Simple, simplicity

The words ti^ ' simple ' in AV are (1) "PS (from n-j to be open), 'openness,' inexperience, descending to ' hei'dlessness.' In Pr 1* tlie abstract use occurs and tlie word is tr ' simplicity,' elsewhere the meaning is personal, and the translation ' simple' or 'simple one.' In Pr 9' the translation is 'foolish' {KV 'simple ones '). ■ It occurs chiefly in Proverbs (see Oeliler, Theol. of Of, ii. 446 ; "Cheyne, Devovt Study of Criticism, 388; Schultz, Old Test. Theol. ii. '283 f.)

(2) nvns, only Pr 9'*, of Folly personified. (3) S.KaKos, 'guileless,' Wis 4'^ Ko 16'". (4) aKipaios, 'sincere,' lit. 'unmixed,' Ko 16" (see Trench, Syn. § Ivi.) Simplicity is the tr. of (1) -ns in Pr. l^^. (2) Dn (of which the plu. is D'pij, the Thummim of Heb. oracles) completeness, uprightness (from CT? to finish), only 2 S 15". (3) dirXimis, ' one- foldedness,' 'singleness,' 'sinceritv,' Wis 1', 1 Mac 2^-", Ko 128, 2 Co 1" 1I». (See Sandav-Headlam on Ro 128 . G. Montefiore in JQM vi. 469).

The Eng. adj. simple' (used also as a subst.) signifies ' one- fold,' 'single' (from Lat. simplex, through Old Fr. viniple). This original meaning is seen, c.y. , in its application to medicines : thus Gosson, School of Abuse (Arber, p. 37), 'Chiron was ... a reader of Phisicke, by opening the natures of many simples. And we still speak of a matter being 'simple' wheij it is not complicated. When applied to persons the meaning is now ' weakrainded,' 'foolish.' But in AV and older Eng.

generally the meaning is never quite so strong as tiiat, and, when it approaches it, always implies moral blame. 1. Itwxptfrienced or unsophisticatt'd, as Gn 25^ Tind. 'Jacob was a simple man and dwelled in the tentes.' This is perhaps all that is expressed by the word in Pr !■* 'To give subtilty (ItVm ' prudene-e ') to tfie simple'; 14(5 'The simple believeth every word ' ; and especially Ro 1U19 ' I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple (AVm 'harmless') concerning evil.' 2.

This inexperience may be ignorance to be instructed, or weal<ness to be defende^l. Thus Ps 197 'The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple'; llu*^ 'The Lord pre- serve! h the simple.' Cf. Hamilton, Ca(cc/iw/j, fol. xv,'Yelhat are simple and unleirnit men and weraen suld expresly beleif al the artikils of your Crede'; Is ^>3^ Cov. 'He shalbe the most symple and despised of all ' ; 60^^ Cov.

' The yongest and leest shal growe in to a tbousande, and the symplest in to a stronge people.' 3. But in Proverbs the tendency is t« regard inexperience as Ae^rf/^(fru'«A'andalmost/o/;y, thus 14lf' The sini]ilc inherit folly' ; and as bl.imeworthy, tliu.') i22 How long, ye yiiiiple ones, will ye love simplicity?' Cf. Itunyan, Holy War, 1'29, ' I heard him say it in Fotiy Yard, at the house of one Mr. Simple, next door to the sign of the SelJ-deceivcr.'

Simplicity has not quite the same range of meaning as 'sin.ple.' 1. Ignorance or wcakncsK, descending to folly, as Pr 1-.^, cf. Adams, Works, i. 29 — 'God, in regard to thy'sim- phcity, brings to naught all their machinations.' 2, GuilelatS' nest, rising to innocence and sincerity, as 2 S isn 'Tliey went in their siiniilicity'; Wis 1( 'Think of the Lord with a good heart, and in simnlicity of heart seek him ' ; 1 .Mac 2^" ; Ro 128 ' He that giveth.

let him do itwith simplicity (i, aTAirrTi, A Vm 'liberally.' HV 'with liberality,' KVni 'with singleness'); 2 Co 1^2 'in simplicitv and go<IIy sincerity ' (ItV [reading with edd. kyiitTTiTi for otTklniTi of TRJ 'in holiness'); 11^ 'the simplicity that is in Christ.' Cf. Elyot, Govcrnour, i. 220, 'Trewely lu every covenaunt, bargayno, or promise, ought to be a siniplicitie, that is to saye, one playne underntandinge or meaning bctwene the parties' ; and Ac '2^ Rheni.

'Tliey tuoke their meate with Joy and siniplicitie of hart.' It is to he obsen-eti that 'sini])li- ciiy' in its modem sense does not occur in AV or UV : to take 2 Oo 11^ la the mod. sense is wholly to misunderstand the passage. J. HASTINGS. SIMPLICITT (iTXAnjt, ' singleness,' LXX tr. of cb as also of i^') is the characteristic attribute of the man who is whole-hearted and single-hearted.

The word drXoSs is applied by Plato to God, ivho is 528 SIN SIN ' perfectly simple and true both in word and deed ' (Rep. ii. 382 E). It is used to describe the man wlio plays only one part and does one thing, in con- trast to liini whose energies are not concentrated but divided over a variety of pursuits {I{ep. iii. o'.)7 IC). Simplicity is a mark of the just man who wishes to be and not to seem good {lii-p. ii.

3(il B), while the man of an op]X)site type who lacks the true virtue of a ' unanimous and harmonious sold ' is finrXoOs, for he is at war with himself, and is virtu- ally two men, not one {lirp. viii. o.j-l D). Its close relationship to aKaxla (guilelessness) is indicated by the fact that in many passages where the LXX has d7rX(5T?)s, Aq. has dKotcia as tr. of tlie same word (I's 7''' 2()i-ii 411^ "S"'-) ; its relationship to ei/9uT7)s (rectitude), by the fact that in J>XX ^V" is tr.

by both words (1 K !H, 1 Ch 21)'"). Simplicity describes the moral and mental altitude of the man who is absolutely at one with himself in motive, aim, and eml, whether in relation to God or Ins felloW-men. This unity and concentration of the inner nature pives fulness of spiritual perception, as our Lord shows by a comparison taken from another sphere of vision. ' If, therefore, thine eye be single (dirXoCj), thy whole body shall be full of light' (Mt (), , Lk \\^).

Such a man is incapable of in- sincerity, or artifice, or malice, or finesse. Hence he is opposed to the two-souled man, who is driven now (Joilwards, now earthwards (Si^^uxos, Ja 1*), to the double-hearted (Ps 12-) and the double-tongtted (5.\47os, 1 Ti .S8; SlyXwairo^, Pr lli». Sir b'')^ In Ills walk he does not try to go upon two ways (Sir 2'-), but goes straight to the goal, with his face set thitherward, neither halting, nor lingering, nor diverging.

In his obedience to Christ there is no reservation, no element of calculation, only un- conditional loyalty (2 Co 11^). In his devotion to (iod there is no bargaining as to the minimum of disobedience which He may permit (2 K oi), in his work for men is no taint of eye-service (Col 3-^, Ki)h ti»). In his giving there is no admixture of any base element (Ro 12). For he gives as God gives, without any afterthought (Ja 1''), for no end .save the good of the receiver.

The simple one is guile- less, and as such, though not free from prejudice, he is open to conviction (Jn 1*'). Himself incapa- ble of being swayed by ignoble motives, he attrib- utes a similar incapability to others, and thus may be easily deceived ; in this way simplicity may so degenerate that it becomes not merely opposed to craftiness, but to prudence (2 S lo'i). In the NT conception prudence is consistent with sinijilicity, and .should be in.

separably associated with it (Mt 10i«, Ho lOi' aKipaioi). In the Test, of the Twelve Patriarchs there is a graphic picture of the man of simplicity. He is not a busybody in his doings, nor malicious and slanderous against his neighbours. He never speaks against any one, nor censures the life of any one, but walks in the yimplicity of his eyes. lie is free from lustful desires ; he is unselfish in his beneficence.

' The simple coveteth not gold, defraudeth not his neigh- bour, longeth not after manifold dainties, de- lighteth not in varied apparel, doth not picture to himself to live a long life, but only waiteth for the will of God, and the spirits of evil have no power against him' (Testament of Issachar, c. 3-4, Sinker's tr.) Literature. — Sulcer, Tfi^nnuruH', Cremor. Bib.-TheoL Lex.\ Troncli, KT Hyuoiiymtt, pp. '.i)»4-209 ; Kliiiir in Jlerzoj.'^^ vol. Iv. 135, 180 ; Lcuiinu iu llerzog^, vol. v.

ihX-i'i^. John Patkick. *• SIN.— I. /.v r//^ Old TKsr.iMK.vT.—Prefa- torij. — The doctrine of sin in the OT nnisl be con- sidered as there given ; that is to .say, the historical method forbids our taking into account NT inter- pretations ol it — such, for instance, as St. Paid's comments in Romans on the sin of Adam and its "Cnpiirlltlit. \:«K. by V consequences.

