• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Different severity of sin or not?

Lila

Lila

Member
Female
1 John 5:16
If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life for those who sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death.

I was wondering if anyone has occupied themselves with the subject of different severity of sin if there exists such at all? I understand there is the view that sin is sin and it doesn't matter whether it's "worse" or "lighter" as the Lord looks at it the same.
With human intellect I would think there surely is difference in between the weight of one's sin but I might be wrong which is why I wanted to see if anyone else has come to an insight regarding this?
 
Great topic! I think that "all sin is sin and equal" mantra is mostly a product of the modern church, there were obviously different consequences for sins in the law. However I do note it is important not to get into a "sty judging" contest with each other. Jesus makes that pretty clear.
 
I think the way it works is this. All sin is equal in a spiritual sense in that it separates us from YHWH. Doesn't matter what it is, just means we're not holy enough to be in His presence.
However, some sins are worse on a somewhat practical level, which is clearly shown in the laws and subsequent consequences of various sins.
 
Great question!

I tend to agree with Sarah, sin is equal in that all sin separates us from YHWH.

I also think UntoldGlory brings up a valid supporting point - that there were different consequences for different sins. A great example of that is something that is perhaps shocking to us today. In Numbers 15 a Sabbath breaker is stoned! Yikes! This is opposed to someone steals an ox (Exodus 22) and is to repay five oxen for the one. Of course, there are many other examples.

I certainly don't think we should get pharisitical about it though. I think we would all agree that the important part is learning to live a sanctified life, eliminating all sin as we are aware of it and supporting others in their journey to do so.
 
aineo said:
..that there were different consequences for different sins. ...
Click to expand...

Good point. I think I personally side with the conclusion that indeed there are transgressions "deserving" more than some other BUT how is it to be assessed from here on? I guess that remains the unanswered question mark for me. Any thoughts?
 
My thought: we have laws that judge actions. Laws of man I mean. So judgement for the sake of dispensing justice isn't ours. Vigilantism is illegal.

As to within the body, if we have concerns about a brother or sisters life, we have procedures for that too, but the most severe thing we really have as an option is exclusion from the fellowship. And from my experience, if a church is "disciplining" me on something (PM), and wanting to kick me out then we already have fundamental issues that mean I don't think it's and organization I want to be part of anyway.
 
UntoldGlory said:
In what way?
Click to expand...

I haven't had time to look into it but it seems to me that a statement as extreme as "sin leading to death" would need an explanation and the obvious ones would be those in the Old Testament that have a death penalty attached to them.

I don't advocate the death penalty for breaking the moral laws, Christ put that out of reach, but it seems like a case could be made that this is an example of the New Testament indicating that significant portions of the Law are still in effect.

And I don't know anyone who claims some portion of it isn't, so we would still be left to endlessly debate about how much and what portions but it is an interesting verse.

I'm glad Lila brought it up.
 
Well I'd suppose off the top of my head there are a lot of possible interpretations. Maybe even more than one. Certainly that way of looking at it could be correct, there are others that could be correct, and again, maybe multiple things are correct.

Looking at Romans 6 (wages of sin), the main implication to me is that sin leads to separation from God, separation from the source of life, and ultimately she'ol type death or hell.

Then there's the "reap what you sew" interpretation. Where a sinful life might just get you killed.

I know you're in the "pro law" camp, but I don't see where it's a stronger possibility than any other. However you're definitely right that if it is, it doesn't tell us what might still be in effect for followers of Christ. However without restarting that debate I am reminded of the bit on if a man allows himself to be circumcised (of the body) then he accepts the whole of the law. I haven't seen anywhere that implied anything about "partial law".

I take that back, Romans 14 could be said to cover partial law.
 
It is undoubtedly partial law. Even the most "pro-law" among us would admit that the sacrifices are done away with and we can't stone anyone anymore and the freest of us the 10 Commandments are still in effect.

At its most basic this is a debate of degrees. And I don't want to restart this debate. Just some observances about it.
 
Helpful observance though! I'd actually been wondering about Torah keepers and their/your stance on sacrifices. Topic for another thread though I imagine.
 
FollowingHim said:
I do think that the simplest explanation of "sin that does not lead to death" is "sin that is punished by something less than death in the Law". It makes less sense on a salvation level, because all sin leads to spiritual death. So this seems to make most sense as a NT reference to the law.
Click to expand...

That is my first thought as well. I would add that Ananias and Sapphira seemed to have committed a sin leading to death that I don't believe is found in the law. Or at least not explicitly. It seems like the difference between a sin leading to death and a sin not leading to death SHOULD be understood, because it is the prerequisite for following a biblical command, but I can't reach that shelf yet!
 
ZecAustin said:
Could this be a NT validation of the Law?
Click to expand...

What a thought, thanks for sharing! I still remember 12yrs ago, I asked a pastor the question what sin to death means. Back then I still thought they know it better. But I didn't get an answer. Not that he said he didn't know he was just talking all around. Can't tell if he knew this is not really explicable without the OT but there was no real answer. Didn't realize the perspective you brought up :)
 
I would agree that this is to be interpreted, initially, in a mostly simplistic and literal way. If you see someone who is about to sin in such a way that will result in their immediate demise, stop them. This would follow along with the "philosophy" that all scripture has a simplistic, face-value interpretation and a spiritual, deeper meaning. That last sentence does seem to suggest that there is "a great mystery" yet to be discovered.
 
