What is the difference between sinning due to rebellion vs. sinning due to weakness?

Question

I'm reading my NIV study bible in the book of Leviticus; Lev 4:3 to be exact. Anyway, the notes at the bottom was explaining a sin offering is for someone who committed a sin

1. without realizing it or
2. committed out of weakness rather than rebellion

That second sentence got me curious. What is the difference between committing sin out of weakness rather than rebellion? I thought all sin was rebellion against God's laws and high standards. How does weakness come into play?

The more I'm thinking about it, I might have answered my own question but I'll still throw these examples out. An extreme example I'm thinking of is killing. How is killing done out of weakness? It's a sin according to the 10 commandments. That's straight sin against God's word, rebellion, disrespect for another's life, etc. Maybe the only excuse would be self defense but otherwise, done against God.

Another example might be pornography. As Christians, we know we're not supposed look at porn but maybe we get tempted and something happens. Then we grab a magazine and look at something we're not supposed to (moment of weakness). But this act is still sin and rebellion against God (Matt 5:28, 1 Cor 6:18 to name a few verses).

So is the difference between rebellion and weakness the state of our heart? Rebellion is we're thumbing our nose at God saying we do what we want vs. in the above example where we sin not because we want to but because we were tempted and failed?

Maybe none of this matters since the notes are man's words rather than God's words but the notes in the study bible are there to help us understand the verses/passage in modern terms. So back to my original question, what is the difference between a sin committed out of weakness vs. rebellion?

Answer 1

Theology of sin based on Biblical hints

A useful way for me to address how humans sin (including myself) is to organize my thinking in this way:

1. FIRST, study the various ways that the Bible alludes to human "sin": degrees of intention (intentional / accidental / etc.), the parties (individual vs. collective), different Biblical eras, different genres, and different roles of the sinner.

   A few examples highlighting the differences:

   • In Gen 4:8 is Cain killing Abel, before the Abrahamic era.
   • In Lev 4:3 we're in the Mosaic era, about how the sin of a priest bringing guilt to the people.
   • In 2 Samuel 11 (David's sin against Uriah) we read how God deal with the sin of a king in the united kingdom era.
   • In Psalm 51 we read how David processed his sin against Uriah in his heart, providing us with a model of repenting and receiving forgiveness by the merciful God, as well as David's awareness of how his sin as king affected not only him, but his own kingdom.
   • In Eze 22 (Jerusalem city's sin) we are in the cusp of the Babylonian exile where we read of God's displeasure of collective sin, especially against the weak.
   • etc.

   As you can see, there are a LOT to process here to systematize all those allusions into a coherent and systematic study of sin, thus requiring a theology of sin (see the next point below).

2. SECOND, how various Christian theologies process the above Biblical hints to form a coherent whole where all aspects of sinning (including "rebellion" and "weakness") are covered. In the academic circles, this theological topic is called Hamartiology.

   Catholic theologies differentiate between:

   • mortal sin: human act with full knowledge and intention with a character of rebellion against God (a good illustration is premeditated murder instead of murder caused spontaneous rage)
   • venial sin: still intentional, but doesn't rupture friendship with God, because certain habits predominate (such as committing pornography because of habitual capitulation to lust)
   • concupiscence: this is sinful tendency, but doesn't rise to sin unless the desire is acted out

   See Wikipedia article Catholic Hamartiology for a full coverage of Catholic official teaching on sin. One short Catholic book on sin is Josef Pieper's The Concept of Sin.

   In contrast, most Protestant theologies tends to lump all 3 above as one, simply calling it "sin" although when appropriate they separate it out again depending on the verse, as evident in your Protestant NIV Study Bible commentary on Lev 4:3. This is due to the key Protestant position of naming the state of being in original sin as "sin", unlike the Catholic Church position which "distinguishes between the state of being in original sin and the commission of actual sin" (Wikipedia, first paragraph). Another key difference: in the Catholic understanding of baptism, sanctifying grace erases original sin (only concupiscence remains), but not so in the Protestant understanding of baptism. A good book on Evangelical theology of sin is Against God and Nature: The Doctrine of Sin (2019) by Dr. Thomas McCall of Asbury theological seminary.

Answering your question

You ask about the relationship between Rebellion, Weakness, and Sin. The answer will be nuanced depending on which theology you use. Very roughly, those 3 aspects ARE separated in any theological treatment on sin:

• Rebellion is the root cause of all sinful acts, regardless of intention and weakness, regardless of our being conscious or not. The rebellion is what makes us guilty. I think both Catholics and Protestants associate this with the Pride of Adam imputed to us as federal head of humanity: of trusting our own standard rather than God's standard.
• Sin proper is a guilty act that bears fruit in word, deed, or intention.
• Weakness is a predisposition to sin in our fallen soul. This is the slippery slope that, when combined with temptation, makes us likely to commit sin, unless the grace of God strengthens our will against falling to temptation.

Framed this way, the difference of "sinning due to rebellion" vs. "sinning due to weakness" is simply emphasizing different aspect of sinning. In the former, one's intention is more focused and makes us more culpable for the sin. In the latter, one's habituation (like an addict) is more prominent. But both kinds of the sinful act have rebellion in the background (implicitly) and thus incur guilt (although it can be different level of guilt depending on the theology you use). Each kind requires a different remedy and a different strategy to put us back on the right and narrow path.

I hope the above analysis is helpful. Leave comments if there are other aspects you would like covered.