The Origin of Sin

AN ESSAY BY Richard Phillips

DEFINITION

The question of the origin of Sin asks what was the cause of Adam’s sin, by which the human race fell from righteousness to condemnation and contemplates the relationship of sin’s coming into the world with the will of the good and holy Creator who is sovereign over all.

SUMMARY

The Bible’s teaching of sin starts in the garden, where Adam violated God’s prohibition from eating from the forbidden tree. There, we discover that prior to man’s fall, sin existed in the form of the tempting serpent Satan. Yet as God created all things good, including the fallen angels, we inevitably must come to grips with God’s sovereignty, omniscience, and omnipotence with respect to the origin of sin. Balanced Bible teaching will show that God is not the author of sin, since in his holiness God is without any sin or evil of his own. Careful biblical reflection teaches that God willed sin in such a way that he remains morally perfect: God is never the primary but only the secondary cause in human sin. The attempt to make rational sense of sin will always run aground on the inherent irrationality of sin. Yet, at the cross of Jesus Christ, where God willed that his Son would be handed over to death by the hands of guilty sinners, we discover the best answer to questions about the origin of sin in the sovereign grace of God that glorifies him in the redemption of sinners.

--------------

What Caused Human Sin?

The question of the origin of sin holds importance because of what it tells us about both man and God. According to modern theories, man’s sin originates in his evolutionary origins. History is said to involve an ascent from savage beginnings, so that sin simply is seen as native to mankind’s nature. The effect of an evolutionary view of man is to normalize what the Bible calls sin as a simple necessity of our existence.

This modern approach to the origin of sin conflicts radically with the Bible in denying an original righteousness to Adam. Genesis 1:27 states that “God created man in his own image,” and this image implies personal holiness, righteousness, and thus freedom from the necessity of sin. Donald Macleod writes: “According to the Bible, man, as made by God, was upright. He was made in God’s image. He was absolutely sinless.”[1] Man became a sinner, however, when Adam succumbed to temptation in the garden. In this important sense, man sinned when Adam willed to sin in his heart. Having been forbidden by God to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17–18), Adam ate the fruit and fell into sin (Gen 3:6). Sin therefore did not originate in the human nature as God made it but resulted when Adam was tempted by the evil serpent through his wife. Once Adam had sinned, the entire human race fell with him, losing the original righteousness of creation in God’s image (Gen 6:4), sharing Adam’s guilt (Rom 5:12, 18), and becoming corrupted with sin so that henceforth each individual human originates as a sinner (Ps 51:5).

Although we can trace the entry of human sin to Adam’s temptation and fall, we observe that Adam’s fall was preceded by the fall of the evil angels, chief of whom is Satan, who masqueraded in the garden as the serpent. For when Adam sinned, there was already a sinful angel present in the garden. The Bible does not clearly define the manner or time when the fall of the angels took place. But Jesus says that Satan “was a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44; see 1Jn 3:8), which most likely refers to the beginning of the creation account. Paul warns church leaders against becoming puffed up “with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil” (1Tim 3:16), suggesting that Satan’s originating sin was a pride which resented the creation of man in God’s image. It stands to reason that Satan tempted Adam and Eve to be “like God” (Gen. 3:5) because this same discontented rebellion occasioned his own fall.

Sin and God’s Will

This biblical data brings us to the question of God’s relationship to the origin of sin. Herman Bavinck comments: “On the basis of Scripture, it is certain that sin did not first start on earth but in heaven, at the feet of God’s throne, in his immediate presence.”[2] Does this mean that sin has its origin in God, or in God’s will?

Given the divine attributes of omniscience and omnipotence, it is inconceivable that sin as either an act or a power could have originated apart from God’s will. Some thinkers have sought to exempt God from the implications of this reality. For instance, Immanuel Kant argued that God willed sin because it was necessary to the possibility of good in the world. Just as birds can only fly because of the contrary resistance of wind, so also the pressure of sin is necessary for human moral perfection.[3] Others have argued that sin was necessary to God’s creation in order for man to exercise free will. A problem with these views is that sin is thus made normative to the human condition and may even be thought of as a kind of good. Such a view contrasts with the Bible’s insistence that sin is always “evil in the eyes of the Lord” (2Chron 29:6).

The Bible uniformly teaches God’s sovereignty over all things (Matt 10:9; Ps 33:11), which would include the origin of sin, yet Scripture explicitly denies that God is himself the source of evil. James 1:13 states that God is not the author of sin: “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’” for “God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.” 1 John 1:5 insists, “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all,” so sin does not originate in God’s nature or being. Neither was anything made by God evil in any way, as Genesis 1:31 declares: “God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.” Job 34:10 states: “far be it from God that he should do wickedness, and from the Almighty that he should do wrong.” Moreover, the Bible explicitly states God’s hatred for sin (Ps 5:4; Luke 16:15).

Do these verses show that God merely permitted sin, without willing it? The answer must be “no,” if by permission we exclude God’s positive will. Fred G. Zaspel writes: “God’s relation to the sinful acts is not purely passive: his involvement is not that of mere allowance.”[4] We may rightly say that God willed to permit sin, yet in so doing his providential government over sin is affirmed. Theologians approach this situation by asserting that God’s role in the origin of sin involves not primary but secondary causation. It was the will of Satan that sinned in leading the rebellion of angels, just as it was the will of Adam that sinned in taking the forbidden fruit. These were ultimately according to God’s decreed will, yet Satan and man remain responsible for their sin. Zaspel explains: “all that happens, good or evil, stems from God’s positive ordering of it; but the moral quality of the deed itself is rooted in the moral character of the person who does it.”[5] At the same time, we must note a difference between God’s will of good and of evil, the former involving a positive enabling and the latter a positive permitting; Bavinck writes: “Light cannot of itself produce darkness; the darkness only arises when the light is withdrawn.”[6]

While we must deny any goodness in sin itself, it remains true that God has ordained sin—indeed, God sinlessly uses sin—for the praise of his glory. Since “from him and through him and to him are all things,” then God willed sin ultimately for the display of the perfection of his attributes, so that “to him [would] be glory forever” (Rom 11:36). We may therefore go so far as to say that although sin is evil, it is good that there was sin, or else God would not have willed it.

The clearest Scripture teaching affirming both God’s will for sin and man’s responsibility of sin formed a part of Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost. Convicting the people of Jerusalem for their sin against the Savior, Peter declared: “This Jesus . . . you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men” (Acts 2:23). The sin was committed by the people who cried for Jesus’s crucifixion, by Pontius Pilate in his miscarriage of justice, by the Roman soldiers who nailed Christ to the cross, and by the priests and other religious leaders who mocked God’s Son in his torment. Yet, Peter also ascribes full sovereignty over all these wicked events to God. He inserts into that verse that Jesus was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). God not only knew that his Son would be tortured, mocked, and slain, but it was according to his “definite” and eternal “plan” for history that these events took place.

The “Enigma” of Sin’s Origin

In answering questions as to the origin of sin, while we can affirm many important truths, we nonetheless stand before what Herman Bavinck called “the greatest enigma of life and the heaviest cross for the intellect to bear.”[7] When considered as an explanation for the world as we know it, sin makes perfect sense: indeed, without a doctrine of the fall of mankind, the history of the world is incomprehensible. Yet, considering the biblical data about sin itself, when we ask how beings created as wholly good by God—such as the angel Satan and the man Adam—could will to sin, all answers escape us. Attempts to rationalize the origin of sin run aground against the essential irrationality of the creature rebelling against the Creator. This irrationality afflicts not merely the originating sins of ancient history but also every sin that we commit today. When the Christian bitterly asks, “Why did I sin?” there are descriptions—because of temptation, because of remaining indwelling sin, etc.—but there are no true explanations for the origin of any sin.

It is for this reason that Christians may be grateful that the question of “Why?” when it comes to sin, having no true answer on the human side of the equation, finds satisfaction in the grace of God’s sovereign will. Romans 11:32 states: “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.” Only in the light of the glory of God’s grace does sin begin to make sense. God has chosen to save his people as sinners through the blood of his Son as a display of sovereign mercy. Christians thus realize that because we were converted from sin that was washed through atoning blood, God is glorified in his Son. Far from minimizing the significance of our ongoing sins, Christians also realize that God is glorified now in the power that his grace provides enabling us not to sin. The enigma of sin’s origin, then, enables believers in Christ to perceive in glorious clarity God’s amazing love and mercy in his Son, “to the praise of his glorious grace” (Eph 1:6).

FOOTNOTES

1. Donald Macleod, A Faith to Live By: Understanding Christian Doctrine (Ross-shire, UK: Christian Focus, 1998), 110.
2. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols., John Vriend, trans. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), 3:36.
3. Ibid., 3:56.
4. Fred G. Zaspel, The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 205.
5. Ibid.
6. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:63.
7. Ibid., 53.

FURTHER READING

• Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1941. Berkhof provides brief and readable, yet thorough consideration of this topic.
• Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, Volume Three: Sin and Salvation in Christ. John Vriend, trans. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006. This is the most comprehensive and mature treatment of the topic available. The relevant section is available on-line here.
• Bowers, Johnathan. “Seven Things the Bible Says about Evil,” Desiring God. October 18, 2011. This article is particularly useful in connecting answers to the question of evil to the cross of Christ.
• Piper, John. “God Planned Sin!” Video sermon excerpt arguing from Scripture that the greatest of all sins, the ridiculing murder of Jesus Christ, was God’s plan that revealed God’s will in saving sinners.
• Piper, John. “Is God Sovereign Over Sin?” Video sermon excerpt explaining God’s sovereign will and control over all sin.
• Warfield, B. B. Works. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003, 2:20–22.
• ———. Selected Shorter Works. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1970, 2:310–13. Warfield provides an insightful perspective on the orthodox view of the origin of sin, especially bringing forth the massive contributions of Augustine.
• “What Is the Origin of Sin?” God Questions? Brief and useful summary of the topic.

Original Sin

AN ESSAY BY Richard Phillips

DEFINITION

Original Sin is a term that defines the nature of mankind’s sinful condition because of Adam’s fall. It teaches that all people are corrupted by Adam’s sin through natural generation, by which—together with Adam’s imputed condemnation—we all enter the world guilty before God. Original Sin shows that we sin because we are sinners, entering this world with a corrupt nature and without hope apart from the saving grace of God in the gospel.

SUMMARY

Original Sin teaches that all mankind is joined to Adam in both the guilt and the corruption of his first sin. All men and women are joined to Adam both by natural generation and by his covenantal headship. As a people who from our birth are corrupted by sin, we share in Adam’s guilt before God, a guilt imputed to us under the covenant of works. Moreover, men and women are so corrupted morally and spiritually by our natural union with Adam that we are totally depraved. All our human faculties are corrupted by sin so that we have an inborn tendency to commit sin. Moreover, our total depravity renders us spiritual unable love God or believe his gospel and be saved until we are first regenerated by his sovereign grace. Original Sin provides us with a biblical understanding of ourselves and casts sinners in utter reliance on God’s saving grace in the gospel, with no confidence in the flesh and with all the glory for our salvation belonging to the Lord.

