sermon: Sin (Part 1)
Sin and Human Nature
John W. Ritenbaugh
Given 03-Aug-96; Tape #249
Description: John Ritenbaugh explores the role of human nature in the fatal attraction to sin. Though relatively neutral at its inception, human nature is subject to a deadly magnetic pull toward self-centeredness, deceit, and sin (Jeremiah 17:9). By the time God calls us, we are hopelessly ensnared and enslaved by sin. To counteract this deadly pull, we must imitate Christ's standard of active righteousness (going about doing good; Acts 10:38) as opposed to the Pharisee's more passive righteousness (a meticulous, reactive avoidance of evil). The sins of omission (the majority of our sins), neglect, and ignorance have the tendency to dissolve when we practice Christ's standard of active righteousness. (63 minutes)
Topics: (show)
|
(To download, right-click on the icon for the format of your choice and select "Save target as...") |
[We're going to begin with] a very familiar scripture -- so familiar that I'm not even going to ask you to turn to it. I will just tell you that it is 1 John, chapter 3, verse 4, where it says that "whosoever commits sin transgresses also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law." I thought that (in the light of the conclusion of the Sovereignty series) it might be good to have a sermon on "sin" and "holiness"; because it is in relationship to God's sovereignty that we have our daily confrontations with choosing to submit to the will of God.
Toward the end of the final sermon on Sovereignty, I made this statement (in reference to the question about why overcoming is so hard) that the key to overcoming and growth is the recognition of, and the acknowledgment of, our powerlessness in the face of sin. Now, anybody who wishes to obtain a right understanding of "Christian holiness" must begin by examining this vast subject of "sin". It cannot be a cursory examination; because it is sin which hinders us from becoming `holy' in the first place. If we don't have a clear understanding of what it is we are to overcome, we will never become holy.
Let me make a very plain statement. Human nature is corrupt. It is vile. It is totally unredeemable. It is unchangeable. Its outlet, through human life, is largely through sin. Without a clear understanding of God's purpose, we will never be within His purpose. It is God's purpose that -- once we are overcome and we have had the legal holiness of Jesus Christ imputed to us (because of the forgiveness of sin through the blood of Jesus Christ) -- we must go on to having true holiness as a part of our character through overcoming sin. So, without a clear knowledge of "sin", such doctrines as `conversion', `justification', `sanctification', `eternal judgment', [and] `going on to perfection' are merely words that convey no serious responsibility and no motivation to a person who believes he's on the right track to the Kingdom of God. This is very serious. Such a person is really doing nothing more than "playing church" -- because the true religion is not affecting his life. It's not affecting his life until he is overcoming sin. "To him that overcomes..." it says in Revelation 2 and 3 (seven times). That's where the rewards go. That's who's going to be in the Kingdom of God. What has to be overcome is human nature through its manifestation; that is, sin.
Let's go back to the very first chapter of that Book (in Genesis 1 and verse 3); and there it says:
Genesis 1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
That may seem a strange place to begin a sermon on "sin"; but you'll see what I mean in a just a little bit, if you'll begin turning to II Corinthians 4 and in verse 6. The material creation of earth (to make it habitable for mankind) began with light, and so does the spiritual creation. The spiritual creation (to make us habitable for the Kingdom of God) also begins with light.
II Corinthians 4:6 - For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, has shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
"Light" is used as a symbol of being given the power to perceive. Because we can perceive, we are then given direction as to how to proceed. As long as we are in "darkness", we don't know which way to turn. It's very likely that no matter which way we turn, we are going to run into something; get hurt; fall in the ditch; go off the cliff; kill ourselves; or whatever. But once a person has light, then the obstacles begin to become more `distinct'; and we can dodge them. We can avoid them. We can begin to pick a clear path. I think you understand the `drift'; because those obstacles are "sin"-- which comes in many forms and shapes. So even as God miraculously began removing the "darkness" of the destroyed (created) world, He has begun removing the "darkness" of the spiritual world from our destroyed (headed-for-death) lives -- by means of both a revelation of Himself and a revelation of what constitutes "sin". Even though we have our eyes open, we may not be aware of what these obstacles, we are looking at, are. I know that you know that is true; because; as you have progressed in God's way, sin should become clearer. It comes in all forms, shapes, and sizes. Sometimes, there are little things that trip us up; and sometimes, there are big things that seem about ready to crush us. Without God (shining in our hearts), we would have no idea what these things are. But God doesn't stop just by revealing. He begins to give us also a great deal of detail about these things so that we can begin to `see' sin in a clear and clearer light.
