|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ==
| | == |
| | | |
| == Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament <ref name="term_57397" /> == | | == Fausset's Bible Dictionary <ref name="term_37345" /> == |
| <p> ‘Sin’ is a term which belongs to religion. [[ Moral]] evil as an injury done by man to himself is vice, as an offence against human society crime, but as affecting his relation to [[God]] sin. But even here we may distinguish a more distinctively religious from the more general moral sense. It is distrust of the goodness and grace of God as well as disobedience to the law of God as the standard of moral obligation. To be forgetful of God in one’s thoughts, to be neglectful of piety and worship towards God, is as much sin as to disregard and defy God’s commandments. It is sometimes insisted in writings of to-day, such as Tennant’s (see Literature), that sin must be conscious and voluntary distrust and disobedience; but it will appear that in the [[Scriptures]] the emphasis on the subjective consciousness is secondary. [[Sin]] includes departure from, or failure to reach, the standard of religious and moral obligation for man determined by the nature and purpose of God; the stress falls more on the objective reality-the difference between what man is and what he should be, God being what He is. While it might be convenient to restrict the term ‘sin’ to conscious, voluntary acts, yet the wider usage is too deeply rooted in religious thought to be easily displaced. It must be insisted, however, that moral accountability, personal blameworthiness, attaches to the conscious and voluntary acts alone, even although, as regards the consequences of evil, human solidarity is such that the innocent may suffer with the guilty. </p> <p> The term ‘guilt’ is one that requires careful definition. It is not punishment; for punishment consists of all the evil consequences of sin, which the sinner in his sense of having sinned regards as resulting from a violated moral law, or more personally as the evidences of the [[ Divine]] displeasure. This subjective consciousness is not, however, illusory, as it does correspond with and respond to a moral order and a personal will opposed to sin, which are an objective reality. [[ Guilt]] is the liability to punishment, the sinner by his act placing himself in such a relation to the moral order and the personal will of God as to expose him to the evil consequences included in his punishment. Here again our modern thought with its refinements makes distinctions which the Scriptures for the most part ignore. Can we separate, or must we identify, guilt and sense of guilt? Is there an objective fact and a subjective feeling? If sin is confined strictly to conscious and voluntary acts, then guilt, it would seem, must be measured by the sense of guilt, the blame-worthiness or evil desert that the conscience of the sinner assigns to him. If this were so, then the worse a man became, the less guilty he would be; for it is a sign of moral deterioration to lose the sense of shame in wrongdoing. </p> <p> The [[ Scripture]] approach-and surely this is the properly religious approach-to the question is from the side of God rather than of man. A man’s guilt is measured, not by his shame or sorrow, but by God’s judgment: his relation to God as affected by his sin is determined, not by his own opinion of himself, but by God’s view of him. The Divine judgment will, we may confidently believe, take due account of all the facts; the departure from, or failure to reach, the Divine standard, the moral possibility of each man as determined by his heredity, environment, and individuality, and his own moral estimate of himself-all will be included in God’s knowledge of him, and so his guilt will be determined, not by an unerring wisdom and an unfailing righteousness only, but also by an unexhausted love. Thus a man’s sense of guilt is not the measure of his guilt: for the more callous he is morally, the worse must his moral condition appear in the sight of God; and the more sensitive he is , the better must he appear to God. In the measure in which a man judges himself in penitence will he not be judged guilty by God. </p> <p> Further, in his subjective consciousness a man tends to separate himself, both in his merits and in his defects, from his fellow-men; but in objective reality men are so closely related to one another as to be involved in moral responsibility for one another. [[ Saints]] as a whole must bear the blame for many of the conditions which make the criminal; and the saint will bear in his heart as a personal sorrow and shame the sins of his fellow-men. In God’s view also the individual does not stand isolated; but the race is a unity, one in its guilt, yet also one for God’s grace. While, when necessary, we must insist on individual liberty and personal responsibility, we must not ignore the complementary truth of racial solidarity. The Scripture point of view is predominantly, if not exclusively, universal objectivity and not individual subjectivity; and unless we recognize this we shall fail to understand the apostolic teaching. </p> <p> <b> 1. St. Paul’s teaching. </b> -As the Dict. of [[ Christ]] and the Gospelsdeals with the teaching of Jesus, we are here strictly con fined to the apostolic teaching; and we must obviously begin with St. Paul. </p> <p> (a) The universality of sin.-St. Paul’s view is the distinctively religious view. Men, dependent upon God, and capable of knowing God, ‘glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks,’ but dishonoured God in their conception of Him, and in their worship (Romans 1:21); their moral deterioration followed religious perversion (Romans 1:24-25). Even in the [[Gentiles]] this involved guilt, for the sin was conscious and voluntary, as a disregard and defiance of a law written in their hearts (Romans 1:28-32, Romans 2:14-16). Not less guilty was the [[Jew]] who failed to keep the Law of the possession of which he made his boast (Romans 2:23). By such a historical induction St. [[Paul]] establishes his thesis of the universality of sin and consequent guilt, and confirms it from the Scriptures, the aim of which is to bring to all men the sense of guilt, ‘that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgement of God’ (Romans 3:19); ‘the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold down the truth in unrighteousness’ (Romans 1:18). This thesis is advanced, not for its own sake, however, but to show the need of as universal a salvation offered to mankind in Christ. </p> <p> The validity of St. Paul’s conclusion here is not affected by the correctness or otherwise of the explanation which he offers of the origin of idolatry and the immorality consequent on it. First, we must recognize the Hebraic mode of speech, which represents as direct Divine judgment what we should regard as inevitable moral consequence; and, secondly, we must to-day regard polytheism and the accompanying idolatry as seemingly inevitable stages in the development of the religious consciousness of the Divine. We may admit, however, that idolatry as St. Paul knew it in the [[Roman]] [[Empire]] was closely associated with immorality; and that [[Greek]] and Roman mythology was likely to have an adverse moral influence, as [[Plato]] in the [[Republic]] recognized. </p> <p> In affirming that sin involves guilt, exposes man to the Divine judgment, St. Paul was echoing the teaching not only of the OT and of [[Jesus]] Himself (Matthew 11:22; Matthew 23:37; Matthew 23:39) but of the universal human conscience, confirmed by the course of human history. There is a moral order in man and the world condemning and executing sentence on sin; and, if God be personally immanent in the world, we cannot distinguish that moral order from the mind and will of God. And, if God be personal, He feels as well as thinks and wills; and so we cannot altogether exclude an emotional reaction of God against sin. St. Paul’s term ‘the wrath of God’ may be allowed its full significance so long as we exclude any passion inconsistent with holy love. Thus we are here dealing, not with an outgrown superstition, but with a permanent moral and spiritual reality-man’s sin and God’s judgment, man’s need and God’s offer of salvation. </p> <p> (b) The development of sin.-From the universal fact we may turn to the individual feeling of sin. St. Paul was not merely generalizing his individual experience in his proof of the universality of sin, but it is certain that his individual experience gave emphasis to his statement. The classic passage is Romans 7:7-25, which the present writer must regard as an account of St. Paul’s own individual experience, before the grace of Christ brought him deliverance; but there is no doubt that he desires us to regard his individual experience as in greater or lesser degree common to all men. Sin is a power dwelling in man, which may for a time be latent, but which is provoked into exercise by the Law. The knowledge of the prohibition stimulates, and does not restrain, the opposition of sin to law; as the common proverb says, ‘Forbidden fruit is sweet.’ While the mind knows, approves, and delights in the law of God as holy, righteous, and good, the flesh is the seat and vehicle of sin. The ‘law in the members’ is opposed to, resists and conquers, the ‘law in the mind,’ and so the man is brought into bondage, doing what he condemns, unable to do what he approves. This passage raises three questions which must briefly be answered. </p> <p> (1) Sin as a power.-For St. Paul here as throughout chapters 5, 6, 7 sin is personified as distinct from the animal appetites, the physical impulses, and even the human will itself as dwelling in men and bringing men into bondage. It enters into the heart (Romans 7:17; Romans 7:20), works on man, using the Law itself for its ends (Romans 7:8; Romans 7:11), and enslaves him (Romans 6:6; Romans 6:17; Romans 6:20). In Christ he is freed from sin (Romans 6:18; Romans 6:22) and dies to it (Romans 6:9; Romans 6:11). As freed from and dead to sin, the [[Christian]] is not to put his members at the service of sin (Romans 6:13), and must not allow it to reign over him in his body (Romans 6:12). Is this only personification, or does St. Paul regard sin as a personal agent? As a Jew he believed in [[Satan]] and a host of evil spirits; and probably, if pressed to explain the power of sin, he would have appealed to this personal agency; but we must not assume that when he thus speaks of sin he is always thinking of Satan. Sin is for him an objective reality without being always identified with Satan (see Sanday-Headlam, International Critical Commentary, ‘Romans,’ p. 145 f.). For us the personification is suggestive in so far as we must recognize that in customs, beliefs, rites, institutions, in human society generally, there is an influence for evil that hurtfully affects the individual-what Ritschl has called the [[Kingdom]] of sin as opposed to the Kingdom of God. ‘The subject of sin, rather, is humanity as the sum of all individuals, in so far as the selfish action of each person, involving him as it does in illimitable interaction with all others, is directed in any degree whatsoever towards the opposite of the good, and leads to the association of individuals in common evil’ (Justification and Reconciliation, Eng. translation, Edinburgh, 1900, p. 335). </p> <p> (2) The flesh as the seat and vehicle of sin.-As there is in this Dictionary a separate article Flesh, the subject cannot here be fully discussed: a summary statement must suffice. The flesh is not identical with the body, animal appetite, or sensuous impulse; it is man’s whole nature, in so far as he disowns his dependence on God, opposes his will to God, and resists the influence of the [[Spirit]] of God. It is man in the aspect, not merely of creatureliness, but of wilfulness and godlessness. It is as corrupted and perverted by sin that human nature lends itself as a channel to and an instrument of sin as a power dwelling in and ruling over man. </p> <p> (3) The relation of the Law to sin.-The Law reveals sin, because it shows the opposition between the will of God and the wishes of man (Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7). The Law provokes rather than restrains sin (Romans 7:8-9; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:56): the commandment is like a challenge, which sin at once accepts. This St. Paul represents not only as the human result, but as the Divine intention (Romans 5:20, Galatians 3:19), in order that a full exposure might be made of what sin in its very nature is (Romans 7:13), so that men might be made fully aware of their need of deliverance from it (Romans 11:32). The Law fails to restrain, because of its inherent impotence (τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου, Romans 8:3), as letter and not spirit (2 Corinthians 3:6), as written on tables of stone and not on tables that are hearts of flesh (2 Corinthians 3:3; cf. Jeremiah 31:33). Thus sin as a power, finding its seat and vehicle in the flesh, not restrained but provoked by the law in the individual, brings a bondage from which the gospel offers deliverance, even as it sets a universal grace of God over against the universal sin of mankind. </p> <p> (c) The origin of sin.-What explanation can be offered of the fact of the universality of sin? How has man’s nature become so corrupted and perverted as to be described by the term ‘flesh’? How can sin be represented as a power dwelling in, ruling over, man, and bringing him into bondage? While St. Paul does not in Romans 5:12; Romans 5:21 formally offer this explanation, the passage being introduced into the argument for another purpose-to prove the greater efficacy of grace than of sin, by as much as Christ is greater than Adam-yet, as he is there dealing with his view of the introduction of sin into the world, we must regard that passage as his explanation both of sin as a power in humanity and of the flesh; for it is not likely that he would leave sin in the race and sin in the individual unconnected. In the articleFall the subject has already been discussed; here only the considerations bearing immediately on the subject of sin need be mentioned. The relation of the race to [[Adam]] may be conceived as two-fold: (1) a participation in guilt; (2) an inheritance of a sinful disposition. </p> <p> (1) [[Participation]] in guilt.-St. Paul teaches that all men are involved in the penalty of Adam’s transgression, for ‘death passed unto all men’ (Romans 5:12), but he does not teach that all men are held guilty of Adam’s transgression; for (a) by a surprising change of construction and discontinuity of thought he affirms as the reason for the universality of death the actual transgression of all men ‘for that all sinned,’ and (b) he guards himself against the charge of imputing guilt when there is no conscious and voluntary transgression, by affirming that ‘sin is not imputed when there is no law’ (Romans 5:13). </p> <p> As regards (a), the clause ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον cannot mean that all sinned in Adam (‘omnes peccarunt, Adamo peccante,’ Bengel), either as the physical source or as the moral representative of the race; for ἐφʼ ᾧ most probably means ‘because.’ </p> <p> As regards (b), while St. Paul affirms that guilt is not ascribed unless there is transgression of law, as in the case of Adam, yet he asserts that nevertheless the same penalty falls on all. For him, therefore, penalty may be racial, while guilt must be personal. This statement, however, is qualified by his declaration in chs. 1 and 2 of the responsibility of the Gentiles as having an inward law. Did he really think of any period or nation as having had in this sense no law? </p> <p> (2) [[Inheritance]] of a sinful disposition.-Unless the analogy with Christ is incomplete, there must be, however, some connexion between Adam’s transgression and the actual sin of all mankind. How does St. Paul conceive that connexion? It has usually been taken for granted that he teaches that by Adam’s transgression human nature was itself infected, and that from him there descends to all men a sinful disposition. But he might mean no more than that sin as an alien power found entrance into the race, and brought each individual under its dominion. He may regard social rather than physical heredity (to apply a modern distinction) as the channel of the transmission and diffusion of sin. In view, however, of his teaching about the ‘flesh,’ it is more probable that he did regard human nature as corrupted and perverted; and, in the absence of any other explanation, we seem warranted in assuming that he did connect this fact with the Fall. We must beware, however, of ascribing to him such definite doctrines as those of ‘original sin’ and ‘total depravity’; for later thought has probably read into his words more than was clearly present to his own mind. </p> <p> It cannot be shown that St. Paul regarded all men as involved In Adam’s guilt, either because of their physical descent from him or of any federal relation to him, even although all men are subject to the penalty of death. He does not explain how there is liability to the penalty without culpability for the offence; but he does regard mankind as guilty in the first sense, and not guilty (except by personal transgression) in the second sense. [[Later]] theology blurred this distinction in teaching ‘original sin’ in both sense. Nor is there any ground for holding that he ascribed to Adam that moral endowment which this theology assigned to him. He does not, as is sometimes maintained, represent Adam himself as subject to the flesh in the same way as are his descendants; for 1 Corinthians 15:47 contrasts not the unfallen Adam with the pre-existent Christ, but the fallen Adam with the [[Risen]] Christ; but be does emphasize the voluntary character of Adam’s act: it was disobedience (Romans 5:19). [[Could]] he have assigned to it the moral significance he does, had he thought of Adam as in the hopeless and helpless bondage described in Romans 7:7-25? This passage, however, represents that bondage not as directly inherited, but as resulting in the individual from a moral development, in which sin uses the flesh to bring it about. Thus he does not teach total depravity as an inheritance. </p> <p> (d) The penalty of sin.-St. Paul undoubtedly teaches that death is the penalty of sin (Romans 5:12). While he includes physical dissolution, death means more for him (Romans 6:21-23); it has a moral and religious content; it is [[Judgment]] and doom; it is invested with dread and darkness by man’s sense of sin (1 Corinthians 15:56). While we cannot in the light of our modern knowledge regard physical dissolution, as St. Paul regarded it, as the penalty of sin (for it appears to us a natural necessity), yet, viewing death in its totality, as he did, we may still maintain that it is sin that gives it the character of an evil to be dreaded. The connexion between death and sin, St. Paul affirms, is not that of effect and cause, but of penalty and transgression (Romans 5:14), or wages and work (Romans 6:23); for he thinks not of a natural sequence, but of a deserved sentence (Romans 2:5). He approaches our modes of thought more closely, however, in the analogy of sowing and reaping (Galatians 6:8; cf. James 1:15). </p> <p> (e) The deliverance from sin.-This is for St. Paul two-fold: it is an annulling of the guilt and removal of the penalty of sin, as well as a destruction of the power of sin. Sin is an act of disobedience (Romans 5:19), committed against God (Romans 1:21) and His Law (Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7), which involves personal responsibility (Romans 1:20), ill desert (Romans 13:2), and the Divine condemnation (Romans 5:15; Romans 5:18). This condemnation is expressed in the penalty of death, which is not, as we have just seen, a natural consequence, but a Divine appointment, an expression of God’s wrath against sin (Romans 1:18, Ephesians 5:6, Colossians 3:6). The work of Christ as an act of obedience (Romans 5:19) reversed this condemnation (Romans 8:1), and reconciled men with God (Romans 5:10, 2 Corinthians 5:18; 2 Corinthians 5:20). We shall miss what is central for St. Paul if we ignore this objective atonement of Christ for the race, and confine our regard, as we tend to-day to do, to the subjective influence of Christ in destroying sin’s power in the individual. </p> <p> That inward change St. Paul describes as dying to sin, being buried with Christ through baptism into death, a crucifixion or dying with Christ, a resurrection and living with Christ (Romans 6:1-11, Ephesians 2:1-10). By this he does not mean insensibility to temptation, or cessation from struggle, but a deliverance from the impotence felt in bondage to sin, and a confidence of victory through Christ. Nor does he mean a process completed in man by Divine power apart from his effort; for believers are to reckon themselves to be not only dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus. But they are not to let sin reign in their mortal selves, nor are they to present their members unto sin (Romans 6:11-13); and they are to mortify by the spirit the deeds of the body (Romans 8:13; cf. Colossians 3:5). Thus St. Paul knows from his own personal experience a complete remedy for the universal fatal disease of sin; and all that in his letters he presents regarding this subject is presented that he may commend the gospel to men, as the sole, sufficient, Divine provision for the universal dominant human necessity. </p> <p> <b> 2. St. John’s teaching. </b> -(a) In the Fourth [[Gospel]] sin is primarily represented as unbelief, the rejection of Christ (John 1:11; John 16:9), aggravated by the pretension of knowledge (John 9:41). As Christ is one with God, this involves hatred of the Father (John 15:24). The choice reveals the real disposition (John 3:19-21), and so justly incurs judgment. Sin is a slavery (John 8:34). One notable contribution to the doctrine of sin is the denial of the invariable connexion of sin and suffering (John 9:3), although it is not denied (John 5:14) that often there is a connexion. </p> <p> In the First [[Epistle]] sin is described as lawlessness (1 John 3:4, ἀνομία) and unrighteousness (1 John 5:17, ἀδικία); and, as love is the supreme commandment, hatred is especially condemned (1 John 3:12). Further, as righteousness is identified with truth, sin is equivalent to falsehood (1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:20); but this is not an intellectualist view, as truth has a moral and spiritual content; it is the Divine reality revealed to men in Christ. On the one hand, Christ is Himself sinless, and was manifested to take away sins and to destroy the works of the [[Devil]] (1 John 3:5; 1 John 3:8); and, on the other hand, believers by abiding in Him are kept from sin (1 John 3:6), because the [[Evil]] One cannot touch them (1 John 5:18). </p> <p> Hence arises what has been called the paradox of the Epistle. On the one hand, the reality of the sinfulness even of believers is insisted on; to deny sinfulness is self-deception, and even charging God with falsehood (1 John 1:8; 1 John 1:10), and confession is the condition of forgiveness and cleansing (1 John 1:9). On the other hand, the impossibility of believers sinning is asserted; whoever abides in Christ cannot sin (1 John 3:6), the begotten of God cannot sin (1 John 3:9), because kept by Christ and untouched by the Evil One (1 John 5:18). The explanation is that each of these declarations is directed against a different form of error. Of the first declaration Westcott says: ‘St. John therefore considers the three false views which man is tempted to take of his position. He may deny the reality of sin (6, 7), or his responsibility for sin (8, 9), or the fact of sin in his own case (10). By doing this he makes fellowship with God, as He has been made known, impossible for himself. On the other hand, God has made provision for the realisation of fellowship between Himself and man in spite of sin’ (The [[Epistles]] of St. John, 1883, p. 17). [[Regarding]] the second declaration, he offers this explanation: ‘True fellowship with Christ, Who is absolutely sinless, is necessarily inconsistent with sin; and, yet further, the practice of sin excludes the reality of a professed knowledge of Christ’ (ib., p. 101). What the [[Apostle]] is referring to is not single acts of sin, due to human weakness, but the deliberate continuance in sin on the assumption that the relation to God is not, and cannot be, affected thereby. The one class of errorists denied the actuality of sin, the other declared that even the habit of sin did not deprive the believer of the blessings of the Christian salvation. </p> <p> (b) [[Another]] contribution to the doctrine may be found in the conception of a sin unto death (1 John 5:16), for which intercession is not forbidden, and yet cannot be urged. The reference is not to any particular act, but rather to any act of such a character as to separate the soul from Christ and the salvation in Him. It may be compared to the sin against the [[Holy]] [[Ghost]] (Mark 3:29) and also to the sin of apostasy (Hebrews 6:4-5; Hebrews 10:26). </p> <p> (c) It must be noticed that in this Epistle there is a very marked emphasis on Satan as the source of man’s sin. The Devil has sinned from the beginning, and he that sinneth is of the Devil (1 John 3:8), and the whole world lieth in the Evil One (1 John 5:19; cf. John 8:44, where the Devil is described as a murderer and a liar). </p> <p> <b> 3. St. James’s teaching. </b> -(a) St. James offers us, as does St. Paul, although much more briefly, a psychological account of the development of sin in the individual. Having asserted the blessedness of enduring temptation, he denies that God does or can tempt (James 1:12-13). [[Temptation]] arises when a man is drawn away and enticed by his desire (ἐπιθυμία). This desire need not itself be evil, but it acquires a sinful character when indulged in opposition to the higher law of duty. This desire has sin as its offspring, and this sin full grown is in turn the parent of death (James 1:14-15). This natural analogy, with which may be compared St. Paul’s figure of sowing and reaping (Galatians 6:8), does not, in suggesting a necessary sequence of desire, sin, and death, exclude either man’s free will in consenting to the desire or God’s free will in decreeing death as the penalty of sin. Nor does the passage teach that every sin must issue in death. The sin must reach its full development before death is its result. We can also here compare 1 John 5:16, ‘a sin unto death.’ As St. James teaches the possibility of conversion (James 5:19-20) and enjoins the confession of sin and mutual intercession for forgiveness (James 5:16), this development from sin unto death may be arrested by Divine grace. The sequence is a possibility, not a necessity. </p> <p> (b) What appears at first sight an echo of Rabbinic teaching in James 2:10, that stumbling in one point makes a man guilty of all the law, proves on closer scrutiny entirely Christian. The law is not the [[Mosaic]] Law, but ‘the perfect law,’ ‘the law of liberty’ (James 1:25), and the ‘royal law’ is, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ (James 2:8); and assuredly the respect of persons condemned is entirely inconsistent with that law. [[Stumbling]] in such a point is a violation of the principle of the law. As has often been pointed out, [[Jewish]] as St. James is, no other NT writer has so completely assimilated the teaching of Jesus in the [[Sermon]] on the Mount; and it is from the inwardness of Jesus’ standpoint, and not the externality of Rabbinism, that such a saying is to be judged. </p> <p> (c) In one respect St. James does not, however, closely follow the teaching of Jesus. He assumes the probability of a connexion between sickness and sin (James 5:15), and enjoins not only prayer and anointing with oil in the name of the Lord for the healing of the disease, but also personal confession and mutual intercession for the forgiveness of the sin (James 5:14-16). For sin involves Divine judgment (James 4:12, James 5:9; James 5:12). There is a friendship with the world which is enmity against God (James 4:4). As for the other NT writers, there is in the background of St. James’s thought about sin the belief in Satan and demons (James 3:15). </p> <p> <b> 4. Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews. </b> -(a) The standpoint of Hebrews must be understood if the teaching on sin is to be understood. The Epistle is primarily concerned with man’s access to God, and sin, as guilt involving God’s judgment, bars man’s approach. </p> <p> In the New [[Covenant]] there is no more conscience of sins, for the worshippers have been once cleansed, as they could not be by the sacrifices of the Law (Hebrews 10:1-2). While the Law failed to take away sins (v. 11), and could not, as touching the conscience, make the worshippers perfect (Hebrews 9:9), the blood of Jesus, the new and living Way, gives boldness to enter the holy place of fellowship with God (Hebrews 10:20), ‘having obtained for us eternal redemption’ (Hebrews 9:12). On account of this sacrifice offered once for all, there is remission of sins (Hebrews 10:18) and believers are sanctified (not in the sense of being made holy, but as set apart for God’s service, Hebrews 10:10). This guilt, which Christ by His atonement removes as all the propitiatory rites of the Old Covenant had failed to do, involves man in the fear of death with consequent bondage (Hebrews 2:15) and an evil conscience (Hebrews 10:22), by which is meant the sense of guilt. The writer is thus concerned not with the subjective aspect of sin as individual bondage to the power of sin, as is St. Paul in Romans 7:7-25, but with the objective aspect of God’s judgment on sin, and the echo of that judgment in man’s sense of guilt and fear of death. </p> <p> (b) The sin which he especially warns against is the rejection of this Divine provision for the removal of sin in Christ. ‘How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?’ (Hebrews 2:3). There are two passages of very solemn warning, of even terrible severity (Hebrews 6:4-6, Hebrews 10:26; Heb_10:29). Those who have been guilty of apostasy, having yielded to ‘an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God’ (Hebrews 3:12), cannot be renewed ‘unto repentance,’ as they have crucified ‘to themselves the [[Son]] of God afresh, and put him to an open shame’ (Hebrews 6:6): for them ‘there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgement,’ because they have ‘trodden under foot the Son of God, and have counted the blood of the covenant … an unholy thing, and have done despite unto the Spirit of grace’ (Hebrews 10:26-29). G. B. Stevens’ interpretation of the two passages may be added: ‘If a man deliberately and wilfully deserts Christ, he will find no other Saviour; there remains no sacrifice for sins (Hebrews 10:26) except that which Christ has made. The Old [[Testament]] offerings are powerless to save; one who refuses to be saved by Christ refuses to be saved at all. For him who turns away from Christ and determines to seek salvation elsewhere, there can be only disappointment and failure. While such an attitude of refusal and contempt lasts, there is no possibility of recovery for those who assume it. But this impossibility is not an absolute but a relative one; it is an impossibility which lies within the limits of the supposition made in the context, namely, that of a renunciation of Christ. Nothing is said against the possibility of recovery to God’s favor whenever one ceases from such a contempt of Christ and returns to him as the one only Saviour’ (The [[Theology]] of the NT, Edinburgh, 1899, pp. 521-522). </p> <p> (c) Unlike St. James, the author of this Epistle does not connect suffering with sin as its penalty, but urges his readers to regard their afflictions as fatherly chastisement (Hebrews 12:5; Hebrews 12:13), for Christ Himself was perfected by suffering Hebrews 12:1-3; cf. James 2:10, James 4:15). </p> <p> <b> 5. St. Peter’s teaching. </b> -There is nothing distinctive about the teaching of St. Peter in the First Epistle. He warns his readers, ‘as sojourners and pilgrims, to abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul’ (1 Peter 2:11). He describes the Christian redemption as from the ‘vain manner of life handed down from your fathers’ (1 Peter 1:18). Christ’s atonement for sin by substitution is distinctly taught: ‘he bare our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness’ (1 Peter 2:24); and he ‘suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God’ (1 Peter 3:18). In sin he sees a personal agency, ‘Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour’ (1 Peter 5:8). </p> <p> In the Second Epistle (and also in Jude) the demonology is still more pronounced. The rebellion in heaven against God, and the expulsion of the rebels to hell (2 Peter 2:4, Judges 1:6)-this is the ultimate cause of the sin in the world, on which the Divine judgment by fire will fall (2 Peter 3:7; 2 Peter 3:12). </p> <p> <b> 6. [[Apocalyptic]] teaching. </b> -A vivid anticipation of this last judgment pervades the Revelation (Revelation 6:10; Revelation 15:1; Revelation 20:12): God will at last triumph over sin. But into the detailed account of that victory it is not necessary here to enter, as it belongs to eschatology (q.v.[Note: .v. quod vide, which see.]). </p> <p> Summary.-It will be useful, having thus passed the different apostolic writers in review, to attempt a more systematic statement of the apostolic teaching. In the background there is the Jewish demonology and eschatology, although it would be a mistake so to emphasize the personal agency of Satan as to give the impression that sin was always thought of in this connexion. St. Paul distinctly personifies sin as a power; and we must recognize this personification as a characteristic feature of his teaching. In accordance with Jewish belief also, the entrance of sin and its penalty death into the race is connected with the [[Fall]] of Adam. A morally defective nature is not ascribed to Adam; and such moral freedom and responsibility are assigned to him as make his transgression an act of disobedience deserving punishment. The whole race is subject to the penalty of death; but it is not taught that the guilt of his sin is imputed as personal culpability to his descendants, for the sin of all is affirmed, and imputation of sin, where there is no law, is denied. The assumption that, when there is no outward law, there is an inward, however, deprives the latter statement of its significance. While St. Paul does thus connect the death of all with the sin of all, it would be quite in accord with Jewish thought if he regarded all men as guilty in the sense of liable to the penalty of death, while not guilty as personally culpable for voluntary transgression of known law. It is very probable, if not altogether certain, that he did connect the perversion and corruption of human nature, which he indicates in the use of the term ‘flesh,’ with the sin of Adam by physical heredity; for it is not likely that he left this fact unexplained, or had another explanation of it than that which he gives of the introduction of sin. While the use of the term ‘flesh’ in this special sense is peculiar to St. Paul, St. James indicates that the desires of man often issue in sin. All the apostolic writings agree in recognizing the universality of human sinfulness, although St. Paul alone gives a proof of it. The possibility of the process of sin going so far that no recovery is possible is recognized by St. John in his reference to the sin unto death, and by the Epistle to the Hebrews in its warnings against apostasy. The Law fails to restrain, it even provokes, sin; and the gospel alone offers an effective deliverance from sin. The worst sin is the unbelief that rejects the sole means of salvation from sin. For all sin there is judgment; but the severest judgment falls on the neglect of the offered salvation. In Christ there is both the forgiveness of sin and the victory over the power of sin. While actually the conflict with sin still continues in the believer, ideally, according to St. Paul, he is dead to sin as crucified with Christ, or, according to St. John, he cannot sin, for he is kept by Christ. While the Epistle to the Hebrews specially emphasizes the objective aspect of sin as guilt rather than the subjective aspect as weakness, in the NT generally the need of atonement for the guilt is probably even more insisted on than the need of deliverance from weakness. The doctrine of sin is everywhere presented, not for its own sake, but as the dark background on which shines the more brightly the glory of the gospel of the grace of God. </p> <p> While we cannot subject Christian faith to-day to Jewish eschatology, demonology, psychology, or anthropology, even on the authority of a Christian apostle, and while the apostolic doctrine must in these respects at least be modified for our thought, yet, as it rests on a real moral and religious experience, such truths as the universality of sinfulness in the race, the reality of the moral bondage of the individual, the certainty of future judgment on persistent transgression, the necessity of forgiveness and deliverance, the sufficiency of the grace of God for salvation, will find confirmation from the moral conscience and the religious consciousness wherever there has been the obedience of faith to the Divine revelation and human redemption in Christ Jesus. To most modern thought the apostolic emphasis on these truths seems disproportionate and exaggerated; but, whatever difference of terms and even of ideas there may have been between the disciples and the Master, they did not take sin more seriously than did He who gave His life a ransom for many, and who in His own blood instituted the New Covenant unto the remission of sins. </p> <p> Literature.-The standard books in NT Theology and Christian doctrine; commentaries on the apostolic writings such as W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, International Critical Commentary, ‘Romans,’ Edinburgh, 1902; B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1889, The Epistles of St. John, do., 1883; J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James 3, do., 1910; H. St. J. Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, do., 1900; J. Laidlaw, The [[Bible]] [[Doctrine]] of Man, new ed., Edinburgh, 1895; J. S. Candlish, The Biblical Doctrine of Sin, do., 1893; F. R. Tennant, The [[Origin]] and Propagation of Sin2, Cambridge, 1906, The Fall and [[Original]] Sin, do., 1903, The Concept of Sin, do., 1912; H. W. Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man, Edinburgh, 1911; F. J. Hall, [[Evolution]] and the Fall, London, 1910; A. Ritschl, [[Die]] christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung (Eng. translation, The Christian Doctrine of [[Justification]] and Reconciliation, Edinburgh, 1900) . </p> <p> A. E. Garvie. </p> | | <p> [[ Viewed]] as chatha ', "coming short of our true end, " the glory of [[God]] (Romans 3:23), literally, "missing the mark"; [[Greek]] hamartanoo . 'awen , "vanity," "nothingness"; after all the scheming and labour bestowed on sin nothing comes of it. "Clouds without water" (Judges 1:12; Proverbs 22:8; Jeremiah 2:5; Romans 8:20). Ρesha' "rebellion", namely, against God as our rightful king. Rasha' "wickedness, " related to rash "restlessness"; out of God all must be unrest (Isaiah 57:20-21); "wandering stars" (Judges 1:13). Μaal , "shuffling violation of duty," "prevarication" (1 Chronicles 10:13). 'aashaam , "guilt, " incurring punishment and needing atonement, Ra , "ill," "ruin," the same word for "badness" and "calamity" literally, breaking in pieces. Αwal , "evil, " "perversity. " </p> <p> Αmal , "travail"; sin is weary work (Habakkuk 2:13). Αvah , "crookedness," "wrong," a distortion of our nature, disturbing our moral balance. Shagah , "error." abar , "transgression through anger"; "sin is the transgression of the law," i.e. God's will (1 John 3:4). [[ Sin]] is a degeneracy from original good, not an original existence, creation, or generation; not by the Creator's action, but by the creature's defection (Ecclesiastes 7:29). As God is love, holiness is resemblance to Him, love to Him and His creatures, and conformity to His will. [[ Selfishness]] is the root of sin, it sets up self and self will instead of God and God's will. The origination of man's sin was not of himself, but from Satan's deceit; otherwise man's sin would be devilish and ineradicable. But as it is we may be delivered. This is the foundation of our redemption by Christ. (See REDEMPTION; SAVIOUR; ATONEMENT. ) </p> <p> [[ Original]] sin is as an hereditary disease, descending from the first transgressor downward (Psalms 51:5). National sins are punished in this world, as nations have no life beyond the grave (Proverbs 14: 34). The punishment of the individual's sins are remedial, disciplinary, and deterrent in this world; and judicially retributive in the world to come. (On eternal punishment, see HELL.) The Greek aionios represents the [[Hebrew]] olam and ad; olam , "hidden", "unlimited duration"; ad , applied to God's "eternity" and "the future duration" of the good and destruction of the wicked (Psalms 9:5; Psalms 83:17; Psalms 92:7). The objections are: </p> <p> 1. That, the length of punishment is out of all proportion with the time of sin. But the duration of sin is no criterion of the duration of punishment: a fire burns in a few minutes records thereby lost for ever; a murder committed in a minute entails cutting off from life for ever; one act of rebellion entails perpetual banishment from the king. </p> <p> 2. That the sinner's eternal punishment would be Satan's eternal triumph. But [[ Satan]] has had his triumph in bringing sin and death into the world; his sharing the sinner's eternal punishment will be the reverse of a triumph; the abiding punishment of the lost will be a standing witness of God's holy hatred of sin, and a preservative against any future rebellion. </p> <p> 3. That the eternity of punishment involves the eternity of sin. But this, if true, would be no more inconsistent with God's character than His permission of it for a time; but probably, as the saved will be delivered from the possibility of sinning by being raised above the sphere of evil, so the lost will be incapable of sinning any more in the sense of a moral or immoral choice by sinking below the sphere of good. </p> <p> 4. That eternal vengeance is inconsistent with God's gospel revelation of Himself as love. But the New [[ Testament]] abounds in statements of judicial vengeance being exercised by God (Romans 12:19; Hebrews 10:30; 1 Thessalonians 4:6; 2 Thessalonians 1:8). </p> |
| | | |
| == Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology <ref name="term_18241" /> == | | == Charles Spurgeon's Illustration Collection <ref name="term_76086" /> == |
| <p> [[Sin]] is a riddle, a mystery, a reality that eludes definition and comprehension. Perhaps we most often think of sin as wrongdoing or transgression of God's law. Sin includes a failure to do what is right. But sin also offends people; it is violence and lovelessness toward other people, and ultimately, rebellion against God. Further, the [[Bible]] teaches that sin involves a condition in which the heart is corrupted and inclined toward evil. The concept of sin is complex, and the terminology large and varied so that it may be best to look at the reality of sin in the [[Pentateuch]] first, then reflect theologically. </p> <p> <i> The History of Sin </i> . In the biblical world sin is, from its first appearance, tragic and mysterious. It is tragic because it represents a fall from the high original status of humankind. [[Created]] in God's image, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] are good but immature, fine but breakable, like glass dishes. They are without flaw, yet capable of marring themselves. [[Satan]] uses a serpent to tempt Eve and Adam, first to question God, then to rebel against him. First, Satan introduces doubts about God's authority and goodness. "Did [[God]] really say, You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" (Genesis 3:1 ). He invites Eve to consider how the fruit of the tree of knowledge is good for food and for knowledge. We see the tendency of sin to begin with a subtle appeal to something attractive and good in itself, to an act that is somehow plausible and directed toward some good end. </p> <p> [[Throughout]] the Bible almost every sin reaches for things with some intrinsic value, such as security, knowledge, peace, pleasure, or a good name. But behind the appeal to something good, sin ultimately involves a raw confrontation between obedience and rebellion. Will Adam and Eve heed their impressions or God's instructions? Will they listen to a creature or the Creator? Will they serve God or themselves? Who will judge what is right, God or humans? Who will see to the results? Ultimately, by taking the position of arbiter between the conflicting counsel of God and the serpent, Eve and Adam have already elevated themselves over God and rebelled against him. </p> <p> Here too the first sins disclose the essence of later sins. Sin involves the refusal of humankind to accept its God-given position between the [[Creator]] and lower creation. It flows from decisions to reject God's way, and to steal, curse, and lie simply because that seems more attractive or reasonable. Here we approach the mystery of sin. Why would the first couple, sinless and without inclination toward sin, choose to rebel? Why would any creature presume to know more or know better than its creator? </p> <p> Adam and Eve become sinners by a historical act. The principal effects of sin are alienation from God, from others, from oneself, and from creation. They emerge almost at once. Alienation from God lead Adam and Eve to fear and flee from him. Alienation from each other and themselves shows in their shame (awareness of nakedness) and blame shifting. Adam Acts out all three alienations at once when, in response to God's questions, he excuses himself by blaming both Eve and God for his sin: "The woman you put here with meshe gave me some fruit" (3:12). The sentence God pronounces upon sin includes grace (3:15) and suggests that he retains sovereign control over his creation even in its rebellion, but it also establishes our alienation from nature in the curse upon childbearing, work, and creation itself (3:14-19). After the curse, God graciously clothes the first couple, but he also expels them from the garden (3:21-24). He graciously permits them to reproduce, but death enters human experience a short time later (4:1,8; 5:5-31). These events prove the vanity and futility of sin. Adam and Eve seek new freedoms and dignity, but sin robs them of what they have; seeking advantage, they experience great losses. </p> <p> [[Genesis]] and Romans teach that Adam and Eve did not sin for themselves alone, but, from their privileged position as the first, originally sinless couple, act as representatives for the human race. Since then sin, sinfulness, and the consequences of sin have marred all. Every child of Adam enters a race marked by sin, condemnation, and death (Romans 5:12-21 ). These traits become theirs both by heritage and, as they grow into accountability, by personal choice, as Cain's slaughter of [[Abel]] quickly shows. </p> <p> In Cain's sin we have an early hint of the virulence and intractability of sin. [[Whereas]] Satan prompted Adam and Eve to sin, God himself cannot talk [[Cain]] out of it (Genesis 3:1-5; 4:6 ). While sin was external to Adam and Eve, it appears to spring up spontaneously from within Cain; it is a wild force in him, which he ought to master lest it devour him (4:7). Sin is also becoming more aggravated: it is premeditated, it begins in the setting of worship, and it directly harms a brother, who deserves love. After his sin, far from manifesting guilt or remorse, Cain confesses nothing, refuses to repent, and chides God for the harshness of his punishments (4:5-14). Cain's sin and impenitence foreshadow much of the future course of sin both within and without the Bible. </p> <p> Genesis 4-11 traces the development of sin. It becomes proud and deliberate (4:23-24), yet the line of Cain, the line of sinners, remains human and fulfills the mandate to fill and subdue the earth. Indeed, perhaps Cain's line does better in the cultural arena, although those who make bronze and iron tools also fashion weapons. Eventually, sin so pervades the world that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart is only evil all the time ( Genesis 6:5; 8:21 ). Consequently, the Lord purges the earth of evil through the flood. When sin threatens to reassert itself in both direct disobedience and idolatry, God reveals his new intention to restrain sin by confusing human language at Babel: better that humanity be divided than that it stand together in rebellion against God. </p> <p> Genesis 12-50 illustrates that sin plagues even the people of God, as members of the covenant family manipulate, betray, lie to, and deceive one another. The history [[Moses]] recounts also shows that punishment naturally follows, or is built into iniquity. Scheming [[Rebekah]] never sees her favorite son again; [[Jacob]] tastes the bitterness of deceit through Laban; Jacob's sons suffer for their sin against Joseph. As Proverbs 5:22 says, "The evil deeds of a wicked man ensnare him; the cords of his sin hold him fast." </p> <p> Exodus reveals that sin not only brings suffering and punishment, but also violates the law of the Lord, Israel's holy redeemer and king. At [[Sinai]] [[Israel]] learned that sin is transgression of God's law; it is behavior that trespasses onto forbidden territory (Romans 4:15 ). The law also labels sin and unmasks it. One can sin without knowing it, but the law makes such ignorance less common. The [[Mosaic]] law emphasizes the external character of sin, but the laws that command Israel to love God and forbid it to worship idols or covet show that sin is internal too. Paradoxically, the law sometimes prompts sin, [[Paul]] says (Romans 7:7-13 ). [[Upon]] seeing that something is forbidden, desire to do it rises up. This perverse reaction reminds us that the root of sin is sinfulness and rebellion against God (Romans 7:7-25 ). </p> <p> The sacrifices and rituals for cleansing listed in the Pentateuch remind us of the gravity of sin. Transgressions are more than mistakes. The Bible never dismisses a sin simply because it was done by someone young or ignorant, or because it was done some time ago. Sin pollutes the sinner, and the law requires that the pollution be removed. One chief motive of the penal code is to remove evil from the land (Deuteronomy 13:5 , quoted in 1 Corinthians 5:13 ). Sin also offends God, and the law requires atonement through sacrifices, in many of which a victim gives its life blood for an atonement. </p> <p> <i> The Biblical Terminology of Sin </i> . The vast terminology, within its biblical contexts, suggests that sin has three aspects: disobedience to or breach of law, violation of relationships with people, and rebellion against God, which is the most basic concept. Risking oversimplification, among the most common [[Hebrew]] terms, <i> hattat </i> [חֶטְאָה חָטָאחָטָא] means a missing of a standard, mark, or goal; <i> pesa </i> [פָּשַׂק] means the breach of a relationship or rebellion; <i> awon </i> [עָוֹן] means perverseness; <i> segagah </i> [שְׁגָגָה] signifies error or mistake; <i> resa </i> [שְׁגָגָה] means godlessness, injustice, and wickedness; and <i> amal </i> [עָמָל], when it refers to sin, means mischief or oppression. The most common [[Greek]] term is <i> hamartia </i> [Ἁμαρτία], a word often personified in the New Testament, and signifying offenses against laws, people, or God. <i> Paraptoma </i> [Παράπτωμα] is another general term for offenses or lapses. <i> Adikia </i> [Ἀδικία] is a more narrow and legal word, describing unrighteousness and unjust deeds. <i> Parabasis </i> [Παράβασις] signifies trespass or transgression of law; <i> asebeia </i> [Ἀσέβεια] means godlessness or impiety; and <i> anomia </i> [Ἀνομία] means lawlessness. The Bible typically describes sin negatively. It is law <i> less </i> ness, <i> dis </i> obedience, <i> im </i> piety, <i> un </i> belief, <i> dis </i> trust, darkness as opposed to light, a falling away as opposed to standing firm, weakness not strength. It is <i> un </i> righteousness, faith <i> less </i> ness. </p> <p> <i> The Biblical [[Theology]] of Sin </i> . The historical and prophetic books of the Old [[Testament]] illustrate the character of sin under these terms. From Judges to Kings, we see that Israel forsook the Lord who had brought them out of [[Egypt]] and established a covenant with them. They followed and worshiped the gods of the nations around them (Judges 2:10-13 ). Sometimes they served the Baals with singleness of purpose, filling [[Jerusalem]] with idols, and lawlessness reigned (Ahab, Ahaz, and Manasseh). The sin of human sacrifice followed in the reigns of such kings (2 Kings 21:6 ). The existence of human sacrifice underscores the depth and gravity of sin. People can become so perverted, so self-deceived, that they perform the most unnatural and heartless crimes, thinking them to be worship. Isaiah rightly says they "call evil good and good evil" (5:20). [[Later]] the Pharisees, utterly sincere, yet hypocritical because self-deceived, would revive this sin by killing not their children, but their maker, and calling it an act of service to God. </p> <p> Many kings compounded their sin by rejecting and sometimes persecuting the prophets who pressed God's covenantal claims. [[Ahaz]] even spurned God's free offer of deliverance from invasion; he thought he had arranged his own deliverance through an alliance with [[Assyria]] and its gods. Not all kings were so crass; many tried to serve the Lord as they chose, in forbidden manners (Jeroboam I, Jehu, and other northern kings). Others attempted to serve God and the Baals at once (Solomon, the final kings of Judah, and many northern kings). The kings in question may have called it diplomacy; the prophets called it adultery. </p> <p> Other prophets decried the social character of sin: "They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed" (Amos 