Guilt

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

GUILT. 1. Guilt may be defined in terms of relativity. It is rather the abiding result of sin than sin itself (see Pearson’s Exposition of the Creed , ed. James Nichols, p. 514 f.). It is not punishment, or even liability to punishment, for this presupposes personal consciousness of wrong-doing and leaves out of account the attitude of God to sin unwittingly committed (  Leviticus 5:1 ff.; cf.   Luke 12:48 ,   Romans 5:13; see Sanday-Headlam, Romans , p. 144). On the other hand, we may describe it as a condition, a state, or a relation; the resultant of two forces drawing different ways (  Romans 7:14 ff.). It includes two essential factors, without which it would be unmeaning as an objective reality or entity. At one point stands personal holiness, including whatever is holy in man; at another, personal corruption, including what is evil in man. Man’s relation to God, as it is affected by sin, is what constitutes guilt in the widest sense of the word. The human struggle after righteousness is the surest evidence of man’s consciousness of racial and personal guilt, and an acknowledgment that his position in this respect is not normal.

We are thus enabled to see that when moral obliquity arising from or reinforced by natural causes, adventitious circumstances, or personal environment, issues in persistent, wilful wrong-doing, it becomes or is resolved into guilt, and involves punishment which is guilt’s inseparable accompaniment. In the OT the ideas of sin, guilt, and punishment are so inextricably interwoven that it is impossible to treat of one without in some way dealing with the other two, and the word for each is used interchangeably for the others (see Schultz, OT Theol . ii. p. 306). An example of this is found in Cain’s despairing complaint, where the word ‘punishment’ (  Genesis 4:13 EV [Note: English Version.] ) includes both the sin committed and the guilt attaching thereto (cf.   Leviticus 26:41 ).

2. In speaking of the guilt of the race or of the individual, some knowledge of a law governing moral actions must be presupposed (cf.   John 9:41;   John 15:22;   John 15:24 ). It is when the human will enters into conscious antagonism to the Divine will that guilt emerges into objective existence and crystallizes (see Martensen, Christian Dogmatics , Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] p. 203 ff.). An educative process is thus required in order to bring home to the human race that sense of guilt without which progress is impossible (cf.   Romans 3:20;   Romans 7:7 ). As soon, however, as this consciousness is established, the first step on the road to rebellion against sin is taken, and the sinner’s relation to God commences to become fundamentally altered from what it was. A case in point, illustrative of this inchoate stage, is afforded by Joseph’s brothers in their tardy recognition of a guilt which seems to have been latent in a degree, so far as their consciousness was concerned, up to the period of threatened consequences (  Genesis 42:21; cf. for a similar example of strange moral blindness, on the part of David,   2 Samuel 12:1 ff.). Their subsequent conduct was characterized by clumsy attempts to undo the mischief of which they had been the authors. A like feature is observable in the attitude of the Philistines when restoring the sacred ‘ark of the covenant’ to the offended Jehovah. A ‘guilt-offering’ had to be sent as a restitution for the wrong done (  1 Samuel 6:3 , cf.   2 Kings 12:16 ). This natural instinct was developed and guided in the Levitical institutions by formal ceremony and religious rite, which were calculated to deepen still further the feeling of guilt and fear of Divine wrath. Even when the offence was committed in ignorance, as soon as its character was revealed to the offender, he became thereupon liable to punishment, and had to expiate his guilt by restitution and sacrifice, or by a ‘ guilt-offering ’ (AV [Note: Authorized Version.] ‘trespass offering,’   Leviticus 5:15 ff;   Leviticus 6:1 ff.). To this a fine, amounting to one-fifth of the value of the wrong done in the case of a neighbour, was added and given to the injured party (  Leviticus 6:5 ,   Numbers 5:6 f.). How widely diffused this special rite had become is evidenced by the numerous incidental references of Ezekiel (  Ezekiel 40:39;   Ezekiel 42:13;   Ezekiel 44:29;   Ezekiel 46:20 ); while perhaps the most remarkable allusion to this service of restitution occurs in the later Isaiah, where the ideal Servant of Jehovah is described as a ‘guilt-offering’ (  Isaiah 53:10 ).