Now, what this does is, it gives Him "a double-barreled approach" in that He reveals both what we should do and be, as well as, what we shouldn't do and be. In other words, the double-barreled approach is -- one positive, one negative &endash; one, what we should do; and, another, what we should not do. Both of these approaches are necessary to clearly define "sin".
False doctrines are formulated by those who don't understand these two extremes. False doctrines are followed by those who, also, don't understand. Because if they did understand, if they had a clear vision, if the light of God was really shining on these obstacles; they would avoid them, wouldn't they? (We would think they would, anyway.)
We're quite familiar with the term "sin." We talk of sin being in the world. We speak of people, including ourselves, committing sin. But I think that we also, sometimes, have a hazy (or, at least, an incomplete) view of all that sin encompasses. So, I think that it's good to begin with some explanation.
Now, all of us know I John 3:4 by heart. Unfortunately, in some, the understanding stops there. If it stops there, we're never going to get to the root of what is causing the problems -- why it is so hard [to overcome sin]. The Bible reveals that sin is deeper and broader than that simple statement there in I John 3:4. Therefore a different, a better, a sharper definition is needed. Here's where I'm going to begin; and I think it's rather interesting. This is taken from the Ninth Article of the Church of England. It states:
"...The fault and the corruption of the nature of every man that is naturally engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh always lusts against the spirit, and therefore in every person born into the world, it deserves God's wrath and damnation."
Whew! That's a pretty strong statement. Now the emphasis, in what they said there, was on the word "nature." What they were saying is Biblically correct -- that sin springs from the nature of man. Now this (two sentences there) is seen, by those who authored it, as a vast moral disease which affects the whole human race -- of every rank (class), regardless of name, nation, or language. Not only does nobody escape its corruption; but that it is always working to give evidence of its existence; that is, human nature.
Notice what David had to say -- in regard to sin and himself -- in his confession before God, as recorded in Psalm 51. So turn back to Psalm 51, and we're going to read verses 1 through 10.
Psalm 51:1-10 - Have mercy upon me, O God, according to your lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of your tender mercies blot out my transgressions. 2 Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. 3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. 4 Against you, you only, have I sinned, and done this evil in your sight: that you might be justified when you speak [pay attention to that], and be clear when you judge. 5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. 6 Behold, you desire truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part you shall make me to know wisdom. 7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. 8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which you have broken may rejoice. 9 Hide you face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. 10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
Interesting. "Create in me a clean heart." Doesn't that give you the impression that "a clean heart" is going to have to be something that is added to man? It is not `there' unless certain things take place. Now I want to focus on, for a while here, in verses 5 and 6; because these verses are the clearest expression (that I know) of how deeply rooted sin is in us and a major reason why it is so difficult to overcome.
What David did was trace his sin all the way back to his conception. Now, he is not saying that he was conceived while his mother was sinning; but, rather, [he's] saying, by means of this vivid illustration, that it is in his &endash; and, therefore, our &endash; nature to sin. In other words, it was already `there' the moment that he was conceived. When he was born, that nature (that "sin") was already to work.
Verse 6 also, I believe, clarifies another thing; and, that is, that He (meaning, God) created us with a nature which can be influenced and choose to go either way. Now, in God's Word, God makes it very clear what His will is: God "desires" that there be truth in the inward parts. You see, He's not saying that it [truth] is there when we are born. He is not saying that it is there when we are conceived. But it is His will that it be there. By "inward parts" He means the nature, which drives our attitudes and our conduct. If there is not truth in the inward parts, then man is always subject to a nature that is going to produce sin. It is the nature, which produces sin; and it is the nature that must be repented of and changed. I hope you catch the significance of that.