The same method requires that the chronological order of theOT should be followed, but the attempt to do this precisely would so com- plicate the treatment that it seems best to examine the main divisions of the Heb. Bible as they stand — (1) the Law, (2) the Prophets, (.'J) the Hagio- grapha, leaving open such cjuestions as what amount of the Priestly legislation may be considered to be pre-exilic, and wiiat dates arc to be assigned to Deuteronomy and the Books of Kings.

Sin is a negative conception, and involves a pre- ceding idea to which it is contrary, namely Rights eousness, first attributed to Noah, Gn U'. The righteousness of God is His confornnty to the moral law which is II is nature, and to His cove- nants with num. The righteousness of man is conformity to the same moral law and the same covenants. ' Walking with God ' (Gn 5-') is but an- other phra.se for righteousness.

Sin as the contrary of righteousness is disobedience to God, departing from God, self-assertion again.st God. Thus the fundamental GT conception of sin is not sin against other men, or against a man's self, but sin against God. The GT anticipates what modern Christian tluiught has a-sserted, that the nearest relation of the human soul is its relation to God (Miiller, Chr. Duct, of Sill, tr. vol. i. p. 81). i. The L.vw.

— starting with this hypothesis, let us first see how far it is borne out in the tradi- tions of jji-e-JIosaic religion. (1) There is no occa-sion to enter into the question whether the story of the Fall is to be regarded as both historical and symbolic (Aug. de Civitate Dei, xiii. 21) or merely symbolic (Origen, de Prin. iv. 10).

One point comes out clearly : sin is set before us at its very beginning as disobedience to Divine law, an exercise of human free will in con- scious opposition to that law, a departure from an original state. There is, however, nothing to imply that that state was a perfect one, as scholastic theology described it. The free communications with (iod, (ui which much stress has been laid as evidence of a lofty state, continue after the Fall.

(On the supposed contradiction between the results of anthropological science and the idea of a Fall, see Illingworth's 2?«m/)<o;i Lectures, Lcct. vi.) It must also be observed that the OT does not any- where teach a corruption of human nature derived from Adam, still less an imputation of his gudt. All that it teaches is the universality of sin in Adam's offspring.

But if the descent of all man- kind from Adam is taken as a fact, then the univer- sality of sin may be presumed to have some relation to descent from Adam (see Mozley's Lectures and TheoUxjical Papers, Lect. on ' Original Sin '). And the prevalent feeling that the nation rather than the individual was the subject of sin (see Clemen, Lehre von der Sihide, p. 42 ff.)

would prepare the way for the thought of all mankind being involved iu the guilt and penalty of Adam and Kve, when religious thought came to reflect on the relation to God of mankind generally, and not merely of Israel. This reflexion, however, belongs to a later date (2 Esdras and Roma us), ami the absence of reference to the Fall in OT is remarkable. The three passages usually quoted, J(.)b 31-'^ (see RVm), llos (>' (.see RVm). Is 43-" (see Dillmann. ad !oc.), are not to the point. Cf.

, further, Thackeray, iSt. Paul and Jeicish Thouijht. 31 ff. (2) The interest of tiie Cain narrative is, (n) that man is not left to himself either before or after sin. There are voices of God warning, promising, con- deuniing. And (/<) sin is already personified ; it has gained a positive existence instead of being a mere negation : ' If thou doest not well, sin couch- eth at the door,' Gn 4" ; cf. Sir 27'". (3) The next point is the development and in- crease of sin (Gn C- "•'').

Sin is a parasitic growth 7/«r/A» .StTiffner't Sons SIX SIX 529 which mulliplies in its appropriate soil. It is not luert'ly a number of isolated rebellions, but results in a state of sin both in the individual and in the race. This state of sin takes posses.siou of the thoughts of the heart, and its outward effect is violence (°f7) between man and man. (4) At the Flood the method of God is, so to speak, changed. He recognizes (Gn O'') the pre- dominance of -the evil imagination' (-t? ''?.

■), a term which afterwards plays an imporiant part in .lewisli theology (see Weber, Jihl. Tlieul:- p. 213 ff., and Dillniann, a(/ ?oc.) Sin must be dealt with in other ways, by an election and a covenant. The one righteous man is taken, special relations are established with him, and a covenant given. This covenant is followed by those with Abraham, and with Israel at Sinai. But these covenant-s, while designed for salvation, open out, each of them, new possibilities of sin.

It is no longer a matter of transgression against undefined moral law, but there are definite ordinances. Sin is not merely the breach of the universal relation between creature and Creator, but the breach of covenant, A revolt (■•^■?)- Moreover, with patriarchal re- ligion, the contrast of faith and unbelief comes in in a definite way (Gn 15*). Esau's sin also is plainly unbelief. This is gradually shown to be the root of sin. and every particular sin is regarded as a manifestation of it.

When, with Abraham, we reach the distinction between those within and those without the covenant, the question arises. Is there a recognition of the moral law and a con- sciousness of sin in the Gentile world ? Tlie <iues- tion is answered in the aftirmalive by the case of Abiinehch (Gn 20), and the existence of such a law outside the covenant is implied throughout theOT. e.f/. Am 1. Thus there is nothing in the or claim of uiii^ue revelation to Israel, which is inconsistent with that con.

sciousness of sin which is to be found in Babylonian, Persian, Vedic, and Greek sources, though there it is sin against Istart, Ahuramazda, or Varuna, not against Jehovali. As to what conduct is sin, the range is narrow, and the moral standard within the covenant does not materially differ from that outside it. Deceit, sensuality, and cruelty are not yet distinctly felt as sinful. (;■>) 'Die Miisnir rnminnt. The terminology of ftin now increa.

st'S and becomes definite, and it will therefore be necessary to examine it in detail. The three most important terms occur together in one ver.se, Kx .'U' (cf. I's 32'-), iniquity (I'v), trans- gression (■•p?), sin C¥;q, •''«:;•?, *<^d). (a I Sin. — Tlirce cof;nntu fonnAln Heb., with no distinction of liivantrij,', uxlin-ss ^i^ as miHuitig oiie'n iibu, nni! correspond to a^aprla nnd its cojjnatcs in NT. Tlie etyinoloj,'y does not fil(t(?

est ft person nf^ftinst wlioni tlie sin is eoinmltted, and does not necessarily imply intentional wronc-doinp. Hut tile use <if tlie word Is not Hniited liv its ctvMioiojry. and the sin may bo A^lnst man ((in 4oi, 1 S iio'j or nua'insl t»oil ( lix :12™). Clemen's concession yLfhre run der Silttt/i', pp. 2'i, 'i3), tliftt sin ,ind Inl4|ulty meant failure to coinpiv with national custom ( Vntn-n- »itU).

must be ipiallfied tiy the consideration that national custom was praclicaily relijfion, and was always associated with snpernatitnd sanction, so that sin against It was considered Bin ajfainst (itKl, even where (toil is not mentioned. It Is no doubt true tliat this implicit thoiifrht that sin Is against God, comes ru'Kii more distinctly to the surface In Deulerononiy. Tw<» sul)sidiary uses of .~N':n must be noticed. Like IV,.

U Is used for the punlslimcnt of sin, as well as for sin itself (Zee 14't', Iji 339). The passntre from one sense to the other Is seen in Nu :V.;**. These instances open the <iuestion of the meanint; of TN'jn (and I'i^l In a class of passages In the Psalms, where modern ex- positors lake them to sicnifv not Hin or {fuilt. but ptiDinhvifut. See thoyne on l"s :<1". This doulile sense of l>oth wi.rds Is a witness to the lleb. view of the close connexion of sin and •utferlnc.

which will demand special altenUon In .lob. Secondlv, rKOn Is use<l for tin-nfftring (I,v 4'). This use of the some won! for the offence and the olferlng meets us a(-aln under DC*N (trespass), (Al Iniiiuily (!')), literally ' perversion,' ' distortion ' [but see Driver, Slim. i:|.'i n., who follows Uigarde In dlstinpulsldni; two roots •"liy, nne:>! 'bi-nd. twist,' llie otlier (the root of I''^) = 'err VOL. IV.— 34 (from the way)'].

— It is to be distinguished from (a) as bcinfr a iiuatity of actions rather than an act, and it thus acquires the sense'of 'puilt,' which might well have been adopted l>y liV as the rendering of IV. O'uiH as distinguished IVom ^in tuny bo described as the sinner's position in regai-d to (lod wiiicli results from his sin. Guilt involves punishment, and thus tiie eoiuuita- tion of I'> is enhlrged still further. As :>cliultz says (C/' Thcot. li. p.

