Why Don’t We See Sin For What It Is

1.  We are generally (perhaps deliberately) unaware of the giant chasm created by the smallest of sins and the demands of God because the Church has taught us that we are under grace and therefore the tiny sins don’t really matter.  They are simply errors in judgment.  If my greatest sins can be easily forgiven by the magnanimous God, why would He pay any attention to the insignificant mistakes.  If these tiny mistakes do count, then they are of little concern because of the enormous capacity of grace.  “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” Apparently the contemporary answer is “Yes!”  God is magnified by overlooking my errors because He is far too majestic to concern Himself with such trivia.

2.  The believer’s place in heaven is already guaranteed by the death on the cross.  There is no fear of withdrawal of forgiveness (we ignore the implications of the parable of the great debt).  Since the ultimate goal of believing is assuring a place in the Kingdom of the next world, and since this is accomplished by simply believing that Jesus paid the entry fee, why should there be any further concern with present world behaviors.  Of course, social etiquette and cultural mores still suggest that we should try to be on our best behavior, but the idea of reward and punishment for individual sins has been effective abolished by the cross and therefore is no longer applicable at the eternal level.  With this issue settled, all that is really left the an inner motivation to become the best I can be.  We recognize that this kind of motivation is a form of humanism, so we quickly assert that in a corrupt and broken world, moral perfection is simply a goal, not a reality.  If it were a reality, then escape to heaven would no longer be so important.

3.  Since believers have resolved the big picture issues, we act as if God would never hold us accountable for the small things.  What really matters are the big issues.  Grace, forgiveness, mercy, heaven, an attempt to be better; with these secured by theological paradigm, the details are relegated to historical interest only or spiritual motivation for self-improvement.

4.  Nevertheless, the monster within deceives us – this is the job of the yetzer ha’ra.  Self-deception becomes a means of ignoring the chasm between our acts and God’s standard of holiness.  Self-deception holds us captive to a theology of feelings rather than a standard of holiness.

5.  As contemporary believers, we are not encouraged to perform a ruthless inventory of our behavior.  What matters to us is the intention of our hearts.  Melanchthon’s successful conversion of external evidence to inward confidence means that the measure of true spirituality becomes my inward feelings, not my outward actions.  As long as I  believe that God is forgiving, I am assured that He actually does forgive.  Therefore, my behavior is irrelevant.  Under these conditions, one might wonder if we are even capable of such a ruthless inventory.

6.  Once the community, external standard of Torah obedience is removed, where do I look for a measurement of my real spiritual condition?  If I look to my inner feelings of the experience of grace, I am easily persuaded that things are OK in spite of the lack of external alignment.  “The tendency to be lenient with oneself covers sin.”  Without Torah as the standard, I am subject to the social accommodation of the Church which ultimately reflects the moral nobility of the culture, not the will of God.

Cheryl Durham’s conclusions about the transition from outward community norms of spiritual awareness to inward personal affirmation help us realize that this view of sin and the historical reality of replacement theology follow the thinking of the Reformation.  Durham notes that the idea that inner spiritual awareness is the true character of relationship with God assumes certain epistemological conditions.

“Many Gentile Christians believe that being “in Christ” is also about exemption from formal education because, in their minds, “the Law” is already written on their hearts. This is a “Gnostic” view of faith as it sees the Holy Spirit as a personal spirit guide who transmits individual messages similar to a channel or medium in occultist practices. This type of believer has only to perceive or feel within him/herself what he/she believes is the Holy Spirit’s presence. This person’s perception is often self-confirmed by an internal feeling of calm or peace. The peaceful feeling is an affirmation that whatever the receiving person is thinking is the will of God. Taking this rationale to its logical end, the ability to discern the will of God internally and individually removes the necessity of Torah teachers for those “in Christ”; neither do they need a contextual understanding of the Bible. I have often heard people claim “The Holy Spirit tells me everything I need to know”.

Proof texts, written in one’s native language, confirm that the person’s “feeling” is in fact the Holy Spirit telling them what to do. To this type of Christian, the historical account of God with Israel is irrelevant because individuals “in Christ” have an ever-new progressive and personal special revelation that the history with Israel does not provide. The Christian who has individual personal revelation from God will not feel the need to be accountable to Israel as he sees Israel as the old people of God and Christians as the new people, prophets and apostles.”[1]

Compare this Christian position with Dozier’s remarks about the perpetual authority of Torah in Judaism. “The Torah’s perpetuity is described by Yeshua in Matt. 5:18: ‘For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.’  But the warning follows in verse 19: ‘Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.’ This concept is repeated in Luke 16:17.  In content and intention, many Jews considered the Law universal, and even Gentiles who obey its commandments share its promises and a place in the ‘olam ha-ba, the world to come.  R. Meir contended that even a Gentile who occupies himself with the law is ‘like the high priest’ because of Lev. 18:5 ‘Ye shall therefore keep my statues and my ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them.’  The term ‘a man’ includes any man, even a Gentile.  R. Jeremiah in Sifra on Lev. 18:5 further expands this view to ‘even a Gentile who obeys the law is like the high priest.’  The Sadducees were ‘common sense literalists’ (Moore I, 280) and denied the authority of the Oral Torah or unwritten law.  The bitter disputes between the Pharisees and Sadducees often centered around this difference of doctrine.  After the destruction of the Temple, the Sadducees dwindled and virtually disappeared and the Pharisees dominated Judaism uncontested.

Of all the multiplicity of Judaisms, none questioned the Torah – only the varied interpretations of the Torah.  The sole standard of these Judaisms is Torah.”[1]

Which view more accurately expressed the view of the Bible and of the community “in Christ”?  Which view more accurately reflects the statements and actions of Yeshua?