Now Jeremiah 17, in verse 9, which you don't have to turn to at this time. (I'll get back to it later.) It says that the heart is deceitful. Deceit is not truth. Deceit is sin. And deceit brings forth sin, especially when we are not honest in judging ourselves -- when we're not honest in judging our conduct, when we're not honest in judging our motivations. If the heart is deceitful above all things...in other words, there is not a thing on earth that is more deceitful than our own nature. It can easily deceive us -- trick us into justifying ourselves, and painting ourselves `lily white' (if you understand what I mean).
Now He also tells us there that truth is deceit's remedy. Truth is deceit's remedy. That's why God wants "truth" in the inward parts. He wants truth. Is there anywhere in the Bible where the Holy Spirit is called "the spirit of truth"? It is responding to `truth' that stops `deceit' in its tracks and nullifies our human nature's ability to sin. So when God says He desires truth in the inward parts, He is expressing that it is His will that we not sin. Sin, therefore, is something "derived". It is "a product" of the nature that God created that can be bent (or influenced) in that direction; that is, to sin. But that nature, you see, could be bent to do a great deal of right as well.
Mr. Armstrong used to say that he felt God gave us a nature that is more or less neutral; but that it did have a stronger pull toward the self. Now that "self" is expressed in such ways as "self-satisfaction" and "self-preservation" right from birth. But the continuous practice of exercising, you see, toward the self, in these manners, hardens and strengthens that pull so that it overwhelms the tendency in the other "selfless" (outgoing) direction.
So David, here in Psalm 51, far from trying to excuse his sin by placing the blame on his mother, is saying that "sin" is such a part of him that it has been with him from the very `get-go'. I mean from conception. There is no self-justification here. There is no seeking of vindication. He is not saying, "the devil made me do it." He is not saying that it is post-traumatic syndrome; or the neighborhood that he grew up in; or because he was poor; or that he was a shepherd; or that he came from a broken family; or because he was rich; or because he was king; [or] part of a minority. He didn't blame it on Bathsheba. He didn't blame it on war-weariness or any kind of a physical handicap. He took the blame entirely; and whatever God wanted to do, God was completely justified. Now THAT was repentance! He just threw himself totally on God's mercy, without reservation. He said, "It has been in me from the `get-go' to do this." And that's why he prayed to God, "Create in me a clean heart," because he was saying: "I am helpless before sin, unless You change my nature." That's why it's so hard!
But what I want to especially help us understand (at this point in the sermon) is that, by the time God calls us, sin is dominating our nature. Even though, as Mr. Armstrong said, it's more-or-less `neutral', it has a little bit stronger pull toward the self. By the time God gets to us, we have exercised the pull to the self so frequently and so powerfully [that] sin is dominating us. We are enslaved, regardless of who we are.
Now, the actual `acts of sin' are merely the outward manifestation of what it is in our nature to do. So ingrained is it, that we are enslaved to it. It cannot be redeemed. It must be cast off (like Israel's "shackles" when leaving Egypt) and totally replaced by a new nature &endash; the divine nature. But even here, as we've learned (by means of experience, as well as God's Word), the old nature is replaced incrementally -- bit by bit, inch by inch, analogous to a child `growing'. They don't grow up overnight, but little by little, as they are fed and they experience life. So the old nature is replaced by the new nature incrementally -- until the character of the new [nature] becomes habit within us.
So sin is merely defined most broadly in I John 3 and verse 4, where it states that "sin is the transgression of the law." If you have a modern version of the Bible, it's very likely that it says, "sin is lawlessness." That translation is more accurate grammatically. Once one begins to grasp the Bible's use of the word "law" in its broader sense (than we do today), that statement "sin is lawlessness" is also more accurate theologically as well. To us law indicates "a written regulation enacted by a governing authority". The Bible also uses it that way, but it uses it in other ways besides. The way the Bible uses it, it is derived primarily from the word "Torah"; and the Bible frequently translates that word as (the English) "law." But it means more than "an enacted regulation". It more accurately corresponds to the English word "teaching" or "instruction". Therefore, it would be better (taking the whole Bible into consideration) for us to understand in English that sin is the transgression of God's instruction.
