What Is Sin?

Text: I John 3:4

Series: Restoration Sermons

Date:

Speaker: Ed Rangel

Location: Waupaca Church of Christ

Bible Version: NASB 1995

Sermon Type: Expository

Learning Objectives

By the close of this lesson the hearer should be able to:

1. Explain why the question "What is sin?" is both theoretical and practical — why someone who does not know what sin is cannot know whether they have committed it.
2. Distinguish the two aspects of sin (metaphysical and moral) and explain what each addresses.
3. State the five inadequate theories of sin, identify what truth (if any) each captures, and explain why each ultimately fails.
4. Define sin from I John 3:4 — lawlessness — and explain the two elements the definition contains: the act and its character.
5. Explain why the catalog of names for sin in Hebrew and Greek confirms rather than complicates the definition of I John 3:4.

Thesis

The Bible does not define sin abstractly — it defines it relationally and legally. "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness" (I John 3:4). Sin is the violation of God's law. This definition is sufficient: it specifies what sin is (lawlessness), relates it to a standard (God's law), and implies the only adequate remedy (the one who bore the lawbreaker's penalty). Every false theory of sin produces a false remedy; the correct definition produces the only adequate one.

Burden

People who have not clearly answered the question "What is sin?" cannot adequately answer the question "What must I do to be saved?" The two questions are inseparable: the remedy is proportioned to the disease. A person who believes sin is merely an unfortunate tendency will find repentance unnecessary. A person who believes sin is merely a social defect will find baptism irrelevant. The burden is to establish the correct definition so that the correct remedy becomes necessary.

Introduction

"Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness" (I John 3:4 NASB 1995). The question has been asked in every generation and answered in almost as many ways. Some answers are almost true; some are completely wrong; the biblical answer is precise.

The nature of the question. It is both theoretical and practical. Theoretical because it asks what kind of thing sin is — its essential character, its relation to other realities, its place in the moral order. Practical because the person who does not know what sin is cannot know whether they have committed it, cannot know what it costs, and cannot know what the remedy requires.

Two aspects of the question must be distinguished. The metaphysical aspect: What kind of being is sin? Is it a substance, a quality, an act, a state? The moral aspect: What is the character of sin before God? How does it stand in the moral order, and what is its relation to God's law?

Both questions must be answered. The person who answers only the metaphysical question has described sin without evaluating it. The person who answers only the moral question has evaluated sin without locating it. I John 3:4 answers both: sin is anomia — lawlessness — which describes the act (transgression of the law) and its character (the violation of the relationship that the law governs).

I. Two Aspects of Sin

The metaphysical aspect. What kind of thing is sin? It is not a substance — sin has no independent existence; it is not a thing that can be located in space or contained in a vessel. It is an act, or the quality of an act, or the state that persists after a sinful act. This matters because theories that treat sin as a kind of substance — inherited material, physical taint — have mislocated it. Sin is in the will before it is in the action.

The moral aspect. What is the standing of sin before God? It is the violation of his law — not the violation of an impersonal code but of a covenant; not a failure of performance but a breach of relationship. Because God is the author of the law, every violation of the law is, ultimately, a sin against God. Even the sin that immediately harms another person is ultimately against God, because it violates the law that God gave for the protection of that person.

II. Theories of Sin

Five theories have been offered that fall short of the biblical definition. Each captures a fragment of truth; none is adequate.

Sin as an eternal principle. The theory that evil is metaphysically co-eternal with God — that it has independent existence as a cosmic principle in perpetual conflict with the good. This is dualism: two eternal principles, good and evil, God and the Devil, co-existent and co-equal. The fragment of truth: evil is real and its effects are pervasive. The failure: evil has no independent existence; it is privative, not constitutive. God is the only eternal, self-existing being; evil exists only as the corruption of what God made good.

Sin as a limitation of being. The theory that sin is simply the finite creature's necessary imperfection — that to be a creature is to be limited, and limitation is sin. The fragment of truth: creatures are genuinely limited and finite. The failure: limitation is not sin. Finitude is not guilt. The creature who acts within the limits God assigned is not sinning — they are being what they were made to be. Sin is not the creature's limitation but the creature's revolt against the limits God assigned.

Sin as privation of good. The Augustinian/scholastic theory that sin is not a thing but the absence of a thing — the privation of the goodness that should be present. The fragment of truth: sin does involve the loss or absence of what should be there — righteousness, obedience, love. The failure: privation does not account for the active, willful character of sin. Sin is not only the absence of good; it is the active choice to violate what God requires. The sinner is not merely deficient; they are rebellious.

