The Concept of sin

[wayfarersoul1978]

I think it safe to assume, we all believe in sin and how it effect us and our society. What do you think sin is spread? do you think it heredity or choice? The Western branch of Christianity believe in original sin, but not the Eastern branch.


SIN, GUILT
Sin is action and attitude in opposition to God and his purposes. In the worldview represented in the Pentateuch, God is characterized by power, *holiness and concern for the good for human beings. God’s purposes are purposes of shalom; the Pentateuch, however, chronicles human actions contrary to God’s intentions. Sin is the violation of God’s will and righteousness. It is disloyalty, disobedience, the breaching of a harmonious and just relationship with God, others, self and nature.
Sin is first against God and not, as in the ancient Near East and as often understood in the modern world, against a set of social taboos. By giving attention to biblical narrative, to “sin” vocabulary and to metaphors, the scriptural view of sin comes into focus. All three approaches bring to the surface issues that need sorting out.
1. Narratives of Sin
2. Vocabulary for Sin/Guilt
3. Metaphors for Sin
4. Consequences of Sin
5. Theological Issues Related to Sin
6. A Theological Summary of Sin

1. Narratives of Sin
1.1. Genesis 1–11. Four major stories of sin dominate Genesis 1–11. The first is the account of *Adam and *Eve, who disobeyed God’s command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden (Gen 3). Though the story does not employ the usual words for “sin,” the NT labels the action sinful (Rom 5:12; 1 Tim 2:13–14). The terms for sin (ḥaṭṭāʾt and ʿāwōn) occur first in the second story, *Cain murdering his brother *Abel (Gen 4:7, 13). The third major story involves social violence (ḥāmās) and sexual perversion (Gen 6:1–5). However the cohabiting of *sons of God with human women is to be explained, the sin is against God’s prescribed ordering. The fourth story is about God’s displeasure incurred by the tower-building activity at *Babel, a sinful activity not because it involved newer technology (brick-making) but, so it might be inferred, because of a people’s refusal to fill the earth as God commanded and also because of humans’ invading the divine realm and so exceeding set limits (Gen 11:1–9).
All four incidents indicate an offensive act (against God, humanity, God’s order, culture); all four clearly depict God’s displeasure; and all specify resulting punishment. But in each case the punishment is ameliorated, even if only slightly, by an act of God’s mercy (e.g., expulsion from the garden rather than immediate death; a mark on Cain). In the Cain and Abel story, sin is pictured as a crouching animal: humans can withstand it and master it, but the possibility exists that it will master them (Gen 4:7).
C. Westermann (1976, 50) stressed the diversification of sin in human social structures: the sin of married partners (Gen 2–3), of brothers (Gen 4:1–16), of the preflood generation (Gen 6–9) and of humankind generally (Gen 11:1–9). He noted in each the recurring pattern: sin, speech, punishment (cf. summary in Clines, 68). D. J. A. Clines’s proposal of a sin-speech-mitigation-punishment pattern was further amplified by M. D. Bratcher (244), who noted a “discovery of sin” component either through divine inquiry (Gen 3:9–13; 4:9–10) or through divine observation (Gen 6:5, 12; 11:5–6). The thesis that sin is the main theme has been challenged by H. Shank, who investigated other sin stories (e.g., Lamech, Gen 4:23–24; Noah’s sons, Gen 9:20–29) and sees the sin theme subordinate to the theme of divine self-limitation and human freedom.
1.2. Genesis 12–50. The patriarchs also contend with sin. The sin (ḥaṭṭāʾt) of Sodom and Gomorrah, cities for whom *Abraham intercedes, is described as grave (rābbâ and kobdâ, Gen 18:20). The language of sin is also on the lips of *Abimelech the Philistine when he asks Abraham, who has misrepresented *Sarah, “How have I sinned [ḥāṭāʾ] against you?” (Gen 20:9; cf. Abimelech’s response to Isaac, using ʾāšām [“guilt”] in Gen 26:10). *Jacob asks of Laban, “What is my offense [pešaʿ]? What is my sin [ḥaṭṭāʾt]?” (Gen 31:36). *Joseph asks, when tempted by Potiphar’s wife, “How can I do wickedness and sin [ḥāṭāʾ] against God?” (Gen 39:9). Each of these incidents assumes a standard that, when violated, precipitates evil consequences. The Sodom and Gomorrah story, while about God dealing with excessive corruption, may be read inferentially as making another point: a new possibility—namely, intercession with God—for arresting the consequences of sin (Gen 18:22–33).
Other stories of wrongdoing within the patriarchal narrative revolve around deception. For example, Jacob deceives *Esau (Gen 27). Laban in turn deceives Jacob (Gen 29:21–30). After marketing Joseph to the passing merchants, Joseph’s brothers deceive their father (Gen 37:29–35). Deceit is also the subject of the *Tamar-* Judah story (Gen 38:11–23), which interrupts the Joseph narrative but which functions as a commentary on the Joseph story (Alter, 5–12). Deception, one result of which is *family dysfunction, is the ubiquitous sin. R. W. L. Moberly (1992, 97–104) observes that the patriarchal stories lack warnings for disobedience and are not set against the backdrop of God’s holiness, as in Mosaic legislation and narrative.
1.3. Exodus–Deuteronomy. Several narratives in Exodus–Deuteronomy recount sin by the community; a few stories deal with sinful acts by individuals. Of one of the corporate sinful acts, the construction of a *golden calf as a surrogate for God the deliverer, *Moses says, “You have sinned a great sin” (ḥăṭāʾâ gĕdōlâ, Ex 32:30). Later at Kadesh, an initial refusal to trust God because of the spies’ report is followed by the presumption of engaging in battle despite God’s prohibition, leading the larger community eventually to acknowledge, “We have sinned” (ḥāṭāʾnû, Num 14:40). Similarly, when God’s displeasure at Israel’s disgruntled behavior and constant murmuring brings on the plague of serpent bites, the corporate body admits, “We have sinned” (ḥāṭāʾnû, Num 21:7).
Individuals also, Egyptian as well as Israelite, leader types all, engage in sinful behavior. *Pharaoh sins repeatedly in refusing to comply with God’s directives; he admits as much in response to a devastating plague (Ex 9:27; 10:16). Moses strikes the rock instead of speaking to it (Num 20:11–12). *Balaam, who is on his way to meet Balak but is stopped by an angel, admits, “I have sinned” (ḥāṭāʾtî, Num 22:34). Korah and his colleagues Dathan and Abiram sinfully challenge the authority of their superior (Num 16:1–3, 12–14). These individuals either stubbornly resist God’s commands, only partially obey God’s instructions or trivialize them. A notable feature of these accounts is God’s response of anger and fierce displeasure.

2. Vocabulary for Sin/Guilt
The terminology for sin is extensive, numbering more than forty words (Knierim 1995, 425). The large number of terms also points to the importance of this subject, since in any culture that which is valued or eschewed is differentiated (cf. the extensive vocabulary for edible worms in a jungle culture or the various words for modes of transport in industrialized countries). Of the many words for sin, three significant ones occur together in Leviticus 16:21: “Then Aaron shall … confess over it [the live goat] all the iniquities [ʿāwōn] of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions [pešaʿ], all their sins [ḥaṭṭāʾt]” (cf. Ex 34:7; Ps 32:1–2). To these basic words for sin may be added, for purposes of closer examination, the terms raʿ, rāšāʿ and ʾāšām.
2.1. Missing the Mark (ḥaṭṭāʾt). Of the various OT words for sin, ḥaṭṭāʾt is the most frequent, occurring, along with its derivatives, nearly six hundred times. Of these occurrences, approximately one-third are in the Pentateuch. The meaning of this term, “missing the mark,” is clarified by its nontheological use regarding slingers hitting a target: they did not miss (ḥāṭaʾ, Judg 20:16; cf. “miss [ḥāṭaʾ] the way” in Prov 19:2). The term also denotes being at fault, failure to perform a duty or “to be lacking.” Used in a moral and ethical sense, ḥaṭṭāʾt points to failure in meeting the demands of a law or statute, intentionally or unintentionally, but it can also signify falling short of the expectations inherent in certain relationships. The term is formal and generic for overt evil actions (e.g., Lev 16:21; cf. Deut 9:18, where it sums up various wrongful actions). Frequently it is paired with other words for sin: pešaʿ (Gen 31:36; 50:17), ʿāwōn (Ex 34:9); rāšāʿ (Num 16:26) and raʿ (Deut 9:18).
The term occurs in various literary genres: narrative (e.g., Gen 4:7; 18:20; 20:9; 40:1; Ex 9:27), law, prayer and paraenesis. In Israel’s story, the root appears in the episode of the golden calf (Ex 32:21, 30; cf. Deut. 9:16, 18), and in the accounts of Korah, Dathan and Abiram (Num 16:26, 38 [MT 17:3]).
Within legal material, behaviors classified as sinful include lying to a neighbor and stealing (Lev 6:2–4 [MT 5:21–23]), failure to pay vows or wages (Deut 23:21 [MT 22]); 24:15) and cursing God (Lev 24:15). Distinctions are also made in legal material, such as sinning unintentionally or inadvertently (šĕgāgâ, Lev 4:2–31; Num 15:28) and sinning in defiance, blatantly or with contempt (“high-handedly,” bĕyād rāmâ, Num 15:30). The former, which are sins without malicious intent (e.g., an act that one did not know was wrong or about which there was uncertainty) can be forgiven through sacrifice, but not so the high-handed sins. Scripture also acknowledges failure as when, in making a promise, “it slips one’s memory” (Lev 5:4; Wenham, 86, 93). The casuistic laws, “If so and so sins …” followed by prescriptive action (e.g., Lev 4:3, 22, 27), also belong in this legal category.
Not surprisingly, the word ḥaṭṭāʾt (“sin”) and its derivatives occur in prayers—sometimes, as in the prayer of Moses, in pleas for God to forgive sin (Ex 32:31). Statements on the formulaic order of “I have sinned,” which identify culpability and personal responsibility, are found thirty times in the OT, including seven (not all confessions of sin) in the Pentateuch (cf. tabulations in Knierim 1965, 20, 28; e.g., Pharaoh in Ex 9:27; 10:16, Balaam in Num 22:34, and other first-person singular Qal forms of the verb: Gen 20:9; 39:9; 43:9; 44:32). The formula “We have sinned” (ḥāṭāʾnû) occurs twenty-four times in the OT; only four are from the Pentateuch (*Aaron and *Miriam in Num 12:11; Israel at Kadesh in Num 14:40; Deut 1:41; and Israel murmuring in Num 21:7). Instructions and especially warnings against sin and the incurring of guilt appear in paraenetic material (Ex 23:33; Lev 19:17; cf. Gen 4:7).
The word occurs with the verb nāśāʾ (“to carry”), especially in the formula “to bear [one’s] sin” (e.g., Lev. 19:17; 20:20; 22:9; 24:15; see below). Because ḥaṭṭāʾt is sometimes found in conjunction with ʾāšām (“guilt, punishment”), as well as for other reasons, R. Knierim (1965, 55) concludes that the term ḥaṭṭāʾt functions in a judicial setting or at least within an adjudicative semantic field. Already in the Pentateuch the warning about sin resulting in exile is sometimes sounded (Deut 29:28). The noun form occurs with considerable frequency linked with words for death (mwt, e.g., Deut 24:16).
2.2. Breach of Law/Relationships (pešaʿ). Earlier lexical definitions stressed the notion of rebellion inherent in pešaʿ, a conclusion deduced from the political context in which the term is at home (DeVries, 4.361; Quell, 1.270, 273). For example, a vassal nation would rebel against its overlord (pāšaʿ; e.g., 2 Kings 3:5; 8:20). While the meaning “rebellion” is not amiss, Knierim (1965, 178, 181) has shown that the term has to do with “breach” (German verbrechen or brechen mit). In this understanding of the word, there is the notion of taking something away, as in asserting ownership rights over that which belongs to another (e.g., kidnapping, Gen 50:17; cf. Ex 22:9 [MT 22:8]; 2 Kings 8:20, 22). So while there remains a juridical, or at least political, aspect to the term, once this legal sphere for the term is acknowledged, a secondary nuance of the term comes into play, namely, the straining of relationships. The notion of pešaʿ as breach of law and of brotherhood is especially poignant in the words of Joseph’s brothers, purportedly quoting their father when they ask for Joseph to forgive their pešaʿ (Gen 50:17: “crime,” NRSV; “trespass,” KJV). Theologically, “whoever commits pešaʿ does not merely rebel or protest against Yahweh, but breaks with him, takes away what is his, robs, embezzles, misappropriates it” (Knierim, 2.1036). Actions of pešaʿ rupture solidarity and shatter harmony.
Out of a total of over 130 occurrences for the root pešaʿ in the OT, nine are found in eight verses of the Pentateuch. The word is used in the genre of narratives, such as that of Laban and Jacob (Gen 31:36) and in connection with Joseph and his brothers (Gen 50:17). On the Day of *Atonement the priest is directed to confess the sins (pešaʿ) of the people of Israel when he lays his hand on the scapegoat (Lev 16:16, 21). The term also appears in the Pentateuch in conjunction with the doxology of forgiveness (Ex 34:7; Num 14:18).
The term pešaʿ appears together with its synonym ḥaṭṭāʾt (e.g., Gen 31:36) and so serves as an umbrella word for wrongdoing. Still, the two terms have distinctive nuances. If ḥaṭṭāʾt is all about failure, especially the failure of achieving or reaching a goal, pešaʿ is about breaching a relationship. Some actions described as ḥaṭṭāʾt may be unintentional, but actions of pešaʿ are clearly deliberate.
2.3. Iniquity (ʿāwōn). The word ʿāwōn occurs 231 times in the OT (Knierim, 2.863) and about forty times in the Pentateuch, where it describes the evils of the Amorites (Gen 15:16), the sins of the cities Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:15), the wicked dealings of Joseph’s brothers (Gen 44:16), the sin of erecting a golden calf (Ex 34:9) and the sin of bowing to *idols (Ex 20:5; Deut 5:9). The word occurs in the formula “bear iniquities” (see 3.2 below).
Lexical definitions employ such terms as “crookedness,” “perversity” and “iniquity.” The informing image is of a bent, twisted or crimped item laid alongside a standard straight edge. Knierim (1965, 238) emphasizes that the term ʿāwōn denotes a concrete action, but within Israelite holistic thinking it also entails consequences such as guilt (Gen 15:16) and punishment (Gen 19:15).
Scholars have tried to distinguish the meaning of ʿāwōn from the two other primary words for sin, ḥaṭṭāʾt and pešaʿ. T. C. Vriezen (6.479) sees ḥaṭṭāʾt as pointing to general failure and shortcoming; ʿāwōn, a more weighty term, as having an ethical component; and pešaʿ, the weightiest term of all, referring to the religious dimension. W. Eichrodt sets up a distinction in which ḥaṭṭāʾt is a general, more formal word designating sinful conduct, essentially a failure with regard to norm, whereas implicit in ʿāwōn is the “agent’s awareness of the culpability of his action, so that the formal aspect is here already supplemented by one of moral content” (Eichrodt, 2.380–81). For Eichrodt the root pešaʿ in both verb and noun forms denotes “rebellion” and “revolt” (contrast Knierim). Eichrodt concludes that for all these terms there is a “unifying basic conception of action contrary to the norm.”
2.4. Evil (raʿ). The term raʿ describes what is morally defective in character and action, such as the sin of Sodom (Gen 13:13). The term raʿ is opposite to good (ṭôb) in the expression “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen 2:9, 17; 3:5, 22). An entire community, unbelieving and reneging at the threshold of the Promised Land, is described as wicked (raʿ, Num 14:27; cf. the same word for the same event in Deut 1:35). The Israelite army is to be free from an evil thing (raʿ, Deut 23:9 [MT 23:10]). A congregation must purge raʿ from its ranks (Deut 17:7, 12; 19:19; 21:21).
The feminine noun rāʿâ as well as the adjective raʿ can refer either to moral/ethical wrongdoing or to bad things generally (misfortune, calamity). An instance of the first is in Joseph’s question to Potiphar’s wife regarding her efforts to seduce him sexually: “How can I do this great evil?” (rāʿâ, Gen 39:9). Other actions that are characterized as rāʿâ are Joseph’s brothers’ devious ways with him (Gen 50:17, 20; cf. Saul in 1 Sam 20:7, 9, 13) and a people’s turning to idolatry (Deut 31:18). Evil behavior is also contrasted with good behavior (Gen 44:4; cf. Num 24:13). The verb rʿʿ can refer to perpetrating evil, as in the proposed actions of the Sodomites (Gen 19:9) or theft (Gen 44:5); homosexuality (Gen 19:7); or Onan’s coitus interruptus (Gen 38:10). The collocation of terms from this root when used in the moral sphere points to a generic meaning, “evil,” “wickedness.”
2.5. Guilty (rāšāʿ). The term rāšāʿ (“guilty”), along with its derivatives, occurs in the Pentateuch more than a dozen times. This word denotes behavior that is destructive and disruptive of harmony in the community and serves as a more generalized term for evil understood as the opposite of what is morally good. The antonym of rāšāʿ is righteousness, as illustrated in the classic story of Abraham’s intercession for Sodom and Gomorrah where both terms rāšāʿ and ṣaddîq (“righteous”) are decisive (Gen 18:23, 25; cf. Ex 9:27). The judicial dimension of rāšāʿ is transparent in Deuteronomy 25:1, where a court ruling involves being “righteous” or rāšāʿ (cf. Ex 23:1, 7). The Hiphil form of the verb means “to pronounce guilty,” as when ruling on property rights (Ex 22:9 [MT 22:8]).
The nominative (i.e., adjective or noun) forms are rāšāʿ (265 times in the OT) or rišʿâ (fifteen times), both denoting wickedness/guilt in a more general sense. While most of the occurrences are in Wisdom literature, some instances occur in the Pentateuch, as in Abraham’s intercession (Gen 18:23, 25), Pharaoh’s confession (Ex 9:27), Moses’ description of Korah, Dathan and Abiram as wicked (Num 16:26) and reference to wicked Canaanites (Deut 9:4–5) and Israelites (Deut 9:27). The masculine noun form, rešaʿ, occurs once in the Pentateuch (Deut 9:27). In brief, rāšāʿ is criminal wrongdoing.
2.6. Guilt (ʾāšām). The root in its various forms—the verb ʾāšam, “to incur or become guilty”; the noun, ʾāšām, “guilt, wrong, guilt-offering”; and the adjective ʾāšēm, “guilty”—appears more than forty times in the Pentateuch, mostly in Leviticus and Numbers. Guilt is to be understood as moral or legal culpability, so it has an objective dimension. Guilt designates the condition or state of a person who has acted wrongfully; it stands between the act of sin and the punishment. Some hold that the subjective, psychological notion of feeling guilty is scarcely, if at all, a component of the biblical concept. Guilt is incurred through action not in accord with the law (Lev 4:13, 22) even if the individual is unaware of his or her wrongdoing (Lev 5:2–4). The nominative form often denotes “guilt offering.”
Most of the occurrences of the verb ʾāšam entail actions that infringe on cultic purity, such as touching an unclean animal (Lev 5:2–3) or sinning inadvertently (Lev 4:22, 27; 5:17). But careless swearing of an oath also incurs guilt (Lev 5:4), as do theft and breach of trust in the stewardship of property (Lev 6:4 [MT 5:23]). The condition of being guilty (hence liable for punishment) follows upon committing sin (Lev 5:17).
Taking issue with the broadly accepted understanding of ʾāšām as guilt or culpability, J. Milgrom (1976, 11–12; 1991, 340–45) has identified four uses of the word, one of which he calls “consequential ʾāšām” especially in cultic texts. In his view the word denotes the wrong and the retribution, as underscored, for example, in Hosea 5:15 (cf. Gen 26:10). Milgrom (1991, 343–45) also includes a “feeling dimension” for the term, since when someone willfully appropriates something, it is already clear that guilt has been incurred (Lev 6:4 [MT 5:23]).
2.7. Other Terms in the Semantic Field. The remaining pentateuchal terms for wrongful behavior can be clustered around the main terms described above: ḥaṭṭāʾt, pešaʿ, ʿāwōn, raʿ and rāšāʿ.
2.7.1. Words Related to ḥaṭṭāʾt. One of the words that falls under the rubric of ḥaṭṭāʾt (“missing the mark”) is sûr (“to turn aside”). To defect from God is to become open to idolatry (Deut 11:16, 28). Wrongdoing also consists of turning aside, deviating from the commandment (Deut 17:20; 28:14; see 3.3 below). Two other terms, šgh and šgg, carry the meaning “to err.” The noun šĕgāgâ is found closely allied with ḥaṭṭāʾt in Leviticus 4:2; 5:15. The noun šĕgāgâ refers to inadvertent or unintentional sin, which, as Milgrom (1967, 118) explains, comes about in two ways. The offender knows the law but accidentally violates it (e.g., Num 35:22–23; Deut 19:5–6), or one acts deliberately but did not know that it was wrong (Ezek 45:20). The verb šgh means “to act in error,” unaware of the consequence of an action. Its use in moral contexts underscores the fact that judicially there is an objective wrong, whether the agent (individual, priest or community) was specifically aware of the failure or not (Lev 4:13; Num 15:22; cf. Deut 27:18). In sum, šgh and šgg, like ḥaṭṭāʾt, signify moral failure of some sort.
2.7.2. Words Related to pešaʿ. Certain terms for sin are generally in the word field of rebel (pešaʿ). One of these, mārâ (“resist, rebel”), is illustrated in the noncompliant behavior of Israel (Num 20:10) and Moses (Num 20:24; 27:14). The root mrh is relatively frequent in Deuteronomy, where, mostly from the mouth of Moses, the word characterizes Israel as contentious and rebellious (Deut 1:43; 9:7, 23–24; 31:27). The word is coupled with the verb srr (“to be stubborn, rebellious,” Deut 21:18, 20) and also with qšh (“stiff[-necked]”; Deut 31:27).
The closely related verb mārad (“to rebel, act with insolence”) appears in a plea for obedience that Joshua makes to the people (Num 14:9). Rebellion is also at the heart of the term sārâ. The noun sāra (“rebellion, treason”) is applied to prophets who by dreams mislead the people (Deut 13:5 [MT 13:6]) and once in the Pentateuch to wrongdoing in general (Deut 19:16). Also within the category of pešaʿ is the idiom of sinning “high-handedly,” or presumptuously, behavior against which Moses warns (Num 15:30; Deut 8:14).
To the extent that pešaʿ is construed as breaching a relationship, the verb māʿal (“to be unfaithful, disloyal”) is a close synonym (Lev 5:15). The word is apropos to a woman’s faithlessness in marriage (Num 5:12, 27). An instance of māʿal is deception of a neighbor, which is a breach of trust not only against the neighbor but also against God, since to make things right it is necessary to make reparations to the neighbor and to bring a guilt offering to God (Lev 6:2–7 [MT 5:21–26]). Moses broke faith with God at Meribah (māʿal, Deut 32:51).
2.7.3. Words Related to ʿāwōn. A word that is akin to the concept of “crooked” (ʿāwōn) is the noun hepek, which in its abstract form tahpūkâ (“perversity”) occurs in a song highlighting Israelite wrongdoing over against God’s faithfulness (Deut 32:20). Another root in this world field is slp (“distort”), which occurs in didactic texts warning against twisting justice through bribery (Ex 23:8; Deut 16:19).
2.7.4. Words Related to raʿ. A term that refers more generally to wickedness, as raʿ does, is ʿāwel (“to act wrongly”). Showing partiality and cheating are wrong. Adjudication in court is not to be tainted with evil such as partiality: “You shall not render an unjust [ʿāwel] judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great” (Lev 19:15 NRSV; cf. Lev 19:35; Deut 25:16; 32:4).
2.7.5. Words Related to rāšāʿ. The lexeme ḥāmās (“violence”) is used alongside the word rāšāʿ (“wicked”) in Exodus 23:1. In addition, violence and ruthless, outrageous cruelty characterized human action prior to the flood (Gen 6:11, 13). Cruelty was in view in the words spoken by Jacob: “Simeon and Levi are brothers; weapons of violence are their swords” (Gen 49:5 NRSV). Such action tears at the social fabric of communal relations. In the Pentateuch’s other two references, the term is employed in the more general sense of wrong (Gen 16:5; Deut 19:16). Here should be included nābāl, which describes a person “who ‘commits an act of crass disorder or unruliness’ or acts ‘in an utterly disorderly or unruly fashion’ ” (Pan, 3.11). Examples in the Pentateuch have to do with sex-related actions (nĕbālâ; e.g., Shechem’s sexual act against Dinah, Gen 34:7; cf. Deut 22:21). Moses also characterizes Israel with this epithet (Deut 32:6, 21).
Into this more general category of “wicked” (rāšāʿ and raʿ) are to be placed at least two other terms, also of a general nature, with the roots tʿb and šqṣ. The noun tôʿēbâ refers to that which is offensive or loathsome. The word can pertain to a cultural value (e.g., shepherding was loathsome in the view of Egyptians; Gen 46:34). Often, however, tôʿēbâ (“abomination”) represents a divine estimate on activity that is evil and so, like sin, defiles the land (Lev 18:27). Concentration of the term is in Leviticus 18 (five times) and in Deuteronomy (sixteen times). Israel is warned against certain actions typical of, or at least prevalent in, Canaanite and surrounding cultures, which are described as abhorrent and which are taboo (tôʿēbâ; cf. Deut 20:15–18). These actions as listed in the Pentateuch can be grouped in five categories: (1) idolatries (Deut 27:15; cf. the mention of strange [zār] gods in Deut 32:16; cult prostitution in Deut 23:17–18 [MT 23:18–19]; and offering second-class animals for offerings in Deut 17:1); (2) human sacrifice (Deut 12:31); (3) sexual perversions such as homosexuality (Lev 20:13), incest and other illicit sexual activities apparently common in Egypt and Canaan (Lev 18:1–30); (4) illicit business practices involving deception (Deut 25:13–16); and (5) dietary and clothing taboos (Deut 14:3; 22:5).
Still in the category of what is bad (raʿ) is the word šeqeṣ (“detestable, repugnant”), a synonym for tôʿēbâ (cf. Jer 16:18), as is evident in the fact that unacceptable foods can be designated by either term (Lev 11:10; Deut 14:3). The word predominates in the *food laws (Lev 11:11–23), although the language of šeqeṣ is also applied to idolatry (Deut 7:25–26).

