Was it a sin?

[enigmadi]

Was it a sin when the blind men in Matt. 9:27-31 told people of their healing after Jesus told them not to tell anyone?

 

[Gregory the NonTheologian]

How would you define sin?

 

[Gregory the NonTheologian]

Was it a sin when the blind men in Matt. 9:27-31 told people of their healing after Jesus told them not to tell anyone?

How would you define sin?

I'm sorry - after reading that, it seems a little flippant.

We know from Scripture that sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). So I guess we have to rephrase your question, did the blind men transgress the law?

 

[enigmadi]

No offense taken...I strive to not focus on "possible" offense from others and strive not to cause it. And if I'm looking for offense, then I'm not doing what Jesus directed.

Now, on to your very good question. I had not considered the fact that they were still under the Law. I was considering it from a Christian perspective. So, I would define "sin" as any disobedience to God.

 

[Gregory the NonTheologian]

No offense taken...I strive to not focus on "possible" offense from others and strive not to cause it. And if I'm looking for offense, then I'm not doing what Jesus directed.

Now, on to your very good question. I had not considered the fact that they were still under the Law. I was considering it from a Christian perspective. So, I would define "sin" as any disobedience to God.

A more literal translation seems to be "sin is lawlessness". I think that 1 John 3:4 does not refer to the Mosaic Law, but rather that law that is written in our hearts (cf. Jeremiah 31:33; Romans 2:15; Hebrews 10:16). In this sense, I think it is not inconsistent with what you say. I would qualify it, however, as "willful disobedience". Some have written regarding the blind men that they spread His fame abroad out of an overwhelming sense of thanksgiving and not out of willful disobedience.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Sin can also be defined as "missing the mark" ... and if our goal or standard is Christ, then MANY "small" things are sin.

I'm certainly not looking to condemn my brothers and sisters in Christ. I don't normally apply this definition to others for that reason. My use of this definition is usually reserved for myself - as any/all of us who strive to become more Christlike can consider our own thoughts, actions, etc. in comparison to Christ.

It's a good question. I do think the answer depends on how you define "sin".

 

[football5680]

I would say yes because they did disobey Jesus, but it was not done in a malicious manner, it was done out of their zeal and thankfulness.

Well, on second thought I think it is a bit more complicated. Jesus said "See that no man knows about this." Obviously they disobeyed him by going around and telling people but it is possible that even if they had the best of intentions, they could not follow this. It would be difficult for these two men who everybody knew were blind to conceal the fact that they could now see. We also do not know whether Jesus said this because he wanted to avoid notoriety at this point in time or he told them this for their own safety because the Jewish leaders wanted to suppress him and his followers.

Good question. It really made me think.

 

[mark46]

Sin can also be defined as "missing the mark" ... and if our goal or standard is Christ, then MANY "small" things are sin.

I'm certainly not looking to condemn my brothers and sisters in Christ. I don't normally apply this definition to others for that reason. My use of this definition is usually reserved for myself - as any/all of us who strive to become more Christlike can consider our own thoughts, actions, etc. in comparison to Christ.

It's a good question. I do think the answer depends on how you define "sin".

I also think of sin as missing the mark. This way we are clear that we include the many sins of omission, which occur so many times each day.

Sometimes, I think of severe sin as turning from the path of life. Sin is turning away. I certainly don't think of sin in terms of breaking laws, rules or regulations.

 

[JackRT]

How would you define sin?

In any discussion of moral standards I think that it might be helpful to discuss the difference between sin and evil. But before attempting that, let us examine a similar situation in the secular realm. Governments at every level pass legislation that probits certain actions. We use the word 'crime' to refer to the deliberate breaking of such a law. However, is the commission of a crime the same thing as committing an evil act? Here we come up against just how we might define evil. For the purposes of this discussion let me give a very simple definition:

Evil --- any deliberate action or inaction which compromises the physical or psychological integrity of a human being.

This, of course, is a narrow definition and we could likely spend a very long time extending it and refining it. Let us leave that at least for the moment. The point that I am sneaking up on here is that 'what is evil is not necessarily a crime' and conversely 'what is a crime is not necessarily evil'. To me this is obvious but let me just attempt an illustration of each statement.

First, 'what is evil is not necessarily a crime'. By my definition above, the killing of another human being is to be regarded as an evil act. However, the law does not regard this as a crime if it is done in self defence or in war.

Second, 'what is a crime is not necessarily evil'. In Singapore, for example, it is a crime to chew gum. I think most would not quibble about this not being evil according to the above definition.