---------------

The Nature of Mankind’s Connection to Adam

Original Sin is the Christian teaching of mankind’s sinfulness because of Adam’s fall. It does not refer to the originating sin committed by Adam—eating the forbidden fruit in violation of God’s command (Gen 3:6)—but rather to mankind’s moral and spiritual condition because of that sin. Defining Original Sin requires the answer to two questions, the first of which is whether the moral and spiritual condition of humanity is connected to Adam in his sin.

During the Fourth Century AD, the heretic Pelagius (condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 431) asserted that Adam’s fall into sin had no direct effect on his offspring other than to set a bad example. With respect to the character of man and his relationship with God, Pelagius asserted that Adam’s sin affected no one other than himself.

The biblical reasons for rejecting Pelagius provide the basis for the doctrine of Original Sin. Primary among them is Romans 5:12, where Paul says that “sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” Paul’s point was not that all men have sinned after the example of Adam and therefore suffer the curse of death, but rather that all men share in the consequences of Adam’s sin. When he states, “because all sinned,” Paul is referring to our union with Adam in his transgression of God’s command. Herman Bavinck summarizes: “Adam sinned; consequently, sin and death entered the world and held sway over all.”[1]

Moreover, Paul describes Adam as “a type of the one who was to come” (Rom 5:14), namely, Christ. Both Adam and Christ stood before God’s covenant as a representative for their people. Adam, as a type of Christ, undertook the test of the covenant of works (Gen 2:16–17) on behalf of all his natural offspring (his failure affecting them all), just as Christ fulfilled the covenant of works on behalf of all his spiritual offspring (his victorious obedience gaining them salvation). This principle of covenant headship is vital not only to Original Sin but also to the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in the gospel. Paul makes this connection clear: “For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many” (Rom 5:15).

Original Sin provides answers to important questions about sin. For instance, why is sin universal among men and women? Geerhardus Vos writes: “The Pelagian theory leaves the universality of sin entirely unexplained,”[2] since if Adam’s sin did not make all mankind sinners, we would expect some at least not to sin. Yet, as Solomon prayed, “There is no one who does not sin” (1Kgs 8:46; see also Rom 3:23).

Another question asks: Is sin merely a passive defect, having no corrupting power in man? The Bible answers, to the contrary, that sin is a deadly power that holds the sinner in bondage. Jesus said, “Everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). To once have sinned is to come under the power of sin. Therefore, far from defining sin only as a transgression of God’s law, the Bible describes sin as “lawlessness” itself (1Jn 3:4). More than this, David states that from the moment of his conception in his mother’s womb the power of sin was upon him: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps 51:5). David was not charging his mother with sinful behavior in his conception but, rather, confessing the sinfulness he inherited at the moment his life came into being. Psalm 58:3 concurs: “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth.”

Mankind’s Original Guilt in Sin

Having shown all mankind’s union with sinful Adam both by natural generation and covenant headship, we must then ask another question: what is the condition of mankind as a result of this connection to Adam’s fall? Original Sin first considers our connection with Adam in the universal guilt of mankind. When Adam sinned, the entire human race was “in him,” so that his guilt accrued to us all. Consider Hebrews 7:9–10, which states that Levi was “in the loins of his ancestor” Abraham when he tithed to Melchizedek, establishing the superiority of Melchizedek’s priesthood to that of Levi. Likewise, the entire human race was “in Adam” when he sinned. Levi was, of course, not present when his ancestor tithed to this priest, yet by virtue of Levi’s natural descent from Abraham, the Levitical priests related to Melchizedek on account of Abraham’s actions. Likewise, while Adam’s descendants did not personally commit Adam’s transgression, their natural union with Adam as his offspring establishes their condemnation in sin before God.

Because Adam’s nature was corrupted by the fall—as evidenced in his alienation to God in its aftermath (Gen 3:7–12)—he could never produce morally superior offspring. John Murray explains: “Human nature became corrupt in Adam and . . . this human nature which became corrupt in Adam is transmitted to posterity by natural generation.”[3] Since we all come into life as sinners, all mankind must necessarily be repugnant to God’s perfectly holy nature and be subject to his condemnation. We therefore find Paul describing all of mankind as “by nature children of wrath” (Eph 2:3).

Mankind’s original guilt stems not only from our inherited nature as sinners. We remember that Adam stood under the covenant of works as the representative of the entire race. On this basis, Paul explains why men and women died between Adam and Moses, death being the penalty for sin (Gen 2:17). Romans 5:14 considers the case of those who sinned without a law, “whose sinning was not like that transgression of Adam,” in that they had personally received neither the covenant of works nor the Mosaic Law. Why, then, did people die between Adam and Moses, with no law to condemn them, except that Adam “was a type of the one who was to come”? That is, Adam was a covenant head for all his people, his failure condemning them all under God’s justice, just as Christ as the covenant head of those who believe attained their justification. Paul states this relationship clearly: “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” (Rom 5:18; see also 1Cor 15:22). Far from being an oppressive doctrine to the hearts of men and women, Original Sin establishes the very principle of covenant headship by which we receive the righteousness of Christ which we have not deserved. In Paul’s own words in Romans 5:20, Original Sin preaches the inspiring news: “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more”!

The teaching of mankind’s universal guilt as inherited from Adam alone can vindicate God for the miseries of human life. Secular man frequently assails God with the notion that he is culpable for the sufferings of people around the globe. Yet, as Augustine pointed out in his opposition to Pelagius (summarized by Bavinck):

The appalling misery of the human race can only be explained as a punishment upon sin. How can God, who certainly is good and just, subject all humans from their conception on to sin and death if they are completely innocent? An original moral debt must rest upon all; there is no other way to understand the crushing yoke that weighs upon all the children of Adam.[4]

From the moment of Adam’s sin, the need of the fallen human race was a Redeemer to deliver them from sin. For this reason, God’s first action in response to Adam’s sin was to promise this Redeemer (Gen 3:15) and to depict Christ’s atoning death through the sacrifice of animals in the garden (Gen 3:21). The logic of mankind’s inherited guilt through Adam provides an essential logic to the gospel message from its earliest appearance in Scripture.

Mankind’s Original Corruption in Sin

The effect of Adam’s sin upon his entire race did not end with guilt but extended to their moral and spiritual corruption as his offspring. The fall has polluted human nature with “an inherent positive disposition toward sin.”[5] We see this sin-ward bent in Romans 3:10–12: “None is righteous, no, not one . . . All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” Isaiah 64:6 adds: “We have all become like one who is unclean,” so that even “our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.”

The Bible presents man’s sinful nature as utterly comprehensive, ruining every human faculty. Jeremiah 17:9 says: “The heart is deceitful above all things.” Romans 3:13–18 depicts the mouth, feet, and eyes as debased, concluding: “the way of peace they have not known.” Above all, the fallen mind is corrupted: “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law” (Rom 8:7). This fallen condition is known as “total depravity.” Robert Reymond summarizes:

His understanding is darkened, his mind is at enmity with God, his will to act is slave to his darkened understanding and rebellious mind, his heart is corrupt, his emotions are perverted, his affections naturally gravitate to that which is evil and ungodly, his conscience is untrustworthy, and his body is subject to mortality.[6]

The teaching of total depravity states not only that every faculty of fallen mankind is corrupted by the power of sin, but it also asserts a spiritual inability to believe God and receive his salvation through faith. Paul states, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him,” and then adds, “he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1Cor 2:14). For this reason, Jesus told Nicodemus: “Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). Paul wrote that apart from God’s regenerating work, we are all “dead in the trespasses and sins” (Eph 2:1). Contrary to those who would describe fallen man merely as sick—with a weakened but nonetheless inherent ability to believe—Paul insists that we are no more able to come to God in faith than a dead man is able to rise from the grave. Whereas Adam was created in a righteousness so that he may be described as having once possessed a free will, Original Sin has placed the will of mankind in slavery to the power of sin. People, of course, retain a faculty of choice, but the bondage of one’s will in sin denies them the liberty to choose the way of God. Louis Berkhof concludes: “He cannot change his fundamental preference for sin and self to love for God, nor even make an approach to such a change. In a word, he is unable to do any spiritual good.”[7]

Original Sin and the Gospel

Original Sin provides the basis for a true understanding of ourselves as fallen humans. This knowledge is essential for those who would be saved through the gospel of Jesus Christ. James Boice explains: “Without a knowledge of our unfaithfulness and rebellion we will never come to know God as the God of truth and grace.”[8] Original Sin teaches us to despair of all hope in ourselves or any other natural source, relying instead entirely on God’s supernatural grace in the gospel. For although dead men are unable of themselves to rise from the grave of their fallen life, God is able by his grace to make us “alive together with Christ” (Eph 2:5). The truth of Original Sin shows us that our salvation must be by the grace of God alone, so that the glory also belongs only to him. Moreover, knowing that the case of every sinner is hopeless apart from God’s saving grace, wise ministers set forth the gospel as proclaimed in God’s Word, “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom 1:16). To appreciate Original Sin is to base our evangelism and preaching entirely on God’s Word, which in the power of the Holy Spirit is able to convey life to the dead. For, in the words of 1 Peter 1:23: “You have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God.”

FOOTNOTES

1. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols., trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), 3:85.
2. Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols., trans. Richard Gaffin (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2012), 2:29.
3. John Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1959), 26-7.
4. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2:93.
5. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1941), 246.
6. Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 450.
7. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 247.
8. James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986), 199.

FURTHER READING

• Murray, John. The Imputation of Adam’s Sin. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1959. The classic exegetical study of Romans 5:12–21, making clear man’s covenantal union with Adam in the fall and the believer’s union in Christ for justification.
• Edwards, Jonathan. “The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended,” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974, 1:143–233. A classic Puritan exposition of the biblical basis for Original Sin, defending against objections from Enlightenment philosophy.
• Challies, Tim. “Original Sin and the Death of Infants,” Challies, July 19, 2006. A thoughtful application of the Bible’s teaching of Original Sin to this emotional subject.
• Piper, John. “The Fatal Disobedience of Adam and the Triumphal Obedience of Christ,” Desiring God, August 26, 2007. A sermon video and text highlighting the glorious saving connection between the imputation of Adam’s sin and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

Degrees of Sin

AN ESSAY BY Stephen Wellum

DEFINITION

Although all sin before God is serious and deserving of eternal punishment, Scripture distinguishes between degrees of sin. In this sense, not all sin is equal in terms of its effects, consequences, and degree of punishment on the person, others, the church, and society.

SUMMARY

This essay discusses whether Scripture teaches that there are degrees of sin or whether all sin should be viewed as equal. After discussing the mortal-venial sin debate in Roman Catholic and Protestant theology, the case is made that before God all sin is sin, but in terms of human relationships, Scripture distinguishes between various sins in terms their effects and consequences. The essay finishes with a discussion of the unpardonable sin.

