Sin

Violating the law is the not the definition of sin. Sin is the fruit of an evil heart.

---

(1 John 3:4) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

When properly parsed, a transgression of the law results when one sins. This does not define sin. It tells you what sin does; the result of sin.

By removing the first half of the verse, an entirely different interpretation is drawn out of the now truncated passage, so that a desired conclusion is achieved, where sin is the result of transgressing the law; the exact opposite conclusion of the verse when the whole of it is examined.

Sin becomes defined by the transgression of the law, where the very meaning of the Greek word translated into the English word “sin”, that defines sin, is ignored entirely. The definition of sin, derived from the Greek word for sin, gets lost in the legalistic shuffle.

Sin is translated from the Greek “hamartia” and refers to missing the mark in relation to the glory of God.

(Romans 3:23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God 

Why is this distinction important?

For one thing, it demonstrates the pervasiveness of sin in relation to a specific subset of mankind.

For another thing, it disassociates sin from what it really is - missing this mark related to the glory of God - and shifts it to something else entirely; that being strictly and solely any transgression of the law. This improper definition allows the legalist to ignore the parts of the law that required a proper, legal examination of any transgression of the law in order to determine if a transgression had any legal justification for having done so.

(John 7:51) Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?

The fact that there were legal justifications for breaking the law means that sin cannot simply be any violation of the law. The Sanhedrin dodged this legal requirement out of hand. Today’s legalist just redefines sin so as to exclude any trial that might exonerate the one who transgressed the law, with a legal justification for having done so, where a transgression of the law automatically results in a charge of sin, without appeal.

(Matthew 12:36-37) But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Imagine the scenario playing out where those who insist sin is the result of transgressing the law standing before God who asks them why they condemned others of sin without a hearing, like they will find themselves standing before God, having a hearing they denied others? I would be interested in seeing how they “talk” their way out of that...

Who all has “missed the mark” in relation to the “glory of God?” Everyone! Whether they be under the law of the old covenant or not under the law of the old covenant.

(Romans 2:12) For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

In the legalistic scenario, only those who have sinned “in the law” are judged by legalists as being judged and condemned where one can perish. You have to break the law in order to sin. There is no sin without the law and its transgression.

All this effectively counters and negates what all Jesus had to say on the matter of sin, where sin is tied to the condition of the heart, mind, and soul of a person, and not exclusively to the law.

Sin has its genesis in the heart, mind, and soul of a person. There is a proclivity to sin by those described in Scripture as having an evil heart, and where having an evil heart, such a person is incapable of doing anything that “hits the mark” when it comes to the glory of God.

(Matthew 12:35) A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

Who is speaking here? Jesus the Christ; the One you are supposed to be listening to, to the exclusion of all others; the One who is greater than the Prophets and even Moses, to whom Jesus attributes the law.

(James 1:13-15) Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Sin lies at the core of mankind, cut off from God. They can do nothing to the glory of God. They stand in opposition to God, having what God describes as:

(Jeremiah 17:9) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Jesus further elaborates:

(Matthew 7:17-19) Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

What is evil fruit? It is sin. It is the antithesis of good fruit. What is good fruit? Works done to the glory of God, which cannot be done by those producing evil fruit. Sins are NOT done to the glory of God. These evil fruits could be works done by those led by their evil hearts of stone and unbelief to their own glory, or their self-righteousness as we see done by the Pharisees and other religious elite of Israel; the same religious elite whom Jesus referred to as evil children of the devil, doing the will of their father.

Where did they derive their works; their fruits?

From the law; keeping the law, especially the works of the law.

Jesus uses the tithing law to show how their law-keeping was but an outward show.

(Matthew 23:23) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

The same could be said for their dedication to the Sabbath, circumcision, sacrifices, and many other commandments in the law regarding even clothing and grooming.

What then would you logically conclude if a “bad tree” happened to keep the Sabbath? Did such a person with their Sabbath-keeping refrain from sin? But if all the fruits of a bad tree are evil only, then how is keeping the Sabbath a "good fruit"?

Likewise, how would a person with an evil heart respond upon being told their Sabbath-keeping, which they believe is a good fruit, is in fact just another expression of evil coming from evil people?

They will do what evil people do, calling evil good, and good, evil.

(Isaiah 5:20) Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

But you see… that evil heart is “desperately” wicked, and will deceive the self into believing it is good, so much so, that such people who think themselves religious and righteous, will do anything to maintain the facade, even denying the undeniable.

(Luke 6:9) Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it?

Did Jesus here equate the destruction of life with doing good or doing evil?

The answer should be obvious.

What then of those legalists, specifically Adventists, whose hospitals have been performing elective abortions in their hospitals since the early 1970’s, where they have destroyed the most innocent of all human lives? The lives of humans, said to be created in the image of God, who have never sinned, and whose lives were destroyed without any due process provided in the law they claim to keep? Where and when was their hearing to appeal their death sentence, carried out by Adventism? Who stood as advocate for them? What happened to justice, mercy, and faith when it came to them?

It could hardly be said Adventism could be guilty of any greater sin in the eyes of God, but any Adventist reading this will still deny their duplicity; their complicity when it comes to this atrocity.

Many an Adventist, when confronted with this reality, claims they had no involvement in those decisions and actions performed by their church that claims to keep the commandments of God and keep the testimony of Christ where you just read the testimony of Christ regarding the destruction of life being evil.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************