30(1), 'in the consciousness of the pious Israelite, sin, guilt, and punishment are ideas so directly connected that the words for them are interchangeable.' See esp. Gn 4'^, Lv 26'. An illustration of this connexion is the phmse 'bear iniquity (less frequently ' bear sin '). first occurring tin 4'^, and fVeque'nt in IC/.eliiel, II and I*.

The idea is that of being involve«l in guilt with the inevitable consequence of ]>unishment (Nu 14^), and the phrase is nearly equivalent to the verb D'J'N ; cf, Lv y-*. It must, however, be noticed that the verb translated ' bear' (N'J'J) some- times has for its subject the person offended against, and Is used In the sense of " taking away ' sin. Kor refT. ,sce Ox/, ilib. Lex. p, (>"t.

In Lv l('r^ the goat for Azazel 'bears iniquities' into a land not inhabited, llere both the senses above men- tioneil are implied : and the same uiay be said of the n]t>ru important passage in Is 5;3'2, where tlie Servant oi the Loud both bears and takes away the sin of many. Thus this phrase lies at the root of the doctrine of the Atonement, tc) Tranttgretmioii i>^P). — The original sense of the noun ia clear from the use of the verb (cf.

1 K l'J'( ' Israel rebelled against the house of David'). It is a breaking away froui law or covenant, and thus it implies a law and lawgiver. It im- plies what r'H'jri does not necessarily imply, namely, the volun- tariness of sin. This distinction comes out clearly iu .Job »4^ • lie addelti rebellion unto his sin.' (</) }\'ic/i'ednfis tV'^'?.)— This is sin become a habit or state. Its adjective >"w'i In phir.

describes sinners as a doss, ' tha wickc<l ' ; and is invariably the correlative of p'ts (' righteous ') j cf. Gn 1S». Besides the foregoing, three other words require brief notice, D'lTN with '^j.'S and >"^. AV does not sufliciently distinguish thom, rendering '''/'O 'trespass,' ' tran.sgression,' and C'C'N or ."IC'J'N trespass,' trespass-offering' ; whereas '?

>in is strictly an act of unfaithfulness or treachery towards God or man, pro- ducing a state of guiltiness designated by O'y'N, requiring an ollering to atone for it, which offering is also expressed by the same word =PS (KV ' guilt-offering '). See Oehler, OT 'fheol. § l.t". ^>'5 is a word of limited range belonging to the priestly termii.ology (see Driver. LOT Vi't [« 1:34]).

while DU'N and its cognates run througli OT, There is In the latter word the sense of a need of compensation, and the guilt-ottering is to bo regarded os a compensatory offering for an injury done (see O-cf. lleb. Lex. p, 711), We now proceed to the Mosaic covenant, not merely as contained in Ex 20-23, but as developed in the whole of Ex., Lv., Xitmbers, keeping in mind the widely different dates to which iliffetcnt portions may belong. The object of this law .

as a whole, if we regard it as providentially developed, ai)pears to be not so much dirctaly to advance morality or to deepen a sense of moral imperfec- tion, as to create a nati(jn within which comiimiiion with the One God might be realized and prosorved, — or, in other words, to f(U'in a hard external .shell, within which a higher religious life might be gradu- ally and .securely evolved. Hence the jiolitical and ceremonial elements were the prominent ones.

And hence sin under the Law meant much more negli^ct, conscious or uncon.sciou.s, of ceremonial regulations than moral transgression, and no dis- tinction was drawn between the two. This was a necessary first stage. Again, God was the King of the new nation. Thus there was no room for non-ri'ligious law. His purview embraced all acts. Therefore there was no ilistinctioii between sin and crime. In the present day there are sins which are not regarded by English law as crimes or torts.

It was not so in Israel. If an act was outside the Law, it was not sin. He who kept the Law w.ts lilamele.ss. Conversely, there are offences against the law of England which the most conscientious would hardly regard .as sin ; but in Lsrael all enact- ments were jiart of the Divine law, and the breach of any of them was sin. This religious character of law was. of cour.se. not peculiar to Israel. It is characteristic of early Brahmanic law (see Maine, Kitrh/ Law ami Custom, c. ii. esp. p.

42 £t.) and of other systems. 530 ~Tl ■,< seems urobable. Deut. U cavlior in dale S""™.!, .a. calk,! aa .<;»»...-« ;™ r.:-,rarSx^tE4Sr9=i /sr., Eng. U. p. 000)., rr S?ii^ *^^!^'<;r z>:^ '^^ri;^ rp """ r ;;? «^i'h n^ted to what »as clean P'H,.) and unclean :r4' T : e coVeen,ed not only food, but persons and tMn.s. ^teslnrespeetor,hese^ve«.^J^a^d^n.aWew,^^^ There are tl"" c-M^a.-t-';^ f^tf:, ftTi^possible to regard be set aside.

Taking tnem as , designedly them as bavins »J'"; "^^^^cTose this character they possess ,,i<!,or«v</ bo foi as theyi ao ^^^^__ ^^^ ^^ it not by virtue "'.,"'7?^,, , J' | ° „ J' Thev grew out of man s origin long before t'"^.!''''^ "' '^^""for t Lis consciousness of sense of the unseen his 'f "■,"';,^t °^ 'jni The proof of this physical and spiritual dangers b setting Imn. 1^^_ ,|eanness lies in the e^i*"-"",,"' e sriS as foi instance in the Vendidad and '■"'il''J"T7A,TArK,i "r .

narmesteter, vol. iv.) Thirdly. (.S,.c,Yd •«"."*"'; 'r„f'';'iundean was not a «/».7«r.v one. the conception of clean »"" "o^. f " ' incidentallv) with modern ,„d had nothing n common (",^''P'^;,^^^;^X''Vertain things. ,„„i„„s of cleanliness. ^,''- "^',,,[,"1,' yAu and death, carried c,i.,.cially -verythmg Conn«^led wUh b'rtn ^^^ ^^^ -^.:^;:srrt3U i^- e -;^f, - doctrine of sin i« as Mlo« . ( J Ah m^^^^ _^_^._^,j, ,,„, the area of sin lUo o- ), )f '];'■", j.

j^ , At the same time ""^ '''■f,'effi1haT\5hos[A,hooteerved them they also it must be aildcd that l"J^"°'- „„( ,i,e opportunities of increased the area of "f?''''^* ."»"«'; '^™i„„ of the hoUness of conscious joyf"! ""'-'lienc^ <p ^^^^ an unclean had a close God, to which ">« .fy»'e™. " ,e"°?"„i"",s. especially by Isaiah, relation, was so """"'"^.'j^ ','°, '"° .'ten or their equivalents that the terois ^"X!f th^ ocabul^^^^^^^^^^^^ came to supply nuicli of the Y"'"""'- j ^ „.

„r,is as xaSapos, l^Jil^rnor tndli^toSTv^i^hJ^ recalling their source in the I.aw ^"irT.iK l>uorilETS.-(a) The Former Prophets.- If the esse, cef .in istleparture froii. U0.I, iben, In wUateve. forui, laolatry must be the wt.rst s.u ^:.c:ur:he lU compute. That .s Its posiuon ihiou-hout the histcncal bo.jks lu -""d es .t is the catise of all Israel'.s s>'fi«'"«';- 1° / ""^^J, ^anmel it Is comparatively ahse t . m c n^ .ttently there is ^^^^^^ ^^^^ repression of '^;''^y^„,.

^ "^/'Continuance and S"- the in o Jer'oboam, and the ...rd -sin' msmwmm rh^ Yet this view was loo concentrated to be ^'^ 1 u t not to the retrospective record in faTd 2 Kinis fhat we look for li,,ht on the progress of the na ional conscience, but to contemporary ^ntWit^es t he so-called Later Prophets, ,e the danger of sin. The next matters for consideration are tbe pun- ;;t^^hn.:nt for almost.all sin is deatl.

Jn U^^ry, at -mv rate, the seventy of the Law is ama^'", u-l I is taken into account is not so much the 1 1 de^rt of tlie individual, as bis guilt i.ivolvmg the Hiir^'-^^^aS=^T;fr Tl V 4-(}') • see Westcott, Ep. to Ileb. p. -!S8 lie n V Y OF ATOSI-.MK.N'T must also be taken into con- c^Z.C«h its main o;'!'^" appears^ to h^ S^^b;cb^wrtt3r'rh4iii:^^^c^ Tf^ec w^s that God was thought of as injured by, en • and the cnilt^oSering had in it, as we havVseen' the no ton of compensation for in u.

y one In Job (T^' 350) we find the hrst explicit conuadl^i^ ohhis tiUght. «^' ";;^-;3 The history of I>»vi<» ^PPJ-^ -^''^::;^nr^lnf/ 'riTe one flagrant and "-e other dithcu I to ^^-^ ^^^i,a are UU-ossi- points which come out ui ''•» ''''' 'l™ ,\.,,H.e ; (2) punishment iility of immediate f, !f;«";f , "^^^^P'.^V 8) the .unish.neut after forgiveness, ^f •''•%»"'.= '"',"; othVrs. Thii, however, of the sinner involves ^""'^"''1;.

