C
Churchwork
Guest
How are sin and sins differently used?
[font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Answer: [/font]
The difference between sin and sins is that between sin stated in the singular number and sin stated in the plural number. In the Old Testament there is no distinction made of sin in singular and plural numbers. Only the New Testament expresses this difference, and it is a very significant difference too
Let us list all the places in the New Testament where sin (Gk. [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]hamartia[/font]) both in the singular and in the plural is used.
Sin in singular number: Matt.12.31; John 1.29; 8.34 (twice), 46; 9.41 (twice); 15.22 (twice), 24; 16.8,9; 19.11; Acts 7.60; Rom. 3.9,20; 4.8; 5.12 (twice), 13 (twice), 20,21; 6.1,2,6 (twice), 7,10,11,12,13,14,16,17,18,20,22,23; 7.7 (twice), 8 (twice), 9,11,13 (thrice), 14,17,20,23,25; 8.2,3 (mg., thrice), 10; 14.23; 1 Cor. 15.56 (twice); 2 Cor. 5.21 (twice); 11.7; Gal. 2.17; 3.22; 2 Thess. 2.3; Heb. 3.13; 4.15; 9.26,28 (the second sin); 10.6,8,18; 11.25; 12.1,4; 13.11; James 1.15 (twice); 2.9; 4.17; 1 Peter 2.22; 4.1; 2 Peter 2.14; 1 John 1.7,8; 3.4 (twice), 5 (the second sin), 8,9; 5.16 (twice), 17 (twice).
Sins in plural number: Matt. 1.21; 3.6; 9.2,5,6; 26.28; Mark 1.4,5; 2.5,7,9,10; Luke 1.77; 3.3; 5.20,21,23,24; 7.47,48,49; 11.4; 24.47; John 8.21, 24 (twice); 9.34; 20.23; Acts 2.38; 3.19; 5.31; 10.43; 13.38; 22.16; 26.18; Rom. 4.7; 7.5; 11.27; 1 Cor. 15.3,17; Gal. 1.4; Eph. 2.1; Col. 1.14; 1 Thess. 2.16; 1 Tim. 5.22,24; 2 Tim. 3.6; Heb. 1.3; 2.17; 5.1,3; 7.27; 8.12; 9.28 (the first sins); 10.2,3,4,11,12,17,26; James 5.15,20; 1 Peter 2.24 (twice); 3.18; 4.8; 2 Peter 1.9; 1 John 1.9 (twice); 2.2,12; 3.5 (the first sins); 4.10; Rev. 1.5; 18.4,5.
After we have read these many Scripture verses we may detect how wise is God in writing the Bible. We will truly say to Him: O God, we worship You!
The distinctive uses of sin and sins are as follows. Whenever the Bible refers to mans outward sinful conduct such as pride, jealousy, lying, and so forth, sin in the plural number is always used. Sin in the singular number is never used in the Bible for outward sin; instead, it is employed in two different ways: (1) [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]It points to the sin that reigns within or its power and dominion. [/font]This is also commonly known by the terms: the root of sin or the denominator of sin. Actually these terms are not scripturally accurate; they are merely borrowed for the sake of convenience. The Bible never uses either of them, it instead speaks of sin as reigning like a king or having dominion like a master. Sin in the singular number is usually employed to specify the power which reigns over us and drives us to commit sins.
(2) [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]As a collective term, it sometimes refers to the whole problem of sin [/font](such as is found in John 1.29 and 1 John 1.7 which we discuss later). Whenever the Bible speaks of God forgiving sin it always uses the plural number sins, because what we need to be forgiven of are the sins we commit in outward behavior. As regards the sinful nature within us, it cannot be solved by forgiveness. It would be a mistake to say God forgives sin and use the singular number. For God only forgives sins. Since sin in the singular number is a master, a power, it is something we are not directly responsible for and is not to be settled through forgiveness. But sins in the plural number need forgiveness because these are our conduct for which we [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]are [/font]held responsible, and they will cause a penalty to be levied against us if not forgiven. For this cause, whenever the Bible mentions the matter of confessing our sins, it should always be expressed as confess our sins (1 John 1.9), using the plural and not the singular number. Sin does not refer to mans conduct, and therefore does not require confession; but the term sins does signify mans conduct, requiring confession to be made. Christs death is to save us from sins in the plural number. Thou shalt call his name Jesus; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins (Matt. 1.21). This means that the Lord Jesus saves us from all the sins in our conduct.
The Lord Jesus declared to the Jews: Ye shall die in your sins (John 8.24). Once again, this refers to sin in the plural number, and not to sin singular. Never once does the Bible say that Christ has died for our sin as expressed in the singular number; it always says that Christ has died for our sins plural.