3. Metaphors for Sin
Three metaphors within the Pentateuch aid in clarifying what is meant by sin.
3.1. Sin as Blemish. Language about the removal of sin on the Day of *Atonement evokes the picture of sin as an impurity, a blemish: “From all your sins you shall be clean [ṭḥr] before the LORD” (Lev 16:30). The terms ṭḥr (“clean”) and ṭmʾ (“unclean”) often refer to physical ritual purity and uncleanness (e.g., contact with a carcass, Lev 5:2–3), to contracting an infectious disease (Lev 13:13, 14) or to foods (Lev 11:1–23). But sin also defiles and makes unclean, and so renders a person unfit (cf. Is 6:5). Sexual relations outside marriage, for example, were defiling (ṭmʾ; Lev 18:20), as was involvement with mediums (Lev 19:31) and sacrificing of one’s offspring to Molech (Lev 20:1–8).
The idea of blemish is also captured in the root ḥnp (“pollute”), a synonym to ṭmʾ (Num 35:33–34). Land is polluted (ḥnp) through bloodshed (Num 35:33; cf. prophetic material where idolatry is said to pollute the land, Jer 3:2, 9). In some instances ḥll (“profane”), when coupled with ṭmʾ, includes the nuance of defiling (e.g., Lev 20:3). Sin must be understood as the opposite of *holiness, cleanness.
3.2. Sin as Burden. An important metaphor about sin occurs within an idiomatic, formulaic saying: “carry iniquity” (nśʾ ʿāwōn; cf. nśʾ plus ḥaṭṭāʾt or pešaʿ), a phrase that occurs twenty-nine times in the OT. On the one hand the idiom with the sense of “carrying off” points to forgiveness. When God is the subject, the sense is of God’s lifting off or removing the sin (Ex 32:32; 34:7; Num 14:18; cf. Ps 32:5; Mic 7:18). However, persons may also forgive (e.g., Joseph forgiving his brothers in Gen 50:17; cf. Pharaoh, Ex 10:17).
On the other hand, the phrase “carry the iniquity” is also to be understood as bearing the load of guilt, punishment or both. R. Knierim (1965, 73–91) has stressed retribution as the focus of the metaphor. The sinner must bear the consequences of his or her sin. So also Milgrom (1991, 295): “The expression nāśāʾ ʿāwōn always implies that the punishment will be meted out by God, not by man.” Cain asserts that his iniquity (ʿāwōn), understood now as “punishment,” is more than he can bear (nśʾ, Gen 4:13). In the case of someone who fails to come forward with evidence in a court case, the verdict is “you shall be subject to punishment” (Lev 5:1). V. Hamilton (3.162–63) notes that where persons are the subject of nāśāʾ ʿāwōn, the sense is that of incurring guilt or bearing responsibility or punishment, possibly capital punishment (Ex 28:43; Lev 5:1, 17; 7:18; 17:16; 19:8; Num 5:31; 18:1), though even then forgiveness is possible (cf. Lev. 5:1–13). For a woman proven culpable, her burden is that she must “bear her iniquity” (Num 5:31). The burden is both her act and her punishment, claims B. A. Milne. B. J. Schwartz, however, moves against the grain of scholarly consensus to argue that the load the sinner carries is not the load of punishment but rather that of guilt. Those who understand the Hebrew idiom to point essentially to culpability or accountability will adopt a translation such as “he will be held responsible” (Lev 5:1 NIV).
Whether then the sinner is burdened with a sinful act, the guilt of that act or the consequences of that act, the formulaic phrase “carry iniquity” presents the image of sin as a load or burden. Sin weighs a person down and is wearisome to deal with. Sin constitutes a burden, a load that is carried but that can also be “carried off” or “carried away,” that is, forgiven.
3.3. Sin as Swerving from the Path. The term sûr, although it means to remove or take away (e.g., animal parts in an offering, Lev 4:9), is frequently used in the sense of turning aside, as in leaving the path (e.g., Abraham’s visitors, Gen 19:3; Moses at the burning bush, Ex 3:3). The word is also used in a moral sense of someone leaving the right path. The informing image is of right living as a matter of walking in God’s ways (Gen 5:22; 6:9; cf. Gen 6:12). To sin is to stray or swerve from that right way. Thus the word sûr serves alongside ḥātāʾ (“to sin”) to describe what really transpired in the story of the golden calf: Israel turned aside (sûr) from the way God had commanded (Ex 32:8; cf. Deut 9:16). To sin is to get off (God’s) track, to stray from the good path.

4. Consequences of Sin
A fundamental assumption throughout the Scripture is that persons are accountable to God for their actions (Gen 19:13; Lev 18:25). The consequences of sinful behavior can be delineated in two primary directions: (1) the effects of human sin on the offended person, God; and (2) the effects of human sin on the sinner, the human community and nature.
4.1. The Effect of Human Sin on God.
4.1.1. Grief and Disgust. Sinful actions bring pain to God, for he is not impassive or without emotion. The preflood widespread evil of sexual perversion and violence evoked in God a response of sorrow: “it grieved him to his heart” (Gen 6:6; cf. God’s passionate responses to Israel’s defection in Jer 2:5; 3:19). Another emotional reaction is caught up in the words abhorrent (tôʿēbâ) and detestable (šeqeṣ). The pagan practices of the Canaanite and Egyptian religions of idolatry, deceit, corruption and sexual perversion are reprehensible and repugnant in the sight of God (see 2.7.5 above). God is a God of passion, sensitivity and emotion who can be “hurt” by sin.
4.1.2. Profaning of God’s Name. The OT functions with categories such as clean and unclean, *blessings and curses, holy and profane. To profane (ḥll) is to treat someone or something as common or ordinary. In the words of S. H. Blank, “To profane the name of God is to do damage to God’s reputation, to defame him, to lessen his prestige, to retard the process by which he achieves recognition, to put off the day of which it shall be known that he is God” (quoted in O’Kennedy, 2.147). Pentateuchal legislation warns against profaning the name of Yahweh, degrading it from a status of holy to something other (Lev 22:32). For example, when priests whose calling it is to be holy engage in pagan mourning customs, they “damage” (ḥll) the name (reputation) of Yahweh (Lev 21:6). Similarly, priests are warned not to mishandle sacred donations, for that would profane (ḥll) Yahweh’s holy name (Lev 22:2; cf. Lev 19:8). When common people sacrifice their children to Molech, they incur Yahweh’s displeasure because they have defiled the sanctuary and profaned Yahweh’s name (Lev 20:3). Ezekiel especially will have much else to say on the subject (e.g., Ezek 36:21–22). However nuanced, sin is an insult to God.
4.1.3. Wrath. God’s wrath, as well as the wrath of Moses, punctuates the narrative of Israel and the golden calf (Ex 32:11, 12, 19, 22). God’s initial response to this idolatry is “Now let me alone, so that my wrath [ʾap] may burn hot against them and I may consume them” (Ex 32:10 NRSV). An angry response to sin by an offended God is recorded against Aaron and Miriam (Num 12:9), against Israel when it joined itself to Baal of Peor (Num 25:3–4) and against Israel for their refusal to enter the land at Kadesh-barnea (Num 32:10, 13). God also threatens anger against oppression of the resident alien, abuse of widows and orphans (Ex 22:21–24), and idolatry (Deut 6:15, 7:4; 11:16–17; 31:16–17). God threatens anger against those who sin through hostility against him. To such God announces that he in turn will be hostile against them in fury (ḥēmâ, Lev 26:28). God’s anger against Balaam, who acts in compliance with God’s word, is difficult to explain (Num 22:20–22).
4.1.4. Retribution: The Principle. In the OT worldview, sin in any form is punishable, but the way in which the principle of God’s punishment for sin operates has received different answers. K. Koch has argued that there is not a doctrine of retribution in the OT, if retribution is understood as a judge’s handing out sentences according to prescribed norms. Rather, so he holds, the link between an act and its consequence is so tight that whatever follows from an evil act is an implementation of what is implicit already in the act itself. The result of an act is embedded in the act just as the fruit is embedded in the seed (Hos 8:7; 10:12–13). That connection between wrongdoing and its consequence is already captured in the very vocabulary, so that terms such as raʿ and ʿāwōn can mean both the wrongdoing and the punishment that follows (cf. Gen 4:13, where ʿāwōn may refer to all three: the sinful act, guilt and punishment). The judgment is not separate from the crime, Koch argues. To be sure, it is God who superintends the process, but in point of fact there is an inevitability enshrined in actions such that evil actions reap evil harvests just as good actions reap good harvests.
According to C. Westermann (1967), God’s role within the sin-punishment continuum is more intrusive than only to superintend an inbuilt process. The prophetic judgment speech has a legal background such that the punishment is not apart from a personal judge who passes sentence. At least for humans, a principle known as lex talionis (“an eye for an eye”) is in place (Ex 21:23–24; Lev 24:19–20; Deut 19:21).
P. D. Miller Jr. also raises questions about Koch’s conclusions. Miller shows that in the prophetic material there is a correspondence between sin and judgment. As a rule, though there are exceptions, the punishment not only follows the crime but is equal to the crime. In the Pentateuch this correspondence is exemplified in the Song of Moses: “They made me jealous with what is no god, provoked me with their idols. So I will make them jealous with what is no people” (Deut 32:21 NRSV; cf. Miller, 76–79). Because Israel did not serve (ʿbd) Yahweh their God, they will now serve (ʿbd) the enemies God will send against them (Deut 28:47–48; for other repetition of terms, see Deut 31:16–18). From these and other examples Miller deduces that a possible source for the correspondence of sin and judgment in the Prophets is found in the *covenant curses. Yahweh has an active role in the punishment process. Moreover, there is a “universal pattern of speech and style wherein poetic justice is a common literary device” (Miller, 98). While the inexorable connection between sin and punishment is strongly emphasized in the Pentateuch, there is also frequently the mitigation of an announced punishment (Bratcher, 249; see 1.1 above). So, for example, in the flood story the destruction is not total: Noah and his family are saved. While such mitigation comes by the free will of Yahweh, mitigation in other instances can come through intercessory prayer (Num 11:1–3; 12:1–15).
4.2. The Effect of Human Sin on the Sinner.
4.2.1. Alienation. Adam and Eve, following their transgression, were driven from the garden and from the presence of God (see Eden, Garden of). The expression “east of Eden” notes the increasing distance from deity (Gen 3:24; 4:16; 11:2). Similarly, the theme of alienation is captured in God’s verdict on Cain: “you will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth” (Gen 4:12). The motif of migration is registered also in connection with the tower of *Babel. Wandering in the *wilderness follows on Israel’s lack of trust and obedience, and hence failure to occupy the Promised Land (Num 14:32–35). God’s reaction at the earlier incident of the golden calf is “Go up … but I will not go up among you” (Ex 33:3). Through sin the sinner is distanced from God and, for that matter, from others.
4.2.2. Guilt. Guilt, as explained in 2.6 above, is the state of culpability into which a person comes when acting wrongfully. The sinning agent (whether individual or community) stands under God’s indictment. Confessions such as “I have sinned” (Num 14:40; 21:7; 22:34) are acknowledgments that sin has placed one into the category of the guilty. It must be stressed that while such confessions may entail sorrow over sin, for biblical writers the idea of guilt is not so much a subjective feeling of anguish as it is an objective condition into which one has entered because of sin. It is fair to say that guilt may not be so much an agitation of conscience as the sense that punishment is inevitable. When Joseph’s brothers acknowledge that guilt (ʾāšēm) attaches to their wrongful action against Joseph, their further statement makes a close connection between the condition of guiltiness and subsequent negative consequences (Gen 42:21). Guilt may be collective (Ex 20:5–6) or individual (Deut 24:16).
Several of the words for sin incorporate the notion of consequence (e.g., the land becomes guilty; Hiphil of ḥāṭāʾ, Deut 24:4). The phrase “bear iniquity,” at least according to some, signifies the guilty status that results from committing sin (see 3.2 above).
4.2.3. Shame. Although little is said in the Pentateuch about shame as a consequence of sin, the opening narrative of human transgression points to it. Adam and Eve hide themselves from God, for as they explain, they are naked (Gen 3:10). Taken together with the earlier statement that they “were both naked and were not ashamed” (Gen 2:25), the conclusion follows that one of the consequences of sin is shame. In the garden, shame—a sense of dishonor—replaces innocence. In the words of H. Shank (224), “Sin leads to shame, hiding, fear, pain, hardship, expulsion, and alienation in the garden.”
Disgrace was surely attached to a person who was publicly punished (e.g., the one flogged, Deut 25:1–3; cf. use of qlh II “to dishonor”) and to one who refused levirate responsibilities (Deut 25:5–10). However, the motif of shame is much more pronounced in other books (e.g., Ezekiel) than in the Pentateuch (see Honor and Shame).
4.2.4. Divine Punishment. Punishment for sin can take a variety of forms. To the extent that sin may be viewed against the backdrop of covenant, punishment consists in the implementation of covenant curses as a consequence of God’s anger (Deut 29:19, 27 [MT 29:18, 26]). These curses are listed at length (Lev 26:14–39; Deut 28:16–68) and include plagues (Lev 26:21; Deut 28:21), illness (Deut 28:22, 27–29, 35), loss of children and livestock (Lev 26:22), food shortages (Lev 26:26), famine (Deut 28:24, 38–40), defeat before enemies (Deut 28:25), death (Deut 28:26), devastation of cities and land (Lev 26:31–33), and diminishing of Israel’s status so that she becomes a byword among the nations and a nation of low status (Deut 28:37, 43–44).
A frequent formula that pertains to punishment for sin is the literal expression “That soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel” (cf. “from her people,” “from my presence”). The formula, it is commonly thought, refers to ostracism, expulsion from the community. Reasons for expulsion from the community often have to do with disregard of cultic regulations such as the “desecration of sacred time, sacred substance, sacred place, and God’s holy name as well as the people of Israel themselves” (Wold, 1.24; see Lev 7:20, 25, 27; cf. Ex 12:15; 30:33, 38). The formula occurs first in the story of Abraham: one who refuses circumcision is to be cut off from his people (Gen 17:14). However, other evil actions such as sacrifice of children also call for this punishment, but with Israel and God as agents the penalty represents being cut off from life (Lev 20:2–3).
Ultimately, as announced in the first transgression story, the punishment for violating God’s purpose is physical death (Gen 2:17), though it does not come immediately either to Adam or to Eve, nor even to Cain. God does not strike Cain down; divine mercy is extended. “Penance and punishment are God’s method of preparing the way for forgiveness” (Krasovec, 14). The nature of the punishment, especially in the four stories of the primeval cycle, is related to diminishing life or an approach to the sphere of death (e.g., expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden). Death can be understood as separation from God and also as cessation of physical life. The verdict of physical death is both written over the sinful preflood generation and brought about through the deluge. Sin’s negative consequence is graphically illustrated in the life of Moses, who because of disobedience forfeited entry into the Promised Land (Deut 32:48–52).
For outrageous sins, the Mosaic law prescribed the physical penalty of death (Ex 21:15–17; Lev 20:10–16; 24:10–17; Deut 21:18–21); the link between sin and death is also noted elsewhere (Num 18:22; 27:3; Deut 24:16). Most of the sixty occurrences of the combination ḥtʾ (“sin”) and māwet (“death”) are found in the Pentateuch (e.g., Ex 10:17; Num 18:22; cf. Luc, 2.89). A striking example of the punishment following at once on sinful action occurs in the story of Israel’s yoking itself to the Baal of Peor, for at the Lord’s command the perpetrators were impaled and killed (Num 25:1–5; cf. Phinehas’s execution of a sinning couple, Num 25:6–9).
4.3. The Effect of Sin on Human Community. Sin disrupts family and community harmony (šālôm). Thus Scripture records blame-shifting between spouses (Gen 3:12). The anger of those sinned against must be factored into a sin’s consequence (e.g., Esau, Gen 27:45; Potiphar, Gen 39:19, Joseph, Gen 44:18). Sin can bring fractures into the family and clan, as in the story of Joseph and his brothers (Gen 37–50). Knierim (1965, 57–58) expands on the notion that ḥṭʿ has an adverse effect on community bondedness (cf. Gen 42:22). Some see hierarchy and patriarchy resulting from human sin. Sin destroyed the collegiality of sibling leaders (Num 12:1–15). The effect of one person’s evil, especially that of a leader, can bring havoc to large numbers (e.g., Pharaoh’s sin of resisting God and the resulting death of the firstborn in Egyptian families, Ex 11:4–10). The sin of unbelief, triggered by the evil report of the spies, sent an entire community into a spiral of discontent and eventually into a desert trek of forty years (Num 14:32–35). Likewise, violations of the Ten Commandments resulted in Israel being exiled (cf. Freedman, Geoghegan and Holman). Sin destroys family and communal solidarity. In the words of C. Plantinga (7–27) sin is the “vandalization of shalom.”
4.4. The Effect of Human Sin on Nature. The first biblical narrative of sin already plots the effects of sin on creation. As falling dominoes or bowling pins bring down others, so the sin of Adam and Eve spills over to affect the environment. “Sin was an event in the realm of the human spirit, but it has its repercussions in the whole of creation” (Milne, 3.1457). Now the earth is disempowered from bearing food in abundance; a divine curse on it makes food-gathering laborious (Gen 3:17–19). Pharaoh’s resistance to God’s command brings on the plagues, almost all of them within the realm of nature. Sinful actions such as disregard for divorce regulations defile the land (Deut 24:4). As Knierim (1995, 452) notes: “It [creation] is also the criterion by which sin can be diagnosed in the deepest sense of the word; it is the violation of the totality of creation and the presence of God in this totality.” Prophetic literature reinforces the understanding that human sin brings negative effects on the natural environment (e.g., Hos 4:1–3).