, Y,[, °„"e that of the census appears more clearly in tie "1"' "'^i"',',,!,'! the sin is ascribed (i 's •«.) Tlu> point to ^r^^^^^lZ. ,vay as the evil to the causation ot J "'"'?* i J iJ 1' scribed as -from God.' spirit which came "I"" »" "' t^ a^ of the same character. Several other passages, e.g. ■'".fT-J'S'"' ' 1.2.S iT.^ builds the On them Clemen (/.«/.re "'"f/„f"C author ( r«-« ".'«''<■'■) conclusion that (Jod "as regarded as the a tuor i ^^.^^^^„„, of sin. It is more "?",'^f ' 't.^ .."

ct on of Divine control an.l of that r«-'-V'«">',"H'"i' "'t ill Vimes been felt, and not alone human freedom which has at ajlimes net ^ ^_^^^_^ ^__^,^ in Israel. For l'^.': J'^'J Cnd"' a 1 iS« What was in Hebn-w c-iprcssions, see Mr 1.)"-^ anil -'"^ ; ., . , ,.„ produced ■cl gion only a hesitation and V"r^l^^';,,Xi, fatal to ■>>"■■»"'>■ dangerous results became in Islam ? ™^;l'^^. '^^ )„ lo,,,, a„d •The unbelief of the "nbebeier the i.nput> oi i^^.^ bad actions. "•!"«';: J"- (T^" Z ^^ wi?

h His 'satisfaction „ approvB ,.l„.o.. leads the way in bringing moral offences to the front. He carries on one side of I.Iijali _s .V ami the trans-ressions denounced m Am 1. i work, and the tatiste-, |,t„„anity between are offences against jusiiti m"' , „ ' -i^ iio-i"! sxr-TiSi,S£;;2si£, e„ because it is sin "S=""^V;'o 1 lohn AVI a H-sea have the OT counterpart to 1 .John. »> n-n ', rand indeed all the prophets) did, was to enlai^e ^ss obvious contributions and developments.

See also Clemen, Lehre von der bunde, p. 0 1- Another point in the teaching of the prophets as to sin is tlieir preaching of repentance, both national and individual, outside the covenant (cf. Jonah) as well as within it. The development of individualism by Jeremiah and Exekiel is a moment of great importance in the doctrine of sin.

Hitherto the prominent thoutiht has been that of sin affectini; tlie nation through the individual, and entailing; N'uilt on succeeding generations, though it nuist be noticed that the heredity of guilt is not allowed as a ground for private revenge (I)t 24''', 2 K 14'', but cf. 2 S 21''). Ezekiel attaches his teaching to that of Jeremiah, and works it out. His result is well summed up by A. U. I)avid.

son in his note on Kzk 18, 'the individual man is not involved in the sins and fate of his people or his forefailiers.' Hut even Ezekiel did not dissolve entirely the great predominant OT thought of the soli<larity of Israel in respect of sin. There wa-s work for that conception to do in the NT. It made possible the thought of the vicarious atonement of Christ, as representative of the nation and the race (Jn ll'"'- •"'-). For a strong instance of the sense of sin as national, .see Is (!4.

The feeling has been well exiiresscd by Montefiore : ' At his worst the individual felt he belonged to the people of God, and shared their righteou.sne.ss ; and at his best he still felt the depressing burden of Lsrael's national sins' {Ilihbert Lert. p. 512). The whole (piesllon was deeply affected by the obscurity and comparative unimportance of the Heb. ex- pectation of a future life. When that dawned clearly, the importance of the individual dawned with it. iii. TliK IlAr.ior,R.\pii.\.

— The Psalms belong largely, though not entirely, to the prophetic school of thought, and either anticipate or develop its teaching, according to the view we may take of their respective dates. It is in the Psalms that we first have a deep view of sin from the sinner's side. In the Prophets we have the historian or preacher deriouniing, but in the Psalms the sinner confessing sin, either personal or national. This deep sen.

se of sin arises invariably out of the pres- sure of suffering in some form ; and in some cases, at any rale, is due to the national suffering of the Captivity and Exile. The Psalmist does not re- pent for fear of future punishment, but from the pres.sure of present aflliction. It is true that we find the consciousness of uprightness and sincere purpose .OS well as the consciousness of sin (e.r/. Ps 2H). but this does not contradict the general im- pression.

A special aspect of sin in the Psalms is that of falsehood. The service of J" is thought of as truth, i)ractii'al truth, much in the same way as in the (iospel and Epp. of St. John ; hence sin, its opposite, is untruth, vanity, lies. In the P.salms, as in the Prophets, sin is no longer a matter of strict legalism, of failure to obey. Emotions and affections cunie in largely (as in some degree in Hosea and Dint.;.

The Psalmists love (joil, and look on sin ius breaking this happy relation, hiding His face and shutting up His mercies. All this reaches its highest point in Ps .01, with its pro- found consciousness of sin in the individual and in the race (v.'', cf. Job 14'), hatred of it for its own sake, not merely for its conse(|Uences, and hopeful assurance of forgiveness and renewal. M. llnlzrnikn ([.n/ariiH And MelnlhaVn Zfitticfiri/t/rtr ViiU'fr- pKychulngie. H*l. XV. ISSt) contrnsl.

s the (ioclrltic of r^itl In tho Kig Vc<Ia Willi tlmt of tho IVsalnip in lllo followlriir respt-clt, : (I) Vaninii (tin- k''«l ailflrcsacd) is rccunlt-d ns liimscif tlio rimso "f mnn'i liclnir (li-rolvod Into plnninj;; ('21 rcn-nri'irilnl itlTcnpi'S ftrn n't:nnl«Hl ah on tlii' hahio lovol witli niorAl, wliirii if rerlninlv not III,. a\tD In the P»Alins ; (8| cnllt \» <lr>'Aili'<l not for Itstlf, Imt .toI,'ly for itf. lulnlsliinrnt. In Prnrerhs the a.

spect of sin is, of course, wholly different. It is i)ractical religion which is treated here, and this from an external and an intellectual point of view. Righteousness is wisdom, and sin is folly. The sinner is (1) simple ('•??), (2) ajhul (y^j, see article KOOL), or (3) a scorner (i 7). Two cliarflcloristifs may be specially notice<l. (l> Men are sharply (lividofl into trood tind bail ; Anil though in ehs.

1-9 tlio possibility of change is assumed, there is no relerence to sorrow for sin, or conversiim from bad to j^ood (see Toy, ProcerOs^ Intrmi. p. xiii). This is the .ittitude towar4ls sinners which is developed And hardened in Siracli, as noticed below. ('.'I In Proverbs, and still more distinctly in -Job, it is the moral state of the individual whicli occui)ies intention ; for even if .lob bo tvi>ical of Israel, tho tyjie is worlced out with thorou^'h dramatic ti-uth.

'Tho result is'that we obtain in these books far more detailed ethical rertexions than are found elsewhere in the OT. Althou^'h tho religious consciousness of sin cannot bo said to bo lirominent, yet it docs find expression in a verse which is tho strongest statement in OT of the universality of liunian sinful- ness, namely Pr 'JO" ; and throuRhout Pr l(i-'J4 the approval or disapproval of the Lord often recurs as the standard of action.

The Book of Job presents features of far greater interest, and represents the furthest advance in the doctrine of sin prior to the N'T. Its results may be classed under three heads. (1) The Law being designedly excluded from the drama, the sins which come in question are purely ethical and nowhere ritual. The spread of sin is delinitely acknowledged as universal; it is inherent in human nature (Job i^' RVm, 14 I.')'-"'), and it includes sins of thought and desire.

This latter point comes out mo.st fully in Job 31, where we get the author's conception of sin, a very wide and penetrating one, not less remarkable for inwardness than the Sermon on the Mount. (2) The close relation between sin and suffering, believed in by Israel in early times, and implied by the double sense of .-Ncn find iV'v (see above), is in this book .shown to be at any rate not a necessary one. Sin does not always bring suffering, and suffering does not always imply sin.