Now, all violations of God's instruction are not written in God's Word as legal enactments. Turn with me to Matthew the 5th chapter, in verses 21 through 22, right near the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount. I think that these two verses will suffice to show what I mean by what I just said.
Matthew 5:21-22 - You have heard that it was said by them of old time, You shall not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, You fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
To the best of my knowledge, it was nowhere written in God's Word prior to this time (that is, in the Old Testament) that to be angry is sin because it violates the intent of the Sixth Commandment. Does that mean that, until this was written in the 1st Century A. D., being angry without a cause was not "sin"? Of course not. It has always been sin, because who determines what sin is? God does. Jesus was magnifying the law here and making it very clear what the nature of man produces -- and that this has been sin from the very beginning. So, we can understand then that the intent (or the spirit) of what is already revealed is encompassed within whatever constitutes "sin". In other words, there may be "an enacted law" or there may be "a stated principle"; but there are ramifications (of that enacted law or that stated principle) that are "sin" that are never written anywhere else. Yet, that which is not written is encompassed within God's instruction; and, therefore, a breaking of what is not written still is "sin". For example, smoking is nowhere mentioned in the Bible, is it? But we can understand that it is sin, because it transgresses the principle of not violating the temple of God's Holy Spirit. It is destructive, obviously so, to a person's health; and we are to glorify God in our body. Therefore, it is "sin", but it is nowhere written.
So, you see, "sin is the transgression of the law". Though [that] is correct, it doesn't become clear what is intended until we understand that the word "law" encompasses all of God's instruction, written and the spirit.
"Righteousness" is sin's opposite. God, Himself, is the standard of righteousness. Therefore, His example of the way He lived (as revealed in the life of Jesus Christ) also gives us a great deal of insight -- especially in regard to `sins of omission'; that is, sin where we neglect to do what is right (rather than actively, deceitfully, or forcefully doing something against another). Now, we're getting into deep water here, as far as a Christian is concerned.
I'm going to give you a definition of sin that I found from John C. Ryle. You may never have heard of him, but he is generally considered to be the outstanding person (preacher, teacher) of the Church of England during the latter half of the 19th century. He was a bishop in Edinburgh, Scotland. He wrote this at the same time that he perceived (and these are his words) that the Church of England was giving itself over to "modernism" and to "Laodiceanism". This is in the latter half of the 19th century, and he could see that the Church of England was going completely off the track in its moral teaching. Ryle was fighting in order to try to get people back on the track and on their bearings toward a `righteousness' that he thought members of the Church of England ought to have. Okay now. Here comes his definition of sin.
"I say furthermore that a sin, to speak more particularly, consists in doing, saying, thinking, or imagining anything that is not in perfect conformity with the mind and law of God. Sin, in short, as the scripture says, is the transgression of God's law. The slightest outward or inward departure from absolute mathematical parallelism with God's revealed will and character constitutes a sin, and at once makes us guilty in God's sight."
That's almost overwhelming to comprehend. He is saying, in short, that anything that falls short (or deviates) from the perfection of God is sin. Now, with this definition, we can see why the Bible's writers would use the terms that mean, "miss the mark" or "to turn aside" -- [that is,] harmartia meaning "miss the mark" or paratoma meaning "to turn aside," -- rather than always using the broader terms "transgress" or "sin." This definition also clearly makes sin an implacable enemy to our submitting to God's sovereignty and a formidable barrier to holiness.
Now, back to "sins of omission," because I think that this ought to be something of considerable concern to those of us who are in the church. It's been a long held thought of mine that a major difference between Christ's and the Pharisees' approach to life is in this area. This is the reason (I feel) that God chose to show Christ in contrast to the Pharisees in many, many instances in His Word. You can remember, I am sure, from Matthew the 5th chapter (I believe that it's about verse 17, 18, 19 -- somewhere there) where He said that nothing would pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Then He went on to say that, unless our righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and the Pharisees, we will in no wise be in the Kingdom of God. That was an admission (from Christ) that the Pharisees did have a `righteousness' &endash; and, in many cases, that `righteousness' was considerable. (Look at the Apostle Paul, for example.)