--------------

Is all sin equal? Or, should we think of degrees of sin? Are some sins more serious than others, or does God view all sin as the same in terms of its consequences? Today, it’s quite common for people to claim that all sin is the same. James 2:10 is often quoted: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” Here is proof, some insist, that the Bible does not distinguish between greater and lesser sins, at least in terms of their damaging effects: all sin is the same. But is this true?

No doubt, we have to answer this question carefully, yet both Scripture and historical theology speak about degrees of sin: some sins are “greater” than others. In fact, our Lord Jesus states this fact in John 19:11 when he addresses Pilate at his trial: “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.” What does Jesus exactly mean? Let’s look at this important question in four steps arguing that before God all sin is sin, yet Scripture also speaks of degrees of sin, and that not all sin is equal in its effects.

Mortal vs. Venial Sins: A Protestant and Roman Catholic Divide

From the Patristic era on (e.g., Tertullian, Augustine), especially developed in Roman Catholic theology (e.g., Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas), a distinction was made between “mortal” sins (peccata mortalia) and “venial” sins (peccata venialia). On the surface this distinction seems to refer to differences between sins in terms of their consequences, but within Roman Catholic theology, the distinction is tied to their overall sacramental theology—something the Reformers rightly rejected.[1] Tradition has always talked about degrees of sin, yet, in Roman theology, the mortal-venial distinction is used in ways that go beyond simply talking about degrees of sin. What, then, is this distinction and how does it function within Catholic theology?

Mortal sin is defined as sin that “destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is the ultimate end and his beatitude.”[2] In this understanding, a “grave violation” is a deliberate or intentional rejection of the Decalogue, that unless confessed and penance is done, God will not work habitual or transforming grace in the person, which ultimately results in eternal punishment. Within this theology, God applies Christ’s work to us by receiving the sacraments that he has established in the church. By the act of baptism (for infants and adults), even apart from saving faith (ex opere operato, “by the work performed”), the person being baptized is regenerated (washed of their original sin), infused with habitual grace that begins the transforming process of making a person righteous (thus conflating justification and sanctification), as sin is confessed and the sacraments are received. Ultimately the process of our becoming righteous is culminated in our being purged of our sin and glorified, thus allowing us to “see” God (beatific vision). Mortal sin, however, if not confessed and penance done, stops this entire process, which results in eternal condemnation.

Venial sin, on the other hand, is defined as a minor sin(s) that “allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.”[3] Such sins are things like “thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter,”[4] but they are less serious. Why? Because if committed and not confessed and repented of, they do not stop the process begun at baptism of God’s work of “justifying” grace that gradually makes the person more righteous. These sins result in temporal punishments, but do not cut off a person forever from salvation.

The Reformers did not deny degrees of sin, but they did reject the mortal-venial distinction, especially as it was worked out in Rome’s sacramental theology. For them, all sin is “mortal” before God, and our only hope is that we are united to Christ in saving faith and declared justified in him. For fallen creatures to stand before God, we need Christ’s perfect righteousness imputed to us and all of our sin completely paid for by his substitutionary death. Also, for the believer who is born of the Spirit and united to Christ as our covenant head, since our justification is complete in Christ, there is no sin that removes our justification, and ultimately thwarts the sanctifying work of the Spirit by the loss of our salvation. Yet, although we should reject the mortal-venial distinction as taught by Rome, this does not entail that we should reject a distinction between all sin as equal before God and various degrees of sin in terms of their overall effects on the person, others, and the world.

All Sin before God Deserves and Demands Eternal Punishment

The Reformers were right to say that all sin before God is “mortal.” Due to Adam’s violation of God’s command (Gen. 2:15-17; 3:1-6), sin results in the penalty of both spiritual and physical death (Rom. 6:23). Sin separates us from God (Isa. 59:1-2) so that apart from Christ, we stand condemned (Rom. 8:1), under God’s wrath (Rom. 1:18-32), and needing God to act in sovereign grace to provide a Redeemer for us. Sin before God, no matter what sin it is, leads to our status of guilty, polluted, and far from God (Eph. 2:1-3). On this point, James 2:10 can now be legitimately used: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” Before God, breakage of any point of the law is to break all of it. Or, Paul can say: “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them” (Gal. 3:10; cf. Deut. 27:26). Breaking one commandment results in our condemnation before God. Why?

The answer is because of who we have sinned against, which takes us back to theology proper. The triune Creator-covenant God is holy (Exod. 3:5-6; 15:11; 19:23ff; Lev. 11:44; 19:1; 1Sam. 2:2; Psa. 99:3, 5, 9; Isa. 6:1ff; 57:15; Ezek. 1-3; Heb. 12:28; 1Pet. 1:15-16; 1Jn. 1:5; Rev. 4). Given that all sin is against him, and given that God’s will and nature is the moral standard of the universe, he cannot and does not overlook our sin—no matter what our sin is. His eyes are too pure to look on evil; he cannot tolerate wrong (Exod. 34:7; Rom. 1:32; 2:8-16). Our sins separate us from him, so that his face is hidden from us. In God’s holy reaction to sin and evil (Rom. 1:18-32; John 3:36), God stands against and punishes all sin. Where there is sin, the holy God confronts his creatures in their rebellion, otherwise God is not the holy God he claims to be.

Alongside God’s holiness is his justice, which like all of his attributes, is essential to him. For this reason, God’s justice is strongly retributive. God is not like a human judge who adjudicates a law external to him; instead, the triune God is the law (Gen. 18:25). When God judges he remains true to his own perfect, moral demand, which means that he remains true to himself. Sin, then, is not against an abstract principle or impersonal law; instead sin is against the personal God who is holy and just, which entails that all sin before God is worthy of eternal death, and that for sinners to be declared just, our justification before God requires that our sin is fully paid and that we have a perfect righteousness by imputation. David, in his famous confession acknowledges this point. Although David in his adultery with Bathsheba, and subsequent sin, has sinned against many people, indeed the entire nation, David rightly confesses: “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight” (Psa. 51:4).

All Sin is not Equal in relation to Ourselves and Others

On this point, we have to think carefully about what Scripture teaches without minimizing the serious reality of human sin and all of its disastrous consequences. All sin before God, given who God is, deserves and demands eternal punishment, hence our need for a Redeemer. Yet, Scripture also speaks of degrees of sin depending on the context, intention, the person committing the sin, and the sin’s overall effects.

In our everyday lives, we know this to be true. For example, speaking obscenities at someone, or harboring hatred in our hearts towards others is a serious sin (James 3:8-10). Yet, to hate someone in such a way that one plans and executes their death is “greater” in terms of its intention, result, and punishment. Or think of lying. To lie to someone is wrong. However, to lie as a government official and to act in deceitful ways could result in treason. Again, the person doing it, the intention, context, and consequences result in a more “serious” offense. Or, think of sexual sin. All sexual activity outside of the marriage covenant between a man and a woman is sinful. Yet, we view sexual sin of an adult with a child, or sexual sin that is a distortion of God’s created order, whether homosexuality or bestiality, as more serious in terms of its consequences and effects on the people involved and its larger impact on society.

Scripture confirms what we know to be true in our everyday experience. Due to our creation as image-bearers and God’s common grace, we cannot eradicate the truth of God from our lives, conscience, and establishment of moral laws and demands. Let’s think of five truths that teach that Scripture speaks of degrees of sin without trivializing any sin.

First, Genesis 9:6 is an important text. Under the Noahic covenant, which remains in effect until Christ returns, the sin of premediated murder is mentioned as a sin that demands the death penalty for the perpetrator, carried out by proper governmental officials (cf. Rom. 13:1-7). Not all sin demands this serious punishment, which highlights the fact that specific sin such as anger and gossip are not treated in the same category as intentional murder. This truth is further underscored in the old covenant by the distinction between intentional and unintentional sins.

Second, as we turn to Israel’s covenant and laws, we see various distinctions that confirm that Scripture makes a distinction between sins. For example, distinctions are made between different levels of clean and uncleanness requiring different sacrifices (Lev. 11-15, cf. chs. 1-8), and especially between “unintentional” and “intentional” sins (Num. 15:22-30). Unintentional sin can be atoned for (e.g., Lev. 4), but certain intentional sins, specifically “high handed” sins are so grievous that they cannot be atoned for and they require the death penalty (Num. 15:30). This kind of distinction makes no sense unless we think in terms of degrees of sin. It also reveals the God-given limitations built into the old covenant that anticipate the need for a new covenant that results in a full and complete atonement in Christ (Jer. 31:34; cf. Heb. 9:1-10:18).

Third, Scripture also speaks of “sins that cry out” that God himself will execute judgment because humans and government officials have acted unjustly towards others (e.g., Gen. 4:10; 18:20; 19:13; Ex. 3:7-10; Deut. 24:14-15). Again, not all sins are put in this category, and these sins are highlighted as more grievous than other sins.

Fourth, Scripture teaches that there are different degrees of punishment, tied to a person’s knowledge of God’s revelation that are more “serious” than those who have acted in ignorance, and thus demand greater punishment (e.g., Matt. 11:21-24; Luke 12:47-48; John 19:11).

Fifth, within the church we also see a distinction between sins worked out in our life together. When it comes to church discipline, certain sins between one another can be dealt with at the personal level, yet if sin is not repented of, others need to be brought in, and ultimately the entire church must deal with unrepentant sin (Matt. 18:15-20). However, not every sin is dealt with in terms of excommunication. As God’s people live together, we have to learn how to demonstrate grace to others in our pettiness and sin, yet there are certain sins that must be dealt with immediately, even publicly. For example, in 1 Corinthians 5, the sexual sin of incest is occurring in the church—something that pagans do not even tolerate—that demands an immediate response. Not all sin is dealt with in this manner. Or, think of how the sin of elders is to be dealt with publicly (1Tim. 5:20), which is not always true of other members of the church, due to their position of authority in the church.

More examples could be cited, but these five points demonstrate that Scripture makes a distinction between degrees of sin depending on context, intention, the person involved, and the sin’s overall effects on families, churches, and the society at large.

From this data, we can draw three broad reasons why Scripture distinguishes between sins and why some sins are viewed as more serious than other sins in our lives and relationships with one another.

First, Scripture holds people more responsible for their sin depending on their knowledge of God’s truth and their obedience to it. This is why Jesus can speak of a “greater” sin (John 19:11), or say that it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for the religious leaders who have rejected him (Matt. 11:21-24; Luke 10:11-13; 12:47-48). With greater knowledge of God’s will, greater responsibility is assumed, and sin is more “serious” when it’s against knowledge.

