Sin

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

SIN . The teaching of the Bible with regard to the doctrine of sin may be said to involve a desire, on the part of the leaders of Jewish thought, to give a rational account of the fact, the consciousness, and the results of human error. Whatever be the conclusion arrived at respecting the compilation of the early chapters of Genesis, one thought, at least, clearly emerges: the narratives are saturated through and through with religious conceptions. Omnipotence, sovereignty, condescending active love, and perfect moral harmony, all find their place in the narratives there preserved, as attributes of the Divine character. The sublime conception of human dignity and worth is such that, in spite of all temptation to the contrary belief, it remains to-day as a firmly rooted, universally received verity, that man is made ‘in the image of God’ (  Genesis 1:27 ).

I. The Old Testament

1. The early narratives . It is remarkable that in the story of the Fall the writer (J [Note: Jahwist.] ) attributes the sin to a positive act of conscious disobedience to God, and not only so, but he regards it as an entity standing over against ‘good’ (  Genesis 2:17 ), This is more clearly brought out in the same writer’s narrative of the murder of Abel, where sin is represented as ‘couching at the door,’ lying in wait for the overthrow of the sullen homicide (  Genesis 4:7 ). The profound psychological truth that the power of sin grows in the character of him who yields to its dictates is also noticed in this story. Falsehood and selfishness and defiance of God are heard in Cain’s answer to the Divine voice. These stories are the beginning of the history of a long process of development which resulted in the Flood. From individual acts of wrong-doing we are brought face to face with the condition, ‘every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually’ (  Genesis 6:5 ). Hitherto God is represented as commanding, punishing, pleading with man, and even encouraging him with hopes of future restoration (  Genesis 3:15 ). The growth and arrogance of sin in the human race became so pronounced and universal that He is said to have rejected man completely, and in His wrath to have destroyed His creation, which was infected by man’s corruption. He is ‘grieved at his heart,’ and is repentant for having ‘made man on the earth’ (  Genesis 6:6 f.). The same narrator, in giving the current explanation of the diversity of human language, notes another racial rebellion against God, which was punished by the overthrow of Babel (  Genesis 11:1-9 ).

A change in the Divine method of dealing with sinful man is now noticeable. The writers lead gradually up to this, beginning with Noah, whose righteousness (walk with God, cf.  Genesis 6:9 ) stands in solitary contrast to the universal decadence. The educative elective principle enters into the relationships of God and man. A covenant is established by which these relationships are defined, and by consequence human consciousness is gradually deepened. As a result, temptation to sin becomes more formidable and many-sided. In Individual cases outside the covenant we see, indeed, evidences of a higher standard of moral obligation than that reached by the Patriarchs (cf.   Genesis 12:18 f.,   Genesis 20:9 f.). At the same time, the history of Esau furnishes us with proof that already glimmerings of a more profound ethical basis upon which to build human character, than that recognized elsewhere, had begun to obtrude themselves. If in the case of Abraham ‘faith was reckoned for righteousness’ (  Romans 4:9 ), and belief in the fidelity of God’s promises, in the face of the most untoward conditions, constituted the foundation-stone of the patriarch’s noble character, so in Esau’s case it was the lack of this belief, with the consequent inability to appreciate the dignity to which he was born, that lay at the root of his great and pathetic failure. The secret of Joseph’s power to resist temptation lay, not merely in his natural inability to be guilty of a breach of trust towards his master, but still more in his intense realization that to yield would be a ‘great wickedness and sin against God’ (  Genesis 39:9 ). Thus, while it is true to say that the dominant conception of sin in the OT is that it is the great disturbing element in the personal relations of God and man, it seems to have been realized very early that the chief scope for its exercise lay in the domain of human intercourse. The force of Abimelech’s complaint against Abraham lay in the fact that the former was guiltless of wronging the latter, whereas he was in serious danger of sinning against God in consequence of the patriarch’s duplicity.

2. The Sinaitic Law . The next great critical point in the evolution of human consciousness of sin is reached in the promulgation of the Law from Sinai. Here the determinative process of Divine election is seen in its widest and most elaborate working. The central purpose of the Law may be considered as of a twofold character. Not only are the restrictions tabulated in order to the erection of barriers against the commission of sin (‘God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before you, that ye sin not,’   Exodus 20:20 ), but positive enactments regulating the personal communion of God and Israel provide frequently recurring opportunities of loving and joyful service (  Exodus 23:14 ff.). The law of restitution, as given in   Exodus 21:1-36;   Exodus 22:1-31 , may be regarded as harsh in some of its enactments, hut it may be easily conceived as an immense stride forward on the road to ‘the royal law. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (  James 2:8 ). Nor can it be said that restitution and mutual service between God and His people are left out of sight in those chapters of Exodus which are universally recognized as containing the oldest part of the Mosaic Code. These anthropopathic conceptions of God abound, and are seen in the idea of His jealousy being roused by idolatrous practices (  Exodus 20:5 ), in the promises made to Israel that, in return for services to Jehovah, He will save His people in the face of their enemies (  Exodus 23:25 ff.). Thus it will be easily understood that, as the Levitical and Priestly Codes were gradually elaborated into a somewhat intricate system of legal and ceremonial obligations, the nomenclature of sin in its various aspects came to he accordingly enlarged. For example, in one verse three distinct words occur in connexion with Divine forgiveness (‘forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin ,’   Exodus 34:7 ), and though there is a certain vagueness in the precise meaning to be attached to each of these words, whether it be guilt or punishment, rebellion or sin-offering, wickedness considered as a condition, or trespass, which is in the writers’ minds, the thoughts underlying each have to do with the relations between God and His people. It must not be forgotten, moreover, that the ceremonial enactments provided a circle of ideas of permanent importance in the Hebrew conception of Jehovah’s character. The law of clean and unclean animals and things paved the way for truer and nobler thoughts of God’s holiness, and of the uncleanness of sin as being its contradiction. The ‘trespass’ of Achan, involving as it did the whole of Israel in his guilt and punishment, did not consist so much in his stealing of the common spoil taken from the enemy, as in his appropriating what was ‘holy,’ or ‘devoted’ unto the service of God (  Joshua 7:1;   Joshua 7:11 ff.). The presence of ‘the devoted thing’ with the common property of the army dragged the whole people into a position of guilt, which could be expiated only by the death of the offender. In this way alone could they be restored to Divine favour, and their army receive Divine succour.