3. As might be expected, the universality of human guilt is nowhere more insistently dwelt on or more fully realized than in the Psalms (cf.   Psalms 14:2;   Psalms 53:2 , where the expression ‘the sons of men’ reveals the scope of the poet’s thought; see also   Psalms 36:1-12 with its antithesis the universal long-suffering of God and the universal corruption of men). In whatever way we interpret certain passages ( e.g.   Psalms 69:28;   Psalms 109:7 ff.) in the so-called imprecatory Psalms, one thought at least clearly emerges, that wilful and persistent sin can never be separated from guiltiness in the sight of God, or from consequent punishment. They reveal in the writers a sense ‘of moral earnestness, of righteous indignation, of burning zeal for the cause of God’ (see Kirkpatrick, ‘Psalms’ in Cambr. Bible for Schools and Colleges , p. lxxv.). The same spirit is to be observed in Jeremiah’s repeated prayers for vengeance on those who spent their time in devising means to destroy him and his work (cf.   Jeremiah 11:18 ff;   Jeremiah 18:19 ff;   Jeremiah 20:11 ff. etc.). Indeed, the prophetic books of the OT testify generally to the force of this feeling amongst the most powerful religious thinkers of ancient times, and are a permanent witness to the validity of the educative functions which it fell to the lot of these moral teachers to discharge (cf. e.g.   Hosea 10:2 ff.,   Joel 1:4 ff.,   Amos 4:9 ff.,   Micah 3:4 ff.,   Haggai 2:21 f.,   Zechariah 5:2 ff. etc.).

4. The final act in this great formative process is historically connected with the life and work of Jesus Christ. The doctrine of the Atonement, however interpreted or systematized, involves belief in, and the realization of, the guilt of the entire human race. The symbolic Levitical rite in which ‘the goat for Azazel’ bore the guilt (EV [Note: English Version.] ‘iniquities,’   Leviticus 16:22 ) and the punishment of the nation, shadows forth clearly and unmistakably the nature of the burden laid on Jesus, as the Son of Man. Involved, as a result of the Incarnation, in the limitations and fate of the human race, He in a profoundly real way entered into the conditions of its present life (see   Isaiah 53:12 , where the suffering Servant is said to bear the consequences of man’s present position in regard to God; cf.   1 Peter 2:24 ). Taking the nature of Adam’s race, He became involved, so to speak, in a mystic but none the less real sense, in its guilt, while Gethsemane and Calvary are eternal witnesses to the tremendous load willingly borne by Jesus (  John 10:18 ) as the price of the world’s guilt, at the hands of a just and holy but a loving and merciful God (  John 3:16 f.,   Romans 5:8 ,   Ephesians 2:3 f.,   1 Thessalonians 1:10 ,   Revelation 15:1; cf.   Exodus 34:7 ).

‘By submitting to the awful experience which forced from Him the cry, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” and by the Death which followed, He made our real relation to God His own, while retaining and, in the very act of submitting to the penalty of sin, revealing in the highest form the absolute perfection of His moral life and the steadfastness of His eternal union with the Father’ (Dale, The Atonement , p. 425).

It is only in the life of Jesus that we are able to measure the guilt of the human race as it exists in the sight of God, and at the same time to learn somewhat, from the means by which He willed to bring it home to the consciousness of men, of the full meaning of its character as an awful but objective reality. Man’s position in regard to God, looked on as the result of sin, is the extent and the measure of his guilt.

‘Only He, who knew in Himself the measure of the holiness of God, could realize also, in the human nature which He had made His own, the full depth of the alienation of sin from God, the real character of the penal averting of God’s face. Only He, who sounded the depths of human consciousness in regard to sin, could, in the power of His own inherent righteousness, condemn and crush sin in the flesh. The suffering involved in this is not, in Him, punishment or the terror of punishment; but it is the full realizing, in the personal consciousness, of the truth of sin, and the disciplinary pain of the conquest of sin; it is that full self-identification of human nature, within range of sin’s challenge and sin’s scourge, with holiness as the Divine condemnation of sin, which was at once the necessity and the impossibility of human penitence. The nearest and yet how distant! an approach to it in our experience we recognize, not in the wild sin-terrified cry of the guilty, but rather in those whose profound self-identification with the guilty overshadows them with a darkness and a shame, vital indeed to their being, yet at heart tranquil, because it is not confused with the blurring consciousness of a personal sin’ (Moberly, Atonement and Personality , p. 130).