2:6-7 ). If sin is lack of love for God, it is also hate or indifference toward fellow humans. </p> <p> The history of Israel illustrates how impenitence compounds sin. [[Saul]] magnified his sins by repenting superficially at best (1 Samuel 13:11-12; 15:13-21; 24:16-21 ). David, by contrast, repented of his sin with Bathsheba, without excuses or reservations (2 Samuel 12:13 ). Sadly, true repentance was the exception in Israel's history. God prompted Israel to repent by sending adversityempty stomachs, drought, plague, warfare, and other curses for disobediencebut Israel would not turn back. Later, the Lord wooed Israel with food, clothing, oil, and new wine; he lavished silver and gold on her, but she gave "her lovers" the credit. Because she did not acknowledge that he was the giver, he swore he would remove his gifts (Hosea 2:2-13 ). </p> <p> [[Jesus]] continued the prophets' work of deepening the concept of sin in two ways. First, he said God requires more than obedience to external norms. People sin by hating, despising, and lusting even if they never act on their desires. People sin if they do the right things for the wrong reasons. [[Obedience]] that proceeds from fear of getting caught, or lack of opportunity to act on wicked desires lacks righteousness (Matthew 5:17-48 ). Second, Jesus' harsh denunciations of sin show that sin cannot be overlooked. It must be confronted, unpleasant as that may be (Matthew 18:15-20; Luke 17:3-4 ). Otherwise, the sinner dies in his sins (John 8:24; cf. James 5:19-20 ). </p> <p> Jesus also explained that sin arises from the heart. [[Bad]] trees bear bad fruit, blasphemous words spring from hearts filled with evil, and wicked men demand signs when they have already seen enough to warrant faith (Matthew 7:17-20; 12:33-39 ). Therefore, evildoing is not simply a matter of choice, rather, "Everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (John 8:34 ). </p> <p> But the [[Christ]] came not just to explain but to forgive or remove sin. His name is Jesus because he will deliver his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21; Luke 1:77 ). Thus he was a friend of sinners (Matthew 9:9-13; Luke 15:1-2 ), bestowed forgiveness of sins, and freed those suffering from its consequences (Mark 2:1-12; Luke 7:36-50 ). Jesus earned the right to his name and the right to grant forgiveness by shedding his blood on the cross for the remission of sins. The crucifixion is at once the apex of sin and the cure of sin (Acts 2:23-24 ). That the [[Son]] of God had to bear the cross to accomplish redemption shows the gravity of sin. That he rose from the dead demonstrates that sin is defeated. After his resurrection, Jesus sent out his disciples to proclaim the victory and forgiveness of sins through his name (Luke 24:47; John 20:23 ). </p> <p> Paul's theology of sin principally appears in Romans 1-8 . God is angry because of sins humans commit against him and one another (1:18-32). [[Unbelief]] is the root of sin. The failure to glorify or thank God leads to idolatry, foolishness, and degradation (1:21-25). Sometimes he permits sins to develop unimpeded, until every kind of wickedness fills the human breast (1:26-32). Paul's imaginary reader objects to this indictment in several ways (2:1-3:8). Paul replies that while not everyone sins so crudely, everyone violates standards they consider just (2:1-3). If someone professes to belong to the covenant, have knowledge, and so enjoy special standing with God, Paul asks if they live up to the knowledge they have of God's law (2:17-29). Everyone is a sinner, he concludes, and stands silent, guilty, and accountable before God (3:10-21). Paul's sin lists cover the gamut of transgressions, from murder to gossip. [[Despite]] his use of the term "flesh" ("sinful nature" in some translations), relatively few sins on the lists are sensual; most concern the mind or the tongue (Romans 1:28-32; Galatians 5:19-21 ). Like Jesus, Paul affirms that sin is an internal power, not just an act. It enslaves any whom Christ has not liberated and leads to their death (6:5-23), so that the unbeliever is incapable of pleasing God (8:5-8). Sin continues to grip even the redeemed (7:14-25). But principal deliverance from sin comes through justification by faith in Jesus, so there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (3:21-4:25; 8:1-4). The [[Spirit]] renews believers and empowers them to work out that deliverance (8:9-27). </p> <p> [[Much]] of the rest of the New Testament restates themes from the [[Gospels]] and Paul. James remarks that sin begins with evil desires (1:14; 4:1-4) and leads to death when fully grown (1:15). This and other biblical remarks suggest that iniquity gains some of its power through repetition. When an individual commits a sin, it can become, through repetition, a habit, a vice, and a character trait. When one person imitates the sins of another, wickedness can be institutionalized. Whole governments can become corrupt; whole industries can be based on deception or abuse of others. Societies can wrap themselves in a fabric of deceit. Thus one sinner encourages another and the wrong kind of friendship with the world makes one an enemy of God (James 4:4-6 ). </p> <p> The [[Book]] of Revelation also reminds us that sin involves more than individual people and Acts. In some places Satan reigns (2:13). The dragon, in his futile desire to devour the church, prompts the wicked to persecute it (12:1-17). Both government and religious leaders serve him in his wars against the saints (12:17-13:17). Revelation also depicts the end of sin. A day comes when God will condemn sin (20:11-15). Evildoers will be driven from his presence; the devil, his allies, death, and [[Hades]] will be thrown into the lake of fire (20:10-15). Then the new heavens and new earth, free of sin forever, will descend (chaps. 21-22). </p> <p> What, then, is the essence of sin? Sin has three chief aspects: breach of law, violation of relationships with people and things protected by the law, and rebellion against God. The essence of sin, therefore, is not a substance but a relationship of opposition. Sin opposes God's law and his created beings. Sin hates rather than loves, it doubts or contradicts rather than trusts and affirms, it harms and abuses rather than helps and respects. </p> <p> But sin is also a condition. The Bible teaches that there are lies and liars, sins and sinners. People can be "filled" (meaning "controlled") by hypocrisy and lawlessness (Matthew 23:28 ). God "gives some over to sin, " allowing them to wallow in every kind of wickedness (Romans 1:18-32 ). Paul, speaking of the time before their conversion, told the Ephesians, "You were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live" (2:1-2). </p> <p> This said, we have hardly defined sin, and with good reason. Sin is elusive. Sin has no substance, no independent existence. It does not even exist in the sense that love or justice do. It exists only as a parasite of the good or good things. Sin creates nothing; it abuses, perverts, spoils, and destroys the good things God has made. It has no program, no thesis; it only has an antithesis, an opposition. Sometimes wickedness is as senseless as a child who pulls the hair or punches the stomach of another, then honestly confesses, "I don't know why I did that." In some ways sin is an absence rather than a presence: it fails to listen, walks past the needy, and subsists in alienation rather than relation. </p> <p> [[Negative]] as sin is, it hides itself under the appearance of what is good. At the first temptation, sin operated under the guise of claiming good things such as food and knowledge. Even the goal of being like God is good in some ways; after all, God made the first couple in his image. Similarly, when Satan tempted Jesus, the second Adam, he offered things good in themselves: food, knowledge, and rule over the kingdoms of the earth. Sin and temptation continue to appeal to things good and desirable in themselves. [[Fornication]] promises bodily pleasure, boasting seeks honor, by breaking promises or vows people hope for release from hardship. Someone can make a persuasive defense for almost every offense. </p> <p> Yet ultimately, sin is most unreasonable. Why would Adam and Eve, well-cared-for and without propensity toward sin, rebel against God? Why would a creature want to rebel against the Creator? The prophets find Israel's rebellion absurd; even animals know better. "The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner's manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand" (Isaiah 1:3 ). </p> <p> Although negative and irrational, sin is also a power. It crouches at Cain's door, ready to devour him (Genesis 4:7 ). It compels Paul to do the evil he does not wish (Romans 7:14-20 ). It moves and is moved by demonic and societal forces. It enters the heart, so that wickedness wells up spontaneously from within (Matthew 15:17-19 ). Its stronghold is the all but instinctive tendency to put one's own interests and desires first. From the selfish heart comes rebellion, godlessness, cursing, lies, slander, envy, greed, sensuality, and pride (Matthew 12:34-37; Romans 1:18-32 ). </p> <p> Three factors compound the tragedy of sin. First, it pervades the whole person; no sphere escapes, for the very heart of the sinner is corrupt (Psalm 51:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 8:7 ). Second, evil resides in the heart of the crown of God's creation, the bearer of God's image, the one appointed to rule the world for God. The remarkable capacities of humans to think, plan, persuade, and train others enables wickedness to become clever and strong. Third, sin is proud; hence it resists God and his salvation and offers a counterfeit salvation instead (2 Thessalonians 2:2-4 ). </p> <p> Despite all its dismal qualities, sin makes one contribution. Because God chose to redeem his people from it, sin has been the stimulus for God's demonstration of his amazing patience, grace, and love (Romans 5:6-8; Galatians 2:17-20; 1 Timothy 1:15-17 ). So the study of sin need not merely grieve the Christian. From a postresurrection perspective, sin indirectly gives opportunity to praise the creating and redeeming Lord for his gracious deliverance (Romans 11:33-36 ). </p> <p> Daniel Doriani </p> <p> <i> See also </i> [[Blasphemy Against The [[Holy]] Spirit]]; [[The Fall]]; [[Guilt]] </p> <p> <i> Bibliography </i> . G. C. Berkouwer, <i> Sin </i> ; G. W. Bromiley, <i> ISBE, </i> 4:518-25; J. Calvin, <i> Institutes of the [[Christian]] [[Religion]] </i> ; C. E. B. Cranfield, <i> Romans </i> ; D. Kidner, <i> Genesis </i> ; A. Kuyper, <i> The [[Work]] of the Holy Spirit </i> . </p> | | <p> One danger of secret sin is that a man cannot commit it without being by-and-by betrayed into a public sin. If a man commit one sin, it is like the melting of the lower glacier upon the Alps, the others must follow in time. As certainly as you heap one stone upon the cairn to-day, the next day you will cast another, until the heap reared stone by stone shall become a very pyramid. See the coral insect at work, you cannot decree where it shall stay its pile. It will not build its rock as high as you please; it will not stay until an island shall be created. [[Sin]] cannot be held in with bit and bridle, it must be mortified. </p> |
| | | |
| == Vine's Expository Dictionary of OT Words <ref name="term_76534" /> == | | == Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature <ref name="term_60781" /> == |
| <p > A. Nouns. </p> <p> <em> 'Âven </em> ( אָוֶן, Strong'S #205), “iniquity; vanity; sorrow.” Some scholars believe that this term has cognates in the Arabic words <em> ‘ana </em> , (“to be fatigued, tired”) and <em> ‘aynun </em> (“weakness; sorrow; trouble”), or with the [[Hebrew]] word <em> ‘ayin </em> ( “nothingness”). This relationship would imply that <em> 'âven </em> means the absence of all that has true worth; hence, it would denote “moral worthlessness,” as in the actions of wrongdoing, evil devising, or false speaking. </p> <p> Other scholars believe that the term implies a “painful burden or difficulty”—i. e., that sin is a toilsome, exhausting load of “trouble and sorrow,” which the offender causes for himself or others. This meaning is indicated in Ps. 90:10: “The days of our years are three score years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and < em> sorrow < /em> [RSV, “trouble”]. …” A similar meaning appears in Prov. 22:8: “He that soweth iniquity shall reap vanity [ <em> 'âven </em> ]: and the rod of his anger shall fail. ” </p> <p> <em> ' Âven </em> may be a general term for a crime or offense, as in Micah 2:1: “Woe to them that devise iniquity …” (cf. Isa. 1:13). In some passages, the word refers to falsehood or deception: “The words of his mouth are <em> iniquity </em> and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good” (Ps. 36:3). “For the idols have spoken <em> vanity </em> [ NASB, “iniquity”] …” (Zech. 10:2). Isa. 41:29 portrays idols deceiving their worshipers: “Behold, they are all <em> vanity </em> ; their works are nothing: Their molten images are wind and confusion. ” </p> <p> <em> 'Âshâm </em> (אָשָׁם, Strong' S #817), “sin; guilt; guilt offering; trespass; trespass offering. ” Cognates appear in Arabic as <em> ‘ithmun </em> (“sin; offense; misdeed; crime”), <em> ‘athima </em> (“to sin, err, slip”), and <em> ‘athimun </em> (“sinful; criminal; evil; wicked”); but the Arabic usage does not include the idea of restitution. In the Ugaritic texts of Ras Shamra, the word <em> atm </em> occurs in similar passages. Scholars believe this Ugaritic word may mean “offense” or “guilt offering, ” but this cannot be ascertained. </p> <p> <em> 'Âshâm </em> implies the condition of “guilt” incurred through some wrongdoing, as in Gen. 26:10: “And [[Abimelech]] said, … one of the people might lightly have lain with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us. ” The word may also refer to the offense itself which entails the guilt: “For [[ Israel]] hath not been forsaken … though their land was filled with sin against the [[ Holy]] One of Israel” (Jer. 51:5). A similar meaning of the word appears in Ps. 68:21: “But [[God ]] shall wound the head of his enemies and the hairy scalp of such a one as goeth on still in his trespasses [RSV, “guilty ways”; NASH, “guilty deeds”]. ” </p> <p> Most occurrences of <em> 'âshâm </em> refer to the compensation given to satisfy someone who has been injured, or to the “trespass offering” or “guilt offering” presented on the altar by the repentant offender after paying a compensation of six-fifths of the damage inflicted ( Num. 5:7- 8) . The “trespass offering” was the blood sacrifice of a ram: “And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him” (Lev. 5:18; cf. Lev. 7:5, 7; 14:12-13). The most significant theological statement containing <em> ' âshâm </ em> is in Isa. 53:10, which says that the servant of [[Yahweh]] was appointed as an <em> 'âshâm </em> for sinful mankind. This suggests that His death furnished a 120- percent compensation for the broken law of God. </p> <p> <em> 'Âmâl </em> (עָמָל, Strong'S #5999), “evil; trouble; misfortune; mischief; grievance; wickedness; labor.” This noun is related to the Hebrew verb <em> ‛âmâl </em> (“to labor, toil”). The Arabic cognate <em> ‘amila </em> means “to get tired from hard work.” The [[ Aramaic]] <em> ‛âmâl </em> means “make” or “do, ” with no necessary connotation of burdensome labor. The Phoenician [[Canaanite]] usage of this term was closer to the Arabic; the [[ Book]] of Ecclesiastes (which shows considerable Phoenician influence) clearly represents this use: “Yea, I hated all my <em> labor < /em> which I had taken under the sun …” ( Eccl. 2:18) . “And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his <em> labor </em> …” (Eccl. 3:13). A related example appears in Ps. 107:12: “Therefore he brought down their heart with <em> labor </em> ; they fell down and there was none to help. ” </p> <p> In general, <em> ‛âmâl </em> refers either to the trouble and suffering which sin causes the sinner or to the trouble that he inflicts upon others. Jer. 20:18 depicts self-inflicted sorrow: “Wherefore came I forth out of the womb to see labor [ <em> ‛âmâl </em> ] and sorrow [ <em> yagon </em> ], that my days should be consumed with shame?” [[Another]] instance is found in Deut. 26:7: “And when we cried unto the Lord God of our fathers, the Lord heard our voice, and looked on our affliction [ <em> ‘oni </ em> ], and our labor [ < em> ‛âmâl </em> ], and our oppression [ <em> lachats </em> ]. ” </p> <p> Job 4:8 illustrates the sense of trouble as mischief inflicted on others: “… They that plow iniquity [ <em> ‘awen </em> ] , and sow wickedness [ <em> ‛âmâl </em> ] reap the same.” The word appears in Ps. 140:9: “As for the head of those that compass me about, let the mischief of their own lips cover them. ” Hab. 1:3 also refers to the trouble inficted on others: “Why dost thou show me iniquity [ <em> ‘awen </em> ], and cause me to behold grievance [ < em> ‘amal < /em> ]? For spoiling and violence are before me; and there are that raise up strife and contention.” </p> <p> <em> ‛Âvôn </em> (עָווֹן, Strong'S #5771), “iniquity.” This word is derived from the root <em> ‘awah </em> , which means “to be bent, bowed down, twisted, perverted” or “to twist, pervert. ” The Arabic cognate <em> ‘awa </em> means “to twist, bend down”; some scholars regard the Arabic term <em> ghara </em> (“to err from the way”) as the true cognate, but there is less justification for this interpretation. </p> <p> <em> ‛Âvôn </em> portrays sin as a perversion of life (a twisting out of the right way), a perversion of truth (a twisting into error), or a perversion of intent (a bending of rectitude into willful disobedience). The word “iniquity” is the best single-word equivalent, although the [[ Latin]] root <em> iniquitas </em> really means “injustice; unfairness; hostile; adverse.” </p> <p> <em> ‛Âvôn </em> occurs frequently throughout the Old [[ Testament]] in parallelism with other words related to sin, such as <em> chatta’t </em> (“sin”) and <em> pesha’ </em> (“transgression”). Some examples are 1 Sam. 20:1: “And [[David]] … said before Jonathan, what have I done? what is mine iniquity [ <em> ‛âvôn </em> ]? and what is my sin [ <em> chatta’t </em> ] before thy father, that he seeketh my life?” (cf. Isa. 43:24; Jer. 5:25). Also note Job 14:17: “My transgression [ <em> pesha’ </em> ] is sealed up in a bag, and thou sewest up mine iniquity [‛âvôn]” (cf. Ps. 107:17; Isa. 50:1). </p> <p> The penitent wrongdoer recognized his “iniquity” in Isa. 59:12: “For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions are with us; and as for our iniquities, we know them” (cf. 1 Sam. 3:13). “Iniquity” is something to be confessed: “And [[Aaron]] shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel …” (Lev. 16:21). “And the seed of Israel … confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers” (Neh. 9:2; cf. Ps. 38:18). </p> <p> The grace of God may remove or forgive “iniquity”: “And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee …” (Zech. 3:4; cf. 2 Sam. 24:10). His atonement may cover over “iniquity”: “By mercy and truth iniquity is purged; and by the fear of the Lord men depart from evil” (Prov. 16:6; cf. Ps. 78:38). </p> <p> <em> ‛Âvôn </em> may refer to “the guilt of iniquity,” as in Ezek. 36:31: “Then shall ye remember your own evil ways … and shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations” (cf. Ezek. 9:9). The word may also refer to “punishment for iniquity”: “And [[Saul]] sware to her by the Lord, saying, As the Lord liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing” (1 Sam. 28:10). In Exod. 28:38, <em> ‛âvôn </em> is used as the object of <em> natsa’ </em> (“to bear, carry away, forgive”), to suggest bearing the punishment for the “iniquity” of others. In Isa. 53:11, we are told that the servant of Yahweh bears the consequences of the “iniquities” of sinful mankind, including Israel. </p> <p> <em> Râshâ‛ </em> (רָשָׁע, Strong'S #7563), “wicked; criminal; guilty.” Some scholars relate this word to the Arabic <em> rash’a </em> (“to be loose, out of joint”), although that term is not actively used in literary Arabic. The Aramaic cognate <em> resha’ </em> means “to be wicked” and the [[Syriac]] <em> apel </em> (“to do wickedly”). </p> <p> <em> Râshâ‛ </em> generally connotes a turbulence and restlessness (cf. Isa. 57:21) or something disjointed or ill-regulated. Thus [[Robert]] B. Girdlestone suggests that it refers to the tossing and confusion in which the wicked live, and to the perpetual agitation they came to others. </p> <p> In some instances, <em> râshâ‛ </em> carries the sense of being “guilty of crime”: “Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness” (Exod. 23:1) “Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousness” (Prov. 25:5). “An ungodly witness scorneth judgment: and the mouth of the ( <em> wicked </em> [plural form] devoureth iniquity” (Prov. 19:28; cf. Prov. 20:26). </p> <p> Justifying the “wicked” is classed as a heinous crime: “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord” (Prov. 17:15; cf. Exod. 23:7). </p> <p> The <em> râshâ‛ </em> is guilty of hostility to God and His people: “Arise, O Lord, disappoint him, cast him down: deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword” (Ps. 17:13); “Oh let the wickedness of the ( <em> wicked </em> [plural form] come to an end; but establish the just …” (Ps. 7:9). The word is applied to the people of [[Babylon]] in Isa. 13:11 and to the [[Chaldeans]] in Hab. 1:13. </p> <p> <em> Chaṭṭâ'th </em> (חַטָּאָה, Strong'S #2403), “sin; sin-guilt; sinpurification; sin offering.” The noun <em> chaṭṭâ'th </em> appears about 293 times and in all periods of biblical literature. </p> <p> The basic nuance of this word is “sin” conceived as missing the road or mark (155 times). <em> Chaṭṭâ'th </em> can refer to an offense against a man: “And [[Jacob]] was wroth, and chode with Laban: and Jacob answered and said to Laban, What is my trespass [ <em> pesha’ </em> ]? what is my sin, that thou hast so hotly pursued after me?” (Gen. 31:36). It is such passages which prove that <em> chaṭṭâ'th </em> is not simply a general word for “sin”; since Jacob used two different words, he probably intended two different nuances. In addition, a full word study shows basic differences between <em> chaṭṭâ'th </em> and other words rendered “sin.” </p> <p> For the most part this word represents a sin against God (Lev. 4:14). Men are to return from “sin,” which is a path, a life-style, or act deviating from that which God has marked out (1 Kings 8:35). They should depart from “sin” (2 Kings 10:31), be concerned about it (Ps. 38:18), and confess it (Num. 5:7). The noun first appears in Gen. 4:7, where [[Cain]] is warned that “sin lieth at the door.” This citation may introduce a second nuance of the word—“sin” in general. [[Certainly]] such an emphasis appears in Ps. 25:7, where the noun represents rebellious sin (usually indicated by <em> pasha’ </em> ): “Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions.…” </p> <p> In a few passages the term connotes the guilt or condition of sin: “… The cry of [[Sodom]] and [[Gomorrah]] is great, and … their sin is very grievous” (Gen. 18:20). </p> <p> The word means “purification from sin” in two passages: “And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: [[Sprinkle]] water of purifying upon them …” (Num. 8:7; cf. 19:9). </p> <p> <em> Chaṭṭâ'th </em> means “sin offering” (135 times). The law of the “sin offering” is recorded in Lev. 4- 5:13; 6:24-30. This was an offering for some specific “sin” committed unwittingly, without intending to do it and perhaps even without knowing it at the time (Lev. 4:2; 5:15). </p> <p> Also derived from the verb <em> chata’ </em> is the noun <em> chet’ </em> , which occurs 33 times in biblical Hebrew. This word means “sin” in the sense of missing the mark or the path. This may be sin against either a man (Gen. 41:9—the first occurrence of the word) or God (Deut. 9:18). Second, it connotes the “guilt” of such an act (Num. 27:3). The psalmist confessed that his mother was in the condition of sin and guilt (cf. Rom. 5:12) when he was conceived (Ps. 51:5). Finally, several passages use this word for the idea of “punishment for sin” (Lev. 20:20). </p> <p> The noun <em> chaṭṭâ'th </em> , with the form reserved for those who are typified with the characteristic represented by the root, is used both as an adjective (emphatic) and as a noun. The word occurs 19 times. Men are described as “sinners” (1 Sam. 15:18) and as those who are liable to the penalty of an offense (1 Kings 1:21). The first occurrence of the word is in Gen. 13:13: “But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.” </p> <p> B. Adjectives. </p> <p> <em> Râshâ‛ </em> (רָשָׁע, Strong'S #7563), “wicked; guilty.” In the typical example of Deut. 25:2, this word refers to a person “guilty of a crime”: “And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him … to be beaten.