5. Theological Issues Related to Sin
5.1. The Origin of Evil. While the question of the origin of *evil is often asked, answers from Scripture are not readily available beyond the narrative of how sin entered the human race (Gen 3). As for Adam and Eve, sin entered from the outside: the incentive to do wrong was injected from the external world. The story of Genesis 3 in which a contrary action to God’s command is proposed by the serpent seems almost deliberately to put the answer to the question of sin’s origin out of reach. The *serpent, as a biological snake, is almost certainly the mouthpiece of “another.” That Satan is later known as the “serpent” is telling (Rev 12:9; 20:2), but D. Bonhoeffer’s (70) comment on Genesis 3:1–3 bears pondering: “We would be simplifying and completely distorting the biblical narrative if we were simply to involve the devil, who, as God’s enemy, caused all this. This is just what the Bible does not say, for very definite reasons.” Clearly matters stand quite differently on this question for Cain, for whom sin is not an encroachment from without but an impulse to be mastered. The expression “sin lurks at the door” (Gen 4:7) is not to be taken as a reference to a demon. Humans were not created as sinful beings; they became sinful. Their freedom of choice must be acknowledged; there is no indication of compulsion other than that of personal desire.
From later writings, especially the intertestamental ones, where the predeluvian story of Genesis 6:1–8 takes center stage, the answer to the origin of sin points to heavenly realms. Some exegetes, by interpreting Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 mythically rather than historically, then posit the origin of evil to be with the angel Lucifer, or Satan. Gnostics in the early Christian centuries speculated about a god whose lesser emanations resulted eventually in an evil deity. To the extent that any such explanations for the origin of evil champion the view that evil has its origin outside human persons, they are in agreement with the Pentateuch. But either of the above views are specious. The first five books give no answer to the question of the origin of evil other than it is an invasion from without.
5.2. The Pervasiveness of Sin. “That a bent towards sinning does affect all humankind, and that it cannot be isolated as belonging to any one part of the person, has been agreed on all sides, or nearly so, in the twentieth century” (Blocher, 19–20). The gist of the biblical material is that laterally sin extends to all human beings and that it has contaminated every possible relationship in which humans express themselves.
That sin so pervaded human experience as to make no one exempt was the assumption of ancient Middle Eastern peoples. In this vein an Akkadian incantation asks: “Who is there who has not sinned against his god? Who that has kept the commandment for ever? All humans who exist are sinful.” A similar refrain is heard in the following: “Mankind, as many as there are, which one of them comprehends his faults? Who has not transgressed, and who has not committed sin? Which one understands the way of the god?” (quoted in Cover, 6.32, 33).
Echoes of the same sentiment can be found in Scripture (Prov 20:9; Eccles 7:20). The person, represented in the ancient worldview by the “heart,” is shot through with evil (Jer 9:17). Sin is endemic to humanness (Jer 13:23). Sin is a universal phenomenon. It has become part of human experience. The same assumption is found in Genesis when God declares that humans are characteristically sinful (Gen 6:5, 12; 8:21; cf. 1 Kings 8:46; Ps 143:2). Desires may be evil (Ex 20:17); actions can readily be so identified. The reach of sin extends to thoughts, words and deeds. Sin, with its resulting confusion and discord, is pervasive.
Seen another way, sin potentially damages every conceivable relationship into which humans enter or have been placed. The primeval history bears out this conclusion. Sin is against God (so Adam and Eve, Gen 3); sin affects relationships within the family and others generally (so Cain, Gen 4); sin wreaks havoc in the realm of nature’s order (so the preflood generation in their sexual deviations, Gen 6:1–3); and sin mars cultural advances (illustrated in the misuse to which the technology of brick-making was put, Gen 11:1–9). To speak of depravity does not mean that every relationship is necessarily totally depraved, but it does mean that sin has the potential to rupture every significant relationship.
5.3. Gradations of Sin. There are gradations of sin, as indicated by the kinds of threatened punishments. For some sins the consequences are material calamities (e.g., Deut 28:30–31); for others a person is cut off from the community (Ex 12:15); for still others the result is death (Num 16:23–33). Certain sins, such as those in full contempt of God (“sins with a high hand,” Num 15:29–31) are punished more severely than others. Just as there are gradations of holiness (e.g., the gradations of holy places in the tabernacle), so some sins are more grievous than others (cf. “great sin” in Ex 32:30). The distinction between ethics and etiquette (so van der Toorn) is only partly helpful, since violation of purity and food laws are not necessarily less serious than ethical violations. That the criteria for kinds of sin are not readily discerned does not gainsay the distinctions the Bible makes (cf. Wright, 152–53, whose terms for graded affinities of impurity are “tolerated impurities” and “prohibited impurities”).
5.4. Original Sin. “Original sin means that a nexus of sin embraces all people without exception” (Bromiley, 4.519). The teaching about original sin is not about the origin of sin as such but about inherited sinfulness. Discussion of the issue is often more philosophically and psychologically oriented than biblically oriented. The Scripture makes assertions but does not explain how it is that after Adam and Eve all have sinned. Cain and all those subsequent to him—the entire human race—have a bent toward evil, to use the words of Luther, or an “evil impulse” (yēṣer raʿ; cf. Gen 6:5), according to Judaism. Christian teaching on this subject has drawn on the Psalms (e.g., Ps 51:5 [MT 51:7]; 58:3 [MT 58:4]). Some have inferred from the sacrifice ritual required for the mother after the birth of a child that from the first the human newborn is tainted with sin, “a sinfulness that adheres to nature as it is transmitted” (Blocher, 27; Lev 12). Amplification of that teaching belongs to the province of a systematic/dogmatic theology (see Blocher, 17: “This book [on original sin] will be an exercise in dogmatics”; for other “systematic” discussions, see Murray; Berkouwer).
5.5. Process of Temptation to Sin. Bonhoeffer (115) claims that there are strictly speaking only two temptation stories in the Bible: one about the first human and the other about Christ. A sketch of the temptation process using the story of Adam and Eve as prototypical would include the following elements. (1) A circumstance arises whether through a tempter or otherwise that challenges one’s commitment to do the right. The serpent planted an idea by raising a “religious question” (Bonhoeffer, 72) and insinuating that God was withholding something good. The enticements to do wrong may come from without, or they may be generated from within. (2) A desire is aroused; rationalization ensues. Eve was enticed; the serpent not only denied that wrongful action would have bad consequences but suggested that something was to be gained by acting on what was prohibited. The proposal prompted calculation and rationalization. (3) The person entertains the possibility of transgression. For Eve this consideration focused on what might be beneficial in the short run without giving thought to long-term consequences. (4) The individual acts in disobedience to the command.
If one asks where in this sequence the sin was committed, the common answer is that it lies in the overt action. Even if the act of eating constituted observable disobedience, one cannot fail to notice that the mooring of Eve’s commitment was already loosened earlier, certainly by stage 2, where rationalization left an opening for further considerations. Sharp issue must be taken with H. S. Kushner (31), who writes of Eve’s act: “Eating from the Tree of Knowledge … was one of the bravest and most liberating events in the history of the human race.”
Situations teasing or plummeting persons into wrong behavior vary. For Cain, the trigger toward sinful action was personal hurt when slighted. The story of the tower of Babel (Gen 11:1–9) lends some support to a sage’s observation that “civilization is built and destroyed by discontent.” Impatience and a longing for visible security led Israel to make a calf, a substitute for God. Promptings to do the wrong thing can come from within the person or group; sometimes a confluence of circumstances galvanizes the will for evil action, as with passing merchants in the story of Joseph’s brothers (Gen 37:25–28). Numerous are the paths by which one is led to the precipice of doing evil: “The serpent is with us in the world, without us in the world, and within us in the world” (Fishbane, 23, italics his).
5.6. Dealing with Sin and Guilt. The Pentateuch, if not the entire Bible, can be conceptualized around the problem of sin and how God deals with it and its consequences. Much of Deuteronomy is a warning against sin, which is to be avoided. When wrongdoing occurred, the Israelite congregation could acknowledge and confess its guilt. When evil was discovered within the community, God’s instruction was for it to be removed (Deut 13:5; 17:7, 12; 19:19; 21:21). Though God administered punishment, he would at least sometimes, as with the raised bronze serpent, provide a way of escape (Num 21:8).
An individual had several choices once a sin had been committed. One could resort to further sin, such as deceit or cover-up (the course of action taken by Joseph’s brothers, Gen 37:31–35), or one could offer excuses (Aaron, Ex 32:23), shrug it off or deny knowledge of it (Cain, Gen 4:9). God prescribed repentance (Deut 30:1–3) and also restitution (Num 5:5–7). Reconciliation between offenders and victims was possible (cf. Jacob and Esau; also Joseph’s brothers and Joseph). Failure to avail oneself of the means for removing sin, however, meant bearing the full weight of sin’s punishment (Deut 28:20–68; 30:17–18).
But God also forgives, as enunciated by God himself (Ex 34:7) and as illustrated in his forgiving Israel in response to Moses’ prayer (Deut 33:17). Accessibility to that forgiveness came through prescribed rituals of purification and compensation offerings (Lev 4:1–6:7). The word ḥaṭṭāʾt can mean both “offense” and “purification offering.” Thus Leviticus 4:3 states, “If it is the anointed priest who sins, thus bringing guilt on the people, he shall offer for the sin [ḥaṭṭāʾt] that he has committed a bull of the herd without blemish as a sin offering [ḥaṭṭāʾt] to the LORD” (NRSV). The sense is that purification results in “desinning” (cf. the English “deice,” “decontaminate,” “detoxify”), by which the condition described is negated. Even more pertinent to the double use of ḥaṭṭāʾt is the English idiom “to dust” the furniture, which means not to place dust but “to remove” the dust. That the meaning of ḥaṭṭāʾt has both to do with sin and the removal of sin through sacrifice (ḥṭʾ in the Piel) connects closely the action and the possibility of its forgiveness.

6. A Theological Summary of Sin
6.1. Core Notions. Core notions about sin crystallize in the story of the golden calf (Ex 32–34) more so than in the Adam and Eve story. The latter is not mentioned elsewhere in the OT, unless one reads Hosea 6:7 as referring to a person rather than a place. Blocher (42–48), however, finds several OT texts that he regards to be echoes of “the fall.” By contrast, the golden calf story is referred to in both Testaments (Deut 9:8–14; Neh 9:16–21; Ps 106:19–25; Acts 7:39–42; 1 Cor 10:7). W. Janzen (410) notes, “The golden calf story is not simply one of the many biblical accounts of human sin. It is in the story of Israel as a covenant people what the Fall (Gen 3) is in the story of humankind: an act that defines Israel’s character as rebellious, just as the Fall defined humanity’s persistent tendency as rebellious.” The Tannaitic writers regarded the incident of the calf as a “model for a study of sin and atonement” (Mandelbaum, 219). The two incidents are alike in that in each case (creation; exodus and covenant) God acted in grace and then gave a command. In both cases the command was disregarded. Each was a sin of idolatry, a replacement of God, whether by an object or by oneself.
From these stories, as well as from vocabulary and metaphors (see 3 above), one may observe sin in two dimensions. First and quite obvious, sin is disobedience to the express command of God (i.e., not to eat of the tree; not to make images). Those who sin defy set boundaries. Humans are made in the *image of God but chafe at the boundaries this sets for them and want to be more than or “other than.” They overreach, as did Eve and the tower-builders. As M. Fishbane (32–33) suggests, the preflood generation also reached for divinity, but through sexual intercourse (Gen 6:4). The vocabulary for sin, especially the terms ḥaṭṭāʾt and raʿ, reinforce the understanding of sin as flagrant disobedience to an instruction that sets limits.
A second dimension of sinful behavior, even more fundamental than commandment breaking, consists in affronting a personal God, as illustrated in the calf story. God is offended and reacts in wrath and outrage, symptomatic of deep hurt. God’s displeasure is fierce, indeed so intense as to bring on a resolve to destroy the very people whom he has redeemed and with whom he has just concluded covenant (Ex 32:10). Such expressive, emotional reaction is to be explained not by someone’s disobedience of some impersonal statute but by the insult of in-your-face rejection. Entwined in this set of behaviors is ingratitude, suspicion of God’s capacity to deliver and basic distrust. Sin is indeed tied to law, but it is more closely tied with the lawgiver. Sinful actions at their core represent rebellion against God, as represented by the terms pešaʿ (“breach, rebel”) and rāšāʿ (“wicked”). Sin is an offense against God’s lordship. “Sin is the revolt of the human will against the divine will” (Koehler, 170). Unbelief is sometimes said to be the root of sin, but D. Doriani pointedly remarks that sin is a “relationship of opposition.… [Sin] has no program, no thesis; it only has an antithesis, an opposition” (Doriani, 738–39).
6.2. Consequences. The calf-idol incident, like the garden story, demonstrates that sin has dire consequences. In the former, God is offended, even outraged (Ex 32:10). Though in the Eden story the reaction of the Deity is at first more benign, the story ends with God banishing the first couple from Eden and cherubim brandishing flaming swords. Sin strikes at the Deity and inflicts hurt and arouses anger; retribution follows.
As for the sinning agents, an initial consequence is that they are severely alienated from God and others, and placed at once into the status of “guilty.” Since it is a given that sin cannot go unpunished, a devastating plague follows the calf incident (Ex 32:35). In the garden also, alienation occurs: there is blame-passing between spouses, soon there is fratricide, and before long dispersion and confusion of languages (Gen 11). Sin is subversive of the relationships that God intended for family and for society. Sin’s consequences also extend to the world of nature. Sin confuses, sin disrupts and sin destroys.
6.3. Solution. In the Pentateuch penalty and punishment are not the last words. There is a divinely appointed solution to the human predicament of sin. Following the calf-idol incident, Moses becomes the intermediary asking that God relent and not take extreme measures of punishment (Ex 32:14). Intercession, like sacrifice later, bridges the distance brought on by sin. God’s readiness to forgive is emphasized in the doxology of forgiveness (Ex 34:6–7; cf. Moberly 1983). God’s provision of forgiveness through sacrifice is elaborated in Leviticus. Atonement arrests the consequences sin brings (Num 16:46). The outworking of the solution to the human predicament of sin is the subject of salvation history, which culminates in Jesus and his redemptive act of atonement.
See also ATONEMENT, DAY OF; BLASPHEMY; BODILY INJURIES, MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER; EVIL; EXILE; GOLDEN CALF; HARDNESS OF HEART; HONOR AND SHAME; MURMURING; REPENTANCE; SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS; SERPENT; SONS OF GOD, DAUGHTERS OF MAN; TESTING; THEFT AND DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY; THEOLOGY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic, 1981); G. C. Berkouwer, Sin (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971); H. Blocher, Original Sin: Illuminating the Riddle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999); D. Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall/ Temptation: Two Biblical Studies (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997 [1959]); M. D. Bratcher, “The Pattern of Sin and Judgment in Gen 1–11” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1984; Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 1985); G. W. Bromiley, “Sin,” ISBE 4.518–25; W. Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997) 534–43; D. J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (2d ed.; JSOTSup 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997); R. Cover, “Sin,” ABD 6.31–40; S. J. DeVries, “Sin, Sinners,” IDB 4.361–76; D. Doriani, “Sin,” EDBT, 736–39; M. Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers (JSOTSup 158; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993); W. J. Dumbrell, The Search for Order: Biblical Theology in Focus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994) 23–30; W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967) 2.381–495; M. Fishbane, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken, 1979); D. N. Freedman, J. Geoghegan and M. M. Holman, The Nine Commandments: Uncovering a Hidden Pattern of Crime and Punishment in the Hebrew Bible, ed. A. B. Beck (New York: Doubleday, 2000); V. Hamilton, “נשׂא,” NIDOTTE 3.160–63; P. R. House, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998) 65–68, 129–31; E. Jacob, Old Testament Theology (New York: Harper, 1958) 281–97; W. Janzen, Exodus (Believers Church Bible Commentary; Scottdale, PA: Herald, 2000); R. Knierim, “עָוֹן ʿāwōn perversity,” TLOT 2.862–66; idem, Die Hauptbegriffe für Sünde im Alten Testament (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1965); idem, “On the Contours of Old Testament and Biblical Hamartiology,” in The Task of Old Testament Theology: Substance, Method, and Cases (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995) 416–67; idem, “פֶּשַׁע pešaʿ crime,” TLOT 2.1033–37; G. A. F. Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1959) 124–30, 141–43; K. Koch, “Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?” in Theodicy in the Old Testament, ed. J. L. Crenshaw (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 57–87 (repr. from ZTK 52 [1955] 1–42); L. Koehler, Old Testament Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957); J. L. T. Kok, The Sin of Moses and the Staff of God: A Narrative Approach (SSN; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1997); J. Krasovec, “Punishment and Mercy in the Primeval History (Gen 1–11),” ETL 70 (1994) 5–33; H. S. Kushner, How Good Do We Have to Be? A New Understanding of Guilt and Forgiveness (Boston: Little, Brown, 1996); C. Lehman, “Sin and Salvation As Revealed in the Pentateuch,” in Biblical Theology (2 vols.; Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1971) 1.186–206; J. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988); A. Luc, “חטא,” NIDOTTE 2.87–93; N. Lohfink, “Original Sins in the Priestly Historical Narrative,” in Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 96–115; I. J. Mandelbaum, “Tannaitic Exegesis of the Golden Calf Episode,” in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, ed. P. R. Davies and R. T. White (JSOTSup 100; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990) 207–23; E. A. Martens, God’s Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology (3d rev. ed.; Richland Hills, TX: Bibal, 1998) 47–54; A. Mays, “The Nature of Sin and Its Origin in the OT,” ITQ 40.3 (1973) 250–63; J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The ASHAM and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (SJLA 18; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976); idem, “The Cultic שׁגגה and Its Influence on Psalms and Job,” JQR 58 (1967) 115–25; idem, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991); P. D. Miller Jr., Sin and Judgment in the Prophets: A Stylistic and Theological Analysis (SBLDS 27; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982); B. A. Milne, “Sin,” IBD 3.1456–59; R. W. L. Moberly, At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34 (JSOTSup 22; Sheffield: JSOT, 1983); idem, The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); J. Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1977 [1959]); D. F. O’Kennedy, “חלל,” NIDOTTE 2.145–50; C.-W. Pan, “נבל,” NIDOTTE 3.11–13; C. Plantinga, Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995); H. D. Preuss, Old Testament Theology (2 vols.; OTL; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1995) 1.184–94, 2.170–84; G. Quell, “ἁμαρτάνω κτλ.: Sin in the OT,” TDNT 1.267–86; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1: The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions (New York: Harper & Row, 1957) 1.157–64, 262–79; J. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992); B. J. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman and A. Hurvitz (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 3–21; H. Shank, “The Sin Theology of the Cain and Abel Story: An Analysis of Narrative Themes Within the Context of Gen 1–11” (Ph.D. diss., Marquette University, 1988; Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1990); K. van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia (SSN 22; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985); P. W. Townsend, “Eve’s Answer to the Serpent: An Alternative Paradigm for Sin and Some Implications in Theology,” CTJ 33 (1998) 399–420; T. C. Vriezen, “Suende und Schuld im AT,” RGG 6.478–82; G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979); C. Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967); idem, The Promise to the Fathers (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976); D. Wold, “The KARETH Penalty in P: Rationale and Cases,” SBLSP (1979) 1.1–45; D. P. Wright, “The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity,” in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel, ed. G. A. Anderson and S. M. Olyan (JSOTSup 125; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991) 150–81; R. Youngblood, “A New Look at Three Old Testament Roots for Sin,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor, ed. G. A. Tuttle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978) 201–5; N. Zohar, “Repentance and Purification: The Significance and Semantics of חטאת in the Pentateuch,” JBL 107 (1988) 609–18.
E. A. Martens

E. A. Martens, “Sin, Guilt,” ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 764–778.


SIN [Heb śin (שִׂן) ]. Alternate form of šin, the twenty-first letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

SIN, SINNERS. This entry explores the concept of sin—of human deviation from the expressed will and desire of God—as it is developed and presented in the OT and NT.