Second, and related to the knowledge of God’s will, is that our degree of guilt is also tied to our intention in our actions. For example, premediated murder is different than unintentional killing (Gen. 9:6). Or, unintentional sin is sin, but it’s not in the same category as intentional or “high-handed” sin (Num. 15:27-30; cf. Jer. 7:16, 24, 26). Acts of sin done in full knowledge and defiance of God’s law are viewed as “greater” than sin done unintentionally or out of ignorance.

Third, specific sins that are a denial of God’s created order are viewed as more “serious” in terms of their effects on the person, families, and the entire society. This is what Paul highlights in Romans 1:18-32. Although all sin before God is sin and worthy of death, certain sins such as the destruction of human life, sexual activity outside of God’s creation of heterosexual marriage, even disobedience to parents are highlighted as “greater” because all of them are a denial of God’s created order. Today, this is important to remember today since many attempt to argue, for example, that all sexual sin is equal in terms of its effects and consequences, which is not true. All sexual sin is wrong, but some sexual sin has more far reaching effects. These sins are “greater” than other sexual sins in their effects, and when endorsed by the society at large, is evidence of a greater spiritual bankruptcy and decay. This does not mean that those who practice such activities have committed the unpardonable sin. In Christ, there is forgiveness, new life, and change, but the consequences of such sin is more “serious” (1Cor. 6:9-11).

The Unpardonable Sin

One last issue needs mention: the serious nature of the unpardonable sin. In the Gospels, this sin is linked to the “blasphemy against the Spirit” (e.g., Matt. 12:32-32; Luke 12:10); in the epistles to various warnings of rejecting Christ and committing apostasy (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-31); and the “sin that leads to death” (1Jn. 5:16). Although each context is different, there is something they have in common tied to the knowledge the person has and their acceptance or rejection of Christ. In the case of the Gospels, the religious leaders are attributing the work of God to Satan, and thus rejecting what they know from the Old Testament. They are deliberately sinning against what they know to be true. In the epistles, this gets picked up in terms of the sin of apostasy. Apostasy is best viewed as a deliberate rejection of the truth. People who have formally identified with Christ, deliberately turn from the truth, and evidence that although they may have identified with God’s people, they were never truly regenerate and believers in Christ (1Jn. 2:19). Why is this sin viewed as unpardonable? For the reason that once one rejects Christ in a complete and total way, there is no salvation outside of him, and thus the person stands forever condemned in their sin.

How does one know if someone has committed this sin? Probably we can never know for sure, since there are many examples such as Paul who persecuted the church but was brought to salvation by God’s sovereign grace (1Cor. 15:9; cf. 1Tim. 1:13-16). Only by viewing a person’s entire life, can any assessment be made whether such a person who once identified with Christ has committed apostasy by turning away from him. A person who thinks they may have committed this sin has certainly not, since people who have committed apostasy are not concerned about their salvation and relationship to Christ. However, Scripture warns people severely who have known the truth, yet now persist in open defiance of the Gospel.

So, does Scripture teach there are degrees of sin? The answer is, yes, but in making such an affirmation one can never relativize the serious nature of all sin. Sin is destructive of our relationship to God, one another, ourselves, and the entire created order. Our only hope is found in Christ Jesus, whom the Father has sent, to redeem, justify, and transform us from our sins.

FOOTNOTES

1. See John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.8:59.
2. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 454.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., 455.

FURTHER READING

• Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd, rev. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000).
• G. C. Berkouwer, Sin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971).
• Robert Gonzales, “The Greater Sin: Are There Degrees of Sin?”
• Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994).
• Thomas H. McCall, Against God and Nature: The Doctrine of Sin (Wheaton: Crossway, 2019).
• Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986).

Christian Ethics

AN ESSAY BY Steven D. West

DEFINITION

Christian ethics is guided by God’s revelation in Scripture above other systems of thought as it seeks to love God and neighbor in every moral and ethical issue.

SUMMARY

The highest ethical duty of a Christian is the same as the greatest commandment: love God and love your neighbor. Scripture is the Christian authority for ethics, just as it is for theology. This is because God is our ultimate authority and standard, for he himself is goodness. While Christians know God’s character through reading Scripture, unbelievers are able to partially and imperfectly understand what is good through the created order and their consciences. And while Christians ultimately derive their ethics from Scripture, different parts of Scripture (like the Mosaic legal code) must be read in their redemptive historical context and not simply applied from one distant culture to another. Philosophical systems that attempt to provide ethical norms can be helpful for the Christian thinking about ethics, but Scripture must remain the authority for any Christian ethical endeavor. Finally, while there are many issues today that the Bible does not speak directly to, there are biblical principles that can be relied upon to make an informed moral judgment.

-------------

A person’s highest ethical duty is to love God with all of their heart, mind, soul, and strength. Their second highest ethical duty is to love their neighbor as themselves. For a Christian, fulfilling these moral obligations takes place in obedience to the Law of Christ and submission to the teachings of God’s Word. The ultimate goal is to glorify God in everything that is said, done, thought, and felt. Other broad ethical goals include being a blessing to others and growing as a virtuous person.

Given this positive vision, it is quite sad that many people—both Christian and non-Christian—tend to see believers as legalistic and condemning. In a world that is in rebellion against God, those who uphold God’s moral standards will have to shine light into darkness and will have to speak against sinful practices that may be widely accepted in society. But the Bible does not merely present an ethical code which consists of restrictions and “thou shalt nots.” Yes, there are things to avoid, but there are also many positive moral duties that the Scriptures require. If we properly form our ethical views from the Bible, we will find that we ought to both shun evil and perform good works. There is a categorical difference between good and evil, and right and wrong, and the Christian life can be a joyous experience of doing good; Christian ethics should be a delight.

Christian Ethics and Scripture

Evangelical Christians should not find it controversial to say that the Scriptures—God’s Word—is our authority and standard for ethics, just as it is for theology. This is because God is our ultimate authority and standard. There cannot be a higher standard for ethics than God, not because he is all-powerful, but because he is the source of goodness itself. Moral goodness is defined by the nature of God, and everything he commands is in accordance with his perfect and righteous goodness. We must obey every word of God because every word he gives us flows from his character, and his character is infinite and absolute moral perfection. God does not measure himself against an abstract standard of goodness; he does not consult anything other than his own nature when he issues commands and moral rules. His moral commands are not arbitrary and they could not be other than what they are since they are based on God’s unchanging moral goodness. Since God’s commands are found in Scripture, the Bible is our authority for ethics.

Knowledge of God’s moral demands does not only come from reading Scripture, however. Although special revelation is definitive, everyone on earth has some knowledge of God’s moral standards through general revelation. We need to be careful about equating what’s “natural” with what’s good, but God has created the world in such a way that there is a general correspondence between moral truths and what is naturally best for people. People can often see what is best to do (or not do) when they apply their reason to the facts of the situation they are in. God has also created human beings to operate with a basic sense of his moral law through their consciences. Reason and conscience are not as reliable or authoritative as the teachings found in Scripture, but they are nevertheless useful sources of moral knowledge. Christian ethics interprets general revelation through special revelation but uses both sources to gain insight into ethics.

Christian Ethics and the Mosaic Law

Despite agreement amongst evangelicals about the importance and authority of Scripture for Christian ethics, there are debates about the role of the Mosaic Law in Christian morality. This is not the place to engage in discussions of covenantal continuity and discontinuity, biblical theology, or hermeneutics, but it does seem safe to say that Christians are not directly under the authority of the Mosaic Law, since the Law was part of the Mosaic covenant. Christ’s inauguration of the new covenant has brought about a change in law, as the Book of Hebrews makes clear. The church is not a theocracy, and Christ has brought about an end—by fulfillment—of the old covenant sacrificial system. Nevertheless, since all of Scripture is God-breathed and useful, many particular laws in the Mosaic Law still find application today in both the church and society. Forbidding murder and theft, for example, are laws which reflect the eternal moral character of God. The two greatest commands identified by Jesus are enshrined in the Pentateuch and apply to all of Christ’s disciples. Sometimes, however, there are cultural factors that require Christians to discern the principle of the law rather than applying it in a woodenly literal way. One common example is the command in the Mosaic Law to build a parapet or rail around the roof of your home. Since people in that culture spent time on their flat-roofs, falling off a roof was a potential danger. People do not spend time on slanted roofs, however, or the roofs of grass huts, so that law does not apply everywhere. The principle behind the law, though, is that we are take reasonable precautions to keep people safe, and that is an ethical idea that applies in every culture. The principle is the same, even if some of the forms of application in a particular culture can differ.

Christian Ethics and Philosophy

Outside of Scripture, philosophers have proposed various systems for the evaluation of ethics and morality. Some have sought the justification for ethics in the consequences that stem from certain behaviors. In these systems, something is considered good if it produces good consequences that outweigh the negative consequences. Some people assess the consequences for the individual alone, but most would look for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In practice, this can be almost impossible to evaluate, but the sensibility behind it seems fairly widespread and beneficial. Other ethicists have ignored consequences and focused on the intrinsic moral value of actions and agents. Perhaps the most famous example is the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant. He argued that we should only act out of a good will, and a good will does its moral duty for the sake of duty alone and not for the sake of consequences. He said that we should only act in such a way that we could make our conduct a universal law that everyone would follow. Take the case of lying: Would we wish it to be a universal practice that everyone tells the truth or that everyone lies all the time? If we cannot wish for everyone to lie all the time, Kant would argue that lying must be strictly forbidden without exception. Another school of ethics has focused more on the cultivation of a virtuous character and the motives of the agent who acts. In this model, actions should further develop virtue in the one who acts.

There is room in Christian ethics for all of the considerations mentioned in the paragraph above. None of those systems can stand on their own; they need to be built on the foundation of God’s truth. The Bible makes it clear that things are right or wrong in relationship to God’s character. Thus, morality is objective, and we must obey God’s commands. This does not mean, however, that consequences are entirely irrelevant. Although the morality of an act is not based on consequences alone, there are many warnings and encouragements in Scripture that hold out either the positive or negative consequences of obeying or disobeying God. We are to look at the consequences for disobedience, and we are to look at the rewards for following God’s path. We are also to act to bless others, and this requires assessing the consequences of our words and actions. God is producing spiritual fruit in the lives of his children—he is forming a virtuous character in them that reflects the character of his Son. Thus, acting and growing in virtue is an important component of Christian ethics.

The ethical status of an agent and action is assessed at more than one level. Sometimes all we can do is judge the action itself, but the action alone is not sufficient for moral evaluation. Perhaps we know that someone shot another person, but was it murder or justified self defense? To properly assess ethical conduct requires knowledge of the action, the circumstances in which the action occurred, the agent’s character and intentions, and possibly some of the consequences. The Pharisees may impress others by their religious good works, but God looks at the heart. Even praying and giving gifts to the poor displease God if the heart’s motives are wrong.