3. Deuteronomy and the Historical Books . In the Deuteronomic summary of the Law, whatever be the date at which it was edited, a loftier ground of obedience is attained. Love, of God and of their fellow-men, is more explicitly dwelt on as the motive power of human life (  Deuteronomy 6:5;   Deuteronomy 10:12 etc.), and the heart is again and again referred to as the seat of that love, both passively and actively (  Deuteronomy 11:18 ,   Deuteronomy 6:6 ,   Deuteronomy 10:16 ). The basis upon which it is rested is the fact of God’s love for them and their fathers evidenced in many vicissitudes and in spite of much to hinder its activity (  Deuteronomy 4:37 ,   Deuteronomy 7:7 f.,   Deuteronomy 10:15 ). Though there are numerous echoes of the older conception that the keeping of God’s commandments is one side of a bargain which conditions men’s happiness and prosperity (  Deuteronomy 4:24;   Deuteronomy 4:40 ,   Deuteronomy 6:15 ), yet we observe a lofty range of thought bringing in its train truer ideas of sin and guilt. The sternness of God is insisted on, but as having for its objective the good of His people (  Deuteronomy 10:13 ,   Deuteronomy 6:24 ). It is a necessary phase of His love, compelling them to recognize that sin against God is destructive of the sinner. The ultimate aim of the Deuteronomist is the leading of men to hate sin as God hates it, and to love mercy and righteousness as and because God loves them (cf.   Deuteronomy 10:18 f.,   Leviticus 19:33 f.), by establishing the closest relationship and communion between Him and His people (cf.   Deuteronomy 14:1 f.,   Deuteronomy 7:6 ,   Deuteronomy 26:18 f.,   Deuteronomy 27:9 ,   Deuteronomy 28:9 etc.).

One sin is specially insisted on by the Deuteronomist, namely, the sin of idolatry . No doubt this is largely due to the experience of the nation under the judges, and during the history of Israel subsequent to the great schism. The national disasters which recur so frequently during the former of these periods are always attributed to this sin; while the return of the people, under the guidance of a great representative hero, is always marked by the blessings of peace and prosperity. So in the story of the Northern Kingdom the constant refrain meets us in each succeeding reign: ‘He cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, wherewith he made Israel to sin’ (  2 Kings 3:3;   2 Kings 10:29;   2 Kings 13:2 etc.). During the vigorous and successful reign of Ahab and Jezebel, the seeds of national decay were sown, and the historian neglects not to point out the source to which the later mournful decline may be traced (  1 Kings 16:31 ). On the other hand, there is little reference to this sin during the reigns of Saul and David, and, in spite of the weaknesses of character displayed by the former, the historian pictures for us a great advance in national vigour and growth under these kings and their successors in the Southern Kingdom. The great rebellion against the Davidic dynasty is itself attributed to the declension of Solomon in his old age from the pure Jehovah-worship so zealously and consistently advocated by his father. We must remember also that, side by side with the introduction of foreign religious ideas, vice peculiar to Oriental despotism invaded the royal court and the nation of Israel. We are not, however, altogether limited to what is here inferentially taught as to national sin, with its consequent national punishment. David himself is represented as guilty of a sin which marred his character as an individual, and of an act of indiscretion which seems to have been regarded as a breach of that trust held by him as God’s vicegerent on earth. Both these cases are of interest for the light which they throw on the doctrine of sin and its consequences. In the case of Bathsheba, which was a purely personal transgression, the prophet Nathan comes not only as the hearer of a message of Divine pardon to the repentant sinner, but also as the stern judge pronouncing sentence of severe and protracted punishment. The death of the newly born child and the subsequent distractions arising out of the affair of Absalom are looked on as expressions of God’s wrath and of retributive justice (see   2 Samuel 12:10-18 ). Whatever the contemporary reasons may have been for regarding his public act as sinful, and even the reckless Joah considered it an act of wanton folly, we find the same features of repentance and forgiveness, and the same inclusion of others in the suffering consequent on its commission. The prophet Gad comes to the king as the revealer of God’s wrath and the messenger of God’s pardon (  2 Samuel 24:1-25 ). Into this narrative, however, another element is introduced, telling of the difficulty which was felt, even at this early stage of human history, as to the origin of sin. God is said by the early historian of David’s reign to have been the author of the king’s act, because ‘His anger was kindled against Israel’ (  2 Samuel 24:1 ). It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that at one stage of Hebrew thought God was looked on as, in some respects at least, the author of evil (cf.   Exodus 4:21;   Exodus 7:3;   Exodus 14:8 ,   Judges 9:23 ,   1 Samuel 16:14;   1 Samuel 18:10;   1 Samuel 19:9 ). Nor ought we to be surprised at this, for the problem is one which was sure to present itself very early to the minds of thoughtful men; while the numerous instances where the commission of a sin seemed to have been made subservient by God to the exhibiting of His power and love afforded presumptive prima facie evidence that He Himself willed the act as the minister of His glory (see the history of Joseph with the writer’s comments thereon,   Genesis 45:5;   Genesis 50:20 ,   Psalms 105:17; cf.   Job 1:6-12;   Job 2:1-7 ,   Hosea 2:1-23 ). It is interesting to note the advance made in speculative thought with regard to this still unsolved, and perhaps insoluble, problem, between the time of the above-mentioned historian and that of the later Chronicler (  1 Chronicles 21:1 ). Here the name of Satan or ‘Adversary’ is boldly inserted as the author of the sin, a fact which reminds us of the categorical denial of the Son of Sirach, ‘He hath not commanded any man to be ungodly; and he hath not given any man licence to sin’ ( Sir 15:20 ). That the origin of sin continued to be debated and speculated upon down to a very late period is evidenced by the vehement warning of St. James against imputing to God the temptation to evil (  James 1:13 ), and by the counter assertion that God is the Author of nothing but good (  James 1:17 ).

4. The Prophets . By far the most important stage in the history of the OT doctrine of sin is that which is marked by the teaching of the Prophets. The four practically contemporary prophets of the 8th cent. are Amos, Hosea, Micah, and Isaiah. The first named reveals a wide outlook on the world at large, and a recognition of the prevalence and power of sin in other nations than Israel. Damascus, Philistia, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, and Moab, as well as Judah and Israel, all come under the displeasure of the prophet Amos. Each had been guilty of cruelty and wrong to the people of Jehovah. The characteristic faults of these heathen peoples lust and tyranny of the strong over the weak had invaded Israel too. The love of money, with its attendant evils of injustice, and robbery of the poor by the wealthy, is inveighed against by both Amos and Hosea as deserving of the wrath of God (cf.   Hosea 12:7 f.,   Amos 4:1;   Amos 8:4 ff.). This degeneracy of the people of the Northern Kingdom during the reign of Jeroboam ii. was as much in evidence in the ranks of prophets and priests as among the other ruling classes, and to it, as the cause, is assigned the downfall which so speedily followed (  Amos 3:11;   Amos 6:1-7;   Amos 2:7;   Amos 9:1 ff.,   Hosea 4:9;   Hosea 9:7 f.,   Hosea 5:1 ,   Micah 3:5;   Micah 3:11 etc.). Both Isaiah and Micah mourn over the same moral deciension (  Isaiah 5:8;   Isaiah 1:18 f.,   Micah 2:2 etc.), and it may be said that it is owing to the preaching of these four prophets that the centre of gravity, as it were, of sin is changed, and the principles of universal justice and love, as the fundamental attributes of Jehovah’s character and rule, are established. It was the prophetic function to deepen the consciousness of sin by revealing a God of moral righteousness to a people whose peculiar relationship to Jehovah involved both immense privileges and grave responsibilities (  Amos 3:2 ,   Hosea 3:5 ff.,   Micah 3:1 ff. etc.). Terrible, however, as were the denunciations, and emphatic as were the declarations of the prophets against the vices of greed, oppression, and lust, they were no less clear in their call to repentance, and in promises of restoration and pardon (  Isaiah 1:18 f.,   Micah 7:18 ,   Hosea 6:1 ,   Amos 9:11 ff.). The story of Jonah of Gath-hepher is the revelation of a growing feeling that the righteous dominion of Jehovah was not, in the exercise of its moral influence, confined exclusively to Israel. The consciousness of sin and the power of repentance have now their place in the lives of nations outside the Abrahamic covenant.

