How to Test Claims that Something is a Sin

When trying to determine whether something that is claimed to be a sin actually is a sin, you only need to ask these three questions:

1. Does Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy) have a direct command against it?
2. Does Torah list items that are permitted (or required) in a category that the item in question is in but is not on the list?
3. Is there a penalty associated with it, but without a direct or indirect command against it?

It really is that simple, as Torah alone defines what is right and wrong.  Whatever is contrary to Torah is sin and whatever is not contrary to Torah is not sin.  The Prophets do not define sin.  Jesus does not define sin.  The Apostles do not define sin.  Only the Law of Yahweh defines sin.  And for those who would say that Yeshua does define sin because he is God, let me remind you that if he is to live a sinless life as a human being, he must abide by the same Law that everyone else is expected to abide by.  If he were to teach what is contrary to Torah, then he would have sinned and his death on the cross would be useless for our salvation.  Therefore Yeshua does not define sin.

Also, I originally listed just the first two questions, and would have considered things that meet the criteria of the third question as things that God hates but does not forbid.  But while writing this post, I changed my mind, hence the third question.

Jesus said to live on every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4).  And you're not living on it if you are adding to it or subtracting from it.  For the Law says in multiple places, such as Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 to not add to or subtract from God's commandments.  This means that once written, the Law of God is read only.  Nobody after that can in any way change the Law, not even Jesus after he rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven.  The Apostle Paul said multiple times that Torah defines sin, such as Romans 3:20 and 7:7.  The Law itself defines sin in multiple places as transgressing the Law.

For any given thing that is claimed to be sinful, answering "yes" to one of the above questions proves the thing in question to be sinful.  If the answer to both questions is "no", then the thing in question is not sinful even if it is detrimental or believed to be detrimental.

The first question should be self-explanatory.  If God's Law has a direct command against something, then that something in question is a sin.  Theft, adultery, lying, murder, and slander are all sinful because the Law has a direct command against each of these.  The same for eating animals like pigs [Leviticus 11:7-8].  And if you think of twisting 1 Timothy 4:1 to claim that I'm teaching "doctrines of demons" (as some have done), then you would be calling God a demon, for God himself gave that command.

The second question is a bit more complex than the first.  There are some places in God's Law that list of a number of things in a category that are either allowed or required.  In these instances, whatever is in that same category that does not make the list is forbidden.  A good example of this is the list of holy days in Leviticus 23 that we are to use to honor God.  So even if it could be proven that Christmas and Easter did originate within Christianity, it wouldn't change the fact that those days are not on the list of holy days for honoring God, and are therefore sinful to partake in.  We may see those days as serving God, but that's not how God sees them.

There are some things that do not have a direct command against them (answer to question 1 is "no") or an indirect command against them (answer to question 2 is also "no").  This is where the third and final question comes in:  If God's Law also does not list a penalty for doing something (answer to question 3 is "no"), then the item in question is not a sin.  But if there is a penalty listed for doing something, then the item in question is a sin.  Otherwise, there would not be a penalty.

A good example of something that has a penalty listed, but no direct or indirect command against it is extramarital sex.  In Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, if an unmarried couple are caught having sexual relationships, then the man is required to pay the bride price to the woman's father, the two are required to marry (unless the father forbids it), and they are never allowed to divorce.  The bride price, can be multiple years worth of wages.  And if a woman had this type of sexual relationship, then presented herself as a virgin to another man and her deception was discovered, then the woman could die (Deuteronomy 22:20-21).

In any case where the answer to all three of these questions is "no", then the thing in question is permissible.  In fact, since Torah is described as "the Law of Liberty" in James 1:25, then we should approach things in a "freedom by default" manner.  That is, unless we can prove it goes against God's Law, we should allow it.  Some examples of things that are not against God's Law include dancing, games and sports, and gender-neutral bathrooms, lockers, etc.

There are some things that Yahweh technically allows, but also hates.  These things are often identified by whether God's Law has a provision for them, but also a lot of restrictions.  One example is divorce, where as I explained in a previous post, is intended to be done only in cases of unfaithfulness in marriage.  We also know that Yahweh hates divorce because of Malachi 2:16, where Yahweh explicitly states as much when speaking through one of his prophets.

To summarize:  If you cannot prove that something is contrary to God's Law either by (1) a direct command, (2) by not making a list of items allowed or required that are in the same category as the item in question, or (3) by not having any penalty for doing something, then regardless of how sinful you believe it to be or how much you object to it, that thing is not, I repeat, not, a sin.

