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.