…” A similar reference appears in Jer. 5:26: “For among my people are found <em> wicked </em> [plural form] men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men.” <em> Râshâ‛ </em> is used specifically of murderers in 2 Sam. 4:11: “How much more, when wicked men have slain a righteous person in his own house upon his bed? …” The expression “guilty of death” ( <em> rasha’ lamut </em> ) occurs in Num. 35:31 and is applied to a murderer. </p> <p> [[Pharaoh]] and his people are portrayed as “wicked” people guilty of hostility to God and His people (Exod. 9:27). </p> <p> <em> Ra‛ </em> (רַע, Strong'S #7451), “bad; evil; wicked; sore.” The root of this term is disputed. Some scholars believe that the [[Akkadian]] term <em> raggu </em> (“evil; bad”) may be a cognate. Some scholars derive <em> ra‛ </em> from the Hebrew word <em> ra’a’ </em> (“to break, smash, crush”), which is a cognate of the Hebrew <em> ratsats </em> (“to smash, break to pieces”); <em> ratsats </em> in turn is related to the Arabic <em> radda </em> (“to crush, bruise”). If this derivation were correct, it would imply that <em> ra’ </em> connotes sin in the sense of destructive hurtfulness; but this connotation is not appropriate in some contexts in which <em> ra’ </em> is found. </p> <p> <em> Ra’ </em> refers to that which is “bad” or “evil,” in a wide variety of applications. A greater number of the word’s occurrences signify something morally evil or hurtful, often referring to man or men: “Then answered all the wicked men and men of Belial, of those that went with David …” (1 Sam. 30:22). “And Esther said, the adversary and enemy is the wicked Haman” (Esth. 7:6). “There they cry, but none giveth answer, because of the pride of evil men” (Job 35:12; cf. Ps. 10:15). <em> Ra’ </em> is also used to denote evil words (Prov. 15:26), evil thoughts (Gen. 6:5), or evil actions (Deut. 17:5, Neh. 13:17). Ezek. 6:11 depicts grim consequences for Israel as a result of its actions: “Thus saith the Lord God; smite with thine hand, and stamp with thy foot, and say, [[Alas]] for all the evil abominations of the house of Israel! For they shall fall by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence.” </p> <p> <em> Ra’ </em> may mean “bad” or unpleasant in the sense of giving pain or caming unhappiness: “And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, … Few and evil have the days of the years of my life been …” (Gen. 47:9). “And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned …” (Exod. 33:4; cf. Gen. 37:2). “Correction is grievous [ <em> ra’ </em> ] unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die” (Prov. 15:10). </p> <p> <em> Ra’ </em> may also connote a fierceness or wildness: “He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil [ <em> ra </em> ] angels among them” (Ps. 78:49). “Some evil beast hath devoured him …” (Gen. 37:20; cf. Gen. 37:33; Lev. 26:6). </p> <p> In less frequent uses, <em> ra’ </em> implies severity: “For thus saith the Lord God; How much more when I send my four sore [ <em> ra’ </em> ] judgments upon Israel …” (Ezek. 14:21; cf. Deut. 6:22); unpleasantness: “And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness, and will put more of the evil diseases of [[Egypt]] … upon thee …” (Deut. 7:15; cf. Deut. 28:59); deadliness: “When I shall send upon them the evil arrows of famine, which shall be for their destruction …” (Ezek. 5:16; cf. “hurtful sword,” Ps. 144:10); or sadness: “Wherefore the king said unto me, why is thy countenance sad …” (Neh. 2:2). </p> <p> The word may also refer to something of poor or inferior quality, such as “bad” land (Num. 13:19), “naughty” figs (Jer. 24:2), “illfavored” cattle (Gen. 41:3, 19), or a “bad” sacrificial animal (Lev. 27:10, 12, 14). </p> <p> In Isa. 45:7 Yahweh describes His actions by saying, “… I make peace, and create evil [ <em> ra </em> ] …”; moral “evil” is not intended in this context, but rather the antithesis of <em> shalom </em> (“peace; welfare; well-being”). The whole verse affirms that as absolute Sovereign, the Lord creates a universe governed by a moral order. [[Calamity]] and misfortune will surely ensue from the wickedness of ungodly men. </p> <p> C. Verbs. </p> <p> <em> ‛Âbar </em> (עָבַר, Strong'S #5674), “to transgress, cross over, pass over.” This word occurs as a verb only when it refers to sin. <em> ‛Âbar </em> often carries the sense of “transgressing” a covenant or commandment—i.e., the offender “passes beyond” the limits set by God’s law and falls into transgression and guilt. This meaning appears in Num. 14:41: “And [[Moses]] said, wherefore now do ye transgress the commandment of the Lord? but it shall not prosper.” Another example is in Judg. 2:20: “And the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel; and he said, Because that this people hath transgressed my covenant which I commanded their fathers, and have not hearkened unto my voice” (cf. 1 Sam. 15:24; Hos. 8:1). </p> <p> Most frequently, <em> ‛âbar </em> illustrates the motion of “crossing over” or “passing over.” (The Latin <em> transgedior </em> , from which we get our English word <em> transgress </em> , has the similar meaning of “go beyond” or “cross over.”) This word refers to crossing a stream or boundage (“pass through,” Num. 21:22), invading a country (“passed over,” Judg. 11:32), crossing a boundary against a hostile army (“go over,” 1 Sam. 14:4), marching over (“go over,” Isa. 51:23), overflowing the banks of a river or other natural barriers (“pass through,” Isa. 23:10), passing a razor over one’s head (“come upon,” Num. 6:5), and the passing of time (“went over,” 1 Chron. 29:30). </p> <p> <em> Châṭâ' </em> (חָטָא, Strong'S #2398), “to miss, sin, be guilty, forfeit, purify.” This verb occurs 238 times and in all parts of the Old Testament. It is found also in Assyrian, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Sabean, and Arabic. </p> <p> The basic meaning of this verb is illustrated in Judg. 20:16: There were 700 lefthanded [[Benjamite]] soldiers who “could sling stones at a hair breadth, and not <em> miss </em> .” The meaning is extended in Prov. 19:2: “He who makes haste with his feet <em> misses </em> the way” (RSV, NIV, KJV NASB, “sinneth”). The intensive form is used in Gen. 31:39: “That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the <em> loss </em> of it.…” </p> <p> From this basic meaning comes the word’s chief usage to indicate moral failure toward both God and men, and certain results of such wrongs. The first occurrence of the verb is in Gen. 20:6, God’s word to Abimelech after he had taken Sarah: “Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and also I have kept you from sinning against Me” (NASB; cf. Gen. 39:9). </p> <p> [[Sin]] against God is defined in Josh. 7:11: “Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded them.…” Also note Lev. 4:27: “And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty.” The verb may also refer to the result of wrongdoing, as in Gen. 43:9: “… Then let me bear the blame for ever.” Deut. 24:1-4, after forbidding adulterous marriage practices, concludes: “… For that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin …” (KJV); the RSV renders this passage: “You shall not bring guilt upon the land.” Similarly, those who pervert justice are described as “those who by a word make a man out to be guilty” (Isa. 29:21, NIV). This leads to the meaning in Lev. 9:15: “And he … took the goat … and slew it, and offered it for sin.…” The effect of the offerings for sin is described in Ps. 51:7: “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean …” (cf. Num. 19:1-13). Another effect is seen in the word of the prophet to evil Babylon: “You have forfeited your life” (Hab. 2:10 RSV, NIV; KJV, NASB, “sinned against”). The word is used concerning acts committed against men, as in Gen. 42:22: “Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child …?” and 1 Sam. 19:4: “Do not let the king sin against his servant David, since he has not sinned against you …” (NASB; NlV, “wrong, wronged”). </p> <p> The [[Septuagint]] translates the group of words with the verb <em> hamartano </em> and derived nouns 540 times. They occur 265 times in the New Testament. The fact that all “have sinned” continues to be emphasized in the New Testament (Rom. 3:10-18, 23; cf. 1 Kings 8:46; Ps. 14:1-3; Eccl. 7:20). The New Testament development is that Christ, “having made one sacrifice for sins for all time sat down at the right hand of God.… For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:12- 14, NASB). </p> | | <p> ( properly חֲטָאָה, ἁμαρτία , both originally signifying to miss) is any action, word, desire, purpose, or omission contrary to the law, of God; a voluntary violation of, or failure to comply with , the divine law ( Romans 3:20; Romans 4:15; Romans 7:7; James 4:17). "Whether such a law be revealed in the holy oracles, or in the constitution of our nature, the violation constitutes the transgressor a sinner (Romans 1:19-32; Romans 2:11-15). The various words by which sin and wickedness are set forth in the Old Test. throw considerable light upon the real nature and tendency of the evil. < /p> < p> 1. The proper and original idea of sin appears to be that it is a coming short of our true destiny, a "missing" the mark (חָטָא, ἁμαρτάνω ). The end of man' s being is to be like unto God, to have his will in thorough harmony with the divine will, and so to glorify [[ God]] and enjoy him forever. God is love; and to love him and be beloved by him is true blessedness. The whole law is summed up in love, whence sin, which is contrary to love, is a failure in the purpose of our existence. </p> <p> 2. This leads us to the second idea of sin, namely, that it is the transgression of God' s law. From the [[Christian]] theistic standpoint there is no doubt as to the existence of an eternal moral order. That which, according to this rule, ought to be done is good; that which ought not to be done is sin . The law being neither advice nor prayer, but a positive demand, our only relation to it can be either that of submission or transgression. [[Whether]] we look upon God's law as moral, that is, stamped upon our nature, or positive, that is, revealed to us from without, in either case it should be considered binding upon our hearts, and should be implicitly obeyed, because it proceeds from the holy and loving [[Author]] of our being. [[ Duty]] is represented in [[ Scripture]] as a path along which we should walk, and to sin is to transgress or to go out of the way of God 's commandments; hence the use of the word עָבִר, to pass over. </p> <p> 3. Again, every transgression is represented in the [[Bible]] as an act of rebellion ( פָּשִׁע and מָרָה ) God is the Ruler of his people, the Father of the human race. In both these capacities he demands obedience. To sin is to rebel against his paternal rule, to revolt from his allegiance. It is to act independently of him, to set up the will of the creature against the will of the Creator, to put self in the place of God, and thus to dishonor his holy name. </p> <p> 4. Further, to sin against God implies distrust of him and a willingness to deceive him, and to act treacherously towards him (עָוִל; camp. also בָּגִד and מָעִל ). To entertain a suspicion of God' s goodness is to distrust him; and when once that suspicion has been planted in the heart, alienation begins, and deceit is sure to follow. </ p> <p> 5. [[Another]] remarkable fact about sin is that it is perversion or distortion (עָוִה ); it is a wrong, a wrench, a twist to our nature (עָקִל ), destroying the balance of our faculties, and making us prone to evil. Man is thrown out of his center and cannot recover himself, the consequence of which is that there is a jarring of the elements of his nature. [[ Sin]] is not a new faculty or a new element introduced, but it is the confusion of the existing elements which confusion the [[ Son]] of God came to take away, by restoring man to his right balance, and leading him once more to a loving and self sacrificing trust in God. </p> < p> 6. Sin is also unrest ( רָשָׁע ), a perpetual tossing like the waves of the sea; a constant disturbance, the flesh against the spirit, the reason against the inclination, one desire against another, the wishes of one person against the wishes of another; a love of change and excitement and stir; and withal no satisfaction. Man was never intended to find rest except in God; and practically when God is not his center he is like a wandering star, uncertain and erratic, like a cloud without water, and like seething foam. </p> <p> 7. Connected with this is the idea which identifies sin with toil (עָמָל ), [[Wickedness]] is wearisome work; it is, labor without profit; it is painful, sorrowful travail; it is grief and trouble. And after all the labor expended on sin, nothing comes of it. The works of darkness are unfruitful; sin is vanity, hollowness, nothingness (אָוֶן ); the ungodly are like the chaff which the wind scatters away; they can show no results from all their toil. </ p> < p> 8. Sin is also ruin, or a breaking in pieces (רִע ). Adversity, calamity, distress, misery, trouble, are represented by the same words as wickedness, mischief, harm, evil, and ill doing. </p> <p> [ [Gathering]] together the foregoing observations, they bring us to this result, that sin is wilful disobedience of God's commands, proceeding from distrust, and leading to confusion and trouble. Sin lies not so much in the act as in the nature of the agent whose heart and life have been perverted. We are taught by the [ [Scriptures]] that man was led into sin originally by the [[Evil]] One, who insinuated suspicions of God's goodness; and was thus misled, deceived, ruined, and dominated over by Satan. < /p> < p> See Burroughs, Sinfulness of Sin; Dwight, Theology; Fletcher, [[Appeal]] to [[Matter]] of Fact; Fuller, Works; Gill, [[Body]] of Divinity, art. "Sin;" Goodwin, Aggravations of Sin; Hagenbach, Hist. of Doctrines; Howe, Living Temple; King and Jenyn, [[Origin]] of Evil; Muller, Christian [[Doctrine]] of Sin; Orme, [[Blasphemy]] against the [[ Holy]] Ghost; Owen, Indwelling Sin; Payson, Sermons; Williams, [[ Answer]] to Belsham; Watts, [[Ruin]] and a Recovery. </p> |
| | | |
| == Bridgeway Bible Dictionary <ref name="term_19070" /> == | | == International Standard Bible Encyclopedia <ref name="term_8492" /> == |
| <p> The [[Bible]] refers to sin by a variety of [[Hebrew]] and [[Greek]] words. This is partly because sin may appear in many forms, from deliberate wrongdoing and moral evil to accidental failure through weakness, laziness or ignorance (Exodus 32:30; Proverbs 28:13; Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:28; Romans 1:29-32; James 4:17). But the common characteristic of all sin is that it is against [[God]] (Psalms 51:4; Romans 8:7). It is the breaking of God’s law, that law being the expression of the perfection that God’s absolute holiness demands (Isaiah 1:2; 1 John 3:4). It is the ‘missing of the mark’, that ‘mark’ being the perfect standard of the divine will (Deuteronomy 9:18; Romans 3:23). It is unbelief, for it rejects the truth God has revealed (Deuteronomy 9:23; Psalms 78:21-22; John 3:18-19; John 8:24; John 16:9). It is ungodliness, and it makes a person guilty before God (Psalms 1:5-6; Romans 1:18; James 2:10). </p> <p> [[Origin]] of sin </p> <p> From the activity of [[Satan]] in the [[Garden]] of Eden, it is clear that sin was present in the universe before [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] sinned. But the Bible does not record how evil originated. What it records is how evil entered the human race (see EVIL). </p> <p> Because human beings were made in the image of God, the highest part of their nature can be satisfied only by God. They cannot be independent of God, just as the image of the moon on the water cannot exist independently of the moon (Genesis 1:26-28; see HUMANITY, HUMANKIND). Therefore, when God gave the created world to them, he placed a limit; for complete independence would not be consistent with their status as being in God’s image (Genesis 2:15-17). </p> <p> But the human beings God created went beyond the limit he set, and so they fell into sin. Because of their ability to know God, they were tempted to put themselves in the place of God. They wanted to rule their lives independently of him and be the final judge of what was good and what was evil (Genesis 3:1-6). [[Pride]] was at the centre of human sin (Romans 1:21-23; 1 John 2:16; cf. Isaiah 10:15; Isaiah 14:13-14; Obadiah 1:3 a; see PRIDE). </p> <p> [[Sin]] entered human life because people doubted God, then ceased to trust him completely, and finally were drawn away by the desire to be their own master (James 1:14; cf. Ezekiel 28:2; Ezekiel 28:6; John 16:9). Human sin originated in the human heart; the act of disobedience was the natural outcome (Proverbs 4:23; Jeremiah 17:9; Mark 7:21-23). </p> <p> Above all, sin was against God – the rejection of his authority, wisdom and love. It was rebellion against God’s revealed will (Genesis 3:17; Romans 1:25; 1 John 3:4). And the more clearly God’s will was revealed, the more clearly it showed human sinfulness (Romans 3:20; Romans 5:20; cf. John 15:22-24). </p> <p> Results of sin </p> <p> As a result of their sin, human beings have fallen under the judgment of God. They have come into a state of conflict with the natural world (Genesis 3:17-19; Matthew 24:39), with their fellow human beings (Genesis 3:12-13; 1 John 3:12), with their inner selves (Genesis 3:7; [[Genesis]] 3:11-13; Romans 7:15; Romans 7:19) and with God (Genesis 3:8-10; Genesis 3:22-24; Romans 3:10-18). The penalty they have brought upon themselves is death (Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3:19; Genesis 3:22-24; Romans 6:23). This involves not only physical death but also spiritual death. It means separation from God, who is the source of spiritual life (John 3:3; John 3:7; Romans 6:16; Romans 7:5; Romans 7:13; 1 Corinthians 15:56; Ephesians 2:1-5; see DEATH). </p> <p> [[Ever]] since Adam’s sin, the human story is one of people running from God, loving themselves instead of God, and doing their will instead of God’s (Romans 1:19-23). The more they reject God, the more they confirm their own stubbornness and hardness of heart (Matthew 11:20-24; Matthew 13:12-13; Romans 1:28-32; Ephesians 4:18). Sin has placed them in the hopeless position of being separated from God and unable to bring themselves back to God (Isaiah 59:2; Romans 3:19-20; Galatians 3:10). God, however, has not left sinners in this helpless condition, but through the one fully obedient human being, [[Jesus]] Christ, has reversed the effects of Adam’s sin (Romans 5:6; Romans 5:8; Romans 5:15; Romans 5:18). </p> <p> All sinned in Adam (‘Original sin’) </p> <p> In Romans 5:12-21 the whole human race is viewed as having existed originally in Adam, and therefore as having sinned originally in Adam (Romans 5:12; cf. Acts 17:26). Adam is humankind; but because of his sin he is humankind separated from God and under his condemnation. </p> <p> Because of Adam’s sin (his ‘one act of disobedience’) the penalty of sin, death, passes on to all people; but because of Christ’s death on the cross (his ‘one act of obedience’) the free gift of God, life, is available to all people. Adam, by his sin, brings condemnation; Christ, by his death, brings justification (Romans 5:17-20; Romans 6:23; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). If ‘condemn’ means ‘declare guilty’, ‘justify’ means ‘declare righteous’; and this is what God, in his immeasurable grace, has done for sinners who turn in faith to Jesus [[Christ]] (Romans 5:16; Romans 8:33; see JUSTIFICATION). </p> <p> Just as Adam is the representative head of humankind as sinful and separated from God, so Jesus Christ is the representative head of humankind as declared righteous and brought back to God. All who die, die because of their union with Adam; all who are made alive, are made alive because of their union with Christ (Romans 5:16; 1 Corinthians 15:22). Christ bears sin’s penalty, but more than that he brings repentant sinners into a right relationship with a just and holy God (Romans 4:24-25; Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:10-13; Philippians 3:9). </p> <p> Human nature is corrupt (‘Total depravity’) </p> <p> In addition to being sinners because of their union with Adam, people are sinners because of what they themselves do. They are born with a sinful nature inherited from Adam, and the fruits of this sinful nature are sinful thoughts and actions (Psalms 51:5; John 3:6; Ephesians 4:17-18). </p> <p> People do not need to be taught to do wrong; they do it naturally, from birth. [[Sinful]] words and deeds are only the outward signs of a much deeper evil – a sinful heart, mind and will (Proverbs 4:23; Jeremiah 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 2:3). Every part of a person is affected by this sinful nature. The corruption is total (Genesis 6:5; Genesis 8:21; Isaiah 64:6; Romans 3:13-18; Romans 7:18; Romans 7:21; Romans 7:23) and it affects all people (Romans 3:9-12; Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:8; 1 John 1:10). </p> <p> Total depravity means not that the whole of humanity is equally sinful, but that the whole of each person’s nature is affected by sin. All people are sinners, but not all show their sinful condition equally. The strong influences of conscience, will-power, civil laws and social customs may stop people from doing all that their hearts are capable of, and may even cause them to do good (Luke 6:33; Luke 11:13; Romans 2:14-15; Romans 13:3). But in spite of the good that people may do, human nature is still directed by sin. It has a natural tendency to rebel against God’s law (Romans 7:11-13; Romans 8:7-8; Galatians 5:17-21; Colossians 2:23;). (See also FLESH.) </p> <p> A hopeless position apart from God </p> <p> Since human nature is in such a sinful condition, people are unable to make themselves into something that is pleasing to God (Isaiah 64:6; Romans 8:7-8). The disease of sin has affected all that they are (their nature) and all that they do (their deeds). Every person is a sinner by nature and a sinner in practice (Psalms 130:3; Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:8; 1 John 1:10). </p> <p> The position of sinners before God is hopeless. Their sin has cut them off from God, and there is no way he can bring themselves back to God (Isaiah 59:2; Habakkuk 1:13; Colossians 1:21). They are slaves to sin and cannot free themselves (John 8:34; Romans 7:21-23). They are under God’s condemnation, and have no way of saving themselves (Romans 3:19-20). They are the subjects of the wrath of God and cannot avoid it (Romans 1:18). (See also JUDGMENT; PROPITIATION.) </p> <p> This complete hopelessness may be summarized under the word ‘dead’. People are dead in their sin and unable to make themselves alive. But God in his grace gives them new life, so that they can be spiritually ‘born again’ (John 3:3-8; Ephesians 2:1; see REGENERATION). This is entirely the work of God. It is made possible through the death of Jesus Christ, and is effectual in the lives of all those who in faith turn from their sin to God (John 1:13; John 1:29; John 6:44-45; Acts 3:19; Romans 3:24-25; Ephesians 2:8-9). (See also ATONEMENT; RECONCILIATION; REDEMPTION.) </p> <p> Having been forgiven their sin and freed from its power, believers then show it to be true by the way they live (Romans 6:1; Romans 6:14; Romans 6:18; Galatians 5:1). Because of the continued presence of the old sinful nature (the flesh) they will not be sinless, but neither will they sin habitually (Romans 6:6-13). They can expect victory over sin, and even when they fail they can be assured that genuine confession brings God’s gracious forgiveness (Matthew 6:12-15; 1 John 1:6-10; 1 John 2:1-2; 1 John 3:10). (See also CONFESSION; FORGIVENESS; SANCTIFICATION.) </p> | | <p> ''''' sin ''''' ( סין , <i> ''''' ṣı̄n ''''' </i> , "clay or mud"; Συήνη , <i> ''''' Suḗnē ''''' </i> , [[Codex]] Alexandrinus Τάνις , <i> ''''' Tánis ''''' </i> ): A city of [[Egypt]] mentioned only in Ezekiel 30:15 , Ezekiel 30:16 . This seems to be a pure Semitic name. The ancient [[Egyptian]] name, if the place ever had one such, is unknown. [[Pelusium]] (Greek Πελούσιον , <i> '''''Peloúsion''''' </i> ) also meant "the clayey or muddy town." The Pelusiac mouth of the [[Nile]] was "the muddy mouth," and the modern Arabic name of this mouth has the same significance. These facts make it practically certain that the [[Vulgate]] (Jerome's [[Latin]] Bible, 390-405 A.D.) is correct in identifying [[Sin]] with Pelusium. But although Pelusium appears very frequently in ancient history, its exact location is still not entirely certain. The list of cities mentioned in Ezek in connection with Sin furnishes no clue to its location. From other historical notices it seems to have been a frontier city. [[Rameses]] Ii built a wall from Sin to Heliopolis, probably by the aid of [[Hebrew]] slaves (Diodorus Siculus; compare Budge, <i> History of Egypt </i> , V, 90), to protect the eastern frontier. Sin was a meeting-place of Egypt with her enemies who came to attack her, many great battles being fought at or near this place. [[Sennacherib]] and [[Cambyses]] both fought Egypt near Pelusium ( <i> [[Herodotus]] </i> ii. 141; iii. 10-13). [[Antiochus]] [[Iv]] defeated the [[Egyptians]] here (Budge, VIII, 25), and the Romans under [[Gabinius]] defeated the Egyptians in the same neighborhood. Pelusium was also accessible from the sea, or was very near a seaport, for Pompey after the disaster at [[Pharsalia]] fled into Egypt, sailing for Pelusium. These historical notices of Pelusium make its usual identification with the ruins near <i> '''''el''''' </i> - <i> '''''Kantara''''' </i> , a station on the [[Suez]] Canal 29 miles South of [[Port]] Said, most probable. "Sin, the stronghold of Egypt," in the words of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 30:15 ), would thus refer to its inaccessibility because of swamps which served as impassable moats. The wall on the South and the sea on the North also protected it on either flank. </p> |
|
| |
| == Holman Bible Dictionary <ref name="term_44128" /> ==
| |
