The people who sat in darkness
have seen a great light,
And upon those who sat
in the region and shadow of death
Light has dawned.
Gospel of Matthew 4:16
In this chapter we are going to address a topic that is much debated and often the focus of preaching in most churches; we are going to talk about sin. It is an important topic because we are all aware of the consequences of sin in our lives and how each of us has, at least once in our lives, had to struggle and suffer to deal with the consequences of what we call sin. Not only individually, let us also think about how the world is torn apart by behaviour that leads to serious social and environmental consequences, such as wars, crime, corruption, pollution, etc. What would our lives and the world be like without sin? To answer this question, we will first try to understand exactly what sin is; then it will be fundamental to free ourselves from certain prejudices that, since the Middle Ages, have in some way distorted the original conception, generating feelings of guilt and unworthiness that are not compatible with what Jesus taught. It is good, however, to remember that, as we have seen above, the problem of sin is an intermediate and not final factor in the path to salvation; it is useful to become aware of the implications associated with it, but it is equally necessary to go beyond it, so as not to get caught up in sterile discussions. In fact, Jesus came to call sinners to bring them out of the logic of sin-guilt-punishment, to bring them into a new paradigm, that of God's forgiveness and mercy, in newness of life.
15.1. Sin
Almost everyone agrees that sin is the great problem of mankind, imagine how wonderful life would be if there were no envy, discord, greed, fraud, corruption, hypocrisy, backbiting, abuse, malice, etc., everything would be much easier. Although we agree that sin is the problem of the world, there is less consensus on identifying exactly what the nature of this problem is. Therefore, before we begin our reflections, it is good to address the general meaning because, although it is a debated topic, there is no unanimity of views and there is a rather confused, sometimes contradictory perception on the subject “what is sin?”.
It would seem to be possible to affirm, based on common sense, that “sin” is the failure to abide by a set of rules established by God; the problem at this point would translate into understanding what these rules are. For example, the Torah, the law given by Moses, in addition to the Ten Commandments with which we are all familiar, contains a total of 613 laws, and in the New Testament, if we count impositions, recommendations and commandments, another 1,050; for an impressive total of 1,663 prescriptions.354 Some of these rules, such as the prohibition to wear mixed clothing,355 to eat shellfish,356 or to work on the Sabbath,357 are completely alien to our culture, have little or no immorality, and are far from being considered a sin by Christians today. To complicate matters further, the Apostle Paul stated that we are no longer under the law of Moses, but under grace, and therefore we are not obliged to abide by those rules,358 but at the same time he instituted others, such as the obligation for women to wear a veil during prayer and the prohibition for men to wear long hair.359 Trying to solve the problem for the new non-Jewish converts, the Apostles finally decided to reduce the law to just three prescriptions, all linked to typically pagan practices used by the Gentiles, also quite alien to our culture, such as not eating meat sacrificed to idols and drinking blood.360
In short, there is a great deal of confusion, because of which most Christians consider it a sin if they break one of the Ten Commandments or other prescriptions of their Church, especially regarding sexuality. We will show how this is not entirely correct, but to do so we must first understand what the concept of sin was among the Jewish people at the time of Jesus and the Apostles.
15.2. Purity and impurity - taharah and tum'ah
Before we come to answer our question “what is sin?”, we need to clarify a concept that was absolutely fundamental at the time of Jesus, but which is totally foreign to us today; the concept of “purity and impurity”, because without knowing it we risk misrepresenting much of what Jesus said. For the Jews, the idea of purity was fundamental to be able to participate in public life and religious ceremonies, and one could not approach holy things without completing a whole series of purification rituals. To define something as “pure” the term taharah was used, meaning bright or shining, or yaw-shawr, meaning straight, upright. The term “holy” itself was derived from kaw-dash meaning clean and complete, whole. The state of impurity, on the other hand, was indicated by the word tum'ah with the meaning of filthy and repugnant or by naw-dad which derived from the verb to sway, to wander, to stray. Some sources361 claim that the tameh (impure) state indicated a person who was “buried”, i.e., dead, unable to receive the divine light and had a spiritual rather than physical connotation:
Tum’ah and taharah are, above all, spiritual and not physical concepts […] Chassidic teaching explains that in essence, tum’ah, “spiritual impurity,” is definable as the “absence of holiness.” Holiness is called “life,” “vitality”; it is that which is united with and emanates from the source of all life, the Creator. […] On the other hand, that which is distant or separated from its source is called “death” and “impurity.” According to Torah law, death is the principal cause of all tum'ah; […] Hence, if we strip the words “pure” and “impure” of their physical connotations, and perceive their true spiritual meaning, we see that what they really signify is the presence or absence of holiness [life].362
The term purity or holiness was therefore used to refer to the light and perfection of God, without blemish, and this coincided with “life”, since God himself is life; on the contrary, everything that was devoid of life was considered impure, immersed in darkness, dead and buried. In other words, purity was life, life force, light and all that was right, true and just; impurity, on the other hand, was identified with death, sickness, darkness and all that was fickle, unstable and false. This concept is extremely important because it states that purity is a manifestation of life, while impurity is an absence of life, death.