OLD TESTAMENT
The elaborate conception of sin in the Hebrew Bible reflects the influence of Semitic culture and the strongly ethical-moralistic character of ancient Israelite religion. The complexity of sin as a doctrine in the Hebrew Bible is heightened because different literary genres depict sin in various ways. The richness of these ideas will be illustrated in the following sections:
A. Terminology
1. The Term ḥṭʾ
2. The Term pšʿ
3. The Term ʿwn
4. Other Terms for Sin
B. Origins and Universal Extent of Sin
C. Cultic and Unintentional Sins
D. Sin as Disobedience
E. Sin without Conscience: The Sinner
F. Consequences of Sin
G. Removal of Sin
A.Terminology
Like Hittite, Sumerian, and Akkadian literature, Israelite literature draws upon a rich thesaurus for terminology relating to sin. One may count over fifty words for “sin” in biblical Hebrew, if specific as well as generic terms are isolated (DBSup 7:407–71). The plethora of Hebrew terms and their ubiquitous presence in the Hebrew Bible testify to the fact that sin was a dominant concern of the Israelite theologians. Indeed, their highlighting of human failure, deficiency, or offense in the cultic, ethical, and moral spheres constitutes a central theme of OT theology. A survey of major Hebrew words for sin will illustrate how the Israelite writers conceived of sin in terms of their own language.
1. The Term ḥṭʾ. The three most important Hebrew roots for sin (ḥṭʾ, pšʿ, ʿwn [ʿwy/w]) have been studied in detail by R. Knierim (1965). Of these, the root ḥṭʾ is by far the most frequent, occurring some 595 times in the Hebrew Bible. The primitive sense of Heb ḥṭʾ, as confirmed by Akkadian and other Semitic cognate evidence, is simply “to be mistaken, to be found deficient or lacking, to be at fault, to miss a specified goal or mark.” Thus Judg 20:16 tells of Benjaminite archers who could sling stones at a hair and not “miss”; Prov 19:2 speaks of a hasty person who “misses” the correct road; Job 5:24 uses the verb of finding nothing “missing” among one’s property; Prov 8:36 speaks of someone who “fails” to find wisdom. The root ḥṭʾ frequently expresses the ethical failure of one person to perform a duty or common courtesy for another, as in the failure of a vassal to pay tribute to his overlord (2 Kgs 18:14; cf. Gen 31:36; 43:9; 44:32; Exod 5:16; Judg 11:27). The theological sense of ḥṭʾ comes into play when the offense is committed against God, or when failure (even unconscious, inadvertent, or unavoidable) takes place in the sphere of the cult. Sin against God is of utmost seriousness, so that punishment and compensation (expiatory sacrifices) must be exacted. The close relationship between sin (ḥṭʾ) and its consequences is illustrated in the use of the nominal derivatives, which may signify “guilt,” “punishment,” or “sin/guilt offering” (ḥēṭʾ; ḥăṭāʾâ; ḥaṭṭāʾt); similarly, two of the derived verbal conjugations may signify the purgative of sin, “to purify or cleanse from sin through sacrifice and ritual.”
2. The Term pšʿ. A second Hebrew root for “sin” (pšʿ) occurs about 135 times, and signifies willful, knowledgeable violation of a norm or standard. Normally it would not refer merely to “a[n inadvertent] mistake,” as might be the case with ḥṭʾ. The verb pšʿ is thus translated “to rebel, revolt, transgress.” The meaning “revolt” is illustrated by the use of the verb in the realm of international politics, where pāšaʿ signifies the breach of allegiance through violation of a covenant (1 Kgs 12:19; 2 Kgs 1:1; 8:20, 22). These political connotations were imported into the theological sense of the term to mean “rebellion” against Yahweh as Israel’s suzerain (1 Kgs 8:50; Isa 1:2; Jer 3:13; Hos 7:13; 8:1). The noun péšaʿ (“rebellion, revolt”) is translated “transgression” in some modern versions of the OT, but this rendition fails to communicate the idea of “rebellious deeds” which is probably to be understood. Other terms for religious “rebellion” against God include mārad (“act insolent, rebel”; e.g., Num 14:9; Josh 22:19; Ezek 2:3), mārâ (“contend, revolt, rebel”; e.g., Num 20:24; Ps 105:28; Lam 3:42), and sārar/sûr (“be stubborn, rebellious”; e.g., Isa 30:1; Hos 9:15; Jer 6:28).
3. The Term ʿwn. A third important Hebrew term for “sin” is the noun ʿawôn, which finds some 229 attestations in the Hebrew Bible. Though the etymology of the presumed root (ʿwy/w) is disputed, the general meaning of the noun “error, iniquity” is accepted. Hebrew ʿawôn is a deeply religious term, almost always being used to indicate moral guilt or iniquity before God (rarely, of guilt before a human: 1 Sam 20:1, 8; 25:24). Metonymic usages of the term illustrate clearly the relationship in Hebrew thought between “sin” and resultant “guilt” and “punishment,” since ʿawôn may denote any of these three senses (or all three meanings) in a single passage. In Gen 4:13, for example, it clearly signifies “guilt” (forensic and psychological) or “punishment,” (penal), and probably connotes both. When used in the plural, ʿawôn often refers to a person’s iniquitous deeds or crimes against God (e.g., Job 13:23, 26; Dan 9:13). The distinction between the nuances (sin, guilt, punishment) is frequently difficult to ascertain in a specified instance of ʿawôn. In at least eight passages, ʿawôn is used alongside both ḥṭʾ and pšʿ in simply designating “sins” (Knierim 1965:229–35; DBSup 7:339–40). In such cases, especially if the texts are late or liturgical, we may suppose that the individual terms have lost some of their crisp distinctiveness, and are employed as virtual synonyms.
4. Other Terms for Sin. The OT writers describe human evil or “sin” with a wide range of additional terms. The root ršʿ signifies criminal wrongdoing or wickedness; the substantival adjective rāšāʿ is a common word used collectively for “the wicked.” Ethical and moral badness are designated by the root rs̆ʿ; various forms of the root indicate “evil, distress, injury, misery, calamity.” The root ʿbr, “cross over,” may be used in the religious sense of transgressing divine statutes, hence “transgression.” To disobey God is to “despise” him (bāzâ), “spurn” him (nʾṣ), “refuse” (mʾn), or “reject” (mʾs; znḥ) his rule. The person who rejects religious values is “godless, profane” (ḥānēp), “wicked, base, irreverent” (bĕlı̂yáʿal), or “wanton” (nbl). Sometimes sins are designated by words which describe how loathsome and abhorrent they are to God, and thus constitute terms for taboo (tôʿēbâ; šiqqûṣ; šaʿărûrâ; cf. Humbert 1960; L’Hour 1964). Criminal violence, dishonesty, treachery, oppression, and injustice were ceaselessly denounced by the prophets (ḥms; šdd; zmm; bgd; rṣ; ʿšq; lḥṣ; ynh; ʿwl; etc.). Such crimes against persons were judged as abominable and abhorrent to God as specifically cultic sins (Hallo 1985:21–40). Religious apostasy was depicted in terms of sexual promiscuity nʾp; znh). Cultic inadvertences (šgg/šgh) and sacrilege (mʿl; cf. Milgrom 1976a) were counted as serious sins even though they might result from negligence. Hebrew words for “trouble, calamity, sorrow” frequently overlap with sin, since in Hebrew thought sin inevitably leads to hardship and suffering (e.g., ʾáwen; rāʿâ; ʿāmāl). The richness of the Hebrew lexicon in terms for sin (only sampled above) cannot fail to impress the reader that human failure in the religious realm was of central importance to the OT theologians.
B. Origins and Universal Extent of Sin
Israelite theologians shared with their 1st-millennium Hittite and Mesopotamian contemporaries several fundamental assumptions about sin. Of first importance: sin was a universal moral flaw, pandemic in the human race. A few citations from Mesopotamian religious texts will establish the context for Israelite thought on this doctrine. In an early Sumerian wisdom text we hear the penitent plead for leniency with his god: “Never has a sinless child been born to its mother, … a sinless workman has not existed from of old” (ANET, 590, lines 102–3). An Akkadian incantation for appeasing an angry god employs a similar argument: “Who is there who has not sinned against his god? Who that has kept the commandment for ever? All humans who exist are sinful” (Lambert 1974:281–82, lines 132–43; Seux 1976:207, lines 12–14). Rhetorical questions of this sort were popular forms of expression for this universally acknowledged dogma, reminding the gods that they should not expect too much: “Mankind, as many as there are, Which one of them comprehends his faults? Who has not transgressed, and who has not committed sin? Which one understands the way of the god?” (Ebeling 1953:72–73, lines 8–11; cf. Seux 1976:170 and similarly, BWL, 40–41, lines 33–38); “Whoever was there so on his guard that he did not sin? Whoever was so careful that he did not incur guilt?” (Lambert 1959–60:57, lines 105–6; Seux 1976:176; CAD N/ 1:3); “Where is the wise person who has not transgressed and [committed] an abomination? Where is he who has checked himself and thus not ba[ckslid]?” (Langdon 1927:23, lines 15–18; cf. BWL, 16).
The ubiquitous nature of sin emerges with equal clarity from the OT, even on the most superficial reading: disobedience, punishment, and the forgiveness of sin constitute major themes in nearly every book from Genesis through Chronicles. Explicit declarations about universal sinfulness are encountered less frequently in the Hebrew Bible than in Mesopotamian sources, but are nevertheless clear. In the primeval history of Genesis 1–11, God himself is the first to accept this moral verdict against humankind. Having seen that the human race was “only evil continually,” and having come to regret “that he had made humankind,” God ordered a flood to destroy every living thing, resolving to start anew with the family of Noah (Gen 6:5–7). Yet the catastrophe did not alter the fundamental human problem (sin), as God later conceded: “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, though the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen 8:21). The Israelite theologians never doubted that sin was an intrinsic character trait of the human species (Prov 20:9; Qoh 7:20, 29), for they frequently appealed to this fact in petitions for mitigated punishments or leniency. Thus we read in a lament psalm: “Enter not into judgment with your servant; for no person living is righteous before you” (Ps 143:2), or in the dedicatory prayer of Solomon, “If they sin against you—for there is no one who does not sin …” (1 Kgs 8:46 = 2 Chr 6:36). See similarly Pss 103:3; 78:38–39; 155:9–10 (= 11QPsa column 24, lines 6–7).
What could be the cause and origin of this monstrous human evil? Though the problem of sin’s “origin” did become a matter of theological speculation in the intertestamental period and afterward, it was apparently of little importance to the Israelite theologians. The tradition of the “fall” preserved in Genesis 3, which became so important in early Christian thought, was not alluded to in the classical Hebrew writings. Instead, human sinfulness was related merely to creatureliness. Humans were made of dusty chthonic substance (hence, frail and ephemeral), born of impure women in a tainting birth process (hence morally tainted) and made to inhabit a polluted, lower-than-celestial realm called earth (hence, having even more natural proclivity to sin than celestial creatures, who themselves all too frequently fall into error). The relationship of sinfulness to creatureliness is elaborated most fully in the book of Job, where it forms a literary topos (Job 4:17–21; 15:14–16; 25:1–6). The argument is found in the mouth of Job’s friends, but no doubt would have represented a dominant Israelite belief (Lévêque 1970:1:259–77; Habel 1981:373–92; Urbrock 1974:1–33). Job himself agreed with the major premises of this argument (Job 14:1–6; esp. 14:1, 4) but disputed its relevance to his own outrageous “punishment.”
The unrighteousness of humankind as a function of ephemeral makeup is argued syllogistically by Eliphaz in Job 4:17–21: If God’s holy angels are not to be trusted and are occasionally charged with error, a fortiori “how much more those who dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust?” Elsewhere in genres of lament and petition, Israelite poets appeal to human frailty and ephemerality (under the figures of dust, breath, grass, shadow) in an effort to elicit God’s compassion, clemency, or intervention (Job 10:8–9; Pss 90:3–4; 89:47–49—Eng 89:46–48; 102:4–5, 12—Eng 102:3–4, 11; 39 and 103, passim; cf. Pss 78:38–39 and 130:3). These arguments from frailty and ephemerality are themselves linked to human mortality, as articulated in Gen 3:19, “Since you are mere dust, to dust you shall return.” The implications of this poetic line, though not always appreciated in modern commentaries, were correctly perceived and exploited in Job 4:19: Human mortality, tragically, was poetically foretold in earthly human origin, so that human failing is a natural and inevitable concomitant of human frailty.
The notion of humans being “impure from birth” was even more easily understood in light of the laws of the Israelite cultus. The psalmist would confess, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps 51:7—Eng 51:5). Eliphaz could employ cultic language to argue, “What is man, that he can be clean? Or he that is born of a woman, that he can be righteous?” (Job 15:14; cf. Job 25:4 and note Job’s agreement, 14:1, 4). Levitical law and perhaps even earlier ritual customs stipulated mandatory expiatory sacrifices for the defilement of the woman incurred during parturition (Lev 12); every newborn, to that extent, had come into contact with impurity at birth, and hence had a sinful beginning. Biblical assertions about intrinsically sinful human character, such as those found in Ps 58:4—Eng 58:3 and Isa 48:8, are consistent with the explicit arguments in Job.
The argument for inherent human sinfulness found three times in Job might best be corroborated by the experience of Isaiah in his inaugural vision (Isa 6:1–7). The prophet was raptured into the divine assembly where his moral inferiority and sinfulness as merely human were immediately apparent. Only when the seraph (a heavenly creature) removed his guilt and sin with the burning coal could the prophet enter into the proceedings of the council and receive his commission as a prophetic messenger. Isa 6:5–7 is but one of many biblical passages where the lips are identified as the locus of sin, perhaps because the lips are the visible and audible gateway of the human heart (Prov 6:14) where evil originates (Gen 6:5; 8:21; Jer 17:9). At least one Mesopotamian poet thought along these lines, since the interlocutor in the “Babylonian Job” (Theodicy) concedes to the righteous sufferer in his final speech that societal injustices are irradicable, being part of the created world order: “Narru, king of the gods, who created humankind; And majestic Zulummar, who dug out their clay; And mistress Mami, the queen who fashioned them; Gave perverse speech to the human race; with lies, and not truth, they endowed them forever” (BWL, 88–89, lines 276–80).
It is highly doubtful, however, that the Israelite poets even in the midst of theodicean struggle would have ascribed the intrinsic human sinfulness to the handiwork of God. They might accuse God of meting out punishment too harsh for frail humans to bear (Job 6:12; 10:4, 9); or accuse him of covenant disloyalty (Ps 89:29–46—Eng 89:28–45); or lament that he had created human beings for mere futility (Ps 89:48b—Eng 89:47b), but they stopped short of the claim that God personally endowed them with sinful tendencies. In fact, “sin” (ḥaṭṭāʾt) makes its first and only appearance in the primeval history at Gen 4:7, where it crouches like a lurking demon, ready to spring upon unwary Cain to dominate his will. The origin of the sin-demon in Genesis 4 is never told. Despite this shadowy appearance of sin, and despite the Israelite conviction that sin and sinfulness were congenital moral defects, it must also be stressed that the OT theologians never wavered in holding humans responsible for their sins. The spontaneous eruption (origin) of sin in the human heart became a much stronger theme in the oracles of Israel’s writing prophets.
C. Cultic and Unintentional Sins
OT texts which treat sin as disobedience, rebellion, disloyalty, or crime are easily understood in modern Western culture where similar categories of ethics and jurisprudence render them immediately familiar. Yet, another vast domain of the biblical understanding of sin is foreign to modern Western religion, but critical to an appreciation of Hebrew religion. This is the Israelite conception of sin as cultic trespass, ritual impurity, sacrilege, and inadvertent sin. As with ancient Mesopotamian religious texts, the distinction in Israelite literature between sin as ethical-moral and sin as cultic-ritual is often difficult to specify. Cultic sins, like moral sins, were counted as grave offenses against the deity: similar punishments (including death) were exacted for both, and similar expiatory sacrifices were mandated for cultic and moral sins alike (e.g., the ḥaṭṭāʾt “sin offering” and ʾāšām, ʾašmâ “guilt offering”). Furthermore, in many cases it did not matter whether the sin/guilt were committed/incurred intentionally or unintentionally: the consequences, including death, would be the same.
As an approach to the cultic-ritual dimension of sin, we may summarize some representative Israelite laws which reveal the elaborate Hebrew conception of sin. The Kohathite-Levites were to be killed if they even unintentionally looked at or touched the sanctuary vessels (Num 4:13, 20). An animal raped by a human was to be judged guilty and subject to execution (Lev 20:16). The Nazirite who accidentally contacted a dead body (Num 6:9–11) was required to offer an expiatory sacrifice for his “sin.” Death was decreed for the Israelite who would eat of the peace-offering on the third day (Lev 19:5–8), and likewise for the Israelite who ate of a sacrifice while in a state of ritual impurity (Lev 7:20–21). One priestly prescription called for the burning of a red cow (her burnt skin, flesh, blood, dung) and a mixing of her ashes with cedarwood, hyssop, scarlet cloth, and water; when applied to a corpse-contaminated Israelite, this concoction was said to “remove sin” (Num 19:1–11). In the same passage it is said that the contaminated person not cleansed with this mixture “has defiled the sanctuary of the Lord” (Num 19:20). An astonishing case is found in an instance of violating a ban: both Jonathan and his father Saul agreed to Jonathan’s execution for the offense of “tasting honey” (1 Sam 14:24–44), even though Jonathan knew nothing of his father’s temporary ban on eating. Ritual texts declare that anyone with a pelvic discharge (nocturnal emission, emission of sperm during intercourse, regular menstrual flow; Lev 15:16–30) must subsequently offer expiatory sacrifices, or that such persons while “unclean” following such emissions should be removed from the camp (Num 5:1–4) or otherwise face death for “defiling the sanctuary of the Lord” (Lev 15:31). See UNCLEAN AND CLEAN.
The examples above are meant to illustrate that sin and guilt in Israelite religion were serious and complex religious problems, arising not merely from willful disobedience or malice. Sin and guilt in Hebrew terms might have nothing to do with volition, but might be as unavoidable as natural bodily function (see Toorn 1985:23–36). Sin might come through the trespass of one of hundreds of taboos, which only priestly lore could hold in complete compendium. In the case of Jonathan given above (similarly with Jephthah, Judg 11), only superhuman awareness might have averted the transgression and mandatory death sentence which both father and son were prepared to accept. In the examples from Num 19:20 and Lev 15:16–31, the sanctuary is said to be “defiled” by the impure/guilty Israelite because ritual impurity from unatoned guilt is viewed as an aerial contaminant, mystically settling down over the community to pollute it, and most heinously, it comes into contact with the residence and property of God (Frymer-Kensky, WLSGF, 399–414).
These brief glimpses of the priestly perspective on sin, or guilt as it was understood in the Israelite cultus, are essential to a balanced understanding of Hebrew religion. If these religious assumptions and values seem odd to us in the modern West, we must remember that Hebrew culture, like other ANE cultures, was dominated by belief in the supernatural and by a clear separation of “sacred” and “profane.” Hebrew conceptions of sin must be understood within a universe of thought that transcends the static, materialistic viewpoint of modern science. The Israelite understanding of cultic sin and ritual impurity is recorded mainly in the legal (priestly) sections of the Pentateuch, but also in Ezekiel and to a lesser extent in the Psalter and other prophetic books. The notion of sin as animate evil belongs to the realm of dynamistic thought (ETOT 2:382) where divine punishment of a violated taboo might be instant and mechanical. In this clearly supernatural realm, the spoken or written word (oath, vow, blessing, cursing, execration, incantation) was nearly magic. Violations against the holiness of God had a potency of their own, so that the offense of one individual could pollute the land (Num 35:33; cf. Jer 3:1–2, 9; Isa 24:5; Ps 106:38) and bring the entire community under divine wrath. Though the dynamistic conception of sin receives relatively less representation than “sin as disobedience” in the canonical biblical corpus, it must have always been a powerful religious force. Similar notions of sin and impurity are found in religious literature of the Hittites, Sumerians, and Akkadians, where they provide a context within which Israelite laws may be understood.
It was within the framework of Israelite conceptions of sanctity that sin thus became a serious religious problem: by polluting the land and defiling the temple sancta, sin rendered the entire nation susceptible to disease, injury, and direct punishment from God. The elaborate cultic system with its expiatory blood sacrifices, ritual ablutions and sacred rites was meant to counteract this form of evil. It must be stressed that the terms used for “sin” in the realm of the cult (ḥaṭṭāʾt, ʾāšām, ʿawôn) are the same terms used to denote “guilt,” and sometimes “punishment” (for sin/guilt); the irrelevance of disobedient intent is thus evident even in the nomenclature. Similarly, the root ṭmʾ “be (come) impure/unclean/defiled/polluted” often had moral and cultic components which cannot be separated. In the priestly system of thought, it was this concomitant feature of defilement (through sin/guilt) which took on the most menacing and terrifying proportions. To quote Jacob Milgrom, apropos of the Hebrew ḥaṭṭāʾt, (the sin/guilt offering):
The ḥaṭṭāʾt as the authorized purgative of the sanctuary echoes with a familiar ring for students of ancient Near Eastern cults in which temple purifications play so dominant a role. Impurity was feared because it was considered demonic. It was an unending threat to the gods themselves and especially to their temples, as exemplified by the images of protector gods set up before temple entrances (e.g., the šedu and lamassu in Mesopotamia and the lion-gargoyles in Egypt) and, above all, by the elaborate cathartic and apotropaic rites to rid buildings of demons and prevent their return. Thus for both Israel and her neighbors impurity was a physical substance, an aerial miasma which possessed magnetic attraction for the realm of the sacred … Israel thoroughly overhauled this concept of impurity in adapting it to its monotheistic system, but the notion of its dynamic and malefic power, especially in regard to the sancta, was not completely expunged from the Priestly Code (Milgrom 1976b: 392; cf. Milgrom 1983:250–51 with documentation, and Wright 1987:129–46).
Sin as a form of nonmoral or nonethical evil is also expressed clearly in the Hebrew conception of unintentional (unwitting, inadvertent, unconscious) sin. Sins committed in ignorance were of grave concern to ancient priests and penitents, as the following excerpts from three Mesopotamian prayers will illustrate. In a bilingual eršaḫunga prayer, the sufferer admits his proclivity to sin, but does not know which infractions have incited the god’s wrath: “I know not what taboo of my god I have violated; I know not how I have encroached upon the sancta of my goddess … The crime I’ve committed, I know not; The sin I have sinned, I know not; The taboo I have violated, I know not; The sacrilege I have committed I know not … Humans are stupid, and know nothing; People, whoever they might be, what do they know? Whether they’ve offended or done well, they know not at all; [So] O Lord, do not reject your servant …” (Langdon 1927:40–43, obverse lines 32–35; 42–47; reverse 29–36; cf. Seux 1976:140–42, lines 19–20; 26–29; 51–54). In an incantation for the appeasing of the angry god (DINGIR.ŠÀ.DIB.BA) the worshiper queries: “Ea, Šamaš, Marduk, what are my iniquities?… [Though] my iniquities are many, I do not know what I did” (Lambert 1974:274–75, lines 1; 29; cf. 278–79, lines 71–79; 284–85, lines 10–17). In a literary prayer to Marduk, the priest reminds the deity: “People don’t know their [faults], they don’t see them at all; A god reveals what is good and what is abhorrent; He who has a god, his sins are warded off; He who has no god, his sins are many; When you [Marduk] are at his side, his utterances are choice and his words propitious” (Lambert 1959–60:57, lines 107–12; cf. Seux 1976:176, lines 107–12). In other ritual texts, the sick or suffering penitent confesses a long list of potentially relevant offenses, moral and cultic, recognizing that one or more of them must lie at the basis of his punishment by the deity (Reiner 1956:137, lines 88–95; 143, lines 38’–59’; Reiner 1958:13–16, lines 1–128; Mayer 1976:114–15; Geller 1980:181–92). In both Mesopotamian and Israelite thought, illness was sometimes thought to be related to unintentional or secret sin (Toorn 1985:94–99; 67–87).
In the OT, guilt incurred through unintentional sin was of equal theological significance (Milgrom 1976b: 76–80 [79]) since it might have adverse consequences even for the community. Evidence may be drawn most readily from priestly materials, where “P accords completely with the historical sources that the principle of intention plays no part in violations of sacred taboos, e.g., Uzzah’s touching the Ark (2 Sam. 6:6) and the Beth Shemeshites’ viewing of it (1 Sam. 6:19) were not deliberate acts” (Milgrom 1970:20). The Hebrew root šgg/šgh signifies sin by inadvertence, or unconscious, unwitting sin; see Leviticus 4–5; Lev 22:14; Num 15:22–29; Ezek 45:20 (where mippétî means “from naivete”). Unwitting sin was of concern to the biblical psalmists as well; Ps 19:13—Eng 19:12 contains the confession and petition “But who can discern his errors (šĕgı̂ʾôt)? So clear me from hidden faults (nistārôt).” Punishment for unintentional or unconscious sin also underlies the thought in Gen 20:3–5; 26:10 (cf. Reiner 1956:136–37, line 84); 1 Sam 26:18–19; 2 Sam 16:10; Job 1:5; 11:6 (Heb tāʿălūmôt); cf. Num 22:34. The communal lament of Psalm 90, if not referring to the “sins of one’s youth,” contains the accusation in v 8: “You have set our transgressions right in front of you, and our hidden (ʿălūmı̂m, = unwitting, unconscious) sins in the light of your face.” From a cultic-ritual viewpoint, unconscious sin would have been dangerous: the menace of its contagion would continue to grow as long as the offense were undetected and unatoned.
In Israelite and Mesopotamian literature, the “sins of one’s youth” are sometimes allied with sins of ignorance. Accurate account books were thought to be kept in the heavenly court, so that sins left unpunished and unexpiated from one’s youth might later be “remembered” by the deity and brought forward as a basis for punishment. Thus an Akkadian penitential prayer to Šamaš reads: “[the sin(s) which I have commit]ted from my youth [until] adulthood—may they not pursue me. May they be removed 3600 ‘miles’ from me” (Ebeling 1953:54–55, lines 18–20; cf. Seux 1976:287), or in a prayer to Marduk: “The sins which I have committed, known and unknown, from my youth up, please forgive … The grievous transgressions which I have committed since my youth, please absolve and forgive seven times” (Ebeling 1953:72–73, line 18; 74–75, lines 36–37; Seux 1976:170, 172). A confession of the following sort is not uncommon: “When I was young and naive, I didn’t know what sin I committed; Being young and sinful, I am sure to have transgressed the will of my god” (Mayer 1976:115; cf. Seux 1976:404).
The OT psalmist could pray similarly, “Do not remember the sins of my youth” (Ps 25:7), or “Cast far from me the sins of my youth, and may not my transgressions be remembered against me” (Ps 155:12 = 11QPsa column xxiv, line 11). Job, though lacking the privileged viewpoint of the modern reader on the real cause of his suffering (a cosmic wager—known from the prologue), assumes that sins of adolescence might be brought up by God for reckoning: “You write harsh decrees against me, and make me to inherit the iniquities of my youth” (Job 13:26). Israelite literature preserves the parallel idea of children inheriting the punishment for their parents’ sins—an idea once again shared by the Mesopotamian theologians (Lambert 1974:280–81, lines 114–20; Seux 1976:171, note 22 and lines 22–24). The idea of delayed penalty seems to be consistent with other notions of corporate (national) personality in the OT (Exod 20:5–6; 34:6–7; Num 14:18; Deut 5:9–10; Jer 32:18; cf. 1 Sam 15:2–3; 1 Kgs 21:28–29), but the application of delayed punishment to individuals was less readily accepted (Scharbert 1958:22; 1957:130–50). More than once the Israelites who bore the punishment for their “fathers’ sins” were inclined to question the justice of such a principle (Jer 31:29; Ezek 18:2) and lamented its application: “Our fathers sinned, and (Heb Qere reading) now they have passed away; But (Heb Qere reading) we are the ones who bear their punishment!” (Lam 5:7). The individual application of delayed punishment (imputed guilt) may be seen in the psalmist’s imprecation: “May the iniquity of his father (!) be remembered before the Lord, and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out; Let them be before the Lord at all times” (Ps 109:14–15a; see a similar imprecation and the singular usage of ʾābôt in Isa 14:21 [HALAT 1:2 (#9, and Ps 109:14 and Isa 14:21)]). The importance for Israelite theology is that sin (guilt, punishment) would accumulate if not expiated and forgiven: it might be visited upon an individual later in life, or upon a subsequent generation.