| <p> [[Sin]] as [[Rebellion]] One of the central affirmations throughout the [[Bible]] is humanity's estrangement from God. The cause for this estrangement is sin, the root cause of all the problems of humanity. The Bible, however, gives no formal definition for sin. It describes sin as an attitude that personifies sin as rebellion against God. Rebellion was at the root of the problem for [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] (Genesis 3:1 ) and has been at the root of humanity's plight ever since. </p> <p> Sin's [[Origin]] in Humanity's [[Rebellious]] Nature Human sin is universal—we all sin. All persons without exception are under sin's dominion (Romans 3:9-23 ). How did this come about? The Bible has no philosophical argument as such concerning sin's origin. [[God]] is in no way responsible for sin. [[Satan]] introduced sin when he beguiled Eve, but the Bible does not teach that sin had its origin with him either. Sin's origin is to be found in humanity's rebellious nature. Since Adam and Eve rebelled against the clear command of God, sin has infected humanity like a dread malignancy. </p> <p> The Bible sets forth no systematic rationale as to how the human race was and is infected by this dread malady. Some passages such as [[Psalm]] 51:5; Ephesians 2:3 could be interpreted to mean that this sinful nature is inherited. Other passages seem to affirm that sin is due to human choice (see Ezekiel 18:4 ,Ezekiel 18:4,18:19-20; Romans 1:18-20; Romans 5:12 .) </p> <p> What then is the answer to the dilemma? A possible answer is the fact that the [[Jewish]] mind had no problem in admitting two mutually exclusive ideas into the same system of thought. Any idea that humanity inherits a sinful nature must be coupled with the corollary that every person is indeed responsible for his/her choice of sin. </p> <p> [[Another]] possibility for understanding how sin has infected all of humanity may be found in the biblical understanding of the corporateness and solidarity of the human race. This understanding of the human situation would say that when Adam rebelled against God, he incorporated all of his descendants in his action (see Hebrews 7:9-10 for a similar analogy). This view certainly does not eliminate the necessity for each individual to accept full responsibility for sinful acts. </p> <p> Adam and Eve introduced sin into human history by their rebellious actions. The Bible affirms that every person who has lived since has followed their example. Whatever else one may say about sin's origin, this much is surely affirmed throughout the Bible. </p> <p> The Bible Views Sin from Various Perspectives One concept of sin in the Old [[Testament]] is that of transgression of the law. God established the law as a standard of righteousness; any violation of this standard is defined as sin. Deuteronomy 6:24-25 is a statement of this principle from the perspective that a person who keeps the law is righteous. The implication is that the person who does not keep the law is not righteous, that is, sinful. </p> <p> Another concept of sin in the Old Testament is as breach of the covenant. God made a covenant with the nation Israel; they were bound by this covenant as a people (Exodus 19:1; Exodus 24:1; Joshua 24:1 ). Each year on the Day of Atonement, the nation went through a covenant renewal. When the high priest consecrated the people by sprinkling them with the blood of the atoning sacrifice, they renewed their vows to the Lord to be a covenant-keeping people. Any breach of this covenant was viewed as sin (Deuteronomy 29:19-21 .) </p> <p> The Old Testament also pictures sin as a violation of the righteous nature of God. As the righteous and holy God, He sets forth as a criterion for His people a righteousness like His own. (Leviticus 11:45 .) Any deviation from God's own righteousness is viewed as sin. </p> <p> The Old Testament has a rich vocabulary for sin. </p> <p> <i> Chata </i> means “to miss the mark,” as does the [[Greek]] <i> hamartia </i> . The word could be used to describe a person shooting a bow and arrow and missing the target with the arrow. When it is used to describe sin, it means that the person has missed the mark that God has established for the person's life. </p> <p> <i> [[Aven]] </i> describes the crooked or perverse spirit associated with sin. [[Sinful]] persons have perverted their spirits and become crooked rather than straight. <i> Ra </i> describes the violence associated with sin. It also has the connotation of the breaking out of evil. Sin is the opposite of righteousness or moral straightness in the Old Testament. </p> <p> The New Testament Perspective of Sin The New Testament picture is much like that of the Old Testament. [[Several]] of the words used for sin in the New Testament have almost the same meaning as some of the [[Hebrew]] words used in the Old Testament. The most notable advancement in the New Testament view of sin is the fact that sin is defined against the backdrop of [[Jesus]] as the standard for righteousness. His life exemplifies perfection. The exalted purity of His life creates the norm for judging what is sinful. </p> <p> In the New Testament, sin also is viewed as a lack of fellowship with God. The ideal life is one of fellowship with God. [[Anything]] which disturbs or distorts this fellowship is sin. </p> <p> The New Testament view of sin is somewhat more subjective than objective. Jesus taught quite forcefully that sin is a condition of the heart. He traced sin directly to inner motives stating that the sinful thought leading to the overt act is the real sin. The outward deed is actually the fruit of sin. [[Anger]] in the heart is the same as murder (Matthew 5:21-22 ). The impure look is tantamount to adultery (Matthew 5:27-28 ). The real defilement in a person stems from the inner person (heart) which is sinful (Matthew 15:18-20 ). Sin, therefore, is understood as involving the essential being of a person, that is, the essential essence of human nature. </p> <p> The New Testament interprets sin as unbelief. However, unbelief is not just the rejection of a dogma or a creed. Rather, it is the rejection of that spiritual light which has been revealed in Jesus Christ. Or, from another perspective, unbelief is the rejection of the supreme revelation as it is found in the person of Jesus Christ. [[Unbelief]] is resistance to the truth of God revealed by the [[Spirit]] of God and produces moral and spiritual blindness. The outcome of such rejection is judgment. The only criterion for judgment is whether or not one has accepted or rejected the revelation of God as found in Jesus [[Christ]] (John 3:18-19; John 16:8-16 ). </p> <p> The New Testament further pictures sin as being revealed by the law of Moses. The law was preparatory, and its function was to point to Christ. The law revealed sin in its true character, but this only aroused in humanity a desire to experience the forbidden fruit of sin. The law as such is not bad, but humanity simply does not have the ability to keep the law. Therefore, the law offers no means of salvation; rather, it leaves humanity with a deep sense of sin and guilt (Romans 7:1 ). The law, therefore, serves to bring sin into bold relief, so that it is clearly perceptible. </p> <p> The most common New Testament word for sin is <i> hamartia </i> . See above. <i> Parabasis </i> , “trespass” or “transgression,” literally, means to step across the line. One who steps over a property line has trespassed on another person's land; the person who steps across God's standard of righteousness has committed a trespass or transgression. </p> <p> <i> Anomia </i> means “lawlessness” or “iniquity” and is a rather general description of sinful acts, referring to almost any action in opposition to God's standard of righteousness. <i> Poneria </i> , “evil” or “wickedness,” is even a more general term than anomia. <i> Adikia </i> , “unrighteousness,” is just the opposite of righteous. In forensic contexts outside the New Testament, it described one who was on the wrong side of the law. </p> <p> <i> Akatharsia </i> , “uncleanness” or “impurity,” was a cultic word used to describe anything which could cause cultic impurity. It was used quite often to describe vicious acts or sexual sins. <i> Apistia </i> , “unbelief,” literally refers to a lack of faith. To refuse to accept the truth of God by faith is to sin. Hence any action which can be construed as unfaithful or any disposition which is marked by a lack of faith is sinful. </p> <p> <i> Epithumia </i> , often translated “lust,” is actually a neutral word. Only the context can determine if the desire is good or evil. Jesus said, “I have eagerly desired to eat this [[Passover]] with you before I suffer” (Luke 22:15 NIV), [[Paul]] used this word with a modifier meaning, “evil,” in Colossians 3:5 , where it is translated “evil concupiscence” or “evil desires.” When used in this way, the word could refer to almost any evil desire but was most often used to describe sexual sins (Matthew 5:28 ). </p> <p> Sin's Consequences The Bible looks upon sin in any form as the most serious of humanity's problems. Though sinful acts may be directed against another person, ultimately every sin is against God, the [[Creator]] of all things. [[Perfect]] in righteousness, God cannot tolerate that which violates His righteous character. Therefore, sin creates a barrier between God and persons. </p> <p> Sin also necessitates God's intervention in human affairs. Since humanity could not extricate itself from the entanglements of sin, it was necessary for God to intervene if humanity was ever to be freed from these entanglements. See [[Salvation]] . </p> <p> The consequences of sin both personally and in society are far reaching. That person who constantly and consistently follows a sinful course will become so enmeshed in sin that for all practical purposes he or she is enslaved to sin (Romans 6:1 , for example). </p> <p> Another of the awful consequences of sin is spiritual depravity in society in general as well as in the lives of individuals. Some will argue that depravity is the cause of sin, and this surely is a valid consideration. However, there can be no escaping the fact that a continuance in sin adds to this personal depravity, a moral crookedness or corruption eventually making it impossible to reject sin. </p> <p> Sin also produces spiritual blindness. [[Spiritual]] truths simply are not visible to that person who has been blinded by sin. </p> <p> [[Moral]] ineptitude is another devastating consequence of sin. The more people practice sin, the more inept they become as far as moral and spiritual values are concerned. Eventually, sin blurs the distinction between right and wrong. </p> <p> [[Guilt]] is certainly a consequence of sin. No person can blame another person for a sin problem. Each person must accept responsibility for sin and face the guilt associated with it (Romans 1-3 ). </p> <p> In the Bible sin and death are corollaries. One of the terrible byproducts of sin is death. Continual, consistent sin will bring spiritual death to that person who has not come under the lordship of Christ through repentance and faith (Romans 6:23; Revelation 20:14 .) For those who have trusted Christ Jesus for salvation, death no longer holds this dread. Christ has negated the power of Satan in making death horrible and has freed the person from slavery to this awful fear (Hebrews 2:14-15 .) See [[Death]] . </p> <p> Another serious consequence of sin is that it brings separation from God, estrangement, and a lack of fellowship with God. This need not be permanent, but if a person dies not having corrected this problem by trusting Christ, then the separation does become permanent (Romans 6:23 ). See [[Hell]] . </p> <p> Sin produces estrangement from other persons just as surely as it produces an estrangement from God. All interpersonal problems have sin as their root cause (James 4:1-3 ). The only hope for peace to be achieved on either the personal or national level is through the Prince of peace. </p> <p> Billy E. Simmons </p>
| |
|
| |
| == Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words <ref name="term_79246" /> ==
| |
| <div> A 1: Ἁμαρτία (Strong'S #266 Noun [[Feminine]] hamartia ham-ar-tee'-ah ) </div> <p> is, lit., "a missing of the mark," but this etymological meaning is largely lost sight of in the NT. It is the most comprehensive term for moral obliquity. It is used of "sin" as (a) a principle or source of action, or an inward element producing acts, e.g., Romans 3:9; 5:12,13,20; 6:1,2; 7:7 (abstract for concrete); 7:8 (twice),9,11,13, "sin, that it might be shown to be sin," i.e., "sin became death to me, that it might be exposed in its heinous character:" in the clause, "sin might become exceeding sinful," i.e., through the holiness of the Law, the true nature of sin was designed to be manifested to the conscience; </p> Romans 6:6Romans 5:216:12,14,177:11,14,17,20,23,258:21 Corinthians 15:56Hebrews 3:1311:2512:4James 1:15John 8:21,34,469:4115:22,2419:11Romans 8:3Leviticus 4:325:6-9Hebrews 4:15Hebrews 9:2610:6,8,1813:111 John 1:7,83:4 Romans 1:32Galatians 5:21Philippians 4:91 Peter 4:1 John 1:291 Corinthians 15:171 Thessalonians 2:161 John 5:16 1 John 5:171 John 3:4Matthew 12:31Acts 7:60James 1:15 1 John 5:162 Corinthians 5:21 1 John 3:5John 14:30John 8:46Hebrews 4:151 Peter 2:22Hebrews 9:28 2 Corinthians 5:212 Thessalonians 2:3[[Iniquity]] <div> A 2: Ἁμάρτημα (Strong'S #265 Noun Neuter hamartema ham-ar'-tay-mah ) </div> <p> akin to No. 1, denotes "an act of disobedience to [[Divine]] law" [as distinct from No. 1 (a), (b), (c)]; plural in Mark 3:28; Romans 3:25; 2 Peter 1:9 , in some texts; sing. in Mark 3:29 (some mss. have krisis, AV, "damnation"); 1 Corinthians 6:18 . </p> Ephesians 1:72:5Colossians 2:13Trespass. James 5:16[[Disobedience]][[Error]][[Fault]][[Iniquity]][[Transgression]]Ungodliness. <div> B 1: Ἀναμάρτητος (Strong'S #361 Adjective anamartetos an-am-ar'-tay-tos ) </div> <p> "without sin" (a, negative, n, euphonic, and C, No. 1), is found in John 8:7 . In the Sept., Deuteronomy 29:19 . </p> <div> C 1: Ἁμαρτάνω (Strong'S #264 [[Verb]] hamartano ham-ar-tan'-o ) </div> <p> lit., "to miss the mark," is used in the NT (a) of "sinning" against God, (1) by angels, 2 Peter 2:4; (2) by man, Matthew 27:4; Luke 15:18,21 (heaven standing, by metonymy, for God); John 5:14; 8:11; 9:2,3; Romans 2:12 (twice); 3:23; 5:12,14,16; 6:15; 1 Corinthians 7:28 (twice),36; 15:34; Ephesians 4:26; 1 Timothy 5:20; Titus 3:11; Hebrews 3:17; 10:26; 1 John 1:10; in 1 John 2:1 (twice), the aorist tense in each place, referring to an act of "sin;" on the contrary, in 1 John 3:6 (twice),8,9, the present tense indicates, not the committal of an act, but the continuous practice of "sin" [see on A, No. 1 (c)]; in 1 John 5:16 (twice) the present tense indicates the condition resulting from an act, "unto death" signifying "tending towards death;" (b) against Christ, 1 Corinthians 8:12; (c) against man, (1) a brother, Matthew 18:15 , RV, "sin" (AV, "tresspass"); Matthew 18:21; Luke 17:3,4 , RV, "sin" (AV, "trespass"); 1 Corinthians 8:12; (2) in Luke 15:18,21 , against the father by the Prodigal Son, "in thy sight" being suggestive of befitting reverence; (d) against [[Jewish]] law, the Temple, and Caesar, Acts 25:8 , RV, "sinned" (AV, "offended"); (e) against one's own body, by fornication, 1 Corinthians 6:18; (f) against earthly masters by servants, 1 Peter 2:20 , RV, "(when) ye sin (and are buffeted for it)," AV, "(when ye be buffeted) for your faults," lit., "having sinned." </p> <div> C 2: Προαμαρτάνω (Strong'S #4258 Verb proamartano pro-am-ar-tan'-o ) </div> <p> "to sin previously" (pro, "before," and No. 1), occurs in 2 Corinthians 12:21; 13:2 , RV in each place, "have sinned heretofore" (so AV in the 2nd; in the 1st, "have sinned already"). </p>
| |
|
| |
| == Watson's Biblical & Theological Dictionary <ref name="term_81400" /> ==
| |
| <p> the transgression of the law, or want of conformity to the will of God, 1 John 3:4 . [[Original]] sin is that whereby our whole nature is corrupted, and rendered contrary to the nature and law of God; or, according to he ninth article of the church of England, "It is that whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is, of his own nature, inclined to evil." This is sometimes called, "indwelling sin," Romans 7. The imputation of the sin of [[Adam]] to his posterity, is also what divines call, with some latitude of expression, original sin. Actual sin is a direct violation of God's law, and generally applied to those who are capable of committing moral evil; as opposed to idiots or children, who have not the right use of their powers. Sins of omission consist in leaving those things undone which ought to be done. Sins of commission are those which are committed against affirmative precepts, or doing what should not be done. Sins of infirmity are those which arise from ignorance, surprise, &c. [[Secret]] sins are those committed in secret, or those of which, through blindness or prejudice, we do not see the evil, Psalms 19:7-12 . [[Presumptuous]] sins are those which are done boldly against light and conviction. The unpardonable sin is, according to some, the ascribing to the devil the miracles which [[Christ]] wrought by the power of the [[Holy]] Ghost. This sin, or blasphemy, as it should rather be called, many scribes and [[Pharisees]] were guilty of, who, beholding our Lord do his miracles, affirmed that he wrought them by Beelzebub, the prince of devils, which was, in effect, calling the Holy [[Ghost]] Satan, a most horrible blasphemy; and, as on this ground they rejected Christ, and salvation by him, their sin could certainly have no forgiveness. Mark 3:29-30 . No one therefore could be guilty of this blasphemy, except those who were spectators of Christ's miracles. There is, however, another view of this unpardonable offence, which deserves consideration: The sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, says [[Bishop]] Tomline, is mentioned in the first three Gospels. It appears that all the three evangelists agree in representing the sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost as a crime which would not be forgiven; but no one of them affirms that those who had ascribed Christ's power of casting out devils to Beelzebub, had been guilty of that sin, and in St. Luke it is not mentioned that any such charge had been made. Our Saviour, according to the account in St. Matthew and St. Mark, endeavoured to convince the [[Jews]] of their error; but so far from accusing them of having committed an unpardonable sin in what they had said concerning him, he declares that "whosoever speaketh a word against the [[Son]] of man, it shall be forgiven him;" that is, whatever reproaches men may utter against the Son of man during his ministry, however they may calumniate the authority upon which he acts, it is still possible that hereafter they may repent and believe, and all their sins may be forgiven them; but the reviling of the Holy Ghost is described as an offence of a far more heinous nature: "The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." "He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness." "Unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven." It is plain that this sin against the Holy Ghost could not be committed while our [[Saviour]] was upon earth, since he always speaks of the Holy Ghost as not being to come till after his ascension into heaven. A few days after that great event, the descent of the Holy Ghost enabled the [[Apostles]] to work miracles, and communicated to them a variety of other supernatural gifts. If men should ascribe these powers to Beelzebub, or in any respect reject their authority, they would blaspheme the Holy Ghost, from whom they were derived; and that sin would be unpardonable, because this was the completion of the evidence of the divine authority of Christ and his religion; and they who rejected these last means of conviction, could have no other opportunity of being brought to faith in Christ, the only appointed condition of pardon and forgiveness. The greater heinousness of the sin of these men would consist in their rejecting a greater body of testimony; for they are supposed to be acquainted with the resurrection of our Saviour from the dead, with his ascension into heaven, with the miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost, and with the supernatural powers which it communicated; circumstances, all of which were enforced by the Apostles when they preached the Gospel; but none of which could be known to those who refused to acknowledge [[Jesus]] as the [[Messiah]] during his actual ministry. Though this was a great sin, it was not an unpardonable one, it might be remedied by subsequent belief, by yielding to subsequent testimony. But, on the other hand, they who finally rejected the accumulated and complete evidence of Jesus being the Messiah, as exhibited by the inspired Apostles, precluded themselves from the possibility of conviction, because no farther testimony would be afforded them, and consequently, there being no means of repentance, they would be incapable of forgiveness and redemption. Hence it appears that the sin against the Holy Ghost consisted in finally rejecting the [[Gospel]] as preached by the Apostles, who confirmed the truth of the doctrine which they taught "by signs and wonders, and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost," Hebrews 2:4 . It was unpardonable, because this was the consummation of the proofs afforded to the men of that generation of the divine mission of Christ. This sin was manifestly distinct from all other sins; it indicated an invincible obstinacy of mind, an impious and unalterable determination to refuse the offered mercy of God. It would appear from this, that those only committed or could commit this irremissible offence, who were witnesses of the mighty works wrought by the Holy [[Spirit]] in the Apostles after Christ's ascension and the day of pentecost. Our Lord's declaration appears chiefly to respect the Jews. </p> <p> This view will serve to explain those passages in the [[Epistle]] to the Hebrews, in which the hopeless case of [[Jewish]] apostates is described. But See BLASPHEMY . </p>
| |
|
| |
| == Charles Buck Theological Dictionary <ref name="term_20465" /> ==
| |
| <p> The transgression of the law, or want of conformity to the will of God, 1 John 3:4 . </p> <p> 1. [[Original]] sin is that whereby our whole nature is corrupted, and rendered contrary to the law of God; or, according to the 9th article of the church of England, "It is that whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is, of his own nature, inclined to evil." This is sometimes called indwelling sin, Romans 7:1-25 : The imputation of the sin of [[Adam]] to his posterity is also what divines generally call, with some latitude of expression, original sin. </p> <p> 2. Actual sin is a direct violation of God's law, and generally applied to those who are capable of committing moral evil; as opposed to idiots, or children, who have not the right use of their powers. </p> <p> 3. Sins of omission consist in the leaving those things undone which ought to be done. </p> <p> 4. Sins of commission are those which are committed against affirmative precepts, or doing what should not be done. </p> <p> 5. Sins of infirmity are those which arise from the infirmity of the flesh, ignorance, surprise, snares of the world, &c. </p> <p> See INFIRMITY. </p> <p> 6. [[Secret]] sins are those committed in secret, or those which we, through blindness or prejudice, do not see the evil of, Psalms 19:12 . </p> <p> 7. [[Presumptuous]] sins are those which are done boldly, and against light and conviction. </p> <p> See PRESUMPTION. </p> <p> 8. Unpardonable sin is the denial of the truths of the Gospel; with an open and malicious rejection of it. The reason why this sin is never forgiven, is not because of any want of sufficiency in the blood of Christ, nor in the pardoning mercy of God, but because such as commit it never repent of it, but continue obstinate and malignant until death. The corruption of human nature is, </p> <p> 1. Universal as to the subjects of it. Rom.iii.23. Isaiah 53:6 . </p> <p> 2. General, as to all the powers of man, Isaiah 1:6 . </p> <p> 3. Awful, filling the mind with constant rebellion against [[God]] and his law. </p> <p> 4. [[Hateful]] to God, Job 15:16; and, </p> <p> 5. Punishable by him, 1 Samuel 2:9-10 . Romans 2:9 . Why the [[Almighty]] permitted it, when his power could have prevented it, and how it is conveyed from parents to their children, form some of those deep things of God, of which we can know but little in the present state; only this we are assured of, that he is a God of truth, and that whatever he does, or permits, will ultimately tend to promote his glory. While we contemplate, therefore, the nature, the evil, the guilt, the consequence of sin, it is our happiness to reflect, that he who permitted it hath provided a remedy for it; and that he "so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." </p> <p> See ATONEMENT, REDEMPTION; and Edwards, Wesley, and Taylor, on Original Sin; Gill's [[Body]] of Div. article Sin; King's and Jenyns's [[Origin]] of Evil; Burroughs' [[Exceeding]] Sinfulness of Sin; Dr. Owen on Indwelling Sin; Dr. Wright's [[Deceitfulness]] of Sin; Fletcher's appeal to [[Matter]] of Fact; Williams's [[Answer]] to Belsham; Watts's [[Ruin]] and Recovery; Howe's Living Temple, p. 2. 100: 4; Dr. Smith's [[Sermon]] on the [[Permission]] of Evil. </p>
| |
|
| |
| == American Tract Society Bible Dictionary <ref name="term_17123" /> ==
| |
| <p> 1. Any thought, word, desire, action, or omission of action, contrary to the law of God, or defective when compared with it. </p> <p> The origin of sin is a subject which baffles all investigation; and our inquiries are much better directed when we seek through [[Christ]] a release from its penalty and power, for ourselves and the world. Its entrance into the world, and infection of the whole human race, its nature, forms, and effects, and its fatal possession of every unregenerate soul, are fully described in the Bible, [[Genesis]] 6:5 [[Psalm]] 51:5 Matthew 15:19 Romans 5:12 James 1:14,15 . </p> <p> As contrary to the nature, worship, love, and service to God, sin is called ungodliness; as a violation of the law of [[God]] and of the claims of man, it is a transgression or trespass; as a deviation from eternal rectitude, it is called iniquity or unrighteousness; as the evil and bitter root of all actual transgression, the depravity transmitted from our first parents to all their seed, it is called "original sin," or in the Bible," the flesh," "the law of sin and death," etc., Romans 8:1,2 1 John 3:4 5:17 . The just penalty or "wages of sin is death;" this was threatened against the first sin, Genesis 2:17 and all subsequent sins: "the soul that sinneth it shall die." A single sin, unrepented of the unforgiven, destroys the soul, as a single break renders a whole ocean cable worthless. Its guilt and evil are to be measured by the holiness, justice, and goodness of the law it violates, the eternity of the misery it causes, and the greatness of the [[Sacrifice]] necessary to expiate it. </p> <p> "Sin" is also sometimes put for the sacrifice of expiation, the sin offering, described in Leviticus 4:3,25,29 also, Romans 8:3 and in 2 Corinthians 5:21 , [[Paul]] says that God was pleased that Jesus, who knew no sin, should be our victim of expiation: "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." </p> <p> For the sin against the [[Holy]] Ghost, see [[Blasphemy]] . </p> <p> 2. A desert of [[Arabia]] Petraea, near Egypt, and on the western arm of the [[Red]] Sea, Exodus 16:1 17:1 Numbers 33:12 . To be distinguished from the desert of Zin. See [[Zin]] . </p> <p> 3. An ancient fortified city, called "the strength of Egypt," Ezekiel 30:15,16 . Its name means mire, and in this it agrees with [[Pelusium]] and Tineh, the [[Greek]] and modern names of the same place. It defended the northeast frontier of Egypt, and lay near the Mediterranean, of the eastern arm of the Nile. Its site, near the village of Tineh, is surrounded with morasses; and is now accessible by boat only during a high inundation, or by land in the driest part or summer. A few mounds and columns alone remain. </p>
| |
|
| |
| == King James Dictionary <ref name="term_62762" /> ==
| |
| <p> SIN, n. </p> 1. The voluntary departure of a moral agent from a known rule of rectitude or duty, prescribed by [[God]] any voluntary transgression of the divine law, or violation of a divine command a wicked act iniquity. [[Sin]] is either a positive act in which a known divine law is violated, or it is the voluntary neglect to obey a positive divine command, or a rule of duty clearly implied in such command. Sin comprehends not action only, but neglect of known duty, all evil thoughts purposes, words and desires, whatever is contrary to God's commands or law. 1 John 3 . Matt. 15. James 4 . [[Sinner]] neither enjoy the pleasures of nor the peace of piety. Among divines, sin is original or actual. Actual sin, above defined, is the act of a moral agent in violating a known rule of duty. [[Original]] sin, as generally understood, is native depravity of heart to the divine will, that corruption of nature of deterioration of the moral character of man, which is supposed to be the effect of Adam's apostasy and which manifests itself in moral agents by positive act of disobedience to the divine will, or by the voluntary neglect to comply with the express commands of God, which require that we should love God with all the heart and soul and strength and mind, and our neighbor as ourselves. This native depravity or alienation of affections from God and his law, is supposed to be what the apostle calls the carnal mind or mindedness, which is enmity against God, and is therefore denominated sin or sinfulness. Unpardonable sin, or blasphemy against the [[Holy]] Spirit, is supposed to be a malicious and obstinate rejection of [[Christ]] and the gospel plan of salvation, or a contemptuous resistance made to the influences and convictions of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 12 2. A sin-offering an offering made to atone for sin. He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin. 2 Corinthians 5 . 3. A man enormously wicked. Not in use. 4. Sin differs from crime, not in nature, but in application. That which is a crime against society, is sin against God.