What was the difference between Christ and the Pharisees? Well, I'll tell you, one of the major differences was the way they approached life. There was a major difference in the way that they approached life. The Pharisee achieved `righteousness' by avoiding sin. Jesus achieved "righteousness" by doing good. There is a major difference between those two.
Now turn with me to Acts the 10th chapter, and verses 34 through 38. Peter is describing something here to Cornelius.
Acts 10:34-38 - Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that fears him, and works righteousness [notice that word, "works righteousness"], is accepted with him. 36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all.) 37 That word, I say, you know, which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil: for God was with him.
Two things I want to draw your attention to, in this brief description of Peter. "He that works righteousness." Righteousness is shown in the Bible very, very frequently as something done, rather than merely being achieved by `avoiding sin'. Now, righteousness means "right doing". And so Biblical "righteousness" is not merely passive avoidance of what is wrong. The second thing (that I want to draw your attention to) is something that I already said &endash; and it's clearly enunciated there by Peter &endash; that is, that Jesus went around "doing good". When you `do good', you avoid `sins of omission'. It is my belief that this is where most of us fall short!
Now, let's go back to the book of Amos. Amos (I think that we understand) was written just before the fall of Israel. God sent Amos to Samaria to preach. He probably also sent him to other areas in the country where festivals were being held. We have here, then, `a model' from which we can understand much of what is happening in our culture -- just before we fall completely. And, of course, that puts the church right in the middle of things. Really, what Amos is doing here is describing `a Laodicean culture' that is impacting upon the church. Now, in Amos the 5th chapter, verses 15 and 24.
Amos 5:15 - Hate the evil, and love the good [Here's God's instruction through Amos.], and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph.
I want to draw our attention to the word "establish". It's a synonym for "build." Building takes activity. Building takes planning. Building takes gathering together your resources (in order to establish or build the structure that you are going to build). Only, at this time, what is going to be constructed is "judgment". If you have a modern translation, it probably said "justice" -- which is a good translation of that word. Now drop down to verse 24.
V24 - But let judgment [or justice] run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.
So we have another active verb here -- "run down." Let it "run down" like a mighty stream. Now that "running down" suggests the force and power of moving water -- even as water moving through a dam turns a generator, which produces electricity; which, in turn, empowers our city so that we can do things. But there is even a more precise definition of this word "run down," which I think is even better. It means, "to roll." Do you know what it indicates? It indicates the continuous rolling of waves into shore. Now answer this: Does that activity ever stop in the ocean? Is there a time when there are no waves? It never happens. This word is vivid. God is saying, "Let justice run down in a continuous activity, never stopping; and righteousness as a mighty stream -- moving things, empowering things to be accomplished." We see in verse 7 of the same chapter:
V7 - You who turn justice to wormwood, and leave off righteousness in the earth.
Here these two appear again in a verse. I think that the context here (of this chapter) shows very clearly that there is a relationship in God's mind between "justice" and "righteousness". They are not the same things; but they are so closely related that they cannot be separated from one another. It seems as though where there is one, there is going to be the other -- hopefully, anyway. We're going to see that it's not an absolute; but, hopefully, where there is one, there is going to be the other.
Now he mentions justice turned into wormwood. I think we all understand that wormwood is a very bitter substance. But I learned this past week (in doing a little bit of research) that wormwood, when it is extracted from its source, is colorless. So, it can be put into water; and nobody would even know it is there until you taste it, see, because it doesn't discolor the water. If you take a glass of water that has wormwood in it; then you taste it; and then you "experience" the bitterness of the wormwood. See? Well, these people are turning justice into wormwood. What he is saying here is that "justice" has become a bitter experience.
Now, we can extrapolate this just a little bit further. Justice, in this context, is right behavior in relation to others -- whereby the experience within this relationship (in this case) is not something pleasant. So "justice", in its good sense, is correct moral practice (with the emphasis on `practice'), as verse 24 says [is] what God wants. It is an activity; it is a conduct; it is a behavior that is outward.