A few examples may help to understand what was meant by impurity and how it had to do with life and death. A major “source” of contamination was considered to be the dead bodies of both humans and animals: “He who touches the dead body of anyone shall be unclean seven day”;363 death was thus understood as something contaminating. It is less easy to understand why a woman, during her menstrual period, was considered unclean: “If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening.”364 In this case, it was believed that since blood is life, losing it meant losing life, in fact incurring a little “death”.365 Finally, failure to observe the Sabbath rest resulted in impurity, since it was considered the day dedicated to recharging the vital energy lost during the week, and this was done by reconnecting with the very source of life, to God, through prayer, meditation, listening and studying the Bible. From this we deduce that impurity came from turning away from the source of life and coming into contact with death. This explains some of the expressions used by Jesus when, for example, he said: “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you”366 since he meant that his word, the word of God, purifies because it gives life; “The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.”367 “Dead”, on the other hand, were all those who had turned away from the source of life, the word of God.368 In short, one could understand “purify” as equivalent to “vivify”:
Psalms 119:154 Plead my cause and redeem me; Revive me according to Your word. 156 Great are Your tender mercies, O Lord; Revive me according to Your judgments. 159 Consider how I love Your precepts; Revive me, O Lord, according to Your lovingkindness.
For Jesus, associating with potentially impure people was never a problem, as he himself was the solution,369 the word of life; yet for the people being considered impure meant being ostracized from society and unable to participate in religious ceremonies; often these people even had to leave their homes and live outside the town in huts or ghettos built specifically for those with permanent impurity. This explains the plight of the haemorrhagic woman370 who had been bleeding for 12 years and of those described in the Gospels as “lepers”,371 who lived in a state of constant uncleanness, stigmatised and ostracised by all. However, it was quite normal to encounter temporary impurity as it was part of everyday life and there were purification practices to return to the community. Suffice it to say that every woman of childbearing age was considered impure for about two weeks every month, and this was considered as natural as the cyclicality of nature:
Purification rituals as well as clear principles of separation guide manifestations of death towards integration with those of life, consecrating day-to-day experiences of duality. Death is both embraced and contained with reverence. […] What the contemporary reader might first mistake for an obsession with cleanliness, order, and separation is best understood as a complex system of meaning – one that honours the sacredness and mystery inherent in the cyclical interplay between beginnings and endings, and in the junctures of life and death.372
Despite this wisdom, the religious elite, arrogating to themselves a status of presumed purity, had subjected a large part of the people under a cloak of impurity and unworthiness, thus marginalizing the weakest and feeding the sacrificial system of purifications from which they drew huge profits. Against this hypocritical attitude, Jesus did not spare very harsh words: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness”373 accusing them of being the truly impure ones. Jesus, therefore, did not deny the truth implicit in the concept of purity and impurity, but simply reformulated it, affirming that it is not what comes from the outside, but what comes from the heart that makes a man impure, hence “dead”, that is, deprived of the light and life of God: “Those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”374 It is the intention of the heart that defiles man, because it distances him from God; Jesus, in fact, never had any problem interacting with pagans, lepers, women (potentially impure), blind and crippled (considered born in sin) and gave them back voice, dignity and that full life that the religious had denied them.
In the light of all this, let us reconsider the words of Jesus when he said: “I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly”375 and “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”376 It follows that Jesus came to purify us, that is, to lead us back to God and give us life, for he himself is the word that gives life. Therefore, Jesus said to them: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man [the word] and drink His blood [his Spirit], you have no life in you.”377
15.3. Sin in the Hebrew understanding
In the Hebrew language, which was used for the writing of the Old Testament, there were many terms used to indicate the concept of sin, some estimate as many as 20, but three are the main ones:
Chatta'ah: is the most used term and is translated into English as “sin”. Derived from the root ht', it appears 459 times in the Bible. Literally it meant “to miss the mark” giving the idea of something that fails to do the right thing. In the Greek language, used for the New Testament, the same concept is represented by the word hamartia with a similar meaning of “missing the mark”.