| |
|
| |
| == Webster's Dictionary <ref name="term_174829" /> ==
| |
| <p> (1): (n.) To depart voluntarily from the path of duty prescribed by [[God]] to man; to violate the divine law in any particular, by actual transgression or by the neglect or nonobservance of its injunctions; to violate any known rule of duty; - often followed by against. </p> <p> (2): (n.) [[Transgression]] of the law of God; disobedience of the divine command; any violation of God's will, either in purpose or conduct; moral deficiency in the character; iniquity; as, sins of omission and sins of commission. </p> <p> (3): (n.) An offense, in general; a violation of propriety; a misdemeanor; as, a sin against good manners. </p> <p> (4): (n.) A sin offering; a sacrifice for sin. </p> <p> (5): (n.) An embodiment of sin; a very wicked person. </p> <p> (6): (adv., prep., & conj.) Old form of Since. </p> <p> (7): (n.) To violate human rights, law, or propriety; to commit an offense; to trespass; to transgress. </p>
| |
|
| |
| == Easton's Bible Dictionary <ref name="term_33556" /> ==
| |
| <li> "Sin against the [[Holy]] Ghost" (q.v.), or a "sin unto death" (Matthew 12:31,32; 1 John 5:16 ), which amounts to a wilful rejection of grace. <p> Sin, a city in Egypt, called by the [[Greeks]] Pelusium, which means, as does also the [[Hebrew]] name, "clayey" or "muddy," so called from the abundance of clay found there. It is called by Ezekel (Ezekiel 30:15 ) "the strength of Egypt, "thus denoting its importance as a fortified city. It has been identified with the modern Tineh, "a miry place," where its ruins are to be found. Of its boasted magnificence only four red granite columns remain, and some few fragments of others. </p> <div> <p> [[Copyright]] StatementThese dictionary topics are from M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated [[Bible]] Dictionary, Third Edition, published by [[Thomas]] Nelson, 1897. Public Domain. </p> <p> Bibliography InformationEaston, Matthew George. Entry for 'Sin'. Easton's Bible Dictionary. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/ebd/s/sin.html. 1897. </p> </div> </li>
| |
|
| |
| == Smith's Bible Dictionary <ref name="term_75033" /> ==
| |
| <p> Sin. A city of Egypt, mentioned only by Ezekiel. Ezekiel 30:15-16. The name is Hebrew, or at least Semitic, perhaps, signifying clay. It is identified in the Vulgate, with Pelusium, "the clayey or muddy" town. Its antiquity may, perhaps, be inferred from the mention of "the wilderness of Sin" in the journeys of the Israelites. Exodus 16:1; Numbers 33:11. </p> <p> Ezekiel speaks of [[Sin]] as "Sin the strongholds of Egypt." Ezekiel 30:15. This place was held by Egyp, t from that time, until the period of the Romans. [[Herodotus]] relates that [[Sennacherib]] advanced against Pelusium, and that near Pelusium, [[Cambyses]] defeated Psammenitus. In like manner, the decisive battle in which Ochus defeated the last native king, Nectanebes, was fought near this city. </p>
| |
|
| |
| == Hawker's Poor Man's Concordance And Dictionary <ref name="term_48798" /> ==
| |
| <p> The Hebrews had in use several words by way of expressing the nature of sin; in the diversities of it. But the truth is, that sin doth not consist in this, or in that act of it, for the acts of sin are but the branches; the root is within: so that strictly and properly speaking, in the fallen and corrupt nature of man, sin itself is alike in every son and daughter of Adam. And that it doth not break out alike in all is not from any difference in the nature of man, but in the power of the divine restraints. If this doctrine, which is wholly Scriptural, were but thoroughly and fully understood by all men, what humbling views would it induce in all, and how endeared to all would be the person, blood, and righteousness of the Lord [[Jesus]] Christ! I beg to leave this on the reader's mind. </p>
| |
|
| |
| == People's Dictionary of the Bible <ref name="term_70756" /> ==
| |
| <p> Sin, [[Wilderness]] of (sĭn). A region between [[Elim]] and Rephidim. Exodus 16:1; Exodus 17:1; Numbers 33:11-12. Here the [[Israelites]] were first fed with manna and quails. The wilderness extends 25 miles along the east shore of the [[Red]] Sea, from Wâdy Taiyibeh to Wâdy Feiran; it is now called the plain of el-Markha. It is barren, but has a little vegetation. </p>
| |
|
| |
| == Morrish Bible Dictionary <ref name="term_68843" /> ==
| |
| <p> City in Egypt: the LXX has Σάι>ς, and the [[Vulgate]] (as in the margin), <i> Pelusium. </i> Ezekiel calls it 'the strength of Egypt.' Ezekiel 30:15,16 . It is supposed to be identified with the modern <i> Tineh, </i> where a few ruins are found. It is close to the Pelusiac mouth of the Nile, about 31 4' N, 32 28' E . </p>
| |
|
| |
| == Charles Spurgeon's Illustration Collection <ref name="term_76087" /> ==
| |
| <p> Those who give themselves up to the service of sin, enter the palace of pleasure by wide portals of marble, which conceal the low wicket behind which leads into the fields, where they are in a short time sent to feed swine.: James D. Burns. </p>
| |
|
| |
| == Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature <ref name="term_60777" /> ==
| |
| <p> (Heb. Sin, ]סַי; Sept. Σάϊς [v.r. Τάνις ] or Συήνη; Vulg. Pelusium), the name of a town and of a desert perhaps adjoining, upon which modern researches have thrown important light. </p> <p> 1. A city of Egypt, which is mentioned in Ezekiel 30:15-16, in connection with [[Thebes]] and Memphis, and is described as "the strength of Egypt," showing that it was a fortified place. The name is Hebrew, or, at least, Shemitic. [[Gesenius]] supposes it to signify "clay," from the unused root סַי, probably "he or it was muddy, clayey." It is identified in the Vulg. with [[Pelusium]] Πηλούσιον, "the clayey or muddy" town, from πηλός; and seems to be preserved in the Arabic Et-Tineh, which forms part of the names of [[Fum]] et-Tineh, the [[Mouth]] of Et-Tineh, the supposed Pelusiac mouth of the Nile, and Burg or Kal'at et-Tineh, the [[Tower]] or [[Castle]] of El- Tineh, in the immediate neighborhood, "tin" signifying "mud," etc., in Arabic. This evidence is sufficient to show that [[Sin]] is Pelusium. The ancient [[Egyptian]] name is still to be sought for; it has been supposed that Pelusium preserves traces of it, but this is very improbable. Champollion identifies Pelusium with the Poresoum or Peresom (the second being a variation held by Quatremere to be incorrect) and Baresoum of the Copts, El-Farma of the Arabs, which was in the time of the former a boundary city, the limits of a governor's authority being stated to have extended from [[Alexandria]] to Pilak-h, or Philae, and Peremoun (Acts of St. Sarapamon MS. Copt. Vat. 67, fol. 90, ap. Quatremere, Memoires Geog. et Hist. sur l'Egypte, 1, 259). Champollion ingeniously derives this name from the article ph prefixed to ep, "to be," and oum, "mud" (L'Egypte, 2, 82-87; comp. Brugsch. Geogr. Inschr. 1, 297). Brugsch compares the ancient Egyptian Ha-rem, which he reads Pe-rema, on our system Pe-rem, "the abode of the tear," or "of the fish rem" (ibid. pl. 55, No. 1679). Pelusium he would make the city Samhat (or, as he reads it Sam-hud), remarking that "the nome of the city Samhud" is the only one which has the determinative of a city, and comparing the evidence of the [[Roman]] nome coins, on which the place is apparently treated as a nome; but this is not certain, for there may have been a Pelusiac nome, and the etymology of the name Samhat is unknown (ibid. p. 128; pl. 28, 17). </p> <p> The exact site of Pelusium is not fully determined. It has been thought to be marked by mounds near Burg et-Tineh, now called El-Farma, and not Et-Tineh. This is disputed by Capt. Spratt, who supposes that the mound of Abu-Khiyar indicates where it stood. This is further inland, and apparently on the west of the old Pelusiac branch, as was Pelusium. It is situate between Farma and Tel-Defenneh. Whatever may have been its exact position, Pelusium must have owed its strength not to any great elevation, but to its being placed in, the midst of a plain of marsh land. and mud, never easy to traverse. The ancient sites in such alluvial tracts of [[Egypt]] are in general only sufficiently raised above the level of the plain to preserve them from being injured by the inundation. It lay among swamps and morasses on the most easterly estuary of the [[Nile]] (which received from it the name of Ostium Pelusiacum), and stood twenty stades from the [[Mediterranean]] (Strabo, 16, 760; 17, 801, 802; Pliny, Hist. Nat. 5, 11). The site is now only approachable by boats during a high Nile, or by land when the summer sun has dried the mud left by the inundation; the remains consist only of mounds and a few fallen columns. The climate is very unwholesome (Wilkinson, Mod. Egypt. 1, 406. 444; Savary, [[Letters]] on Egypt, 1, let. 24; Henniker, Travels). </p> <p> The antiquity of the town of Sin may perhaps be inferred from the mention of "the wilderness of Sin" in the journeys of the [[Israelites]] (Exodus 16:1; Numbers 33:11). It is remarkable, however, that the Israelites did not immediately enter this tract on leaving the cultivated part of Egypt, so that it is held to have been within the Sinaitic peninsula, and therefore it may take its name from some other place or country than the Egyptian Sin. (See No. 2.), </p> <p> Pelusium is noticed (as above) by Ezekiel, in one of the prophecies relating to the invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, as one of the cities which should then suffer calamities, withl probably, reference to their later history. The others spoken of are [[Noph]] (Memphis), [[Zoan]] (Tanis), No, (Thebes), [[Aven]] (Heliopolis), Pi-beseth (Bubastis), and [[Tehaphnehes]] (Daphnae). All these, excepting the two ancient capitals, Thebes and Memphis, lay on or near the eastern boundary; and, in the approach to Memphis, an invader could scarcely advance, after capturing Pelusium and Daphnae without taking Tanis, Bubastis, and Heliopolis. In the most ancient times, Tanis, as afterwards Pelusium, seems to have been the key of Egypt on the east. [[Bubastis]] was an important position from its lofty mounds, and [[Heliopolis]] as securing the approach to Memphis. The prophet speaks of Sin as "the stronghold of Egypt" (30:15). This place it held from that time until the period of the Romans. Pelusium appears to have been the perpetual battlefield between the [[Egyptians]] and their foreign enemies. As early as the time of [[Rameses]] the Great, in the 14th century B.C., we find Sin proving itself to be what the prophet termed it, "the strength of Egypt." One of the Sallier papyri in the British [[Museum]] contains a record of the war between the Egyptians and the Sheta; and the victory which Rameses gained in the neighborhood of Pelusium is detailed at length. The importance of this victory may be gathered from the fact that the Sheta are said to have made their attack with 4500 chariots. As [[Diodorus]] specifies the number of this Pharaoh's army, which he says amounted to 60,000 infantry, 24,000 cavalry, and 27,000 chariots of war, it is no wonder that he was enabled successfully to resist the attacks of the Sheta. Diodorus also mentions that Rameses the Great "defended the east side of Egypt against the irruptions of the [[Syrians]] and [[Arabians]] with a wall drawn from Pelusium through the deserts, as far as to Heliopolis, for the space of 1500 furlongs." </p> <p> He gives a singular account of an attempt on the part of his younger brother to murder this great Pharaoh, when at Pelusium after one of his warlike expeditions, which was happily frustrated by the adroitness of the king (Diod. Sic. 1, 4). [[Herodotus]] relates (2, 141) that [[Sennacherib]] advanced against Pelusiim, and that near Pelusitum [[Cambyses]] defeated Psammenitus (3, 10-13). In like maner the decisive battle in which Ochus defeated the last native king, Nectanebos (Nekht-nebf), was fought near this city. It was near this place that Pompey met his death, being murdered by order of Ptolemy, whose protection he had claimed (Hist. Bell. Alexand. p., 20, 27; Livy, 45, 11; Josephus, Ant. 14, 8, 1; War, 1, 8, 7; 1, 9, 3). It is perhaps worthy of note that Ezekiel twice mentions Pelusium in the prophecy which contains the remarkable and signally fulfilled sentence, "There shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt" (30, 13). As he saw the long train of calamities that were to fall upon the country, Pelusium may well have stood out as the chief place of her successive humiliations. Two [[Persian]] conquests and two submissions to strangers first to Alexander, and then to [[Augustus]] may explain the especial misery foretold of this city: "Sin shall suffer great anguish" (Ezekiel 30:16). </p> <p> We find in the [[Bible]] a geographical name which has the form of a gentile noun derived from Sin, and is usually held to apply to two different nations, neither connected with the city Sin. In the list of the descendants of Noah, the Sinite, סַינַי, occurs among the sons of [[Canaan]] (Genesis 10:17; 1 Chronicles 1:15). This people, from its place between the [[Arkite]] and the Arvadite, has been supposed to have settled in [[Syria]] north of Palestine, where similar names occur in classical geography, and have been alleged in confirmation. This theory would not, however, necessarily imply that the whole tribe was there settled, and the supposed traces of the name are by no means conclusive. On the other hand, it must be observed that some of the eastern towns of [[Lower]] Egypt have [[Hebrew]] as well as Egyptian names, as Heliopolis and Tanis; that those very near the border seem to have borne only Hebrew names, as Migdol; so that we have an indication of a Shemitic influence in this part of Egypt, diminishing in degree according to the distance from the border. It is difficult to account for this influence by the single circumstance of the [[Shepherd]] invasion of Egypt, especially as it is shown yet more strikingly by the remarkably strong characteristics which have distinguished the inhabiants of Northeastern Egypt from their fellow countrymen from the days of Herodotus and Achilles Tatius to our own. </p> <p> Nor must we pass by the statement of the former of these writers that the [[Palestine]] Syrians dwelt westward of the Arabians to the eastern boundary of Egypt (2 Chronicles 3:5). [[Therefore]] it does not seem a violent hypothesis that the [[Sinites]] were connected with Pelusium, though their main body may perhaps have settled much farther to the north. The distance is not greater than that between the [[Hittites]] of Southern Palestine and those of the valley of the Orontes, although the separation of the less powerful [[Hivites]] into those dwelling beneath Mount [[Hermon]] and the inhabitants of the small confederacy of which [[Gibeon]] was apparently the head is perhaps nearer to our supposed case. If the wilderness of Sin owed its name to Pelusium, this is an evidence of the very early importance of the town and its connection with Arabia, which would perhaps be strange in the case of a purely Egyptian town. The conjecture we have put forth suggests a recurrence to the old explanation of the famous mention of "the land of Sinlim," אֶרֶוֹ סַינַים, in Isaiah (Isaiah 49:12), supposed by some to refer to China. This would appear from the context to be a very remote region. It is mentioned after the north and the west, and would seem to be in a southern or eastern direction. Sin is certainly not remote, nor is the supposed place of the Sinites to the north of Palestine; but the expression may be proverbial. The people of Pelusium, if of [[Canaanitish]] origin, were certainly remote compared to most of the other Canaanites, and were separated by alien peoples, and it is also noticeable that they were to the southeast of Palestine. As the sea bordering Palestine came to designate the west, as in this passage, so the land of [[Sinim]] may have passed into a proverbial expression for a distant and separated country. (See [[Sinim]]); (See [[Sinite]]). </p> <p> 2. A "wilderness" (מַדְבִראּסַין; Sept. ἔπημος Σίν; Vulg. desertum Sin) which the Israelites reached after leaving the encampment by the [[Red]] Sea, (Numbers 33:11-12). Their next halting place (Exodus 16:1; Exodus 17:1) was Rephidim, either [[Wady]] Feiran, or the mouth of Wady es-Sheikh, (See [[Rephidim]]); on which supposition it would follow that Sin must lie between those wadies and the coast of the [[Gulf]] of Suez, and of course west of Sinai. Since they were by this time gone more than a month from Egypt, the locality must be too far towards the southeast to receive its name from the Egyptian Sin of Ezekiel 30:15, called Σάϊς by the Sept., and identified with Pelusium. (See above.) In the wilderness of Sin the manna Was first gathered, and those who adopt the supposition that this was merely the natural product of the tarfa bush find from the abundance of that shrub in Wady es-Sheikh, southeast of Wady Ghurundel, a proof of local identity. (See [[Elim]]). </p> <p> As the previous encampment by the Red [[Sea]] must have been in the plain of Mukhah, the "wilderness of Sin" could not well have been other than the present plain el-Kaa, which commences at the mouth of Wady Taiyibeh, and extends along the whole southwestern side of the peninsula. At first narrow, and interrupted by spurs from the mountains, it soon expands into an undulating, dreary waste, covered in part with a white gravelly soil, and in part with sand. Its desolate aspect appears: to have produced a most depressing effect upon the Israelites. [[Shut]] in on the one hand by the sea, on the other by the wild mountains, exposed to the full blaze of a burning sun, on that bleak plain, the stock of provisions brought from Egypt now exhausted we can scarcely wonder that they said to Moses, "Would to [[God]] we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots, when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger" (Exodus 16:3). (See [[Exode]]). </p>
| |
|
| |
| == Kitto's Popular Cyclopedia of Biblial Literature <ref name="term_16750" /> ==
| |
| <p> Sin, 1 </p> <p> Sin, a city of Egypt, which is mentioned in , in connection with [[Thebes]] and Memphis, and is described as 'the strength of Egypt,' showing it to have been a fortified place. The Sept. makes it to have been Saïs, but [[Jerome]] regards it as Pelusium. This latter identification has been generally adopted, and is scarcely open to dispute. [[Pelusium]] was anciently a place of great consequence. It was strongly fortified, being the bulwark of the [[Egyptian]] frontier on the eastern side, and was considered the 'key,' or, as the prophet terms it, 'the strength' of Egypt. It was near this place that Pompey met his death, being murdered by order of Ptolemy, whose protection he had claimed. It lay among swamps and morasses on the most easterly estuary of the [[Nile]] (which received from it the name of Ostium Pelusiacum), and stood twenty stades from the Mediterranean. The site is now only approachable by boats during a high Nile, or by land when the summer sun has dried the mud left by the inundation: the remains consist merely of mounds and a few fallen columns. The climate is very unwholesome. </p> <p> Sin, 2 </p> <p> Sin, the desert which the [[Israelites]] entered on turning off from the [[Red]] [[Sea]] (;; ) [SINAI]. </p>
| |
| | | |
| ==References == | | ==References == |
| <references> | | <references> |
|
| |
|
| <ref name="term_54310"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/hastings-dictionary-of-the-bible/sin Sin from Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible]</ref> | | <ref name="term_57401"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/hastings-dictionary-of-the-new-testament/sin+(2) Sin from Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament]</ref> |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_57397"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/hastings-dictionary-of-the-new-testament/sin Sin from Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_18241"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/baker-s-evangelical-dictionary-of-biblical-theology/sin Sin from Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_76534"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/vine-s-expository-dictionary-of-ot-words/sin Sin from Vine's Expository Dictionary of OT Words]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_19070"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/bridgeway-bible-dictionary/sin Sin from Bridgeway Bible Dictionary]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_44128"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/holman-bible-dictionary/sin Sin from Holman Bible Dictionary]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_79246"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/vine-s-expository-dictionary-of-nt-words/sin Sin from Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_81400"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/watson-s-biblical-theological-dictionary/sin Sin from Watson's Biblical & Theological Dictionary]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_20465"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/charles-buck-theological-dictionary/sin Sin from Charles Buck Theological Dictionary]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_17123"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/american-tract-society-bible-dictionary/sin Sin from American Tract Society Bible Dictionary]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_62762"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/king-james-dictionary/sin Sin from King James Dictionary]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_174829"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/webster-s-dictionary/sin Sin from Webster's Dictionary]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_33556"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/easton-s-bible-dictionary/sin Sin from Easton's Bible Dictionary]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_75033"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/smith-s-bible-dictionary/sin Sin from Smith's Bible Dictionary]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_48798"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/hawker-s-poor-man-s-concordance-and-dictionary/sin Sin from Hawker's Poor Man's Concordance And Dictionary]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_70756"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/people-s-dictionary-of-the-bible/sin Sin from People's Dictionary of the Bible]</ref>
| |
| | | |
| <ref name="term_68843"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/morrish-bible-dictionary/sin Sin from Morrish Bible Dictionary]</ref> | | <ref name="term_37345"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/fausset-s-bible-dictionary/sin+(2) Sin from Fausset's Bible Dictionary]</ref> |
| | | |
| <ref name="term_76087"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/charles-spurgeon-s-illustration-collection/sin Sin from Charles Spurgeon's Illustration Collection]</ref> | | <ref name="term_76086"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/charles-spurgeon-s-illustration-collection/sin+(2) Sin from Charles Spurgeon's Illustration Collection]</ref> |
| | | |
| <ref name="term_60777"> [https://bibleportal.com/encyclopedia/cyclopedia-of-biblical-theological-and-ecclesiastical-literature/sin Sin from Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature]</ref> | | <ref name="term_60781"> [https://bibleportal.com/encyclopedia/cyclopedia-of-biblical-theological-and-ecclesiastical-literature/sin+(2) Sin from Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature]</ref> |
| | | |
| <ref name="term_16750"> [https://bibleportal.com/encyclopedia/kitto-s-popular-cyclopedia-of-biblial-literature/sin Sin from Kitto's Popular Cyclopedia of Biblial Literature]</ref> | | <ref name="term_8492"> [https://bibleportal.com/encyclopedia/international-standard-bible-encyclopedia/sin+(2) Sin from International Standard Bible Encyclopedia]</ref> |
| | | |
| </references> | | </references> |
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament [1]
SIN. —Sin is personal hostility to the will of God. Christian teaching with regard to it is relative to the facts of the gospel, being necessarily implied by the death of Christ considered as a work of redemption. It is the Christian interpretation of facts of experience, which are independent of any explanation of life, whether offered by theology, philosophy, or scientific theory. Its value is irrespective of the view which historical criticism may suggest of the literature of the OT. Neither is it affected by theories of the organic development of the world or human life derived from modern biological thought. Philosophic systems, monistic or otherwise, cannot be allowed to govern or modify a doctrine which in the first instance can be tested only by relation to beliefs grounded not upon metaphysic, but experience. The Christian will rather hold that a philosophic theory inadequate to the facts of the gospel has been too hastily identified with reality.