Hitherto the prophetic teaching was largely confined to national sin and national repentance. It is not till the days of Jeremiah that the importance, in this respect, of the individual begins to manifest itself. The lament of Jeremiah, it is true, frequently expresses itself in terms of national infidelity (  Jeremiah 2:5-37;   Jeremiah 8:7;   Jeremiah 35:14-17;   Jeremiah 31:28;   Jeremiah 32:32 ff. etc.). At the same time an element of individualistic thought enters largely into his teaching (cf.   Jeremiah 17:10 ,   Jeremiah 32:19 ). On its darker side he notes how universally present sin is seen to be: ‘from the least even unto the greatest,’ ‘from the prophet even unto the priest’ all are infected (  Jeremiah 8:10 , cf.   Jeremiah 8:8 ). It is impossible to find a man either just or truth-loving (  Jeremiah 5:1 ); and the explanation is not far to seek, for sin is a disease which affects the individual heart, and therefore poisons the whole life of each man (cf.   Jeremiah 13:7 ,   Jeremiah 5:23 ,   Jeremiah 7:24 etc.). The nature of the disease he characterizes as desperate in the awful deceit which supervenes (  Jeremiah 17:9 ). A hopeless pessimism seems at times to have pervaded the prophet’s teaching, and such of the people as were aroused by his appeals were smitten by a blank despair (  Jeremiah 10:23 ,   Jeremiah 2:25 ,   Jeremiah 18:12 ,   Jeremiah 13:23 etc.). As the prophet grows older, however, and gains a wider knowledge from his own bitter experiences, he discovers a way of escape from the overpowering influences of sin. As the heart is the seat of evil, it is found that the creative act of God can provide a remedy (  Jeremiah 31:33 ,   Jeremiah 32:39 ,   Jeremiah 24:7 ). A new heart straight from the hand of God, beating with new and holy impulses, is the sure, as it is the only, hope for men (  Jeremiah 32:40 ). Every individual, from the least to the greatest, in whom the Divine activity has been at work shall have the felicity of hearing the blessed sentence, ‘I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more’ (  Jeremiah 31:34 ).

Following up and developing this tendency, Ezekiel is express in his declaration of the moral independence of each man. Repudiating, as Jeremiah did, the doctrine that the sin and moral guilt of the fathers are imputed to the children, he elaborates clearly and emphatically the truth, which to us seems axiomatic, that the soul of the father is personally independent of the soul of the son, with the terrible but inevitable corollary,’ the soul that sinneth, it shall die’ ( Ezekiel 18:4;   Ezekiel 18:20; cf.   Ezekiel 18:10-20 ). The profound truth which lies at the basis of the ancient belief in the close interaction of individual and racial guilt is, of course, valid for all time, and has been sanctified by the historical fact of the Incarnation. The life, work, and death of Christ have their value in the re-establishment of this truth, and in the re-creation, as it were, of the concurrent truth of the solidarity of the whole human race (cf. the expression ‘we are all become as one that is unclean,’   Isaiah 64:6 ).

5. Psalms . We turn now to the Psalms, and there find, as might be expected, the deepest consciousness of personal guilt on the part of the sinner. Of course, it is to be remembered that the Jewish Psalter is the product of different epochs in the national history, ranging probably from the heyday of prophetic religion to the age immediately succeeding the Captivity, if not much later. It may be said, indeed, that this volume of sacred poetry constitutes a kind of antiphonal response to the preaching of the Prophets. Confession of and repentance for sin, both personal and national, constitute the prominent features of the authors’ attitude. A deep love for God breathes through each poem, and a profound hope that at some future date Israel may once again be restored to the favour of Jehovab.

The religious instinct of the compilers displays itself in their choice of those Psalms which form a preface or introduction to each of the five sections or books constituting the entire volume, setting the music, so to speak, of each part. The First Book ( Psalms 1:1-6;   Psalms 2:1-12;   Psalms 3:1-8;   Psalms 4:1-8;   Psalms 5:1-12;   Psalms 6:1-10;   Psalms 7:1-17;   Psalms 8:1-9;   Psalms 9:1-20;   Psalms 10:1-18;   Psalms 11:1-7;   Psalms 12:1-8;   Psalms 13:1-6;   Psalms 14:1-7;   Psalms 15:1-5;   Psalms 16:1-11;   Psalms 17:1-15;   Psalms 18:1-50;   Psalms 19:1-14;   Psalms 20:1-9;   Psalms 21:1-13;   Psalms 22:1-31;   Psalms 23:1-6;   Psalms 24:1-10;   Psalms 25:1-22;   Psalms 26:1-12;   Psalms 27:1-14;   Psalms 28:1-9;   Psalms 29:1-11;   Psalms 30:1-12;   Psalms 31:1-24;   Psalms 32:1-11;   Psalms 33:1-22;   Psalms 34:1-22;   Psalms 35:1-28;   Psalms 36:1-12;   Psalms 37:1-40;   Psalms 38:1-22;   Psalms 39:1-13;   Psalms 40:1-17;   Psalms 41:1-13 ) opens with a Psalm which is simply an expression of the power of sin and of the awful danger to which men are exposed by dallying with it. It is thus well fitted to be the prelude to such outbursts as occurin   Psalms 6:8 f.,   Psalms 10:1 ff.,   Psalms 17:8 ff.,   Psalms 22:1 ff. etc. The Second Book (  Psalms 42:1-11;   Psalms 43:1-5;   Psalms 44:1-26;   Psalms 45:1-17;   Psalms 46:1-11;   Psalms 47:1-9;   Psalms 48:1-14;   Psalms 49:1-20;   Psalms 50:1-23;   Psalms 51:1-19;   Psalms 52:1-9;   Psalms 53:1-6;   Psalms 54:1-7;   Psalms 55:1-23;   Psalms 56:1-13;   Psalms 57:1-11;   Psalms 58:1-11;   Psalms 59:1-17;   Psalms 60:1-12;   Psalms 61:1-8;   Psalms 62:1-12;   Psalms 63:1-11;   Psalms 64:1-10;   Psalms 65:1-13;   Psalms 66:1-20;   Psalms 67:1-7;   Psalms 68:1-35;   Psalms 69:1-36;   Psalms 70:1-5;   Psalms 71:1-24;   Psalms 72:1-20 ) commences with a poem which is the language of a soul desperately longing for full communion with its God, and, in spite of an oppressive fear heightened by the mockery of sinners, triumphing in the hope that the lovingkindness of Jehovah will yet call forth praise and joy. It is in this section that we have teaching of the deepest import touching the consciousness of personal and racial guilt; and at the same time a detestation of sin accompanied by a spiritual longing after inward righteousness hard to be paralleled in the OT. Here, too, hope conquers; forgiveness and restoration are looked forward to with sublime confidence. Perhaps in 50:7 15 we have an echo of the Prophetic denunciation of legalism in its degenerate days (cf.   Isaiah 1:11-15 ,   Jeremiah 7:21 ff.,   Amos 5:21 ,   Malachi 1:10 ). The Third Book opens with a poem (  Psalms 73:1-28 ) in which the holiness of God is opposed to the folly and pride of sinners. The difficulty attaching to the problem of the relation between sin and suffering, so dramatically discussed and worked up in the Book of Job, is here dwelt on. For its answer we are referred to the certain fact that God is the strength and refuge of all those who are pure in heart. In   Psalms 90:1-17 , which opens the Fourth section of the volume, the author puts the eternal and omniscient God over against man, with his iniquities and secret sins, as they call forth His terrible but just wrath (  Psalms 90:11 ). The beauty of holiness and the confident trust that God is the ultimate refuge of all who come to Him are again and again dwelt on in the Psalms of this book (cf.   Psalms 103:11 ff.). In the Fifth division. beginning with   Psalms 107:1-43 , the note of praise is struck, and is kept up almost without intermission to the end. The final exaltation of Zion, corresponding to the lasting overthrow of iniquity (  Psalms 107:42 ), is proclaimed with a certainty which can express itself only in songs of loudest praise. With an insight which can only be termed inspiration. we find one of the poets co-ordinating the forgiveness of Jah and the fear of Him as cause and effect (  Psalms 130:3 f., cf. ‘The Psalms’ in The Cambridge Bible , by Kirkpatrick).

6. Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes . The confidence thus expressed is all the more remarkable because of the general belief in the universality of sin and of its effects (cf.   Psalms 14:2 f.,   Psalms 51:5 ), a belief which was shared by the authors of the Book of Job (  Job 14:4;   Job 15:14 ff.,   Job 4:17 ), Proverbs (  Proverbs 20:9 ), and Ecclesiastes (  Ecclesiastes 7:20 , cf.   1 Kings 8:46 ). In the Proverbs we have what might be described as an attempt to place the moral life on an intellectual basis. The antithesis of wisdom and folly is that which marks the life of the righteous man and the sinner. Ethical maxims, the compiled results of human experience, follow each other in quick succession, but the book is devoid of the bright, warm hopefulness so characteristic of the Psalms. The sinner is left to his fate, and the wise man is he who, ordering his own life aright, leaves the fool to pursue his folly and deserve his fate.

The author of the Book of Job sets himself to solve the problem of the connexion between sin and human suffering, and though he fails, as he was bound to fail, to clear up the difficulty, he makes it evident that the one cannot always be measured in terms of the other. The conviction of his own innocence Job’s most treasured personal possession upholds his belief against the prevalent conception that sin is always punished here and now, and that righteousness is always rewarded in like manner. The end of this dramatic treatise, however, emphasizes the popular creed, though the experience of Job must have shaken its universal validity. The conception of sin is, of course, entirely ethical, but is very wide in its scope. In defending himself against the thinly veiled accusations of his friends, Job reveals his ideas of the range and depth of the ravages of sin in human life and conduct, and gives evidence of remarkable spiritual penetration ( e.g. ch. 31, see R. A. Watson’s commentary on this book in The Expositor’s Bible ). Mention may, perhaps, be usefully made here of Elihu’s contribution to the discussion, in which he intervenes by a lengthened argument to prove that suffering may he looked on not merely as punishment for sin, but also as a means of discipline , and as designed by God as a warning against sin (cf. chs 33 ff.).

II. Apocryphal Books

Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon . The intellectualism which is characteristic of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes finds a prominent place in Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon. There are here two sharply defined classes of men (‘two and two, one against another,’ Sir 33:15 ), a dualistic conception which permeates all creation (cf. Sir 42:24 ). The sinner is to be dealt with unmercifully (‘help not the sinner,’ Sir 12:4 ), for no good can come from him who refuses instruction. It is possible, however, for the sinner to return unto the Lord and forsake his sins ( Sir 17:25 f.). The only way in which righteousness may be pursued is by the cultivation of wisdom and instruction, and by paying heed to the experiences of daily life ( Sir 34:9 , Sir 39:1-8 , Sir 14:20 ff.). Let reason be the guide of human action and all will be well ( Sir 37:16 , cf. Sir 32:19 ). It is possible for the educated man to acquire such a command over his inclinations that he is able of himself to make the great choice between life and death ( Sir 15:17 ), but for the fool there is little hope ( Sir 15:7 ). Looking back on the centuries of human history the writer discovers that sin has brought in its train all the great physical calamities which mark its progress ( Sir 39:28 ff.). The relation is, however, external, and is a mark of Divine vengeance and wrath against sinners (cf. Sir 40:9 f.). There is no trace of the profound conception of spiritual sympathy between the different orders of creation, characteristic of the teaching of St. Paul (cf.   Romans 8:19-22 ).

The author of the Book of Wisdom displays the same fundamental thought that wisdom and sin are totally incompatible ( Wis 1:4 f.). Ignorance and folly are identified with sin ( Wis 2:21 f., Wis 4:15 , Wis 5:4 etc.). and not merely the causes of sin. The only way to attain to righteousness is by the careful, unremitting discipline of the reason (cf. Wis 2:1 , Wis 17:1 , Wis 6:15 f.). Running like a thread of gold through the whole book, however, is the conception of the immortality of righteousness and of those who cultivate wisdom ( Wis 1:15 , Wis 2:23 , Wis 3:4 , Wis 6:18 f., Wis 8:16-17 etc). In the beautiful personification of Wisdom ( Wis 6:12 to Wis 8:21 ) we find the writer not only speaking of the Spirit of God as being its Author and Diffuser, but practically identifying them with each other (cf. Wis 9:17 , Wis 12:1 , cf. 2Es 14:22 ). The universality of sin does not enter largely into his teaching (cf., however, Wis 3:12; Wis 12:10; Wis 13:1 ), and at times we feel as if he believed that some were born to be righteous and some to sin, the power of moral choice being really confined to the former (cf. Wis 8:19 ff., Wis 7:15 f.).