5. The clearest and most emphatic exposition of the fruits of the Incarnation, with respect to human guilt, is to be found in the partly systematized Christology of St. Paul, where life ‘in the Spirit’ is asserted to be the norm of Christian activity (  Romans 8:9 ff.). ‘There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus’ (  Romans 8:1 ) is a reversal of the verdict of ‘Guilty’ against the race (cf.   Colossians 3:6 f.,   1 Thessalonians 2:16 ), in so far as man accepts the conditions of the Christian life (cf.   Galatians 5:17 f.). Where the conditions are not fulfilled, he is not included in the new order, for ‘if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.’ His guilt is aggravated by ‘neglecting so great salvation’ (  Hebrews 2:3; cf.   John 15:22;   John 15:24 ,   Matthew 11:20 ff.), and the sentence pronounced against the disobedience of the enlightened is, humanly speaking at least, irreversible (  Hebrews 6:4 ff;   Hebrews 10:29 ff.).

J. R. Willis.

Holman Bible Dictionary

Guilt may be either a fact or a feeling. For example, a direct violation of law would make one guilty of violating that law. The guilt in this case would be present whether or not the person feels guilty. The condemnation may come from oneself, others, or from God. Or the condemnation might not occur at all. Nevertheless, the person is guilty because a real violation has taken place.

The Bible frequently contrasts those who are guilty with expressions that signify righteousness or just behavior. For example, Job insisted on his righteousness before the Lord ( Job 27:1-6 ). His friends inisisted that he was wicked and therefore guilty ( Job 22:5;  Job 35:1-8 ). To be guilty can mean the same thing as to be wicked. In  Psalm 1:1 it is assumed that the wicked, sinners, and scoffers are guilty of sin and that they will ultimately perish. When Pilate said that he found no guilt in Jesus, he meant that He was innocent of the charges brought against Him (  Luke 23:14;  John 19:4 ,John 19:4, 19:6 ). There was no basis on which to charge Him.

Guilt is connected with sin in the Bible. Sin is basically against God or against God's law. It can mean rebellion against God, or a willful transgression. Sin can also mean to miss the mark. The Hebrew writers generally did not distinguish between the act of sin and the guilt that came from the act. The various words used for sin in the Old Testament also expressed the idea of guilt. To sin, therefore, is to become guilty.  Leviticus 5:1 lists a number of forbidden actions. It is assumed that a person committing any of these prohibited acts is guilty (  Leviticus 5:1-5 ). Hosea, also, spoke of the various sins of the nation Israel. Even though the people did not acknowledge their sins, the Lord pronounced them guilty ( Hosea 5:15;  Hosea 10:2 ). Jeremiah noted that those who sinned against Israel became guilty before the Lord and would be punished ( Jeremiah 2:3 ). These illustrations show that guilt is a companion of sin. The sin may be that of omission or commission, but it puts one in a state of guilt.

To connect sin and guilt is a way of saying that human beings are responsible before God for their actions. Paul, in the Book of Romans went to great lengths to show that all mankind is guilty before God ( Romans 1:18-20 ). If all have sinned ( Romans 3:23 ), then all are guilty and cut off from God. Something must be done to remove the guilt.

The Old Testament describes several things that could be done to remove guilt. Sinners could confess their sins and make restitution for the wrongs they had committed ( Numbers 5:6-10 ). Various sacrifices could be brought to the priests for a guilt offering ( Leviticus 5:6-7:38 ). Restitution, sacrifice, or ritual penalty had to be made for sin and guilt.

A new idea presents itself in passages like  Isaiah 53:1 : it is the idea that a righteous one can suffer for the guilt of others. One can bear the sin of many and intercede for their transgressions ( Isaiah 53:12 ). In the New Testament, Jesus fulfilled the role of the one suffering for the sins of many; “Christ died for the ungodly,” and we are reconciled to God ( Romans 5:6-11; compare  Ephesians 1:7;  Colossians 1:19-20 ).