Pesha’: the root psh' occurs 136 times in the Bible and is commonly translated as “transgression”. It represents the sense of violation, of breaking an agreement or a relationship between two parties, the infringement of a pact.
Awon: the verb 'awah is used 17 times in the Bible and in its noun form 227 times, with the meaning of “perverse” and “twisted” to indicate a dishonest and immoral person, who does not walk uprightly.
From these definitions we can deduce that sin, for the Jews, consisted in not keeping the covenant with God constituted by the prescriptions of the law of Moses, and this was considered a failure (missing the mark), even more so if it was done intentionally. It was not, as with us, a moral fact, but simply a violation of the bond of obedience that ruined the right relationship with God. A twisted attitude to manipulate or evade God's commandments was considered the most abject form of sin. In summary, we can say that sin was the severing of the relationship with Yahweh, resulting from failure to respect the oath of obedience to the Torah; it was a betrayal of trust and considered a disgrace. Disobedience to a superior was in fact an offence because, in the relationship between subordinate and superior, obedience was always due, and sin represented a breach of the oath of loyalty. We recall that when the people of Israel received the Torah from Moses, they swore absolute obedience to it. Therefore, we can conclude that for the Jews, the non-observance of the 613 commandments contained in the Torah was a betrayal of the covenant. Even the non-observance of only one of those commandments was a violation of the commitment.378
“Sin” against God was conceived as an “offense”, as a failure to fulfill one's obligation toward God. Since the root ht’ denotes an action, that failure is neither an abstraction nor a permanent disqualification but a concrete act with its consequences. This act is defined as a “failure,” an “offense,” when it is contrary to a norm regulating the relations between God and man.379
It was not a moral evaluation, it was simply the observance of what the Lord had established, on the basis of an oath, irrespective of whether the prescriptions had a moral value or not; King David, after his adultery with Bat-Sheba and having her husband Uriah killed, prayed to the Lord: “Against You, You only, have I sinned, And done this evil in Your sight”,380 not so much because of what he had committed, but because he had betrayed his covenant with God.
However, God did not give the commandments for his own benefit, but for the good of mankind. Failure to comply with his prescriptions, sin, is not just an offence against him, but rather causes harm to the perpetrator, damaging people, relationships and the community. If God is ever offended, it is not because we have disobeyed his laws, but because we have injured each other and destroyed our own house; his mercy is infinitely superior and ready to forgive every offence, but what remains is the damage and pain caused by the abuser of himself and others.
It is necessary to reconsider sin in the light of what we saw in the previous paragraph on impurity; the commandments were in fact given not to please God, but to avoid “defilement” of men. Let us remember that impure was that which departed from God, which was deprived of his life, dead. Therefore sin, failure to comply with the rules, was not in itself a problem except insofar as it distanced one from God and led to death. God told Adam that if he disobeyed his commandment to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would certainly die;381 he was warning him of death, not “threatening him with death” if he did not obey.
The religious, on the other hand, put to death men who did not keep the Sabbath, and Jesus told them that the Sabbath law was given for men,382 to give them life, while the Pharisees using that same law destroyed life, the exact opposite of the purpose for which the law was given. God's commandments are given for men, and failure to keep them (sin) harms men, not God, and causes death. That is why the Father, throughout the Bible, constantly calls men to forsake sin and return to him, for he is the source of life, while sin leads to death. Sin is not a moral or legalistic issue, it is a spiritual issue, it is everything that alters and interrupts the right connection with God, the source of life, and poisons relationships between people. Salvation is a matter of life or death.
Jesus said that he did not come to call the righteous, those who are already in the right relationship with God, but he came to call sinners,383 those who have lost their way; he came to seek the lost,384 not to condemn sinners,385 but to call them to teshuva, to turn their backs on sin and death and return to God, to life. A change of perspective is needed: sin is not a debt with a price to pay to God, but it is everything that takes us away from God, including that very religion that teaches the idea of an offended God who needs to be satisfied or compensated.