III. The New Testament

1. Synoptists . The practical outcome of the teaching of the OT is seen in the emphasis laid by the first of the Synoptists upon the function which it was the destiny of Jesus to discharge in connexion with sin. The angelic communication to Joseph (  Matthew 1:21 ) may, without illegitimate criticism of origins, be considered as one of those illuminating flashes of Divine revelation which obtain their interpretative value in the light of subsequent history. At any rate, this is the feature of Jesus’ work upon which the Apostles laid particular stress, in their earliest as in their latest teaching. It is true that the preparatory work of the Baptist aroused in the breasts of the multitudes who thronged to hear him an active consciousness of sin, together with the necessity for repentance and the possibility of consequent forgiveness (  Mark 1:4 ). The preaching of John was, however, necessarily lacking in one element which makes the life and work of Jesus what it pre-eminently is a new power introduced into the world, giving unto men the gift of repentance (  Acts 5:31; cf.   Acts 11:18 ), and enabling them ‘to turn away every one from their iniquities’ (cf.   Acts 3:26 ). It is significant in this connexion that the recorded teaching of Jesus bears comparatively few traces of direct abstract instruction regarding sin. At the same time, we must not forget the scathing denunciation hurled by Him at the legalistic, and worse, conceptions of sin abounding in the Rabbinical schools of His time (cf.   Matthew 23:4-28 ,   Mark 7:9 ff.), or the positive, authoritative declarations by which He drew from the ancient laws of Sinai the essential ethical ideas therein enshrined (cf.   Matthew 5:21-48 , where the teaching may be described as an intension rather than an extension of the area of sin). For Him ‘the law and the prophets’ had an abiding significance (  Matthew 7:12 ), but their regulative values needed re-adjustment. Sin, against which the Law was a deterrent, and the preaching of the Prophets a persistently solemn protest, has its domain not in the physical but in the spiritual region of man’s life (cf.   Luke 11:33-44 ). It is by poisoning the life at its roots that it destroys the whole upward growth, and it is here that the language of Jesus assumes its most formidable prophetic severity. There are certain classes of sins, however, against which He uttered His most solemn warnings. Their common characteristic is that of wilfulness or deliberateness. Remarkable amongst these is that described as ‘blasphemy against the Holy Ghost’ (cf.   Mark 3:29 =   Luke 12:10 =   Matthew 12:31 f.), which St. Mark designates ‘an eternal sin.’ Taking into consideration the circumstances in which the words were spoken, it is clear that Jesus was pointing to a condition of the soul when it loses all power to retrace its steps, when it reaches a place where even God’s forgiveness cannot follow. The sin of unreality was one to which the Pharisees were specially addicted, and to it, therefore, He drew their attention constantly (  Matthew 23:5-7 ,   Mark 12:38 f.,   Luke 20:45 f.,   Luke 11:43; cf.   Matthew 6:1-16;   Matthew 5:20 ).

Every sin is bound to exercise influence, not only on the life and character of those immediately guilty, but also on a circle outside. There is, however, a species having for its special object the dragging down of those who would otherwise be innocent. The terms of the emphatic warning against leading others astray, either by positive interference or by the force of example (cf.  Mark 9:42 ,   Matthew 18:5 ,   Luke 17:2 ), remind us of the sad presage by which Jesus foreshadowed the traitor’s end (  Matthew 26:24 ). The word used to denote this sin is also employed in speaking of sin in its relation to the guilty individual. The fact that Jesus deals with both aspects at the same time shows how strongly He felt the impossibility of any sin remaining, in its working, a purely personal offence. There is always here in activity a force which may be described as centrifugal, inevitably bringing harm to those within the circle of its movement (cf.   Romans 14:7 f.). Nor did Jesus hold Himself to be free from this danger of contamination (‘thou art a stumbling-block unto me,’   Matthew 16:23 ), while He points to the ideal Kingdom of the Son of Man where nothing causing men to stumble shall be allowed a place (  Matthew 13:41 ). It is interesting to remember here that St. Paul uses the same word to express the result of the preaching of ‘Christ crucified’ to the Jews (  1 Corinthians 1:23; cf.   Galatians 5:11 ,   Romans 9:32 f.,   1 Peter 2:8 ). This was, indeed, a contingency foreseen by Jesus Himself, as will be seen in His answer to the messengers of the imprisoned Baptist (  Matthew 11:6 ). Doubtless these words were intended to convey a gentle warning to the prisoner against permitting the untoward circumstances of his life to overcome his once firm faith in the Messiahship of One whom he had publicly proclaimed as ‘the Lamb of God’ (  John 1:29 ). A direct reference to an OT example of this sin occurs in   Revelation 2:14 , where the conduct of Balaam is held up to reprobation.

In the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, Jesus taught the necessity for the realization of personal guilt on the part of the sinner in order to forgiveness and justification in the sight of God ( Luke 18:13 ). In the same way, it was the lack of this sense by the Pharisees, so far as they were themselves personally concerned, that constituted the great obstacle to their conversion (  John 9:41 ).

A prominent feature of Jesus’ teaching has to do not so much with active, deliberate sins as with what may be termed ‘sins of omission.’ It seems as if He wished to inculcate, by repeated emphasis, the truth that the best way to combat temptation with success is to be active in the pursuit of good. The spiritual side of this doctrine He enshrined in the form of a parable, in which He pointed out the danger to the soul arising from neglect to invoke the active agency of the Holy Spirit, even though the ‘unclean spirit’ had been exorcized and banished ‘out of the man’ (see  Matthew 12:43-45 =   Luke 11:24-26 ). In the discourse descriptive of the General Judgment, Jesus marks the crucial test by which men shall be tried: ‘Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me’ (  Matthew 25:45 ). The same thought is conveyed frequently in parabolic form, as for example in the parables of the Ten Virgins (  Matthew 25:1-13 ), the Talents (  Matthew 25:14-30 ) in which is emphasized the profound lesson, ‘from him that bath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away’ (cf.   Matthew 13:12 ), Dives and Lazarus (  Luke 16:19-31 ); while much of the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount is based on the same principle (cf.   Matthew 5:38-44 ).

2. St. Paul . The presentment of the gospel message to the world outside the Jewish nation led St. Paul to review in detail the origin, cause, scope, and result of sin. Starting from his own individual experience, which was that of a sinner profoundly conscious of his position (cf.   1 Corinthians 15:9;   1 Corinthians 9:27 ,   Romans 7:18 ff.,   1 Timothy 1:15 ), and conscious also of the remedy inherent in Christ’s gospel (  2 Corinthians 12:9 ), he insists on the universality of the presence and power of sin, in order to establish the co-ordinate universality of the presence and power of ‘the manifested righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ’ (  Romans 3:21 f.; cf. the expression ‘where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly,’   Romans 5:20 ). The central feature of St. Paul’s teaching is the activity of God’s grace in forgiving, restoring, and justifying the sinner; and for the purpose of establishing the reasonableness and the necessity (cf.   1 Corinthians 9:16 ) of bringing the gospel before the world, it was needful first to establish the guilt of all for whom it was intended, and to create, so to speak, in men a consciousness of moral failure and helplessness. This he does in the opening chapters of his Epistle to the Romans. Here, although he deals separately with Jews and Gentiles, he maintains the proposition that all alike are sinners (  Romans 5:12 , cf.   Ephesians 2:3 ). It is true that the Jew was the recipient of the Law; and as such he occupied the position of the moral teacher of mankind. But instead of proving the means whereby a true ‘knowledge of sin’ (  Romans 3:20; cf.   Romans 5:13 ) is gained, it became, through abuse, a hindrance rather than a help to his spiritual advancement (see   Romans 2:17 ff.). And just as the Jews stultified the Divinely given Law, by the exaltation of its merely transitory elements at the expense of its essential moral ideals, so the Gentiles defied ‘the law written in their bearts, testified to by their conscience’ (  Romans 2:15 ).