I'll leave you with this exercise:  Exodus 20:26 says, "Nor shall you go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on it."  So what is the sin here?  Is it to build steps up to an altar, to approach the altar naked, or both?  Don't forget to prove your answer.

What Did Jesus Mean by "But I Say..."? [UPDATED]

IMPORTANT NOTE:  This article was originally published on December 27, 2021 but contains a serious error that I am correcting here.  You can still read the original in its entirety through this link.  Other than this one correction, this post is completely unmodified from the original.

What Did Jesus Mean by "But I Say..."?

The phrase "but I say" or "but I tell you" appears in the Gospels quite a few times.  But what does it mean?  Let's examine the first time it appears, which is in Matthew 5:22.

21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister [without cause] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. [Matthew 5:21-22; NIV]

It appears that Jesus is quoting from the Law.  And indeed, the Law does say, "you shall not murder" [Exodus 20:13].  However, the Law does not say, "anyone who murders will be subject to judgement".  It says the one who murders is to be put to death [Numbers 35:16-21]!  Is Jesus making the Law harder to follow?  Not at all.  For the Law says, "love your neighbor as yourself" [Leviticus 19:18] and, "do not bear a grudge against anyone" [Leviticus 19:18].  What Jesus is doing here is linking Leviticus 19:18 with Exodus 20:13.  If you break the later, then you've broken the former in your heart.  This wouldn't be the only time that Jesus linked two different commands together, so that breaking one means you break the other in your heart.  In Matthew 5:27-28, Jesus linked coveting with adultery.

So what about the next example?  Here's a verse where Jesus appears to be overriding God's Law.

31 "Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."  [Matthew 5:31-32; NIV]

The Law does indeed say that anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce [Deuteronomy 24:1].  But here's the question:  Is Jesus forbidding what God has previously allowed?  Or is the intent behind the command in question being misused?  Remember the Deuteronomy 13 Test.  And the fact that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for nullifying the Law of God:

1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!"

3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.' 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is 'devoted to God,' 6 they are not to 'honor their father or mother' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. [Matthew 15:1-6; NIV]

So according to Jesus himself, anyone who nullifies the Law of God is guilty of sin.  This means that it can't be that Jesus is nullifying Deuteronomy 24:1 by forbidding adultery.  So it must be that the intent of Deuteronomy 24:1 is being ignored.  What's the intent?  The word translated as "uncleanness" is the Hebrew word "erva", which means "nakedness" or "shamefulness".  If you read through Scripture carefully, you will find that sin is always linked with shame, with the former justifying the latter.  In other words, the intent of the command is to allow a man to divorce his wife if he finds out that she has been sexually immoral.

So then, what's with Matthew 19:8, where Jesus appears to be saying that the commands concerning divorce are not of God?  If Jesus was doing just that, it means that the inerrancy doctrine is wrong.  Also, remember Deuteronomy 13?  Moses could not have put that command there if God had not approved of it!  Otherwise, Jesus would be guilty of sin by forbidding what God's Law has allowed.  The issue here is the intent of the command, which agrees with what Jesus is saying.

Here's another example of Jesus apparently contradicting God's Law.  Mind you that Jesus is God, and God does not change (if he does change, then he cannot be eternal).

33 "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' 34 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one." [Matthew 5:33-37; NKJV]

If we take a careful look at the Greek text, you will notice that the "not" in verse 34 is a qualified not.  The most likely qualifier is the word "falsely" between "swear" and "at all".  What's going on here is that the Pharisees (in typical fashion) are saying, "If you swear by the Lord, you are bound by that oath.  But if you swear by other things, then the oath means nothing."  Jesus had a few things to say about the Pharisees rules concerning what you may or may not swear falsely by.  To paraphrase, "anyone who swears by anything is bound by the oath that they swear."

One more thing.  I noticed that the NIV says in verse 37, "All you need to say is simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."  Notice the clear change in meaning between the two translations.  The saying, "let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no' be 'no'" means we are to speak truthfully when we swear.  But the saying, "all you need to say is simply 'yes' or 'no'; anything further is from the evil one" is a clear violation of Deuteronomy 12:32.

To summarize, when Jesus said, "but I say", he either contradicted a human rule by what he said, or brought to light the intent of God's command, or linked breaking one command (one that cannot be enforced) with breaking another command (one that can be enforced) in your heart.  Never did Jesus speak against God's Law.  For he gave the Law and told King David through the Holy Spirit that the Law is eternal [Psalm 119:160].