failure to be

"Sin is the transgression of a law, yea of a good law, yea of God’s law. Sin presupposes that there is a law in being, for where is no law there is no transgression (Romans 4.15). But where there is sin, there is a law, and a transgression of the law. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is a transgression of the law (1 John 3.4). That this is the sin intended in out text is apparent from Romans 7.7.
Now the law not only forbids the doing of evil, whether by thought, word or deed, but also commands the doing of good. So to omit the good commanded is sin, as well (or ill) as is the doing of the evil that is forbidden. Against the fruit of the Spirit there is no law, but against the works of the flesh (for the antithesis holds) there is law, for they are all against the law, as the Apostle tells us (Galatians 5.19-24). Whatever, then, transgresses the law of God--in whole or in part (James 2.10)--is therefore and therein a sin, whether it break an affirmative or a negative precept i.e. whether it is the omission of good or the commission of evil.1"

Sin, it can be agreed upon at the outset, is a failure to meet the requirement of God’s law. Somewhere along the lines of history, though, the term has been misconstrued to mean something that is yet still offensive to those who are labeled “sinners,” but the word does not carry with it, the same weight that it once did. The way culture “hates the sin, but not the sinner” is a redefinition on it’s part, and completely changes the mindset of people who define sin as something that can simply be taken out of a person. Sin is not like a person who is at the control panel of an army tank, who if killed, would then leave the tank free for usage by the opposing army. It would be more sound to equate sin to an incurable, highly contagious virus, in which case the only thing left to do is to kill or shun the person infected by it. The awful truth though, is that the whole human race is affected by this death. But just as if a murderer were placed into a community of like-killers, it would not benefit him to write off his neighbor as a friend just because he had the same murderous nature that was so characteristic of himself. An objection then arises, that if men cannot be separated from their sin, then the Divine Law which was given must pertain to something more than a simple list of ‘do’s and don’ts.’ This is sound reasoning, and can be satisfied along with the answer to a relative question, namely, what does the Bible mean when it speaks of ‘the Law?’
"When the word of God is set before us in the Scriptures, it were certainly most absurd to imagine that it is only a fleeting and evanescent voice, which is set out into the air, and come forth beyond God himself, as was the case with the communications made to the patriarchs, and all the prophecies. The reference rather is to the wisdom ever dwelling with God, and by which all oracles and prophesies were inspired. For as Peter testifies (1Pet 1.11), the ancient prophets spoke by the Spirit of Christ just as did the apostles, and all who after them were ministers of the heavenly doctrine. But as Christ was not yet manifested we necessarily understand that the Word was begotten of the Father before all ages. But if that Spirit, whose organs the prophets were, belonged to the Word, the inference is irresistible, that the Word was truly God [emphases added]. And this is clearly enough shown by Moses in his account of creation, where he places the Word as intermediate. For why does he distinctly narrate that God, in creating each of His works, said, Let there be this--let there be that, unless that the unsearchable glory of God might shine forth in His image? I know prattlers would easily evade this, by saying that “Word” is used for order or commands; but the apostles are better expositors, when they tell us that the world were created by the Son, and that he sustains all things by his mighty word (Heb 1.2). For we here see that “word” is used for the nod or command of the Son, who is himself the eternal and essential Word of the Father.2"

So then, one can see that from Scripture, (with the extraordinary help of Mr. Calvin), that the Divinely spoken word is no less God than the Spirit is less than the Father. God is simple, in that He is whole and one with Himself in all that He is and does.
“The Father is made of none,” says the Athanasian Creed, “neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, nor begotten, but preceeding.” God exists in Himself and of Himself. His being He owes to no one. His substance is indivisible. He has no parts but is single in His unitary being.
"The doctrine of the divine unity means not only that there is but one God; it means also that God is simple, uncomplex, one with Himself. The harmony of His being is the result not of a perfect balance of parts but of the absence of parts. Between His attributes no contradiction can exist. He need not suspend one to exercise another, for in Him all attributes are one.3"

One can conclude from all of this, that the Law, quite literally, is God. If the Word of God is God because “‘word’ is used for the nod or command of the Son, who is himself the eternal and essential Word of the Father.”--and if the Command of God is the Law of God, then it follows that the Law is God inseparable.
The ramifications of this concept shed completely new light on the subject of sin. With the notion that the Law is God in mind, we can look at the words of the apostle Paul in a new light:
"So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.4"

Paul is saying that the law is what gave him the realization that he was a sinner by nature. He previously mentions a more specific law, namely “you shall not covet.” This is the type of law that would be better characterized as a command. Commands have correlating consequences if they are not adhered to, as does the law as a whole, for why would there be a law if not for the fact that there were a punishment for transgressing the law? The apostle acknowledges the reality of the wrath that is due for his transgression, specifically that he coveted when the law clearly stated that he was not to covet. This is all fine when speaking narrowly about the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, but what about in the greater view, when one can step back and know that the Law represents God, and all that encompasses that reality (if it were possible to encompass The Supreme Being)? To draw a parallel, the command “you shall not covet”--on the scale regarding ordinances--directly correlates to the Transcendence and Holiness of God--on the scale regarding the Law being God.
A more clear representation of sin can now be drawn taking into account everything discussed above: that sin is the failure to fulfill the law. To sin is to come short in attaining what God has decreed is perfection--holiness. Sin is literally, failure to be--or the state of not being--God.



1 Venning, Ralph. The Sinfulness of Sin (Puritan Paperbacks). New Ed ed. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1996.
2 Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Limited ed. Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009.
3 Tozer, A. W.. The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God: Their Meaning in the Christian Life. New York: Harperone, 1998.
4 The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ro 7:12-13.