Dealing with Hidden Sin

Sin is a reality with which we all must live. No one can escape the struggles we have with rebelling against God’s call on our lives (cf. Romans 3:10, 23). However, it is possible to choose whether one will vigorously fight the battle that wages against the flesh or not. The battle can be overwhelming, but it does not have to result in demoralizing defeat.
 
One, among many, devastating strategies of Satan, which is fed by our own shame, is to fight, or rather retreat, in silence. From the very beginning, sin resulted in hiding and shame as Adam and Eve hid from one another by covering themselves (cf. Genesis 3:7) and from the presence of the Lord in the garden by crouching among the trees (cf. Genesis 3:8). A similar type of “hiding” is also evidenced in the refusal to own the sin when confronted. What do Adam and Eve do when confronted? They blame-shift in order to direct the attention of the Lord away from self. They do not want to be “seen” in their sin so they justify it. The belief seems to be that, if the eyes of the Lord shift to the other and away from themselves, they can remain hidden. In either case the sin is avoided, hidden away, and not dealt with in an honest manner. Our natural tendency is to not deal with sin. Out of sight... out of mind... or is it?
 
The beauty of the cross is that we are clearly judged to be “sinners” but given a new identity as “redeemed,” “children of God,” and “joint heirs with Jesus Christ.” We do not have to hide our sin or justify it because Jesus has paid the penalty for us, bringing us undeserved forgiveness. He “hides our sin” as far as the east is from the west, and he justifies us by his shed blood. However, until we reach heaven, we, the “redeemed,” wrestle with the realities of that old flesh (cf. Romans 7). It does no good to be pretentious about our sin. It is useless to pretend that we are better than we are. I would rarely advocate “wearing” our sin “on our sleeve,” but it is futile to deny it or pretend it does not exist.
 
A good example of the futility of denying the reality of sin in our lives is King David in 2 Samuel 11-12, Psalm 32, and Psalm 51. In these passages, we find:

2 Samuel 11-12: King David lusts, sins, seeks to hide the sin by committing more sins, and then, after confrontation, repents. Psalms 32 and 51 are probably found within the “hiding” context of this story.
Psalm 32: King David reveals the struggle that results from hiding his sin and the subsequent peace that results from repentance.
Psalm 51: King David shows us that repentance is seeing our actions in the way the Lord sees them and coming to him honestly, without hiding.
 
Let's look at each of these passages more closely to see if there is any help found in King David’s experience.
 
2 Samuel 11-12

In 2 Samuel 11-12, King David hides his sin so that it is not exposed. It is clear that a major point of this story is that hiding sins leads simply to more sin. He executes two plans, which involve even more sin, to keep his sin hidden:
 
Plan #1: King David brings Uriah home to give him a report on the war. He throws him a party, gets him drunk, and hopes that he will have intercourse with Bathsheba, offering a cover-up for her pregnancy. The lies, manipulation, and impact on the armed forces who remain in battle without one of their leaders is obvious. Plan fails.
 
Plan #2: King David puts Uriah on the front line so that he will be killed in the intensity of battle. The disregard for human life in order to keep his sin hidden is again obvious. Plan succeeds.
 
It is important to note the plans King David is willing to pursue in order to keep his sin from being exposed. It takes all of his energies, and the one sin multiplies itself into more sin. If it were not exposed by Nathan, the multiplying of sin might continue on for years.
 
Psalm 32

Psalm 32 is probably scribed in the context of David’s manipulative plans to cover-up his sin. Verses 3 and 4 teach us that to hide sin leads to this experience:
 
“When I kept silent (about my sin), my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my vitality was drained away as with the fever heat of summer. Selah (i.e., let this sink in).”
 
What kind of life is this? We all know the experience to varying degrees. Hiding sin can drain us of our resources. It can “eat” at us. In a sense, we have no energies to invest in the lives of others for fear of being exposed or found out. Our energy is invested in covering up our sin, not in ministering to others. A good example of this is found when one chooses to speed while driving. It is difficult to sit back, put on an easy-listening CD, and enjoy the beauty of God’s creation. One’s energies are spent being on the lookout for the next police officer, who might ruin his day with a ticket at a high price. He is seeking to hide his sin, to not be found out. However, if he drives the speed limit, then he can sit back and relax. Peace is not available in deception. In fact, unfortunately, we can find ourselves frantically falling deeper and deeper into sin.
 
Being in this state of deception should be contrasted with the freedom that comes with openness. When King David comes to a place where he is willing to be honest about his sin, note the result in verses 5 through 7:
 
“I acknowledged my sin to you, and my iniquity I did not hide; I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord;’ and you forgave the guilt of my sin. Selah (i.e., let this sink in). Therefore, let everyone who is godly pray to you in a time when you may be found; surely in a flood of great waters they will not reach him. You are my hiding place; you preserve me from trouble; you surround me with songs of deliverance.”
 