This reduction of all mankind to the same level in the sight of God is further incidentally pressed by the establishment of a definite relationship between the sin of Adam and racial guilt ( Romans 5:12;   Romans 5:18 ). What precisely were St. Paul’s opinions as to this connexion it is impossible to discover. It is doubtful whether, in face of the intensely practical work in which he was engaged, he stopped to work out the problem of ‘ original sin .’ It is enough for him that ‘sin entered into the world through one man’ and that ‘through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners’ (see Sanday-Headlam, ‘Romans’ 5 in ICC [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] , p. 136 ff.).

Different interpretations have been given of the words translated ‘for that all sinned’ ( Romans 5:12 ), some seeing in them an explicitstatement that the whole human race was involved generically in the sin of Adam (cf. Bengel. ad loc. , and Liddon Epistle to the Romans , p. 103). Others affirm that St. Paul is here asserting the freedom of the will, and is stating the plain proposition that all men have sinned as a matter of fact, and of their own choice. The Apostle, however, seems to have left room for a synthesis of these two ideas. It matters not whether he has done so consciously or not. As the result of Adam’s transgression sin obtained an entrance and a sphere of action in the world, and not only so, but a predisposition to sin was inherited, giving it its present power over the human will. At the same time, the simple statement all sinned,’ explanatory as it is of the universality of death, includes the element of choice and freedom. Even those whose consciousness of sin was weakened, if not obliterated, by the absence of positive or objective law, were subjected to death. Here we have the assumption of generic guilt arising directly out of St. Paul’s belief in the relation between sin and physical death, as that of cause and effect (cf.   1 Corinthians 15:22 ). Not only is the connexion here mentioned insisted on, but, passing from physical death to that of which it is but a type, spiritual or moral death, he shows the awful depth to which sin has sent its roots in man’s nature (  Romans 6:21 ff., cf.   Romans 6:8 ff.,   Romans 2:7 ff.).

Mention has been made above of the power of choice, where sin is concerned, inherent in human personality. Into the very seat of this power, however, sin has made an entrance, and has found a powerful ally in ‘the flesh’ ( Romans 7:18 ). The will to resist is there, but its activity is paralyzed. Though St. Paul makes ‘ the flesh ’ or ‘the members’ of the body the seat of sin, he is far from teaching that human nature is essentially evil. The flesh may be crucified with its ‘passions and lusts’ (  Galatians 5:4; cf.   1 Corinthians 9:27 ,   Romans 6:19 ), and the bodily members instead of being ‘servants to uncleanness’ may become ‘servants to righteousness unto sanctification’ (cf. art. ‘Flesh’ in Hastings’ DCG [Note: CG Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels.] ). An important feature of St. Paul’s doctrine of sin consists in his exposition of the function of law in revealing and arousing the consciousness of sin. A curious expression, ‘the mind of the flesh’ (  Romans 8:7 ), emerges in this connexion, and the impossibility of its being ‘subject to the law of God’ is insisted on. ‘Apart from the law sin is dead,’ but, once the Law came, sin sprang into life, its presence and power were revealed (cf.   1 Corinthians 15:56 ), and by it man was confronted with his own moral weakness.

In spite of his belief in the all-pervading character and strength of sin, St. Paul’s gospel is the reverse of a gospel of despair. If, on the one hand, there is a death which connotes moral corruption and slavery to sin, on the other hand there is a death unto sin which is not only a realization of, but a participation in the death of Christ. The fact of his employing the same word and idea in senses so completely contrasted lends a marvellous force and finality to his teaching on the remedial and restorative effects of Christ’s work (cf.  Romans 6:2-14 ,   Ephesians 2:1-10 ). A favourite idea, relative to this, is that of crucifixion. The member of Christ as such has crucified his ‘old man’ (  Romans 6:6 ), ‘the flesh with the passions and lusts thereof’ (  Galatians 5:24; cf.   Galatians 2:20 ). This is the ultimate ideal result of the redemptive work of Christ. The experience of St. Paul forbade him to believe that the state of ‘death unto sin’ is fully realized here and now (  1 Corinthians 9:27 , cf. Sir 37:18 ). His continuous references to the Christian life as one of warfare, in which it behoves the follower of Christ to be armed with weapons offensive and defensive, shows that his conception of the struggle against sin is that of one unceasing age-long conflict, issuing in victory for the individual, as for the race, only when the Kingdom of Christ is established in a peace that is everlasting (  Ephesians 6:11-17 ,   2 Corinthians 10:4 ff;   2 Corinthians 6:7 ,   Romans 13:12 ,   1 Timothy 1:18; cf.   Philippians 2:25 ,   Philippians 1:2 etc.).

3. St. John

( a ) In order to understand St. John’s presentation of Jesus’ teaching on sin, it will be useful to see his own individual doctrine as given in his Epistles . Here the mission of Christ is dwelt on as having for its objective the taking away of sins (  1 John 3:4;   1 John 3:8; cf.   John 16:11;   John 1:29 ), and ‘abiding in him’ is dwelt on as constituting the guarantee of safety against sin (  1 John 3:6; cf.   John 15:4 ff.), as it also affords power to live the active fruitful life of righteousness. Further, there is a law ‘which expresses the Divine ideal of man’s constitution and growth,’ and whoever violates it, by wilfully putting himself in opposition to this law, is guilty of sin, for ‘sin is lawlessness’ (  John 3:4 ). Another aspect of this law has to do with the mutual relationship of Christians who should be bound together by a love which is the reflexion of the eternal love of God for men (  1 John 4:7-21 ). If the law of love is neglected or broken, even in the matter of intercessory prayer for brethren who have sinned, unrighteousness is present, and &l

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

‘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.

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.

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.

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.

1. St. Paul’s teaching. -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.

(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.

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.

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.

(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.

(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).

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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).

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.’

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?

(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.

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.

(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).

(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.

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.

2. St. John’s teaching. -(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.

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).

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.

(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).

(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).

3. St. James’s teaching. -(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.

(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.

(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).

4. Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews. -(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.

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.

(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).

(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).

5. St. Peter’s teaching. -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).

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).

6. Apocalyptic teaching. -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.]).

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.

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.

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).

A. E. Garvie.

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology

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.

The History of Sin . 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.

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.

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?

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 me—she 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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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."

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 ).

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.

The Biblical Terminology of Sin . 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, hattat [חֶטְאָה חָטָאחָטָא] means a missing of a standard, mark, or goal; pesa [פָּשַׂק] means the breach of a relationship or rebellion; awon [עָוֹן] means perverseness; segagah [שְׁגָגָה] signifies error or mistake; resa [שְׁגָגָה] means godlessness, injustice, and wickedness; and amal [עָמָל], when it refers to sin, means mischief or oppression. The most common Greek term is hamartia [Ἁμαρτία], a word often personified in the New Testament, and signifying offenses against laws, people, or God. Paraptoma [Παράπτωμα] is another general term for offenses or lapses. Adikia [Ἀδικία] is a more narrow and legal word, describing unrighteousness and unjust deeds. Parabasis [Παράβασις] signifies trespass or transgression of law; asebeia [Ἀσέβεια] means godlessness or impiety; and anomia [Ἀνομία] means lawlessness. The Bible typically describes sin negatively. It is law less ness, dis obedience, im piety, un belief, dis trust, darkness as opposed to light, a falling away as opposed to standing firm, weakness not strength. It is un righteousness, faith less ness.

