Category Archives: theology of sin

Free webinar this Friday, October 8—“Ephesians 2 Gospel Project—Does the Atonement Speak to Collective Identity Conflict?”

In my ministry with Mission ONE, I am working on a multi-year project called the Ephesians 2 Gospel Project.

Here’s the big idea: There is a social, horizontal dimension to the gospel of Christ because there is a social, horizontal dimension to the atonement of Christ (Eph 2:13–17).

Hindustan Bible Institute & College (HBI) has invited me and researcher Kristin Caynor to introduce the Ephesians 2 Gospel Project through HBI’s monthly webinar series. You are invited to join us! 

  • Date: Friday, October 8, 2021
  • Time: 8:30 a.m. USA Eastern Time / 6:00 p.m. Indian Standard Time (Time Zone Converter)
  • Platform: Zoom video conference
  • Title: “Ephesians 2 Gospel Project: Does the Atonement Speak to Collective Identity Conflict?”
  • Format: a) 20-minute presentation by Werner Mischke, b) 20-minute presentation by researcher Kristin Caynor, c) 10-minute response by HBI scholar, d) Questions and discussion 
  • Registration: CLICK HERE

My presentation will introduce the project. I’ll discuss the social/horizontal aspect of the reconciling work of the cross in Eph. 2:11–22. Kristin Caynor’s presentation focuses on how Early Church fathers interpreted Eph. 2:11–22.

Want to read what I am presenting? Download my paper here.

We have two goals for the HBI webinar: 1) Describe in brief the research we have done so far in the Ephesians 2 Gospel Project, and 2) invite the HBI scholar community into the learning journey with us. We want the resources that are developed to be by and for the global church.

Questions? Contact me at werner@mission1.org.

Sin is complex: it is cosmic, collective, individual

I was baptized in a Baptist church at age ten. What I learned about sin as a boy attending church is the same as what I’ve heard in countless sermons through adulthood. I came to understand sin as a human, individual dynamic: Sin is when you rebel against God’s laws, when you fail to do what is right. I can still hear Billy Graham preaching—when unsaved individuals face God as their Judge after death, they hear God pronounce loudly, “Guilty!”

A popular Systematic Theology describes sin as follows:

We may define sin as follows: sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature. Sin is here defined in relation to God and his moral law. Sin includes not only individual acts, such as stealing, lying, and committing murder, but also attitudes that are contrary to the attitudes God requires of us.

Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology, Second Edition (pp. 965). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.

I agree: sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature. The underlying assumption in this definition seems to be that the locus of sin is the individual. Individuals fail to conform to the moral law of God. Individual persons steal. Individual humans commit murder. Individuals have selfish attitudes. We all can attest to this truth.

However, in the Bible’s narrative, we also observe this: The failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature goes beyond the individualistic human realm of human life. In fact, the Bible reveals that sin is also observable and judged at the familial, civic, corporate, national, civilizational, and cosmic arenas.

In his brilliant book, Missing the Mark: Sin and Its Consequences in Biblical Theology, Mark Biddle writes:

“In the West, the dominant model of sin and salvation—developed especially in the thoughts of Tertullian, Augustine, Anselm, and Abelard—has long relied on a courtroom analogy. Human beings in willful rebellion against God’s authority violate God’s law. Their crime incurs the penalty of death. … This ‘sin as crime’ metaphor, with its emphasis on the juridical, the individual, and willful rebellion, and its interests in assignment of guilt and exaction of punishment, addresses certain aspects of the problem of human existence. Yet, although dominant in the Western popular mind, it does not fully reflect the biblical witness …”1

Biddle goes on to say that in the biblical narrative, many aspects of sin and evil cannot be reduced to the problem of individual humans. Human existence is just too complex to reduce sin to an exclusively individual dynamic.

Sin is cosmic—prior to human existence, from nonhuman personages who are involved in human affairs today

In the Bible, evil exists prior to human existence: Sin begins with a deceptive serpent (Gen 3:1–7), opposed to God’s will. The serpent is nonhuman, created by God, highly intelligent (Gen 3:1). The serpent speaks in a way understood by humans. The serpent is crafty, suggestive, indirect.

The serpent’s existence and communication with man and woman indicate that something has already gone horribly wrong in the cosmic realm, prior to the creation of man and woman. What happened? We do not know for sure. Genesis offers no direct information about the origin of the “crafty” serpent. There is a mystery here.

Some theologians believe that Isaiah 14:12–15 offers a clue. They interpret the passage as a description of an angel who is expelled from heaven prior to the creation of Adam and Eve; and “brought down to Sheol” (Is 14:15) because of rebellion against God. The angel’s rebellion is sometimes called the five “I wills”:

  • “I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God”
  • “I will set my throne on high;
  • “I will sit on the mount of assembly …” (Is 14:13)
  • “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds”
  • “I will make myself like the Most High” (Is 14:14)

Perhaps the serpent of Genesis 3:1 represents this fallen angel and its allied evil forces.