1. The gospel never rises above the limits of its first publication as the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:14-15). No doubt the terms are deepened and spiritualized, as well by the subsequent teaching of Jesus (Luke 17:20; Luke 19:11, Acts 1:7-8) as by the accomplishment of His atoning work (Luke 24:44-49). But though what might have remained an external and almost physical conception became the manifestation of one eternal life (John 3:15-16, 1 John 1:1-3), nevertheless the Church of the living God (1 Timothy 3:15), the relation of a people of possession to their rightful Lord, King, and Father (Titus 2:14) is constant. Allegiance, faith, sonship are the marks of those who share the membership of this Kingdom. What Jesus the Messiah found was disobedience and disloyalty. Human life, as He was called upon to deal with it, involved subjection to another prince (John 14:30), bondage to another master (John 8:34), ‘sonship’ to another ‘father’ (John 8:44). To the consciousness of Jesus, Satan was present, not as a convenient personification of evil that became actual only in the individual wills of men, but as the author of sin, the person in whom evil has its spring, even as God is the fount of life. Jesus’ sense of dependence upon the Father did not carry with it a monism which saw God in all and all in God. For Him, as for St. John, the whole world lay in the Evil One (1 John 5:19, cf. Luke 4:5-6). His own conflict was with the prince of this world (John 14:30). To be delivered from the Evil One was the converse of being brought into temptation (Matthew 6:13 : the insertion of ἀλλά in Mt., and the absence of the clause in the best Manuscripts of Luke 11:4 suggest that it is correlative to the preceding clause, representing the same act differently). He had seen Satan fallen as lightning from heaven (Luke 10:18). Over against the Kingdom of God was the kingdom of Satan (Matthew 12:26-28; Matthew 16:27; Matthew 25:41, cf. Revelation 16:10). The drama of human life was accomplished in presence of this already existing dualism. Christ assumes the current Hebrew conception of a world of spiritual personalities under the leadership of Beelzebub (Luke 11:14-26). The stampede of the swine at Gerasa witnesses to their control, within the limits of Divine permission, over natural forces (Mark 5:13). Physical disease results from Satan’s bondage (Luke 13:16). Possession by demons is an abnormal case of its influence over human beings ( e.g. Mark 9:20-22). And all opposition to the purpose of God is inspired by Satan (John 8:42-47). The Jews were of their father the devil, so that the works wrought by them were antithetic to the works of God manifested in Jesus (John 8:44). Even the chosen Twelve Satan had asked to have, that he might sift them as wheat (Luke 22:31). So the Passion was a continuation of the Temptation, a direct agony and death-struggle wherein the prince of this world was cast out (John 12:31; John 16:11), the strong man spoiled (Luke 11:21).
From the first the proclamation of the good news, accompanied as it was with the curing of diseases and the casting out of demons (Matthew 10:7-8, Luke 9:1-2), witnessed to the real character of Christ’s work asredemption, ransom, and salvation. For the true unification between the normal and universal purpose of the gospel—the forgiveness of sins—and the occasional and particular accessories of it—exorcism and healing—lay not so much in the analogy between bodily disease and spiritual wickedness, as in the fact that both are the exercise of the one Satanic power within the usurped kingdom of evil. No doubt there is a certain suggestiveness in the parallel between disease and sin, which Jesus Himself recognized. But there is nothing in His teaching to suggest the later ideas of taint, infection, vitiated nature. It is trespasses which the Heavenly Father must do away, and that by forgiveness (Matthew 6:15); salvation from sins (Matthew 1:21), i.e. actions involving guilt, is implied by the name Jesus (see art. Guilt). The bringing forth of the people from Pharaoh’s bondage to serve Jehovah is the ancient experience which is before the mind of devout men under the old covenant as the pattern of the deliverance which Messiah was to accomplish (Matthew 2:15, cf. Hosea 11:1). Salvation is therefore not the restoration of spiritual health, but the liberation of God’s people from an evil service. The ministry of the Son of Man consists in giving His life a ransom (Mark 10:45, Matthew 20:28; cf. 1 Timothy 2:6). And the Fourth Evangelist only interprets the mind of the Master when he speaks of Jesus as dying for the nation, and destined to gather together into one the scattered children of God (John 11:51-52). He was the shepherd bringing home the lost sheep dispersed upon the mountains (John 10:16); or, somewhat to vary the idea, the Redeemer coming into the world, not to judge it along with its prince, but to save it from the Evil One (John 3:17-18, John 12:31; John 12:47, John 17:15), and casting out the indwelling Satan by the finger or Spirit of God (Luke 11:20). The acceptable year of the Lord is a year of release (Luke 4:18-19).
2. From the implications of the Gospel narrative we pass to the theology of the Epistles . In order togain a clear view of St. Paul’s doctrine of sin in its completeness, it is necessary to go behind the Epistle to the Romans. We must bear in mind, first of all, the essentially Jewish basis of his thought. To him salvation, or redemption, carried all the associations which had gathered round it in Hebrew history. The Kingdom of Messiah was a vivid reality, and the earlier Epistles show that at first he was not without the common anticipation of its immediate establishment in manifested power. Satan was a concrete fact. If at one time it was the Spirit of Jesus that suffered him not (Acts 16:7), at another Satan hindered him (1 Thessalonians 2:18). The thorn in the flesh was a messenger of Satan (2 Corinthians 12:7). The Christian is armed in order to ward off the fiery darts of the Evil One (Ephesians 6:16). Principalities and powers were the unseen antagonists of Christ’s servants (Ephesians 6:12, cf. Luke 22:53), the enemies over whom Christ triumphed in the Cross (Colossians 2:15). If Messiah was to be manifested at the Parousia, Satan was also destined to be manifested in the Man of Sin (2 Thessalonians 2:3-11). A remarkable parallel to the conception of ‘the Evil One,’ which appears both in the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel, is found in ‘the prince of the power of the air’ (Ephesians 2:2). The same passage describes those who become sons of God as by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), dead not in sin but through trespasses (Ephesians 2:5), sons of disobedience because inwrought by this evil spirit (Ephesians 2:2). Demons are as much part of St. Paul’s world as of that which appears in the Synoptists. He identifies them with the heathen gods (1 Corinthians 10:20-21). Belial is the antithesis of Christ (2 Corinthians 6:15). To lapse from Christian conduct is to turn aside after Satan (1 Timothy 5:15); to be separated from Christian fellowship is to be delivered to Satan (1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Timothy 1:20). And that redemption meant primarily for St. Paul translation from the kingdom of Satan to the Kingdom of God (Colossians 1:13), is attested by the form in which he narrates before Agrippa the story of his commission as Apostle of the Gentiles (Acts 26:18). All this is in close correspondence with the mind of Jesus, and must be brought with us to a closer examination of the Pauline doctrine of sin.
That sin is essentially disloyalty to God is the substance of the locus classicus on the nature of sin, Romans 1:18-32 ‘Knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks’ (Romans 1:21). It will be observed, first, that the Apostle here speaks of sin in its widest signification, including such distinctions as are involved in the theological conceptions of original and actual. We have here, therefore, a definition of sin which must govern all subsequent uses of the term. All the elements which enter into particular sins, or transgressions of known law, are represented—knowledge of God and dependence upon Him (Romans 1:20), wilful and therefore inexcusable refusal of due homage (Romans 1:21), the incurring of guilt and consequently of God’s wrath (Romans 1:18). Further, it is noticeable that the plural ‘men,’ not the collective ‘man,’ is used throughout the passage. There is nothing abstract in this general view of sin, even though it be universal (cf. ‘all sinned,’ Romans 5:12; ‘all died,’ 2 Corinthians 5:14). Another point is, that St. Paul is led to disclose this ‘vision of sin’ as the necessary postulate of the gospel (Romans 1:16-18), in which is revealed a righteousness of God’ (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21). Lastly, there is no confusion, as in the popular mind, between those physical excesses which are called vice, and the inward refusal ‘to have God in their knowledge’ (Romans 3:28), whether it applies to the sensuous or the spiritual nature of men, which alone is sin. ‘God gave them up unto a reprobate mind’ (Romans 3:28), with all its consequences to the complex personality of man. This is of great significance. St. Paul’s appeal is not to the equivocal testimony of external facts, which considered in themselves are non-moral, but to facts as interpreted by conscience. Fundamentally this is the appeal to personal experience, and it is clear from the Epistle to the Romans, as from the whole Pauline theology, that the Apostle is universalizing his own experience, as he saw himself in the light of the vision of Jesus of Nazareth (Galatians 1:11-17, Romans 7:7-25).
Now St. Paul expresses his relation to sin in the phrase ‘sin dwelleth in me’ (Romans 7:17). He is describing the common experience of an inward struggle, when neither good nor evil is finally in the ascendant. The complete sinful condition would be one of consent (Romans 1:32, 2 Thessalonians 2:12), in which ‘the law of sin’ was unchecked by ‘the law of the mind’ (Romans 7:23, Galatians 5:17). The terms must not be misunderstood in view of the modern conception of scientific law, ‘Law’ in St. Paul’s theology involves the personality of the lawgiver, so that to find this ‘law in the members’ (Romans 7:23), to be inwrought by sin, seems to point to an indwelling spiritual presence. Is this a mere figure? St. Paul reverts to it in a still more significant form. Christians are not to let sin reign in their mortal bodies (Romans 6:12). Compliance with evil involves an obedience (Romans 6:16), a slavery (Romans 6:17). There is a close parallel between those who, as alive in Christ Jesus, are servants of God, and those who being dead in trespasses serve sin (Romans 6:15-23). Two hostile kingdoms, two rival loyalties, make their claim upon a man’s allegiance. So, when under the form of ‘Adam’s transgression,’ sin is considered in its universal aspect (Romans 5:14), a personal sovereignty is again suggested—‘death,’ i.e. sin in its consequent development, ‘reigned through the one’ (Romans 5:17). The effect of Adam’s transgression is represented as the establishment of an authority (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:24, Ephesians 2:2; Ephesians 6:12, Colossians 1:13) over his descendants rather than as a corruption of their nature, carrying with it therefore condemnation (Romans 5:16; see art. Guilt) as the due sentence of God upon those who reject His law. This personal embodiment of hostility to the Divine law and government, in view of St. Paul’s general outlook on the spiritual world, can be none other than Satan, exercising, as captain of ‘spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places’ (Ephesians 6:12), not an external compulsion but an inward influence, not therefore impairing the responsible personalities that are indwelt. Thus St. Paul can say, ‘Death passed unto all men, for that all sinned (Romans 5:12). Sin is always a personal attitude, never a pathological condition. Death is its consequence (Romans 5:12), but the physical analogy of St. James (Romans 1:15) has no parallel in St. Paul. It is always the sentence, punishment, or wages (Romans 6:23; see art. Guilt), the sequel to the righteous judgment of God (Romans 2:5). So, too, salvation is not a remedy for mortal disease, but a personal act of kindness and mercy on the part of an offended but loving God (Ephesians 1:5-10; Ephesians 2:7, Titus 3:4-8). Looking to the state from which men are rescued, it is redemption (Galatians 3:13; Galatians 4:5); looking to that into which they are brought, it is reconciliation (Romans 5:10-11; Romans 11:15, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19). Both involve the personal action of the Father’s loving will, whereby He chooses to forgive the past and bring back His children into fellowship with Himself (Romans 5:3-8, Colossians 1:19-22; cf. 1 Peter 3:18). As applied to the individual, this is justification (Romans 3:24; Romans 4:25; Romans 5:9 al .), which represents not a process of renewal, but an amnesty extended to the sinner. What Christ slew by the Cross was the enmity (Ephesians 2:15-16). Its effect, therefore, is not an infused righteousness, but a free pardon whereby sins are no longer reckoned (Romans 4:7-8, 2 Corinthians 5:19).
3. The rest of the NT is in general agreement with St. Paul. St. James , though he speaks of sin as the intermediate stage between lust and death (James 1:15), yet by the very figure used to describe their relationship, clearly recognizes that all three are essentially the same in kind. Lust is not animal impulse but undeveloped sin. The sinner is one who has committed sins (James 5:15), which may be covered by repentance (James 5:20) and forgiven in answer to prayer (James 5:15). Sins, therefore, are personal transgressions against God, which, if unremitted, involve judgment (James 5:12), a personal condemnation and sentence on the part of the Judge (James 4:12, James 5:9). Lust is not even a pathological condition of the will. It has the nature of sin, being not a result of ignorance, but essentially a personal determination of will. This is more clearly brought out by the assertion that lust, not God, is the tempter (James 1:13-14), which suggests the presence of an evil will, the source of that friendship of the world which is enmity against God (James 4:4), taking occasion of the natural passions and desires of men to influence spiritually the human personality. The wisdom which cometh down from above is set over against a wisdom which is devilish (James 3:15; James 3:18; James 3:17).
St. Peter , while he speaks of fleshly lusts that war against the soul (1 Peter 2:11), is even more emphatic than St. James in his recognition of the personality of evil. Sin is part of a man’s activity, a vain manner of life from which we are redeemed by the blood of Him who bore our sins, i.e. our actual transgressions, that He might bring us to God (1 Peter 1:18-19, 1 Peter 2:24, 1 Peter 3:18). For the redeemed Christian it still exists in the person of God’s enemy, who is now the adversary of God’s people also, seeking once more to draw them away from their allegiance (1 Peter 5:8).
St. John , with his profounder insight, gives to the doctrine of sin what is perhaps the widest and most comprehensive sweep in the NT. ‘Sin is lawlessness’ (1 John 3:4). This sentence, with its coextensive subject and predicate, is all but a definition. It recognizes no distinction in kind between ‘sin’ and ‘sins,’ which are practically interchangeable in the Johannine writings. If the Lamb of God ‘taketh away the sin of the world’ (John 1:29, Vulgate peccata mundi ), the Son is manifested ‘to take away sins’ (1 John 3:5). If the blood cleanseth from all sin (1 John 1:7), Jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:2). The cleansing is sacrificial (ἱλασμός), implying personal dealings with God. It is therefore forgiveness of sins which those for whom it is prevalent receive (1 John 1:9, 1 John 2:12). St John does not speak of sin as a state. Doing sin is opposed to doing righteousness (1 John 3:4; 1 John 3:7-8). ‘In him is no sin’ (1 John 3:5) is equivalent to ‘Which of you convicteth me of sin?’ (John 8:46, cf. 1 Peter 2:22),—a clear record rather than a perfect state. That which abides in him who believes in the name of Jesus (1 John 3:23) is the love of the Father, a personal relation having been established which is opposed to the love of the world (1 John 2:15-16). Here, however, is no condemnation of the natural impulses or of matter. That Jesus Christ is come in the flesh to save the world is St. John’s cardinal doctrine (1 John 4:2, 2 John 1:7). But, as with St. James and St. Peter, it is lust, and the corruption that is in the world through lust, which constitute the bondage from which men need deliverance (1 John 2:16; 1 John 5:4-5). What then is lust? That is the point at which St John’s whole view opens out before us. The Fourth Gospel has recorded the prayer of Christ for His disciples, not that they should be taken from the world, but that they might be kept from the Evil One (John 17:15); and also His condemnation of the Jews because, continuing in the bondage of sin, it was their will to do the lusts not of their body, but of their father the devil (John 8:44). And the Apocalypse unfolds the mystery of iniquity in language fully accordant with the view of sin implied in the Gospel. The old serpent the devil (Revelation 12:9; Revelation 20:2) deceives the whole world (Revelation 12:9, Revelation 20:2; Revelation 20:10), having power (δύναμις, Revelation 13:2) and even authority (ἐξουσία, Revelation 13:4; cf. Luke 4:6) over the nations, manifesting his rule in the mystic Babylon (Revelation 16:19; Revelation 17:1-6), and the kingdom of the beast (13 passim ), until He who is the Alpha and Omega, having by His angel sealed the servants of God (Revelation 7:2-3), brings in the final salvation, the Kingdom of God and the authority of His Christ (Revelation 12:10). St. John’s last word is written in the First Epistle. Behind human history is the devil, ‘who sinneth from the beginning’ (1 John 3:8). The explanation of human sin, therefore, is the relation of the world to this spirit. ‘The whole world lieth in the evil one’ (1 John 5:19). To be begotten of God (1 John 3:9), who is light (1 John 1:5), truth (1 John 5:20), and love (1 John 4:8), is a reversal of those relations described as being ‘of the devil’ (1 John 3:8), who is a murderer and liar (John 8:44), and the power of darkness (1 John 2:11; cf. Luke 22:53, Acts 26:18). Philosophically, there can be little doubt that St. John is content with a dualism, which he is not concerned to resolve, starting as he does from the facts of experience (1 John 1:1; 1 John 4:14; cf. John 19:35). Though evil is antithetic to good, it is not in a Platonic sense as non-being (τὸ μὴ ὄν). The problem is approached from the positive and concrete standpoint of personality. Though God is indeed the beginning and the end (Revelation 1:8; Revelation 21:6; Revelation 22:13), yet a similar phrase is used in speaking of the author of evil as in describing the Word (1 John 3:8; 1 John 1:1): both are ‘from the beginning.’ The final triumph, though complete, is represented symbolically as the imprisonment (Revelation 20:2-3; Revelation 20:7; Revelation 20:10), not the annihilation, of Satan. The Hebrew mind, which, in spite of mystical affinities with Platonism and, possibly, of direct influence from Greek sources, is dominant in St. John, did not feel the necessity of a metaphysical monism, being content to respond to the revelation of a supreme spiritual Person, the fear of whom was the beginning of wisdom and man’s chief end (Job 28:28, Psalms 111:10, Ecclesiastes 12:13). It is enough to know that they who ‘abide in him that is true’ have by a transference of allegiance overcome the Evil One (1 John 2:13).
The Epistle of Jude , with which 2 Peter must be closely associated, clearly exhibits that apocalyptic view of the spiritual issues behind the facts of human life and experience of which there are abundant traces in the NT outside the Book of Revelation, and which indicate a ‘war in heaven’ (Revelation 12:7) as the ultimate explanation of sin (Judges 1:6; Judges 1:9; Judges 1:14, 2 Peter 2:4; 2 Peter 3:7; 2 Peter 3:12). To the Jewish mind this language is not what Western thought would understand by mere symbol. It is rather the symbolic representation of real existence, the Hebrew equivalent of Greek mysteries. It is a mistake, therefore, to neglect either the Apocalypse or the apocalyptic passages of other writings in the interpretation of the NT, or to fail to perceive that their characteristic ideas underlie the theology of the Apostolic age, as the Platonic mould of thought governs the religious philosophy of the 4th cent., the biological that of the 19th. The contempt of millenarianism, while it banished much that was fantastic in Christian teaching, had the correspondingly unfortunate result of obliging interpreters of the NT to arrange its statements against a background not contemplated by the writers themselves. The result in the case of sin has been the assigning of inadequate and shifting values to the term, and the misapplication of physical or other analogies. For Apostolic Christianity the background is always God with His Kingdom of angels and men on the one hand, and on the other the devil with his angels, extending his usurped authority over those human servants whom he holds captive. Sin is active hostility to God.
4. The whole question of original sin is removed from the atmosphere in which it is usually discussed, when it is realized that the difference between sin and righteousness is not one of infused or implanted characters, but of relationship to God. It need not be either affirmed or denied that moral and spiritual tendencies are, like the physical organism, capable of transmission. Still more irrelevant is the discussion whether acquired characters descend by inheritance. These are questions for psychological research, and may be left for decision upon scientific grounds. No doubt theories of transmission, from the crudest Augustinian notions of sexual propagation to the subtlest doctrine of heredity, have been advanced by religions philosophers to account for the universal need of salvation. So inveterate has this type of thought become, that it adheres to the phrases, e.g. ‘depravity,’ ‘corruption of nature,’ and the like, in which theology has endeavoured to express the Scripture teaching. Though the confessional formulas that employ such phrases are not committed to interpretations of the NT which imply a theory, opponents of what is supposed to be the traditional doctrine have in consequence been allowed to attack it in the interests of a more scientific psychology, on the assumption that original sin is held to be a predisposing cause of actual sin. Mr. F. R. Tennant, for example, in his Hulsean Lectures , starting from the premiss that ethical attributes are not rightly applied to anything but the activities of a will that knows the moral law, has no difficulty in proving that appetites and passions are the raw material of morality, belonging to the environment of the will, not an ‘universal and hereditarily transmitted disturbance of man’s nature.’ The consequence follows that sin, which must involve guilt, applies properly only to the individual, while ‘original sin is little more than a name for the solidarity in nature and environment of the race of actual sinners. Whatever may be said of the background of Augustinian thought or the atmosphere in which the confessions of the 16th cent. were drawn, there can be no doubt that they only reasserted the language of the NT in ascribing the wrath of God to the race no less than to the individual. Terms like ‘abnormal humanity,’ ‘taint of nature,’ ‘infirmity of will,’ may be useful practical analogies, but, like all analogies, they defeat their end if rigorously pressed. For what Scripture means is, not that individual responsibility is conditioned by racial defect, but that the guilt attaching to individuals belongs, in the first instance, to the community (see art. Guilt).
5. The controversies that have arisen about the question whether sin is a privation or a depravation of nature , would have lost much of their force if theological thought had adhered more closely to the Scripture mode of regarding sin. The later mediaeval view, stereotyped by the standards of Trent, represented man as deprived of a gift which raised him above nature ( supernaturale donum ). The unsophisticated experience of human nature leads us to regard it as not in its chief outlines evil, and so far as it denies an inherent corruption in the actual content of manhood the Tridentine position is sufficiently justified. But the Reformers were right in their main contention, which was that sin involved a positive departure from the Divine purpose. If sin in its essence is neither the loss nor the disturbance of personal endowments, but simply disloyalty to God, then to be outside the Kingdom and to own allegiance to the Evil One means that positive hostility to the law of God which is to be ‘very far gone from original righteousness.’ For sin disturbs nature only in the sense in which all personal action disturbs, by directing towards spiritual ends the material which nature supplies. Again, we have to emphasize the truth that sin enters only when spiritual relations have been established.