This is obviously a good place to be in life. Previously in verses 1 and 2 it shows that a man is “blessed” who comes to the Lord and openly acknowledges his sin. Hiding does not bring this blessing. In fact, later in verse 10 it states, “Many are the sorrows of the wicked.” Sorrow upon sorrow upon sorrow. There is an appearance of being intact, but inwardly the sin eats away at the sinner. But, here in verse 5-7, when David acknowledges his sin, the Lord becomes his “hiding place,” “preserv(ing him) from trouble,” and “surrounding (him) with songs of deliverance” (verse 7).
 
Psalm 51

Psalm 51 explains the process of repentance that King David likely undertook when/after he was confronted. In 2 Samuel 11:25 King David states literally, “Do not let this thing (i.e., the thing that he did) be evil in your eyes.” Later, in verse 27, it states, “But the thing that David had done was evil in the eyes of the Lord.” No questions asked. King David had done evil in the eyes of the Lord. Of course, he had not seen it this way. He saw it as an obstacle that needed to be overcome or an inconvenience that needed to be fixed. So he devised his two plans to “fix” the situation. He was hiding and running from honestly dealing with his life.However, in verses 3-4, he pleads for forgiveness because he has come to realize:
 
“For I know my transgressions and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only, I have sinned and done what is evil in your eyes, so that you are justified when you speak, and blameless when you judge.”
 
Note the process:
 King David’s assessment:“do not let this thing be evil in your sight” 11:25
The Lord’s assessment: “the thing that David had done was evil” 11:27
King David’s repentance: “I have sinned and done what is evil in your eyes” 51:3-4

The primary turning point for sinful humanity is to see with our eyes what the Lord sees with his eyes. We need to see our lives as he sees them. Hiding is simply an attempt to divert one’s and other’s attention away from what is true about self with the hopes that everything will be okay. King David’s life reminds us that it is not that simple. After seeing our sin as God sees it, we need to acknowledge it before him and ask for his forgiveness. King David’s prayer in verses 1-2 was “be gracious to me,” wash me thoroughly,” and “cleanse me” (see also verses 7-17).
 

- by David L. Talley.

Definition of "Sins"

The Hebrew word for "sin" is חטאה (hhatah, Strong's #2403) and literally means "miss the mark." From my understanding of the Bible, there are two types of sin, accidental and deliberate. I explain it this way. The Hebrew people were a nomadic people and their language and lifestyle is wrapped around this culture. One of the aspects of a nomad is his constant journey from one watering hole to another and one pasture to another. If you are walking on a journey (literal or figurative) and find yourself "lost from the path," which is the Hebrew word רשע (rasha, Strong's #7563), you correct yourself and get back on the path. This was a "mistake" (accidentally missing the mark), but not deliberate. Once you are back on the right path, all is good. However, if you decide to leave the path and make your own, you are again "lost from the path", but this time, being a deliberate act, it is a purposeful mistake (missing the mark on purpose). In the Bible God gives his "directions" (usually translated as "commands") for the journey that his people are to be on. As long as they remain on that journey, they are tsadiq (Strong's #6662, usually translated as "righteous," but literally means "on the correct path"), even if they accidentally leave the path, but return (this is the Hebrew verb shuv, Strong's #7725, usually translated as "repentance," but literally means "to return") back to the correct path.

from: https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/definition/sin.htm

The wrath of God

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

Generally speaking, there are two types of sin — discord with God and discord with one’s neighbor. Paul mentions them both, putting discord with God first because it is the greater sin, and calling it “ungodliness.” Then he mentions the second kind of discord, the one with one’s neighbor, calling it “wickedness. 

    ----Gennadius of Constantinople, in Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche, 15.356.

When a Sinner Refuses to Listen

Jesus appears to give a four-step procedure that leads to the excommunication of an unrepentant sinner (Matt 18:15–17).
 

Step one: a disciple confronts another disciple who is sinning (obviously, a sin that is known to both of them). If the disciple “listens to him” (a vague response that could mean several things—from a respectful hearing to repentance), he or she has regained that disciple. If the sinner refuses to listen (whatever that means), then proceed to step two: bring in one or two more “witnesses” to rebuke the sinner. If the sinner refuses to listen to them, then move on to step three: take the matter before the church. Finally, if the sinner still refuses to listen to them, go to step four: “Let him be to you as a gentile and a tax collector” (v. 17). Following the progression (from individual confrontation to group involvement), it sounds as if Jesus were giving instructions to the church to excommunicate an unrepentant sinner, reading “to you” in this case as a plural pronoun.

 
But for those of us who read Greek, we know that’s not what Jesus was teaching here. The second-person pronoun of step four is singular. Jesus wasn’t giving advice to the church, instructing the assembly to kick out the rebel. Rather, throughout this passage Jesus was giving advice to one individual about another individual. In other words, Jesus didn’t teach the entire church to shun the unrepentant sinner. Rather, he told the concerned disciple to treat the disciple who refused to listen like a “gentile and a tax collector.” But what does that mean?
 
We could answer the question with a question: How did Jesus treat gentiles and tax collectors? Both groups were marginalized as outsiders in Jewish society. Bringing the kingdom of heaven to earth, Jesus treated outsiders like insiders, willing to go to the house of a Roman soldier and heal his slave or to eat with a bunch of tax collectors and “sinners” (8:5–7; 9:10). Despite the Pharisees’ objection, Jesus ate with “sick” sinners because they needed a physician (9:11–12).
 
