Degrees of Sin - Part 2
Defining personal sin according to preference appeals to our sinful nature. More than anything, we want to defend our sense of righteousness if compared to others.
Much of the content in this discussion centres on the Old Testament Law, and doesn't expand on the doctrine of grace due to the nature of the commentary. The Law remains relevant today and continues to expose why humanity is separated from God. Indeed, Christians will be held accountable for the decisions we've made since becoming believers. However, there's an irony in debating degrees of sin, because regardless of our conclusions, the topic appears largely irrelevant in the greater scheme of eternity. Whether one ends up in heaven or separated from God, I’m not convinced that, in that moment, we’ll be overly concerned about whether our sins were lesser or greater.
Some commentaries argue for levels of sin by aligning sin under the Law, rather than viewing the Law as the means by which sin is exposed. These interpretations often point to punishments prescribed by the Law as the exemplar of levels. This is extracted similarly to civil law distinction, such as between first-degree and second-degree murder, where motive and context influence sentencing. But in every case, murder remains wrong. Likewise, commentators may refer to narratives in Ezekiel, but the logic becomes circular when advocating for levels of sin: i.e., The Law has levels; therefore, all sin is not equal; and because sin is not equal, the Law has levels.
The Law reveals what sin is, and thereby what separates us from God. Without the Law, we wouldn’t understand our separation. Scripture declares that we are all sinners, and whether our sin is considered small or great by human standards, God doesn’t discriminate between levels of sin. All sin becomes utterly sinful the moment any law is transgressed. Furthermore, salvation is not determined by the degree of sin. If it were, the cross and grace would be meaningless insofar as how would anyone know the acceptable level of sin? Debates over levels of sin carry no eschatological weight, as both the petty thief and the mass murderer stand equally separated from God without Christ.
Knowingly or unknowingly, we are all transgressors, and this transgression is captured in the very word sin (Rom 7:7-13). Scripture teaches that while degrees of punishment may be influenced by intent, sin itself is not mitigated. Mitigation may affect earthly consequences, but it does not change the terms of salvation. In terms of eternal standing before God, whether someone is a petty thief or a mass murderer, they remain sinners in need of a saviour, or equally redeemed and covered by Christ, if they belong to Him. Both will give an account from the point of their receiving Christ.
John 19:11 is the only text that uses the phrase “greater sin”, and it’s often cited to suggest a hierarchy within sin. But two important points must be drawn out. First, John 19:11 does not speak of greater in terms of commandments (as if one law is more serious than another), rather, it refers to the motivation and intent behind the sin. Jesus distinguishes Pilate from Caiaphas on that basis. The phrase “greater sin” points to the one with greater malice. In this case, the context is the sin of blasphemy (Matt 12:3; Deut 5:11). While theologically one might argue that the unpardonable sin is “greater” because it excludes salvation, there are no degrees of blasphemy mentioned in Scripture.
John 19:11
Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore, the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”
First, Jesus tells Pilate, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you.” This follows the biblical pattern in which God permits certain events to unfold for His sovereign purposes, even when He could intervene. Pilate’s authority was permitted to fulfil the purpose of the crucifixion. While Pilate is still guilty, his guilt is mitigated by the lack of malicious intent, his efforts to release Jesus, and the fact that God used him in this role. Then comes the word “therefore,” which logically connects the following statement to the one immediately preceding it. Jesus adds, “The one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”
So, who handed Jesus over? It’s somewhat presumptive to assume it was Judas, as no text explicitly states this, and it doesn't fit the narrative structure (Matt 27:2). Judas betrayed Jesus but didn’t deliver Him to Pilate. That role belonged to Caiaphas, the high priest, who examined Jesus, determined He should die (John 18:14), and then sent Him to Pilate (John 18:28). But even that alone doesn’t fully explain why Caiaphas committed the “greater sin.” We must also consider the people of Israel collectively, because the “greater sin” seems to connect better with the betrayal of his own chosen people.
Blasphemy is dressing in the robes of Christ to complete a personal agenda, the stubborn rejection of the Holy Spirit (Matt 26:63–65), and the attribution of divine miracles to Satan (Matt 12:24). The greater sin, in this context, was blasphemy. Caiaphas acknowledged Jesus' miracles but rejected them (John 3:2). It’s difficult to believe that Caiaphas was uninformed about Jesus’ ministry. Nicodemus testified that the whole Sanhedrin knew Jesus' works could only come from God. Yet when Jesus declared He was the Messiah, Caiaphas accused Him of blasphemy, rejecting both the Messiah and the Spirit. Ironically, Caiaphas had earlier prophesied Christ’s death (John 11:50), yet failed to recognise the fulfilment of that prophecy when he helped bring it about (Matt 26:65).
Wayne Grudem, in his Systematic Theology, appeals to Ezekiel 8:6-15 to argue for levels of sin. However, if we examine the vision from verse 6 onward, we see that although it describes increasingly appalling acts, only one commandment, idolatry, is being transgressed. These are not levels of sin, but rather a demonstration of how pervasive and systemic the corruption had become. In paragraph 4, Grudem shifts from punishment to suggesting that some commandments themselves are greater. He cites Matthew 5:19 in support, implying that Jesus considered some laws more weighty. But if that were true, Ezekiel’s vision should provide clear examples of varying commands and their hierarchy. Instead, it shows widespread defilement under a single type of sin. Grudem appears to project his theology into the text, a practice all too common and deeply problematic.
The Bible is clear that the punishment for all transgression is death. If it were not so, Christ died for nothing. Throughout Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, sins such as murder, kidnapping, adultery, blasphemy, idolatry, witchcraft, and violations of marriage laws are all punishable by death. While different earthly consequences exist, based on intent or circumstance, the spiritual consequence of any sin is the same: separation from God.
Conclusion
Ultimately, this discussion reveals how critical the definition of key terms is at the outset. Disagreements often arise because we don’t ask the right questions early enough, and differing interpretations hinge on our assumptions about those words. There is certainly more to be said about the nature of sin, including our predisposition to it.