D. Sin as Disobedience
If the priestly literature in the Hebrew Bible depicted sin in terms of injury to God’s holiness and violation of cosmic order, with deleterious consequences for the community (contamination and contagion), Israel’s prophets and historiographers more characteristically spoke of sin in terms of disobedience, rebellion, covenant disloyalty, and religious apostasy. Both conceptions are important in Israelite theology, for even the prophetic corpus shows concern for cultic-ritual sin. Sin as moral-ethical evil implicates the human being as a creature of choice in a contest of wills and allegiances: the autonomous will of the creature versus the authority and will of the Creator. Stated thus, sin is “comprehended as a conscious and responsible act, by which Man rebelled against the unconditional authority of God in order to decide for himself what way he should take, and to make God’s gifts serve his own ego” (ETOT #2:383). Students of the Bible frequently find the highest literary expression of this “contest of wills” in Genesis 3. In that profound and paradigmatic story, human curiosity, jealousy, and mistrust join with the desire for personal autonomy, leading finally to the overt act of hybris, rebellion, and disobedience. The conditions of sin inaugurated by these acts of disobedience immediately initiate the fracture of harmonious relationships within culture and the physical environment. In the remainder of the primeval history (Genesis 4–11), the reader encounters successive episodes of humans transgressing the limits established by divine revelation: fratricide (4:1–16); illicit sexual liaisons with divine creatures (6:1–4); pandemic societal violence (6:11–12); the assault of heaven itself in the building of the Babel tower (11:1–10). Described in such terms of rebellion and hybris, sin alienates humans from each other, from their earth, from its animal population, and from their Creator.
In the canonical flow of the OT, despite repeated demonstrations of divine grace in mitigated punishments, election, promise, covenants, and means of forgiveness, the propensity for human rebellion is never diminished. The covenants based upon human institutions (feudal systems of land grants, suzerainty treaties) were meant to heighten Israel’s awareness of the demands for allegiance and obedience: since God had pledged his loyal love to the nation, he could legitimately expect their obedience to his commands. Yet the biblical theologians never tire of telling how Israel sinned great sins of infidelity: failing to trust their suzerain, violating the stipulations of their sworn agreement with him, and ever being lured away by the forbidden religious practices of their Near Eastern neighbors. Sin as covenant disloyalty permeates most of the Hebrew Bible, but particularly the theology of the Deuteronomistic historians (Weinfeld 1972) as found in the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings. The prophets likewise found a basis for indictment in the covenants, but each added his personal imprint on the description of sin, “sometimes as ingratitude (Amos) or as inner aversion and hostility (Hosea), as arrogance and self-exaltation (Isaiah), or as deep-seated falsity (Jeremiah). But they all point in the same direction, namely toward an alienation from God which, because it is a voluntary abandonment of Yahweh, breaks the bond between God and Man, and can therefore be nothing other than disruption and destruction of the divine order” (ETOT #2:387). The national religious leaders (notably the kings, prophets, priests) who by their divine election and spiritual qualifications might have restrained sin through exemplary leadership all too often, the biblical theologians tell us, actually led the Israelites in sins of religious apostasy (e.g., 1 Kgs 14:16; 15:26, 34; 16:2, 13, 19, 26; 21:22; 2 Kgs 21:11, 16). Sin at the national level (e.g., the book of Judges) or individual level (e.g., Jeroboam) could thus provide a controlling literary theme used to structure the composition or redaction of theological narrative in the Hebrew Bible (Mullen 1987:212–32).
E. Sin without Conscience: The Sinner
The Israelite doctrine of universal sin (see section 2 above) poses a certain tension for modern readers who will also encounter texts making categorical contrast between the character and fate of “the righteous” as opposed to “the sinner.” Psalm 1, for example, characterizes the “sinner” (vv 1, 5; also called “the wicked,” vv 1, 4, 5, 6) as unstable and doomed to an early death, while promising blessedness and triumphant fate for the “righteous” (v 6). If all people are indeed “sinners,” how then may some be called “righteous”? The nouns and substantives used to designate the “wicked” as a class are derived from familiar Heb roots: “sinners” (ḥaṭṭāʾı̂m = qattāl noun-of-occupation); “rebels” (pôšĕʿı̂m); “godless” (ḥănēpı̂m); “evil” (rāʿı̂m); “wicked” (rĕšaʿı̂m = unpardonably guilty), etc. The Wisdom Literature of the OT, in particular (Proverbs, Job, Qoheleth, many Psalms), contrasts the “wicked” and the “righteous” as categorical opposites. According to this conventional manner of speaking, the wisdom tradition affirmed that the “wicked” produce only evil deeds and face a calamitous end, while the “righteous” prosper under the blessing of God. According to other representatives of the wisdom tradition (Job, Qoheleth), empirical evidence shows that such optimism is naive; a major burden of theodicy (Job, Qoheleth, certain Psalms, sections of Jeremiah) was to explain the failure of this religious optimism when applied to the individual. But the prophets also spoke of those opposed to the rule of Yahweh as “the wicked,” and they prophesied eschatological doom upon these “sinners” (e.g., Isa 1:28; 13:9). In the case of corporate punishment (national disaster), it was easier to see that the political agents of divine judgment might not discriminate between the guilty and the innocent. Despite such theological tensions, generalizations about “wicked” and “righteous” are made throughout most of the OT.
The use of such categorical distinctions recognizes on the one hand a natural proclivity to sin (inherent in humanness, and predicated of all people) and on the other hand an utterly lawless orientation to life which characterized sinners without conscience. Among the latter might be irreligious, impious, sacrilegious people who refused to accept religious norms; they also might be oppressive, violent, murderous people who behaved only according to selfish interest. The “wicked” of the Hebrew Bible might also be those whose religious faith was not purely Yahwistic, or whose religious practices were not approved by the official Jerusalem priesthood. It may therefore be suggested that these characterizations as “wicked” and “righteous” were sometimes moral judgments and at other times were more fundamentally sociological categories. The conscientious Yahwist might well be guilty of sin in many respects (Ps 51:3–11—Eng 51:1–9), but could be joyful only when confession, restitution and forgiveness had brought a restored relationship with God (Ps 51:12–19—Eng 51:10–17). The wicked, by contrast, were incorrigibly bad (Prov 9:7) and utterly refused to recognize the rule of Yahweh (Ps 94:7). It was in this light that Hebrew poets writing for the cult might include embarrassing declarations of innocence and unqualified claims of righteousness (Pss 7:9—Eng 7:8; 17:1–5; 18:21–25—Eng 18:20–24; 26:1–7, 11a) as well as deep confessions of sin (Pss 25:11, 18; 32:5; 38:4–5, 19—Eng 38:3–4, 18; 39:9—Eng 39:8; 40:13—Eng 40:12). It was this ambiguity of language which Job’s friends artfully exploited to their advantage in the debate over Job’s “sin.” Job avowed his innocence (10:7a; 11:4; 13:23; 33:8–11) which the reader knows to be accurate from the prologue (1:1, 8), and he claimed to be ṣaddı̂q (“righteous”; see 12:4; 6:29; 27:6; 13:18–19); at the same time, Job admitted that in an absolute test for righteousness, no one could emerge ṣaddı̂q (9:2; cf. 9:29–31; 14:4). Job’s friends clung desperately to this latter belief, affirming that some hidden sin must stand behind his suffering.
The tendency to identify “sinners” as a class became most pronounced when Israel’s national security was threatened: the wicked were those who threatened God’s rule, or who were responsible for the weight of guilt which brought the chastisement of God. In the Psalter these wicked “workers of iniquity” become the personal enemies of the king and of Yahweh. They are inveterate sinners and incorrigible criminals, whose wickedness takes on a demonic character. Israel’s poets hurl vile imprecations against these godless, perverse, oppressive, and sacrilegious opponents of righteousness (Pss 69:23–29—Eng 69:22–28; 109:6–20; 137:7–9; 140:8–12—Eng 140:7–11; cf. Jer 20:7–12). Though the identity of the “enemies” has not been determined with precision, they are seen to be such a great menace that they are better dead than alive (Westermann 1981:188–94; Birkeland 1955; Keel 1969). The prophets of Israel, though usually in less passionate and vitriolic language, likewise looked forward to the day when these “wicked” would be eradicated from the earth or reduced to impotence.
The categorical differentiation of “sinners/wicked” from “righteous” is found in several genres of Hebrew writing. Wisdom and prophetic literature display this feature, as do the Psalms and some other liturgical texts. If this simple categorization scheme appears unrefined, it must have nevertheless provided Israelites with a powerful incentive to behave in accordance with ethical norms. The catalogs and descriptions of behavior assigned to “sinners/wicked” reminded Israelite citizens that sinners weakened the moral stability of society, and that to violate ethical principles marked one as a treacherous person and a corrupting influence. It must be stressed that the “sinner” in these texts is one who falls under divine disapproval primarily for immoral or unethical conduct toward other human beings. In Proverbs, for instance, the catalog of “abominations” (tôʿēbâ) hated by the Lord lists mainly sins against persons: deceit, dishonesty, favoritism, devious plotting against another person, punishing of the innocent, inciting quarrels (Prov 6:16–19; 26:25; see also 3:32; 11:20; 12:22; 15:8, 9, 26; 17:15; Hallo 1985:34–38; Toorn 1985:10–23). The Psalms lament and denounce disloyal citizens who vilify neighbors and colleagues with slander, gossip, lies, false accusations, and sorcery (see Toorn 1985:19–20). The Hebrew prophets indict as sinners those who selfishly abuse power and wealth to institutionalize social injustice, using political and economic oppression to maintain their own privileged positions. Thus, while “sin” as a relational concept usually sets the unethical, immoral or irreligious person against God, the specific “sins” which inform the categorization “sinner” are often violations of the dignity and rights of other persons. Toorn carefully documents a comparative study of sin in Israelite and Mesopotamian thought, clarifying how fundamental social and ethical concerns were in definitions of sin (Toorn 1985, esp. 13–23).
While some OT texts depict the wicked as unredeemably bad and unpardonably guilty, some writers held out hope for the sinner’s reform. Reform was the usual outlook in Mesopotamian prayers: the punishment of sin in chastisement and suffering (with ultimate healing) was meant to instruct other sinners to reverence the deity more faithfully. An Akkadian absolution ritual (“lipšur litany”) thus contains the following petition: “[Through] all my sins, all my errors, all my crimes, may the unbeliever [lit., “he who does not fear god”] learn from my example, whoever was neglectful, whoever committed grievous sins against his god and his goddess” (Reiner 1956:142–43, lines 50’–52’). The Babylonian “Righteous Sufferer” who has come through chastisement and healing admonishes his countrymen: “He who has done wrong in respect to Esagil (the Temple), let him learn from my example” (BWL, 56, line p; cf. Mayer 1976:307–49, esp. 327–30). Israelite psalmists entertained the same hope, as expressed in Ps 51:15—Eng 51:13, “Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will be converted to you” (cf. Ps 25:8). The prophet Ezekiel likewise pleads with the “wicked” (rāšāʿ) of Israel to avert divine punishment by turning from evil (Ezek 18:21–23; 33:10–19).
F. Consequences of Sin
The consequences of sin, according to the Israelite theologians, were manifold and always grave. Sin ruptured the relationship between the creator and the creature, and set in motion a series of consequences which, if unchecked, would eventuate in the “death” of the individual sinner. The emotion first shown by God in response to sin is told in the primeval history: he felt regret and remorse for having created the human race (Gen 6:5–7). Within the framework of covenantal theology, God’s response to sin was more commonly a visible display of “wrath” (ʾap) which “grew hot” (ḥārâ) against the sinner and led to punitive action (Considine 1969:85–159). Human sin would awaken the righteous indignation of God, and his holiness demanded further response. Divine disapproval was automatic in the case of calculated and malicious acts. Yet, a study of divine wrath would show that violations of taboo and other cultic infractions were just as likely to kindle God’s anger as were rapacious acts of violence (Lev 10:6; Num 1:53; 16:22; 18:5; Josh 22:20; 1 Sam 4:17; Qoh 5:5—Eng 5:6; cf. Milgrom 1970:21 note 75). On other occasions, divine wrath in response to human error cannot be readily explained, and though it may appear as mere caprice, can be understood as essential to divine freedom (Num 22:20–22, 31–35; 2 Sam 6:6–8; 24:1, 10 [cf. the Chronicler’s midrash in 1 Chr 21:1]; Exod 4:24). Sin is said to provoke God’s “jealousy” (Heb qnʾ; verbal, adjectival and nominal forms); it is that which “irritates” (kʿs, Hipʿil) or “antagonizes” (nsh, Piʿel) him, and issues forth in divine “vengeance” (nāqām, nĕqāmâ cf. Pitard 1982:5–25).
The OT emphasis on divine wrath and vengeance has prompted modern theologians to ponder the problem of “injury” and “harm” being done to God through sin. If God is truly transcendent, why should he feel so threatened by human misbehavior, as though sin personally harms him or takes something from him? How can the sin against him be compensated through expiatory (substitutionary) sacrifices? The question of how God is injured by sin was already a matter of speculation in the story of Job: both Job and his friends, ironically, doubted that human sin should disturb the divine agenda significantly (Job 7:20, 12; 22:2–4; 35:6–8; cf. Jer 7:19). Perhaps on the deepest level neither ancient nor modern theologians have adequately answered this question. Yet all ancient religions of the Near East maintained as axiomatic the religious principle that the gods were duty-bound to uphold the moral order of the universe by rewarding righteousness and punishing sin. Societal stability depended upon the maintenance of its moral fabric, and this the gods had to insure. If the ancient poets employed anthropological language in describing divine emotions concomitant with the discharge of this divine obligation, they can surely be forgiven; would it be less troublesome theologically to have God mete out justice in the stoic, dispassionate and uncaring manner of an executioner?
According to what principles did the OT theologians envision the execution of divine punishment? If indeed there was a consistent Israelite dogma of talionic retributive justice, why are there so many apparent exceptions—including the major voices of dissent heard in the books of Job and Qoheleth which were also endorsed as canonical by official Judaism? Did God intervene by fiat to personally administer punishment, or did he employ agents, or did he merely maintain the balance of natural events which automatically bring the sinner his just due (so Koch 1955:1–42)? Evidence for each of these modes of punishment may be found in the OT, and the narrative in 1 Kings 22 shows how convoluted schemes of divine punishment might become. However, the lack of scholarly consensus on these questions testifies to the fact that the diversity of viewpoint and the complexity of the problem even among ancient writers have not been fully appreciated. In the following broad canonical sweep we may survey some of the dominant and influential viewpoints on the topic of God’s punishment of sin.
In the primeval history of Genesis 1–11, recurrent episodes of sin result in the alienation and estrangement of humankind from God. The first episode (Genesis 3) also leads to the fracture of human society and disruption of nature: hostility now dominates the relationship between the woman and the serpent, between the woman and the man, between the woman and her sons. The man and the ground from which he was taken become mortal enemies, each struggling to take life from the other, until the ground finally gains victory. Cain’s sin (Gen 4:1–16) results in ostracism and exile; his expulsion from civilized, cultured society leads to the birth of a new restless, violent society apart from God (Gen 4:17–24; 5:28–29). Global violence and forbidden marriages with celestial potentates prompt God to decree global destruction (Gen 6:1–9:18), and even in the salvation of Noah’s family, crime leads to the enslavement of one nation by another (Gen 9:17–27). Human hybris reaches its zenith at Babel: the assault of heaven is answered by God in the dispersion of races through the confusion of language (Genesis 11). In such pictures the epic narrator unveils sin and punishment in paradigmatic form: these episodes prefigure the character of sin and suffering which will reverberate throughout the canonical telling of Israel’s history.
In the election of Israel as the covenant people of Yahweh, a new basis for the punishment of sin was established. Israel now became bound under oath to observe the terms of the covenant with Yahweh (Exodus 24), and Yahweh became the God who must uphold drastic forms of punishment if Israel wavered in covenant fidelity (e.g., Deuteronomy 27–28). Thus the Deuteronomistic historians and the prophets would ceaselessly remind the wayward nation that the rise and fall of national fortunes was a direct function of covenant loyalty: When they were under the heel of foreign oppression, it was because Yahweh had abandoned them, allowing their enemies to exact a penalty for their sins.
The doctrine of retributive justice meted out mechanistically against human sin appears simplistic to a modern read of the OT. However, parallel literary genres of the Fertile Crescent suggest that ancient historiographers and theologians adopted this construct as a didactic literary convention. We may illustrate two episodes of Israelite history with contemporary Near Eastern parallels to show how pervasive this paradigm was. In 1 Samuel 21 the narrator tells of a three-year famine which had come upon the land of Israel for unclear reasons. When King David finally inquired of the Lord to ascertain the cause, Yahweh told him it was on account of Saul’s murder of the Gibeonites, in violation of a sworn oath. Expiation for the crime was immediately made (through a reciprocal bloodbath of Saul’s descendants) and the Lord relieved the famine. A strikingly similar story is told in the prayer of the Hittite king Mursilis to the Hattian storm god. He laments that a plague which had broken out during the reign of his father had continued unabated in his own reign. Upon inquiry, the storm god revealed through an oracle that violation of a sworn agreement with the Egyptians was the basis for the divine punishment. Restitution and confession were needed to expiate the crime perpetuated by the Hittites during his father’s reign (ANET, 394–96; cf. Malamat 1955:1–12). The assumption in both accounts was that national disaster was necessarily a consequence of sin (even if committed during the reign of a previous ruler); it was imperative that the sin of the fathers be identified and expiated so that divine wrath might be assuaged.
A second illustration of the pan-semitic doctrine of retribution may be drawn from the Israelite historians’ account of the fall of Judah in 586 B.C. The Hebrew prophets leave no doubt that the destruction of the temple and the “seventy-year” exile are divine punishment for sin. A similar logic is found in Esarhaddon’s report of the downfall of Babylon a century earlier (ca. 689 B.C.E.). Esarhaddon’s account is found in several editions, all of which ignore the important political realities, viz., the destruction of Babylon by Sennacherib’s armies; they offer instead a theological interpretation of the sequence of events (Brinkman 1983:35–42). According to Esarhaddon’s court historiographers, the Babylonians had become excessively evil: they constantly spoke lies and deceit to one another; they took bribes, abusing the weak and enriching the strong; they allowed murderers and oppressors to become established in the city; robbery became commonplace, as did disrespect for parents and disobedience of slaves; the Babylonians even plundered the temple treasury to make protection payments to the Elamites. The sins of the Babylonians finally became too much for Marduk their god: Marduk flew into a rage, ordering the destruction of the city through a violent flood and its return to a swamp. The gods flew up to heaven and the Babylonians themselves were sold as slaves among the foreign riffraff (Borger 1956:12–15, episodes 1–10). Though Marduk originally decreed for his city seventy years of desolation, ultimately his mercy prevailed and he reversed the number (“turned it upside down”), authorizing Babylon’s restoration in the eleventh year (LAR, 243). Though modern political historians would reconstruct the events quite differently, Esarhaddon’s version conforms to an ancient (and biblical) perspective where causality in history can be reduced to the simple matter of sin and punishment (see in addition to Brinkman’s article further examples discussed in AHG, 98–114).
An important contribution on the nature of divine punishment mirroring the sin has been published by P. D. Miller (1982). Miller demonstrated that judgment and punishment in the OT conform to a pattern of “poetic justice,” where the penalty inflicted upon the sinner constitutes a matching repayment in kind for the harm done in the offense. Thus, the king who does “evil” (rāʿâ) will suffer “calamity” (rāʿâ) of his reign as punishment (e.g., 1 Kgs 21:17–19). While the general principle of commensurate talionic punishment was found in ANE treaty curses and law codes, the literary vehicle used in the Hebrew Bible employs of a poetic form of the talion, often achieved through paronomasia and other elaborate turns of phrase.
We have already discussed some of the consequences of sin in priestly thought (see section C above). The sinner incurs guilt through transgression, and is made to “carry” (nśʾ; sbl) the weight of guilt until it is removed through cultic rites and divine forgiveness. In the interim, depending upon the precise nature of the sin, the guilt-laden sinner may expect sorrow (ʾáwen), sickness (Pss 102; 107:17–18; cf. Seybold 1973) and other forms of suffering (ʿāmāl, etc.). Israelite theologians at some periods linked sin and suffering so closely that suffering apart from sin was inconceivable (Job; cf. John 9:2). For very serious offenses the sinner might expect the death sentence (at least according to the ideals of the Law). The death penalty might be carried out by the community as part of their judicial responsibility, or administered by God himself in the law of karet (Wold 1979; Milgrom 1970:5–8; Knierim 1965:48–50, 73). The “karet formula” (“[that person shall be] cut off [from my presence]”; Lev 22:3 and often) most often envisages death through direct divine intervention, and is consistent with the many passages which cite “death” as the consequence of sin (e.g., Num 18:22; 27:3; Deut 24:16; 21:22; 22:26; 2 Kgs 14:6; 2 Chr 25:4; Ezek 3:20; 18:4, 20; Amos 9:10). If a persistent sinner did not die physically as a result of sin, living under the threat of imminent death must have itself been a terrifying punishment. In the case of a capital crime, the sinner might still hope that repentance would move God to commute the sentence (e.g., 2 Sam 12:13) or delay it (e.g., 1 Kgs 21:28–29).
G. Removal of Sin
If the OT theologians spoke of sin’s consequences in very grave terms, it must also be remembered that forgiveness of sin formed a vital doctrine in Israelite faith. Though the path to forgiveness through repentance and cultic ritual might be complicated, though compensation and expiation might be costly, and though some natural consequences of sin might be irreversible, the hope of restored relationship with God found an equally important place in the Hebrew Bible. One Israelite poet’s expression of this confidence in the Miserere (Psalm 51) provides a supreme and elegant display of such faith. On a national scale, even though punishment of sin should result in expulsion from the holy land of Israel, the exiled community could pray and hope for forgiveness and national return (1 Kgs 8:44–53). Nourished in the poems of Israel’s psalmists and writing prophets, this promise of forgiven sin formed the basis of hope for permanent national identity which would live on in the hearts of Jewish believers for many centuries.
Bibliography
Birkeland, H. 1955. The Evildoers in the Book of Psalms. ANVAO. Oslo.
Borger, R. 1956. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien. AfO, Beiheft 9. Graz.
Brinkman, J. A. 1983. Through a Glass Darkly: Esarhaddon’s Retrospects on the Downfall of Babylon. JAOS 103:35–42.
Considine, P. 1969. The Theme of Divine Wrath in Ancient East Mediterranean Literature. Pp. 85–159 in fas. 8 of Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici [= Incunabula Graeca 38], ed. F. Ottavo. Rome.
Ebeling, E. 1953. Die akkadische Gebetsserie “Handerhebung” von neuem gesammelt und herausgegeben. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin Institut für Orientforschung, Veröffentlichungen 20. Berlin.
Geller, M. J. 1980. The Šurpu Incantations and Lev. V. 1–5. JSS 25:181–92.
Habel, N. 1981. “Naked I Came” … Humanness in the Book of Job. Pp. 373–92 in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt. Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Hallo, W. W. 1985. Biblical Abominations and Sumerian Taboos. JQR 76:21–40.
Humbert, P. 1960. Le substantif toʿeba et le verbe tʿb dans l’Ancien Testament. ZAW 72:217–37.
Keel, O. 1969. Feinde und Gottesleugner: Studien zum Image der Widersacher in den Individualpsalmen. SBM 7. Stuttgart.
Knierim, R. 1965. Die Hauptbegriffe für Sünde im Alten Testament. Gütersloh.
Koch, K. 1955. Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament? ZTK 52:1–42. Repr. in abridged translation, pp. 57–87 in Theodicy in the Old Testament, ed. J. Crenshaw. IRT 4. Philadelphia, 1983.
Lambert, W. G. 1959–60. Three Literary Prayers of the Babylonians. AfO 19:47–66, pls. viii–xxvii.
———. 1974. DINGIR.ŠÀ.DIB.BA Incantations. JNES 33:267–322.
Langdon, S. 1927. Babylonian Penitential Psalms. OECT 6. Paris.
Lévêque, J. 1970. Job et son dieu. Vol. 1. Paris.
Levine, B. 1974. In the Presence of the Lord. SJLA 4. Leiden.
L’Hour, J. 1964. Les interdits toʿeba dans le Deuteronome. RB 71:481–503.
Malamat, A. 1955. Doctrines of Causality in Hittite and Biblical Historiography: A Parallel. VT 5:1–12.
Mayer, W. 1976. Untersuchungen zur Formensprache der babylonischen “Gebetsbeschwörungen.” Studia Pohl, Series Maior 5. Rome.
Milgrom, J. 1967. The Cultic Sggh and its Influence in the Psalms and Job. JQR 58:115–25.
———. 1970. Studies in Levitical Terminology, I. UCPNES 14. Berkeley.
———. 1976a. The Concept of MAʿAL in the Bible and the Ancient Near East. JAOS 96:236–47.
———. 1976b. Cult and Conscience: The ASHAM and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance. SJLA 8. Leiden.
———. 1983. The Graduated ḤAṬṬAʾT of Leviticus 5:1–13. JAOS 103:249–54.
Miller, P. D. 1982. Sin and Judgment in the Prophets. SBLMS 27. Chico, CA.
Mullen, E. T. 1987. The Sins of Jeroboam. CBQ 49:212–32.
Pitard, W. 1982. Amarna ekēmu and Hebrew nāqām. Maarav 3:5–25.
Porúbčan, Š. 1963. Sin in the Old Testament. Aloisiana 3. Rome.
Reiner, E. 1956. LIPŠUR Litanies. JNES 15:129–49.
———. 1958. Šurpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations. AfO Beiheft 11. Graz.
Scharbert, J. 1957. Formgeschichte und Exegese von Ex 34,6f und seiner Parallelen. Bib 38:130–50.
———. 1958. “Unsere Sünden und die Sünden unserer Väter.” BZ n.s. 2:14–26.
Seux, M.-J. 1976. Hymnes et prières aux dieux de Babylonie et d’Assyrie. LAPO 8. Paris.
Seybold, K. 1973. Das Gebet des Kranken im Alten Testament. BWANT 99. Stuttgart.
Toorn, K. van der. 1985. Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia. SSN 22. Assen.
Urbrock, W. J. 1974. Mortal and Miserable Man: A Form-Critical Investigation of Psalm 90. SBLSP, pp. 1–33.
Weinfeld, M. 1972. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford.
Westermann, C. 1981. Praise and Lament in the Psalms. Trans. K. Crim and R. Soulen. Atlanta.
Wold, D. 1979. The KARETH Penalty in P. SBLSP, pp. 1–45.
Wright, D. P. 1987. The Disposal of Impurity. SBLDS 101. Atlanta.
ROBIN C. COVER