The idea of a sacrifice or offering for sin and guilt is picked up by other New Testament writers. Jesus was made a merciful High Priest to make propitiation for the sins of the people (Heb. ( Colossians 2:17 ). Twice 1John says that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins ( 1 John 2:2;  1 John 4:10 ). This emphasis shows how seriously the Bible takes sin and guilt. Guilt has to be dealt with in an objective way. Guilt, according to these New Testament writers, requires the sacrifice of the Son of God. See Expiation and Propitiation.

Guilt is both corporate and individual in the Bible. The corporate aspect can be seen in  2 Chronicles 24:18 . The king and officials of the nation abandoned God, and their guilt brought wrath on the nation. Ezra lamented the guilt that had come upon the people for their sins ( Ezra 9:3-6 ). The individual nature of guilt can be seen in passages like  Psalm 32:1 . There the psalmist acknowledged his own transgression and asked for forgiveness from guilt ( Psalm 32:5 ). Jeremiah in speaking of the New Covenant declared that all people would be held responsible for their own sins ( Jeremiah 31:30 ).

As a feeling, “guilt” refers to the emotional aspects of a person's experience. An individual may feel himself or herself to be condemned or to have sinned. The feeling may bear little or no apparent relationship to the fact with which it is associated. In other words, one may feel guilty when there is no evidence to suggest a reason for guilt.

However, feeling is often a legitimate expression of guilt. The bitter lament  Psalm 51:1 carries both an awareness of sin and deep feelings of remorse and repentance.   Psalm 38:1 paints a picture of a suffering sinner weighed down with sin and guilt. Guilt is a burden (  Psalm 38:4 ) that creates anxiety ( Psalm 38:18 ).

Because human beings are so complex, it is often difficult to separate guilt feelings from real guilt. These guilt feelings must be taken seriously. If a person cannot resolve these guilt feelings before God, it may be wise to seek a counselor to help determine where the guilt feelings originate. Unresolved guilt can have a paralyzing effect on a person. Asking for and receiving forgiveness is one of the major ways that we can be absolved from guilt. God in His faithfulness has promised to forgive us from all iniquity ( 1 John 1:9 ) See Atonement; Christ; Forgiveness; Reconciliation; Sin .

D. Glenn Saul

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology

Definition . The meaning usually given to the word "guilt" in Christian circles today bears little relation to the biblical meaning. Recent Christian interest in the subject focuses on its psychological dimension, analyzing the causes (and cures) of the sense of guilt, which is deep-seated in all of us and paralyzes the lives of some. It would seem to be easy to distinguish between this subjective sense of debt, which may be fed by groundless fears, and the objective guilt of sinners before God, with which the Bible is concerned.

The distinction is valid but there is more overlap than first appears. The Bible is alive to the psychological effects of guilt, as can be seen, for instance, in characters like Jephthah and David: Jephthah in his horrifying violence against fellow Israelites after his daughter's death, and David in his supine attitude toward the sins of his sons. A deep feeling of guilt, even if caused by oppressive parenting, can yet have a positive effect in deepening our appreciation of our failures before God and the debt of obedience that we owe.

The Old Testament has a semitechnical term foundational for the biblical concept of guilt, and which teaches us that guilt is fundamentally a relational idea.

Guilt and Guilt Offering in the Old Testament . The Hebrew noun asam [   Jeremiah 51:5 ) and "guilt offering" (the term used in  Leviticus 5:14-19;  7:1-10 , etc.). The difference between "guilt" and "sin" is important here. Whereas the words for "sin" focus on its quality as an act or as personal failure, asam [   Genesis 26:10)—;the kind of asam [   Genesis 20:14-16 ), even though God prevented him from actually committing sin ( Genesis 20:6 ).

The legislation in  Leviticus 5:14-6:7 and   Numbers 5:5-10 makes this special quality of asam [אָשַׁם] clear. When someone incurs "guilt" toward a neighbor, full restitution must be made, plus an extra fifth. And then, in addition, a "guilt offering" must be made to the Lord, because when we sin against others and incur "indebtedness" to them, we violate the order that God prescribes for his world and his people, and have thus incurred a debt toward him also.