Christian Ethics in Today’s World

There are, of course, an enormous number of practical ethical issues that Christians face today. Some issues in certain societies are relatively recent, like legalized abortion and same-sex marriage. Other issues are more universal and perennial, like general sexual issues or the justification of self defense and war. Sometimes God has spoken clearly and directly about an ethical issue (e.g. do not steal), but there are other topics that could not have been directly addressed in the Bible (e.g. issues that require contemporary technology, like genetic engineering or in vitro fertilization). Even when the Bible does not specifically speak to an issue, there are biblical principles that can be relied upon to make an informed moral judgment.

FURTHER READING

• John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life. See the contents of this book. Read a critique by New Testament scholar Doug Moo.
• John and Paul Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World
• Norman Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues. You can see a brief summary of this book here.Ronald Nash, Lectures on Christian ethics
• Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics
• TGC Courses, “Public Theology”

The Problem of Evil

AN ESSAY BY Greg Welty

DEFINITION

“The problem of evil” is one of the most discussed objections to the existence of God and is a top reason many unbelievers give for their unbelief. These objectors argue that since there are so many cases of significant pain and suffering in the world that God could easily prevent, the fact that all this evil was not prevented means it is very unlikely (if not impossible) that God exists.

SUMMARY

“The problem of evil” appeals to the phenomenon of evil (significant cases of pain and suffering) as evidence against the existence of God. For many, this evidence appears decisive, because if God existed, he would be powerful enough to prevent such evil, and good enough to want to prevent such evil. Since there is evil, no such powerful and good being exists. For the past two millennia Christians have typically urged two points in reply: theodicy and inscrutability. First, God may very well have a good reason for allowing the evil he does allow – a reason compatible with his holy and good character – and the way of theodicy goes on to list a number of these reasons. Second, the fact that unbelievers may not be able to discern or correctly guess at God’s justifying reason for allowing evil is no good reason to think he doesn’t have a reason. Given the infinity of God’s omniscience, the complexity of his providence, the depth of the goods he aims at, and our own substantial cognitive limitations, we shouldn’t expect to guess God’s reasons.

---------------

What Is the Problem of Evil?

The so-called “problem of evil” is an argument against the existence of God that reasons along these lines:

1. A perfectly powerful being can prevent any evil.
2. A perfectly good being will prevent evil as far as he can.
3. God is perfectly powerful and good.
4. So, if a perfectly powerful and good God exists, there will be no evil.
5. There is evil.
6. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

“Evil,” here is understood as any significant case of pain and suffering in the world, whether “moral” (evil willfully caused by human beings such as murder, adultery, theft, rape, etc.) or “natural” evil (harm caused by impersonal forces of nature such as earthquakes, tornadoes, plague, etc.).

Responding to the Problem of Evil

Nonstarters

A Christian must be truthful and face the question honestly. It will not do to deny that evil exists (#5 above), for evil is the very presumption of the gospel. Nor can we deny that God could prevent evil (#1 above) or that he is perfect in power and goodness (#3). However, we can (and should) question the second premise above – that a perfectly good God must prevent all evil – for it doesn’t necessarily follow from God’s perfect goodness that he will prevent every evil he can prevent. Perhaps God has a good reason for permitting evil rather than preventing it; if so, then his permission of evil is justified and doesn’t militate against his goodness.

The Ways of Theodicy and Inscrutability

Our response the problem of evil, then, may take either of two approaches. We may argue that the second premise above is false and seek to demonstrate that it is false by showing God’s reasons for permitting evil – the way of “theodicy.” Or we could argue that the second premise is unproven because unbelievers can’t rule out God’s having a good reason for permitting evil – the way of “inscrutability.”

The way of theodicy (from the Greek theos, “God,” and dikaios, “just”; hence, a justification of the ways of God in his dealings with men) seeks to demonstrate God’s reasons for permitting evil. The idea is that by allowing evil God attains greater good than possible apart from evil. The way of theodicy shows that premise (2) is false, arguing that God wouldn’t prevent every evil he could prevent.

The way of inscrutability argues, more modestly, that no one knows that premise (2) is true because no one can know enough to conclude that God doesn’t have good reason for permitting evil. We just cannot grasp God’s knowledge, the complexity of his plans, or the deep nature of the good he aims at in providence. And there is no proof that God does not have good reasons for allowing evil, but because he is good we can only assume that he does. Here we don’t have to come up with ‘theodicies’ to defend God against the problem of evil. Rather, the way of inscrutability shows that it is entirely to be expected that creatures like us can’t come up with God’s reasons, given who God is and who we are.

The Way of Theodicy

Two popular theodicies that have no biblical basis.

Some theodicies that have been offered lack solid biblical grounding. The free will theodicy, for example, argues that moral evil is due to human abuse of free will. The value of free will is a great good: the possibility of morally good choice and of human beings imaging God by way of these choices. But free will has the unfortunate consequence of allowing for the possibility of moral evil. In response to this we might ask, if free will of this sort is so valuable then why doesn’t God have it, and why won’t we have it in heaven?

The natural law theodicy argues that natural evil is due to the laws of nature. The value of laws of nature is a great good: a stable environment needed for making rational choices of any sort. But laws of nature have the unfortunate consequence of allowing for the possibility of natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.). In response to this we might ask, if a stable environment requires the possibility of natural evil by requiring laws of nature then why isn’t there any natural evil in the pre-fall Garden of Eden or in the new heavens and the new earth?

Four popular theodicies have some biblical basis

By contrast, at least four theodicies have been offered that have some biblical basis. The punishment theodicy argues that suffering is a result of God’s just punishment of evildoers (Gen 3:14-19; Rom 1:24-32, 5:12, 6:23, 8:20-21; Isa 29:5-6; Ezek 38:19; Rev 6:12; 11:13; 16:18). In punishment God aims at the good of displaying his judgment against sin. The soul-building theodicy argues that suffering leads us from self-centeredness to other-centeredness (Heb 12:5-11; Rom 5:3-5; 2Cor 4:17; Jas 1:2-4; 1Pet 1:6-7; cf. Prov 10:13, 13:24; 22:15; 23:13-24, 29:15). In painful providences God aims at the good of displaying his goodness in shaping our character for good. The pain as God’s megaphone theodicy argues that pain is God’s way of getting the attention of unbelievers in a noncoercive way so that they might forget the vanities of earth, consider spiritual things instead, and perhaps even repent of sin (Luke 13:1-5). In pain God aims at the good of displaying his mercy that through such warnings we might be delivered from the wrath to come. The higher-order goods theodicy says that some goods can’t exist apart from the evils to which they are a response. There is no courage without danger, no sympathy without suffering, no forgiveness without sin, no atonement without suffering, no compassion without need, no patience without adversity. God must often allow lots of evils to make these goods a part of his world, given how these goods are defined (Eph 1:3-10; 1Pet 1:18-20).

These theodicies fall under the umbrella of the “greater good theodicy.”

A “greater good theodicy” (GGT) argues that the pain and suffering in God’s world play a necessary role in bringing about greater goods that could not be brought about otherwise. The question that remains, then, is just this: does the Bible really teach that God aims at great goods by way of various evils?

Constructing the “Greater Good Theodicy”: a Three-Fold Argument for Three Biblical Themes

Our argument here is that Scripture combines the ways of theodicy and inscrutability. The biblical accounts of Job, Joseph, and Jesus reveal the goodness of God in the midst of evil, weaving together these three themes:

1. God aims at great goods (either for mankind, or for himself, or both).
2. God often intends these great goods to come about by way of various evils.
3. God leaves created persons in the dark (in the dark about which goods are indeed his reasons for the evils, or about how the goods depend on the evils).

Thus, the Bible seems to strongly suggest that the GGT (God’s aiming at great goods by way of various evils) is in fact his modus operandi in providence, his “way of working.” But this GGT is tempered by a good dose of divine inscrutability.

The Case of Job

In the case of Job God aims at a great good: his own vindication – in particular, the vindication of his worthiness to be served for who he is rather than for the earthly goods he supplies (Job 1:11; 2:5). God intends the great good of the vindication of his own name to come to pass by way of various evils. These are a combination of moral evil and natural evil (Job 1:15, 16, 17, 19, 21-22; 2:7, 10; 42:11). God also leaves Job in the dark about what God is doing, for Job has no access to the story’s prologue in chapter 1. And when God speaks to him “out of the whirlwind” he never reveals to Job why he suffered. Instead, Job’s ignorance of the whole spectrum of created reality is exposed (Job 38:4-39:30; 40:6-41:34), and Job confesses his ignorance of both creation and providence (Job 40:3-5; 42:1-6).

The Case of Joseph

In the case of Joseph we find the same. God aims at great goods: saving the broader Mediterranean world from a famine, preserving his people amid such danger, and (ultimately) bringing a Redeemer into the world descended from such Israelites (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). God intends the great good of the preservation of his people from famine to come to pass by way of various evils (Gen 45:5, 7; Psa 105:16-17), including Joseph’s betrayal, being sold into slavery, and suffering unjust accusation and imprisonment (Gen 37, 39). Joseph sees these evils as the means of God’s sovereign providence (Gen 50:20). But God leaves Joseph’s brothers, the Midianite traders, Potiphar’s wife, and the cupbearer in the dark. None of these people knew the role their blameworthy actions would play in preserving God’s people in a time of danger. They had no clue which goods depended on which evils, or that the evils would even work toward any goods at all.

The Case of Jesus

And in the case of Jesus we see the same again. God aims at great goods: the redemption of his people by the atonement of Christ and the glorification of God in the display of his justice, love, grace, mercy, wisdom, and power. God intends the great good of atonement to come to pass by way of various evils: Jewish plots (Matt 26:3-4, 14-15), Satan’s promptings (John 13:21-30), Judas’s betrayal (Matt 26:47-56; 27:3-10; Luke 22:22), Roman injustice (Matt 26:57-68), Pilate’s cowardice (Matt 27:15–26), and the soldiers’ brutality (Matt 27:27-44). But God leaves various created agents (human and demonic) in the dark, for it is clear that the Jewish leaders, Satan, Judas, Pilate, and the soldiers are all ignorant of the role they play in fulfilling the divinely prophesied redemptive purpose by the cross of Christ (Acts 2:23, 3:18, 4:25-29; John 13:18, 17:12, 19:23-24).

Licensing and Limiting the GGT

In each narrative, the first two themes highlight the way of theodicy (God aiming at great goods by way of evils), while the third theme highlights the way of inscrutability (left to ourselves, we cannot discern what God’s reasons are for any case of evil). By way of the first two themes Scripture repeatedly encourages the view that God has a justifying reason for permitting the evils of the world. That is what’s right with the way of theodicy. But Scripture, by way of the third theme, repeatedly discourages the view that we can ever know what that reason is in any particular case of evil. That is what’s right with the way of inscrutability. In contemporary philosophy, these are usually presented as two different ways to solve the problem of evil (theodicy and inscrutability). However, the Bible seems to combine these two ways when it speaks of God’s relation to the evils in the world. That is, it licenses the greater good theodicy as an overall perspective on evil, but wisely limits that perspective in a way that is instructive for both Christians and non-Christians.

