Today we begin our last session of sharing for the present time. I commend you for your interest and faithfulness, and I assure you of my deep appreciation for your spirit of frankness and concern. I look forward to our future meetings, but right now we must get on with this one. I do not want to be in the position of the arm-waving orator who said, "Ladies and gentlemen, I speak for posterity!" A man on the back row of seats stood up and said, "If you don't quit pretty soon, posterity will be here before you finish!" Who has the first question?
What do you think about sin? Is it a reality, or is it a concept dreamed up by religious leaders to make men have a sense of guilt so they can be exploited?
You have certainly asked about a matter with which all of us are familiar. Regardless of how far removed some of us have been from certain areas of discussion, when we talk about sin we are getting very close to home, for every one of us. I wish I could tell you that sin has been proven to be a figment of the imagination, a goblin of the past, a ghost invented by primitive man. But sin is real. Its causes are real. Its effects are real. The suffering that results is real. The ultimate price we must pay for it is real.
In its original, "sin" is from a word meaning "to miss the mark." This is an obvious allusion to the practice of archery, in which men use a bow to discharge arrows toward a mark on a target. There are various ways in which one can miss a mark. He can shoot over it, and there is a word to describe this kind of moral dereliction. It is called "transgressions," which means "to go beyond." One can fall short of the mark. The word "disobedience" is used to designate such a failure. One can have a good aim, but his arrow is deflected by a gust of wind or by a hanging limb. The word "err" is used to describe this. It means "to swerve from the path." Then there is the word "iniquity," which seems to be used to cover the whole area of sinful existence.
In furtherance of our analogy, we can say that it is the field in which we practice the art of moral archery. The original Hebrew word points up the lack of rectitude or integrity, and this the whole ground for man's departure from the righteousness God demands. It is rendered in such terms as "unjust," "unrighteous," "ungodly," and "perverse." Twelve times it is translated "wicked" or "wickedness."
There was no wondering about the reality of sin among the prophets who were raised up and sent to your fathers. In the series of woes pronounced upon the house of Israel and the men of Judah, Isaiah said, "Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart rope" (5:18). The skeptics hauled sin after them, even while challenging God to do anything about it, as the succeeding verse shows.
In Isaiah 30:1, the prophet wrote, "Woe to the rebellious children, saith the Lord, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my Spirit, that they may add sin to sin." This puts the finger squarely on the problem. Sin is the result of rebellion, the disposition not only to disregard but to revolt against the divine will, and to look to other sources for guidance. The prophet says, "Your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you" (59:2).
It is affirmed by Solomon that "fools make a mock at sin." I take this to mean they laugh at it, scoff at it, and make fun of it. One is in a grave condition when he jokes about his sin, like a sick comic. He is like a man with cancer of the lungs who keeps on smoking cigarettes, sucking tar into his diseased organs while ridiculing those who try to point out the folly of his persistence. Sin is as real as God's condemnation of it. It is as real as His power to forgive it!
In his book, Old Testament Synonyms, Dr. Girdlestone wrote:
"The Hebrew Bible meets us with a full acknowledgment of these manifold aspects of human suffering, and blends wrongdoing and suffering to a remarkable degree, setting forth sin in its relation to God, to society, and to man's own self, depicting it in its negative aspect as iniquity and unrighteousness, and in its positive aspect as rebellion and a breach of trust."
The author of sin never achieved a more powerful conquest through sin than he did when he beguiled men into thinking there is no sin.
What makes a thing sin? Why should one human action be labeled a sin while another human action is regarded as harmless?
Sin always is related to authority, and in the human being it stems from the fact that man has been made in the image of God. He is invested with the responsibility of glorifying God by his life. Man does not belong to himself. He has been made by another, and is subject to the will of his Creator. It is inherent in the human consciousness, I think, to recognize that one is a product of the creative genius of another, and so to strive to reproduce the nature of the Creator who made him. Anything that reflects against the nature and character of the Creator, or is in defiance to the will of the Creator, is missing the mark. It is sin!
If it is conceded that there was a time when man did not exist but was made through the exercise of the will of another, it would appear that the will of the Creator should be the will of the creature. The Creator should determine the purpose of the one whom He brought into existence as a rational being. This makes the mark at which we aim not our own. It has been planted by divine authority and will be the criterion by which we are measured. It is not our mark that we miss, but God's mark for us. A thing is a sin because it is done in violation or in defiance to the authority of God, and that authority as relates to human conduct is found in the sacred Scriptures.
If those Scriptures do not contain a revelation of God, there is no such revelation, for nothing else can qualify as a revelation. If there is no revelation, man is doomed to wander through an alien world, without ever understanding his relationship to it. It then follows that the Creator who made him has abandoned him upon a storm-tossed sea, without rudder or compass. That may be the position of some who are here today, but it is not my position. I am fully committed to the divine will for my feeble existence on this planet. To the extent I can grasp it, I shall eagerly follow it. My sin will be of the head and not the heart!