NEW TESTAMENT
Following Jewish usage, the NT authors consider “sin” to be an activity or a stance which is opposed to God. Since God loves humanity and commands that humans love their fellows, sins against humans are also sins against God. There are three distinguishable although partially overlapping views of sin and sinners: (1) a sin may be an individual wrong act; (2) a sinner may be a person who lives without regard to the will of God and who consequently sins by routine; (3) sin may be conceived as a “power”—some sort of active agent—which opposes God and which can capture humans and make them sinners.
A. Terminology
B. Sin as Transgression or Trespass
C. Sin as Complete Alienation from God
1. Jesus and the Sinners
2. Sinners in the View of the Early Church
D. Sin as an Enslaving Power
A. Terminology
1. Hamartia and its cognates, translated “sin,” “to sin,” and “sinners,” are the most general terms and exhibit the widest range of meaning. In the OT and other literature known in both Hebrew and Greek (such as Ben Sira), hamartia -tanein, -tōlos translate ḥātāʾ (“sin,” sometimes “impurity”) and its cognates, which gives it a wide range, but it also is used for Heb pāšaʿ, “transgress, rebel,” and especially for rāšāʿ, “wicked,” and their cognates, as well as other words (for a list of translations in the Greek OT see TDNT 1:267–71). We shall see the significance of this in section C below. In pagan Greek usage the meaning of harmartia is also quite wide. In early Greek literature “sin” can refer to almost any sort of error: missing the mark in throwing a javelin, committing a procedural mistake in sacrificing, or harming or disregarding others. In later Greek philosophy (from Plato to the Stoics and Cynics), “sin” was especially connected with ignorance: the person who really understands what he or she is doing and its consequences will do what is right (TDNT 1:293–96, 296–302; Kaye 1979:30–33).
2. Paraptōma, parabasis mean respectively “trespass” and “transgression” and thus refer to individual acts (“trespass”:Matt 6:14–15; Rom 5:15–20 and elsewhere; “transgression”:Rom 4:15; Gal 3:19; Heb 9:15 and elsewhere).
3. Parakoē is “disobedience” (Rom 5:19; 2 Cor 10:6; Heb 2:2; the verb in this meaning appears in Matt 18:17).
4. Adikia means “unrighteousness,” usually against a fellow human (e.g., Luke 13:17, where it is translated “dishonesty”).
5. Asebeia means “impiety,” usually against God. Asebeia and adikia appear together in Rom 1:18, translated “ungodliness and wickedness.” Asebeia and its cognates appear six times in Jude (vv 4, 15, 18).
6. Kakia and ponēros mean “wickedness” (e.g., 1 Pet 2:6) and “evil.” Ponēros is very common in the gospels (e.g., Matt 5:11, 37, 39, 45).
7. Opheiletēs is a “debtor,” and sometimes it and the cognate verb are used to refer to “debt” to God or the neighbor incurred by transgression (Matt 6:12; Luke 11:4; 13:4, translated “offenders”). This usage probably depends on the Aram and late Heb use of hôb, hôbâh, hôbāʾ to mean both “debt” and “sin” or “guilt” (Black 1967:140).
B. Sin as Transgression or Trespass
The general Jewish view, accepted throughout the NT, was that all people “sin” in the sense of “commit a sin at some time or other.” According to Paul, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23), and in Rom 5:12 he traces this situation back to Adam in a difficult passage which will occupy us below. He found it hard to think of anything which he himself had done wrong, save persecuting the Church (1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:6), but he had to grant that at the judgment, God might find some flaw in his behavior (1 Cor 4:4). The assumption of universal sinfulness is also seen in the Lord’s Prayer, where the disciples are told to say, “forgive us our debts” (Matt 6:12) or “forgive us our sins” (Luke 11:4). All four Gospels and Acts place early a passage which displays the assumption that all have sinned: “he [Jesus] shall save the people from their sins” (Matt 1:21); John the Baptist preached “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins,” and Jesus preached, “repent” (Mark 1:4, 15); Zechariah prophesied that his son John would “give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins” (Luke 1:77); John the Baptist said of Jesus that he “takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29; on the assumption of universal sin in John, see Kümmel 1973:290); at the conclusion of the first Christian sermon there is a call to all to repent and receive forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:28). The assumption that all humans sin can be found in the major parts of the NT: the gospels, Acts, and Paul’s letters. The same assumption is found in the other major divisions and books of the NT. In the Deutero-Pauline epistles, see Eph 2:1 (before conversion the readers were dead in their trespasses and sins); in the Catholic Epistles note James 5:16 (the readers should confess their sins to one another) and 1 Pet 2:24; 3:18. The view is reflected in Heb 2:17–18; 4:15 and Rev 1:5, and argued strongly in 1 John 1:8–10.
The passages just listed do not specify what the sins are which have been committed, but they are viewed as individual wrong thoughts or actions (for a fuller list of passages, see TDNT 1:295). There would not have been much disagreement about what counted as “wrong,” at least at a general level. Jewish sexual ethics differed in part from those of pagan society, but otherwise there was general agreement about right and wrong. In detail, of course, there would be differences from group to group. One group, for example, may have had stricter rules than another about what to do in the case of property left on deposit which was not reclaimed. Everyone would agree, however, that appropriating it for one’s use before the set date was wrong. The general view that all people transgress would strike a responsive chord everywhere even without defining what counted as sin.
Sins (or trespasses, transgressions, and the like; see the list of terms in section A), since they are individual wrong thoughts or deeds, may be atoned for. The very call to repentance implies this, and it is stated explicitly in Matt 12:31, which gives an exception to the rule: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. In Judaism, sins were to be confessed to the priest and accompanied by a sacrifice. In the case of transgression against a fellow human, restitution should also be made (usually with an added fifth of the value of what was acquired dishonestly; see Lev 5:24—Eng 6:5). This view is continued in Matt 5:23–24, but the general Christian opinion was that the sacrificial system had been superseded. One should confess directly to God, or to other members of the Christian community, and thus obtain forgiveness. According to the book of Hebrews, forgiveness of sins requires the shedding of blood (9:22), but the sacrificial system is no longer effective (10:11). Forgiveness is obtained, rather, by the blood of Christ (9:14; 10:12). The connection between Christ’s blood and forgiveness appears also in Matt 26:28; Rom 3:25; Eph 1:7; 1 John 1:7; Rev 1:5b; 7:14; cf. Rom 5:9; 1 Pet 1:18–19.
Some Christians thought that those in Christ should be empowered to live without transgression. Paul’s view was that Christians had been freed from “the law of sin and death” (Rom 7:24–25; 8:1–8), and he urged his converts to live “blamelessly” or “without fault” (Phil 2:15; 1 Thess 5:23). The author of John could write as if those who accepted Jesus would have no sin (John 15:22, 24), and a member of the same school proposed that “no one who abides in [God] sins” (1 John 3:6). This could be stated in the positive: Those in whom God abides have love perfected in them, and this gives them “confidence for the day of judgment,” apparently the assurance that if love abides in them sin does not (1 John 4:12, 17). The author of Hebrews, thinking that sin requires atonement and that Jesus had offered “once and for all” the one satisfactory atonement (9:26), stated that those who sinned deliberately after conversion could not be forgiven (Heb 10:26–27; sexual immorality may be especially in mind: 13:4). But this ideal of perfection foundered on experience. Paul, as we saw, was not completely confident that he achieved blamelessness himself (1 Cor 4:4; cf. 1 Cor 9:27; Phil 3:11–12), and he had to reckon with quite serious transgression on the part of some of his converts (1 Cor 5:1–5, 11). The author of 1 John wrote that those who say they have not sinned make God a liar (1:10). While this possibly refers to pre-Christian sin, the perfect tense of the verb implies that the consequences of sin remain, and thus it appears that sin by Christians is granted, despite the theological principle that those who participate in Christ, who was sinless, are themselves sinless (1 John 3:5–6). Christian sin is also reckoned with in 1 John 2:1; 3:20; 5:16 (Kümmel 1973:297).
The last passage refers to a sin which is not “mortal” (pros thanaton) and states that a sin by a Christian which is “mortal” may not be prayed for—that is, forgiven. It may be that nonmortal sin is unintentional, in which case 1 John agrees with Hebrews in the view that there is no forgiveness for Christians who sin intentionally (Heb 10:26). In OT and subsequent Judaism, there is a major and obvious distinction between intentional and unwitting transgression, and in view of this it is striking that NT authors do not make more use of it. See LAW (IN JUDAISM OF THE NT PERIOD). The other principal distinction in Jewish law—between sins against God and those against one’s fellow—is not explicitly made in the NT (but cf. Luke 15:18, 21, “against heaven and before you”). Apart from the passages in Hebrews and 1 John just cited, the NT also does not rank sins as “heavy” or “light” (Bultmann BTNT 2:234). For this distinction in Rabbinic literature see Šebu. 1:6; further, Sanders 1977: 157–60.
The standard Jewish view was that sin or transgression, if not atoned for in ways prescribed in the Bible, would be punished—either in this world, by sickness, suffering, or death, or in the world to come. This view was also inherited in at least some parts of Christianity. The connection between sin and sickness is seen in John 9:2 (attributed to the disciples) and 9:24 (attributed to Jews who did not follow Jesus). In a Synoptic passage Jesus heals a sick man by telling him that his sins are forgiven (Matt 9:2–6 = Mark 2:5–11 = Luke 5:20–24). Paul explains death and sickness among the Corinthians by saying that they ate the bread and drank the cup in an unworthy manner, and he continues by saying that the Lord “chastens”—that is, punishes—those who do not adequately judge their own actions. This chastening prevents their ultimate destruction, on the standard Jewish view that sins are punished only once (1 Cor 11:27–32; cf 2 Bar. 13.10). Similarly the body (“flesh”) of the man who was committing incest was to be destroyed so that his spirit would be saved (1 Cor 5:5): punishment in this world prevents punishment in the next. That sin results in death is indicated in Rom 1:32; 5:12; 6:16, 23 (Bultmann BTNT 1:246). This assumption lies behind the view that Jesus’ death atones—he died instead of the believer (Rom 3:25 and elsewhere)—and also behind the view that the believer, by “dying” with Christ and gaining a new life, escapes death (Rom 6:2–11; cf. 7:6).
Within the NT there is no development of a standard system of atonement for postconversion transgressions. Paul, we saw, urged perfection and thought that transgressions would be punished. He knew about repentance (2 Cor 7:9–10), but in his closing admonitions he does not urge repentance and the seeking of forgiveness, but rather “blamelessness.” Even where repentance is emphasized, as in Acts, it usually refers to conversion (see section C), not to the correction of postbaptismal transgression. Since repentance, restitution, and sacrifice for transgression are major conceptions in Judaism, and were routinely expected to be offered by Jews who were generally upright and only occasionally transgressed, the relative unimportance of postbaptismal repentance in the NT must be explained. We have already seen that the emphasis was on perfection, and probably this idealism prevented the early authors from spending much time and energy on coping with transgressions by Christians. Secondly, many of them expected the Lord soon to return, and thus they were not motivated to work out a system of pastoral care for straying members of the Church. The stark position of Hebrews—no forgiveness for intentional postconversion sin—is explained by this view: Jesus offered the sacrifice for sins “once for all at the end of the age” (9:26). As centuries passed, a denial of repeated forgiveness, even for intentional sins, was difficult to maintain. The hope for or expectation of Christian perfection, so prominent in the NT, has never disappeared entirely, though in most branches of the Christian faith postbaptismal transgressions are expected and provided for. The rite of penance was a major aspect of Christianity in the late antique and medieval periods, and one of Luther’s most important views was that the Christian is at the same time “justified” in the sight of God and, in terms of actual performance, a sinner (simul iustus et peccator). The heirs of these traditions give the correction of sin, and repentance for it, a prominent place in life and worship.
The Christian authors of the NT believed that Jesus came to save people from their sins, and consequently that faith in him was required for the remission of sin (e.g., John 1:29; Matt 1:21). John puts the matter strongly and seems even to equate nonbelief in Jesus with sin (John 16:8–9; cf. 8:21–24). Jesus’ own view, however, was that “righteousness” was possible in the standard Jewish way: obedience to the Law. He did not come to call the righteous (Mark 2:17), but he did not deny that there were such. He did not disagree with the rich man who assured him that he had kept the commandments, though he told him that “perfection” required yet more: giving his possessions to the poor and following him (Matt 19:16–30 = Mark 10:17–31 = Luke 18:18–30). “Following,” however, was not a general requirement which Jesus laid on all (Hengel 1981:59). He proclaimed the nearness of the kingdom, and he urged people to prepare for it, but he did not limit “the righteous” to those who followed him, nor did he equate “sin” with refusing to do so. He saw himself, however, as having come especially to call people who were “sinners” in a worse sense than “occasional transgressors.”
The early Christians—at least those who have left literary remains—considered all non-Christians to be sinners in this worse sense. They were of the view that others needed to be converted to faith in Jesus, and thus their view of universal or common sin became more radical than Jesus’ own: all were “sinners” in the sense of “lost.” We now turn to consider people who as such were “sinners.”
C. Sin as Complete Alienation from God
While the verb “to sin” usually refers to an individual transgression, the noun “sinner” often (not always) indicates a worse state: a life which is not orientated around obedience to the will of God, but which is rather lived apart from him entirely. The cure for this condition is a change of one’s life, sometimes indicated by the word “repentance” in the sense of “conversion.”
“Sinners” as the enemies of God, and thus of the “righteous,” are prominent in the Psalms, where Gk hamartōloi, “sinners,” translates Heb rešaʿı̂m, “the wicked.” These are people who boast of the desires of their hearts, who think that there is no God, who believe that there is no retribution, whose mouths are “filled with cursing and deceit and oppression” (Psalm 10). They appear also in Ben Sira (e.g., 41:5–10), the Psalms of Solomon (e.g., 3 and 4), and elsewhere. There are lists of passages and explanations of terminology in Sanders 1977: 342–46 (Ben Sira); 398–406 (Psalms of Solomon); cf. also 352–58 (1 En. 91–104); 358–60 (some other sections of 1 Enoch); TDNT 1:320–24.
1. Jesus and the Sinners. It is sinners in this sense of whom Jesus was said to be the friend (“a friend of tax collectors and sinners,” Matt 11:19 = Luke 7:34) and whom he came to call (Matt 9:13 = Mark 2:17 = Luke 5:32; Luke adds “to repentance”). John the Baptist came “in the way of righteousness” and was not accepted, except by “the tax collectors and prostitutes” (Matt 21:32).
The use of tax collectors to represent sinners is more of a puzzle than most scholars, at times including the present author, have granted. The tax or toll collectors of Galilee in Jesus’ day were not servants of Rome, but rather of Herod Antipas. He paid tribute to Rome, but this does not necessarily mean that his toll collectors were seen as traitors, though this has often been said. It is more likely that they were regarded as dishonest and greedy. One may compare Philo’s remarks on Capito, the tax collector of Judea, a poor man who became rich (Gaium 199). He was not a toll collector in semi-independent Galilee, but rather an administrator of taxes in the province of Judea, governed directly by Rome. While he may have been worse than the Galilean toll collectors, it is probable that all tax collectors were thought of as rapacious. That is not to say that, objectively considered, they were all wicked. John, a toll collector in Caesarea, joined together with the leading members of the Jewish community there to bribe Florus (the procurator) to protect access to the synagogue (JW 2.14.4 §285–88). He does not fit the image of “outcast” which one derives from the stories in the gospels. When he was collecting money, however, he may not have been seen as a pillar of the community.
At any rate the toll collectors constitute the one named group who represent “sinners” in the Synoptic Gospels, and once prostitutes are associated with them (Matt 21:32). The meaning is that their manner of life was basically antithetical to the will of God.
Luke contains many more references to both sinners and toll collectors than do Matthew and Mark, and the author was especially concerned to emphasize that those who accepted Jesus “repented” in the sense of “changed their lives.” In Luke’s version of the call of the first disciples, Peter at first tells Jesus to depart from him, since he was a sinner (Luke 5:8), an unworthy companion for a righteous person. Matt 5:46 criticizes toll collectors, but Luke uses “sinners” instead (6:32). In Luke 7:36–49 there is a story of a woman who was a sinner. She ministers to Jesus and he announces the forgiveness of her sins. The parables in Luke 15 are told in the presence of toll collectors and sinners (15:1), and they proclaim that God rejoices over a sinner who repents (15:7, 10). In the parable of the toll collector and the Pharisee, the former confesses himself a sinner and craves God’s mercy (Luke 18:10–13). The most elaborate story is that of Zacchaeus, a toll collector who was considered by the crowd to be a sinner, and who made abundant restitution to those whom he had wronged (Luke 19:1–10).
It is probable that Luke has expanded the theme of Jesus’ appeal to toll collectors and sinners, but the theme itself reflects the ministry of Jesus. The surest fact is that his call was accepted by one Galilean toll collector, who is called Levi in Mark and Luke, while in the first gospel he is named Matthew and is probably thought of as one of the twelve (Matt 9:9 = Mark 2:14 = Luke 5:27).
The gospels represent Jesus’ association with sinners as being a subject of criticism (Matt 11:19; Mark 2:16). This was not seen as problematic so long as scholars supposed that most Jews, or at least the Pharisees, opposed the idea of God’s grace and forgiveness. According to this interpretation, Jesus told sinners that if they repented God would forgive them. The Pharisees, hating grace, repentance, and forgiveness, and even more those who believed in them, decided to kill him (so Jeremias 1963:124; 1969:267; 1971:108–21; Perrin 1967:102–3; Schweizer 1971:28–29). This school even proposed that the Pharisees thought that ordinary people were “sinners” in the extreme sense of “without hope in God’s sight” (Jeremias 1969:259; 1971:112, 118; TDNT 1:323, 328). When this is seen as historical fantasy in the service of theological anti-Semitism (e.g., Sanders 1985:200–4; cf. 1987:230–31), one is left with a question: what was the offense? Another way of asking the question is to focus on the material which is only in Luke. If Jesus’ call of sinners meant that toll collectors repaid those whom they had cheated, who would have been aggrieved? One suspects that Luke’s portrayal is too bland and that more was at stake. It is certain that Jesus favored honesty, especially in toll collectors, and that he would have liked for habitual sinners to change their lives. In that sense, Luke’s stories are true to Jesus. They do not, however, answer the historical question: Who objected to Jesus’ association with sinners and for what reason?
The prevalence of the fantasy mentioned above has left few possible answers from which to choose. The most probable is that Jesus’ offense was that he said, or was understood to say, that even heinous sinners who followed him were acceptable to God, and that he did not require of them the standard acts of atonement which are provided for in the law (Sanders 1985:204–8). It is to be noted that in no instance is Jesus said to recommend confession to a priest and sacrifice. In this case the offense was his self-assertion rather than his belief in grace; more precisely, his connection of God’s grace with response to himself (as in the story of the woman who was a sinner, Luke 7:36–50).
A striking use of “sinner” to mean one who habitually and willfully flouts God’s law is seen in John 9, where Jesus is said to have been considered a “sinner” by some, since he did not keep the sabbath (John 9:16; cf. vv 24–25, 31). It is not to be accepted, however, that Jesus actually disregarded the sabbath. The stories in the Synoptic Gospels (e.g. Mark 2:23–28; 3:1–5) prove rather the contrary, and John here as elsewhere pushes to an extreme a theme which is also found in the Synoptics. It is unlikely that during his lifetime Jesus was viewed as a “sinner” himself; he was criticized for including them, not for being one of them.
2. Sinners in the View of the Early Church. Christians viewed all who did not accept their message as sinners, totally cut off from God. The use of “sinners” to mean non-Christians or pre-Christians is seen in Rom 5:8 (“while we were yet sinners Christ died for us”; cf. 1 Tim 1:15). That the fate of sinners is eternal death unless they convert is stated in James 5:20, where it is also implied that a “sinner” has committed a “multitude of sins.” Those who had a role in Jesus’ execution are described as sinners in Matt 26:45 = Mark 14:41 = Luke 24:7; Heb 12:3. We saw above that those who do not believe in Jesus are considered sinners in John 8:21–24; 16:8–9.
Acts does not have the noun “sinner,” but repentance of sin and forgiveness are connected with baptism into the Christian faith. This is needed by all, both Jew and pagan, and thus these terms refer to conversion: Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 7:60; 10:43; 13:38; 22:16; 26:18. The first and last passages may be taken as representative. In Acts 2:38, Peter calls on the Jews to repent and to be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” In 26:17–18, the risen Lord tells Paul that he is to open the eyes of the gentiles, “that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.”
In the categories thus far considered, sin is avoidable. If sin is an individual wrong action, a trespass (B), it is possible not to sin, even though all authors grant that humans, being weak, inevitably sin at some time or other. One who is a sinner in the sense of “wicked” (C) can change, as Zacchaeus is said to have done. In both these categories, atonement and change, rely on God’s grace. In neither Judaism nor Christianity (at least in most forms of them) is it doubted that God loves those who sin and wishes to save sinners. The standard view in both is that atonement or conversion is always open and that God stands ready to welcome the wanderer back into the fold. A harsher view appears in Christian literature in Heb 10:26; 1 John 5:16; and in Jewish literature in 4 Ezra, where virtual perfection is required, and in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Jubilees, where some sins are not forgivable (e.g., 1QS 7.16–17; Jub. 2.27; 15.34). Rather, the typical view is that of Pseudo-Philo, who attributed to God the attitude that “even if my people have sinned, nevertheless I will have mercy on them” (L. A. B. 31:2; cf. Let. Arist. 192; Sib. Or. 4.66–70; T. Mos. 4).
D. Sin as an Enslaving Power
In the letters of Paul there is a more radical view of sin: it is an active power. This is most clearly the case when the noun hamartia, sin, is the subject of a verb other than “to be.” When hamartia is the subject of “to be,” as in Rom 5:13, “sin was in the world,” the same view may be implied; but the case is clearer in other passages. Outside the letters of Paul one sees this usage only in Heb 3:13, where it is said that Christians may be hardened “by the deceitfulness of Sin.” Here Sin is the active agent.
The usage of “Sin” as power comes mostly in Romans 5–7. According to Rom 5:12, Sin “entered the world”; thereafter one reads that “Sin reigned in death” (5:21); that Sin may “reign” in one’s body (6:12) or “have dominion” over one (6:14); that Sin found opportunity in the commandment and “wrought in me all kinds of covetousness” (7:8); that it “revived” (7:9); that it found “opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and by it killed me” (7:11); and that it “worked death in me through what is good” (7:13). Sin as power may be served (6:16–18), and thus it enslaves (6:20). It can be escaped only through “death” (6:2–11). Put another way, Sin is a “law” which lurks in one’s members and prevents the fulfilling of the law of God (7:17–23). The only escape is to leave “the Flesh” (8:8), that is, to die with Christ. Christians have died with Christ and thus to Sin (6:6, 11), and they have thereby escaped not only Sin but also the Law (which condemns) and the “Flesh,” the state of enmity toward God (7:4–6).
In this section of Romans, Sin is treated as a power which is not only alien to God but which is almost as potent; in fact, it often wins the struggle. This extreme conception of Sin in part explains Paul’s not making much use of the idea of repentance: one does not escape bondage to an alien power by repentance. The radicalness of the problem corresponds to the radicalness of the solution, escape from the “Flesh” by sharing the death of Christ.
It is important to note that Paul does not offer an anthropological, theological, or cosmological explanation of this conception of Sin. In the Jewish view, God had created the world and declared it good. This doctrine is not easily reconcilable with the view that Sin is a power strong enough to wrest the Law from God’s control or to render humans powerless to do what is good (Rom 7:11, 19). There are two principal passages which lead up to but do not account for the view that all humanity, apart from Christ, is under the power of Sin. In Romans 1–2 both gentiles and Jews are accused of gross transgression (homosexuality and “all manner of wickedness” on the part of gentiles, robbing temples and committing adultery on the part of Jews), and Paul draws the conclusion that all people, “both Jews and Greeks, are under sin” (Rom 3:9). The RSV here translates “under sin” as “under the power of sin,” and this interpretation seems to correspond to Paul’s meaning. The accusation is not only that people transgress, but that all are under Sin, governed by it. The charges of heinous immorality do not actually account for the conclusion, however, partly because they are exaggerated. Both the gentile and the Jewish worlds contained “saints,” people whose lives were largely beyond reproach. It is unlikely that Paul’s conclusion—that all are under Sin—rests on empirical observation. Further, in the midst of the catalog of charges, comes the admission that some gentiles, though without the Law, nevertheless “do by nature what the Law requires,” and these will be justified by their works in the judgment (Rom 2:13–14). The conclusion in 3:9 does not correspond to what leads up to it in any respect: the charges in chaps. 1–2 overstate the case and the conclusion is contradicted by 2:13–14. What this means is that Paul’s conclusion, that all are under Sin, was not derived from the line of observation and reasoning he had presented in the previous two chapters.
The same is true of the second passage which argues for the universality of sin. Adam, states Paul, sinned, and this introduced sin and its consequence, death, into the world; “and so death spread to all people because all sinned” (Rom 5:12). This is followed by the statements that “sin is not counted where there is no law” and that “death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam” (5:13–14). In order to make the grip of sin universal, Paul wished to make Adam instrumental. Yet he had two problems: transgressions of the Law which preceded it should not count; not everyone sinned, as did Adam, by rebelling against God’s commandment. Despite these problems, he asserted the consequence: “by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (5:19). His anthropology did not include the conception of inherited sin, and thus he had no logical way of proving universal condemnation by appeal to Adam. He simply asserted it, while himself citing points which count against it.
What we see in both cases is a conclusion which is independent of the arguments which precede it. Adam’s sin does not—in Paul’s own statement of it—prove that all humanity is sinful and stands condemned. The heinous sins of some Greeks and Jews do not—even in Paul’s own presentation of them—lead to the view that all humans are under Sin. This means that he held the conclusion as a fixed view and tried to bring forward arguments in favor of it, though without logical success. The conclusion, in other words, is not only independent of but is also more important than the arguments. (Some scholars still think that one must understand the human predicament in Paul’s view before it is possible to understand his soteriology: e.g., Kümmel 1973:173; others note the relative incoherence of the explanations of universal sin: e.g. Conzelmann 1969:195–98.)
If the considerations put forward in Romans 1–2 and 5 do not explain the origin of Paul’s conception of Sin, we can say where it came from? There are two principal possibilities. One is that Paul did not come to Christianity with a preformed conception of humanity’s sinful plight, but rather deduced the plight from the solution. Once he accepted it as revelation that God intended to save the entire world by faith in his Son, he naturally had to think that the entire world needed saving, and thus that it was wholly bound over to Sin. His soteriology is more consistent and straightforward than his conceptions of the human plight, and thus may show that in describing sin he had to go in search of arguments which led up to a preformed conclusion. This explanation gives a good account of why Romans 1–2 and 5 are weak as reasoned arguments but lead to a definite conclusion. The conclusion that all need to be saved through Christ, to repeat, came by revelation, and so could not be questioned; the arguments in favor of universal bondage to sin are then seen as efforts at rationalization. (For the argument that Paul’s thought ran “backward,” from solution to plight, see Sanders 1977: 442–47; 474–75.)
The second possible explanation is that Paul had imbibed aspects of a dualistic world view, according to which the created order is at least partly under the control of the god of darkness. Iranian (Zoroastrian) dualism had penetrated the Mediterranean, and it can be seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, when they distinguish between the angel of darkness and the angel of light, the children of darkness and the children of light (e.g., 1QS 3.17–4.1). There are echoes of this terminology in Paul: Satan (standing in for the angel of darkness) could disguise himself as the “angel of light” (2 Cor 11:14). “This age” is governed by another “god” (2 Cor 4:4) or by other “rulers” (1 Cor 2:6). It is probable that Paul was influenced by dualism, especially since he considered the entire created order to be in need of redemption (Rom 8:19–23), though it could not have been guilty of sin. Paul, it must be emphasized, was not a dualist. He proposed that God himself had subjected the creation to “futility,” and that he had done so “in hope,” planning its redemption. Formally, there is no admission in Romans 8 of a second power, much less a second god. Yet Paul did believe in evil spiritual forces, “so-called gods” (1 Cor 8:5); “beings that by nature are no gods,” as the RSV nicely translates a difficult phrase (Gal 4:8); “demons” (1 Cor 10:20); the “god” or “rulers” of “this age” (above). These non-gods could enslave (Gal 4:8), as could Sin (Rom 6:6).
When we add these references to evil spiritual beings to Paul’s conception of Sin as a power, and further note that even the nonhuman creation needs redemption, it must be concluded that Paul was influenced by some form of dualism. By piecing together references to hostile demons, or gods, and Sin, one could even create a dualistic theology. Satan’s deception of Eve (2 Cor 11:3) could be combined with Sin’s deception of humanity in Rom 7:11 (taking the “I” in Romans 7 to represent humanity in general), and further with the fall of Adam (Rom 5:12–13), to draw a picture of a fully personified second power, which could also be seen in the reference to “the god of this age” (2 Cor 4:4). This second power then might be viewed as the referent of “Sin” throughout Romans 6–7. This, however, would be a false construction. Paul twice employed the word “deceive” from Gen 3:13 (exēpatēsen in Rom 7:11 and 2 Cor 11:3; ēpatēsen in Gen 3:13), he inherited Satan from biblical and Jewish tradition, and he accepted the existence of “beings that by nature are no gods”; but he did not put all these together to form a dualistic theology. We shall shortly see the dominance of monotheism in his thought about sin.
It is difficult to say, in fact, just how realistically Paul conceived of Sin as a power. Röhser (1987) argues that “superhuman being” is too strong, “only a metaphor” too weak, and he proposes “a certain form of hypostatizing,” for which the term “personification” may be used. In this case, Sin in Romans 6–7 is approximately what Wisdom is in Sirach 24: personal attributes are assigned to a reality whose presence in the world can be perceived, but the step of making the reality a Being is not taken.
If there is some truth in the suggestion that Paul was influenced by dualistic thought, there is more in the view that his discussions of sin are the reflex of his soteriology. The force of the latter is most fully seen if we pursue the question posed by our consideration of dualism: Did Paul think that there was an enemy power which enslaved the universe, human and nonhuman alike? In part, we have seen, he did. But this ran into competition with one of his basic theological views, a doctrine embraced in all the surviving Jewish literature of the period: God controls what happens, both in nature and in history. This view, applied to the issue of sin, means that God intended human disobedience. That is just what Paul thought, as he thought that it was God who subjected the creation to futility. (On praedestinatio ad malum see Räisänen 1972.) In Paul’s view, God intended universal sin so that he could subsequently save everyone by grace. For this very reason he gave the law: “Scripture consigned all things to sin, in order that (hina) what was promised to faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe” (Gal 3:22). “God consigned all people to disobedience, in order that (hina) he could have mercy upon all” (Rom 11:32). God “endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction [by him], in order that (hina) he could make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy …” (Rom 9:22–23).
In these passages and others, which at first seem impious—charging God with creating transgression—we see the combination of Paul’s twin convictions: the one God is the God of Hebrew Scripture, the one who created the world, who called Abraham and who gave the Law; and the same God always intended to save the world by faith in Christ. Thinking backward from the second point, he had to conclude that Creation, Election, and the Law did not save. In his black-and-white world, if they did not save, they did not even help; election and the Law were not stepping-stones to salvation in Christ. Yet God gave the Law. What is its result? Not salvation, therefore damnation. This meant that God intended the result, he “consigned all to disobedience.” One might say that humanity was consigned to iniquity as the result of prior sin, which stirred God to wrath (Rom 1:18, 24). But in Romans 1 this is used only to account for gentile corruption, and it is the result of idolatry. The giving of the Law cannot be attributed to God’s wrath in the same way. Paul’s monotheism, which included the view that God controlled everything that happened, was braver than that. God intended all of human sinfulness, just as he intended the subjection of the nonhuman world to “futility” and “travail” (Rom 8:20, 22), but throughout the intended good (8:28):the salvation of the entire cosmos.
No form of ancient Judaism directly known to us (that is, possibly excluding Sadduceeism) considered “predestination” and “freewill” to be incompatible. In Qumran the members of the community were called both “the elect” and “the volunteers”; they were gravely warned not to disobey, but wickedness was also attributed to the “angel” who governed their “lot.” Paul puts the two side-by-side as well. Most Jews, he wrote, did not accept Jesus because God “hardened” them; on the other hand, they did not “heed” (Rom 10:7, 16). When predestination and freewill are applied to sin, the result is both that God intended it and that humans are guilty of it. No ancient Jew, including Paul, worked out a consistent explanation of how human decision to sin relates to God’s determination of all that happens. Paul at least dealt seriously with the problem, as Romans 9 shows. Dualism provides an alternative: there are two powers which have different intentions, and humans are pulled first one way then the other. In Paul (as in 1QS) we get all three. Sin is avoidable transgression, and it is therefore punishable; Sin is a power external to humanity which enslaves the entire creation; sin was intended by God in order to lead up negatively to salvation through his grace in Christ.
These conflicting views naturally lead to the search for some means of harmonizing them, and, failing that, for some way of defining the “heart” or “center” of Paul’s thought, not just about sin, but about God, Christ, and the world, for these are all bound up together. Recent discussions include, in chronological order, Sanders 1977: 434–42; Hickling 1980; Beker 1980; Räisänen 1983; Sanders 1983:4–10; Räisänen 1987:xi–xxxi. We cannot hope to solve the question of the center of Paul’s thought here, but in the discussion of sin it should be noted that, despite his bravery, Paul was uncomfortable in holding that God gave the Law in order to condemn (Gal 3:22; cf. Rom 3:20; 4:15; 5:20), and that this view was temporarily retracted in Romans 7 (especially v 10), only to reappear (though without the word “Law”) in Rom 11:32 (on the movement toward Romans 7 and the retraction of the previously stated view there, see Sanders 1983:70–81). It was in trying to avoid laying the intention to condemn at God’s door that Paul shifted to a modified dualism. Sin is an external power which can manipulate the Law (7:8), or it is a power within the flesh (7:18, 23)—in defiance of the goodness of creation. The presence of dualistic influence in Romans 6–7 cannot be denied, and it is confirmed by the passages about inimical non-gods. Yet in the discussion of sin there is a more powerful theology at work, one which is seen throughout his thought: God created the world and controls history; he will save the world through Christ; everything else, even sin itself, follows from his will but is subjected to it and used for his purpose.
Bibliography
Beker, J. C. 1980. Paul the Apostle. Philadelphia.
Black, M. 1967. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3d ed. Oxford.
Conzelmann, H. 1969. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. Trans. J. Bowden. London.
Hengel, M. 1981. The Charismatic Leader and His Followers. Trans. J. C. G. Greig. Edinburgh.
Hickling, C. J. A. 1980. Centre and Periphery in the Thought of Paul. Vol. 3, pp. 199–214 in Studia Biblica 1978, ed. E. A. Livingstone. JSNTSup 3. Sheffield.
Jeremias, J. 1963. The Parables of Jesus. Rev. ed. Trans. S. H. Hooke. London.
———. 1969. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Trans. F. H. and C. H. Cave. London.
———. 1971. New Testament Theology. Vol. 1, The Proclamation of Jesus. Trans. J. Bowden. London.
Kaye, B. N. 1979. The Thought Structure of Romans with Special Reference to Chapter 6. Austin.
Kümmel, W. G. 1973. The Theology of the New Testament According to its Major Witnesses. Trans. J. E. Steeley. Nashville.
Perrin, N. 1967. Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. London.
Räisänen, H. 1972. The Idea of Divine Hardening. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 25. Helsinki.
———. 1983. Paul and the Law. Tübingen. Repr. 1986.
———. 1987. Paul and the Law. 2d ed. Tübingen.
Röhser, G. 1987. Metaphorik und Personifikation der Sünde. WUNT 2/25. Tübingen.
Sanders, E. P. 1977. Paul and Palestinian Judiasm. Philadelphia.
———. 1983. Paul, the Law and the Jewish People. Philadelphia. Corr. ed. 1985.
———. 1985. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia. Corr. ed. 1987.
———. 1987. Jesus and the Kingdom. Pp. 225–39 in Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church, ed. E. P. Sanders. Macon.
Schweizer, E. 1971. Jesus. Trans. D. E. Green. London