Licensing the GGT: God’s Sovereignty over All Evil

God’s Sovereignty over Natural Evil

It is one thing to acknowledge God’s sovereign and purposeful providence over the moral and natural evils mentioned in the Job, Joseph, and Jesus narratives. It is quite another to claim that God is sovereign over all moral and natural evils. But this is what the Bible repeatedly teaches. This takes us a considerable way towards licensing the GGT as a general approach to the problem of evil. The Bible presents multitudes of examples of God intentionally bringing about natural evils – famine, drought, rampaging wild animals, disease, birth defects such as blindness and deafness, and even death itself – rather than being someone who merely permits nature to ‘do its thing’ on its own. Here are some samples:

• Famine (Deut 32:23-24; 2Kgs 8:1; Psa 105:16; Isa 3:1; Ezek 4:16, 5:16-17, 14:13, 14:21; Hos 2:9; Amos 4:6, 9; Hag 2:17)
• Drought (Deut 28:22; 1Kgs 8:35; Isa 3:1; Hos 2:3; Amos 4:6-8; Hag 1:11)
• Rampaging wild animals (Lev 26:22; Num 21:6; Deut 32:23-24; 2Kgs 17:25; Jer 8:17; Ezek 5:17, 14:15, 14:21, 33:27)
• Disease (Lev 26:16, 25; Num 14:12; Deut 28:21-22, 28:27; 2Kgs 15:5; 2Chron 21:14, 26:19-20)
• Birth defects such as blindness and deafness (Exod 4:11; John 9:1-3)
• Death itself (Deut 32:39; 1Sam 2:6-7)
• Ten Egyptian plagues (Exod 7:14-24, 8:1-15, 8:16-19, 8:20-32, 9:1-7, 9:8-12, 9:13-35, 10:1-20, 10:21-29, 11:4-10, 12:12-13, 12:27-30)
• ‘Impersonal’ forces and objects (Psa 65:9-11, 77:18, 83:13-15, 97:4, 104:4, 104:10-24, 107:25, 29, 135:6-7, 147:8, 147:16-18, 148:7-8, Jonah 1:4, Nah 1:3-4, Zech 7:14, Matt 5:45, Acts 14:17)

God’s Sovereignty over Moral Evil

In addition, and perhaps surprisingly, the Bible presents God as having such meticulous control over the course of human history that a wide range of moral evils – murder, adultery, disobedience to parents, rejecting wise counsel, even human hatred – can be regarded as “of the Lord.” Without erasing or suppressing the intentionality of creatures – and this includes their deliberations, their reasoning, their choosing between alternatives they consider and reflect upon – God’s own intentionality stands above and behind the responsible choices of his creatures. Again, some samples:

• Eli’s sons’ disobedience (1Sam 2:23-25)
• Samson’s desire for a foreign wife (Jdg 14:1-4)
• Absalom, Rehoboam, and Amaziah rejecting wise counsel (2Sam 17:14; 1Kgs 12:15; 2Chron 25:20)
• Assassination (2Chron 22:7, 9, 32:21-22)
• Adultery (2Sam 12:11-12, 16:22)
• Human hatred (Psa 105:23-25; Exod 4:21; Deut 2:30, 32; Josh 11:20; 1Kgs 11:23, 25; 2Chron 21:16-17)

God’s Sovereignty over All Evil

So the Job, Joseph, and Jesus passages are not anomalies, but part and parcel of a more general view the Bible takes on the subject, with respect to both natural and moral evil. Indeed, in addition to this large swath of ‘particular’ texts about individual cases of evil, there are quite a few “universal” texts which seem to trace all calamities, all human decision-making, all events whatsoever, back to the will of God.

• God’s sovereignty over all calamity (Ecc 7:13-14; Isa 45:7; Lam 3:37-38; Amos 3:6)
• God’s sovereignty over all human decision-making (Prov 16:9, 19:21, 20:24, 21:1; Jer 10:23)
• God’s sovereignty over all events whatsoever (Psa 115:3; Prov 16:33; Isa 46:9-10; Rom 8:28, 11:36; Eph 1:11)

Limiting the GGT: The Inscrutability of God’s Purposes

Establishing the Burden of Proof

Of course, each specific theodicy mentioned earlier has significant limitations. For instance, the Bible frequently discourages the idea that the punishment theodicy can explain all evils in the world (Job 1:1, 1:8, 2:3, 42:7-8; John 9:1-3; Acts 28:1-6). More generally, Christians can never know enough about a person’s situation, or about God’s purposes, to rule in a specific theodicy as being God’s reason for permitting evil in a particular case. In fact, it would be entirely presumptuous to do so. But if he who affirms must prove, then the question in the problem of evil is not whether Christians know enough to “rule in” the applicability of a theodicy on any particular occasion, but whether critics know enough to “rule out” the applicability of any theodicy. But how could a critic reasonably claim to know that there is no reason that would justify God in permitting suffering? How could he know that premise (2) of the original argument is true? For why think that God’s reasons for permitting particular cases of evil are the kinds of things that we would discern by our cognitive capacities, if such reasons were there?

Analogies for our Cognitive Limitations 

It is widely recognized that we have cognitive limitations with respect to discerning goods and connections, at least in territories where we lack the relevant expertise, experience, or vantage point. Some examples:

• It doesn’t seem to me that there is a perfectly spherical rock on the dark side of the moon right now, but that’s no reason to conclude that such a rock isn’t.
• It didn’t seem to any medievals that the theories of special relativity or quantum mechanics were true, but that was no reason to think they weren’t
• It didn’t seem to humans in earlier eras that fundamental human rights of one sort or another were in fact fundamental human rights, but that was no reason to think there weren’t any such rights.
• It wouldn’t seem to a non-Greek-speaker that spoken Greek sentences have any meaning, but that is no reason to think they don’t have a meaning.
• It wouldn’t seem to the musically uninitiated that Beethoven projected the ‘sonata form’ onto the symphony as a whole, giving the entire musical work a fundamental unity it would not otherwise have had. But it wouldn’t follow from their ignorance that Beethoven didn’t have such a purpose, much less that he was unsuccessful in executing it.
• It might not seem to my one-month-old son that I have a good reason for him to receive a painful series of shots at the doctor’s office. But it wouldn’t follow from his ignorance that there isn’t a good reason.

God is omniscient, which means he not only knows everything that we are likely to guess at, but every truth whatsoever. This means that God knows things that we cannot even fathom. As the above analogies suggest, this is easily demonstrated for a huge range of cases. If the complexities of an infinite God’s divine plan for the unfolding of the universe does involve God’s recognizing either deep goods, or necessary connections between various evils and the realization of those goods, or both of these things, would our inability to discern these goods or connections give us a reason for thinking they aren’t there? What would be the basis of such confidence? But without such confidence, we have little reason to accept premise (2) of the problem of evil. So we have little reason to accept its conclusion.

Biblical Argument for Divine Inscrutability

The theme of divine inscrutability is not only exceedingly defensible common sense. It also looms large in the Bible, having both pastoral and apologetic implications. It closes the mouths of Christians who would insensitively offer “God’s reasons” to those who suffer (when they don’t know such reasons). And it closes the mouths of critics who would irrationally preclude divine reasons for the suffering. Imagine we were on the scene in the cases of Job (as his friend), Joseph (as his brother), and Jesus (as his tormentor). Would we have been able to guess at God’s purpose for the suffering? Would we not instead have been wholly unaware of any such purpose? Does not a large part of the literary power of the Bible’s narrative, and the spiritual encouragement it offers, rest upon this interplay between the ignorance of the human actors and the wisdom of divine providence?

One of the most extended reflections in the New Testament on the problem of evil – in this case, the evil of Jewish apostasy – is Romans 9-11. Paul’s concluding doxology blends together these twin themes of divine sovereignty over evil and divine inscrutability in the midst of evil:

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?’ ‘Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?’ For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen (Rom 11:33–36).

To the extent that God has not spoken about a particular event in history, his judgments are unsearchable, and his paths are beyond tracing out. But that does not mean there is not a greater good which justifies God’s purposing of that event.

FURTHER READING

• William P. Alston, ‘The Inductive Argument from Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition’, reprinted in Daniel Howard-Snyder (ed.), The Evidential Argument From Evil (Indiana University Press, 1996), pp. 97–125.
• Alistair Begg, The Hand of God: Finding His Care in All Circumstances (Moody, 2001).
• Jerry Bridges, Trusting God (NavPress, 1988).
• John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, I, chapters 16–18.
• D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord? (2nd edn.) (Baker, 2006).
• John M. Frame, Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief (P&R, 2015), chapters 7–8.
• Paul Helm, The Providence of God(IVP, 1994), chapters 7–8.
• Daniel Howard-Snyder, ‘God, Evil, and Suffering’, chapter 4 of Michael J. Murray (ed.), Reason for the Hope Within (Eerdmans, 1999).
• C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (Macmillan, 1962).
• John Piper and Justin Taylor (eds), Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Crossway, 2006).
• Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford University Press, 2000), chapter 14.
• Richard Swinburne, Providence and the Problem of Evil (Oxford University Press, 1998).
• Greg Welty, Why Is There Evil in the World (and So Much of it)? (Christian Focus, 2018).

How to Live in a Crooked and Perverse Generation

The Forgiveness of Sin

AN ESSAY BY David VanDrunen

DEFINITION

The Christian doctrine of forgiveness is that God has lifted the sentence of condemnation upon Christians for their sins through the death of Christ on their behalf and no longer counts them as guilty.

SUMMARY

The Christian doctrine of forgiveness is that God has lifted the sentence of condemnation upon Christians for their sins through the death of Christ on their behalf and no longer counts them as guilty. Forgiveness is necessary both because God is just and because all humans are guilty with sin. Rather than simply ignoring the guilt of sin, God the judge became the one who was judged for the guilt of men; the guilt was punished justly, but the guilty received forgiveness instead of punishment. God did not unfairly or abusively punish his Son, but Christ submitted to his Father’s will joyfully and willingly. This forgiveness provides the center of the Christian proclamation in the world and should lead all those who have received it to rejoice and praise God for his mercy and grace.

----------------

“Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man against whom the LORD counts no iniquity.” These opening words of Psalm 32 capture a theme central to Scripture: the forgiveness of sins is a supreme blessing of God for his people. The psalmist marveled that God “does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities” (Ps. 103:10). Among the first of the “spiritual blessing[s] in the heavenly places” Paul mentions is “the forgiveness of our trespasses” (Eph. 1:3, 7).

Because “forgiveness” is a familiar term in the English language, we might assume everyone knows what it means. But in fact, philosophers and theologians have long debated what forgiveness really is and what it requires. And when we consider the idea that God forgives sin, it raises challenging theological issues that touch upon matters at the heart of Christian faith and life.