Ye were dead through your trespasses and sins (Eph. 2.1). Note that the word sin here is in the plural form and not in the singular. It means that we spend our lives in sins such as pride, uncleanness, jealousy, and so forth. We were dead in plural sins, not in sin in its singular number. Two more examples are these: (1) should take away sins in Hebrews 10.4 is a taking away of sins in the plural number; (2) had no more consciousness of sins in 10.2 is also an expression of sin in the plural.
Why do we have no more consciousness of sins after the blood of the Lord has cleansed our conscience? Because the sin which our conscience accuses us of before God is sin in the plural number; that is, one sin after another, such as ill-temper, pride, and so forth. Since the blood of the Lord Jesus has already obtained forgiveness for these our sins, naturally our conscience will no longer be conscious of them. Sins there most certainly are, but the blood has dealt with them. Had the blood of the Lord cleansed sin in its singular sense, no one would have been able to experience personally such a cleansing; because in cleansing sin in the singular number, it would have meant that we would never have again been conscious of the power of sin, that power which drives us to sin. But we know that such is not the case at all. The blood of the Lord Jesus has so cleansed us that our conscience no longer accuses us of our past sins. Yet this does not imply that we no longer have sin; it only affirms that there is no more consciousness of sins. Through the cleansing of the blood we are no more condemned by our conscience.
How, then, are we to be delivered from the sin that masters us, the sin which we have been speaking of in the singular number? Knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away [literally, unemployed], that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin (Rom. 6.6). Here we have three items: (1) the body of sin, (2) the old man, and (3) sin. The body serves as a figurehead, for what causes the body to sin through the old man is sin. Sin works in the body, so that this body is called the body of sin. The old man stands between sin and the body. It accepts the instigation of sin on the one hand and directs the body to sin on the other. The old man is our personality. Sin tempts, the old man agrees, and accordingly the body acts. Some people have suggested that the death of the Lord Jesus has eradicated the root of sin. This is not true. For what the Lord Jesus has done is to get rid of the old man. Sin is still here, the body of sin is also here; only the intermediary old man is gotten rid of. Man as a person still remains; yet sin is now unable to push the new man around, because sin can never direct the new man. Sin in the singular is still here, though we are no longer in bondage to it. Why are we no longer slaves to sin? Because the old man who directly charges the body to sin is already crucified. How about the body? It is presently unemployed.
He [the Lord Jesus] had made purification of sins (Heb. 1.3). The sin here is again cast in the plural, for the passage points to the penalty and not to the root of sin that is purified.
Yet what about the passage in John 1.29: Behold, the lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world? Since the sin of the world which is taken away is singular in number here, does it really indicate that the root of sin is eradicated? If so, then not only the root of sin of the saved but also that of the whole world is eradicated. Obviously, this cannot be the meaning. What it means here is that the Lamb of God has solved the whole problem of the sin of the world. This agrees with the words as through one man sin entered into the world of Romans 5.12. Just as sin had entered into the world through one man, so it is taken away by another man. The Lord has already solved the problem of the sin of the world.
How do we deal with sin in the singular number? Even so, reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin (Rom. 6.11). Sin in the plural is solved by the death of Christ; sin in the singular is solved by co-death with Christ. This co-death is a [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]reckoning [/font]as dead. If we reckon ourselves to be dead to sin, we will no longer be under the dominion of sin.
If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin (1 John 1.7). Once more, the word sin is expressed in the singular. Yet this certainly cannot mean that the blood of the Lord Jesus cleanses the root of sin from us because the cleansing spoken of here is conditional on our walking in the light as He is in the light so as to have fellowship one with another. Had this verse been a reference to our sinful nature, how would we have the sin for the blood of the Lord Jesus to cleanse from us, since we are already able to walk in the light as God is in the light? The truth is: as we walk in the light of the gospel as God is in the light of revelation, we begin to realize that the blood of the Lord Jesus has already solved our whole problem of sin. In the following verse, which is the ninth verse, it uses sin in the plural, showing that we yet have sins. We therefore conclude this: that sin in the singular refers to sin as master in us, sin in the plural refers to the various expressions of outward conduct. Sin in the singular points to the whole problem of sin, while sin in the plural points to sin as individual acts.
Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5.21). The word sin here is singular in form. The Lord was made sin for us, not sins (plural) on our behalf. Why is sin in the singular used here? Because God made Jesus, who knew no sin (that is, who never knew what sin was and who had never served sin nor known the power of sin), to be sin for us, that is, to be made the whole problem of sin so that God could judge it by judging Him. His being made sin simply means that God dealt with Him as God would deal with our own sin problem. If the Lord Jesus should have been made sins, He would have known sinful conduct; and thus He too would have been one who had committed sins, He too would have known sins such as pride, jealousy, uncleanness, and so on. Thank God, He had not made the Lord Jesus sins, He only dealt with the Lord Jesus as He would deal with the problem of sin. Hence when the Lord Jesus died, the problem of the sin of the whole world was solved.