But this result is something very different from denying altogether such a re- lation between the two, a denial which would at a blow cut aw.ay the ground from under the religious life of Proi)liets and Psalmists. {:',) The character of sill as affecting God comes in for treatment inci- dentally. Expression is given to two false gues.ses : (a) that (iod watches man's transgressions with somelhing apin-oaching satisfaction. Job 14'''- '' ; (h) that human sin cannot affect llim, Job "-' UV ; cf.

Eliliu in 'Mfi. Of these (a) is merely one of the rash words which fall from the sufferer, but (';), as continued by Elihu. shows Jewish thought .strongly, perhaps dangerously, in reaction against its earlier anthropop:itliic conceptions. EfcU'siHsti's contributes little except the final de- cisive conviction of the univei-sality of sinfulness, ' Surely there is not a righteous man upon earth that doeth good and sinueth not' (Ec 7-"). II. IN Tin: At'ocnrrilA. — Siradi.

— As in Pro- verbs, so in Sirach the righteous and the wicked under various names form two great classes over against one another (331-"'), and it is to the former chiss only that the writer a<ldresscs himself. Fools are incapable of amendment. Turning fioni sin (8'^) is only the repentance of the righteous; and, with the exception of 17-^'-, the attitude of Sirach prefigures that attitude towards sinners which it was the great work of Jesus to challenge and set aside by His examiile (Lk lo-).

Yet Sirach denies to sinners the excuse that they cannot liel]) them- selves. It is not God who causes man to sin (.see above, I. ii.) The author's a.ssertion of human freedom and responsiliility is striking and powi^rful, if somewhat too broad (Sir l.'i" •-'"). It is not in any degree limited by the statement of 2.'>-< that K.ve's sin brought deatii upon the race, for the inherilance of death by every man does not necesstirily imply a doctrine of original sin.* The philo.

sophy of • See important art. bv F. K. TennAnt {Journal Tlintt. SliKliea, ii. fp. p. 20"). pti'lillslied since this Art. was wrItliMi. lie sums up thus : ' Tlie Fall (According to SirAch) was the eduM of death, but only tho beginning of sin.' Cf. ThackcrAy, l.o. SiracU accouuU for physical evil in creation as a necessary complement to moral evil '" "»»' ,f "^ designed for its punishment ; see Sir 39-»-^' 4U' . Wisdom of Solomon.

— In tliis book, iiutwitli- standin" the totally different atmosphere produced \)V (1) a hope full of immorlality (o'). ^"'^ (-) V'.*^ practical identilioation of Wisdom with the Spirit of God (91"), tlie ground tliouglit is the same as that of Sirach, namely, that sin is ignorance, and that it is the intellectual side of man tliat must by •discipline' be fortified against it.

The character of the book is therefore, at first sight, ni tlie strongest contrast with the words ot Clirist, I lliaiik thee, O Fatlier. Lord of heaven and earth, tliat thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes' (Mt U-^). Yet if the above-mentioned identification of Wisdom with the Holy Spirit be pressed a little further, tlie contradiction di.s- appears (cf.

1 Co -i'^O- It «''""1'1 ^^ ^''^"'^ ""1 Wis law-, which appears to make for a doctrine ot inborn sin, applies only to the Canaanites. and not to mankind at large. The idea of the derivation of a universal taint from Adam's transgression is altogether wanting. Pni'/er of Mnnasges.—We here encounter the first unquaiified presentation of the later Judaic belief in the complete sinlessness of the patriarchs C Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which have not sinned aoainst thee,' 4).

This attribute was extended afterwards to many other t)T personages (see Weber, Jiid. Tlwoi:^ pp. 32 and r,4 fi.) Lk 15' does not necessarily admit the existence of absolute human sinlessness, and must be interpreted, nrf liomim'm, as addressed to Pharisees and scribes /see 15-) in a spirit not far removed from irony. St Paul exi5resslv dissociates himself from the above tendency (Ro 3-=^), but Rev 14i-' seems to show traces of it. ,..»•,. " E'idrax (chs. 3-14).

— This book ought in strict- ness to be dealt with separately, as being post- Christian (prob. A.u. 81-UO). Its close relation (along with Apoc. Baruch, see BAi:t-ciI [Al-ciA- 1 YPSK OFl) to the line of thought in the Kp. to Romans has been fully brought out in Sanday- lleadlam, Eomans ; see esp. p. loi • " e learn trom 2 Esdras that at the time at which it was written there was in Judaism a doctrine of inborn inherited sin.

It is hard to see how such a doctrine could be expressed more definitely than is the case m 2 Ls4-' 'a grain of evil seed was sown in the he.art of Adam from the beginning, and how much wicked- ness hath it brought forth unto this time. In the li^vht of this pa.ssage the less clear utterances of '''Es S'-if' and T** become unambiguous. On the side of human free-will Sanday-Ueadlara (I.e.) quote 2 Es 8^" '.!" and esp. Apoc. 15ar bi^'- i».

They truly remark that both works 'lay stress at once on the inherited tendency to sin, and on the freedom ot choice in those who give way to it (p. l-H). li the biblical doctrine of sin finds its most important expression in Romans, then 2 Esdras, as illustrat- ing Romans, has a special value for the study ot tliT- subject. Cf. Thackeray, I.e. m. I.v TiiE New Te^tamext.— TermiH- oloyij. — ' 1 The i>i«pii".v group. •.\^.pTia nwy mean sin as a habit a stale, a pmver ^so fie.i, in Kou.

ans), an,l also a single act of "in; while i^ap'^^M. Is re.tricte,! to the latter; see Westcott, EPD ,/oAn, .idil. Note on 1 .In 1". , „ „, •i ^apa^aatt. tnn,>.gre«»io,i ; ^api„r^^a. trfspam (more precisely, fall or declinalwn). • These two wonts are cl..sel> Luie.1, referring respectively to the <=""^<^1"<'",'^';?, "" "'" "F;"', anrt to the line tran>presse.l. I!..th presnpposc »he existemo or a law.' (LiKhtfoot. V..^f« o« K/tp. -.V. Punt. r.o.V«), and herein ?hV^difrer fro,n iAapr.a.

While law multiplies transgression, " 3 ' TvoA'"' AV ini,,mt>j. The word had been so coloured by Its LXX use, as a frequent rendering of I^>; and other words meaning sin, that its proper sense, violation of '""•j f " fe certainly recognized only in one passage, 1 Jn i*. In Us strict sense it trulv represents the conception of sin given in the Epji so ia.^e.a is the same attitude towards liod's Person. Itex- nresses the insult and blasphemy involved m sin. t- 1. 1. ■^ 5 i5."

a This word brings forward that side of sin which Is aL-iinst our nei'-hbour and does him a wrong, and as such is ;!:,mmon to hu.mm and to IMvine law (see Westcott, Epp. John f)". note for relation of iSiKio to ojiapTia). „„„i„i !,„ G iAeiAwa.

Though occurring but once, it has a spec mi im- porianJc from being the term for sin chosen by the L"^^ "jn'^^" to t)e used bv us in our dailv prayer for lorgiveness, the Lulvan f rm i^T « (Lii If) being 'probabiy a paraphrase isee Chase, 77 e LorU'H Praytr. p. >! If.), Other words for sin are rather aspects or it, su?h a.s falsehood, darkness, Ignorance, and do not come under terminology i Syxoi'TIC Gospel?.

— Looking back on the of as a whole, we are struck willi the range and completeness of the doctrine of sin which it pre- sents. This accounts for a feature in Christ s teaching as given in the Synoptic Gospels which would otlierwise be surprising, namely, the pa,ucity of teaching about sin. Sin is mentioned almost exclusively in connexion with its forgiveness. Jesus appears as one who forgives sin, and not as insist- in" and enlarging on it, or as convicting ot it.

It is obvious how different would have been the effect of His ministry on the world, if it had been primarily a ministry of conviction of sin. In the 1- ourth Gos- pel He explicitly disclaims such an aim (Jn 12''), thus confirming the impression derived from the Svnoptists. At the same time it is forgiveness not indifference. There is no trace of the lutschlian view that till He came all sin was practically ionorance, and that sinners only needed to lay a'side their sense of guilt.

That ignorance even where it exists, is but a partial and not a sufficient excuse, appears in Lk U*", and the explanation of that passage is that moral ignorance is never tota, and onlv comes near totality by nian'.s own fault. The sharp distinction between sins of ignorance which are forgivable, and sins without ignorance which are not, is untrue to life.

The nian who sins from ignorance has still some spark ot knowledge which is enough to condemn him, and the man who sins against light has still some ignorance, for how can a man in his present limitati.ms realize the .rravitv of the issues which are presented to him here »" For the first point see Lk 2:5« ; the soldiers in their ignorance. neverthele.