This article will address three topics in succession: first, some important theological background for understanding forgiveness; second, how Scripture presents the gift of forgiveness through Christ’s work, received by faith; finally, how the good news of forgiveness shapes the church’s ministry and the Christian’s devotion to God.

Theological Background

At least two topics are crucial background for understanding forgiveness. First, because God is the one who forgives, we need to appreciate who God is. And second, because sin is what God forgives, we need to reflect on humanity’s guilt before the Lord. These two themes are intimately related.

Who is God? One of the things Scripture most emphasizes about God is his justice. God “is not partial and takes no bribes,” but “executes justice for the fatherless and the widow” (Deut. 10:17–18). He “will render to a man according to his work” (Ps. 62:12). When Abraham asked God, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Gen. 18:25), the implied answer is clear: Absolutely! Scripture also emphasizes that God is merciful. When God made all his goodness pass before Moses, he declared, “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy” (Exod. 33:19). He is “merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love” (Ps. 103:8). As we consider below, both God’s justice and his mercy are foundational for the doctrine of forgiveness.

Also foundational is the reality of human guilt. Many people in the world call certain deeds “wrong” or “immoral,” but when Christians speak of “sin,” they imply that God is the one they’ve ultimately offended. David may have grievously wronged Bathsheba and Uriah (2 Sam. 11), but he still confessed, “Against you [God], you only, have I sinned” (Ps. 51:4). To sin against God renders a person guilty. This is a legal or judicial idea. To be guilty is to stand condemned under God’s just judgment. Because all are sinners, all are “accountable to God” (Rom. 3:19). Adam’s first sin provoked God’s “judgment” which “brought condemnation” for the human race (Rom. 5:16). Since God is just, as considered above, it makes sense that sin brings us under his judgment.

Forgiveness, then, is also legal or judicial. It means that God lifts his sentence of condemnation for our sins and no longer holds us guilty for them. We stand in need of forgiveness because God is just, and we have hope of forgiveness because God is merciful.

Forgiveness through Christ, by Faith

This last statement, however, raises difficult theological questions that have been a source of debate for many years. Can God really be just and merciful at the same time? If he forgives sin rather than punishes it, is he acting unjustly? Didn’t God say, “I will not acquit the wicked” (Exod. 23:7)? Scripture makes very clear that God is both just and merciful, but it is not immediately obvious how he can be both.

Many Arminians believe God can forgive sins at his discretion. He is the moral governor of the universe, and if he wishes to forgive, that is his prerogative. Of course, they say, God is grieved by evil and does not want his mercy to make people take sin lightly. Thus, in the crucifixion of Christ, God displayed how seriously he regards sin. But Christ did not actually take others’s guilt upon himself on the cross or endure their punishment. That was not necessary. This is called the “governmental” view of the atonement. The famous Dutch Arminian jurist Hugo Grotius promoted it in the 17th century, and the influential American Wesleyan theologian John Miley defended it in the 19th century. Recently, the well-known Christian philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff has advocated a similar view of God’s justice and forgiveness.

Reformed theologians and many other Protestant thinkers have rejected this position. God’s declaration that he will not acquit the wicked (Exod. 23:7) cannot be dismissed so easily. We would ordinarily be horrified to learn that a human judge, with a notorious criminal standing before her court, announced that this person was forgiven and would not be punished. We wonder why it would be different for God, especially when he declares that the one who “justifies [declares righteous] the wicked” is an “abomination” to him (Prov. 17:15). God is just, and this signals that he will not treat guilty people in the way he treats innocent people. Yet, God does forgive. He “justifies the ungodly” (Rom. 4:5)—which is what other biblical texts say God will not do! There must be an explanation deeper than appealing to God’s discretion.

Scripture provides an explanation: Christ’s atonement. Throughout his perfectly obedient life on earth Christ bore “our griefs and carried our sorrows,” and climactically on the cross “he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities,” for the Lord “laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:4–6). Jesus “bore our sins in his body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24). Just prior to his striking claim that God justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5), Paul wrote about “the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood” (Rom. 3:24–25).

In short, God remains just when he mercifully forgives our sin because Christ has stood in our place. Though he was not personally sinful, Christ took our guilt upon himself and suffered the punishment we deserved. In forgiving his people, God does not wink at sin. He administers the just penalty for sin, but a substitute bears it in our place. Justice is served. Divine forgiveness is thus rooted in the “substitutionary” or “vicarious” atonement, as this view is often called.

It may be helpful to address a couple of objections sometimes raised against this position. One of them comes from advocates of the Arminian view described above. If God receives full payment for our sins in Christ’s atonement as a matter of justice, then he doesn’t really forgive us or show us mercy. If Christ suffered our penalty, they reason, there’s nothing left to forgive. A brief response might simply note this: God himself provided the substitute. The judge himself took the place of the condemned. This is mercy beyond compare. Rather than saying that God does not need to forgive because he satisfied his justice through Christ, we should look at it the other way around: because God wished to forgive us, he did exactly what was necessary—send his Son to die for us—if he was to forgive us in a way fully consistent with his justice.

Another objection comes from “feminist” theologians. They claim it would have been cruel for God to inflict another person’s punishment upon his innocent Son. The substitutionary atonement, they charge, makes God a child abuser. More fundamentally, they object to the very notion that God would find it necessary and just to inflict harsh penalties on all sin. They think a kind God could find other ways to respond to wrongdoing. Such objections raise many serious challenges to classical Christian teaching, but there is only space for two brief replies. First, these objections inevitably underestimate the holiness of God and the heinousness of sin in his sight. If sin were really no big deal, these feminist theologians would have a point. But Scripture emphasizes that God is infinitely holy, and that he hates sin. Would a God who is something less than this really be worthy of all glory and adoration? Second, these objections fail to reckon with the fact that Christ submitted to his Father’s will voluntarily and joyfully, and laid down his life on his own accord (John 10:17–18; Heb. 12:2). In an abusive relationship, the abuser imposes his will on the abused. But in the Holy Trinity, the Father and Son enjoyed perfect agreement, although the Son had to walk a hard road (Luke 22:42–44).

One final thing to note about the doctrine of forgiveness concerns how we obtain this wonderful blessing. Scripture teaches that we receive forgiveness by faith. That is, God forgives us not because of any good work or virtue we’ve achieved, but only by trusting in him and resting in the perfect work of Christ. Romans 3–4 is again helpful. There, Paul explains that forgiveness comes “through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (3:22), that is, for the one who “believes in him who justifies the ungodly” (4:5). This is “the faith of Abraham” (4:16), who “grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised” (4:20–21). Confessing that we’re forgiven only by faith is another way of confessing that we’re justified by faith alone. Justification involves more than simply forgiveness, but forgiveness is one crucial aspect of justification: God justifies people by forgiving their sins and imputing (or crediting) to them Christ’s perfect obedience.

Forgiveness, the Church, and Christian Devotion

Forgiveness of sins has any number of practical implications for the Christian life, but we will only comment briefly on two matters: how the reality of forgiveness defines the ministry of the church and how it provokes a grateful response from Christians.

There is a lot of debate about the mission of the church and the proper scope of its ministry. We cannot delve deeply into that topic here, but one thing ought to be clear: the preaching of the gospel must be central to the church’s work, and at the heart of the gospel is the proclamation of forgiveness through Christ Jesus. Looking at how the apostles carried out their ministry in Acts is a good place to see this. Before ascending to heaven, Jesus commanded his apostles to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19; cf. Luke 24:46–47) and to be his witnesses unto the end of the earth (Acts 1:8). So, we ask, how did they do this? As we continue reading Acts after the account of Jesus’s ascension, we find that the apostles preached, and what they preached centered in the work of Christ and forgiveness in him. The apostles’s first public ministry was at Pentecost. On this day, Peter proclaimed the death, resurrection, and exaltation of Christ (Acts 2:22–36), and when the people asked what they should do in response, Peter replied: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (2:38). The apostles’s next recorded public action was the healing of a lame beggar, followed by another sermon by Peter. Here again he proclaimed Jesus’s death and resurrection (Acts 3:13–15) and called his hearers to respond: “Repent, therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out” (3:19). Many more examples follow. There is no other way to build the church and to make disciples throughout the world than to preach the gospel of forgiveness through Christ.

The experience of forgiveness should also be decisive for the life of individual Christians. There is no turning point in a person’s life more important than when she goes from being under God’s condemnation to enjoying his favor, from being on the road to hell to becoming an heir of heaven. The forgiveness of sins through justification by faith is what marks this turning point. Accordingly, Scripture often calls Christians to respond in abounding gratitude to this wonderful gift. I mention just a few examples. Believers should respond with joy. After Psalm 32 declares that the one whose transgression is forgiven is blessed (32:1–5), it concludes: “Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart” (32:11)! Believers should also respond by praising the Lord. Psalm 103 begins: “Bless the LORD, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless his holy name! Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits.” Why, we ask? What are these benefits? The first one the psalmist mentions: he “forgives all your iniquity” (103:3). And finally, Christians should respond by fearing the Lord—not with terror of God, but with a holy reverence before such an awe-inspiring king: “If you, O LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But with you there is forgiveness, that you may be feared” (Ps. 130:3–4).

FURTHER READING

Reformed Confessions

• Heidelberg Catechism, Questions 12–19, 56
• Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 33
• Westminster Larger Catechism Questions 70–73
• Augsburg Confession, Article 4
• Belgic Confession, Article 23
• Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 11
• Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 11

Systematic Theologies of Forgiveness

• Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, 176–229
• John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, chs. 11–18
• Louis Berkhof, Manual of Christian Doctrine, 256–64
• Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Part 4, Section IX
• Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, 620–42

Topical Theologies of Forgiveness

• R. C. Sproul, “The Problem of Forgiveness”
• Sinclair Ferguson, “The Substitutionary Atonement of Christ”
• Stephen Charnock, “A Discourse on the Pardon of Sin”
• TableTalk, “The Forgiveness of Sins”

The Sin unto Death

AN ESSAY BY Andy Naselli

DEFINITION

The sin unto death is the extreme sin the Apostle John warns against in 1 John 5:16–17. There are four major interpretations of this passage.

SUMMARY

There are four major views on who commits the sin not leading to death and who commits the sin that leads to death: (1) a believer commits both sins, and the second believer apostatizes; (2) an unbeliever commits both sins; (3) a believer commits both sins, and God may discipline the second believer with physical death; and (4) a believer commits a sin not leading to death, and an unbeliever commits sin that leads to death. The fourth view seems most likely.

------------------

Introduction

The sin unto death is the extreme sin the Apostle John warns against in 1 John 5:16–17:

If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.

This passage has four interpretational challenges that we can unpack as four pairs of questions. (I have bolded the answers that seem most likely to me.)