ZecAustin said:
Could this be a NT validation of the Law?
Click to expand...

Romans 4:15 and 5:13 tells us what sin is for everyone. Romans 14:23 and James 4:17 tell us what sin is for the individual, which is conscience based. When the New Testament speaks of immoralities, by definition that word means something that is contrary to the Law of God. The only way several of the issues can be resolved is by looking at the difference in classes. Everyone is under the Law because that determines what sin is. The wages of sin is death. Sin is imputed when one violates the Law. The Law specifically states that it can't be changed (Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32).

However, there's the law of the bondservant, which applies to Christians who were bought with a price. Becoming a Christian means entering the household of Christ, who is the undisputed Master. He has the authority to set his own rules for His people, so if He doesn't want the men having sex with prostitutes (1st Corinthians 6:15-16) and if He doesn't want His married bondservants to divorce for any reason (1st Corinthians 7:10-11) or marrying someone other than one of His bondservants (2nd Corinthians 6:14) then He has the right to make those rules. Romans 14 with respect to keeping the sabbath and eating meat sacrificed to idols is another example.

Take the issue of divorce. Certainly a contentious issue. Genesis 2:24 did not give the man the authority to end a marriage just like it didn't restrict him to taking more than one wife. As Christ said in Matthew 19, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been this way." From the beginning? Genesis 2:24, no authority given to divorce her. So, Moses permitted it and that became part of the Law and that can't be changed, so any man under the Law (not a Christian) has the authority to divorce his wife for adultery (porneia). However, in 1st Corinthians the regulation was specifically given to the married bondservants of Christ, by Christ, that they are not to divorce and no exceptions were given. What you'd call the "House Rules" of being a Christian. Paul then gave the instruction to those unequally yoked. The point is that when looked at from the standpoint of the change in status between the person under the Law and the person in Christ, it makes perfect sense as it reads.

However, the whole monogamy thing created the pressure to divorce. God created a perfect plan, Moses fiddled with it, Christ set it back the way it was for His bondservants and then the church came along and threw it all out for a mix-mash of pagan beliefs, stoic philosophy and Roman law. Phooie.

This also explains not being under the Law. It isn't that the Law no longer applies, it means that in Christ there is specific instruction for those in His house. As Christ said, not the slightest stoke or shading of the pen of what is written in the Law shall pass away until all things are complete, but for Christians it's different because they are in a different category. Their life is not their own, they were bought with a price and they have a master. Which is why believing in your heart and confessing with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord means you're saved. What does that "Jesus Christ is Lord" mean? That He is your Master. Your Lord. When you apply that to modern church doctrine suddenly people start screaming, because of all the centuries of interpretations by people who wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
 
Eristhophanes said:
However, there's the law of the bondservant, which applies to Christians who were bought with a price. Becoming a Christian means entering the household of Christ, who is the undisputed Master. He has the authority to set his own rules for His people, so if He doesn't want the men having sex with prostitutes (1st Corinthians 6:15-16) and if He doesn't want His married bondservants to divorce for any reason (1st Corinthians 7:10-11) or marrying someone other than one of His bondservants (2nd Corinthians 6:14) then He has the right to make those rules. Romans 14 with respect to keeping the sabbath and eating meat sacrificed to idols is another example.
Click to expand...
Very good point regarding the fact that additional rules for Christians are justified under the Law by the Law in this case. I'm not convinced that instructions that overwrite the law can be explained in this way (I don't see how under the law someone can be legitimately instructed to disobey the law), so I'd probably interpret Romans 14 slightly differently to yourself, but that's getting off-topic for this thread. The basic point you're making here is excellent and well worth pondering, regardless of our views on the details of what those commandments are.
 
FollowingHim said:
I'm not convinced that instructions that overwrite the law can be explained in this way (I don't see how under the law someone can be legitimately instructed to disobey the law)
Click to expand...

I don't think you can show me any particular requirement for Christians that tells Christians to disobey the Law. Men were allowed to use prostitutes, Christian men are not. Men are allowed to divorce their wives for adultery, Christian men are not. Men are allowed to marry women of different faiths (although not of certain races or peoples), Christians are required to marry only other Christians. All of these are "house rules" and none of these require individuals to violate the law. I do not know of anything in the NT that instructs the Christian to violate the law, so unless you can come up with something that applies, the point is moot.

However, I know you study your Bible, so do you have any examples of instructions that overwrite the Law in such a way as they would be violating the Law?
 
Well right off the bat there's Romans 14 itself, which specifically refers to one's faith allowing them to eat anything, or allowing them to consider all days the same and none more sacred. Then there Acts 10, with Peter's vision where God tells him to kill and eat things that by the law are unclean. Sure, that is also probably referring to ministering to the Gentiles, but it doesn't change the things that God actually said to him.

And that's not even touching on Acts 15 and the teaching about what is and is not required of Gentile believers, because I know there are huge differences of opinion on that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top