There are profound mysteries about the nature and origin of evil. But biblically speaking, this is plain: According to Genesis 3, evil and sin originate with a highly intelligent personage who is able to deceptively communicate with humans, and this personage is nonhuman and superhuman—beyond human limitations.

Thus, the narrative in Genesis 3 asks readers, ancient and modern, to grapple with the truth that the origin of evil is outside of human life. Sin and evil begin external to humanity.

Other passages of Scripture confirm the reality of nonhuman sin or supernatural evil. Here is a sampling:

  • Book of Job. “And the LORD said to Satan, ‘Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?’” (Job 1:8). The book of Job reveals a cosmic, nonhuman evil personage—Satan. And Satan is given permission by God to attack the man Job, “the greatest of all the people of the east” (Job 1:3). Job is completely unaware of the evil Satan. And yet it is Satan who destroys Job’s family, property, and health. The most honorable man becomes the epitome of shame. The book of Job explores the reality and mystery of supernatural evil, and that humans can be victims of such evil.
  • Daniel. Daniel is mourning, fasting, waiting on the Lord for three weeks (Dan 10:1–2). Daniel is finally told by one who looks and sounds like an angel (Dan 10:5-6): “The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me out …” (Dan 10:13). There is a conflict in the angelic realm between the forces of Almighty God and the forces of evil which have affected Daniel. Apparently, superhuman evil “princes” are attached to Persia and Greece (Dan 10:20).
  • Gospels. Jesus is “tempted by the devil” in the wilderness and for forty days and forty nights (Mat 4:1–2). Jesus engages with a superhuman personage, “the devil,” who powerfully tempts him. We also observe in the Gospels that Jesus encounters demons on various occasions. Perhaps the most dramatic account is when Jesus heals the demonaic (Mat 8:28–34; Mark 5:1–19; Luke 8:26–39). The man is horribly defiled, defaced, out of control, out of his mind. Jesus is setting people free from demonic, evil, sinful enslavement. The Apostle John plainly states, “The reason the Son of God appeared is to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8).
  • Paul and Peter. “We do not wrestle against flesh and blood,” Paul writes in Ephesians 6:12, “but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” Paul refers to these evil “rulers” in three other places (Eph 1:21; 3:10; Col 2:15). Peter writes, “Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Pet 5:8).
  • Revelation. John mentions “the devil” five times (Rev 2:10; 12:9; 12:12; 20:2; 20:10). John writes of “the beast” more than 30 times in his Revelation. He says that Satan will deceive the nations (Rev 20:7). John prophesies that all cosmic evil will one day be judged and destroyed: “the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Rev 20:10).

Sin is human—individual, social, collective

Below is a diagram I created which attempts to describe the range of human groupings in the Bible, along with examples of these groups being judged or critiqued by God for their sin.

At the left end of the continuum is the individual person. Here the emphasis is on the individual judged by God (or forgiven) for their sin. At the far right of the continuum is all humanity.

Range of human groupings in the Bible critiqued or judged—examples of single individual to all humanity. Yellow highlight refers to New Testament examples.

In my opinion, much theology aptly addresses the problem of human sin at the individual “persons” level at the far left, and at the “all humanity” level at the far right. What about the various kinds of collective identity sin in between?

Could it be that much theology—despite biblical evidence to the contrary—tends to avoid addressing the more systemic sin problems that exist at the family, corporate, national, or “collective-identity” level? I contend that there is an imbalance in Western theology’s relentless focus on the individual. I agree with Mark Biddle, quoted near the beginning of this post. A truncated view of sin results in a truncated gospel.

The Bible reveals sin to be a mixture that is cosmic/corporate/familial/civic/national/cultural. The synergy of sin seems greater than the sum of the parts. In Exodus, the nation/civilization called Egypt is judged for its idolatry and oppression. Indeed, nations are judged corporately for their sin all over the Old Testament. What about cities? Yes. Whole cities are judged for their idolatry and sin, for example, Jericho (Jos 6:1–21)2 and Niniveh (Jon 1:1–2).

In the book of Revelation, we also see an emphasis on the corporate. Seven different communities of believers—not individuals—are judged and critiqued (Rev 2:1–3:22). The cities are Ephesus (Rev 2:1–7), Smyrna (Rev 2:8–11), Pergamum (Rev 2:12–17), Thyatira (Rev 2:18–29), Sardis (Rev 3:1–6), Philadelphia (Rev 3:7–13), and Laodicea (Rev 3:14–22). There’s a different message for each church based on degrees of love and loyalty—and degrees of idolatry or immorality. The message to the church at Laodicea concerns their evil self-recognition about wealth and independence that makes for a despicable lukewarmness (Rev 3:16–17). The message is directed to the church as a whole.

