Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

SIN

A reality signifying the broken relationship between God and humanity. The occasions by which this relationship breaks, the need to recognize this rupture, and the avenues for salvation are detailed in endless situations throughout the Scriptures.

Old Testament

Ancient Israel’s concern for sin reflected the basic ethical nature of the early Jewish faith and the diversity of theological approaches to the problems of evil. Several Hebrew terms are used to signify sin. Most frequent is ḥṭʾ, “to miss a goal or way.” Though ethical implications often are intended, the term may indicate some simple error, deficiency, or fault. The person who “fails to find” wisdom is at risk (Prov. 8:36). Similarly, a hasty person often will “miss” the better way (Prov. 19:2). Abimelech questions how he has “wronged” Abraham (Gen. 20:9), while Jonathan counsels Saul not to “act against” the innocent David (1 Sam. 19:4). Such “sins” ultimately become an offense toward God, because one misses the path of duty (1 Kgs. 18:9; 2 Kgs. 18:14) or incurs guilt through some action, either by conscious error (Lev. 5:5) or unwittingly (Num. 15:28).

The second most common term for sin is ʿwn, which signifies guilt or iniquity. This is primarily a religious term, one which was used originally to specify sins associated with guilt and punishment. Included here are actions undertaken against God or in defiance of God’s stated commandments. Hence, a person who purposefully acts against God’s commandments “bears sin” (Num. 15:30), a single witness cannot convict someone of a “crime” (Deut. 19:15), and children may be punished by God for the “iniquities” of their parents (Exod. 20:5). In certain instances the term offers no real distinction between the crime and its punishment, perhaps as a reflection of the belief that sin carries within itself the seeds of consequence. Cain thus despairs that he cannot bear his “punishment” (crime before God?; Gen. 4:13). In similar manner, Second Isaiah claims that the coming suffering servant shall assume the “iniquities” (penalties?; Isa. 53:11) of those whom he will make righteous.

The final term of significance is pšʾ. Most often translated “transgression,” it indicates a willful crime of an individual against another, a nation against other nations, or a sinner against God (Gen. 31:36; Amos 1:3; Ezek. 21:24[MT 29], respectively). The implication of “rebellion” is associated with the word, especially rebellion against the terms of a covenant. As with ʿwn, the term encompasses the notion of crime and consequence. Daniel laments that the people of Israel have brought “calamity” (sin’s penalty; Dan. 9:12-13) upon themselves. Likewise, Micah asks whether the sacrifice of a firstborn child will atone “for transgression” (as penance?; Mic. 6:7). As might be expected, the focus upon sin as broken covenant lends itself aptly to the teachings of Israel’s prophets.

The concept of rebellion, or revolt, against God’s commandments appears early in the biblical narrative. After the creation of the world and the formation of Adam and Eve, Gen. 3:1-7 offers a scenario in which humanity is presented with its first common dilemma — the choice between obedience to divine will or pursuit of human desire. The occasion seems to cover both conscious decision (Eve) and unwitting participation (Adam). No specific word for sin appears here, but the seeds of separation between God and humanity are clearly sown. Curiously, this revolt against God finds no further mention in the OT, yet its implications continue to dominate both the actions of history’s earliest participants (Gen. 1–11) and the progression of Israel’s own response to God. Later Christian interpreters of the text, from Paul to Augustine, make specific, extended usage of this episode of the “fall” of Adam.

Gen. 3 reflects a common ancient notion that sin is both basic to the human experience and universal in its scope (cf. Prov. 20:9). A recognition of the reality of sin in the life of Israel brought into existence the need for repentance and atonement. As with competing Near Eastern civilizations, Israel soon adopted a sacrificial system designed to restore broken relationships between God and the chosen people. A priestly system emerged in the name of Moses and under the aegis of Aaron’s sons for this very purpose. Despite the several covenants which Israel made with God throughout this journey (Exod. 24; Josh. 24; Deut. 27), the temptation to sin remained. Thus, the priestly order and cultus provided opportunity for restoration through votive offerings, expiation sacrifices, blood rites, incense offerings, and other rituals of appeasement to a God who had been wronged. The priestly system of atonement recognized the sin of both the individual and the corporate community, and sought to satisfy the requirements which God demanded in order to restore the severed covenant.