E. P. Sanders, “Sin, Sinners: New Testament,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 31–47.

SIN
An exploration of the biblical concept of sin needs to do justice to three interwoven strands: words, metaphors, narrative. The appearance of one or more terms from the rich vocabulary for “sin” is a clear indication of behavior that is contrary to God’s will. Sin often is portrayed metaphorically through reference to common experiences. However, particularly in the Historical Books the primary portrayal of sinful behavior is through the narration of events. Unlike the prophets, the biblical storytellers generally are sparing in their explicit ethical and religious judgments. They prefer to show rather than tell, setting out scene by scene the disastrous effects of sin on individuals, tribes and nations. It is a challenging interpretive task to trace the complex web of influences, motivations and consequences of sinful behavior. In the present article the *Deuteronomistic History (Joshua to 2 Kings), which together with the Pentateuch comprises Israel’s primary history (Genesis to 2 Kings), is discussed separately from the later secondary history (Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah) (see Chronicler’s History), although the two share a great deal in common.
1. The Vocabulary of Sin
2. Metaphors of Sin
3. Joshua to 2 Kings
4. Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah
5. Conclusion
1. The Vocabulary of Sin
The numerous words in the semantic field for “sin” emphasize the importance of the concept. The following list includes the more significant terms for “sin,” although individual nuances tend to be leveled out in summary passages that combine several terms. This often happens when the narrator wishes to emphasize the gravity of the situation (e.g., 2 Kings 17; 2 Chron 29), or when a sinner formally confesses (e.g., 2 Sam 24:17; 2 Chron 6:37). The following sections include references to the cognate verbs as well as the nouns.
1.1. ḥaṭṭāʾt, “Sin.” This is the most frequent word for “sin” in the OT. It is used of missing the mark (Judg 20:16), but it is not clear to what extent this is a metaphorical use, and there is no evidence elsewhere that this is a significant metaphorical nuance. Instead, the root is used in general and formal contexts, such as the summary descriptions of the failure of a king (2 Kings 21:16). It is the first term occurring in public confession by notorious sinners (Josh 7:20; 1 Sam 15:24; 2 Sam 12:13).
Sin has a personal orientation. It is sin against someone, whether the Lord (Josh 7:20; 2 Sam 12:13; 1 Kings 8:33) or another person. The assumption is that the parties are in a relationship that has agreed norms of conduct, and sinful behavior violates these. On the human level, a king and his servants have mutual obligations of good treatment and loyal obedience, and a refusal of these is sin (1 Sam 19:4). A vassal king sins by refusing to give tribute to his overlord (2 Kings 18:14). A prophet’s duty is to stand between the Lord and his people, and thus the prophet’s failure to pray is sin (1 Sam 12:23).
Most often the root refers to sins against the Lord by Israelites, either individually or as a nation. As recounted in the Pentateuch, *Israel is bound to obey the laws of the covenant. These include standards of ethical behavior, but the first commandment (Ex 20:3) and the Shema (Deut 6:4–5) make it a priority for God’s people to worship only the Lord. Hence ḥṭʾ frequently describes the promotion and worship of idols (1 Kings 16:13) or divination (1 Sam 15:24). In Kings the paradigmatic sin (directly related to the climactic sin of Ex 32) is *Jeroboam’s setting up of the two golden calves in *Bethel and *Dan (1 Kings 12:30). The failure to remove them was the ground for the repeated criticism of Jeroboam’s successors (1 Kings 16:19; 2 Kings 15:18). Although the *kings bear special responsibility, the people share in the guilt (2 Kings 17:22).
The use of ḥaṭṭāʾt to mean “purification offering” appears only in passing in the secondary history (Neh 10:33 [MT 10:34]; 2 Chron 29:21–24).
1.2. rāʿâ, “Evil.” The noun is sometimes simply the opposite of “good,” with a range of meaning from the neutral (“calamity”) to the moral (“evil”). The refrain in *Judges and 1-2 *Kings, “doing evil in the sight of the Lord,” emphasizes the ultimate reference point for the narrator’s evaluation. Since the Lord’s will for Israel’s moral and religious behavior is revealed in the *law and freshly applied by the *prophets, the word often describes Israel’s failure to hear and obey (2 Kings 17:13). A wise king discerns the difference between good and *evil (2 Sam 24:17), but the historical books demonstrate the endemic sinfulness of Israel’s kings, who both reflect the general sinfulness of the people and encourage it through their behavior and laws (2 Kings 21:9). Not even the most godly of kings was able to avoid evil (2 Sam 11:27; cf. 2 Chr 35:21–22).
1.3. ʿāwōn, “Iniquity.” The word ʿāwōn does not appear frequently in the Historical Books. It probably is derived from a verb meaning “bend” or “twist,” but this nuance is not particularly evident when the root refers to sin. It is a general term covering all kinds of sins that are carried out against persons (2 Kings 7:9) or God (Josh 22:20). It sometimes is difficult to determine whether the word indicates the act of sin (Neh 9:2), the state of sin (guilt; 2 Sam 24:10) or even the consequences of sin (punishment [Gen 4:13]). Often the term is used in formal confession (e.g., 2 Sam 14:9; Ezra 9:6).
1.4. něbālâ, “Folly, Outrageous Act.” Willful folly is behavior that is wrong from both a pragmatic and a moral or religious perspective (2 Sam 13:12). Achan foolishly attempts to deceive the Lord by hiding spoil (Josh 7:15). Nabal acts according to the meaning of his name (“folly”) by spurning the powerful David and doing it in a way that is calculated to offend (1 Sam 25:25). Folly destroys the balanced and ordered relationships that sustain a viable community, and often it is bound up with sinful arrogance (see Wisdom).
1.5. maʿal, “Unfaithful Act.” The noun and the verb appear only in *Joshua, *Chronicles and *Ezra-Nehemiah, describing unfaithfulness toward God. The word may be used with specific cultic overtones, as is the case when Achan misappropriates the devoted things (Josh 7:1). *Hezekiah has to purify the temple and sanctify it as a consequence of unfaithfulness (2 Chron 29:6). In the secondary history it is used to describe a variety of moral and religious offenses, emphasizing how this behavior breaks the personal trust required by the Lord (1 Chron 10:13; 2 Chron 36:14). Its ultimate consequence is exile (Neh 1:8).
2. Metaphors of Sin
It is possible to coordinate many references to sin by attending to foundational metaphors that shape the way people think and live.
2.1. The Journey Metaphor. The sinful deviate from the straight path of obedience and life. Jehu sins by not walking (hlk) in the law of the Lord with his whole heart (2 Kings 10:31), and *David turns aside (swr) in the matter of Uriah (1 Kings 15:5). Jeroboam walks in an evil way and refuses to turn away (šûb) from it (1 Kings 13:33), and others follow his lead (1 Kings 15:34; 2 Kings 17:22). *Manasseh misleads (tʿh) the people (2 Kings 21:9). To transgress or cross over (ʿbr) is to violate the safe bounds of the commandments (1 Sam 15:24) and the covenant (Josh 7:15) and suffer the consequences of God’s judgment.
2.2. The Personal Metaphor. Words drawn from the hostile relations between individuals often express sinful attitudes of individuals or the people to God, who is always the injured party. Eli’s sons despise (bzh) the Lord (1 Sam 2:30), and David treats him with contempt (nʾṣ) (2 Sam 12:14). Since the Lord is a king, the people sin by rebelling (pšʿ) against him (1 Kings 8:50). *Samuel gives the people a choice either to hear the word of the Lord or to rebel (mrh) against his “mouth” (1 Sam 12:14). Israel’s history shows that the people are more than likely to reject (mʾs) the Lord as their king (1 Sam 8:7).
2.3. The Orientation Metaphor. A person’s attitude is reflected through posture and orientation. Just as the repentant return (šûb) to God and orient themselves toward the temple (1 Kings 8:33, 29), so also the rebellious turn their faces away from the Lord’s dwelling and turn their backs to him (2 Chron 29:6). Also combining the personal and the spatial is the notion of leave or abandon (ʿzb)—a particular favorite of the secondary history. It is a grave failure of the covenant relationship for Israel to abandon the Lord through spurning his law (1 Kings 18:18; 2 Chron 12:1) and his temple (2 Chron 24:18), and he in turn will abandon them (2 Chron 24:20). Pride is indicated by a root meaning “high,” gbh (1 Sam 2:3; 2 Chron 26:16; 32:5–6).
2.4. The Marriage Metaphor. Israel’s pursuit of other divinities can be described as prostitution (znh), since marriage assumes an initial commitment (i.e., Sinai) that is then maintained by faithful wholehearted devotion and love (Deut 6:5). Judges describes Israel’s whoring after other gods in its opening general summary (Judg 2:17), and then notes specific acts of unfaithfulness (Judg 8:27, 33). *Elijah condemns Jehoram of Judah for seducing (Hiphil of znh) the people (2 Chron 21:11, 13) and announces punishment on him and his family.
3. Joshua to 2 Kings
3.1. Overview. The opening chapters of Genesis reflect the awareness that all human beings sin and are responsible for their behavior. The Historical Books assume that Israelites have a responsibility to conform to universal standards of behavior (e.g., 1 Kings 9:10–14). Over and above this the Pentateuch shows how Israel agreed to obey the special requirements of the Lord’s covenant with his people. The Historical Books from Joshua to 2 Kings continue both the universal story of sin that begins in Genesis 3 and the specific outworking of the human tendency to sin shown in Israel’s failure to keep the covenant law, primarily through idolatry (Ex 20:2; Deut 6:4). Historical criticism has emphasized the close connection between these books and Deuteronomy by calling Deuteronomy to 2 Kings the Deuteronomistic History. However, the death of Moses marks a significant break, and a canonical reading of the primary history needs to recognize both the continuity and the discontinuity with the Pentateuch. The restrained style of the storytellers makes the most sense if they expect readers to bear in mind the fundamental moral and religious requirements of the covenant and the law.
The Historical Books portray a story of sin and judgment on the largest scale. If the Pentateuch tells a reasonably positive story of a journey from landlessness to landedness, the Historical Books reverse the plot, and 2 Kings ends with utter defeat and exile (Brueggemann 2003). The exile of Adam and Eve from Eden as a result of sin is echoed by the larger story of the journey of a sinful nation toward exile. However, this is not a steady decline, but one with many ups and downs. The different stages of Israel’s history provide the setting for new forms of sin and disobedience alongside new dispensations of grace and *forgiveness. Furthermore, sin and blame are shared among individuals, families, tribes and nations in an unpredictable way. There are no heroes in the OT, and individuals characteristically display a complex mixture of good and evil as they both respond to and influence others. Despite exceptional men and women of God and the interventions of the prophets, the overall direction of the people of God is toward deepening sin and rebellion. Good kings can do only so much to reform a stiff-necked people (2 Kings 22:16–20). There are more bad kings than good, and the people follow their lead (2 Kings 21:16). Although even under the worst kings there can be a faithful remnant (1 Kings 19:18), this is not enough to avert the coming judgment. The implicit hope evident in the final verses of 2 Kings (25:27–30) leaves unresolved how the Lord can deal with the depth of the people’s sinfulness.
3.2. Joshua. The book of Joshua is largely positive, beginning with accounts of a successful conquest and ending on the high note of the covenant ceremony at *Shechem (Josh 24). However, the emphasis on obedience to the Torah in the first chapter (Josh 1:8, 13) is a foil for the extended account of Israel’s first sin when Achan steals some of the devoted things. Although apparently it is Achan alone who covets the spoil (Josh 7:21), the solidarity of individual and nation means that “all Israel” is held responsible (Josh 7:11). His household is implicated along with him, for they must know about the crime (Josh 7:24). Sin, especially at this early stage in the conquest, cannot be tolerated, and only when “all Israel” executes judgment on Achan’s household does the Lord turn from his anger (Josh 7:25–26). Achan’s confession (Josh 7:21) echoes the temptation narrative (Gen 3:6) as well as the tenth commandment (Ex 20:17), showing how desire for beauty and money can be the beginning of sin and tragedy (cf. 2 Sam 11:2). Joshua’s closing exhortation in Joshua 23 further emphasizes the priority of the exclusive covenant between the Lord and his people. The primary temptation to sin is idolatry, and intermarriage is condemned because it will become the gateway for apostasy (Josh 23:13).
3.3. Judges. It is possible that the book of Judges was intended as the negative counterpart to Joshua, although it is anticipated in Joshua 24:19–20, one of the most pessimistic statements of the sinfulness of Israel in the Bible. These verses preface the renewal of the covenant that comes at the climax of Joshua, and they illustrate how pride in success leads to fall. Judges tells the story of an ever descending spiral of sin and folly. At the outset the narrator analyzes the reason for the repeated defeat and repression of the people in his comment that they “did what was evil in the sight of the Lord” (Judg 2:1 [seven times in all]). This is primarily idolatry, and in a growing phrase they are described as worshiping (ʿbd) the Baals (Judg 2:11), the Baals and Asherahs (Judg 3:7), and then seven sets of gods (Judg 10:6). The more extended treatment of the major judges enables a more nuanced exploration of the relation between character and gifts, opportunity and sin. *Faith exists alongside flaws of character and motive that often bring disaster on the leader and others, as can be seen in the consequences of Gideon’s making of an ephod (Judg 8:22–27), Jephthah’s rash oath (Judg 11:30–31), and Samson’s insatiable quest for sex and violence (Judg 14:2; 15:1–8; 16:28–30). The final four dark chapters provide a unique mix of idolatry, violence, folly and tragic irony. The narrator’s lament about the lack of a king (Judg 21:25) emphasizes the value of a leader in dealing with evil before it gets out of hand, and here the narrator anticipates the major theme of 1 Samuel.
3.4. 1 Samuel. The Lord calls Samuel in place of the sinful sons of Eli (1 Sam 2:25), although his own sons take bribes and pervert justice (1 Sam 8:3–5). The people’s subsequent demand for a king initially is equated with rebellion against the Lord (1 Sam 8:6–8), and Samuel then sets out the capacity of a king to undermine Israel’s traditional social structures (1 Sam 8:11–18). However, God in his grace accommodates to Israel’s demands (1 Sam 12:19), and *Saul is chosen. Early hints of flaws in character (1 Sam 10:22) soon become disobedience to Samuel (1 Sam 13:8–15) and neglect of his commands (1 Sam 15:9–35). Although Saul expresses some kind of regret (1 Sam 13:12; 15:24), the rest of the book suggests that any dimension of true repentance was undermined by elements of superficiality, deceit and hypocrisy. The account of Saul’s deepening sin and madness is a foil for the portrayal of David’s godliness and humility. Saul’s jealousy of David (1 Sam 17:7–9) leads to attempted murder (1 Sam 18:11) and vindictive pursuit. His paranoia imputes guilt to blameless associates of David and results in the death of innocent priests (1 Sam 22:11–23). Saul’s climactic sin is consultation with a medium (1 Sam 28:3–7) in order to raise the spirit of the dead Samuel (1 Sam 28:11–19). The result is not only the death of Saul and his family, but also the defeat of the Israelite army (1 Sam 31). Nor is David unaffected by Saul’s deeds, for they complicate his relations with women (1 Sam 25:39–43) and sow seeds that will bear tragic fruit when he becomes king.
3.5. 2 Samuel. The dynastic oracle includes a condition that David’s descendants who commit iniquity will be punished (2 Sam 7:14), but the following verses imply that this would not be sufficient to thwart God’s purposes for David’s house. The multiple dimensions of David’s adultery with Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:4) emphasize the fallibility of even Israel’s godliest king. The narrator does not explicitly state that David should have been with the troops (2 Sam 11:1), but staying in Jerusalem allows a dangerous amount of leisure and the opportunity for temptation. However, in Israel even the king is not above the law, and Nathan fulfills the prophetic calling to hold the powerful accountable for their sins (2 Sam 12:1–13). The rest of the book shows the personal and political consequences of sin for David, his family and the nation, including incest (2 Sam 13:14), murder (2 Sam 13:28–29) and rebellion (2 Sam 15). David’s lament over the death of Absalom (2 Sam 18:33) demonstrates David’s inability to reconcile royal duty with his own personal feelings. In 2 Samuel 21–24, an “appendix of deconstruction” (Brueggemann 1988), the book ends ambivalently by describing the Lord’s anger against David for taking a *census (2 Sam 24:10). Sin has consequences, even if repentance enables God to be merciful (2 Sam 12:13–14; 24:16–17).
3.6. 1 Kings. *Solomon is portrayed as the greatest of Israel’s kings from a political and material point of view, but the author subtly makes it clear that other criteria of evaluation are more important. Solomon’s request for wisdom (1 Kings 3:9) is no doubt positive, but it follows an account of a marriage alliance with Egypt. It is the first of many pragmatic political decisions that eventually will incline Solomon to follow other gods (1 Kings 11:2) and provoke divine judgment (1 Kings 11:9–11). His wisdom eventually is used for oppression (1 Kings 12:10–11) and for impressing foreigners (1 Kings 10:1–13). Solomon’s behavior contradicts the official theology of his great prayer in 1 Kings 8, in which Solomon acknowledges that the righteous God punishes the guilty (1 Kings 8:32), that all are sinful, and that the ultimate consequence for a sinful nation is exile (1 Kings 8:46). Yet the fundamental assumption of the prayer is that God is merciful. He hears prayer, forgives sin and reverses its consequences. In the disregarding of these promises, Solomon’s sin is shown to be all the greater. The immediate consequence of Solomon’s sin is a divine word of judgment predicting the split of the kingdom (1 Kings 11:11–12; cf. 11:30–33). This is merely confirmed by *Rehoboam’s foolish preference for the advice of his companions over that of the elders (1 Kings 12:6–16). Although the split is approved by God, Jeroboam’s attempt to provide religious legitimization for his kingdom through setting up two golden calves compromises the northern kingdom, with ultimately fatal consequences (2 Kings 17:21). The editors regard his action as the paradigm of sin both for Jeroboam’s house (1 Kings 13:33) and for later kings (1 Kings 16:19; 22:52; 2 Kings 13:2; 15:28). However, it is acknowledged that individual kings bear varying degrees of guilt for their behavior. David sins in the matter of Uriah (1 Kings 15:5), but the primary criterion for evaluation of the kings of Judah is religious, especially their attitude toward the *high places (1 Kings 15:14). The violation of God’s covenantal gift of the *land to families is highlighted in the extended account of Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kings 21). The story illustrates the way royal marriages with foreigners could undermine Israel’s distinct moral and religious values. Although Elijah announces judgment on Ahab and Jezebel, the story implies that there is a growing disregard of God’s covenant, particularly among the wealthier classes. 1 Kings ends with a brief, entirely negative portrayal of Ahaziah (1 Kings 22:51–53).
3.7. 2 Kings. The last book of the Deuteronomistic History portrays the tragic results of the sins of the two kingdoms. The canonical presentation acknowledges the political realities of the day, but traces the root cause of disaster to the interrelated sins of the kings and their people. The reason for the exile of the northern kingdom is set out at length in 2 Kings 17. The primary cause is Israel’s wholesale idolatry (2 Kings 17:7–12), although the kings contribute to this (2 Kings 17:8, 22). The sin is enhanced by the people’s stubborn refusal to heed the prophets (2 Kings 17:13–14) and by their walking (hlk) in the customs and gods of other nations, thus despising (mʾs) the covenant and the laws of the Lord, who saved them from Pharaoh (2 Kings 17:7, 16). The result is divine wrath (2 Kings 17:18), exile and banishment from his presence (2 Kings 17:20). However, there is no direct link between degrees of sin and punishment. Ahab is most evil, but his repentance delays judgment (1 Kings 21:25–29). Israel’s final king, Hoshea, does less evil than do other kings, but his political treachery is the final straw and triggers the end of the northern kingdom (2 Kings 17:1–6). Judah is alike in not keeping God’s commandments (2 Kings 17:19) but has a somewhat different history. A number of godly kings counter the downward trend, although the narrator implies that the last actions of Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:12–19) and *Josiah (2 Kings 23:28–30) reflect political and religious folly. However, the accumulated sin of Judah has an inertia that even the radical actions of Josiah in eliminating the high places cannot reverse. In particular, the final punishment of God is traced to the sins committed during the long reign of Manasseh (2 Kings 23:26; 24:3), who is portrayed as an evil antitype of Josiah (cf. 2 Kings 21:3; 23:4). Manasseh not only initiated dramatic syncretistic acts in the temple—the heart of the Lord’s presence in the midst of Israel (2 Kings 21:1–9)—but also shed “very much innocent blood” (2 Kings 21:16). Blatant idolatry and institutionalized murder result in a prophetic denunciation that includes a classic statement of the lex talionis (“measure for measure”): divine “evil” (in the sense of calamity) is the return for Manasseh’s moral and religious evil (2 Kings 21:11–12). Yet the concluding verses imply that sin and punishment will not have the last word (2 Kings 25:27–30).
4. Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah
4.1. Chronicles. In comparison to the Deuteronomistic History, Chronicles has a theology of a more immediate retribution for sin, but this should not be understood mechanically (Kelly). Through selection of existing and addition of new material, and through general summaries (1 Chron 28:8–9; 2 Chron 7:14; 15:2), Chronicles seeks to relate deeds (sin/repentance) closely to consequences (punishment/forgiveness). This reflects an emphasis on God’s justice, and it may be directed against those in the restoration community who thought that punishment for their sins could be delayed. Although punishment will follow sin, God’s primary desire is for people to repent of their sins and live in obedience to his commandments (2 Chron 24:19). Chronicles’ interest in Israel’s worship leads to an emphasis on failures to obey the Torah, especially in the speeches (2 Chron 13:8–12) and the accounts of royal sins (2 Chron 21:11; 26:16–21). The notorious passing over of most of the sins of David and all those of Solomon is partly due to a focus on the temple, but it may also be intended to model the ideal eschatological future. The role of Satan in inciting David to take a census of Israel (1 Chron 21:1 [in 2 Sam 24:1 it is the Lord who incites]) is unique in Chronicles and should not be overinterpreted. It may only indicate a nameless adversary and a counterpart to Joab. The guilt of David and others may be reduced by contextual factors, but the primary responsibility of sinners for their actions is inescapable. Sins accumulate and increase God’s anger until punishment is inevitable (2 Chron 36:16).
4.2. Ezra. The officials who approach Ezra describe the mixed marriages among the returnees as a case of “faithlessness” (maʿal [Ezra 9:2, 4]). Ezra’s response is a comprehensive confession of Israel’s iniquities and sins, indicating that these marriages are in direct continuity with Israel’s past behavior. Although the harsh, exclusive measures adopted raise wider ethical and interpretive issues, Ezra’s primary concern is the loss of distinct Israelite identity through idolatry and assimilation, which will provoke the Lord to destroy his disobedient people (Ezra 9:14).
4.3. Nehemiah. A report to Nehemiah of the desperate situation of the returnees from exile results in a wide-ranging confession of the sins of the people, with whom he completely identifies (Neh 1:6–7). His reaction to problems of debt (Neh 5:1–13) exposes the gap that can exist between the letter of the law and the sinful exploitation by the wealthy of powerless social classes. Nehemiah 9 comprises a great confession (Neh 9:6–37) led by Levites on behalf of the people (Neh 9:1–5). The prayer powerfully sets out the tension between Israel’s constant sinfulness and the Lord’s forgiveness and mercy. Profaning the sabbath (Neh 13:15–22) and mixed marriages (Neh 13:23–27) are further expressions of sin and evil in the covenant community that are in danger of provoking divine wrath and the nation’s destruction.
5. Conclusion
The OT takes sin with utmost seriousness, for the Lord is holy and righteous and calls both humanity and Israel to account. At every level, the consistent pattern is failure, mostly (though not always) through deliberate sinful actions. The normal result of sin is divine judgment, ultimately resulting in death for individuals and families and in exile for the nation. Yet because of God’s mercy and long-suffering, there is a space between sin and judgment that opens up other possibilities. The Lord sends prophets to his people, summoning them to repentance, which alone can bring forgiveness and restoration, although the consequences of sin cannot be completely undone. Despite deepening and recurring sin, the Historical Books refuse to succumb to despair, indicating that Israel should continue to hope in God, who one day will finally deal with sin.
See also ETHICS; EVIL; FORGIVENESS; JUSTICE AND RIGHTEOUSNESS; LAW.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. W. Brueggemann, “2 Samuel 21–24: An Appendix of Deconstruction?” CBQ 50 (1988) 383–97; idem, David’s Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory (2d ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002); idem, The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith (2d ed.; OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003); idem, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997); W. Janzen, Old Testament Ethics: A Paradigmatic Approach (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994); B. E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles (JSOTSup 211; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996); R. Knierim, Die Hauptbegriffe für Sünde im Alten Testament (2d ed.; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1967); idem, “On the Contours of Old Testament and Biblical Hamartiology,” in The Task of Old Testament Theology: Substance, Method, and Cases (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 416–67; J. G. McConville, Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology (SOTBT; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1993); M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (ILBS; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985).