In these letters to the seven churches, the Lord addresses the corporate whole while also addressing the individual. For example, the phrase “the one who conquers” is used four times (Rev 2:17; 2:26; 3:5; 3:21), encouraging individuals within these communities to be courageous in their loyalty to Christ. The “both-and principle” is clear: God speaks simultaneously to the community and the individual. It corresponds to the often complex, non-formulaic nature of Scripture.

Closing questions

  1. Could it be that because we tend to understand that the gospel speaks exclusively to individuals (Jesus died for the sins of individual persons), we ignore the Bible’s critique of human groups? How does the gospel address cosmic evil? What about structural, collective, or cultural evil—does the gospel speak to these realities?
  2. Could it be that evangelical tradition has overemphasized the significance of Christ’s atonement for individual sins, and has underemphasized the significance of the atonement in addressing cosmic evil (Col 2:14–15), collective identity sin, and group-on-group hostility (Eph 2:13–18)? See this post.
  3. Could it be that in framing sin as an exclusively individual human dynamic, Christians are given theological cover to ignore structural and social sin dynamics such as tribalism, racism, and nationalism?
  4. Are the myriad divisions in the church—divisions according to social status, race, or ethnicity—massive obstacles to scores of persons and peoples wanting to become followers of Jesus Christ? Are these divisions (divisions with which Christians are quite comfortable) examples of the complexity of sin?
  5. Could it be that Christians often blame unbelievers for being rebellious against God—that’s why they don’t want to come to church; they are rebellious toward God—when we Christians should rather lament our own disobedience in displaying the reconciled new humanity (Eph 2:15) for which Christ died?

NOTES

  1. Mark Biddle, Missing the Mark: Sin and Its Consequences in Biblical Theology (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005), viii.
  2. The Bible is not explicit in saying the city of Jericho is sinful according to the record Joshua 6. The Bible assumes that its readers will understand that Jericho is a pagan city permeated by sin. This is unlike the book of Jonah, where the Bible explicitly acknowledges the collective evil of the city of Nineveh; God tells Jonah “their evil has come up before me” (Jon 1:2).

Will you join me in thinking more broadly about sin?

I have found these books super-helpful in understanding sin and human nature.

I’ve got questions about sin. I’ve been reading about sin. I’m in two books currently:

Here’s why I am reading about sin: I believe that a limited understanding of the scope of sin has a profoundly undesirable result: It limits our understanding of the scope of the gospel. This, in turn, limits what sins and evils we address by the gospel of Christ—in our own lives, families, communities, nations.

Reductionism about sin leads to reductionism about the gospel.

Our view of sin is crucial

Our understanding of sin and how the Bible describes sin is part of many important beliefs. For example, our understanding of sin helps shape how Christians think about:

  • Human nature: The theological concepts of original glory, depravity, and original sin fit into this category. The Bible offers us a narrative that can be interpreted in various ways; how does theology shape a view of humanity and humanity’s sin?
  • The origin of sin: What does the Bible say about the supernatural origin of sin? What about “the demonic”? How does “the demonic” influence humans to perform evil in our world? What is “the Lucifer effect”? What do we make of human responsibility in light of this?
  • The essence of sin: Is sin atomistic—located first of all in the individual? Or is sin systemic—located first of all in the family-and-social system into which the individual is born? This debate is sometimes referred to as nature versus nurture.
  • The result of sin: According to the Bible, is humanity’s guilt before God the primary, objective result of sin—or is sin-and-shame equally primary and objective?
  • The scope of sin: Does sin consist first of all in human pride and willful rebellion against God? What about the witness of Scripture showing that sin can be involuntary or unintentional? What about not living up to our glorious potential as humans—is this sinful? What of sin as silence or inactivity—the passivity of sin?
  • God’s judgment of sin: Does the witness of Scripture show that God judges or critiques the sin of individuals (and no more)—or does God also judge or critique human social systems— families, cities, tribes, nations, empires? What about churches? Relatedly, does God’s view of sin change from the Old to the New Testament?
  • The atonement for sin: How does our understanding of sin influence our view of the atonement of Christ—and vice versa? Through his saving death and resurrection, Jesus Christ offers to cleanse persons from their sin, thus reconciling individuals to God. In what ways does Scripture show that the cross and resurrection of Christ offers reconciliation in other dimensions—in ways that transcend the redemption of individuals?

Does the gospel address more than individual sin? Does the gospel offer hope for systemic sin?

If sin is first and finally about individuals, then the gospel is first and finally about individuals. But if the witness of Scripture shows that the gospel addresses more than individual sin, if the witness of Scripture shows that the gospel also addresses the social, systemic nature of sin, what then?

My next series of posts will explore these issues, exploring some of the questions above. I will be referencing plenty of Scripture, the two authors above (Mark Biddle, PhD and Philip Zimbardo, PhD), as well as several other experts and their writings.

I will be making the case for a more systemic, more nuanced, more biblically-comprehensive understanding of sin than what some Christians are accustomed to. And along with that—an expanded hope in the gospel.

Please join me in the coming weeks—in thinking more broadly about sin—and the gospel.