So an asam [   Isaiah 53:10 ).

Liability and Forgiveness in the New Testament . The New Testament has no word equivalent to asam [   Luke 15:18-19 ). But he is accepted unconditionally. In the parable of the unmerciful servant Jesus shows that we owe God an enormous debt, far greater than we could possibly repay ( Matthew 18:21-35 ). By the smallest words of hostility we make ourselves "liable for" the fires of hell ( Matthew 5:21-22 ), a debt we can never pay and remain alive (cf.  Matthew 5:26;  James 2:10 ).

The New Testament has no need for a word equivalent to asam [   Mark 10:45 ), paying our indebtedness for us.

Stephen Motyer

See also Forgiveness; Sin

Bibliography . L. Aden and D. Benner, eds., Counseling and the Human Predicament: A Study of Sin, Guilt, and Forgiveness  ; M. France, The Paradox of Guilt: A Christian Study of the Relief of Self-Hatred  ; P. Tournier, Guilt and Grace .

King James Dictionary

GUILT, n. gilt.

1. Criminality that state of a moral agent which results from his actual commission of a crime or offense, knowing it to be a crime, or violation of law. To constitute guilt there must be a moral agent enjoying freedom of will, and capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, and a wilful or intentional violation of a known law, or rule of duty. The guilt of a person exists, as soon as the crime is committed but to evince it to others, it must be proved by confession, or conviction in due course of law. Guilt renders a person a debtor to the law, as it binds him to pay a penalty in money or suffering. Guilt therefore implies both criminality and liableness to punishment. Guilt may proceed either from a positive act or breach of law, or from voluntary neglect of known duty. 2. Criminality in a political or view exposure to forfeiture or other penalty.

A ship incurs guilt by the violation of a blockade.

3. Crime offense.

Charles Buck Theological Dictionary

The state of a person justly charged with a crime; a consciousness of having done amiss.

See SIN.

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

See Sin.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

gilt  : The Christian idea of guilt involves three elements: responsibility (Greek aitı́a , "cause," depending upon a man's real freedom), blameworthiness (Latin reatus culpae , depending upon a man's knowledge and purpose) and the obligation to make good through punishment or compensation (Latin reatus poenae  ; compare Greek opheı́lēma , "debt,"   Matthew 6:12 ). In other words, in thinking of guilt we ask the questions of cause, motive and consequence, the central idea being that of the personal blameworthiness of the sinner.

I. In the Old Testament

1. The Ritualistic and Legalistic Conception

Not all of this is found at once in the Old Testament. The idea of guilt corresponds to that of righteousness or holiness. When these are ritual and legal, instead of ethical and spiritual, they will determine similarly the idea of guilt. This legalistic and ritualistic conception of guilt may first be noted. Personal blameworthiness does not need to be present. "If any one sin, and do any of the things which Yahweh hath commanded not to be done; though he knew it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity" ( Leviticus 5:17 ). The man is guilty, not because he might or should have known; he may merely have touched unwittingly the body of an unclean beast ( Leviticus 5:2 ,  Leviticus 5:3 ). The guilt is here because the law has been transgressed and must be made good (compare  Leviticus 5:15 ,  Leviticus 5:16;  Leviticus 4:2 ,  Leviticus 4:3 ,  Leviticus 4:13 ,  Leviticus 4:22 ,  Leviticus 4:27; see also  Leviticus 5:2 ,  Leviticus 5:3 ,  Leviticus 5:4 ,  Leviticus 5:17 ).

Moreover, the element of personal responsibility is sometimes lacking where guilt is assigned. The priest may sin "so as to bring guilt on the people" ( Leviticus 4:3 ). One man's wrongdoing may "cause the land to sin" ( Deuteronomy 24:4 ). Israel has sinned in Achan's greed and therefore suffers. Even when the guilty man is found, his children and his very cattle must bear the guilt and punishment with him, though there is no suggestion of their participation or even knowledge (Josh 7; compare 2 Sam 24). Here the full moral idea of sin and guilt is wanting because the idea of personality and personal responsibility has not come to its own. The individual is still merged here in the clan or nation.