Why did God make man so he would sin? If He knew everything from the beginning, could He not have created a being who would not sin? Is not the God you preach responsible for all the suffering in the world?
We find ourselves in deep water when we begin to probe why God did certain things in certain ways, and why He did not do them otherwise. I am reluctant to pit my finite mind against His infinite one, or to appear judgmental of His means or methods. I confess that I dread this question more than any other. This is not to say there is any resentment against the question, for it is the very type of thing about which any rational person will be curious. I do not shy from it because of any personal lack of confidence in the eternal purpose of God. I am only reluctant to deal with the matter, lest I exhibit some measure of irreverence by treading upon holy ground, where I should be removing my shoes.
The prophet Isaiah wrote, "Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker!...Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What has thou brought forth?" (45:9, 10). Let me say, then, I do not question the power or ability of God to form a creature of any kind. He is the potter, and He could spin the clay on the wheel and produce any kind of vessel He wanted to design and take shape under His hands.
Our inability to explain definitely why God exercised His sovereign power as He did need not deter us from using the rational ability He bestowed upon us to consider some of the probabilities involved. God wanted a being who could worship Him by personal choice and not by compulsion. There is no glory to be derived from one who expresses respect because he is helpless and cannot do otherwise. There is a difference between the genuflection of one who bows from personal adoration, and the kneeling of a puppet whose actions are controlled by strings pulled from behind a curtain. Choice is an act of the will, and one who has the power of will may choose the wrong course. If one is not free to make a mistake he is not free at all. One who cannot choose to do wrong cannot choose to do right!
God could have created a fleshly automation, a kind of computerized zombie. But such a creation would not have been a man. It would have been a machine. Any response by such a creature would have been a compulsive reaction and not a manifestation of love or personal concern. God made man a personality. He presented him with options and alternatives. He informed him in advance of the consequences of his actions. He set before him light and darkness, bitter and sweet, life and death.
God did not create sin. Sin is the result of man's own choice. He chose not to listen to God but to self. He chose to supplant God's will with his own will. The suffering that results from sin was not caused by God. It is a part of the package deal that Satan offered. Man bought it, lock, stock, and barrel. One can choose to be and to do what he pleases, but he cannot choose the consequences. Death is the built-in ultimate consequence of sin. The very fact that man is conscious of his failure and is aware of his sin is proof that he is not a mere animal. Neither a one-celled being in primordial ooze nor the most advanced primate in a zoo ever questions why he was so made. Only one creature bears the image of his Creator and can probe the purpose of his creation. Sin never was affirmed of animals. The very fact of sin in the universe proves that man is more than an animal.
Those of you who are philosophically inclined will not be satisfied with what I have said. Two of you are esteemed teachers of philosophy and are humanists. You will not be happy with my statements. The problem of the entrance of sin into an order of things which had been pronounced "very good" by the God who created it, is an age-old one. Hundreds of books have been written about it in the past, and new ones come pouring from the press every year. None of them are wholly satisfactory, for if one appeared with all of the answers there would be no further questions and no other books.
I am not inclined to speculate. There is nothing wrong with the word "speculate" in its origin, for it means "to spy out" or "observe." In our day, however, it generally means to theorize from conjectures without sufficient evidence. My speculation may prove to be no more valid than that of others. What I prefer to do is to accept apparent facts and to allow Scripture to be my guide in what has gone before. From my own tragic experiences, as well as from divine revelation, I am convinced that sin is all too real. You may call it by some other name, but that will not change its nature. It was Shakespeare who said, "A rose by any other name will smell as sweet." That may be paraphrased to read, "A skunk by any other name will smell as rank." Perhaps that is more appropriate with relation to sin.
I am a moral agent as a result of my humanity and rationality. I do not use the term "free moral agent," for one who is not free is not a moral agent. I am responsible as a being, a person. I am answerable for my thoughts and the actions that they beget. I do not charge God for my own dereliction. I do not cry out to Him, "Why have You made me like this?" I am grateful for His love in providing a consciousness of forgiveness in His Son. In fact, I am grateful for consciousness. I accept myself as I am, for it is the way He accepted me. He straightened out the identity problem for me.
Why is it that Christians differ about what constitutes sin? Could you not make a list of sins and distribute it so that all of us could check our conduct by it? The more I hear Christians talk about sin, the more confused I become.
I am fully aware that many professed disciples of the Messiah tend to confuse the minds of men by their endless debates and disputes about what are called specific sins. I am not sure that Christians really differ about sin. They acknowledge that it is rebellion against God and His authority. They realize that sin involves dethronement of God in the heart, and enthronement of self as a usurper of the scepter. You probably would not get a great deal of debate about the nature of sin in the abstract.