[font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Answer: [/font]
The difference between sin and sins is that between sin stated in the singular number and sin stated in the plural number. In the Old Testament there is no distinction made of sin in singular and plural numbers. Only the New Testament expresses this difference, and it is a very significant difference too
Let us list all the places in the New Testament where sin (Gk. [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]hamartia[/font]) both in the singular and in the plural is used.
Sin in singular number: Matt.12.31; John 1.29; 8.34 (twice), 46; 9.41 (twice); 15.22 (twice), 24; 16.8,9; 19.11; Acts 7.60; Rom. 3.9,20; 4.8; 5.12 (twice), 13 (twice), 20,21; 6.1,2,6 (twice), 7,10,11,12,13,14,16,17,18,20,22,23; 7.7 (twice), 8 (twice), 9,11,13 (thrice), 14,17,20,23,25; 8.2,3 (mg., thrice), 10; 14.23; 1 Cor. 15.56 (twice); 2 Cor. 5.21 (twice); 11.7; Gal. 2.17; 3.22; 2 Thess. 2.3; Heb. 3.13; 4.15; 9.26,28 (the second sin); 10.6,8,18; 11.25; 12.1,4; 13.11; James 1.15 (twice); 2.9; 4.17; 1 Peter 2.22; 4.1; 2 Peter 2.14; 1 John 1.7,8; 3.4 (twice), 5 (the second sin), 8,9; 5.16 (twice), 17 (twice).
Sins in plural number: Matt. 1.21; 3.6; 9.2,5,6; 26.28; Mark 1.4,5; 2.5,7,9,10; Luke 1.77; 3.3; 5.20,21,23,24; 7.47,48,49; 11.4; 24.47; John 8.21, 24 (twice); 9.34; 20.23; Acts 2.38; 3.19; 5.31; 10.43; 13.38; 22.16; 26.18; Rom. 4.7; 7.5; 11.27; 1 Cor. 15.3,17; Gal. 1.4; Eph. 2.1; Col. 1.14; 1 Thess. 2.16; 1 Tim. 5.22,24; 2 Tim. 3.6; Heb. 1.3; 2.17; 5.1,3; 7.27; 8.12; 9.28 (the first sins); 10.2,3,4,11,12,17,26; James 5.15,20; 1 Peter 2.24 (twice); 3.18; 4.8; 2 Peter 1.9; 1 John 1.9 (twice); 2.2,12; 3.5 (the first sins); 4.10; Rev. 1.5; 18.4,5.
After we have read these many Scripture verses we may detect how wise is God in writing the Bible. We will truly say to Him: O God, we worship You!
The distinctive uses of sin and sins are as follows. Whenever the Bible refers to mans outward sinful conduct such as pride, jealousy, lying, and so forth, sin in the plural number is always used. Sin in the singular number is never used in the Bible for outward sin; instead, it is employed in two different ways: (1) [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]It points to the sin that reigns within or its power and dominion. [/font]This is also commonly known by the terms: the root of sin or the denominator of sin. Actually these terms are not scripturally accurate; they are merely borrowed for the sake of convenience. The Bible never uses either of them, it instead speaks of sin as reigning like a king or having dominion like a master. Sin in the singular number is usually employed to specify the power which reigns over us and drives us to commit sins.
(2) [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]As a collective term, it sometimes refers to the whole problem of sin [/font](such as is found in John 1.29 and 1 John 1.7 which we discuss later). Whenever the Bible speaks of God forgiving sin it always uses the plural number sins, because what we need to be forgiven of are the sins we commit in outward behavior. As regards the sinful nature within us, it cannot be solved by forgiveness. It would be a mistake to say God forgives sin and use the singular number. For God only forgives sins. Since sin in the singular number is a master, a power, it is something we are not directly responsible for and is not to be settled through forgiveness. But sins in the plural number need forgiveness because these are our conduct for which we [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]are [/font]held responsible, and they will cause a penalty to be levied against us if not forgiven. For this cause, whenever the Bible mentions the matter of confessing our sins, it should always be expressed as confess our sins (1 John 1.9), using the plural and not the singular number. Sin does not refer to mans conduct, and therefore does not require confession; but the term sins does signify mans conduct, requiring confession to be made. Christs death is to save us from sins in the plural number. Thou shalt call his name Jesus; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins (Matt. 1.21). This means that the Lord Jesus saves us from all the sins in our conduct.
The Lord Jesus declared to the Jews: Ye shall die in your sins (John 8.24). Once again, this refers to sin in the plural number, and not to sin singular. Never once does the Bible say that Christ has died for our sin as expressed in the singular number; it always says that Christ has died for our sins plural.