Interpretational Challenges	“sin not leading to death”	“sin that leads to death”
1. Identify the sinners.	Who is the “brother” committing it? (1) a believer (2) an unbeliever	Who is the sinner committing it? (1) a believer (2) an unbeliever (3) an apostate (a specific kind of unbeliever) (4) an unbeliever—especially an apostate
2. Identify life and death.	What is the “life” God will give those who commit it? (1) continued physical life (2) eternal life (when an unbeliever becomes a believer) (3) eternal life—that is, the future resurrection life God promises to sinful believers who repent (cf. 2:25) (4) confirmation that one has and will experience eternal life	What is the “death” God will give those who commit it? (1) physical death (2) eternal death
3. Identify the sin.	What is it? (1) an unintentional sin—like an OT sin for which a person could offer a sacrifice (e.g., Lev 4:1–3; Num 15:22–29) (2) a forgivable sin—e.g., a “venial” sin (relatively minor) (3) any sin a believer may commit	What is it? (1) a deliberate sin—committed “with a high hand” (e.g., Num 15:30–31) (2) an unforgivable sin—e.g., a “mortal” sin (specific sins such as adultery or murder) (3) the unforgivable sin (i.e., blasphemy against the Spirit) (4) any sin an unbeliever may commit––especially apostasy
4. Explain the advice on how to pray.	How do you pray for the brother committing it? (1) that God would enable the believer to repent (2) that God would enable the believer to repent and that God would not discipline the believer with physical death (3) that the unbeliever would repent and trust Jesus the Messiah and thus have eternal life	Why doesn’t John say that one should pray for the sinner committing it? (1) That’s not John’s main point as he illustrates what it means to pray according to God’s will (5:14–15). Sin that leads to death is an aside. John doesn’t forbid believers to pray for such sinners, but believers cannot pray for them with the same level of confidence as for believers who commit a sin not leading to death. (2) It is hopeless to pray for an apostate. Compare how the Lord commanded Jeremiah not to pray for Israel (Jer 7:16–18; 11:14; 14:11) and how Jesus did not pray for the world (John 17:9). (3) Believers should not pray for the dead.

 What follows briefly presents and evaluates four major views on who commits the sin not leading to death and who commits the sin that leads to death in 1 John 5:16–17 (and focuses on the first three interpretational challenges in the above table).

View 1. A believer commits both sins, and the second believer apostatizes.

God may restore the first sinning believer and thus confirm that they have eternal life, but the second sinning believer––who was a genuine believer––apostatizes by decisively rejecting Jesus and thus will experience eternal death. So “a sin not leading to death” is any sin except apostasy, and the “sin that leads to death” is apostasy.[1] This view defines apostasy as a sin that a genuine believer can commit.

Evaluation: This view is incorrect because it rejects eternal security. That is, it does not affirm that God sovereignly preserves all genuine Christians through faith as eternally saved and safe. In the very letter of 1 John, John explains how to theologically view people who were formerly part of the Christian community but then rejected Christ and left the community: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” (1Jn 2:19). Thus, someone may claim to be a believer, but if they don’t persevere in the faith, they demonstrate that they never were a genuine believer. (See the articles “What Is Apostasy? Can a Christian Become Apostate?” and “The Unpardonable Sin.”)

View 2. An unbeliever commits both sins.

God may give the first unbeliever eternal life, but the second unbeliever will experience eternal death. So “a sin not leading to death” is any sin except “sin that leads to death,” and the “sin that leads to death” is apostasy—like the false teachers in 1 John who had decisively rejected true teaching about who Christ is and what Christ did.[2] John Stott argues that the “brother” who commits a sin not leading to death is a non-Christian:

John must here be using the word [i.e., brother] in a broader sense either of a ‘neighbour’ or of a nominal Christian, a church member who professes to be a ‘brother’. Certainly in 2:9, 11 the word ‘brother’ is not used strictly, for he who hates him is not a Christian at all but ‘in the darkness’. In 3:16–17 also the word seems to have this wider connotation, where we are bidden to lay down our lives ‘for our brothers’ and to supply the material necessities of a ‘brother in need’. Since Christ died for the ungodly and for his enemies, we can scarcely suppose that we are to limit our self-sacrifice and service exclusively to our Christian brothers and sisters, and to have compassion only upon them. Such a wider connotation of the word brother, implied also in the teaching of Jesus (Matt 5:22–24; 7:3–5), ‘arises not so much out of the character and standing of him whom you call your brother, as out of the nature of the affection with which you regard him’ (Candlish). This suggestion is supported by the somewhat similar passage in the letter of James (5:19–20).[3]

Evaluation: This view is possible. But it is highly unlikely for at least two reasons: (1) John explicitly identifies the first sinner as a “brother” (1Jn 5:16)—a term that elsewhere in the letter refers to genuine Christians (e.g., 3:13–17). (2) View 2 must say that the only sin that leads to eternal death is decisively rejecting Christ and his atonement, but the Bible teaches that any sin leads to eternal death (Rom 6:23).

View 3. A believer commits both sins, and God may discipline the second believer with physical death.

Unlike view 1, this view affirms eternal security. Unlike the other three views, the “life” and “death” are physical and temporal (not eternal).[4] So “a sin not leading to death” is a sin for which God will not discipline a believer with physical death, and the “sin that leads to death” is a sin for which God may discipline a believer with physical death (as in 1Cor 11:30). The phrase “leading to death” translates πρὸς θάνατον (pros thanaton), and the only other place that phrase occurs in the New Testament is John 11:4, which refers to physical death. When Jesus heard that Lazarus was ill, he said, “This illness does not lead to death [πρὸς θάνατον, pros thanaton]” (John 11:4).

Evaluation: This view is possible but unlikely for at least three reasons: (1) John pairs “life” and “death” in 1 John 5:16–17, and every other time this letter mentions “life” or “death” refers to eternal life and eternal death. (For life, see 1:1, 2; 2:25; 3:14, 15; 5:11, 12, 13, 16; for death, see 3:14—“We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death.”) Regarding the pros thanaton parallel in John 11:4 and 1 John 5:16–17, the literary context of the two passages differs significantly: John 11 is about physical life and death, and 1 John is about eternal life and death. (3) John explicitly identifies the first sinner as a “brother,” but he does not identify the second sinner that way.

View 4. A believer commits a sin not leading to death, and an unbeliever commits sin that leads to death.

According to this view,[5] God reassuringly promises that he will give eternal life (i.e., the future resurrection life) to sinful believers who repent (2:25).[6] But the second unbeliever will experience eternal death. So “a sin not leading to death” is any sin a believer may commit (e.g., 1:8–2:1), and the “sin that leads to death” is any sin an unbeliever may commit––especially, in the context of 1 John, the apostasy of the false teachers. An unbeliever by definition is not repenting and thus is sinning in a way that leads to eternal death. More specifically, 1 John repeatedly warns believers about people who had previously claimed to be believers but who had departed the Christian community (e.g., 2:19). They decisively rejected true teaching about Christ and were disobeying God’s commands and not loving believers. They were sinning in a way that inevitably leads to eternal death.

Evaluation: This view seems more likely than the others since it (1) identifies the “brother” as a genuine believer; (2) identifies the life and death as eternal; and (3) identifies the sins in the context of the letter.

Conclusion

I conclude the following regarding the four major views on 1 John 5:16–17:

• View 1 (a believer commits both sins, and the second believer apostatizes) is incorrect.
• Views 2–4 may be correct.
• View 2 (an unbeliever commits both sins) seems less likely than views 3 and 4.
• View 3 (a believer commits both sins, and God may discipline the second believer with physical death) seems more likely than view 2.
• View 4 (a believer commits a sin not leading to death, and an unbeliever commits sin that leads to death) seems most likely.

Believers still sin, but sin does not characterize believers. What characterizes believers is that they confess their sins to the one who is faithful and just to forgive them their sins and to cleans them from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). Believers “have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (2:1). They do not sin leading to eternal death.

Unbelievers sin in a way that leads to eternal death. In particular, this is tragically the case for unbelievers who have decisively turned away from the faith; they are apostates—people who once claimed to be Christians but who irreversibly abandoned and renounced orthodox Christianity.

FOOTNOTES

1. See I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 245–51; Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, WBC 51 (Dallas: Word, 1984), 297–99; Ben Witherington III, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1–2 Timothy and 1–3 John: Vol. 1 of Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 550–56.
2. See John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC 19 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 185–90; Irvin A. Busenitz, “The Sin unto Death,” MSJ 1 (1990): 17–31.
3. Stott, Letters of John, 189.
4. See B. B. Warfield, “Praying for the Erring,” ExpTim 30.12 (1919): 536–40; James Montgomery Boice, The Epistles of John: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1979), 139–43; Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 195–97; R. Bruce Compton, “Can a Christian Sin unto Death? Perseverance and 1 John 5:16,” 20 October 2016, https://e3pc.org/media/.
5. See David M. Scholer, “Sins Within and Sins Without: An Interpretation of I John 5: 16–17,” in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney, ed. Gerald F Hawthorne (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 230–46; Tim Ward, “Sin ‘Not unto Death’ and Sin ‘Unto Death’ in 1 John 5:16,” Churchman 109 (1995): 226–37; Bruce Durelle Smilie, “‘Sin unto Death’: A Structural and Exegetical Study of 1 John 5:16–7” (PhD diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1999); Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 190–94; Robert W. Yarbrough, 1–3 John, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 306–14; Karen H. Jobes, 1, 2, 3 John, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 232–37; Sam Storms, Kept for Jesus: What the New Testament Really Teaches about Assurance of Salvation and Eternal Security (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015), 167–79.
6. Another possible way to interpret “life” in accord with view 4 is that God may restore the sinning believer and thus confirm that they have and will experience eternal life—parallel to walking in the light in 1:6–10 (cf. 3:14; 5:11–13).

FURTHER READING

• Akin, Daniel L. 1, 2, 3 John.
• Brown, Raymond E. The Epistles of John: Translated, with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary.
• Busenitz, Irvin A. “The Sin unto Death.”
• Compton, R. Bruce. “Can a Christian Sin unto Death? Perseverance and 1 John 5:16.”
• Jobes, Karen H. 1, 2, 3 John.
• Kruse, Colin G. The Letters of John.
• Marshall, I. Howard. The Epistles of John.
• Scholer, David M. “Sins Within and Sins Without: An Interpretation of I John 5: 16–17.” Pages 230–46 in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney.
• Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John.
• Smilie, Bruce Durelle. “‘Sin unto Death’: A Structural and Exegetical Study of 1 John 5:16–7.” PhD diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1999.
• Storms, Sam. Kept for Jesus: What the New Testament Really Teaches about Assurance of Salvation and Eternal Security.Stott, John R. W. The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary.
• Tan, Randall K. J. “Should We Pray for Straying Brethren? John’s Confidence in 1 John 5:16–17.”
• Ward, Tim. “Sin ‘Not unto Death’ and Sin ‘Unto Death’ in 1 John 5:16.”
• Warfield, B. B. “Praying for the Erring.” ExpTim12 (1919): 536–40.
• Yarbrough, Robert W. 1–3 John.