Basic HTML Version
219
B. THE SCRIPTURAL IDEA OF SIN.
In giving the Scriptural idea of sin it is necessary to call attention to several particulars.
1. SIN IS A SPECIFIC KIND OF EVIL.
At the present time we hear a great deal about evil, and
comparatively little about sin; and this is rather misleading. Not all evil is sin. Sin should not be
confused with physical evil, with that which is injurious or calamitous. It is possible to speak not
only of sin but also of sickness as an evil, but then the word “evil” is used in two totally different
senses. Above the physical lies the ethical sphere, in which the contrast between moral good
and evil applies, and it is only in this sphere that we can speak of sin. And even in this sphere it
is not desirable to substitute the word “evil” for “sin” without any further qualification, for the
latter is more specific than the former. Sin is a moral evil. Most of the names that are used in
Scripture to designate sin point to its moral character. Chatta’th directs attention to it as an
action that misses the mark and consists in a deviation from the right way. ’Avel and ’avon
indicate that it is a want of integrity and rectitude, a departure from the appointed path. Pesha’
refers to it as a revolt or a refusal of subjection to rightful authority, a positive transgression of
the law, and a breaking of the covenant. And resha’ points to it as a wicked and guilty departure
from the law. Furthermore, it is designated as guilt by ’asham, as unfaithfulness and treason, by
ma’al, as vanity, by ’aven, and as perversion or distortion of nature (crookedness) by ’avah. The
corresponding New Testament words, such as hamartia, adikia, parabasis, paraptoma, anomia,
paranomia, and others, point to the same ideas. In view of the use of these words, and of the
way in which the Bible usually speaks of sin, there can be no doubt about its ethical character. It
is not a calamity that came upon man unawares, poisoned his life, and ruined his happiness, but
an evil course which man has deliberately chosen to follow and which carries untold misery
with it. Fundamentally, it is not something passive, such as a weakness, a fault, or an
imperfection, for which we cannot be held responsible, but an active opposition to God, and a
positive transgression of His law, which constitutes guilt. Sin is the result of a free but evil
choice of man. This is the plain teaching of the Word of God, Gen. 3:1-6; Isa. 48:8; Rom. 1:18-
32; I John 3:4. The application of the philosophy of evolution to the study of the Old Testament
led some scholars to the conviction that the ethical idea of sin was not developed until the time
of the prophets, but this view is not borne out by the way in which the earliest books of the
Bible speak of sin.
2. SIN HAS AN ABSOLUTE CHARACTER.
In the ethical sphere the contrast between good and
evil is absolute. There is no neutral condition between the two. While there are undoubtedly
degrees in both, there are no gradations between the good and the evil. The transition from the
one to the other is not of a quantitative, but of a qualitative character. A moral being that is
good does not become evil by simply diminishing his goodness, but only by a radical qualitative