6. This consideration will also show the irrelevance of inquiring into the origin of sin , in so far as this means an empirical investigation of human history. For if sin postulates responsibility, we are no nearer a solution of the problem by a knowledge of the rudimentary forms of what, in its final development, we call conscience. Only if emotions and passions be regarded as sinful, can it be of use to note that impulses, the ultimate restraint of which becomes imperative, are at certain stages necessary for the preservation of the individual or the propagation of the race. There need be no desire on the part of any Christian theologian to question the premisses on which the scientific evolutionist pursues his investigations into the origin of the human species. We may grant, for example, that no chasm separates the appearance of man upon the earth from the development of other and lower forms of life. It is hazardous, and quite unnecessary, to contend for organic and moral life as new departures. Taking a merely external view of man, we may say that the conditions under which sin not only becomes possible but actually takes place, are ‘the perfectly normal result of a process of development through which the race has passed previously to the acquisition of full moral personality’ (F. R. Tennant, Hulsean Lect . p. 81). But then sin is a determination of the ‘full moral personality.’ Even if we accept the story of man’s first disobedience as historically a fact, it is no more explicable as a necessary stage in human evolution than the latest instance of wrong done by one man against another. That all men are the enemies of God until reconciled by the mediation of Christ, is a question of personal relationship unaffected by scientific research. The observer can do no more than register, so far as he can discover them, the conditions under which activities have resulted which, in view of the will of God, assumed to be known, are recognized as disloyalty and therefore as sin. No doctrine of sin is possible except on the assumption of a personal experience involving the recognition of God. The universality of the need which it expresses is attested, not by any demonstrative proof, but by the conviction of sin through which each individual has passed to the freedom of the Christian life. Of such Christian experience the witness of the Church is the summary, and its missionary labours are the measure of its faith that redemption is applicable to all. With this alone is Christianity as such concerned. It does not go behind the activity of a self-determining being, judged by conscience. Its doctrine of the ‘Fall,’ therefore, is not a pseudo-scientific account of the strength of passion or of the ‘survival of habits and tendencies incidental to an earlier stage in development,’ which is refuted by the discovery that the story of mankind is that of a continuous progression. It has nothing to do with the material of actual sin, which, though environment may have been vastly modified by corrupt action, cannot rightly be spoken of as ‘polluted.’ But it is the expression, in the only manner of which language admits, of the postulate of guilt and slavery involved in preaching the gospel, God’s message of free salvation, to every creature.
The story of the Fall, recorded in Genesis 3, though it shaped the form in which St. Paul stated the universality of sin, does not vitally affect a teaching which, in its absence, would have sought another method of expression. Indeed, its essential features are all present in the Epistle to the Romans before it is stated in terms of Adam’s transgression. To say that the doctrine is merely illustrated by the story, would be to attribute to the Hebrew Christian mind of the 1st cent, an attitude towards the OT possible only in a critical age. Nor will the use of ‘Adam’ as a category for summing up the human race in 1 Corinthians 15:21 f. warrant us in believing that St. Paul was led to his characteristic idea of human solidarity otherwise than along the lines natural to a Jewish interpreter of the OT in Apostolic times (see Sanday-Headlam, Romans , p. 136, ‘Effects of Adam’s Fall,’ etc.). But it is equally certain that St. Paul’s use of the OT is far removed from a hard Western literalism, its narratives being the authoritative forms under which spiritual truths are apprehended rather than the material of historical science (see Sanday-Headlam, ib. p. 302, ‘St. Paul’s use of the OT’). The canons of interpretation applied to the early narratives of Genesis cannot affect their doctrinal use in the NT. If the first truth which concerns the moral life of man be the Divine origin, and therefore the essential goodness, i.e. conformity to the Divine intention, of the material world and of his own personality, the second is that nevertheless he is an alien from God. This interpretation of the facts of life, which escapes the negation of a true morality involved alike in Oriental dualism and philosophic monism, is entirely independent of the Genesis stories, and separable from them in the NT. It is, however. remarkable that even in these early narratives the religious truth is presented with a completeness conspicuously absent from many later theologies. The three personalities of God, Man, and the Evil One,—disobedience, guilt, exclusion from the Kingdom, the need of liberation from an external tyranny typified in the promised bruising of the serpent’s head,—all are essential to the reality of sin. It is difficult to understand how this could be better represented than by attributing an act of disobedience against God and of compliance with ‘the voice of a stranger’ to a common ancestor of all living. The situation thus expressed is briefly summarized by St. Paul, ‘All have sinned, and (therefore) fall short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3:23).
Confusion is often caused by the tendency to revert to a materialistic conception of sin on the part of those who would explain its presence in terms of the evolution hypothesis. It is sufficient, so the argument runs, to observe the difficulty that each must encounter ‘of enforcing his inherited organic nature to obey a moral law’ (Tennant, Hulsean Lectures , p. 81). But, apart from the fact that what needs explanation is the self-arraignment which the process entails, it is contrary to experience, no less than to Scripture, thus to place the ‘organic nature’ in an essential relation to sin, which is made to consist in the failure to ‘moralize’ it. The publicans and harlots go into the Kingdom of heaven before those with whose wilful rejection of God the physical and emotional nature has least to do. Even popular Christianity places ‘the devil’ at the climax of temptation; nor are ‘youthful lusts,’ though they may constitute the earliest and most obvious material of transgression, the deadliest and most intimate occasion of sin. The impulse to make stones bread, or appropriate the kingdoms of the world, masks a temptation to independence of Divine authority which is the essential element in guilt. St. Paul’s doctrine of the Flesh with its passions and lusts (Romans 7:5; Romans 8:8, Galatians 5:24 etc.) cannot be set against this. It has been abundantly shown that the Pauline anthropology, to use the words of Lipsius, ‘rests entirely on an OT base.’ The ‘old man’ (ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος, Romans 6:6 etc.) is, therefore, the body, not as uncontrolled by spirit, but as inwrought by the Evil One (see above). According to Christian teaching, sin ‘takes occasion’ by any commandment or recognized purpose of God, whether related to the physical nature or not; nor would the theologian of any age be a whit less emphatic than the modern theorist in placing it, not in the impulse, but in the ‘deliberate refusal to reject the impulse.’ All men are born in sin, not as inheriting insatiable and abnormal appetites, which, however strong, are still outside their personal responsibility, but as subject to influences which, ‘felt within us as ourselves’ (Tennyson, Locksley Hall Sixty Years After ), well up in personalities hostile to the Kingdom of God.
It will be urged that influences such as these are still external to the individual, of whom, therefore, sin cannot be predicated anterior to positive acts of transgression. But, in the first place, this separation between actions and character does not correspond with experience. The man as distinct from his activities is an abstraction. The ‘psychological infant’ is an ideal construction (see Martineau, Types of Ethical Theory , bk. ii. c. 2). No one has any knowledge of himself except in action. It is empirically true that ‘concupiscence hath of itself the nature of sin’ ( Thirty-nine Articles , 9), because in experience the line between suggestion and acquiescence is imaginary, and ‘he that looketh on a woman to lust’ knows that he has already committed adultery. And this is not inconsistent with the complementary truth that temptation is not sin. But, secondly, while it may be admitted that sin on this view is metaphysically not free from difficulty, it must be observed that no peculiar problem is created by it. It is not exposed to the objection which naturally arises if it is explained in terms of a theory of heredity. Such theories are necessarily tentative and provisional, and it is the vice of all explanations based upon the current hypotheses of scientific investigation, that they tend to outrun assured results, and to involve religious truth in the imperfections of systems always in process of becoming antiquated. As soon, however, as it is perceived that the supposed analogy of an ‘acquired character’ transmitted by propagation to descendants does not accurately represent the teaching of Scripture, objections raised on this score from the point of view of advancing science lose their force. The problem involved in the exercise of personal influence acting through the self-determining will of another personality, remains just where it is, whether sin be a reality or not; St. Paul’s ‘I, yet not I’ stands for an experience which is constant, whether the inspiring influence be ‘the grace of God’ or ‘sin that dwelleth in me.’ Whatever may be true of hypnotic suggestion or of abnormal conditions like demoniacal possession, the normal course of personal influence, even of one man upon another, is not to paralyze the individual, so that the resultant action is not his but another’s. That sharp separation of personalities which makes one human being wholly external to another may to some extent be due to the illusion of physical limitations. But at any rate, in dealing with ‘spiritual wickedness,’ we reach a sphere where these conditions are left behind, and the distinctions which they involve are inapplicable. That spirit should thus act upon spirit involves no new difficulty, because its possibility is involved in the creation of free, responsible personalities, capable of love and therefore of enmity, of responding to a spirit of evil no less than to the Spirit of God. This may involve a race, just as the Holy Spirit indwells the Kingdom of heaven and each member of it. Sin is the antithesis, not of freewill, but of grace. The true analogy of redemption is rather the exorcism which leaves the subject ‘clothed and in his right mind,’ than the remedy which repairs the ravages of disease. Salvation is not the process by which the sinner is gradually transformed into the saint, but the justifying act whereby the unrighteous is transferred to the Kingdom of grace. No doubt the evil spirit may return to the house from which it went out, and we are not, therefore, compelled to reject facts of experience, and deny the gradual nature of self-conquest. But to think of sin as an inherited or acquired character which is being gradually reduced, is to introduce a distinction between original and actual sin which removes the former altogether from the category of guilt. Satan ‘entered into Judas’ (Luke 22:3, John 13:27); and our Lord’s statement—‘He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet’ (John 13:10)—seems to imply liability to incur fresh guilt rather than a redemption as yet incomplete. That sin remains even in the regenerate is sufficiently accurate as an expression of the observed fact of the imperfect lives of Christians. But the deeper view of St. John is that disciples, being still in the world, have constant need to be kept from the Evil One in whom it lies, and to receive afresh propitiation and forgiveness for sins actually committed in consequence of this spiritual contact.
7. The Biblical doctrine of sin, as here outlined, enables us to interpret the Incarnation in harmony with the best modern psychology. It is no longer possible to think of human nature apart from personality as a bundle of facilities, among which, as we have experience of it, is the faculty of sin. Sin therefore is not an ingredient in ordinary humanity, which must be regarded as absent from the pure humanity assumed by the Son of God. To inquire whether the manhood in Christ was capable of sin is irrelevant, when it is perceived that impersonal natures are abstractions of thought with no existence in fact. Sin is hostility to what Jesus Christ is, the living God. The house of a personality, human or Divine, or, as in the case of Christ, both, cannot be divided against itself. The truth expressed in the old theological conception of the impersonal humanity of our Lord is simply this, that He received by inheritance from the human race whatsoever is capable of transmission, the structural fabric with which biology is concerned, the material within which conscious personality expresses itself. Thus He is in all points like to His brethren, who inherit from their ancestry what in itself is morally neither good nor bad. He was identified with human sin, not only representatively but vitally (Romans 5:12-20, Psalms 2:2-4)—a truth which so far eludes statement as almost inevitably to involve in heresy those who, like Edward Irving, seek to express it. But the Word became flesh, and that without sin, not because the virus was omitted in the act of conception, but because, being God, He cannot deny Himself, the terms ‘sin’ and ‘God’ being mutually exclusive. God became man under those conditions which sin had created, viz. the environment of Satan’s kingdom together with the guilt and penalty of death. He did not therefore redeem by becoming man, but by surrendering Himself to the entire consequences, reversing the sentence of condemnation, by death overcoming death, and opening the new environment of the Kingdom of heaven to all believers. The fact of the Atonement witnesses against the view that the Incarnation was the destruction of an evil heredity through union with the Divine nature. Its principle is the indwelling of the Personal Spirit or holiness first in Jesus Christ (Romans 1:4) and thereafter in the free personalities of the children of God (Romans 8:11), expelling by His presence and power ‘the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience’ (Ephesians 2:2).
Literature.—J. Müller, The Christian Doctrine of Sin , English translation 2 vols.; J. Tulloch, The Christian Doctrine of Sin ; A. Moore, Some Aspects of Sin ; C. Gore, Appendix ii. on ‘Sin’ in Lux Mundi 10 [Note: 0 designates the particular edition of the work referred] ; O. Pfleiderer, Philosophy of Religion , § ‘Sin’; Clemen, Die Christl. Lehre v. der Sünde ; F. R. Tennant, The Origin and Propagation of Sin (Hulsean Lectures), also Sources of the Doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin (valuable on account of its historical survey of the development of Christian theory); Professor James Orr, God’s Image in Man , etc.; The Child and Religion (a volume of essays by various authors; Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, artt. ‘Sin,’ ‘Fall, and ‘Heredity.’ In addition to these, most of the standard works on Systematic Theology may be usefully consulted; also Sanday-Headlam’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . For science, G. Romanes, Exam, of Weismannism ; Haeckel, The Last Link ; P. N. Waggett, Religion and Science . For the Ritschlian theory see A. Ritschl, Justification and Reconciliation , English translation ch. 5; also A. E. Garvie, The Ritschlian Theology , ch. 10.
J. G. Simpson.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary [2]
Viewed as chatha ', "coming short of our true end," the glory of God (Romans 3:23), literally, "missing the mark"; Greek hamartanoo . 'awen , "vanity," "nothingness"; after all the scheming and labour bestowed on sin nothing comes of it. "Clouds without water" (Judges 1:12; Proverbs 22:8; Jeremiah 2:5; Romans 8:20). Ρesha' "rebellion", namely, against God as our rightful king. Rasha' "wickedness," related to rash "restlessness"; out of God all must be unrest (Isaiah 57:20-21); "wandering stars" (Judges 1:13). Μaal , "shuffling violation of duty," "prevarication" (1 Chronicles 10:13). 'aashaam , "guilt," incurring punishment and needing atonement, Ra , "ill," "ruin," the same word for "badness" and "calamity" literally, breaking in pieces. Αwal , "evil," "perversity."
Αmal , "travail"; sin is weary work (Habakkuk 2:13). Αvah , "crookedness," "wrong," a distortion of our nature, disturbing our moral balance. Shagah , "error." abar , "transgression through anger"; "sin is the transgression of the law," i.e. God's will (1 John 3:4). Sin is a degeneracy from original good, not an original existence, creation, or generation; not by the Creator's action, but by the creature's defection (Ecclesiastes 7:29). As God is love, holiness is resemblance to Him, love to Him and His creatures, and conformity to His will. Selfishness is the root of sin, it sets up self and self will instead of God and God's will. The origination of man's sin was not of himself, but from Satan's deceit; otherwise man's sin would be devilish and ineradicable. But as it is we may be delivered. This is the foundation of our redemption by Christ. (See REDEMPTION; SAVIOUR; ATONEMENT.)
Original sin is as an hereditary disease, descending from the first transgressor downward (Psalms 51:5). National sins are punished in this world, as nations have no life beyond the grave (Proverbs 14:34). The punishment of the individual's sins are remedial, disciplinary, and deterrent in this world; and judicially retributive in the world to come. (On eternal punishment, see HELL.) The Greek aionios represents the Hebrew olam and ad; olam , "hidden", "unlimited duration"; ad , applied to God's "eternity" and "the future duration" of the good and destruction of the wicked (Psalms 9:5; Psalms 83:17; Psalms 92:7). The objections are:
1. That, the length of punishment is out of all proportion with the time of sin. But the duration of sin is no criterion of the duration of punishment: a fire burns in a few minutes records thereby lost for ever; a murder committed in a minute entails cutting off from life for ever; one act of rebellion entails perpetual banishment from the king.
2. That the sinner's eternal punishment would be Satan's eternal triumph. But Satan has had his triumph in bringing sin and death into the world; his sharing the sinner's eternal punishment will be the reverse of a triumph; the abiding punishment of the lost will be a standing witness of God's holy hatred of sin, and a preservative against any future rebellion.
3. That the eternity of punishment involves the eternity of sin. But this, if true, would be no more inconsistent with God's character than His permission of it for a time; but probably, as the saved will be delivered from the possibility of sinning by being raised above the sphere of evil, so the lost will be incapable of sinning any more in the sense of a moral or immoral choice by sinking below the sphere of good.
4. That eternal vengeance is inconsistent with God's gospel revelation of Himself as love. But the New Testament abounds in statements of judicial vengeance being exercised by God (Romans 12:19; Hebrews 10:30; 1 Thessalonians 4:6; 2 Thessalonians 1:8).
Charles Spurgeon's Illustration Collection [3]
One danger of secret sin is that a man cannot commit it without being by-and-by betrayed into a public sin. If a man commit one sin, it is like the melting of the lower glacier upon the Alps, the others must follow in time. As certainly as you heap one stone upon the cairn to-day, the next day you will cast another, until the heap reared stone by stone shall become a very pyramid. See the coral insect at work, you cannot decree where it shall stay its pile. It will not build its rock as high as you please; it will not stay until an island shall be created. Sin cannot be held in with bit and bridle, it must be mortified.
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature [4]
(properly חֲטָאָה, ἁμαρτία , both originally signifying to miss) is any action, word, desire, purpose, or omission contrary to the law, of God; a voluntary violation of, or failure to comply with, the divine law (Romans 3:20; Romans 4:15; Romans 7:7; James 4:17). "Whether such a law be revealed in the holy oracles, or in the constitution of our nature, the violation constitutes the transgressor a sinner (Romans 1:19-32; Romans 2:11-15). The various words by which sin and wickedness are set forth in the Old Test. throw considerable light upon the real nature and tendency of the evil.
1. The proper and original idea of sin appears to be that it is a coming short of our true destiny, a "missing" the mark (חָטָא, ἁμαρτάνω ). The end of man's being is to be like unto God, to have his will in thorough harmony with the divine will, and so to glorify God and enjoy him forever. God is love; and to love him and be beloved by him is true blessedness. The whole law is summed up in love, whence sin, which is contrary to love, is a failure in the purpose of our existence.
2. This leads us to the second idea of sin, namely, that it is the transgression of God's law. From the Christian theistic standpoint there is no doubt as to the existence of an eternal moral order. That which, according to this rule, ought to be done is good; that which ought not to be done is sin. The law being neither advice nor prayer, but a positive demand, our only relation to it can be either that of submission or transgression. Whether we look upon God's law as moral, that is, stamped upon our nature, or positive, that is, revealed to us from without, in either case it should be considered binding upon our hearts, and should be implicitly obeyed, because it proceeds from the holy and loving Author of our being. Duty is represented in Scripture as a path along which we should walk, and to sin is to transgress or to go out of the way of God's commandments; hence the use of the word עָבִר, to pass over.
3. Again, every transgression is represented in the Bible as an act of rebellion ( פָּשִׁע and מָרָה ) God is the Ruler of his people, the Father of the human race. In both these capacities he demands obedience. To sin is to rebel against his paternal rule, to revolt from his allegiance. It is to act independently of him, to set up the will of the creature against the will of the Creator, to put self in the place of God, and thus to dishonor his holy name.
4. Further, to sin against God implies distrust of him and a willingness to deceive him, and to act treacherously towards him (עָוִל; camp. also בָּגִד and מָעִל ). To entertain a suspicion of God's goodness is to distrust him; and when once that suspicion has been planted in the heart, alienation begins, and deceit is sure to follow.
5. Another remarkable fact about sin is that it is perversion or distortion (עָוִה ); it is a wrong, a wrench, a twist to our nature (עָקִל ), destroying the balance of our faculties, and making us prone to evil. Man is thrown out of his center and cannot recover himself, the consequence of which is that there is a jarring of the elements of his nature. Sin is not a new faculty or a new element introduced, but it is the confusion of the existing elements which confusion the Son of God came to take away, by restoring man to his right balance, and leading him once more to a loving and self sacrificing trust in God.
6. Sin is also unrest (רָשָׁע ), a perpetual tossing like the waves of the sea; a constant disturbance, the flesh against the spirit, the reason against the inclination, one desire against another, the wishes of one person against the wishes of another; a love of change and excitement and stir; and withal no satisfaction. Man was never intended to find rest except in God; and practically when God is not his center he is like a wandering star, uncertain and erratic, like a cloud without water, and like seething foam.
7. Connected with this is the idea which identifies sin with toil (עָמָל ), Wickedness is wearisome work; it is, labor without profit; it is painful, sorrowful travail; it is grief and trouble. And after all the labor expended on sin, nothing comes of it. The works of darkness are unfruitful; sin is vanity, hollowness, nothingness (אָוֶן ); the ungodly are like the chaff which the wind scatters away; they can show no results from all their toil.
8. Sin is also ruin, or a breaking in pieces (רִע ). Adversity, calamity, distress, misery, trouble, are represented by the same words as wickedness, mischief, harm, evil, and ill doing.
Gathering together the foregoing observations, they bring us to this result, that sin is wilful disobedience of God's commands, proceeding from distrust, and leading to confusion and trouble. Sin lies not so much in the act as in the nature of the agent whose heart and life have been perverted. We are taught by the Scriptures that man was led into sin originally by the Evil One, who insinuated suspicions of God's goodness; and was thus misled, deceived, ruined, and dominated over by Satan.
See Burroughs, Sinfulness of Sin; Dwight, Theology; Fletcher, Appeal to Matter of Fact; Fuller, Works; Gill, Body of Divinity, art. "Sin;" Goodwin, Aggravations of Sin; Hagenbach, Hist. of Doctrines; Howe, Living Temple; King and Jenyn, Origin of Evil; Muller, Christian Doctrine of Sin; Orme, Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; Owen, Indwelling Sin; Payson, Sermons; Williams, Answer to Belsham; Watts, Ruin and a Recovery.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia [5]
sin ( סין , ṣı̄n , "clay or mud"; Συήνη , Suḗnē , Codex Alexandrinus Τάνις , Tánis ): A city of Egypt mentioned only in Ezekiel 30:15 , Ezekiel 30:16 . This seems to be a pure Semitic name. The ancient Egyptian name, if the place ever had one such, is unknown. Pelusium (Greek Πελούσιον , Peloúsion ) also meant "the clayey or muddy town." The Pelusiac mouth of the Nile was "the muddy mouth," and the modern Arabic name of this mouth has the same significance. These facts make it practically certain that the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) is correct in identifying Sin with Pelusium. But although Pelusium appears very frequently in ancient history, its exact location is still not entirely certain. The list of cities mentioned in Ezek in connection with Sin furnishes no clue to its location. From other historical notices it seems to have been a frontier city. Rameses Ii built a wall from Sin to Heliopolis, probably by the aid of Hebrew slaves (Diodorus Siculus; compare Budge, History of Egypt , V, 90), to protect the eastern frontier. Sin was a meeting-place of Egypt with her enemies who came to attack her, many great battles being fought at or near this place. Sennacherib and Cambyses both fought Egypt near Pelusium ( Herodotus ii. 141; iii. 10-13). Antiochus Iv defeated the Egyptians here (Budge, VIII, 25), and the Romans under Gabinius defeated the Egyptians in the same neighborhood. Pelusium was also accessible from the sea, or was very near a seaport, for Pompey after the disaster at Pharsalia fled into Egypt, sailing for Pelusium. These historical notices of Pelusium make its usual identification with the ruins near el - Kantara , a station on the Suez Canal 29 miles South of Port Said, most probable. "Sin, the stronghold of Egypt," in the words of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 30:15 ), would thus refer to its inaccessibility because of swamps which served as impassable moats. The wall on the South and the sea on the North also protected it on either flank.
References