Ye were dead through your trespasses and sins (Eph. 2.1). Note that the word sin here is in the plural form and not in the singular. It means that we spend our lives in sins such as pride, uncleanness, jealousy, and so forth. We were dead in plural sins, not in sin in its singular number. Two more examples are these: (1) should take away sins in Hebrews 10.4 is a taking away of sins in the plural number; (2) had no more consciousness of sins in 10.2 is also an expression of sin in the plural.
Why do we have no more consciousness of sins after the blood of the Lord has cleansed our conscience? Because the sin which our conscience accuses us of before God is sin in the plural number; that is, one sin after another, such as ill-temper, pride, and so forth. Since the blood of the Lord Jesus has already obtained forgiveness for these our sins, naturally our conscience will no longer be conscious of them. Sins there most certainly are, but the blood has dealt with them. Had the blood of the Lord cleansed sin in its singular sense, no one would have been able to experience personally such a cleansing; because in cleansing sin in the singular number, it would have meant that we would never have again been conscious of the power of sin, that power which drives us to sin. But we know that such is not the case at all. The blood of the Lord Jesus has so cleansed us that our conscience no longer accuses us of our past sins. Yet this does not imply that we no longer have sin; it only affirms that there is no more consciousness of sins. Through the cleansing of the blood we are no more condemned by our conscience.
How, then, are we to be delivered from the sin that masters us, the sin which we have been speaking of in the singular number? Knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away [literally, unemployed], that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin (Rom. 6.6). Here we have three items: (1) the body of sin, (2) the old man, and (3) sin. The body serves as a figurehead, for what causes the body to sin through the old man is sin. Sin works in the body, so that this body is called the body of sin. The old man stands between sin and the body. It accepts the instigation of sin on the one hand and directs the body to sin on the other. The old man is our personality. Sin tempts, the old man agrees, and accordingly the body acts. Some people have suggested that the death of the Lord Jesus has eradicated the root of sin. This is not true. For what the Lord Jesus has done is to get rid of the old man. Sin is still here, the body of sin is also here; only the intermediary old man is gotten rid of. Man as a person still remains; yet sin is now unable to push the new man around, because sin can never direct the new man. Sin in the singular is still here, though we are no longer in bondage to it. Why are we no longer slaves to sin? Because the old man who directly charges the body to sin is already crucified. How about the body? It is presently unemployed.
He [the Lord Jesus] had made purification of sins (Heb. 1.3). The sin here is again cast in the plural, for the passage points to the penalty and not to the root of sin that is purified.
Yet what about the passage in John 1.29: Behold, the lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world? Since the sin of the world which is taken away is singular in number here, does it really indicate that the root of sin is eradicated? If so, then not only the root of sin of the saved but also that of the whole world is eradicated. Obviously, this cannot be the meaning. What it means here is that the Lamb of God has solved the whole problem of the sin of the world. This agrees with the words as through one man sin entered into the world of Romans 5.12. Just as sin had entered into the world through one man, so it is taken away by another man. The Lord has already solved the problem of the sin of the world.
How do we deal with sin in the singular number? Even so, reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin (Rom. 6.11). Sin in the plural is solved by the death of Christ; sin in the singular is solved by co-death with Christ. This co-death is a [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]reckoning [/font]as dead. If we reckon ourselves to be dead to sin, we will no longer be under the dominion of sin.
If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin (1 John 1.7). Once more, the word sin is expressed in the singular. Yet this certainly cannot mean that the blood of the Lord Jesus cleanses the root of sin from us because the cleansing spoken of here is conditional on our walking in the light as He is in the light so as to have fellowship one with another. Had this verse been a reference to our sinful nature, how would we have the sin for the blood of the Lord Jesus to cleanse from us, since we are already able to walk in the light as God is in the light? The truth is: as we walk in the light of the gospel as God is in the light of revelation, we begin to realize that the blood of the Lord Jesus has already solved our whole problem of sin. In the following verse, which is the ninth verse, it uses sin in the plural, showing that we yet have sins. We therefore conclude this: that sin in the singular refers to sin as master in us, sin in the plural refers to the various expressions of outward conduct. Sin in the singular points to the whole problem of sin, while sin in the plural points to sin as individual acts.
Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5.21). The word sin here is singular in form. The Lord was made sin for us, not sins (plural) on our behalf. Why is sin in the singular used here? Because God made Jesus, who knew no sin (that is, who never knew what sin was and who had never served sin nor known the power of sin), to be sin for us, that is, to be made the whole problem of sin so that God could judge it by judging Him. His being made sin simply means that God dealt with Him as God would deal with our own sin problem. If the Lord Jesus should have been made sins, He would have known sinful conduct; and thus He too would have been one who had committed sins, He too would have known sins such as pride, jealousy, uncleanness, and so on. Thank God, He had not made the Lord Jesus sins, He only dealt with the Lord Jesus as He would deal with the problem of sin. Hence when the Lord Jesus died, the problem of the sin of the whole world was solved.