Righteousness is literally, in the Biblical sense, some "thing". It could be a building. It could be a plumb line. It can be a tree. But it must be perfectly upright. See? So, righteousness is some thing, or person, that is upright. It has the implication that it is "a standard" against which other things are tested. Thus, a little bit later in this book, God uses the plumb line as an illustration that Israel is being measured against (a standard); and they are found that they are not righteous. What happens here, in verse 7, is that the standard has been thrown into the ground; and, therefore, it indicates that it is rejected. Let's pull this all together by turning to chapter 6 and verse 12.
Amos 6:12 - Shall horses run upon the rock? will one plow there with oxen? for [here comes the conclusion] you have turned justice into gall, and the fruit of righteousness into poison.
Okay. Again, within the context of this book, "justice" and "righteousness" are being tied together. Justice -- meaning correct moral practice in our daily, personal lives -- is the fruit of cultivating (again, an active verb) righteousness. "Justice" is external. "Righteousness" is internal. And, of course, in the Bible "righteousness" always means right with God &endash; `in line with' what God thinks.
Okay. A conclusion, from within the book of Amos, that has an application to you and me: What God desires from religion is that it should produce "justice" and "righteousness". He is showing us that both of them must be actively pursued (actively cultivated), or we will never have them.
Now remember, this is all tied together with "sins of omission". Sins of omission are those things which we neglect to do. We must cultivate right standards and actively apply them in our personal lives so that others may taste their flavor. So, it's right in this area that we so frequently commit our "sins of omission", in that we don't actively cultivate the right (within God's standards) internally, nor actively apply them externally. Rather, we simply, passively, accept teaching as "right with God" without really deeply internalizing them in our hearts.
Now, a conclusion: This is what has led to the troubles that many have had in the breakup of the Worldwide Church of God. People are in confusion. They don't even know what they believe, because they never `internalized' these things. They never `actively pursued'. "Justice" never actively pursued "righteousness"; and, so, it never became inscribed (ingrained) in their hearts. So, when "the truths" were challenged; they [people] were thrown into confusion.
"Righteousness" and "justice" must be practiced. If we are `omitting' what we should be `doing', it doesn't become ingrained within us. Did not God say (in the covenant that He proposed to Israel), "I will write My laws in their hearts"? Just being `academic' won't do it. It has to be lived!
I'm going to show you how important this is. Let's go back to something our Savior said, in Matthew the 25th chapter. If you know anything about Matthew 25, it has a number of parables in it that are very important to the end-time church. It has the parable of the virgins. It goes on to the parable of the talents. And notice what it says in verse 40:
Matthew 25:40 - And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and you gave me no meat [no food].
They didn't do it. They might have had good thoughts, but it didn't get done.
V42 - I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and you visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we you an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister [serve] unto you? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous...
Who's righteous? Brethren, who's righteous? The ones who did not OMIT to do it!
Now, let's just nail this down very clearly. Back in the book of James, in chapter 4, in verse 17.
James 4:17 - Therefore to him that knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin.
Omitting to do the good puts us into the Lake of fire! That's pretty blunt. (All I did was put James 4:17 together with Matthew 25, and quoted our Savior.) This is where I believe most of our sin occurs. We fail to do what is right. That was the difference between Christ and the Pharisees. He didn't fail to do what is right. So He was not "passively righteous". He was "actively righteous". He was `establishing'. He was `building'.
Now there is a teaching floating around out there which says that sin is not sin until we discern it and are conscious of it. Now, that's patently untrue, as I will show you in a moment. But, nonetheless, there are those who believe it. They fancy themselves `innocent' -- when, in fact, they are `guilty'. It is true that `a sin done in ignorance' is less damaging psychologically; but "ignorance" does not absolve "sin". Now let's get an indication of this, from Jesus, in Luke the 12th chapter, in verses 47 and 48.
Luke 12:47-48 - And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself...
See? He didn't do it. He knew, but he didn't carry through. He didn't do it. He `omitted' a lot of things.
V47 - Neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he that knew not [was ignorant], and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.
So "knowing not" does not excuse a person from punishment, according to our Savior. The punishment may be muted; but punishment comes, nonetheless.
Now, we're going to go all the way back to the book of Leviticus (in chapter 4, and in verses 2, 3, 13, 22, and 27). I want to show you, clearly, that God makes this very clear -- that "sinning in ignorance" (not knowing) puts the person `under the gun', so to speak.
Leviticus 4:2 - Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, if a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them.
Okay. That introduces the subject of this chapter.
V3 - If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people.
Watch how this encompasses every level, every stratum, of society.
V13 - And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty.
V22 - When a ruler has sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty.
V27 - And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he does somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty.
Brethren, there would be no need for sacrifice if there was no sin. This is what is being talked about in this chapter -- the sacrifices that are to be made when `a sin of ignorance' is revealed, finally. The person may have committed it a good while before. They did it in ignorance. They didn't even know they did it. But, once it is revealed that they did sin (though it be `in ignorance'), a sacrifice was required. Why? Because the sin rendered them "unclean" to be part of the congregation of Israel ("unclean" to be in the presence of God); and their "uncleanness" (their filth) had to be absolved, symbolically, by atonement -- by sacrifice.
Now, the Hebrew word used (this word that's translated "ignorance") literally means "unintentionally" or "inadvertently"; and it covers sins done through negligence and ignorance. It covers acts done by those that knew it was wrong but `unintentionally' violate the commandment (as in `accidental homicide') or an act where the person was truly ignorant and had no idea at all that he was sinning. God gives many, many, examples of this; because many, many, sins are committed in ignorance. He gives the many examples in the hope that we will come to the understanding that even sins done in ignorance have to be repented of. God will be faithful in revealing these sins to us. They should be repented of, and they need to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ.
Now, let's go to the book of Numbers. I'll give you a few examples in chapter 35.
Numbers 35:22 - But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity [We're talking here about an accidental homicide], or have cast upon him anything without laying of wait, 23 Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm: 24 Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments: 25 And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil.
So, what he said there is, if somebody accidentally kills another person (not being his enemy), he was still put on trial. And the witnesses spoke that it was accidental. Then the man was still, nonetheless, punished; but he was allowed to live out the remainder of his life in a city of refuge. So he was really, literally, "in jail" but much better off than being confined to `a jail'. His `jail' was an entire city; and he was free to move around, within it, and [to] earn a living while he was there. Then, when the high priest died, he was allowed to return to his family. This didn't mean, of course, that his family could not visit him there. They certainly could. (That's far more merciful than man's system -- to confine people of this kind in a very small cell where he becomes just a drag on the welfare system.)
In Deuteronomy 19, we have another example of the same sort of thing.
Deuteronomy 19:4-6 - And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso kills his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past; 5 As when a man goes into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetched a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the helve, and lights upon his neighbour, that he die; he shall flee unto one of those cities, and live: 6 Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past.
V10 - That innocent blood be not shed in your land, which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, and so blood be upon you. 11 But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and flees into one of these cities...
Then, that person can still be put to death. You see, God does not consider "sinning in ignorance" as being not a "sin". It is a sin, and there is punishment.
There are other examples that I will give you; and, then, [we'll] conclude for today and go onto something else the next Sabbath. I'm to a place in the sermon here that requires a bit more time. In Genesis 20 (in verses 3 through 6, and verse 9), we have Abimelech's confession before God regarding Abraham and Sarah. God kept him from sinning. Abimelech makes it very clear that he was lured (tricked) into a situation of which he was `ignorant'; but it was still a sin. God made it very clear that He kept him from sinning. If he had `gone through with' what he was considering doing (even though he was `ignorant'), it would have been sin.
The other case, I have here, is Numbers 22:34 -- which involved Balaam and the ass. The ass saw the angel. Balaam's plea was that he was `ignorant' of the fact that the angel was standing there. The ass saw the angel, but Balaam did not. Therefore, Balaam was kept from sinning, even `in ignorance'.
[There was a "buzzing" noise heard, coming through the transmission.]
Well, as you can see, I got the buzzer. [A bit of laughter.] It's a good time to stop at any rate. So God willing, we'll be speaking to you next week on this same subject.
JWR/smp/
Sermons in the Sin series:
Sin (Part 1)
Sin and Human Nature
Sin (Part 2)
Sin and Folly
Sin (Part 3)
Where Does Sin Come From?
Sin (Part 4)
Sin and Warfare