<is, need forgiveness ; and for tlie second see the lament over Jerusalem, The Lord's teaching as to sin, so far as He touched it was not so much to correct OT doctrine regard- ing it, as much rather to get rid of a spurious tle- velopment of it, represented by the legalism and casuistrv of the Jewish scribes. The ch.aracter of prophetic invective appears in one class ot discourses o„lv— those addressed to the Pharisees.

We are next led to consider what exceptiinis must be maUe to the general statement above as^ to the absence in the Gospels of denunciations of sin. The) are as follows : — (O Hypocrisy, (2) offences ((T.irSaAal. (3) sin against the^lloly r.l . 't it wilfbe seen that two of these are closely cognate, am I i tl-ree a tach more or less to the same class of persons. T^^z:^' ^^^^:^^^^^^'^^'^^- t';h:w r-Srin OT i;.'" hy ,ocHte''have not that "-jmng^see art IveorBlTFl Yct nltliough no correspon.

ling Heb. word "ccnrs he c!u iition of soul is described it. Is -.." ""d .s quo ted as s ucli bv Christ (Mk 7«). Further. It had already been brought Ts a ciarge against the Saddncees b.v «"- fhansees a.Sp.- ,r<ip.<r«oi being used to denote I'.vpocrites (1 s■^ol J» ). 1 Hi. we^e now to Imve the reproach cast back "l'"" /hemsehes b^ Clirist -Ci) OffenceK. This sin is fairly prominent in 01 , as. lor instance the sin of Hophni and Phinehas, who made the Lord s «jrisdJ4^::^^Sf"h^ Sb.»t^s.

s^ rsis-f ^r e! rr^f cause of stumbling mav be in itself !'"«"r'''> »'"''•,„"," 'of he from Him. AtlutliiT ilistuncu i> that of >iiiioii IVtur. whoso couiisol was iiu 'olli-lioe' to Christ Ilimsi'll' (Mt 1C=1. Or, mmmiikHv, the cuuso of ottonce mav be in itsflf ijiiite an iiinocont act, as 111 Ko 14*, aiul only sinful because of its easily foreseen eonse^iuenues (Ko 14=^). 'I'liis principle explains the ollierwi.fo unnecessary payment of the half-shekel (Mt 1"-').

Yet, further, the act cjiusinj; offence may be not only inntteent, but necessary In itself, io which ease its incidental consequences cannot make It sinful. Christ Himself, His sayings. His cross, are all described in NT as 'offences.' The f;eneral teachiiii:, if we anticipate and incluilo St. Paul's development of the subject, is that we are bound to look forward to the probable conseiinences of our actions, even when those ciuisciiuences are far IVom our inten- tions.

Ko 14 grows naturally outof Mt ls'\ Nothing is gained by c«infi>undlni;, as Clemen docs {Lehre ron t/er iS««(/c, p. airilf.i. the sin of causing otTences with the general topic of the self-pri>p:igalioii of sin, anrl its power to bring men into bondage, on which see below, § ii. 2. — C-i) ^in afjainxt t/ie liulij (ikoiii. This was cxemplilicd in, but is not t*) be limited to, the attribution to evil spirits of the work of the Holy Si-irit in the actions and wonls of Christ.

For a pndmble explanation of the different judgments pronounced by Christ on blasphemy against the Utily Spirit and that against the Son of man, see art. Blasi'Mkmv' T he persistent denial of the inspiration of Jesus by those who in some measure felt the truth of His claims was an unpai-donablc sin. The three passjiges, .Mt I'i^i- ^-, Mk 'i'^- =*, Lk 1-"". are, like most of the Lord's teaching, not a new unrelated utterance, but rather a republication and .

idapta- tlon to the Kingdtim of Ood of the ancient law of blasphemy, Lv '24'". It must he aiided that the unpardonable sin does not consist in the utterance of particular words, but in the condi- tion of soul which Is expressed by them, namely, that persistent resistance to the Holy Ghost which was afterwards emphasized by Stephen (Ac T").

Tiikin;; a general survey, it may be said that there are three points which appear specially in the Synoptists of wliich the last is by far the most iniportiint. (1) An extension of the ari'a of sin by the spiritual inlerpretation of the Mosaic law, and by the new retiiiirements of the Kingdom of God. (2) A limitaticiii of its area by the great principle now clearly formulated, that sin cannot be con- tracted by physical contact with things ceremoniall.

y unclean, but must proceed from within (Mk 7"', Mt 15"). (:!) The Lord's own attitude towards sin in man a.s a revelation of God's attitude to it, namely forgivencs,s. The message which lie brought and which He entnistod to the apostles (I,k "24") was the fnrgivene.ss of sins, and it is this which wi' lind them declaring in Acts and cxpaniling in the Epistles. ii. Till; KiifliTH G isPKL. — The same note is struck by St.

John at the outset : ' Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world ' (Jn 1^). Yet His coming and gracious work opened the pcssibilily of a new sin, that sin of rejection of salvation wliich overshadows so largely the first twelve cliaplci's of the Fourth (iospel, and re- appears under other circumstances in the Ej). to the Hebrews (He 2» -l' V,^ '- 10*). 1.

In short, the principal teaching as to sin in the Fourth Gospel is the capital nature of the sin of un- belief in ilesus as the Christ the Son of (iud. There had heen unhilief in Galilee, and that unbelief had called forth the severe denunciation in Lk 10', '". But the unbelief of Jud;ea was far more marked and genei-al, and the gospel of the .ludiean mini.stry i.-» darkened everywhere by collision with it.

This i» the sin of wliicli the Holy Spirit will specially convict men, 'of sin because they believe not on me.' Could this sin be regarded as a sin of igno- rance'i" It could not, for Christ had come and manifested Himself. 'if I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin : hut now they have no excuse for their sin' (.In l.V, ). We are here clo.se to the sin against the Holy Ghost, wliich has been already treated.

'I'liat is a special and aggravated form of the more general sin of unbelief. It may be added thiit the sin of unbelief in .Tesus a.s the Christ the Son of God holds in the Nl' much the .'ian'.e position which idolatry holds in the ()T. In each ca.se the sin is the worst sin that can be coiniiiitted, because it cuts off the soul from God, and so from the source of its life and peace. It is an evil heart of unbelief falling away from the living God (He 3'-). 2.

The second important point in the Fourth Gospel is its emphasis on sin as boiuUKjc. The direct teaching is brief, contained in six ver.ses iu Jn S""'-, but the development afterwards given it by St. Paul in Ko 0 places it in the front of NT teaching on sin. It is perhaps anticipated in Mt 6^ ' ye cannot serve God and mammon.' 3. There are also les.ser points worthy of notice. The old iiuestion of tln!

connexion of sin and suffer- ing is raised in Jn 9, and its universality is there denied ; while, on the other hand, it is clear that it holds good in some cases, as appears in o''' ' sin no more, lest a worse thing befall thee.' The pas- sage in Lk If) as to the slaughter of the Galila,>ans is not precisely to the poiiit, as what is there taught is the general .guilt of the nation of which only these few had as yet paid the penalty.

Another class of passages bearing on the subject is that dis- tinctive one in which this Gospel gives us, far more fully than the others — the Lord's dealings with individual souls. What is remarkable is His gentleness towards their sins, as, for instance, Jn 4''- 1» and 8". Lastly, we must observe that the principal teach- ing as to sin in the Gospels, taken as a whole, is that which result.s from the revelation of a perfect standard of life as shown in Christ. As Kitschl says (vol. iii. Eng.

tr. p. 329), ' The only way in which the idea of sin can be formed at all is by comparison with the good.' It is true that RitschI presses this too far, and seems to imjily that no competent standard of morality had existed before the preaching of the Kingdom of tiod. ' But to aOirm the absolute standard is not to deny the relative standard. God was in the preparation for the Kingdom of God as in the realization of that Kingdom in Christ' (Garvie, liitscltlian 7'he- oloijii, p. uO.'S).

We must, nevertheless, allow that the coming of Christ and the preaching of the gospel did give a new character to sin. Sin was thus placed in a new relation, that of opposition to the Kingdom of God, and yet, further, it was shown, as in the parable of the I'rodigal, to be not only sin against power and wisdom, but also against goodness ami love. iii. ElMSTl.Ks. — 1. St. James. — Three passages de- serve special consideration. («) The genesis of sin in the individual (Ja I''- '■'•).

It comes from the will consenting to a desire for something not lawful. The desire in itself may be innocent (see art. LfsT), but, in the case supposed, it can only be gratified at tlie expense of transgression of moral law. The will surrenders, and the desire is fulfilled in an act of sin (cf. 4'-). Desire {iiriOviila) here corre- sponds nearly to ' the fie.sh' of St. Paul's theology. To understand the bearing of the passage, see Sir IS'"" , which perhaps .suggestetl il.

