#91. Romans 3:23 – An Introduction to Sin (Justification Series, Part XIV)

Part III: Our Justification, Confirmed

Yet now, apart from law, a righteousness of God is manifest (being attested by the law and the prophets), yet a righteousness of God through Jesus Christ’s faith, for all, and on all who are believing, for there is no distinction, for all have sinned, and are wanting of the glory of God.

The word “sin” appears nearly 50 times in Romans. Hitherto, we have seen its root and prefix, “UN+MARK,” appear five times – 2:12 (“whoever sinned without law… whoever sinned in law”), 3:7 (“being judged as a sinner”), 3:9 (“both Jews and Greeks all under sin”), and 3:20 (“through law is the recognition of sin”). As we are now breaching our justification, a verdict which cannot be grasped without a clear conception of sin, we will spend this study becoming familiar with the word and its meaning as God uses it, apart from the opinions of your favorite tax-free piety-producing institution.

In this study, I wish to dispel the rumors of Christendom regarding this term, while considering the basic meaning of “sin,” and its source – from whence sin originated, that we may appreciate how the cross reverses sin’s enforcement.

What is Sin?

The basic definition of sin is most clearly seen from Romans 3:20, where we read that law enables us to recognize sin. The element of “law,” nomos in Greek, is “AIM.” Meanwhile, the elements of “sin,” hamartia, being “UN+MARK,” evidently indicate a failure to achieve the standard. In this example, the “law” is the standard – so a “sinner” is one who evidently fails to conform to a standard.

It is often argued that “sin” means “to transgress the law.” The verse used to support this statement, 1 John 3:4, is not properly translated, and if it were true, would call the validity of the Bible into question, since Paul says later in Rom. 5:13-14 that sin reigned where there was no law to transgress! A “sinner,” then, is not just one who fails to conform to “righteousness,” but one who fails to perfectly mark anything they aim at.

Of course, in the context of our passage in Romans, it is clear that the charge of “sinner” is most grave, since the righteous standard is what we are being charged with “missing.”

As with all Pauline concepts, there is a physical illustration of this word’s meaning in the Hebrew texts. When the tribe of Benjamin warred with the rest of Israel, seven-hundred men are described as skillful stone-slingers, all of whom can cast a stone at a hairs’ breadth and not “miss.” The Hebrew word for “miss” is ichta, or, “sin” in its every other occurrence. This image helps clarify the meaning perfectly, for, if any of these men did sling a stone and fail to hit their target, they would, literally, “sin.”

So much is gained from “sin” when we dismiss religion’s cries! For sin and miss to be seen as identical in meaning simplifies the text greatly. There are many instances in which this word is used morally, indeed – yet our physical illustration shows that the concept of “morality” is not inherent in the term. It is morally good, for example, that we do not conform to certain standards which are unhealthy, such as eating McDonalds every day, or showering once per hour. We should “sin” against these aims.

This is the practical force of the word as it is used in scripture. Though today we use it in this “moral” sense, and there is practically no way we could reverse this meaning at present, we must still clarify this before regarding the scriptures where “sin” appears. This critical qualification must be made beforehand: that the word is rather most closely associated with failure to achieve one’s aims – not morality.

Hence Paul’s statement above: “all have sinned, and are wanting of the glory of God.” We have failed to conform to the standard which would warrant an impartation of the glory of God. Unless this association is grasped, it is pointless to endeavor into 3:24. By proclaiming that we are all sinners, God is not charging us with the greatest offenses against love and good will. He is simply saying that even our best efforts – our “good” deeds – are performed in error (1:24-32,) a false foundation (1:18-23,) and are subject to correction (2:1-16.)

I believe that the simplicity of this definition contributes to its credibility. When “sin” is viewed in this light – a light so bright that it would be impossible for even the smallest child to be lost – all that follows becomes plausible. All it takes is one basic failure, one tiny flaw, to emphasize the high standard which a righteous law attests to.

Most often, misrepresenting sin’s meaning is what disguises the answer to the following question:

From Whence Did Sin Originate?

Here is the crux of the issue, a critical point of contact which Romans combats repeatedly: Since all things are created out of, through, and for God (Rom. 11:36,) yet God Himself cannot sin, from whence did sin originate?

I have said many times in this study that sin has been given by God. Anyone who tries to answer the above question while stopping short of God Himself are simply unsatisfactory, and fail to account for all of the facts concerning God’s own proclaimed authority. Some say, for example, that “sin” originates in man. Sin is said to enter the world through one person (Rom. 5:12,) but “through” denotes a channel, not an origin. Indeed, the serpent existed to tempt Adam before he had ever sinned.

The vast majority of Christendom charges Satan with the creation of sin. Yet the Adversary, too, is just a creature, and cannot have originated anything within himself with a power independent of the One Who gave him any measure of life or critical thought. John writes, in 1 Jo. 3:8, that the Adversary has sinned from the beginning. Sin itself was associated with him from the very start; ergo, there is no plausible way he created sin, when he himself was created a sinner. Attempts to attribute Satan with any independent authority seems to cite John Milton, and aligns most with the Zoroastrian religion, not the word of God, which treats Satan as a creation of God (Rom. 11:36.)

Though we have just read Rom. 1:18-3:20, and know full well that our judgment of a situation is entirely without basis, some still dare to ask, because of the above information: if God made Satan a sinner, then didn’t God sin?