While sin most often relates to humanity’s own actions in response to the will of God, it likewise seems to have a life of its own. God tells Cain that if he should not do well, then sin “lurks at the door, having desire for him” (Gen. 4:7). The temptation to link the essence of sin with the reality of an independent source of evil (e.g., the serpent in Paradise or the Satan of intertestamental literature) was always available for ancient Israel’s theologians. Curiously, however, the biblical authors rarely speculated upon this connection within the literature. Instead, as with Israel’s own prophets, sin usually was associated with the pursuit of individual greed or the dependence of Israel upon foreign alliances. Reflecting on Ps. 1, , the prophets called both the people and the rulers of Israel and Judah to a recognition of their sin (Isa. 1:2-20; Jer. 3:1-5; 5:1-31; Hos. 4:1-19; Amos 5:10-13), to a return to justice and repentance, trust and righteousness. According to the Deuteronomist, only after the sinner has repented of apostasy (individual or corporate) does God choose to restore covenant agreements and provide salvation.

By the Second Temple period Judaism had become utterly dependent upon the Torah as the standard by which sin was to be measured. To transgress against the Law of Moses was to rebel against God (1 Sam. 2:17). It was a violation of the sacred covenant between God and Israel. Less emphasis was placed upon corporate responsibility during this period. More focus was given to the individual, especially since Judaism had come to recognize that all peoples must ultimately fall prey to sin. The avenues of atonement as defined by the cultic system of the temple (sacrifice and penance) became essential to the restoration of the individual to a right relationship with God.

New Testament

The basic NT term for sin is Gk. hamartía, which bears a wide variety of meanings, including reflections of parallel Hebrew terminology: fall short, error, deficiency, fault, transgression, rebellion, and revolt (cf. LXX).

While Judaism traditionally defined sin as the separation of humanity from God, classical Greek thought recognized guilt under three basic conditions: rebellion against destiny (moíra); violation of the rules of hospitality and honor (timḗ); and breach of cultic obligation. Such conditions brought the retaliation of the gods and, hence, effected acts of divine punishment which continue to plague the human condition. This eventually led to Hellenistic beliefs that human existence is ultimately sinful, since human activities consistently violate the norms of the natural world. The result of ignorance, such violations are inevitable and lead humanity to suffer the consequences of despair and guilt.

Early Christianity’s view of sin reflected the merger of Jewish and Greek traditions. All people ultimately sin, either through their violation of God’s Torah and cultic obligations, or through their rebellion against codes of honor and the divine purpose for their lives. It was the very recognition of this sinful state and the means by which atonement may be achieved that helped early Christians to define the nature of their faith.

The NT suggests that Paul offered Christianity its first systematic understanding of sin within the context of salvation through the resurrection of Christ Jesus. Paul argues, from the perspective of Greek tradition, that all persons have sinned (Rom. 3:23). Based upon the Judaic tradition, he traces the roots of this dilemma to the actions of Adam (Rom. 5:12; cf. Gen. 3:1-7). This interpretation was consistent with the convictions of intertestamental Judaism (Wis. 2:24; 2 Esdr. 3:21, 26). Paul’s own special contribution to this view was that the coming of Christ Jesus, a free gift of God’s grace, stands as the means by which the inevitability of human sinfulness is resolved. While Adam’s first sin led to death, the Christ event has conquered both sin and death.

Paul encouraged his followers to live “blameless and innocent” lives (Phil. 2:15), but many who heard him came to believe that they already fully shared in the glory of Christ. As suggested by the context of 1 Corinthians, forgiveness of sin was interpreted by these persons as support for an antinomian position. Similar conclusions could be drawn from the Gospel of John, which seems to suggest that those who hear the words of Christ may live in a sinless state (John 15:22, 24) and perhaps from 1 John, which indicates that sin cannot reside where love is present (1 John 4:12-17). Certain later interpreters, especially those who followed gnostic interpretations of Scripture, become convinced by such conclusions (Origen Com. John 2.15).