Can we make similar distinctions in the spiritual realm concerning sin and evil? I believe that we can. First, we need a working definition of sin. Let me suggest a very simple definition:

Sin --- doing that which is forbidden by a spiritual authority.

Once again, we could debate this definition. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of this definition might involve whether or not a spiritual authority, such as a church or a scripture, can actually express the will of a Deity. Setting that aside, we once again are faced with two problems. The point being that 'what is evil is not necessarily a sin' and conversely 'what is a sin is not necessarily evil'.

First, 'what is evil is not necessarily a sin'. I think that most would agree that to torture someone is an evil. However, if we just look at Christian scripture, I do not see any specific prohibition that would make torture a sin. A similar argument could be applied to female genital mutilation (circumcision).

Second, 'what is a sin is not necessarily evil'. Here, we can get into a very much more controversial debates. It is certainly true that Christian scripture regards homosexual actions as sinful. However, within society at large and within a number of Christian churches in particular, homosexual behaviour is no longer regarded as an evil in and of itself. It is also certainly true that Jewish scripture regards the breaking of the dietary laws as sinful and even an abomination. However, within society at large and within a number of Jewish traditions in particular, the breaking of the dietary laws is no longer regarded as an evil in and of itself.

The distinctions made here between crime and evil and also between sin and evil lead us in a real quandry for society at large. The western world has become, and is increasingly becoming, extremely diverse in language, culture and religion. There is also no real way of reversing this. Since different religions cannot agree on what is sin, I do not think that we can rely on religion entirely to inform our moral and ethical behaviour. Since what is regarded as sin has so often in the past led us into framing our laws to determine what is criminal, I think we need a new approach to the problem. We need an approach that avoids the imposition of one set of religious beliefs on society at large --- an approach broadly constructed on a concensus of what is evil and therefore what is criminal. Leave what is regarded as sin to the consciences of those in particular religious traditions.

 

[mark46]

I
Sin --- doing that which is forbidden by a spiritual authority.

I strongly disagree with this definition. For me, sin is not about the breaking of spiritual laws. For me, this idea has been one of the great errors made in current Western Christianity. Our spiritual journey is not about legalism (and the following of laws, rules, and regulation). I understand the view. Anselm certainly laid further foundation for the view.

The major dispute is NOT about who sets the laws, rules and regulations. The major dispute is whether our relationship with God is about rules and regulations at all.

 

[com7fy8]

Enigmadi, I would say they did not transgress the Law of Moses.

Actually, in the Law, when certain people were cured of leprosy, they were required by Law to show themselves to the priest. So, I can see it would be lawful to show themselves to a priest, therefore telling someone.

Also . . . if Jesus tells us to do something and we do otherwise, this is a sin. It might not directly transgress the Law, but it is still a trespass, if we do what God says not to do.

So, if they did what Jesus said not to do, that could have been a sin.

Possibly, we need to do only what God has called us to do. Even doing certain good things can be sinning, if it is away from our calling.

But ones understand that Jesus was expressing humility, by not trying to get them to spread His name everywhere. So, they were doing what they should, ones understand. So, there are different ideas about this.

But if Jesus meant to reach people by means deeper than a reputation for healing . . . they needed to obey Him.

 

[JackRT]

The major dispute is NOT about who sets the laws, rules and regulations. The major dispute is whether our relationship with God is about rules and regulations at all.

You ask a very interesting question. I suspect the vast majority of people would be most uncomfortable without the security of a structure of rules, regulations, doctrine and dogma.

 

[mark46]

You ask a very interesting question. I suspect the vast majority of people would be most uncomfortable without the security of a structure of rules, regulations, doctrine and dogma.

And God recognizes this problem. Through Moses, he gave us the law, and then followed up in the OT with 600 more laws. The NT often makes statements and prohibitions. And the Church has done so. These rules, regulations and laws regarding right practice do indeed help us on our spiritual walk. And yes, they do provide signposts, especially for those in the beginning of their walk (see Moses and the need of the Jews for laws and then for an earthly king).

You say that it is uncomfortable without laws. Certainly, that it the case. It is very, very uncomfortable to follow the actions of Jesus, to follow the two commands, pray the Our Father, and to follow his teachings in Beatitudes. The signposts help, but we should not ignore the more important aspects of the faith. And we should never be fooled into believing that the faith is about following the law.

 

[ewq1938]

Was it a sin when the blind men in Matt. 9:27-31 told people of their healing after Jesus told them not to tell anyone?

Mat 9:29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.
Mat 9:30 And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it.

The IT here is clearly that he had healed them of their blindness.