It is in the application of the term to various aspects of behavior that wide divergencies occur. Sometimes these differences occur because of traditional taboos. Sometimes they result from differences in social pressures. A few days ago some of us were talking informally about the use of alcoholics as table beverages. I remarked at the time that anyone who could not get along with alcohol should get along without it. He has lost control and transferred it to a bottle opener. I am a teetotaler by choice. This is not because I think beverage wine at your dinners is a sin. No Christian can show that it is, and informed ones would not attempt it. Drunkenness is repeatedly condemned in the Scriptures, however. It is a sin. It is a work of the flesh. But drunkenness results from lack of moderation, from imbibing to excess.
Christians who regard the moderate use of wine as a sin are reading their own attitudes, feelings, and opinions back into God's revelation. The same thing holds true with many other items branded as a sin. God has not given us a meticulous list of do's and don'ts. Under Christ, God has not laid down a catalog of precise rules to be obeyed, but has enunciated pure and elevated moral principles to govern our conduct.
It is unfortunate that most men prefer exact rules and specification. They want to be told precisely what is expected of them, what they may do and what they must avoid. This removes from them the need for making decisions based upon a careful consideration of alternatives. It also precludes them from being responsible for their behavior. Jesus did not specify a great number of prohibitions, since He was instituting an era of grace, as distinguished from one of law.
Under the law of Moses, your fathers were told what to do when they came across a stray ox or sheep, the kind of clothing to wear, how to construct a roof on a house and what to do when they found a bird's nest with eggs or fledglings in it. In Christ, we do not have a "computer printout" of sins. God has not filed a "bill of particulars" for us. In fact, attitudes and intentions can be as condemning as the actions themselves.
I would not be so presumptuous as to compile a list of sins for distribution. Some behavior is always sinful, some is never sinful. Some may or may not be, depending upon the circumstances, the conscience, and/or the motivation of the one performing the act. Another consideration is the long-range effect of the act. I am personally responsible for ascertaining the will of God to the extent of my ability, and for carrying it out to the extent of my capability. You have the same obligation. It is enough for me to know that divine forgiveness is available through penitence and prayer. It is not available because of my own merit but because of the Messiah. I do not want to usurp the place of God by imposing upon mankind my own judgment as to the classification of sins.
How can you justify your idea of God allowing Jesus, who was innocent, to die for something others had done? Is not this the greatest act of injustice in history, and would it not make God a murderer if it were true?
I have a great deal of hesitancy about entering into a discussion in which it may appear that I am critically examining either the motives or actions of God. I plead again my human limitations. I never can fully grasp the infinite purpose, the pleasure, and will of God. Neither can I even adequately communicate to others the depth of the feelings welling up within my own soul. I can be grateful for thoughts too profound to express them in mere words.
I suspect that your question ignores the gravity of sin in the universe as God regards it, and the nature of absolute mercy and justice when combined in the character of one personality. Sin distorts the whole creation of God. It erodes the relationship between man and his Maker, and erects walls between man and his fellows. It is delusive, divisive, and degrading. As long as it exists, the creative purpose of God will remain thwarted.
I think that in a world as distorted by sin as ours, the innocent always will suffer along with the guilty. Who does not know of a father or mother who has gone to an untimely grave, weeping over a wayward child? Many a pure wife has endured the disgrace and suffered the shame inherent in the love for an errant spouse. Is it not true that in times of war, the unassuming and inoffensive have been called upon to die for greedy and selfish persons whom they have never seen? A world of sin is a disordered world. It is a topsy-turvey world in which values are overturned and reason is disordered. What God must do in an order corrupted by man, to restore it to the divine intent, is different from what He would have done if man had not known sin.
We are not capable of absolute justice or absolute mercy. We are never sure that we have all the facts in a case, and we are never certain that our mental weighing of them is equitable. The jurists in this audience are always aware of the shortcomings of law when applied to specific cases. In a world of sin and misdemeanor, our judgments are sometimes partial and relative. This carries with it the idea that we shall play down some sins, judged purely by their effect upon the society that we are elected to protect.
Only God is just, and justice demands that for every sin there must be a penalty. The ultimate penalty is death. Since we all have sinned, we all are doomed. Yet God is merciful, and mercy requires not that sin be overlooked, but that the sinner be dealt with in compassion and forgiveness. Mankind was in a predicament. Either every person must die for his own sins, or one who was guiltless could die for the sin of the whole race. Only the Son of God could qualify. As the lamb of God, He could make atonement.
He took upon himself the sins of mankind. According to Isaiah, God laid on His own Son the iniquity of us all. With His death, the demand of justice was satisfied and divine righteousness upheld. Mercy could be accorded to man without restriction. I do not think God was a murderer, but I regard Him as my benefactor. He acted out of love for the stricken world, and I praise His name for such loving-kindness. He set me free from the law of sin and death.
You are Jews and I am a non-Jew, but there is one place where we meet, and that is in the need for someone to ransom us from our sins. In this respect there is no difference. It is because of this fact that I accept as the Messiah the one whom you gave to the world as the seed of David, the seed of Abraham. I trust that the day will come when there will be no difference in our state, but that all of us may accept Him and praise the name of the one God through Him. This is my fervent and eager prayer!