess the pure silver, purged of all dross, and the fire of God’s love burns within, an everlasting flame that others, even those who give lip-service to the truth, will never comprehend until you are able to pass along that fire from heart to heart.

Are you an Oracle of Fire? Let me know about your experiences.