The Biblical Theology of Sin . 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.

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.

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.

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 ).

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 ).

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 ).

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 ).

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).

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 ).

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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 ).

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 ).

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 ).

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 ).

Daniel Doriani

See also Blasphemy Against The Holy Spirit; The Fall; Guilt

Bibliography . G. C. Berkouwer, Sin  ; G. W. Bromiley, ISBE, 4:518-25; J. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion  ; C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans  ; D. Kidner, Genesis  ; A. Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit .

Vine's Expository Dictionary of OT Words

A. Nouns.

'Âven ( אָוֶן , Strong'S #205), “iniquity; vanity; sorrow.” Some scholars believe that this term has cognates in the Arabic words ‘ana , (“to be fatigued, tired”) and ‘aynun (“weakness; sorrow; trouble”), or with the Hebrew word ‘ayin (“nothingness”). This relationship would imply that 'âven 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.

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 sorrow —[RSV, “trouble”].…” A similar meaning appears in Prov. 22:8: “He that soweth iniquity shall reap vanity [ 'âven ]: and the rod of his anger shall fail.”

'Âven 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 iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good” (Ps. 36:3). “For the idols have spoken vanity [NASB, “iniquity”] …” (Zech. 10:2). Isa. 41:29 portrays idols deceiving their worshipers: “Behold, they are all vanity  ; their works are nothing: Their molten images are wind and confusion.”

'Âshâm ( אָשָׁם , Strong'S #817), “sin; guilt; guilt offering; trespass; trespass offering.” Cognates appear in Arabic as ‘ithmun (“sin; offense; misdeed; crime”), ‘athima (“to sin, err, slip”), and ‘athimun (“sinful; criminal; evil; wicked”); but the Arabic usage does not include the idea of restitution. In the Ugaritic texts of Ras Shamra, the word atm occurs in similar passages. Scholars believe this Ugaritic word may mean “offense” or “guilt offering,” but this cannot be ascertained.

'Âshâm 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”].”

Most occurrences of 'âshâm 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 'âshâm is in Isa. 53:10, which says that the servant of Yahweh was appointed as an 'âshâm for sinful mankind. This suggests that His death furnished a 120- percent compensation for the broken law of God.

'Âmâl ( עָמָל , Strong'S #5999), “evil; trouble; misfortune; mischief; grievance; wickedness; labor.” This noun is related to the Hebrew verb ‛âmâl (“to labor, toil”). The Arabic cognate ‘amila means “to get tired from hard work.” The Aramaic ‛âmâl 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 labor 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 labor …” (Eccl. 3:13). A related example appears in Ps. 107:12: “Therefore he brought down their heart with labor  ; they fell down and there was none to help.”

In general, ‛âmâl 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 [ ‛âmâl ] and sorrow [ yagon ], 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 [ ‘oni ], and our labor [ ‛âmâl ], and our oppression [ lachats ].”

Job 4:8 illustrates the sense of trouble as mischief inflicted on others: “… They that plow iniquity [ ‘awen ], and sow wickedness [ ‛âmâl ] 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 [ ‘awen ], and cause me to behold grievance [ ‘amal ]? For spoiling and violence are before me; and there are that raise up strife and contention.”

‛Âvôn ( עָווֹן , Strong'S #5771), “iniquity.” This word is derived from the root ‘awah , which means “to be bent, bowed down, twisted, perverted” or “to twist, pervert.” The Arabic cognate ‘awa means “to twist, bend down”; some scholars regard the Arabic term ghara (“to err from the way”) as the true cognate, but there is less justification for this interpretation.

‛Âvôn 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 iniquitas really means “injustice; unfairness; hostile; adverse.”

‛Âvôn occurs frequently throughout the Old Testament in parallelism with other words related to sin, such as chatta’t (“sin”) and pesha’ (“transgression”). Some examples are 1 Sam. 20:1: “And David … said before Jonathan, what have I done? what is mine iniquity [ ‛âvôn ]? and what is my sin [ chatta’t ] before thy father, that he seeketh my life?” (cf. Isa. 43:24; Jer. 5:25). Also note Job 14:17: “My transgression [ pesha’ ] is sealed up in a bag, and thou sewest up mine iniquity [‛âvôn]” (cf. Ps. 107:17; Isa. 50:1).

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).

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).

‛Âvôn 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, ‛âvôn is used as the object of natsa’ (“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.

Râshâ‛ ( רָשָׁע , Strong'S #7563), “wicked; criminal; guilty.” Some scholars relate this word to the Arabic rash’a —(“to be loose, out of joint”), although that term is not actively used in literary Arabic. The Aramaic cognate resha’ —means “to be wicked” and the Syriac apel (“to do wickedly”).

Râshâ‛ 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.

In some instances, râshâ‛ 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 ( wicked [plural form] devoureth iniquity” (Prov. 19:28; cf. Prov. 20:26).

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).

The râshâ‛ 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 ( wicked [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.

Chaṭṭâ'th ( חַטָּאָה , Strong'S #2403), “sin; sin-guilt; sinpurification; sin offering.” The noun chaṭṭâ'th appears about 293 times and in all periods of biblical literature.

The basic nuance of this word is “sin” conceived as missing the road or mark (155 times). Chaṭṭâ'th 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 [ pesha’ ]? what is my sin, that thou hast so hotly pursued after me?” (Gen. 31:36). It is such passages which prove that chaṭṭâ'th 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 chaṭṭâ'th and other words rendered “sin.”

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 pasha’ ): “Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions.…”

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).

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).

Chaṭṭâ'th 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).

Also derived from the verb chata’ is the noun chet’ , 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).

The noun chaṭṭâ'th , 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.”

B. Adjectives.

Râshâ‛ ( 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 wicked [plural form] men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men.” Râshâ‛ 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” ( rasha’ lamut ) occurs in Num. 35:31 and is applied to a murderer.

Pharaoh and his people are portrayed as “wicked” people guilty of hostility to God and His people (Exod. 9:27).

Ra‛ ( רַע , Strong'S #7451), “bad; evil; wicked; sore.” The root of this term is disputed. Some scholars believe that the Akkadian term raggu (“evil; bad”) may be a cognate. Some scholars derive ra‛ from the Hebrew word ra’a’ (“to break, smash, crush”), which is a cognate of the Hebrew ratsats (“to smash, break to pieces”); ratsats in turn is related to the Arabic radda (“to crush, bruise”). If this derivation were correct, it would imply that ra’ connotes sin in the sense of destructive hurtfulness; but this connotation is not appropriate in some contexts in which ra’ is found.