Ultimately, it is the interpretation of sin in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts which came to dominate the mainstream Church. In the Gospel accounts Jesus rarely teaches about the nature of sin and its consequences directly (but cf. Mark 3:28-30 par.). Instead, the reader is quickly made aware that the gospel message was (and is) addressed to sinners on behalf of sinners, always as Jesus undertook his ministry among those whose lives were afflicted by sin. He is portrayed as a friend of sinners (Matt. 11:19), a messenger whose task was to call sinners specifically (Mark 2:17). Luke 5:8 even recalls that Jesus’ most prominent disciple, Simon Peter, identified himself as a sinner.

Luke’s account bears the majority of references and allusions to sin among the Synoptic texts. Luke emphasizes that the followers of Jesus were those whom 1st-century Judaism considered to be sinners: the poor, sick and lame, lepers, tax collectors and prostitutes, and impure. The constant theme in the Lukan vision is that such persons were deemed to be sinners because they had broken cultic obligations or had brought some calamity upon themselves, presumably because of their sin. The concept was widespread (cf. John 9:2). The parable of the Prodigal Son perhaps offers the apex of Jesus’ message about sin: all humanity is prone to sin; yet anyone who seeks forgiveness may freely receive it from God, who is merciful and gracious. The community which Jesus gathered was exactly that, a collection of sinners in quest of forgiveness.

The Matthean vision of sin is much more closely tied with late Jewish concerns for Torah and righteousness. As is illustrated by the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7), the demands of Jesus’ message surpassed the old understanding of Torah requirements. It is not sufficient simply to “keep the laws” of God’s commandments; the truly righteous person must comply with God’s will through an acknowledgement of the divine intention behind such laws. While murder, adultery, and judgment are evils to be avoided, so too are hate, lust, and judging itself! In the vision of Matthew the world follows a distinctly dualistic track, the choice between good and evil (Matt. 7:13-14) and the separation of the good from the bad (25:31-46). As with intertestamental Judaism in general (cf. T. Asher 2) and the Qumran community in specific (1QS 3:12–4:26), Matthew’s Jesus depicts sin as a warring element within the human experience. While the potential for failure is great, there is always a choice to be made between sin and salvation.

The early Christian conception of sin as understood through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is perhaps best viewed through the words of institution at the Last Supper (Matt. 26:26-29 par.). The imagery of ancient Israel is specifically preserved in the Matthean version, where the cup is offered as the “blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Here is a classic reflection of the Jewish understanding of sin as the broken relationship between God and humanity, defined specifically by the words of covenant. In the NT vision, the Cross signified in some sense the establishment of yet a new covenant between God and those who would be forgiven and saved. This view is already evident in Paul’s theology (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23-26), where the Christ event serves to conquer sin in the same way that God is victorious over evil.

The core NT views of sin assume, then, three basic perceptions: (1) The world is by nature inherently sinful. While “original sin” as such is never explicitly stated or defined by the Scriptures, its reality is strongly implied. (2) Sin is humanity’s rebellious attitude toward God’s will. The forms of this rebellion manifest themselves in numerous ways. (3) Salvation derives from the remission of sin as understood through the Christ event. Through the gospel message of Jesus, the reign of God has been declared and sinners are forgiven through the restoration of humanity to God in righteousness. The early Christian message stands as a direct answer to the perception of sin in the world, a message of hope for the hopeless and forgiveness for the condemned.

Bibliography. H. Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (New York, 1969); B. A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord. SJLA 5 (Leiden, 1974); S. Lyonnet and L. Sabourin, Sin, Redemption, and Sacrifice. AnBib 48 (Rome, 1970); P. D. Miller, Jr., Sin and Judgment in the Prophets. SBLMS 27 (Chico, 1982); G. Quell, G. Bertram, G. Stählin, and W. Grundmann, “Hamartáno, hamártēma, hamartía,” TDNT 1:267-316; E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia, 1977).

Clayton N. Jefford

Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

SIN

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000)