Indeed, the Pharisees needed to learn a lesson from Hosea. According to the prophet, God wants mercy more than sacrifice (v. 13, quoting Hos 6:6). Therefore, when it comes to notorious sinners who refuse to listen to righteous people, the way of Jesus was to show them mercy. Besides, Jesus’s instruction concerning how to treat sinners who refuse to listen comes immediately after his teaching about recovering lost sheep—those who wander from the fold of God (Matt 18:12–14). In fact, he gave similar instruction to the twelve when he sent them out to recover “the lost sheep of Israel” (10:6). To restore the “harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (9:36 NRSV), Jesus sent his disciples to heal the sick—just like the Roman centurion’s slave—and proclaim that the kingdom of heaven “has come near,” going home with those who invite them to their table (10:6–13)—even lost sheep like tax collectors and sinners.
 

- written by Rodney Reeves, from Devotions on the Greek New Testament: 

52 Reflections to Inspire and Instruct

Understanding Sin

Another way to calculate the importance of a biblical understanding of sin is through the use of a series of theological continua. For example, a high view of humanity (humans are basically good morally) and our capacity for good typically maintains a low view of sin’s serious effects upon humanity. Alternately, a heightened view of sin (humans are radically depraved) will result in a reduced view of human capacity for spiritual good.

The theological understanding of Christ’s work is also impacted by one’s view of sin. A milder view of sin tends to parallel a nonpunitive view of the atonement. When the cross is viewed as an answer to the wrath of God, a clearly heightened view of sin (human helplessness before a holy God) is the presupposition.

God’s grace is another area directly impacted by one’s view of sin. The more sinful we appear to ourselves, the more we recognize the strategic nature of God’s grace. In the matter of soteriology, a positive view of human ability coupled with an optimistic view of the human condition depreciates the need for salvation and opens the door for alternate interpretations of the nature of our deliverance from sin (e.g., liberationist definitions of salvation as deliverance from political, sexual, or racial exploitation). In terms of conversion, repentance and faith are directly related to the nature of sin. Thus, do we have the capacity to repent and believe, or are these capacities granted to us at conversion?

Finally, as became clear to Augustine, one’s view of predestination is impacted by one’s view of sin. A more severe view of sin prompts a more pronounced understanding of predestination and election. Alternately, modifications to God’s free unconditional election (conditional election, for example) are supported by a less stringent view of human depravity.
 

- John W. Mahony, “A Theology of Sin for Today,” in Fallen: A Theology of Sin, 

eds.  Christopher. W. Morgan & Robert A. Peterson, 2013.

The Reality of Sins

The strategic importance of sin theologically and practically prompts us to ask about the nature of sin itself. Typically, post-fall definitions of sin (that is, those that reflect our fallen condition) come from either lexical analyses of the biblical words or from the various biblical images for sin (such as disease, defilement, or debt). Christian confessional statements, articles of faith, and systematic theologies contain definitions that have been coalesced from biblical usage and historical precedents. 

More recent efforts to define sin, however, reflect the existential and realist contexts of the last century: “[Sin] is universal, tragic estrangement, based on freedom and destiny in all human beings, and shall never be used in the plural. Sin is separation, estrangement from one’s essential being.” Existentially, sin is a deep sense of dread or anxiety, the tension that arises from our finitude and the openness of the future.

The trend away from more objective statements about sin tends to cloud the issue of sin’s essence. Compared to the existential, man-centered approach to sin, classic doctrinal statements such as the Westminster Larger Catechism defined sin with a clear reference to God and his law: “Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.” Within the Roman Catholic tradition, Thomas Aquinas defined sin as “a word, deed, or desire which is against the eternal law.” John Calvin defined sin as “unfaithfulness.”10 James Arminius claimed that sin is “something thought, spoken, or done against the law of God, or the omission of something which has been commanded by that law to be thought, spoken or done.”

Each of these definitions captures the essential meaning of sin as a violation of God’s law, covenant, or will. They also reflect a traditional understanding of the historicity of Adam and interpret the account of the fall in Genesis 3 quite literally. Consequently, sin is viewed more in relation to God. The perspective, however, is still post-fall.

A. H. Strong defined sin as the “lack of conformity to the moral law of God, either in act, disposition, or state.” In a subsequent clarification of the definition, he declared: “It therefore considers lack of conformity to the divine holiness in disposition or state as a violation of law, equally with the outward act of transgression.”

 “Lack of conformity,” however, is only true of humankind after the fall of Adam; the expression cannot be applied either to Adam before the fall or to the incarnate Son of God. From a pre-fall perspective, the essential nature of sin is expressed in a single act of rebellion; from a post-fall perspective, the violation of God’s law is only one component among innumerable others.

In regard to the post-fall perspective, then, sin possesses many different facets and expressions. The Scripture also uses an array of terms for sin and describes it in many different ways. The following is a summary of the biblical usage and serves as an exposition of the post-fall reality.

 

 - John W. Mahony, “A Theology of Sin for Today,” in Fallen: A Theology of Sin, 

eds.  Christopher. W. Morgan & Robert A. Peterson, 2013.