Applying the Definition
For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Hebrews 4:15 NASB
Sin– Last week we looked at Wyschogrod’s work on the idea of sin. What we discovered is that sin in nota moral or ethical category. Sin exists as a violation of the command of a supreme lawgiver. It is a religious category. Furthermore, we learned that it is possible to be completely moral and still have every moral act be a sin. Why? Because if our moral choices to do what is right are based on an autonomous morality (and not on the direct commandments of God), then even morally good acts make God unnecessary. They break the relationship required between God and man and are, therefore, sinful. As we saw, Adam’s disobedience is not a moral mistake. It is an attempt to replace God as the lawgiver by generating an autonomous human moral system. This is a startling insight. This is why Ellul can say that every form of human morality is essentially sinful.
Now let’s apply this insight.
There are two important cases to examine. The first is the more obvious one. When the Christian Church replaces the commandments of Torah, it eliminates the necessity of a divine lawgiver. Torah is God’s direct divine command. Even if the Church preaches a moral code based on Torah, the very fact that it no longer sees that code as a direct command from God means the code in itself is sinful. It doesn’t matter if the Church decides that eating pork is not harmful to your heath or that celebrating communion is an effective replacement for Passover. These choices may not be considered sinful in the Christian Church, but they violate God’s direct command and, as such, would be considered sin within the religious system of Israel. In general, as long as the Church teaches that grace is the only necessary operating principle for relationship with God, anything it declares as good will be religiously sinful.
The second case is the statement that Yeshua was without sin. Now we have to understand this claim in a different way. To be without sin means to never have violated any direct command of the divine lawgiver. It does not mean to never have done anything either morally or ethically suspect. It is easy to conflate these two ideas, but we must distinguish them. Sin is a religious idea. It is found only within the confines of lawgiver and observer. When Yeshua says that he only does what the Father shows him and he only speaks what the Father tells him, he is essentially defining his sinlessness in terms of fulfilling precisely those requirements of the supreme lawgiver. This says nothing about those activities that fall outside the purview of the religious idea of sin. Since Yeshua lived according to Torah and Torah is God’s direct instruction, the claim that Yeshua lived without sin must be defined by Torah obedience. It is not defined by some autonomous ethical principle about good and evil. Therefore, it is acceptable to claim that Yeshua could have acted in ways we would describe as morally evil and yet be without sin, because “moral evil” is a term of autonomous ethics while sin is a term of religious (and in this case, Hebrew) compliance.
Of course, you will want an example since our usual interpretation of “sinless” is defined by our autonomous ethical principle, not by Torah. The encounter with the Syro-Phoenician woman may do. Many of us have struggled to find justification of Yeshua’s treatment of this pitiful person. He insults her, refuses to help her, forces her into a humiliating stance and, finally, apparently reluctantly, grants her request. Commentators often excuse this behavior as either object lessons to the disciples or as tests of her faith. But on the plain reading of the text, certainly we must find his behavior toward her disgusting. Why treat her like dirt? Was it really necessary to further abuse a woman whose only crime was being a refugee and whose only motive for approaching Yeshua was to save her daughter?
Our understanding of sin as a religious category helps us deal with this anomaly. Yeshua’s “unethical” treatment of the woman is not sin because it does not violate a direct command from the supreme lawgiver. It might make us feel uncomfortable since it appears to violate our sense of fairness and human decency, but that is beside the point. It isn’t sin. And since it isn’t sin, we might ask, “What other actions did Yeshua take which appear ethically scandalous but were not considered sin by the author of the letter to the Hebrews? Perhaps Yeshua is a bit more human than we thought.
Topical Index: sin, sinless, ethics, morality, Hebrews 4:15
