Degrees of Sin - Part 2
Defining personal sin according to preference, definitely appeals to our sinful nature. More than anything we want to defend our own sense of righteousness, compared with others.
Most of the content in this letter centres on Old Testament Law, and for the purpose of discussion it doesn't allow for the New Testament doctrine of grace. The Law is still relevant, and continues to demonstrate why humanity is separated from God. Indeed, Christians will have to account for decisions we've made since becoming believers. However, there is some irony attached to this discussion, insomuch as whatever we believe about degrees of sin, the topic appears somewhat irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. Because whether we find ourselves in heaven, or separated from God, I’m not convinced at that time we’ll be overly concerned about levels of sin?
Some commentaries appear to support levels of sin by aligning sin under the Law, instead of one exposing the other. These commentaries generally refer to punishments derived from “the Law” itself. This would be like civil laws, where there's a law for murder, and another law for second degree murder, and so on, depending on the motive, and context of the transgression. From this example, killing another person is still wrong. Commentators that refer to narratives in Ezekiel for example, but the argument becomes very circular when advocating for levels of sin. The Law has levels, therefore all Sin is not equal, and because all sin is not the same, the Law has levels.
The Law tell us what sin is, and therefore what separates us from God. Without the Law we would not understand what separates us from God. We‘re all sinners according to the scriptures, and whether our sin is considered small or great here on earth, God doesn’t discriminate between levels of it. All sin becomes utterly sinful “at the point of transgressing any Law”, period! Further, salvation is not influenced or determined by sin, or levels of it, and if it were, the cross would be meaningless. Debate over levels of sin holds no eschatological importance at all, and the petty thief will stand with the mass murderer, and both will be separated from God.
Whether knowingly, or unknowingly we’re all transgressors, and our transgression is epitomized in the word sin (Rom7:7-13). Scripture makes abundantly clear that levels of punishment is defined by intent, so the degree of punishment is mitigated accordingly, but this doesn’t change the sin that the law exposed. Further, mitigation of sin only applies while here on earth. Degrees of punishment in this life are irrelevant as far as eschatology is concerned, and hold no preferential standing before God. In other words the petty thief and the mass murderer remain sinners and separated without Christ, and equally covered and redeemed under Christ. Both will answer for what they’ve done, from the point of receiving Christ.
John 19:11, is the only text that actually uses the words “greater sin”, and is used by some commentators to suggest different levels of Law. However, there are two points which need to be teased out. John 19:11 is not using the word “greater” to mean levels of commandment (as in one Law being more sinful than another Law), but the motivation and intent, that lies behind the act of sinning, which in this case distinguishes Pilot from Caiaphas. John 19:11 applies the accusation of “greater sin” personally, referring to the one who had greater malice. In this instance I believe it refers to the “sin of blasphemy” (Matt12:3, Deut5:11). Theologically the unpardonable sin might be debated as more sinful, simply because it rules out any means of salvation. However, there are no degrees of blasphemy either.
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."
Firstly Jesus says to Pilot, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you”. Throughout scripture God empowers unbelievers for a specific purpose, and in the same way Pilot was given authority to carry out the crucifixion of Christ. Therefore, while Pilot is guilty of murder (found Jesus to be innocent but yielded to pressure), his guilt was mitigated by the absence of malicious intent, his attempts to free Jesus, and the fact that God had empowered him for this very purpose. Now, between the first and second sentence of John 19:11 is the word “therefore”. The meaning of what follows this word is governed by what preceded it. Jesus goes on to state; the one who handed him over to Pilot bares the greater sin. So who handed him over, and why was it a greater sin? It’s overly presumptuous to suggest Judas was the one referred to here for several reasons including, no text actually states this, and it runs contrary to the literary style (Matt27:2). Judas betrayed Jesus, but he didn’t hand him over to Pilot. Clearly it was Caiaphas, the chief priest, who questioned Jesus and suggested he should die (John 18:14). It was Caiaphas who sent Jesus to Pilot (John 18:28), but these actions alone do not qualify Caiaphas as committing the greater sin!
Blasphemy is understood as the denial of Christ, in spite of clear knowledge to the contrary, the stubborn rejection of the Holy Spirit (Matt26:63-65), and attributing miracles to the work of Satan (Matt12:24). The greater sin was blasphemy. Caiaphas believed that miracles had indeed happened, but at the same time he rejected them (Jn3:2). It's difficult to believe that Caiaphas was unaware and uninformed, about the events surrounding Jesus ministry and Nicodemus clearly testified that all (Sanhedrin) knew the miracles that Jesus performed, could only happen if God was with him. When Jesus claimed to be Messiah, the Son of God, Caiaphas accused him of blasphemy, thereby rejecting the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit. The irony was that Caiaphas had rightly prophesied the death of Christ earlier, but didn’t see the signs when he fulfilled the prophecy, through his decision to hand Christ over to Pilot (Matt26:65).
Theologian Wayne Grudem in his own “Systematic Theology” utilizes Ezekiel 8:6-15 to suggest there are levels of sin (Page 502. Para3.). However, if we examine Ezekiel's narrative beginning with v6 we find that in all the claimed levels of Ezekiel’s vision, only one commandment is transgressed, and idolatry is not demonstrated as increasing or decreasing levels, but highlighting the extent of corruption across the entire community. It's clear from paragraph 4 that Grudem is not talking about levels of punishment, but propagating the idea of levels, within the commandments themselves. In this regard he utilizes the Sermon on the Mount (Matt5:19) to endorse some commandments being greater than others. However, if this were the case we would expect the Ezekiel narrative to demonstrate examples of these variations in the law, to support his view. These are not evident, instead Grudem appears to project his theology into the narrative, and misconstrue its meaning. This practice of projection appears all too common.
The bible is clear that the punishment for all transgression is death, and if this were not the case, Christ died for nothing. Throughout Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy the actions of human sacrifice, kidnapping, murder, blasphemy, idolatry, witchcraft, adultery, sexual laws, and various marriage violations, are all punishable by death. However, there are various levels of punishment based of motivation and intent, but let’s be clear, while motivation and intent can mitigate the degree of punishment, it doesn’t change the fact that all sin is punishable by death, because all transgression separates us from God, whether intentional or unintentional, that’s why we need a saviour!
Conclusion
When all said and done, this topic demonstrates the importance of clarifying words that are central to the discussion. A variety of factors can cause us to disagree, because we fail to ask the right questions from the outset. Yet when the discussion moves full circle we often find that the point of difference was created by the interpretation we place on key words. I realize there is more to be said about the word “sin” including our predisposition to it, and what that means. However, in researching this topic as far as the discussion of “Degrees of Sin Part1” is concerned, I have to conclude that my own position changed in the process. Because the basis from which my view (there are no levels of sin) was expressed, could also be wrong, or misconstrued, depending on where I drew meaning for the word sin.