Mat 9:31 But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country.

Here they spread his fame but that doesn't mean they told anyone he had healed their blindness. They could have said what a wonderful man he was, or that he was the Lord and Messiah.

Secondarily anyone that knew they had been blind would be able to put two and two together without being directly told.

So, I see no sin here and no evidence they disobeyed his "command".

 

[~Anastasia~]

I agree that not every sin is inherently evil, if we define sin as missing the mark. I can sin by forgetting my morning prayers, but it am not necessarily evil for doing so.

But I do think every evil act is sin. One cannot commit an evil without "missing the mark" of fulfilling the standard of Christ. Whether or not God specifically included every evil a person may commit does not excuse the commission of evil (though I probably can't think of an act that isn't covered in at least general terms somewhere).

I don't really find strictly legal definitions to be useful either. Generally speaking, God gives us the ability to know when we commit evil, and the closer we draw to Him and the more aware we are of Who He is, the more aware we become of how we do fall short of Him as our example.

 

[Gregory the NonTheologian]

Sin --- doing that which is forbidden by a spiritual authority

I think that Scripture makes it clear that sin is lawlessness, or, as some might translate, "the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4). One must therefore ask, what is "the law"? Without going into an extensive exegesis of the New and Old Testament, I think here we also have a very clear answer given to us by Christ, who said that all of the law hangs on obeying the commandment to love the lord with all of our being and to love our neighbor as ourself (Matthew 22:40).

Therefore it follows, does it not, that we are in a state of sin when we do not love God with our whole being and/or do not love our neighbor as ourself? We call specific acts that reflect such absence of love "sins", but they represent symptoms and not the disease itself. I do not think questions like, "Is it a sin when I _______?" make any sense whatsoever in this light.

 

[Gregory the NonTheologian]

Sin can also be defined as "missing the mark" ... and if our goal or standard is Christ, then MANY "small" things are sin.

I also think of sin as missing the mark. This way we are clear that we include the many sins of omission, which occur so many times each day.

I first read that the the Greek verb for "sin" literally means "miss the mark" in Archbishop Dmitry Royster's commentary on Romans 1:16, where he writes:

What does "being saved" mean? From what sins do men need to be saved? Since sin in the Greek original is hamartia, literally "failure" or "missing the mark," we have to conclude that man's sin consists fundamentally in his missing the very point of his existence (although for some Christians, salvation has been reduced to nothing more than escaping the punishment of hell).​

I'm not aware of any other commentator ascribing "failure" or "missing the mark" to the Greek. This seems to be a rare meaning in Koine Greek (I could only find one occurrence in Scripture - Sirach 7:36), but it is, in fact, how the word is defined in ancient Greek (see, e.g., http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?la=greek&l=A(MARTA%2FNW#lexicon). I find this etymology interesting. (Sorry if this is all common knowledge to everyone - it was new for me).

I think there is a simple reconciliation of viewing sin as "missing the mark" and sin as transgressing the law (1 John 3:4), when we recall that the Lord said all the law hangs on the commandments to love God with our whole being and to love our neighbor as ourself. When we fail to do these things, we are missing the target that God has set for us.

My opinions anyway.

 

[ewq1938]

I'm not aware of any other commentator ascribing "failure" or "missing the mark" to the Greek.

It comes from the root word:

1Jn 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

G266
ἁμαρτία
hamartia
ham-ar-tee'-ah
From G264; sin (properly abstract): - offence, sin (-ful).

G264
ἁμαρτάνω
hamartanō
ham-ar-tan'-o
Perhaps from G1 (as a negative particle) and the base of G3313; properly to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), that is, (figuratively) to err, especially (morally) to sin: - for your faults, offend, sin, trespass.

 

[Gregory the NonTheologian]

It comes from the root word:

1Jn 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

G266
ἁμαρτία
hamartia
ham-ar-tee'-ah
From G264; sin (properly abstract): - offence, sin (-ful).

G264
ἁμαρτάνω
hamartanō
ham-ar-tan'-o
Perhaps from G1 (as a negative particle) and the base of G3313; properly to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), that is, (figuratively) to err, especially (morally) to sin: - for your faults, offend, sin, trespass.

Thanks.

The Perseus link I provided links to examples of the "miss the mark" definition in the Odyssey, Herodotus, and Aeschylus, but I have never seen it clearly used in that sense in the New Testament.

 

[Yeholiver]

Sins are not simply transgression of the law, infact sins are any actions which break your relationship to God.

The Law covers most of them, but not all of them.

True life is life with God.