With Jesus, as we have already seen, the old covenant, that of the law of Moses, was surpassed by the introduction of a new covenant, that of reciprocal love: “Love one another; as I have loved you”, which surpassed the previous covenant and constituted its fulfilment.386 Transposing the same concept, we can say that “sin” for Christians, is constituted by the violation of the unique commandment of love. Transgressing the commandment of love by engaging in personal relationships that harm oneself and others, would thus be a betrayal of the covenant, which spoils our relationship with God and consequently introduces death into our lives. We are not talking about prescriptions regarding foods, clothing, or holidays to be respected, but about behaviour aimed at lovingly cherishing and cultivating relationships, the good of our community and, more broadly, of the whole human community. Collective responsibility was a matter of primary importance for the Jews, much more than it is to us today. The wisdom implicit in the commandment of mutual love takes us to a new level, because it shows how interconnected the lives of all are, and how each person's actions affect the common good. If, for example, I throw a plastic bottle into the sea, I am not breaking any explicit commandment in the Bible, but I am harming the environment, the animals, the ecosystem, and consequently also the whole human race, including myself, thus violating the most important commandment of love. It is another level, which goes beyond the law and brings us closer to God. This new covenant surpasses the previous one, it brings it to completion, because it becomes “alive”, it leads to the truth of all-round love, and it is centred on the relationship between God and man and among men, called to love one another and to become bearers of love:
Sin is not a failure to become like God, but a failure to become like the humans God wants us to be. And since God wanted us to live in relationships with each other, to enjoy His creation, and to take care of the plants and animals, sin occurs when we fail to do any (or all) of these things. […] Sin has to do with alienation from God, from creation, and from one another. It breaks our relationships, hinders our fellowship, and ruins our dominion over the earth.387
15.4. Impurity resulting from sin
It is useful at this point, in the light of the above considerations regarding sin, to re-evaluate the concept of “impurity” that had so characterised the Jewish religion. If today we know that we do not incur in any “contamination” by touching animals considered impure in the Bible, such as horses, rabbits or dolphins, or by eating mussels and shrimps, we can also see how there was an evolution from ritual impurity, typical of primitive times, to an ethical/moral conception characterising more advanced societies. In fact, if the law of Moses was a mix of the two (we find in it both ritual and moral commandments), with the prophets more emphasis was placed on moral considerations, and Jesus put a definitive end to superstitions (for example, he declared all foods pure)388 affirming the supremacy of the moral principle and taking it to an even higher level, that of love. The Apostles also entered this groove: “God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean”,389 said Peter on his way to the house of a pagan. We have seen how Jesus stated that impurity comes from doing immoral deeds: evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, greed, blasphemy, pride, foolishness, etc.,390 and in fact, doing these things produces a sort of “stain” on our conscience, so much so that even today it is customary to say “to sully one's conscience”, meaning something that makes us “impure”, takes away our peace and hinders our relationship with God, causing us to be “dead” or refractory to light and life. Jesus, therefore, like the prophets before him, sought to move people from an idea of ritual impurity, typical of a religious system, to a concept of moral contamination of man resulting from destructive behaviour in human relationships, that ultimately violate the commandment of love. Carter Heyward writes, referring to the paradigm shift brought about by Jesus: “Sin is regarded as a social, historical fact, the absence of brotherhood and love in relationships among men, the breach of friendship with God and with other men, and, therefore, an interior, personal fracture.”391
In conclusion, we can say that for Jesus, sin was not a debt to be paid to God or to be punished, but something that pollutes man's conscience, makes him impure, that is, deprives him of life, keeps him enslaved, not free, separated from God and in need of “purification”, as we will see in the next chapter on sacrifice.
15.5. The Law
We have seen that sin initially consisted in the breach of covenant resulting from the disregard of the Mosaic law, but that the same law was later superseded and brought to completion by Jesus with the institution of a new covenant of a higher nature, that of love. Why then was the law of Moses given? What does it mean that the law was fulfilled, and what was the use of it, if then as Christians we are no longer obliged to submit to any law but that of love? Why did the Apostles say that we are no longer obliged to follow the law? Does it mean that we no longer have to obey the Ten Commandments?
A practical example is needed to help us answer these questions. Suppose there is a greedy child in a family who has stolen the jam and made indigestion out of it. The mother or father might decide, for the child's sake, to forbid him to eat jam. As the child grows up and becomes an adult, this rule will become superfluous and even ridiculous. Has the rule become unnecessary? Was that rule wrong? What has changed? The law has become obsolete because it fulfilled its task of guiding the child to maturity, until it “entered” him, in its true meaning, and now that he has become an adult, he no longer needs it because he has understood its meaning. The law was a teacher and preserved the child until he became mature; now that it has fulfilled its task it is no longer needed, because a new law, the law of love, has taken its pl