All you need to answer this question is reasonable doubt. If there is even a hint that God can rationally create evil for a greater purpose, then this question should not be asked at an honest debate about the Bible. Sure enough, many points which Paul makes answer this question, most notably by presenting God’s means of salvation and deliverance from sin, and for what lesson salvation is given.

If we were subscribing to religion’s idea of God, then of course, the answer would be that “yes,” God sinned in daring to make Satan a sinner. This is because, under religion’s guidance, God is restricted from saving some because of an invisible barrier of “free choice” that God is not allowed/strong enough to vanquish. The “eternal” purpose of religion’s god is to cast most of creation into fiery flames, to perish permanently for not helping themselves.

Yet by keeping the proper definition of “sin” in mind, our answer becomes clear. “If God made Satan a failure, then did God fail?” The question, “Did God fail to make Satan a failure” is quite easily answered: no, God very successfully made Satan a failure. God very successfully made Satan a sinner.

If God had created Satan “perfect,” and then Satan defected of his own volition, against God’s designs, then the disappointment on our end should set in: God would have sinned. He would have set out to make a flawless creature, but the flawless creature went sour. God alone would be the One to charge with this failure. But God does not sin.

To see sin’s placement, we need only see its relation to the well message Paul is sharing. This statement, “all have sinned and are wanting of the glory of God,” precedes God’s message of justification, and pre-supposes its necessity. Therefore, it is also necessary that one be a sinner to begin with, lest the evangel cannot accomplish its goal of salvation!

Sin, then, has an essential and temporary role in God’s plan! This will be the subject of chapter 95, and will be developed as we proceed through Paul’s crash course. Creation manifests many of God’s attributes, but His heart of love cannot be accurately portrayed unless sin first sows the seeds of hate. An equation’s value cannot be computed where mathematics have not been invented! Without sin, there is no Savior. Without estrangement, there is no reconciliation. Without loss, there is no satisfaction of recovery. Without stubbornness, there is no display of mercy.

Man’s idea of “perfection” is one where there is perpetual satisfaction, where nothing ever goes wrong. Man does not yet see that God’s hand is the only way in which such “perfection” can come about. If all God sought were pets, He would have done this – created a world sufficient enough to the senses of His creatures, to establish perpetual bliss. He would be no more impressed in our minds than a robot who hooks one’s mind into the matrix. No – God seeks a requited love, and knows that the only way love is reciprocated is by a lesson in relation. We can only see love’s value in light of distance and distress.

The End

To us, sin appears to be an insoluble, permanent issue which we can never escape. We have come to treat death and suffering as natural, when in reality these are still repugnant to our consciences. Yet knowing that God is handling what we cannot shows sin’s temporary nature in the universe. It was introduced at a specific time, has been developed for a specific time, will retire during a specific time (Acts 3:21,) and will be removed at a specific time (Rom. 5:18, 1 Cor. 15:25-28, Phil. 2:9-11, Col. 1:20, Heb. 9:26.)

Since sin is no larger than a blip on the radar screen, in the grand scheme of things, and since it prepares the universe to become an intimate family, and its lesson ensures that God will be the affectionate Father of all, we can safely conclude that God is not a sinner for introducing sin, since the end salvation and maturity of every creature, for the glory of all that is good, and for the glory of all, who become good, justify sin’s activities for these brief experiences.

This further breaches the heart of the issue, as we are emotional creatures who are often reactive when displeasured, even when we know that hurt is good for us. When we attempt to remove God as the Origin of anything, we make Him a sinner for creating a being with a shortsighted grasp of the competency or ability of said creature, and especially by inadvertently empowering one with the ability to permanently foil any good outcome of God.

Does this make God the “author of sin?” Like my predecessors, I much prefer not to give answers to such ambiguous phrases as “author of sin,” which may carry more than one meaning, and would only snare some. I will instead say that calling sin some unforeseen circumstance, something which God did not intend, makes God a sinner for failing to implement a defense from sin’s intrusion. It would indicate that God Himself is susceptible to sin, since sin could permanently take from God without His consent or desire.

Let us not suppose God is weaker than His opponent, or that evil couldn’t be foiled by the very object it serves as foil. Our highest expectations far transcend eternal chaos. They transcend some hopeless state of affairs where most never escape the clutches of the Adversary, as “eternal torment” proponents claim. God’s expectations, as we are beginning to see, far transcends His own eternal torment, which He, too, would always suffer under the thumb of his own creatures, for love always suffers with its object.

Our only resolve is not only to acknowledge that all is out of Him, but also through Him, and for Him (Rom. 11:36.) This statement is comprehensive, and is not limited to any particular group or person. All, whether visible, or invisible, or authorities including corrupt governments, Satan, and other celestial hosts, are expressly said to be created by God in Christ (Col. 1:16.)

Let us drop the pagan philosophies of the temples which have surrounded us, and shield us continually from the facts of God’s words. Of the many pagan ideologies which Christianity maintains, sin’s origin rooted in creation’s allegedly untapped and unmanageable power is among the most irreverent against God. It reminds me of the statement we have already read: “knowing the Placer of all, not as the Placer of all does man glorify or thank Him, but vain were they made in their reasonings, and darkened is their unintelligent heart.”

As we proceed into justification, keep the reality of ourselves – the fact that we are failures – in mind, and the sacrifice of Christ will become crystal clear, as Paul describes its function and application, as well as its source and goal.

- GerudoKing