Dear friends,

We come back today to the subject of men and women, though this time not from Genesis, but looking at how the New Testament looks at this topic.

Yours,

Phillip

Phillip Jensen: Welcome again to Two Ways News.

I heard about a baby listening to us in the car the other day. We love getting feedback. If you're listening and you have a baby in the back seat, I hope they're enjoying it by being silent for your sake. However, Two Ways News is freely available and supported by generosity. If you enjoy Two Ways News, why not lend us a hand and consider joining our supporters club, the people who make it possible for us to keep producing the article and the podcast each week? There's a link at the bottom of the page that shows you how to do it.

We're looking at the Genesis themes in the New Testament, and one of the big themes is sin. We are going to look at the universality, the depth and the origin of sin as the New Testament teaches it in the light of Genesis 3.

Peter Jensen: We're all experts in sin. Christians use the word 'sin', because that's how it's translated in our English Bibles. But the word is now used very rarely in the world around us. To go deeper, what do contemporaries think of human nature, and are they realistic?

Phillip: Without sin, I think it's very unrealistic, because sin is one of those universals that you can check on. You can do empirical studies on sin to find out its universality. However, there are several non-Christian alternatives that we have in the West, from the atheists and from the moralists. The atheist is basically committed to saying there is no such thing as sin, because there's no God; therefore, there's no one to sin against. I remember going to a philosophy lecture years ago, where the philosopher brought great joy to the lecture theatre. He said, ‘I can remove sin from the world. This is very simple: get rid of God. No God, no sin.’ It brought great cheers and applause. But he's right; logically, if there is no God, there's no transcendent morality; there can only be what there is, which is neither right nor wrong. The impact of social sciences has no category for sin in human nature. In fact, they don't even have human nature. There's a great decrying of any universal that you want to say about humanity.

Peter: Phillip, as well as the atheists, you've mentioned moralists. What do you mean by moralists?

Phillip: There are people who seem to be professional moralists, who make their living by condemning others or commending a cause to which they've espoused. There are many causes that people want to espouse today, and they do so in terms of morality: in terms of what ought to be. But without God, and without God's law, there's a big problem for the moralist. On what basis do you say that I should do anything? Who are you to tell me what to do or not to do? What law code is there? To be a criminal means you break the law, but the law is whatever the Parliament decides. But some things parliaments in the world have decided are what we would think are immoral. Yet you're a criminal if you've broken the law of the land. Where does the law of the land get its morality from if there is no morality? But our community is highly moralistic in its judgements on others.

Peter: They’re often shaped by a great cause of some sort which they've embraced to fill the longing in their own hearts that they should have a transcendent cause to support. Integral to that, it seems, is a kind of unspoken trust in human nature. The idea is that human beings are basically good, and if only we could educate them or pass a law, then somehow human nature would be changed, and the better side of their nature would come out in their behaviour.

Phillip: Take it back to Genesis, and you realise that we have a sense of morality because we're not animals. We're made in the image of God, which is why we think we have a responsibility which lies at the heart of us. So it is human nature to have morality. But the other side is absolutely right.

Peter: Cheating in exams was regarded as something that only a few people did and was abhorrent. Now with the advent of AI, it has become so prevalent that the university system itself is being shaken.

Phillip: AI has been accepted by some of the universities as being all right to use because they can't stop it. It's beyond their capacity to stop it, so they're now working out new ways to use it, which is not altogether wrong. But we're now training graduates how to better use AI. A consequence of this is that they may even have to go back to written exams to stop cheating.

Peter: The only part of Christianity to be demonstrated uncontrovertibly, in my opinion, is universal sin.

Phillip: Romans 3:22-23 says, “For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” That's the shortcut answer from within the Bible. We all sin. I've never met somebody who disagrees with that, though the atheist should, because he doesn't believe in sin.

Peter: I bet that philosophy lecturer would have objected if one of the students had cheated in their exam.

Phillip: Of course. But we still haven't really defined sin yet. How do you understand it?

Peter: Working from the Bible, it’s a transgression, a breaking of the law of God, a falling short of the law of God. I'll never forget talking to someone once who was not yet a Christian, and he asked me about this, and I said, ‘The law of God, in summary, is you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind, and your neighbour as yourself.’ He was crestfallen by this, for he could not fulfil the law of God, even though he knew it was correct. The Jewish people had the law of God given to them at Mount Sinai and elsewhere, but the Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 2:14-16

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Phillip: The Gentiles are the non-Jews. They haven't got the Ten Commandments, but you’re saying it's written on their hearts. Do you take that to mean that all humans have a sense of God's right and wrong?

Peter: I think so. I remember travelling with a mother and two of her children; one was two years old, the other about four. She had an ice cream which she gave to the four-year-old, and the two-year-old called out, ‘That's not fair!’ So a two-year-old knew the language of justice; spontaneously, of course, egged on by the fact that it was to do with him. Phillip, are two-year-olds sinful?

Phillip: That one certainly sounds so, because even if they didn't have a sense of justice, they had a sense of self-centredness. It was, ‘That's not fair’, also known as, ‘I'm not getting my way.’

Peter: With an appeal to a law, namely the law of justice.

Phillip: Let’s go back to your definition of sin. When you talk about transgressing the law, that's, to me, a transgression rather than the whole of sin itself. But when you put as the law, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind, and love your neighbour as yourself’, then it's not so much transgressing as failing to fulfil the law. Your friend was right in being crestfallen, as you can never fulfil the command to ‘love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind’, but that's because sin is something more than just breaking the law. Sin is replacing the lawmaker.

It’s like the Sovereign Citizen movement in America, where they say, ‘The law doesn't apply to me; I am sovereign; I don't accept the law of the land; I don't accept the sovereignty of the government over me; I am in charge of me.’ It's not just that we're lawbreakers; it's that we are outlaws. We can be moralists as outlaws; that is, we can be lawmakers, deciding what is good or bad because we've eaten the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But a lawmaker is an outlaw because they've rejected God.

That's why I like you picking the two great commandments, because it turns to the disease of sin as opposed to the symptom of sin. Because of our rebellion against God, our disease, we then break God's laws; they are the symptoms of the disease. This spiritual disease we have is much more deep and profound than just breaking rules.

Peter: Yes, and this is integral to the biblical view of human nature and demonstrably to reality that, as the Bible says, we are born to sin. The sins we do, which may be sins of speech, thought, action, or inaction, come from within. In the Ten Commandments it says, ‘You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not bear false witness,’ but then it goes, ‘You shall not covet.’ The Tenth Commandment is very interesting, because covetousness is an evil desire that comes from the heart. The New Testament talks of the evil desire out of which comes sin. This stuns us because a desire is not something you can easily control. You can’t say, ‘I'm going to have a desire today.’ Not all desires are evil, of course, but there are some that are. In Mark 7 the Lord Jesus details a number of sins, but he does mention that they come from the heart and that they are the fruit of this