There the source of evil lies in the freedom of the will. The fact that tills freedom is God's gift does not make Him the author of evil, for it is freedom, {h) Sin iu relation to law. The Law, rather than Christ, is the central thought of the Epistle, but it is the Law as revealetl and interpreted by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount and in His life. It is a lierfecl law (l-'-) ; a law of freeiloni, j.e.

not enforced from without, hut freely accepted as the aim and desire of the subject of it (1^ 2'-) ; a royal law (2"). There is also the thought of the solidarity of the Law, with its consequences on the doctrine of sin. (Jonscious, wilful transgression of any one jioint is tantamount to transgression of the whole, for, all being God's will, any transgression is defiance of God's will (2'").

This, so far from being a pedantic conc<'])lion, is founded on a truesiiiritual view of tlio relation of man to God. It is applietl to an appa- rently small matter— respect of persons withiu the 534 SIN SIN Church, and pri'ference jiiven to the rich over the poor. It must be added that the passage does not justify >is in inferring the equality of all sins. It is rather a warning against regarding lesser sins as of no consequence, (c) Forgiveness of siu (y''', *). Two points deserve notice.

(1) The uiediiitiou of the Christian connuunity, not of the elders only, in the forgiveiie.ss of sins (fi/xeo-tfe inrep dWr/Xwi', V."') This mediation is elfeeted by mutual confession anil prayer. It may extend even to the case of a Christian who has actually forsaken the truth (v.'-*), and every member of the Church is bidden to consider the blessing which may attend his efforts. The sins covered are certainly those of the sinner who is converted (see Toy on I'r 10'-).

(2) The close connexion in the writer's mind be- tween forgiveness of sin and healing. The i>assage begins simply with the idea of a ciise of sickness (v.H), and goes on to assume that it may perhaps be occasioned by sin (cf. the forgiveness of the paralytic, .Mt 9'^). The removal of the chastise- ment and the forgiveness of the sin which occa- sioned it go together ; cf. Ps 103^, which was interpreted in this sense. 2. Hcliriws.

— The persons addressed had to the full the sense of sin which the OT had prepared and developed, and they had had to part with the ritual which had hitherto cleansed them and brought them nigh. A main purpose of the Epistle is to show them that better provision than the Law could offer is made for these needs in Christ and His priestly sacrifice. Hence the prominent aspect of sin in this Epistle is that of sin as guilt, as the cause of the separation between man .

and God, barring access to Him. The work of Christ is the restoration of communion, and the earlier portion of the Epistle reaches its goal in He 101^ Besides the general teaching as to the removal of guilt, the Epistle deals with a particular form of sin, that of falling away from grace. It is written to men in danger of lapsing into their former Judaism, not merely as individuals, but as a body (.see 6' lO^''').

The sin as to which the Hebrews are warned is not ordinary sin after baptism to which every Christian is liable, but nothing less than apostasy. It should also be observed that He 2'' sets a final seal on the gradually developed conviction that much of human suffering is not a consequence of sin, but a means to perfection. 3. S't. Piiul. — Lechler (Apiistolic Tim'S, Eng. tr. vol. i. p. 341)) asks what is the kernel, the life- centre of St.

Paul's Christian feeling and doctrine, and replies, 'God's grace in Christ towards the guilt-laden sinner.' It is not merely that St. I'aul as a theologian felt that the most important aspect of the gospel was that of a remedy for sin, but that the gospel Wiis that remedy for himself. He had felt ius few men have felt, his own sinful- ness. In this respect we recognize a contrast be- tween him and other NT writers. If it is in the Epistle to the Homans that we find the full develop- ment of St.

Paul's hamartiology, it is because the (juestion there propounded is, How is man to be righteous before God ? For that purpose man's present sinfulness must first be set forth, and that is done systematically in Ro l-:i-', and incidentally throughout the Epistle. The teaching of St. Paul, esp. in Romans, on the subject will be considered under the following heads : (a) universality of sin ; (ft) heredity of sin ; (c) the seat of sin ; (d) .sin a.s a power ; (<?)

sin and law ; (/) sin and death ; (g) death to sin. (a) Universality of sin. — The Jewish and the Gentile worlds had to be dealt with separately. In the Jewish world there had been preparation, but sin against ceremonial law had been .so exaggerated as to put out of sight sin against moral law. Here St. Paul follows Christ Him.self, and his exposure in Ko 2'""' reminds us of Mt 'S.i and many scattered sayings in the Gospels.

Another point regarding Jewish sinfulness has already been noticed under II. {Pniin'r of Manas.ies). St. Paul rejects the supposed sinlessness of the patriarchs. \Ve next take his condemnation of the Gentile world, which in Romans comes first. This had become necessary now that the gospel of forgiveness was offered to the Gentiles. It was true that they had had their preparation. The notion of sin is clear enough in Habylonian, Egyptian, and Persian religion, but it is mainly ceremonial sin.

In Greek religion there was a truer conception of sin, which reaches its highest representation in vEschylus, the poet of Divine retribution on the sinner. 'The '•Pro- metheus," the "Seven against Thebes," and the " Orestes " contain a natural testimony of the soul to the reality of sin, and the inevitable penalty which it carries in itself (Westcott, Jieligious Thouijlu in the West, p. 94). But to accompany a gospel of forgiveness some clear arraignment was needed.

So, in an epistle addressed to the centre of the Gentile world, this clear arraignment stands in the front. And here the doctrine of the universality of Gentile sin is .set on a true foundation, not on the popular Jewish conception that every Gentile was a sinner sim))ly as not knowing the Mosaic law (cf. Gal 2'^ and Lightfoot, in loc). But, as the sin of the Gentiles did not consist in not having the Mosaic law. so neither did their want of it excuse them.

They had the law of conscience or reason (Ro 2''' "'), and sin again.st this was sin against God. (It) Heredity of sin. — Here we must distinguish two separate ideas, both of which find expression in Romans, namely, (1) participation in guilt ; (2) inheritance of sinful disposition. (1) In the OT (to use Dorner's words. System Chi: Doct., Eng. tr. vol. ii.p.

325) are already found 'the materials for a conception of moral evil as a generic characteristic, and not merely a matter of the in- dividual person.' A family, a tribe, a nation are conscious of a solidarity in respect of guilt and innocence difficult to realize in an age of strongly developed individual responsibility. It is enough to refer to the guilt in the sense of liability to puni.

sh- ment brought about by the sin of Achan, and by David's census ; and to the effect of sin on the land itself (Dt 2i}. So St. Paul, contemplating not merely a family, tribe, or nation, but all mankind, sees them all affected by the sin of Adam — all recon- ciled by the obedience of Christ (Ro 5', -' and cf. Sir 25-). The correspondence between Adam and Christ lias taken hold of his mind, it helps him to set forth the work of salvation which the Lord has accomplished.

It is not that Adam's siu is actually reckoned against us, but that we are because of it involved in punishment.* This effect on mankind of the sin of Adam may be inferred (according to Ro 5") from the death of Adam's descendants who lived before the law was given. In the absence of law they were not liable to puni.shment. To account for their mortality, 'generic' guilt mu.st be assimied.

It is evi<lent that such an argument cannot be pressed abso- lutely, but must be correlated with the statement, as to Gentile responsibility without the Law (Ro 21216) J see Sanday- Headlam on Ro 5". (2) But besides generic participation in Adan\'s guilt we have also to consider the doctrine of the inheritance from Adam of a sinful nature. In OT the transmission of a sinful nature from [larent to child is clearly admitted (Ps 51», Job 14'), but it i.s not traced back to Adam.

It is a question whether St. Paul so traces it, for neither Ro 5'- n<ir 5" is decisive on the point. Taking the section (Ro 5'-'-') • See TuUueh, Chrhtian Doctrine o/Sitt, p. 193. as a whole, it is difficult to (liseiilaiijile with ciTtainty the idtas of a tiansmitttti sinful disposilicui, or of an actual sinfulness of all men, from the idea of the generic i;uill of mankind (described above) with which they are closely interwoven.

The latter is certainly tiie lea<lini; thoujjh not the only thought (cf. v.'- iip If TToi-Tfs T^ixapTov) of tlic passagB, which is occupied much more with the reign of death than with the reign of sin. The view taken of the sin of Adam is not so much that thereby human nature w;us infected in itself, but rather that there- by sin, an alien power, got a footing in the world, and, involving all men in actual sin, brought death upon all.