Sin as antagonism. The theory that sin is the opposition of the lower nature against the higher — the animal instincts against the spiritual aspirations, the flesh against the spirit. The fragment of truth: there is a genuine conflict between flesh and spirit (Gal. 5:17). The failure: this theory locates the source of sin in the physical nature, making the body the culprit rather than the will. Paul's complaint in Romans 7 is not about the body — it is about the will: "I am doing the very thing I do not want" (Rom. 7:15). Sin is not the body rebelling against the spirit; it is the will choosing what the law forbids.

Sin as selfishness. The theory that all sin reduces to self-centeredness — that the root of every violation is the preference of self over God and neighbor. The fragment of truth: selfishness is the dominant pattern of sin as it expresses itself in human behavior, and the two great commandments (love God, love neighbor) are both violated by the self-centered life. The failure: selfishness is not the definition of sin but one of its chief expressions. A person can be selfish in ways that do not violate specific commands; sin, by the biblical definition, requires the specific relation to law. The definition must come from I John 3:4, not from the psychology of selfishness.

III. The True Nature of Sin: I John 3:4

"Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." The definition is in two parts.

The act: transgression of the law. Sin is not a vague moral failure — it is a specific kind of act in relation to a specific standard. The standard is God's law; the act is the crossing of its boundary. No law, no sin (Rom. 4:15: "where there is no law, there also is no violation"). The existence of law is what makes sin possible; the content of law is what makes sin definite. The person who knows the law knows what sin is; the person who does not know the law cannot know what they have done.

The character: lawlessness (anomia). The word is not "mistake" or "weakness" or "failing" — it is lawlessness: the condition or act of being without law or against law. A-nomia: the alpha-privative (a-) plus nomos (law) — the negation of law. Sin is not the failure to achieve an ideal; it is the violation of a command. This is why the remedy must be legal as well as relational: not merely a change of feeling or a new start but the addressing of the specific debt that lawlessness has created.

IV. Names for Sin

The catalog of names for sin in both Hebrew and Greek confirms and expands the definition. Each name describes sin from a different angle; all of them together show why the biblical definition is complete and why the remedy must be as comprehensive as the definition requires.

Hebrew terms. Chatta'th — to miss, to come short of the mark. The word implies a standard that was missed. Avon — iniquity, twisted or crooked. The word implies a straight path from which the person has bent away. Pesha' — transgression, rebellion. The strongest of the Hebrew terms: not merely missing the mark but open revolt. Resha' — wickedness, the conduct of the wicked person. Asham — guilt, the state of the person who has incurred liability. Ra' — evil, badness in the moral sense.

Greek terms. Hamartia — missing the mark; the most common NT word for sin. Parabasis — transgression, the stepping over of a boundary. Anomia — lawlessness; the definition-word of I John 3:4. Adikia — unrighteousness; the condition of the person who has violated what is right. Asebeia — ungodliness, impiety; sin understood as the failure of proper reverence toward God. Ponēria — wickedness, active malice.

The catalog does not contradict the definition of I John 3:4 — it expands it. Sin is missing the mark (which implies the mark exists), transgressing the boundary (which implies the boundary exists), and practicing lawlessness (which implies the law exists). All the names converge on the same structure: there is a standard, and sin is its violation.

Application

The definition of sin has two direct applications.

First: self-examination. The person who knows the definition of sin can audit themselves against it. The question is not "Do I feel guilty?" but "Have I violated God's law?" Guilt is not always present when sin is; and the absence of guilt is not evidence of the absence of sin. The standard is the law, not the feeling.

Second: recognition of need. The person who understands that sin is lawlessness understands why the remedy must address the legal dimension of the problem. Forgiveness is not merely the restoration of a feeling — it is the cancellation of a debt. The blood of Christ does not simply make people feel forgiven; it actually addresses the legal liability that lawlessness incurred (Rom. 3:25-26).

Conclusion

"Sin is lawlessness." The definition is not complicated; it is precise. It locates sin in relation to law, which means it locates the remedy in relation to the one who bore the lawbreaker's penalty. The person who understands the definition understands why the gospel is not good advice — it is good news: news that the lawbreaker's debt has been paid, on conditions that the lawbreaker can meet.

Invitation

The remedy for lawlessness is the one who "gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed" (Titus 2:14). The terms: believe, repent, confess, be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). The debt is real; the remedy is real; the terms are clear.

Word Study

Scripture Interlock Table

---

Converted from H. Leo Boles, Outline 158. Primary text: I John 3:4 (inferred as governing text). OCR corrections: "nomos" spelling normalized; "lll." → "III." Doctrinal audit: sin defined as lawlessness from I John 3:4 — not softened to "mistake," "weakness," or "falling short of potential"; the five theories examined and rejected without dismissing the partial truths each contains; the legal dimension of sin preserved (lawlessness requires a legal remedy, not merely an emotional one); the catalog of Hebrew and Greek terms developed to show convergence on the I John 3:4 definition; invitation retains full obedient response (Acts 2:38).