P. Jenson, “Sin,” ed. Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson, Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 899–905.

 

[RC1970]

WOW! Could you re-post that with the executive summary?

 

[section9+1]

Whew. All that plus George Washington's picture should get you a cup of coffee most places in town.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

Congratulations to anyone who read the whole lot.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I think you win Christian Forums for longest post ever.

I suspect I would have found it quite interesting...if I had read it all. But, I can't.

 

[St_Worm2]

I think it safe to assume, we all believe in sin and how it effect us and our society. How do you think sin is spread? Do you think it heredity or choice?

Hi Wayfarersoul, as we all like to say, "NOBODY'S Perfect"

Of all the things that are "common" to us, nothing is more clearly so than the fact that we are all sinners. So sin is one of the few truly "universal" traits that characterizes ALL of mankind, and as such, must have a single, proximate cause. IOW, we had to be "made" this way somehow, the mystery is, "who done it"?

It could have been God, of course, but we know it wasn't (because of what the Bible teaches and because of what He had to do to save us), which only leaves one other person, err, "couple", doesn't it? Our First Parents were made in God's perfect image, however we, their progeny, are begotten in their tarnished one.

We "inherited" their sinful nature, just like we inherit many things from our parents and grandparents, only this was, obviously, far more pervasive. That's why ALL of us were affected by it.

This is why the church formulated the doctrine of Original Sin, because 1) it explains how we all got this way and 2) it clearly tells us whose fault it was (IOW, that it was our progenitors' fault, NOT God's).

Yours in Christ,
David

Ephesians 2
1 You were dead in your trespasses and sins,
2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
.​

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think it safe to assume, we all believe in sin and how it effect us and our society. What do you think sin is spread? do you think it heredity or choice? The Western branch of Christianity believe in original sin, but not the Eastern branch.

Hello wayfarersoul, and welcome to Traditional Theology.

My apologies, that is more than I am able to read at this time. It could be quite beneficial and interesting to discuss the questions in a more manageable format. I did glance over your quoted material, and read some of it. It has the flavor, forgive me, of western theology commenting on eastern, but that is more based on the way points are made than anything I noticed in the theology.

The only thing that appear to be missing to me (and maybe it's there and I didn't see it) is that while yes, sin is what we usually conceive of as being some kind of transgression (and transgression is sin - I am glad to read that it involves transgression against GOD rather than against some taboo - that part is a very important point) ... but in its most basic sense, sin/hamartia being "missing the mark" does not necessarily involve anything "bad" but that even the "good" we do is technically "missing the mark" ... since our mark/goal is to be like Christ, and we will always fall short to some degree.

You might get some discussion if these points can be broken out. But I think the whole thing is too big a bite to handle all at once.

Good topic though.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hi Wayfarersoul, as we all like to say, "NOBODY'S Perfect"

Of all the things that are "common" to us, nothing is more clearly so than the fact that we are all sinners. So sin is one of the few truly "universal" traits that characterizes ALL of mankind, and as such, must have a single, proximate cause. IOW, we had to be "made" this way somehow, the mystery is, "who done it"?

It could have been God, of course, but we know it wasn't (because of what the Bible teaches and because of what He had to do to save us), which only leaves one other person, err, "couple", doesn't it? Our First Parents were made in God's perfect image, however we, their progeny, are begotten in their tarnished one.

We "inherited" their sinful nature, just like we inherit many things from our parents and grandparents, only this was, obviously, far more pervasive. That's why ALL of us were affected by it.

This is why the church formulated the doctrine of Original Sin, because 1) it explains how we all got this way and 2) it clearly tells us whose fault it was (IOW, that it was our progenitors' fault, NOT God's).

Yours in Christ,
David

Ephesians 2
1 You were dead in your trespasses and sins,
2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
.​

The doctrine in opposition to the Catholic teaching of Original Sin, which developed in the eastern Church is usually called Ancestral Sin, to differentiate.

We do not believe that sin propagates in any biological form, but simply that the image of God in which we are created has been somewhat obscured. And sin is something that infects, even now permeates the created world, so we cannot escape it. Because we are born with a bent to self, rather than a central focus on God, and we are surrounded by sin, affected by it, and tempted from both outside and inside, we all sin, generally beginning from the time we first become able.

We also do not believe any guilt for the sin of Adam is charged against any of us, but that each bears the guilt only for his own sins.

(The Catholic teaching of original sin has been changed somewhat among various Protestant denominations, and my reply was aimed toward various degrees of doctrine, not necessarily just the Catholic form.)


But we agree somewhat in the understanding of how we got this way (just not some kind of added biological transmission), as well as whose fault it was (agreed that it was our progenitors' rather than God's.)

 

[wayfarersoul1978]

Anas,

My great grand mother also had your name, very pretty. Do you have commentary that explain this theory more ? I am of course Protestant, so I am in western mind set just for the record.

 

[wayfarersoul1978]

WOW! Could you re-post that with the executive summary?

Keep in mind not met for just quick glance, but I was hoping people doula read different sections over time and we can gave interesting dialogue.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Anas,

My great grand mother also had your name, very pretty. Do you have commentary that explain this theory more ? I am of course Protestant, so I am in western mind set just for the record.

Which theory do you mean? About the meaning of sin?

It is really just built into the language. I attend a Greek parish, and we use about half Greek, half English.

But the richer (or sometimes more precise) understanding that is built into some Greek words is just accepted.

You have probably heard that hamartia (sorry, no Greek keyboard on this device), translated as sin, means "missing the mark". It's a word used such as an archer who aims at a target tries to hit that mark, and misses, by some degree. And from the beginning, until now, we recognize that our goal is to mature into the full measure of a man - Christ is our example. Of course, we will fall short. I think in this context, saying that even our righteous acts are like filthy rags by comparison makes sense. This does not mean that God condemns us for our shortcomings. But it does mean we must recognize that we do fall short of Christ, and humbly understand that with the help of God's grace, we pursue His example, being ever transformed to be more like Him. Yet while we are in the flesh, we will always fall short.

I'm not sure if that actually answered your question or not. But this is part of what we remember when we consider sin/hamartia.


There might indeed be many good discussions in what you posted. But just for the way the boards work, people can only deal with shorter bits at a time. Maybe only one subtopic, or a part of one, at a time.

 

[seeking.IAM]

One of the few things I remember from all the sermons I have heard in my life came from a Presbyterian pastor at a church I attended decades ago in college. He posited a definition of sin as "anything that stands between you and God." By that he meant that there was the standard stuff that applies to everybody (e.g. blasphemy, adultery, etc.) but then there are also things specific to an individual that stand between that person and God. The latter, he suggested, might be a sin for one person but not another. I am not sure I can come up with a clear example and I'm probably not doing it justice, but it was along the line of, let's say, you are so obsessed with golf that you stop reading your Bible, praying, going to Church, being in relationship with God -- then golf is a sin for you. But golf might not be a sin for the next fella who plays every other Saturday and does not lose track of God in the meantime. I've thought about his definition over the last 4 decades. Are there any reactions to that concept of sin?

 

[hedrick]

"anything that stands between you and God."

Reformed thought has tended to emphasize sin as a condition rather than sins as individual actions. Sin as a condition is alienation from God. I think the idea you mention is consistent with that.

One problem I see with Christian theology is that many traditions tend to turn their founder's personal experience into a universal prototype. I think it's pretty clear that human development is combination of heredity, environment, and (for Christians) the activity of the Holy Spirit. Some people seem to be born mean. Others seem to pick it up in various ways. So I don't think there's a single way in which sin propagates.

My sense (and you surely realize that I'm part of the mainline / liberal tradition) is that humans aren't designed to be perfect. I think it's an essential characteristic that we learn through mistakes, and that includes moral mistakes. I don't think that alienates us from God. What alienates us from God is refusal to acknowledge our faults and to take responsibility for dealing with them (i.e. repentance). I actually think we can view this truly damaging unrepentance / unforgiveness as pathological, not a universal inherited condition. Moral imperfection, however, seems to be to be inherent in our nature. As far as I can tell, we evolved that way.

That means I don't buy the traditional Reformed position that we have to be perfect to be acceptable to God, and that we're so hopeless that without God making us do so, we'd even refuse his help. I simply don't think that's a reasonable account of the world. Most people I know, Christian and non-Christians, do (though imperfectly) take responsibility for what they do. Somehow traditional Reformed thought has become convinced that this is "works righteousness." I'm not convinced that the idea that most people are capable of repenting and forgiving -- which seems to be what Jesus teaches as important on this topic -- would be considered by Paul to be justification by works.

 

[wayfarersoul1978]

Reformed thought has tended to emphasize sin as a condition rather than sins as individual actions. Sin as a condition is alienation from God. I think the idea you mention is consistent with that.

One problem I see with Christian theology is that many traditions tend to turn their founder's personal experience into a universal prototype. I think it's pretty clear that human development is combination of heredity, environment, and (for Christians) the activity of the Holy Spirit. Some people seem to be born mean. Others seem to pick it up in various ways. So I don't think there's a single way in which sin propagates.

My sense (and you surely realize that I'm part of the mainline / liberal tradition) is that humans aren't designed to be perfect. I think it's an essential characteristic that we learn through mistakes, and that includes moral mistakes. I don't think that alienates us from God. What alienates us from God is refusal to acknowledge our faults and to take responsibility for dealing with them (i.e. repentance). I actually think we can view this truly damaging unrepentance / unforgiveness as pathological, not a universal inherited condition. Moral imperfection, however, seems to be to be inherent in our nature. As far as I can tell, we evolved that way.

That means I don't buy the traditional Reformed position that we have to be perfect to be acceptable to God, and that we're so hopeless that without God making us do so, we'd even refuse his help. I simply don't think that's a reasonable account of the world. Most people I know, Christian and non-Christians, do (though imperfectly) take responsibility for what they do. Somehow traditional Reformed thought has become convinced that this is "works righteousness." I'm not convinced that the idea that most people are capable of repenting and forgiving -- which seems to be what Jesus teaches as important on this topic -- would be considered by Paul to be justification by works.

thank you for your input and other as well.

 

[~Anastasia~]

One of the few things I remember from all the sermons I have heard in my life came from a Presbyterian pastor at a church I attended decades ago in college. He posited a definition of sin as "anything that stands between you and God." By that he meant that there was the standard stuff that applies to everybody (e.g. blasphemy, adultery, etc.) but then there are also things specific to an individual that stand between that person and God. The latter, he suggested, might be a sin for one person but not another. I am not sure I can come up with a clear example and I'm probably not doing it justice, but it was along the line of, let's say, you are so obsessed with golf that you stop reading your Bible, praying, going to Church, being in relationship with God -- then golf is a sin for you. But golf might not be a sin for the next fella who plays every other Saturday and does not lose track of God in the meantime. I've thought about his definition over the last 4 decades. Are there any reactions to that concept of sin?

I think it's good to consider.

I don't think it's a perfectly complete definition of sin, but it is certainly a really good "working definition" of those things we need to be most aware of in dealing with in ourselves (or letting God deal with in us).

I guess maybe what I mean is that this doesn't encompass every possible thought, action, word, and attitude that might BE sin for us, but it is a good way of finding the ones we really need to repent of. And that's really what's important in dealing with sin, since we won't ever actually become perfect in this life.

 

[Ron Gurley]

Here is my "executive summary" / attempted:
DEFINITION of "SIN"

1. SIN = "falling short" = ANYTHING contrary to the perfect CHARACTER and ATTRIBUTES of the TRI-UNE GOD...ALL fall short! This is the spiritual gap between God's perfect good and Man's imperfections.

2. SIN(S) = personal "missing the marks" = willful or ignorant, commission or omission, "trespasses" that cause loss of fellowship with / create a barrier between God and Man...these can be FORGIVEN!...
For unbelievers, SALVATION...another important subject. For believers, CONFESSION (spiritually agreeing with God) ...1 John 1

3. SIN NATURE = the natural-born and innate capacity and inclination to do / not do those things that can in no way commend Man and his "works" to God...the tenadency to exercise natural and spiritual "free will" against God.
This nature is SPIRITUALLY changed by salvation / redemption, BUT it still rears its ugly head in BODY / SOUL during SANCTIFICATION

4. IMPUTED SIN/RIGHTEOUSNESS:?...Romans 5:12. 15-17 (NIV)...Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ = IMPUTATION!

How believers deal with SIN(S) in their lives...>>> the "carnal Christ-follower " must CONFESS (agree with God)...1 John 1: 5-10...Walking in the light

1 Peter 3: 15-22 (NIV1984)
For Christ (Jesus the God-Man) died FOR (ALL) sin(s) once FOR ALL,
the righteous (Jesus the God-Man) FOR the unrighteous,(all natural men with IMPUTED SIN)
to bring you to God. (salvation and reconciliation)

 

[wayfarersoul1978]

Well done, leave it o lawyers to Clairefly the big words. Those I was shown no how sins has been seen through The Whole bible and not just the New Testament.

 

[Ron Gurley]

"sin"
occurs 430 times in 380 verses in the NASB

Hebrew 2403 - "chatta'ath"
sin, sin offering
a) sin
b) condition of sin, guilt of sin
c) punishment for sin
d) sin-offering

Greek 266 - "hamartia"
a) to be without a share in
b) to miss the mark
c) to err, be mistaken
d) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour,
to do or go wrong
e) to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin
2) that which is done wrong, sin, an offence,
a violation of the divine law in thought or in act
3) collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many

John 16:8 (NASB)...Jesus: Role of God the Holy spirit
And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning
sin and righteousness and judgment;

 

[Ron Gurley]

Paul: The relationship of SIN to the Mosaic Law

Romans 2:12 ...The Mosaic Law and "Sin"
For all who have sinned WITHOUT the Law will also perish without the Law, and
all who have sinned UNDER the Law will be judged by the Law;

Romans 3:20
because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified (defensible) in His sight;
for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

Romans 5:13
for until the Law, sin was in the world,
but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

 

[~Anastasia~]

"Imputed sin/righteousness" ... that brings up an interesting point.

We (Orthodox) read the Scriptures say that God imputes righteousness - a verb. Not that we receive a thing (noun) called "imputed righteousness". But it is difficult to explain to a Protestant understanding.

However, I am interested in the assumption that sin is also "imputed". Is this the assumption that every human person born is guilty of Adam's sin?

Orthodox do not believe this btw. Each person is accused by their own sins, not by those of anyone except himself. But of course, forgiveness is available.