This is verj' far short of tlie Augusliniau doctrine of Original Sin, which appears to be a development of 2 Ks 3-' 4'» rather than of anything to be found in XT. The language of St. I'aul ('sin came into the world,' Ho o'-) leaves room for the comnmnication of a sinful tendency, not only by heredity in the strict sense of the word, but also by all that interpenetration of the individuals by the race which makes it inipo.ssible to regard them a.

s isolated atoms dependent only on birth for their characteristics.* ((•) Tlie feat iifsiii. — Strictly .speaking, this is in the will ; but in a wider sense its seat is in that which moves the will, namely, in 'the flesh.' 'The flesh' in St. Paul denotes not merely senisual desires and appetites, but ' man's entire life .so far as it is not determined by the Spirit of God.' It may thus denote ahso man's rational nature. The fleshly mind is ' the (lod-resi.

stiug disposition in virtue of which man in self-sufficiency and pride opposes himself to God, and withdraws himself from the spirit of Divine life and love.'t In .short, ' the flesh " is man in his .sclfi.sline.ss. But neitlier the flesh in the material .sense, nor human nature on the whole, are in themselves evil ; for the body may be brought into subjection (1 Co 9-'), may become a temple of the Holy Ghost (1 Co 0'»), and its members may be 'servants to righteousness unto sanctitication.'

(il) Sin (IS a pawer. — St. Paul regards sin not as an i.solated act, nor as an accumulation of acts, but as a power which has gained a lodgment in man (Ro 7'"), enslaving and paralyzing his will. 'The flesh' is oidy the material medium in which it works. Cf. above, Pri'/nldrij (2), and .In 8^', and see csp. Sanday-IIeadlam on Ko S"^', ', p. 145. (e) Sin and law. — Here we have something new, new as the re.sult of conscious reflexion, yet the result of what h;is gone before. St.

Paul looks back on the hist(jry of the nation, and of his ownspiritual experience, and .sees (Ko H') rd aSiimToti To5 y6iiov (the inability of the Law) for the restraint of sill. The result of law, by itself, must always be sin rather than righteousness. It provoked and revealed sin. ' The strength of sin is the law' (1 Co \-,'>'). (/) Sin and death. — St. Paul, as stated above ('/), regarded physical death as the con.sequence of the Fall, and argues from this premiss in Ko 5'^-'.

Hut it is probable that he (like the author of Wisdom) did not .separate strictly the conception.s of physical an<l moral ileaih. lie u.ses the words 'death' an<l 'life' with a breadth which makes it difficult to say in any particidar civsi' which kind of death he is attributing to sin as its effect, <\(j. Ko «-' il. To him physicid death is but tlie symbol of its far more lerril)le moral counterpart, final separation from God, and the extinction of the life of the Spirit; cf. Ja l'^. See Bey.

schl.ig, NT Thiol., Kng. tr. vol. ii. p. fi.'jff. ((/' Dfath to nin. — The wide use of the idea of ' death,' illustrated above, enabled it to be applied • Cr. nornnr, Si/nlfin Chr. Dnclr., ICnj. tr, viil. Ill, ji. Mi IT, + Di.rn.T. <iiiHlrw Vh r. Pnclr., Etik. tr. vol. II, p. S19. The whole po.ssatfr un (Tapf !th(iiil4 bi" rofprred to. 8co olso ftrt. Flksii. to any absolute final separation of objects hitherto closely related. Hence the entry into union with Christ is death to sin (Ro 0'-").

All that St, Paul has to say on the sinfulness of tin; flesh, on sin a.s an inmate of the soul, on sin as a riding power, relates to the state before justification. The Christian is, as such, dead to sin. St. Paul con- templates the Church (as in Eph. passim) and the Christian in their ideal state. But he is no dreamer ; he knows how incompletely the ideal is realized. His delineation of il is his mode of ex- pressing the imperative.

His hopefulness as to its realization is not mere opinion, but the experience of a man who himself had felt what he taught, of a teacher who had entered into the heart of the gospel. The doctrine of St. John (see below) con- verges to the same goal, starting from a different ]ioiiit, and expressed in different phra-ses. And it must be remembered that 'death to sin' is not ei|iiivalent to insensibility to temptation ; it is rather deliverance from bondage. 4. St. John (Epistles).

— (a) The great contribu- tion which 1 John makes to the doctrine of sin is a i)aradox. Nowhere is the reality of sin more strongly insisted on as occurring in the Christian life, and nowhere is the sinlessness of tlie Christi.an miu'e distinctly asserted. In 1 .In 1 the sinfulness of Christians is presented in three different aspects (reality, responsibility, fact ; see Westcott, in lor.) Again, it is involved in the very piirpo.se of the Epi.stle (1 Jn 2', and cf. T)]"). But in 1 .

In 3" " and &'* he who is begotten of God and abides in God does not, cannot, sin. St. John is not intention- ally putting the.se opposing statements side by side, but they are called out by different forms of error (TrXtii'T;). While some denied in various ways the reality of sin, others were under the delusion that, for the enlightened, conduct is a matter of indifference. The answer to the first was this : we have sin (1'); and, to the second, whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not (;!'') .

So far as we sin we fall short of our position as children of God abiding in Him. There must be inlirmities need- ing rejieated advocacy and propitiation (2'-), but the choice of the man is against all sin, anil towards complete conformity to the will of God. He still needs to purify himself (3'); but sin is no longer at the centre of the inner life, it has been driven out to the circumference. Further, St. lolin goes on to teach a certain security again.st sin, regarded .

as coming from without. 'The evil one toucheth him not ' (•')'). The Christian abides in Christ and is ' kejit.' The agency of Satan in occasioning human sin is strongly marked in this Epistle (3-'- 5'- W), as it had been also in the Lord's teaching recorded by St. fohn (.In S*). On the whole section cf. above iii. 3 {(/). (b) A second but less important point in 1 John is the sin unto death (o"').

It is inconceivable that this should be some particular kind of sin, the name of whieh is con- cealed. A chissilicatiun of sins as mortal and Venial, though n<it without its grounds and its u.ses, is alien from the spirit of the gosjiel, which teaches us that the guilt of sins is estimated by their conditions rather than by the actual thing done.

The sin unto death is nearly related to, but not the same as, the sin against the Holy Ghost ; again, it is also nearly related to the sin of wilful apostasv. already treated under Ep. to Ilihrevs. But the three must not be identified. Any sin wilfully persisteil in would satisfy the conditions of 1 Jn Ti'", and the 'sin unto death ' is perhaps to be regarded as a genus under which the two sins above mentioned are to be cliusseii. St. lolin docs not forbid intercession for such ,a ca.

se, he only says that such a case is not what he is speaking about, and that he cannot attach a distinct promise to such intercession, (c) Another 536 SIX SINAI, MOUNT characteristic of these Kpistles is the lepreseiita- tioii of sin and righteousness ill the aspect of false- hood and truth (cf. above. Sin in I'xalms). Sin is falsehood. It came in with the primal lie, ' thou shall not die' (cf. Jn S-i'). It rests for its power upon deceit.

But the life of love is the life of truth : it corresponds with the movement of the Divine government, with its purposes of mercy, with the Being and attributes of God (2 Jn !-•). LlTEKATiEE.— or.— Ochlcr, r/ieol. of OT, Eng. tr. vol. i. l>p. ■.'•J'.l-2-45 (very valuablf); Schultz, OT Tlieol.; Clomen, Leitre Ton tier Siintle ; TiiUocU. Ofa'intitai Voclritie o/Sitl ; *.>T com- mentaries, e-sp. DiUmann ou llf.vateiicb, Davidson on Job and Kzekiel, Ctieyue on Psalms. -V7'.— Dorncr.

Si/aleui «f C/ir. JDnrtrine, En-r. tr. vols, ii., iii. (i-xcellent) ; liey.schlas, AT T/ieot., Eng. tr. vol. ii. bk. iv. o. » ; LechltT, Apotytolic Timen, Eng. tr, vol. i. pj). 342, Si;G (verv useful); Weber, ,/«rf. Thi:ot.-i%i6-iA: WeniW, Derf/irist iiin/ die S<'ni<lei/ei J'aiitiiK ; Kitsclil, Juntijication and Jlemiiciliii- thill, V.ng. tr. pp. SiT-'SCfi; Tliacliera.\', SI. Paul and Conlem- porari/ JeicUk Thoitghty ch. ii. ; Commentaries, esp. Sandav- lleaillain, Roman.

\{^i;Q 'Sin' in index); We.stcott,//e^r^?fSve.sp. pp. ul, »-'l. and Kjip. John (esp. pp. 'JT-IO) ; Mayor. St. Jniitet. < )n the .subject as a whole, Muller, ('hristiaii Doctrine o/Sin, is still the only comprehensive worlc known to the writer. It contains much valuable thotiirht, but is unattractive in form and style, and is largely open to ciiticisiu, e.ff. in its recourse to a theory of pre-existctice of souls to account for the origin of inborn sinfulness, bk. iv. ch. 4. E^ R^ BEIiX.\UD.