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.