Ra’ 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). Ra’ 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.”

Ra’ 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 [ ra’ ] unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die” (Prov. 15:10).

Ra’ may also connote a fierceness or wildness: “He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil [ ra ] angels among them” (Ps. 78:49). “Some evil beast hath devoured him …” (Gen. 37:20; cf. Gen. 37:33; Lev. 26:6).

In less frequent uses, ra’ implies severity: “For thus saith the Lord God; How much more when I send my four sore [ ra’ ] 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).

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).

In Isa. 45:7 Yahweh describes His actions by saying, “… I make peace, and create evil [ ra ] …”; moral “evil” is not intended in this context, but rather the antithesis of shalom (“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.

C. Verbs.

‛Âbar ( עָבַר , Strong'S #5674), “to transgress, cross over, pass over.” This word occurs as a verb only when it refers to sin. ‛Âbar 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).

Most frequently, ‛âbar illustrates the motion of “crossing over” or “passing over.” (The Latin transgedior , from which we get our English word transgress , 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).

Châṭâ' ( 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.

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 miss .” The meaning is extended in Prov. 19:2: “He who makes haste with his feet misses 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 loss of it.…”

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).

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”).

The Septuagint translates the group of words with the verb hamartano —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).

Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

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).

Origin of sin

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 ).

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).

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 ).

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).

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).

Results of sin

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 ).

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).

All sinned in Adam (‘Original sin’)

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.

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 ).

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).

Human nature is corrupt (‘Total depravity’)

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).

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).

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 .)

A hopeless position apart from God

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).

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 .)

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 .)

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 .)

Holman Bible Dictionary

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.

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.

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 .)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .)

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.

The Old Testament has a rich vocabulary for sin.

Chata means “to miss the mark,” as does the Greek hamartia . 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.

Aven describes the crooked or perverse spirit associated with sin. Sinful persons have perverted their spirits and become crooked rather than straight. Ra 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ).

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.

The most common New Testament word for sin is hamartia . See above. Parabasis , “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.

Anomia 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. Poneria , “evil” or “wickedness,” is even a more general term than anomia. Adikia , “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.

Akatharsia , “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. Apistia , “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.

Epithumia , 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 ).

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.

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 .

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).

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.

Sin also produces spiritual blindness. Spiritual truths simply are not visible to that person who has been blinded by sin.

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.

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 ).

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 .

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 .

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.

Billy E. Simmons

Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words

A — 1: Ἁμαρτία (Strong'S #266 — Noun Feminine — hamartia — ham-ar-tee'-ah )

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;

 Romans 6:6 Romans 5:21 6:12,14,17 7:11,14,17,20,23,25 8:2 1—Corinthians 15:56 Hebrews 3:13 11:25 12:4 James 1:15 John 8:21,34,46 9:41 15:22,24 19:11 Romans 8:3 Leviticus 4:32 5:6-9 Hebrews 4:15 Hebrews 9:26 10:6,8,18 13:11 1—John 1:7,8 3:4  Romans 1:32 Galatians 5:21 Philippians 4:9 1—Peter 4:1  John 1:29 1—Corinthians 15:17 1—Thessalonians 2:16 1—John 5:16  1—John 5:17 1—John 3:4 Matthew 12:31 Acts 7:60 James 1:15  1—John 5:16 2—Corinthians 5:21  1—John 3:5 John 14:30 John 8:46 Hebrews 4:15 1—Peter 2:22 Hebrews 9:28  2—Corinthians 5:21 2—Thessalonians 2:3Iniquity

A — 2: Ἁμάρτημα (Strong'S #265 — Noun Neuter — hamartema — ham-ar'-tay-mah )

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 .

 Ephesians 1:7 2:5 Colossians 2:13Trespass.  James 5:16DisobedienceErrorFaultIniquityTransgressionUngodliness.

B — 1: Ἀναμάρτητος (Strong'S #361 — Adjective — anamartetos — an-am-ar'-tay-tos )

"without sin" (a, negative, n, euphonic, and C, No. 1), is found in  John 8:7 . In the Sept.,  Deuteronomy 29:19 .

C — 1: Ἁμαρτάνω (Strong'S #264 — Verb — hamartano — ham-ar-tan'-o )

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."

C — 2: Προαμαρτάνω (Strong'S #4258 — Verb — proamartano — pro-am-ar-tan'-o )

"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").

Watson's Biblical & Theological Dictionary

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.

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 .

Charles Buck Theological Dictionary

The transgression of the law, or want of conformity to the will of God,  1 John 3:4 .

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.

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.

3. Sins of omission consist in the leaving those things undone which ought to be done.

4. Sins of commission are those which are committed against affirmative precepts, or doing what should not be done.

5. Sins of infirmity are those which arise from the infirmity of the flesh, ignorance, surprise, snares of the world, &c.

See Infirmity

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 .

7. Presumptuous sins are those which are done boldly, and against light and conviction.

See Presumption

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,

1. Universal as to the subjects of it. Rom.iii.23.  Isaiah 53:6 .

2. General, as to all the powers of man,  Isaiah 1:6 .

3. Awful, filling the mind with constant rebellion against God and his law.

4. Hateful to God,  Job 15:16; and,

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."

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.

American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

1. Any thought, word, desire, action, or omission of action, contrary to the law of God, or defective when compared with it.

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 .

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.

"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."

For the sin against the Holy Ghost, see Blasphemy .

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 .

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.

King James Dictionary

SIN, n.

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

(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.

(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.

(3): ( n.) An offense, in general; a violation of propriety; a misdemeanor; as, a sin against good manners.

(4): ( n.) A sin offering; a sacrifice for sin.

(5): ( n.) An embodiment of sin; a very wicked person.

(6): ( adv., prep., & conj.) Old form of Since.

(7): ( n.) To violate human rights, law, or propriety; to commit an offense; to trespass; to transgress.

Easton's Bible Dictionary

"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.

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.

Copyright Statement These dictionary topics are from M.G. Easton M.A., DD Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, published by Thomas Nelson, 1897. Public Domain.

Bibliography Information Easton, Matthew George. Entry for 'Sin'. Easton's Bible Dictionary. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/ebd/s/sin.html. 1897.

Smith's Bible Dictionary

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.

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.

Hawker's Poor Man's Concordance And Dictionary

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.

People's Dictionary of the Bible

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.

Morrish Bible Dictionary

City in Egypt: the LXX has Σάι>ς, and the Vulgate (as in the margin), Pelusium. Ezekiel calls it 'the strength of Egypt.'  Ezekiel 30:15,16 . It is supposed to be identified with the modern Tineh, where a few ruins are found. It is close to the Pelusiac mouth of the Nile, about 31 4' N, 32 28' E .

Charles Spurgeon's Illustration Collection

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.

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

(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.

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).

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).

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.),

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."

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).

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.

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).

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).

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).

Kitto's Popular Cyclopedia of Biblial Literature

Sin, 1

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.

Sin, 2

Sin, the desert which the Israelites entered on turning off from the Red Sea (;; ) [SINAI].