The central idea in all this is not that of the individual, his responsibility, his motive, his blame. It is that of a rule and the transgression of it, which must be made good. For this reason we see the ú ideas of sin and guilt and punishment constantly passing over into each other. This may be seen by noting the use of the words whose common root is 'shm , the distinctive Hebrew term for guilt. In   Leviticus 5 to 7 in the adjective form it is rendered "guilty," in the noun as "trespass offering." In   Hosea 5:15 it seems to mean punishment (see margin, "have borne their guilt," and compare   Ezekiel 6:6 ), while in  Numbers 5:7 ,  Numbers 5:8 the idea is that of compensation (rendered "restitution for guilt").

2. Prophetic Teaching

With the prophets, the ideas of sin and righteousness come out more clearly as ethical and personal, and so we mark a similar advance in the conception of guilt. It is not ritual correctness that counts with God, incense and sacrifices and new moons and Sabbaths, but to cease to do evil, to learn to do well ( Isaiah 1 ). Thus the motive and the inner spirit come in ( Micah 6:8;  Isaiah 57:15;  Isaiah 58:1-12 ), and guilt gains a new depth and quality. At the same time the idea of personal responsibility comes. A man is to bear his own sins. The children's teeth are not to be set on edge because the fathers have eaten sour grapes ( Jeremiah 31:29 ,  Jeremiah 31:30;  Ezekiel 18:29-32;  2 Kings 14:6; compare  2 Samuel 24:17 ).

II. In the New Testament

1. With Jesus

Here as elsewhere Jesus came to fulfill. With Him it is the inner attitude of the soul that decides. It is the penitent publican who goes down justified, not the Pharisee with his long credit account ( Luke 18:9-14 ). That is why His attitude is so kindly toward some notorious sinners and so stern toward some religious leaders. The Pharisees are outwardly correct, but their spirit of bigotry and pride prevents their entering the kingdom of heaven, while the penitent harlots and publicans take it by storm.

Because it is not primarily a matter of the outward deed but of the inner spirit, Jesus marks different degrees of guilt as depending upon a man's knowledge and motive ( Luke 11:29-32;  Luke 12:47 ,  Luke 12:48;  Luke 23:34 ). And yet Jesus does not lighten the sense of guilt but rather deepens it. The strength of the Old Testament thought lay in this, that it viewed all transgression as a sin against God, since all law came from Him. This religious emphasis remains with Jesus ( Luke 15:21; compare  Psalm 51:4 ). But with Jesus God is far more than a giver of rules. He gives Himself. And so the guilt is the deeper because the sin is against this love and mercy and fellowship which God offers us. Jesus shows us the final depth of evil in sin. Here comes the New Testament interpretation of the cross, which shows it on the one hand as the measure of God's love in the free gift of His Son, and on the other as the measure of man's guilt whose sin wrought this and made it necessary.

2. With Paul

Paul also recognizes differences of degree in guilt, the quality of blameworthiness which is not simply determined by looking at the outward transgression ( Acts 17:30;  Ephesians 4:18;  Romans 2:9;  Romans 3:26;  Romans 5:13;  Romans 7:13 ). He, too, looks within to decide the question of guilt ( Romans 14:23 ). But sin is not a matter of single acts or choices with Paul. He sees it as a power that comes to rule a man's life and that rules in the race. The question therefore arises, Does Paul think of guilt also as native, as belonging to man because man is a part of the race? Here it can merely be pointed out that  Romans 5:12-21 does not necessarily involve this. Paul is not discussing whether all men committed sin in Adam's fall, or whether all are guilty by virtue of their very place in a race that is sinful. It is not the question of guilt in fact or degree, but merely the fact that through one man men are now made righteous as before through one sin came upon them all. This no more involves native guilt as a non-ethical conception than it does the idea that the righteousness through Christ is merely forensic and non-ethical. Paul is simply passing over the other elements to assert one fact. Rom 1 suggests how Paul looked at universal sin as involving guilt because universal knowledge and choice entered in. See also Sin .

Literature

Mueller, Christian Doctrine of Sin , I, 193-267; Schultz, Old Testament Theology  ; Kaehler, article "Schuld," Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche .