Sin

VIEW:28 DATA:01-04-2020

buT
Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary


God of the moon Babylon
Gods and Goddess Reference


SIN.—The teaching of the Bible with regard to the doctrine of sin may be said to involve a desire, on the part of the leaders of Jewish thought, to give a rational account of the fact, the consciousness, and the results of human error. Whatever be the conclusion arrived at respecting the compilation of the early chapters of Genesis, one thought, at least, clearly emerges: the narratives are saturated through and through with religious conceptions. Omnipotence, sovereignty, condescending active love, and perfect moral harmony, all find their place in the narratives there preserved, as attributes of the Divine character. The sublime conception of human dignity and worth is such that, in spite of all temptation to the contrary belief, it remains to-day as a firmly rooted, universally received verity, that man is made ‘in the image of God’ (Gen_1:27).
I. The Old Testament
1. The early narratives.—It is remarkable that in the story of the Fall the writer (J [Note: Jahwist.] ) attributes the sin to a positive act of conscious disobedience to God, and not only so, but he regards it as an entity standing over against ‘good’ (Gen_2:17), This is more clearly brought out in the same writer’s narrative of the murder of Abel, where sin is represented as ‘couching at the door,’ lying in wait for the overthrow of the sullen homicide (Gen_4:7). The profound psychological truth that the power of sin grows in the character of him who yields to its dictates is also noticed in this story. Falsehood and selfishness and defiance of God are heard in Cain’s answer to the Divine voice. These stories are the beginning of the history of a long process of development which resulted in the Flood. From individual acts of wrong-doing we are brought face to face with the condition, ‘every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually’ (Gen_6:5). Hitherto God is represented as commanding, punishing, pleading with man, and even encouraging him with hopes of future restoration (Gen_3:15). The growth and arrogance of sin in the human race became so pronounced and universal that He is said to have rejected man completely, and in His wrath to have destroyed His creation, which was infected by man’s corruption. He is ‘grieved at his heart,’ and is repentant for having ‘made man on the earth’ (Gen_6:6 f.). The same narrator, in giving the current explanation of the diversity of human language, notes another racial rebellion against God, which was punished by the overthrow of Babel (Gen_11:1-9).
A change in the Divine method of dealing with sinful man is now noticeable. The writers lead gradually up to this, beginning with Noah, whose righteousness (walk with God, cf. Gen_6:9) stands in solitary contrast to the universal decadence. The educative elective principle enters into the relationships of God and man. A covenant is established by which these relationships are defined, and by consequence human consciousness is gradually deepened. As a result, temptation to sin becomes more formidable and many-sided. In Individual cases outside the covenant we see, indeed, evidences of a higher standard of moral obligation than that reached by the Patriarchs (cf. Gen_12:18 f., Gen_20:9 f.). At the same time, the history of Esau furnishes us with proof that already glimmerings of a more profound ethical basis upon which to build human character, than that recognized elsewhere, had begun to obtrude themselves. If in the case of Abraham ‘faith was reckoned for righteousness’ (Rom_4:9), and belief in the fidelity of God’s promises, in the face of the most untoward conditions, constituted the foundation-stone of the patriarch’s noble character, so in Esau’s case it was the lack of this belief, with the consequent inability to appreciate the dignity to which he was born, that lay at the root of his great and pathetic failure. The secret of Joseph’s power to resist temptation lay, not merely in his natural inability to be guilty of a breach of trust towards his master, but still more in his intense realization that to yield would be a ‘great wickedness and sin against God’ (Gen_39:9). Thus, while it is true to say that the dominant conception of sin in the OT is that it is the great disturbing element in the personal relations of God and man, it seems to have been realized very early that the chief scope for its exercise lay in the domain of human intercourse. The force of Abimelech’s complaint against Abraham lay in the fact that the former was guiltless of wronging the latter, whereas he was in serious danger of sinning against God in consequence of the patriarch’s duplicity.
2. The Sinaitic Law.—The next great critical point in the evolution of human consciousness of sin is reached in the promulgation of the Law from Sinai. Here the determinative process of Divine election is seen in its widest and most elaborate working. The central purpose of the Law may be considered as of a twofold character. Not only are the restrictions tabulated in order to the erection of barriers against the commission of sin (‘God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before you, that ye sin not,’ Exo_20:20), but positive enactments regulating the personal communion of God and Israel provide frequently recurring opportunities of loving and joyful service (Exo_23:14 ff.). The law of restitution, as given in Exo_21:1-36; Exo_22:1-31, may be regarded as harsh in some of its enactments, hut it may be easily conceived as an immense stride forward on the road to ‘the royal law. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Jam_2:8). Nor can it be said that restitution and mutual service between God and His people are left out of sight in those chapters of Exodus which are universally recognized as containing the oldest part of the Mosaic Code. These anthropopathic conceptions of God abound, and are seen in the idea of His jealousy being roused by idolatrous practices (Exo_20:5), in the promises made to Israel that, in return for services to Jehovah, He will save His people in the face of their enemies (Exo_23:25 ff.). Thus it will be easily understood that, as the Levitical and Priestly Codes were gradually elaborated into a somewhat intricate system of legal and ceremonial obligations, the nomenclature of sin in its various aspects came to he accordingly enlarged. For example, in one verse three distinct words occur in connexion with Divine forgiveness (‘forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,’ Exo_34:7), and though there is a certain vagueness in the precise meaning to be attached to each of these words, whether it be guilt or punishment, rebellion or sin-offering, wickedness considered as a condition, or trespass, which is in the writers’ minds, the thoughts underlying each have to do with the relations between God and His people. It must not be forgotten, moreover, that the ceremonial enactments provided a circle of ideas of permanent importance in the Hebrew conception of Jehovah’s character. The law of clean and unclean animals and things paved the way for truer and nobler thoughts of God’s holiness, and of the uncleanness of sin as being its contradiction. The ‘trespass’ of Achan, involving as it did the whole of Israel in his guilt and punishment, did not consist so much in his stealing of the common spoil taken from the enemy, as in his appropriating what was ‘holy,’ or ‘devoted’ unto the service of God (Jos_7:1; Jos_7:11 ff.). The presence of ‘the devoted thing’ with the common property of the army dragged the whole people into a position of guilt, which could be expiated only by the death of the offender. In this way alone could they be restored to Divine favour, and their army receive Divine succour.
3. Deuteronomy and the Historical Books.—In the Deuteronomic summary of the Law, whatever be the date at which it was edited, a loftier ground of obedience is attained. Love, of God and of their fellow-men, is more explicitly dwelt on as the motive power of human life (Deu_6:5; Deu_10:12 etc.), and the heart is again and again referred to as the seat of that love, both passively and actively (Deu_11:18, Deu_6:6, Deu_10:16). The basis upon which it is rested is the fact of God’s love for them and their fathers evidenced in many vicissitudes and in spite of much to hinder its activity (Deu_4:37, Deu_7:7 f., Deu_10:15). Though there are numerous echoes of the older conception that the keeping of God’s commandments is one side of a bargain which conditions men’s happiness and prosperity (Deu_4:24; Deu_4:40, Deu_6:15), yet we observe a lofty range of thought bringing in its train truer ideas of sin and guilt. The sternness of God is insisted on, but as having for its objective the good of His people (Deu_10:13, Deu_6:24). It is a necessary phase of His love, compelling them to recognize that sin against God is destructive of the sinner. The ultimate aim of the Deuteronomist is the leading of men to hate sin as God hates it, and to love mercy and righteousness as and because God loves them (cf. Deu_10:18 f., Lev_19:33 f.), by establishing the closest relationship and communion between Him and His people (cf. Deu_14:1 f., Deu_7:6, Deu_26:18 f., Deu_27:9, Deu_28:9 etc.).
One sin is specially insisted on by the Deuteronomist, namely, the sin of idolatry. No doubt this is largely due to the experience of the nation under the judges, and during the history of Israel subsequent to the great schism. The national disasters which recur so frequently during the former of these periods are always attributed to this sin; while the return of the people, under the guidance of a great representative hero, is always marked by the blessings of peace and prosperity. So in the story of the Northern Kingdom the constant refrain meets us in each succeeding reign: ‘He cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, wherewith he made Israel to sin’ (2Ki_3:3; 2Ki_10:29; 2Ki_13:2 etc.). During the vigorous and successful reign of Ahab and Jezebel, the seeds of national decay were sown, and the historian neglects not to point out the source to which the later mournful decline may be traced (1Ki_16:31). On the other hand, there is little reference to this sin during the reigns of Saul and David, and, in spite of the weaknesses of character displayed by the former, the historian pictures for us a great advance in national vigour and growth under these kings and their successors in the Southern Kingdom. The great rebellion against the Davidic dynasty is itself attributed to the declension of Solomon in his old age from the pure Jehovah-worship so zealously and consistently advocated by his father. We must remember also that, side by side with the introduction of foreign religious ideas, vice peculiar to Oriental despotism invaded the royal court and the nation of Israel. We are not, however, altogether limited to what is here inferentially taught as to national sin, with its consequent national punishment. David himself is represented as guilty of a sin which marred his character as an individual, and of an act of indiscretion which seems to have been regarded as a breach of that trust held by him as God’s vicegerent on earth. Both these cases are of interest for the light which they throw on the doctrine of sin and its consequences. In the case of Bathsheba, which was a purely personal transgression, the prophet Nathan comes not only as the hearer of a message of Divine pardon to the repentant sinner, but also as the stern judge pronouncing sentence of severe and protracted punishment. The death of the newly born child and the subsequent distractions arising out of the affair of Absalom are looked on as expressions of God’s wrath and of retributive justice (see 2Sa_12:10-18). Whatever the contemporary reasons may have been for regarding his public act as sinful, and even the reckless Joah considered it an act of wanton folly, we find the same features of repentance and forgiveness, and the same inclusion of others in the suffering consequent on its commission. The prophet Gad comes to the king as the revealer of God’s wrath and the messenger of God’s pardon (2Sa_24:1-25). Into this narrative, however, another element is introduced, telling of the difficulty which was felt, even at this early stage of human history, as to the origin of sin. God is said by the early historian of David’s reign to have been the author of the king’s act, because ‘His anger was kindled against Israel’ (2Sa_24:1). It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that at one stage of Hebrew thought God was looked on as, in some respects at least, the author of evil (cf. Exo_4:21; Exo_7:3; Exo_14:8, Jdg_9:23, 1Sa_16:14; 1Sa_18:10; 1Sa_19:9). Nor ought we to be surprised at this, for the problem is one which was sure to present itself very early to the minds of thoughtful men; while the numerous instances where the commission of a sin seemed to have been made subservient by God to the exhibiting of His power and love afforded presumptive prima facie evidence that He Himself willed the act as the minister of His glory (see the history of Joseph with the writer’s comments thereon, Gen_45:5; Gen_50:20, Psa_105:17; cf. Job_1:6-12; Job_2:1-7, Hos_2:1-23). It is interesting to note the advance made in speculative thought with regard to this still unsolved, and perhaps insoluble, problem, between the time of the above-mentioned historian and that of the later Chronicler (1Ch_21:1). Here the name of Satan or ‘Adversary’ is boldly inserted as the author of the sin, a fact which reminds us of the categorical denial of the Son of Sirach, ‘He hath not commanded any man to be ungodly; and he hath not given any man licence to sin’ (Sir_15:20). That the origin of sin continued to be debated and speculated upon down to a very late period is evidenced by the vehement warning of St. James against imputing to God the temptation to evil (Jam_1:13), and by the counter assertion that God is the Author of nothing but good (Jam_1:17).
4. The Prophets.—By far the most important stage in the history of the OT doctrine of sin is that which is marked by the teaching of the Prophets. The four practically contemporary prophets of the 8th cent. are Amos, Hosea, Micah, and Isaiah. The first named reveals a wide outlook on the world at large, and a recognition of the prevalence and power of sin in other nations than Israel. Damascus, Philistia, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, and Moab, as well as Judah and Israel, all come under the displeasure of the prophet Amos. Each had been guilty of cruelty and wrong to the people of Jehovah. The characteristic faults of these heathen peoples—lust and tyranny of the strong over the weak—had invaded Israel too. The love of money, with its attendant evils of injustice, and robbery of the poor by the wealthy, is inveighed against by both Amos and Hosea as deserving of the wrath of God (cf. Hos_12:7 f., Amo_4:1; Amo_8:4 ff.). This degeneracy of the people of the Northern Kingdom during the reign of Jeroboam ii. was as much in evidence in the ranks of prophets and priests as among the other ruling classes, and to it, as the cause, is assigned the downfall which so speedily followed (Amo_3:11; Amo_6:1-7; Amo_2:7; Amo_9:1 ff., Hos_4:9; Hos_9:7 f., Hos_5:1, Mic_3:5; Mic_3:11 etc.). Both Isaiah and Micah mourn over the same moral deciension (Isa_5:8; Isa_1:18 f., Mic_2:2 etc.), and it may be said that it is owing to the preaching of these four prophets that the centre of gravity, as it were, of sin is changed, and the principles of universal justice and love, as the fundamental attributes of Jehovah’s character and rule, are established. It was the prophetic function to deepen the consciousness of sin by revealing a God of moral righteousness to a people whose peculiar relationship to Jehovah involved both immense privileges and grave responsibilities (Amo_3:2, Hos_3:5 ff., Mic_3:1 ff. etc.). Terrible, however, as were the denunciations, and emphatic as were the declarations of the prophets against the vices of greed, oppression, and lust, they were no less clear in their call to repentance, and in promises of restoration and pardon (Isa_1:18 f., Mic_7:18, Hos_6:1, Amo_9:11 ff.). The story of Jonah of Gath-hepher is the revelation of a growing feeling that the righteous dominion of Jehovah was not, in the exercise of its moral influence, confined exclusively to Israel. The consciousness of sin and the power of repentance have now their place in the lives of nations outside the Abrahamic covenant.
Hitherto the prophetic teaching was largely confined to national sin and national repentance. It is not till the days of Jeremiah that the importance, in this respect, of the individual begins to manifest itself. The lament of Jeremiah, it is true, frequently expresses itself in terms of national infidelity (Jer_2:5-37; Jer_8:7; Jer_35:14-17; Jer_31:28; Jer_32:32 ff. etc.). At the same time an element of individualistic thought enters largely into his teaching (cf. Jer_17:10, Jer_32:19). On its darker side he notes how universally present sin is seen to be: ‘from the least even unto the greatest,’ ‘from the prophet even unto the priest’ all are infected (Jer_8:10, cf. Jer_8:8). It is impossible to find a man either just or truth-loving (Jer_5:1); and the explanation is not far to seek, for sin is a disease which affects the individual heart, and therefore poisons the whole life of each man (cf. Jer_13:7, Jer_5:23, Jer_7:24 etc.). The nature of the disease he characterizes as desperate in the awful deceit which supervenes (Jer_17:9). A hopeless pessimism seems at times to have pervaded the prophet’s teaching, and such of the people as were aroused by his appeals were smitten by a blank despair (Jer_10:23, Jer_2:25, Jer_18:12, Jer_13:23 etc.). As the prophet grows older, however, and gains a wider knowledge from his own bitter experiences, he discovers a way of escape from the overpowering influences of sin. As the heart is the seat of evil, it is found that the creative act of God can provide a remedy (Jer_31:33, Jer_32:39, Jer_24:7). A new heart straight from the hand of God, beating with new and holy impulses, is the sure, as it is the only, hope for men (Jer_32:40). Every individual, from the least to the greatest, in whom the Divine activity has been at work shall have the felicity of hearing the blessed sentence, ‘I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more’ (Jer_31:34).
Following up and developing this tendency, Ezekiel is express in his declaration of the moral independence of each man. Repudiating, as Jeremiah did, the doctrine that the sin and moral guilt of the fathers are imputed to the children, he elaborates clearly and emphatically the truth, which to us seems axiomatic, that the soul of the father is personally independent of the soul of the son, with the terrible but inevitable corollary,’ the soul that sinneth, it shall die’ (Eze_18:4; Eze_18:20; cf. Eze_18:10-20). The profound truth which lies at the basis of the ancient belief in the close interaction of individual and racial guilt is, of course, valid for all time, and has been sanctified by the historical fact of the Incarnation. The life, work, and death of Christ have their value in the re-establishment of this truth, and in the re-creation, as it were, of the concurrent truth of the solidarity of the whole human race (cf. the expression ‘we are all become as one that is unclean,’ Isa_64:6).
5. Psalms.—We turn now to the Psalms, and there find, as might be expected, the deepest consciousness of personal guilt on the part of the sinner. Of course, it is to be remembered that the Jewish Psalter is the product of different epochs in the national history, ranging probably from the heyday of prophetic religion to the age immediately succeeding the Captivity, if not much later. It may be said, indeed, that this volume of sacred poetry constitutes a kind of antiphonal response to the preaching of the Prophets. Confession of and repentance for sin, both personal and national, constitute the prominent features of the authors’ attitude. A deep love for God breathes through each poem, and a profound hope that at some future date Israel may once again be restored to the favour of Jehovab.
The religious instinct of the compilers displays itself in their choice of those Psalms which form a preface or introduction to each of the five sections or books constituting the entire volume, setting the music, so to speak, of each part. The First Book (Psa_1:1-6; Psa_2:1-12; Psa_3:1-8; Psa_4:1-8; Psa_5:1-12; Psa_6:1-10; Psa_7:1-17; Psa_8:1-9; Psa_9:1-20; Psa_10:1-18; Psa_11:1-7; Psa_12:1-8; Psa_13:1-6; Psa_14:1-7; Psa_15:1-5; Psa_16:1-11; Psa_17:1-15; Psa_18:1-50; Psa_19:1-14; Psa_20:1-9; Psa_21:1-13; Psa_22:1-31; Psa_23:1-6; Psa_24:1-10; Psa_25:1-22; Psa_26:1-12; Psa_27:1-14; Psa_28:1-9; Psa_29:1-11; Psa_30:1-12; Psa_31:1-24; Psa_32:1-11; Psa_33:1-22; Psa_34:1-22; Psa_35:1-28; Psa_36:1-12; Psa_37:1-40; Psa_38:1-22; Psa_39:1-13; Psa_40:1-17; Psa_41:1-13) opens with a Psalm which is simply an expression of the power of sin and of the awful danger to which men are exposed by dallying with it. It is thus well fitted to be the prelude to such outbursts as occurin Psa_6:8 f., Psa_10:1 ff., Psa_17:8 ff., Psa_22:1 ff. etc. The Second Book (Psa_42:1-11; Psa_43:1-5; Psa_44:1-26; Psa_45:1-17; Psa_46:1-11; Psa_47:1-9; Psa_48:1-14; Psa_49:1-20; Psa_50:1-23; Psa_51:1-19; Psa_52:1-9; Psa_53:1-6; Psa_54:1-7; Psa_55:1-23; Psa_56:1-13; Psa_57:1-11; Psa_58:1-11; Psa_59:1-17; Psa_60:1-12; Psa_61:1-8; Psa_62:1-12; Psa_63:1-11; Psa_64:1-10; Psa_65:1-13; Psa_66:1-20; Psa_67:1-7; Psa_68:1-35; Psa_69:1-36; Psa_70:1-5; Psa_71:1-24; Psa_72:1-20) commences with a poem which is the language of a soul desperately longing for full communion with its God, and, in spite of an oppressive fear heightened by the mockery of sinners, triumphing in the hope that the lovingkindness of Jehovah will yet call forth praise and joy. It is in this section that we have teaching of the deepest import touching the consciousness of personal and racial guilt; and at the same time a detestation of sin accompanied by a spiritual longing after inward righteousness hard to be paralleled in the OT. Here, too, hope conquers; forgiveness and restoration are looked forward to with sublime confidence. Perhaps in 50:7–15 we have an echo of the Prophetic denunciation of legalism in its degenerate days (cf. Isa_1:11-15, Jer_7:21 ff., Amo_5:21, Mal_1:10). The Third Book opens with a poem (Psa_73:1-28) in which the holiness of God is opposed to the folly and pride of sinners. The difficulty attaching to the problem of the relation between sin and suffering, so dramatically discussed and worked up in the Book of Job, is here dwelt on. For its answer we are referred to the certain fact that God is the strength and refuge of all those who are pure in heart. In Psa_90:1-17, which opens the Fourth section of the volume, the author puts the eternal and omniscient God over against man, with his iniquities and secret sins, as they call forth His terrible but just wrath (Psa_90:11). The beauty of holiness and the confident trust that God is the ultimate refuge of all who come to Him are again and again dwelt on in the Psalms of this book (cf. Psa_103:11 ff.). In the Fifth division. beginning with Psa_107:1-43, the note of praise is struck, and is kept up almost without intermission to the end. The final exaltation of Zion, corresponding to the lasting overthrow of iniquity (Psa_107:42), is proclaimed with a certainty which can express itself only in songs of loudest praise. With an insight which can only be termed inspiration. we find one of the poets co-ordinating the forgiveness of Jah and the fear of Him as cause and effect (Psa_130:3 f., cf. ‘The Psalms’ in The Cambridge Bible, by Kirkpatrick).
6. Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes.—The confidence thus expressed is all the more remarkable because of the general belief in the universality of sin and of its effects (cf. Psa_14:2 f., Psa_51:5), a belief which was shared by the authors of the Book of Job (Job_14:4; Job_15:14 ff., Job_4:17), Proverbs (Pro_20:9), and Ecclesiastes (Ecc_7:20, cf. 1Ki_8:46). In the Proverbs we have what might be described as an attempt to place the moral life on an intellectual basis. The antithesis of wisdom and folly is that which marks the life of the righteous man and the sinner. Ethical maxims, the compiled results of human experience, follow each other in quick succession, but the book is devoid of the bright, warm hopefulness so characteristic of the Psalms. The sinner is left to his fate, and the wise man is he who, ordering his own life aright, leaves the fool to pursue his folly and deserve his fate.
The author of the Book of Job sets himself to solve the problem of the connexion between sin and human suffering, and though he fails, as he was bound to fail, to clear up the difficulty, he makes it evident that the one cannot always be measured in terms of the other. The conviction of his own innocence—Job’s most treasured personal possession—upholds his belief against the prevalent conception that sin is always punished here and now, and that righteousness is always rewarded in like manner. The end of this dramatic treatise, however, emphasizes the popular creed, though the experience of Job must have shaken its universal validity. The conception of sin is, of course, entirely ethical, but is very wide in its scope. In defending himself against the thinly veiled accusations of his friends, Job reveals his ideas of the range and depth of the ravages of sin in human life and conduct, and gives evidence of remarkable spiritual penetration (e.g. ch. 31, see R. A. Watson’s commentary on this book in The Expositor’s Bible). Mention may, perhaps, be usefully made here of Elihu’s contribution to the discussion, in which he intervenes by a lengthened argument to prove that suffering may he looked on not merely as punishment for sin, but also as a means of discipline, and as designed by God as a warning against sin (cf. chs 33 ff.).
II. Apocryphal Books
Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon.—The intellectualism which is characteristic of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes finds a prominent place in Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon. There are here two sharply defined classes of men (‘two and two, one against another,’ Sir_33:15), a dualistic conception which permeates all creation (cf. Sir_42:24). The sinner is to be dealt with unmercifully (‘help not the sinner,’ Sir_12:4), for no good can come from him who refuses instruction. It is possible, however, for the sinner to return unto the Lord and forsake his sins (Sir_17:25 f.). The only way in which righteousness may be pursued is by the cultivation of wisdom and instruction, and by paying heed to the experiences of daily life (Sir_34:9, Sir_39:1-8, Sir_14:20 ff.). Let reason be the guide of human action and all will be well (Sir_37:16, cf. Sir_32:19). It is possible for the educated man to acquire such a command over his inclinations that he is able of himself to make the great choice between life and death (Sir_15:17), but for the fool there is little hope (Sir_15:7). Looking back on the centuries of human history the writer discovers that sin has brought in its train all the great physical calamities which mark its progress (Sir_39:28 ff.). The relation is, however, external, and is a mark of Divine vengeance and wrath against sinners (cf. Sir_40:9 f.). There is no trace of the profound conception of spiritual sympathy between the different orders of creation, characteristic of the teaching of St. Paul (cf. Rom_8:19-22).
The author of the Book of Wisdom displays the same fundamental thought that wisdom and sin are totally incompatible (Wis_1:4 f.). Ignorance and folly are identified with sin (Wis_2:21 f., Wis_4:15, Wis_5:4 etc.). and not merely the causes of sin. The only way to attain to righteousness is by the careful, unremitting discipline of the reason (cf. Wis_2:1, Wis_17:1, Wis_6:15 f.). Running like a thread of gold through the whole book, however, is the conception of the immortality of righteousness and of those who cultivate wisdom (Wis_1:15, Wis_2:23, Wis_3:4, Wis_6:18 f., Wis_8:16-17 etc). In the beautiful personification of Wisdom (Wis_6:12 to Wis_8:21) we find the writer not only speaking of the Spirit of God as being its Author and Diffuser, but practically identifying them with each other (cf. Wis_9:17, Wis_12:1, cf. 2Es_14:22). The universality of sin does not enter largely into his teaching (cf., however, Wis_3:12; Wis_12:10; Wis_13:1), and at times we feel as if he believed that some were born to be righteous and some to sin, the power of moral choice being really confined to the former (cf. Wis_8:19 ff., Wis_7:15 f.).
III. The New Testament
1. Synoptists.—The practical outcome of the teaching of the OT is seen in the emphasis laid by the first of the Synoptists upon the function which it was the destiny of Jesus to discharge in connexion with sin. The angelic communication to Joseph (Mat_1:21) may, without illegitimate criticism of origins, be considered as one of those illuminating flashes of Divine revelation which obtain their interpretative value in the light of subsequent history. At any rate, this is the feature of Jesus’ work upon which the Apostles laid particular stress, in their earliest as in their latest teaching. It is true that the preparatory work of the Baptist aroused in the breasts of the multitudes who thronged to hear him an active consciousness of sin, together with the necessity for repentance and the possibility of consequent forgiveness (Mar_1:4). The preaching of John was, however, necessarily lacking in one element which makes the life and work of Jesus what it pre-eminently is—a new power introduced into the world, giving unto men the gift of repentance (Act_5:31; cf. Act_11:18), and enabling them ‘to turn away every one from their iniquities’ (cf. Act_3:26). It is significant in this connexion that the recorded teaching of Jesus bears comparatively few traces of direct abstract instruction regarding sin. At the same time, we must not forget the scathing denunciation hurled by Him at the legalistic, and worse, conceptions of sin abounding in the Rabbinical schools of His time (cf. Mat_23:4-28, Mar_7:9 ff.), or the positive, authoritative declarations by which He drew from the ancient laws of Sinai the essential ethical ideas therein enshrined (cf. Mat_5:21-48, where the teaching may be described as an intension rather than an extension of the area of sin). For Him ‘the law and the prophets’ had an abiding significance (Mat_7:12), but their regulative values needed re-adjustment. Sin, against which the Law was a deterrent, and the preaching of the Prophets a persistently solemn protest, has its domain not in the physical but in the spiritual region of man’s life (cf. Luk_11:33-44). It is by poisoning the life at its roots that it destroys the whole upward growth, and it is here that the language of Jesus assumes its most formidable prophetic severity. There are certain classes of sins, however, against which He uttered His most solemn warnings. Their common characteristic is that of wilfulness or deliberateness. Remarkable amongst these is that described as ‘blasphemy against the Holy Ghost’ (cf. Mar_3:29 = Luk_12:10 = Mat_12:31 f.), which St. Mark designates ‘an eternal sin.’ Taking into consideration the circumstances in which the words were spoken, it is clear that Jesus was pointing to a condition of the soul when it loses all power to retrace its steps, when it reaches a place where even God’s forgiveness cannot follow. The sin of unreality was one to which the Pharisees were specially addicted, and to it, therefore, He drew their attention constantly (Mat_23:5-7, Mar_12:38 f., Luk_20:45 f., Luk_11:43; cf. Mat_6:1-16; Mat_5:20).
Every sin is bound to exercise influence, not only on the life and character of those immediately guilty, but also on a circle outside. There is, however, a species having for its special object the dragging down of those who would otherwise be innocent. The terms of the emphatic warning against leading others astray, either by positive interference or by the force of example (cf. Mar_9:42, Mat_18:5, Luk_17:2), remind us of the sad presage by which Jesus foreshadowed the traitor’s end (Mat_26:24). The word used to denote this sin is also employed in speaking of sin in its relation to the guilty individual. The fact that Jesus deals with both aspects at the same time shows how strongly He felt the impossibility of any sin remaining, in its working, a purely personal offence. There is always here in activity a force which may be described as centrifugal, inevitably bringing harm to those within the circle of its movement (cf. Rom_14:7 f.). Nor did Jesus hold Himself to be free from this danger of contamination (‘thou art a stumbling-block unto me,’ Mat_16:23), while He points to the ideal Kingdom of the Son of Man where nothing causing men to stumble shall be allowed a place (Mat_13:41). It is interesting to remember here that St. Paul uses the same word to express the result of the preaching of ‘Christ crucified’ to the Jews (1Co_1:23; cf. Gal_5:11, Rom_9:32 f., 1Pe_2:8). This was, indeed, a contingency foreseen by Jesus Himself, as will be seen in His answer to the messengers of the imprisoned Baptist (Mat_11:6). Doubtless these words were intended to convey a gentle warning to the prisoner against permitting the untoward circumstances of his life to overcome his once firm faith in the Messiahship of One whom he had publicly proclaimed as ‘the Lamb of God’ (Joh_1:29). A direct reference to an OT example of this sin occurs in Rev_2:14, where the conduct of Balaam is held up to reprobation.
In the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, Jesus taught the necessity for the realization of personal guilt on the part of the sinner in order to forgiveness and justification in the sight of God (Luk_18:13). In the same way, it was the lack of this sense by the Pharisees, so far as they were themselves personally concerned, that constituted the great obstacle to their conversion (Joh_9:41).
A prominent feature of Jesus’ teaching has to do not so much with active, deliberate sins as with what may be termed ‘sins of omission.’ It seems as if He wished to inculcate, by repeated emphasis, the truth that the best way to combat temptation with success is to be active in the pursuit of good. The spiritual side of this doctrine He enshrined in the form of a parable, in which He pointed out the danger to the soul arising from neglect to invoke the active agency of the Holy Spirit, even though the ‘unclean spirit’ had been exorcized and banished ‘out of the man’ (see Mat_12:43-45 = Luk_11:24-26). In the discourse descriptive of the General Judgment, Jesus marks the crucial test by which men shall be tried: ‘Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me’ (Mat_25:45). The same thought is conveyed frequently in parabolic form, as for example in the parables of the Ten Virgins (Mat_25:1-13), the Talents (Mat_25:14-30) in which is emphasized the profound lesson, ‘from him that bath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away’ (cf. Mat_13:12), Dives and Lazarus (Luk_16:19-31); while much of the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount is based on the same principle (cf. Mat_5:38-44).
2. St. Paul.—The presentment of the gospel message to the world outside the Jewish nation led St. Paul to review in detail the origin, cause, scope, and result of sin. Starting from his own individual experience, which was that of a sinner profoundly conscious of his position (cf. 1Co_15:9; 1Co_9:27, Rom_7:18 ff., 1Ti_1:15), and conscious also of the remedy inherent in Christ’s gospel (2Co_12:9), he insists on the universality of the presence and power of sin, in order to establish the co-ordinate universality of the presence and power of ‘the manifested righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ’ (Rom_3:21 f.; cf. the expression ‘where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly,’ Rom_5:20). The central feature of St. Paul’s teaching is the activity of God’s grace in forgiving, restoring, and justifying the sinner; and for the purpose of establishing the reasonableness and the necessity (cf. 1Co_9:16) of bringing the gospel before the world, it was needful first to establish the guilt of all for whom it was intended, and to create, so to speak, in men a consciousness of moral failure and helplessness. This he does in the opening chapters of his Epistle to the Romans. Here, although he deals separately with Jews and Gentiles, he maintains the proposition that all alike are sinners (Rom_5:12, cf. Eph_2:3). It is true that the Jew was the recipient of the Law; and as such he occupied the position of the moral teacher of mankind. But instead of proving the means whereby a true ‘knowledge of sin’ (Rom_3:20; cf. Rom_5:13) is gained, it became, through abuse, a hindrance rather than a help to his spiritual advancement (see Rom_2:17 ff.). And just as the Jews stultified the Divinely given Law, by the exaltation of its merely transitory elements at the expense of its essential moral ideals, so the Gentiles defied ‘the law written in their bearts, testified to by their conscience’ (Rom_2:15).
This reduction of all mankind to the same level in the sight of God is further incidentally pressed by the establishment of a definite relationship between the sin of Adam and racial guilt (Rom_5:12; Rom_5:18). What precisely were St. Paul’s opinions as to this connexion it is impossible to discover. It is doubtful whether, in face of the intensely practical work in which he was engaged, he stopped to work out the problem of ‘original sin.’ It is enough for him that ‘sin entered into the world through one man’ and that ‘through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners’ (see Sanday-Headlam, ‘Romans’ 5 in ICC [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] , p. 136 ff.).
Different interpretations have been given of the words translated ‘for that all sinned’ (Rom_5:12), some seeing in them an explicitstatement that the whole human race was involved generically in the sin of Adam (cf. Bengel. ad loc., and Liddon Epistle to the Romans, p. 103). Others affirm that St. Paul is here asserting the freedom of the will, and is stating the plain proposition that all men have sinned as a matter of fact, and of their own choice. The Apostle, however, seems to have left room for a synthesis of these two ideas. It matters not whether he has done so consciously or not. As the result of Adam’s transgression sin obtained an entrance and a sphere of action in the world, and not only so, but a predisposition to sin was inherited, giving it its present power over the human will. At the same time, the simple statement all sinned,’ explanatory as it is of the universality of death, includes the element of choice and freedom. Even those whose consciousness of sin was weakened, if not obliterated, by the absence of positive or objective law, were subjected to death. Here we have the assumption of generic guilt arising directly out of St. Paul’s belief in the relation between sin and physical death, as that of cause and effect (cf. 1Co_15:22). Not only is the connexion here mentioned insisted on, but, passing from physical death to that of which it is but a type, spiritual or moral death, he shows the awful depth to which sin has sent its roots in man’s nature (Rom_6:21 ff., cf. Rom_6:8 ff., Rom_2:7 ff.).
Mention has been made above of the power of choice, where sin is concerned, inherent in human personality. Into the very seat of this power, however, sin has made an entrance, and has found a powerful ally in ‘the flesh’ (Rom_7:18). The will to resist is there, but its activity is paralyzed. Though St. Paul makes ‘the flesh’ or ‘the members’ of the body the seat of sin, he is far from teaching that human nature is essentially evil. The flesh may be crucified with its ‘passions and lusts’ (Gal_5:4; cf. 1Co_9:27, Rom_6:19), and the bodily members instead of being ‘servants to uncleanness’ may become ‘servants to righteousness unto sanctification’ (cf. art. ‘Flesh’ in Hastings’ DCG [Note: CG Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels.] ). An important feature of St. Paul’s doctrine of sin consists in his exposition of the function of law in revealing and arousing the consciousness of sin. A curious expression, ‘the mind of the flesh’ (Rom_8:7), emerges in this connexion, and the impossibility of its being ‘subject to the law of God’ is insisted on. ‘Apart from the law sin is dead,’ but, once the Law came, sin sprang into life, its presence and power were revealed (cf. 1Co_15:56), and by it man was confronted with his own moral weakness.
In spite of his belief in the all-pervading character and strength of sin, St. Paul’s gospel is the reverse of a gospel of despair. If, on the one hand, there is a death which connotes moral corruption and slavery to sin, on the other hand there is a death unto sin which is not only a realization of, but a participation in the death of Christ. The fact of his employing the same word and idea in senses so completely contrasted lends a marvellous force and finality to his teaching on the remedial and restorative effects of Christ’s work (cf. Rom_6:2-14, Eph_2:1-10). A favourite idea, relative to this, is that of crucifixion. The member of Christ as such has crucified his ‘old man’ (Rom_6:6), ‘the flesh with the passions and lusts thereof’ (Gal_5:24; cf. Gal_2:20). This is the ultimate ideal result of the redemptive work of Christ. The experience of St. Paul forbade him to believe that the state of ‘death unto sin’ is fully realized here and now (1Co_9:27, cf. Sir_37:18). His continuous references to the Christian life as one of warfare, in which it behoves the follower of Christ to be armed with weapons offensive and defensive, shows that his conception of the struggle against sin is that of one unceasing age-long conflict, issuing in victory for the individual, as for the race, only when the Kingdom of Christ is established in a peace that is everlasting (Eph_6:11-17, 2Co_10:4 ff; 2Co_6:7, Rom_13:12, 1Ti_1:18; cf. Php_2:25, Phm_1:2 etc.).
3. St. John
(a) In order to understand St. John’s presentation of Jesus’ teaching on sin, it will be useful to see his own individual doctrine as given in his Epistles. Here the mission of Christ is dwelt on as having for its objective the taking away of sins (1Jn_3:4; 1Jn_3:8; cf. Joh_16:11; Joh_1:29), and ‘abiding in him’ is dwelt on as constituting the guarantee of safety against sin (1Jn_3:6; cf. Joh_15:4 ff.), as it also affords power to live the active fruitful life of righteousness. Further, there is a law ‘which expresses the Divine ideal of man’s constitution and growth,’ and whoever violates it, by wilfully putting himself in opposition to this law, is guilty of sin, for ‘sin is lawlessness’ (Joh_3:4). Another aspect of this law has to do with the mutual relationship of Christians who should be bound together by a love which is the reflexion of the eternal love of God for men (1Jn_4:7-21). If the law of love is neglected or broken, even in the matter of intercessory prayer for brethren who have sinned, unrighteousness is present, and ‘all unrighteousness is sin’ (1Jn_5:13-17). From this we see how intensely real was St. John’s belief in the presence and power of sin amongst men. Indeed, one of the tests by which a man’s sincerity may be discovered is his power of realizing this fact. He, moreover, gives as his reason for writing this Epistle, ‘that ye may not sin’ (1Jn_2:1). The need of ‘an Advocate’ who is also ‘the propitiation for our sins’ is insisted on as being the special creation of Christ in Christian consciousness (1Jn_2:1 f.; cf. Joh_14:16). All this brings into clearer relief and greater prominence his doctrine of the sinlessness of the professing follower of Jesus Christ. The Christian as such ‘cannot sin, because he is begotten of God’ (1Jn_3:8; cf. 1Jn_5:18, 3Jn_1:11), and, on the other hand, ‘he that doeth sin is of the devil’ (1Jn_3:8). The Christian abides in Christ (cf. Joh_15:4 ff.), and because he does so he sinneth not (Joh_3:8), whereas the committal of sin is the sure guarantee that he has neither seen nor known Him. The secret of his safety lies in the promise of Jesus that He ‘keeps’ (cf. Joh_17:12) His own so that ‘the evil one toucheth him not’ (1Jn_5:18). The paradox in which St. John thus clothes his doctrine of sin reveals his profound conception of its character. Any sinful act by the Christian interrupts, and mars so far, his fellowship with God. If, however, the act he not the outcome of the man’s habit or character, he cannot be said to do ‘sin’ in the sense of ‘realizing sin in its completeness’ (see Westcott, Epistles of St. John, on 1Jn_3:4). The fruit of Divine fellowship is developed in the Christian’s inner or central life from which sin is banished; and this reminds us somewhat of St. Paul’s view of the crucifixion of the flesh with its ‘passions and lusts.’
A peculiar reference is made by St. John to ‘a sin unto death.’ This might be translated with perhaps a closer adherence to the writer’s thought if the article were omitted. It is not any specific act or acts that he so characterizes. The saying must rather refer to sinful deeds of a character ‘which wholly separates from Christ,’ and thus tends to death (see Westcott, op. cit., on 1Jn_5:16). In so far as it springs from a heart which wilfully and with contumely rejects Christ, in so far may it he identified with the sin against the Holy Ghost (cf. Mar_3:29, Mat_12:3 f., Luk_2:10). The writer’s refusal to insist on intercessory prayer for one thus guilty calls to mind the warnings in the Epistle to the Hebrews against the sin of apostasy or wilful sin after the reception of ‘the knowledge of truth’ (cf. Heb_6:4-6; Heb_10:26). It is probable that St. John has in his mind a class of sins which combines within itself the characteristics of both those mentioned (see art. ‘Sin’ in Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] iv. p. 535b). One feature of 1 John connects this Epistle very closely with the Fourth Gospel, revealing itself in those passages which identify sin with falsehood, and righteousness with truth. It seems as if the writer traced all sin back to the spirit which leads men to deny ‘that Jesus is the Christ’ (1Jn_2:22; 1Jn_4:3). On the other hand, the acceptance of this belief carries with it the assurance of God’s abiding presence, wherein is the sure guarantee of the realization of His purpose in us—‘that we might live through him’ (1Jn_4:9, cf. 1Jn_4:2; 1Jn_5:1).
(b) Fourth Gospel.—It is this last aspect of sin that is the dominant note of the teaching of St. John’s Gospel. Indeed, this writing may he said to be a record of the sad rejection foreshadowed in the general terms, ‘He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not’ (Joh_1:11). This was more particularly true of the Jews of Jerusalem and Judæa, where the story of Jesus’ ministry as told in this Gospel is for the most part laid. It is thus significant that in His last great discourse with His disciples, occurring as it did in Jerusalem, the centre of the activity hostile to His claims, Jesus lays special stress on the sin of unbelief in Him (‘The Holy Ghost will convict the world of sin … because they believe not on me,’ Joh_16:8 f.). The revelation of the Divine life, with its manifold evidences of love and mercy in and by Jesus, took away whatever excuse men might have in the presence of God’s judgment. The real reason for the rejection of Jesus by the Jews lay in their hatred of ‘the Father’ (Joh_15:24, cf. Joh_15:22). Indeed, it is this very revelation, designed by God as the eternal remedy against sin (Joh_1:29), which in its process and achievement affords further possibilities to sin and its consequences (Joh_9:41; cf. Luk_12:47 f.).
Nor must we omit to note that in this Gospel sin is regarded as a species of slavery. The reference to this aspect occurs but once (Joh_8:34), but that it occupied an important place in early Christian teaching is evident from the incidental notices found scattered throughout the NT (cf. Rom_6:16-20, Tit_3:3, 2Pe_2:19, Mat_6:24 = Luk_16:13 etc.).
The popular belief in the connexion between sin and physical suffering is noticed also in the Fourth Gospel, where Jesus is represented as denying its universal applicability (Joh_9:3). At the same time He recognized that in certain cases the belief was justified (Joh_5:14). It was, perhaps, His profound knowledge of a similar but a deeper relationship than this—the relationship of sin to the whole life—that gave to the words and actions of Jesus that exquisite tenderness in His treatment of individual sinners so noticeable in this Gospel (cf. Joh_4:17 f., Joh_8:11; Joh_8:15); a tenderness which He would fain impart to His followers in their dealings with fellow-sinners (cf. Joh_7:24, Mat_7:1 ff., Jam_2:13).
We are thus enabled to see that the view of sin held and taught by Jesus is profounder and graver than any as yet existing, for it is an offence against One who is at the same time a righteous and loving Father and a just and holy God (Luk_15:18; cf. Mat_5:48, Joh_3:16 ff. etc.). The life of Christ is the object-lesson which Christians are invited to imitate in their daily relationships and life (Mat_11:28, Joh_13:15, 1Jn_2:6, Php_2:5; cf. 1Pe_2:21 etc.), and St. John has pointed out to us, in the words of Jesus Himself, the standard to which His followers are asked to aspire, when He defied His bitter life-long enemies to convict Him of sin (Joh_8:46).
4. St. James.—The author of this circular letter views sin in its practical bearings on the daily life of men. Nevertheless, his conception of its character and results is as far-reaching as we have seen it to be in both the Pauline and the Johannine teaching. Its origin he traces to the surrender of the individual’s will to ‘desire’ (Jam_1:14 f.). ‘In itself the desire may be natural and innocent: it is when the man resolves to gratify it against what be feels to be the higher law of duty, that he becomes guilty of sin even before he carries out his resolve in act’ (J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, note on Jam_1:15). The writer combats the idea that God is the author of evil, by insisting on the fact that each man may make a good or a bad use of temptation. As a morally free agent he stands or he falls, and the result of this freedom may be the promised ‘crown of life’ (Jam_1:12) or hopeless ‘death’ (Jam_1:15). We are here reminded of the ‘sin unto death’ (1Jn_5:16) referred to already, for ‘sin when full-grown, when it has become a fixed habit determining the character of the man, brings forth death’ (J. B. Mayor, op. cit. p. 53; cf. R. J. Knowling, Epistle of St. James, ad loc.). This Epistle betrays its Jewish origin in the attitude of the writer to the Law; for him the result of the Incarnation has been the transmuting of the Mosaic Law into ‘the perfect law, the law of liberty’ (Jam_1:25, cf. Jam_2:12), ‘the royal law’ (Jam_2:8). It may be said that he sometimes merely echoes the well-known opinion of contemporary Jewish Rabbins about transgressing the minutest behest of the Law (see the extracts from Rabbinical writings quoted by R. J. Knowling, op. cit., note on Jam_2:10). At the same time it must be admitted that his conception of sin, even when it finds expression in the seemingly trivial case of ‘respect of persons’ (Jam_2:9), ‘is founded on a true spiritual view of the relation of man to God’ (Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] , vol. iv. p. 533b). The law of love is the essential guiding principle of all Christian life, and where this law is transgressed in the social relations of that life, the expression in our Epistle ‘ye commit sin’ (lit. ‘ye work sin,’ Jam_2:9) is not too strong or emphatic.
A further point in connexion with St. James’ teaching occupies the closing passages of his Epistle. In this, as in the whole of his writing, he deals with it from the point of view of the daily life. In his exhortation to mutual confession of sins and intercessory prayer for forgiveness he is incidentally dwelling on the truth that all real Christian life is conditioned by its adherence, both in word and in deed, to the principle of love (cf. Jam_2:15 f.). The same may he said of his advice with regard to the corporate prayer of the Church on behalf of one who is physically sick (Jam_5:14 f.). It is probable that our author held the common Jewish belief that sin and disease were connected as cause and effect, and his conviction that ‘the prayer of faith’ reaches out in its power to the whole man, extending even to the forgiveness of his sins by God, is based on his belief in the solidarity of human life as well as of the law to which it owes its allegiance. As in the case of the member of the community whose bodily and spiritual needs are ministered to by the active intervention of the Church, so he urges each individual member to prayer on behalf of his erring brother. The twofold blessing promised to this act of brotherly love may well be taken as an expression of his conviction that the individual lives of the members of the Christian community are knit so closely together that no single act of sin can be committed without so far bringing death within range of all, and that no act of love can be exercised without so far bringing mercy and forgiveness to all, and thus ‘covering a multitude of sins’ (cf. 1Pe_4:8).
5. Hebrews.—It cannot be said that there is any special doctrine of sin in this Epistle. Its readers were well acquainted with OT conceptions and teaching, and the writer deals mainly with the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old in supplying means whereby there shall be ‘no more conscience of sins’ (Heb_10:2; cf. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Add. Note on Heb_9:9). The central feature of this writing is the stress laid on the discovery by Christianity ‘of a new and living way’ (Heb_10:20) by which we have direct access to God. It is by the removal of guilt in the forgiveness of sins by the sacrifice of Jesus that this way is opened ‘once for all’ (Heb_10:10; cf. Heb_10:19, Heb_9:12 etc.). Special emphasis is therefore laid on the failure of the Mosaic institutions to ‘take away sins’ (Heb_10:11, cf. Heb_9:9), and on the awful character of the danger of harbouring ‘an evil beart of unbelief’ (Heb_3:12).
The temptation to which the ‘Hebrews’ were exposed was that, under stress of persecution, they would reject the final revelation of God in Christ, or revert, under the influence of the Hellenistic Judaizers, to the somewhat eclectic faith of the latter. This wilful sin the writer characterizes as ‘crucifying the Son of God afresh’ (Heb_6:6) and as treading Him under foot (cf. Heb_10:29). In warning them against the dangers to which they would be exposed during the time of suffering and trial now imminent, he points out to them that these trials may become in their own hands the means of their spiritual advancement. Instead of being the sole outcome of sin, suffering is often the chastisement of a loving Father ‘that we may be partakers of his holiness’ (Heb_12:10). The great Example, whose solution of an age-long problem we are asked to study, was Jesus, ‘who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame’ (Heb_12:2), and who though ‘in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin’ (Heb_4:15), was nevertheless made ‘perfect through sufferings’ (Heb_2:10).
See also artt. Atonement, Forgiveness, Guilt, Propitiation, Redemption, etc.
J. R. Willis.
SIN.—‘The stronghold (fortress) of Egypt,’ Eze_30:15-16, must be Pelusium, the Egyp. name of which is not clearly known, or some fortress in its neighbourhood. In the list of governors appointed by Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, while native princes were retained elsewhere, Sin is the only city put in charge of an Assyrian: no doubt he was placed at Pelusium to keep open the gate of Egypt for the Assyrian king.
F. Ll. Griffith.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

Sin. A city of Egypt, mentioned only by Ezekiel. Eze_30:15-16. The name is Hebrew, or at least Semitic, perhaps, signifying clay. It is identified in the Vulgate, with Pelusium, "the clayey or muddy" town. Its antiquity may, perhaps, be inferred from the mention of "the wilderness of Sin" in the journeys of the Israelites. Exo_16:1; Num_33:11.
Ezekiel speaks of Sin as "Sin the strongholds of Egypt." Eze_30:15. This place was held by Egyp, t from that time, until the period of the Romans. Herodotus relates that Sennacherib advanced against Pelusium, and that near Pelusium, Cambyses defeated Psammenitus. In like manner, the decisive battle in which Ochus defeated the last native king, Nectanebes, was fought near this city.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863

the transgression of the law, or want of conformity to the will of God, 1Jn_3:4. Original sin is that whereby our whole nature is corrupted, and rendered contrary to the nature and law of God; or, according to he ninth article of the church of England, “It is that whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is, of his own nature, inclined to evil.” This is sometimes called, “indwelling sin,” Romans 7. The imputation of the sin of Adam to his posterity, is also what divines call, with some latitude of expression, original sin. Actual sin is a direct violation of God's law, and generally applied to those who are capable of committing moral evil; as opposed to idiots or children, who have not the right use of their powers. Sins of omission consist in leaving those things undone which ought to be done. Sins of commission are those which are committed against affirmative precepts, or doing what should not be done. Sins of infirmity are those which arise from ignorance, surprise, &c. Secret sins are those committed in secret, or those of which, through blindness or prejudice, we do not see the evil, Psa_19:7-12. Presumptuous sins are those which are done boldly against light and conviction. The unpardonable sin is, according to some, the ascribing to the devil the miracles which Christ wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost. This sin, or blasphemy, as it should rather be called, many scribes and Pharisees were guilty of, who, beholding our Lord do his miracles, affirmed that he wrought them by Beelzebub, the prince of devils, which was, in effect, calling the Holy Ghost Satan, a most horrible blasphemy; and, as on this ground they rejected Christ, and salvation by him, their sin could certainly have no forgiveness. Mar_3:29-30. No one therefore could be guilty of this blasphemy, except those who were spectators of Christ's miracles. There is, however, another view of this unpardonable offence, which deserves consideration: The sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, says Bishop Tomline, is mentioned in the first three Gospels. It appears that all the three evangelists agree in representing the sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost as a crime which would not be forgiven; but no one of them affirms that those who had ascribed Christ's power of casting out devils to Beelzebub, had been guilty of that sin, and in St. Luke it is not mentioned that any such charge had been made. Our Saviour, according to the account in St. Matthew and St. Mark, endeavoured to convince the Jews of their error; but so far from accusing them of having committed an unpardonable sin in what they had said concerning him, he declares that “whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him;” that is, whatever reproaches men may utter against the Son of man during his ministry, however they may calumniate the authority upon which he acts, it is still possible that hereafter they may repent and believe, and all their sins may be forgiven them; but the reviling of the Holy Ghost is described as an offence of a far more heinous nature: “The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.” “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness.” “Unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.” It is plain that this sin against the Holy Ghost could not be committed while our Saviour was upon earth, since he always speaks of the Holy Ghost as not being to come till after his ascension into heaven. A few days after that great event, the descent of the Holy Ghost enabled the Apostles to work miracles, and communicated to them a variety of other supernatural gifts. If men should ascribe these powers to Beelzebub, or in any respect reject their authority, they would blaspheme the Holy Ghost, from whom they were derived; and that sin would be unpardonable, because this was the completion of the evidence of the divine authority of Christ and his religion; and they who rejected these last means of conviction, could have no other opportunity of being brought to faith in Christ, the only appointed condition of pardon and forgiveness. The greater heinousness of the sin of these men would consist in their rejecting a greater body of testimony; for they are supposed to be acquainted with the resurrection of our Saviour from the dead, with his ascension into heaven, with the miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost, and with the supernatural powers which it communicated; circumstances, all of which were enforced by the Apostles when they preached the Gospel; but none of which could be known to those who refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah during his actual ministry. Though this was a great sin, it was not an unpardonable one, it might be remedied by subsequent belief, by yielding to subsequent testimony. But, on the other hand, they who finally rejected the accumulated and complete evidence of Jesus being the Messiah, as exhibited by the inspired Apostles, precluded themselves from the possibility of conviction, because no farther testimony would be afforded them, and consequently, there being no means of repentance, they would be incapable of forgiveness and redemption. Hence it appears that the sin against the Holy Ghost consisted in finally rejecting the Gospel as preached by the Apostles, who confirmed the truth of the doctrine which they taught “by signs and wonders, and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost,” Heb_2:4. It was unpardonable, because this was the consummation of the proofs afforded to the men of that generation of the divine mission of Christ. This sin was manifestly distinct from all other sins; it indicated an invincible obstinacy of mind, an impious and unalterable determination to refuse the offered mercy of God. It would appear from this, that those only committed or could commit this irremissible offence, who were witnesses of the mighty works wrought by the Holy Spirit in the Apostles after Christ's ascension and the day of pentecost. Our Lord's declaration appears chiefly to respect the Jews.
This view will serve to explain those passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which the hopeless case of Jewish apostates is described. But See BLASPHEMY.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

The Bible refers to sin by a variety of Hebrew and Greek words. This is partly because sin may appear in many forms, from deliberate wrongdoing and moral evil to accidental failure through weakness, laziness or ignorance (Exo_32:30; Pro_28:13; Mat_5:22; Mat_5:28; Rom_1:29-32; Jam_4:17). But the common characteristic of all sin is that it is against God (Psa_51:4; Rom_8:7). It is the breaking of God’s law, that law being the expression of the perfection that God’s absolute holiness demands (Isa_1:2; 1Jn_3:4). It is the ‘missing of the mark’, that ‘mark’ being the perfect standard of the divine will (Deu_9:18; Rom_3:23). It is unbelief, for it rejects the truth God has revealed (Deu_9:23; Psa_78:21-22; Joh_3:18-19; Joh_8:24; Joh_16:9). It is ungodliness, and it makes a person guilty before God (Psa_1:5-6; Rom_1:18; Jam_2:10).
Origin of sin
From the activity of Satan in the Garden of Eden, it is clear that sin was present in the universe before Adam and Eve sinned. But the Bible does not record how evil originated. What it records is how evil entered the human race (see EVIL).
Because human beings were made in the image of God, the highest part of their nature can be satisfied only by God. They cannot be independent of God, just as the image of the moon on the water cannot exist independently of the moon (Gen_1:26-28; see HUMANITY, HUMANKIND). Therefore, when God gave the created world to them, he placed a limit; for complete independence would not be consistent with their status as being in God’s image (Gen_2:15-17).
But the human beings God created went beyond the limit he set, and so they fell into sin. Because of their ability to know God, they were tempted to put themselves in the place of God. They wanted to rule their lives independently of him and be the final judge of what was good and what was evil (Gen_3:1-6). Pride was at the centre of human sin (Rom_1:21-23; 1Jn_2:16; cf. Isa_10:15; Isa_14:13-14; Oba_1:3 a; see PRIDE).
Sin entered human life because people doubted God, then ceased to trust him completely, and finally were drawn away by the desire to be their own master (Jam_1:14; cf. Eze_28:2; Eze_28:6; Joh_16:9). Human sin originated in the human heart; the act of disobedience was the natural outcome (Pro_4:23; Jer_17:9; Mar_7:21-23).
Above all, sin was against God – the rejection of his authority, wisdom and love. It was rebellion against God’s revealed will (Gen_3:17; Rom_1:25; 1Jn_3:4). And the more clearly God’s will was revealed, the more clearly it showed human sinfulness (Rom_3:20; Rom_5:20; cf. Joh_15:22-24).
Results of sin
As a result of their sin, human beings have fallen under the judgment of God. They have come into a state of conflict with the natural world (Gen_3:17-19; Mat_24:39), with their fellow human beings (Gen_3:12-13; 1Jn_3:12), with their inner selves (Gen_3:7; Gen_3:11-13; Rom_7:15; Rom_7:19) and with God (Gen_3:8-10; Gen_3:22-24; Rom_3:10-18). The penalty they have brought upon themselves is death (Gen_2:17; Gen_3:19; Gen_3:22-24; Rom_6:23). This involves not only physical death but also spiritual death. It means separation from God, who is the source of spiritual life (Joh_3:3; Joh_3:7; Rom_6:16; Rom_7:5; Rom_7:13; 1Co_15:56; Eph_2:1-5; see DEATH).
Ever since Adam’s sin, the human story is one of people running from God, loving themselves instead of God, and doing their will instead of God’s (Rom_1:19-23). The more they reject God, the more they confirm their own stubbornness and hardness of heart (Mat_11:20-24; Mat_13:12-13; Rom_1:28-32; Eph_4:18). Sin has placed them in the hopeless position of being separated from God and unable to bring themselves back to God (Isa_59:2; Rom_3:19-20; Gal_3:10). God, however, has not left sinners in this helpless condition, but through the one fully obedient human being, Jesus Christ, has reversed the effects of Adam’s sin (Rom_5:6; Rom_5:8; Rom_5:15; Rom_5:18).
All sinned in Adam (‘Original sin’)
In Rom_5:12-21 the whole human race is viewed as having existed originally in Adam, and therefore as having sinned originally in Adam (Rom_5:12; cf. Act_17:26). Adam is humankind; but because of his sin he is humankind separated from God and under his condemnation.
Because of Adam’s sin (his ‘one act of disobedience’) the penalty of sin, death, passes on to all people; but because of Christ’s death on the cross (his ‘one act of obedience’) the free gift of God, life, is available to all people. Adam, by his sin, brings condemnation; Christ, by his death, brings justification (Rom_5:17-20; Rom_6:23; 1Co_6:9-11). If ‘condemn’ means ‘declare guilty’, ‘justify’ means ‘declare righteous’; and this is what God, in his immeasurable grace, has done for sinners who turn in faith to Jesus Christ (Rom_5:16; Rom_8:33; see JUSTIFICATION).
Just as Adam is the representative head of humankind as sinful and separated from God, so Jesus Christ is the representative head of humankind as declared righteous and brought back to God. All who die, die because of their union with Adam; all who are made alive, are made alive because of their union with Christ (Rom_5:16; 1Co_15:22). Christ bears sin’s penalty, but more than that he brings repentant sinners into a right relationship with a just and holy God (Rom_4:24-25; Rom_5:8; 2Co_5:21; Gal_3:10-13; Php_3:9).
Human nature is corrupt (‘Total depravity’)
In addition to being sinners because of their union with Adam, people are sinners because of what they themselves do. They are born with a sinful nature inherited from Adam, and the fruits of this sinful nature are sinful thoughts and actions (Psa_51:5; Joh_3:6; Eph_4:17-18).
People do not need to be taught to do wrong; they do it naturally, from birth. Sinful words and deeds are only the outward signs of a much deeper evil – a sinful heart, mind and will (Pro_4:23; Jer_17:9; Mar_7:21-23; Gal_5:19-21; Eph_2:3). Every part of a person is affected by this sinful nature. The corruption is total (Gen_6:5; Gen_8:21; Isa_64:6; Rom_3:13-18; Rom_7:18; Rom_7:21; Rom_7:23) and it affects all people (Rom_3:9-12; Rom_3:23; 1Jn_1:8; 1Jn_1:10).
Total depravity means not that the whole of humanity is equally sinful, but that the whole of each person’s nature is affected by sin. All people are sinners, but not all show their sinful condition equally. The strong influences of conscience, will-power, civil laws and social customs may stop people from doing all that their hearts are capable of, and may even cause them to do good (Luk_6:33; Luk_11:13; Rom_2:14-15; Rom_13:3). But in spite of the good that people may do, human nature is still directed by sin. It has a natural tendency to rebel against God’s law (Rom_7:11-13; Rom_8:7-8; Gal_5:17-21; Col_2:23;). (See also FLESH.)
A hopeless position apart from God
Since human nature is in such a sinful condition, people are unable to make themselves into something that is pleasing to God (Isa_64:6; Rom_8:7-8). The disease of sin has affected all that they are (their nature) and all that they do (their deeds). Every person is a sinner by nature and a sinner in practice (Psa_130:3; Rom_3:23; 1Jn_1:8; 1Jn_1:10).
The position of sinners before God is hopeless. Their sin has cut them off from God, and there is no way he can bring themselves back to God (Isa_59:2; Hab_1:13; Col_1:21). They are slaves to sin and cannot free themselves (Joh_8:34; Rom_7:21-23). They are under God’s condemnation, and have no way of saving themselves (Rom_3:19-20). They are the subjects of the wrath of God and cannot avoid it (Rom_1:18). (See also JUDGMENT; PROPITIATION.)
This complete hopelessness may be summarized under the word ‘dead’. People are dead in their sin and unable to make themselves alive. But God in his grace gives them new life, so that they can be spiritually ‘born again’ (Joh_3:3-8; Eph_2:1; see REGENERATION). This is entirely the work of God. It is made possible through the death of Jesus Christ, and is effectual in the lives of all those who in faith turn from their sin to God (Joh_1:13; Joh_1:29; Joh_6:44-45; Act_3:19; Rom_3:24-25; Eph_2:8-9). (See also ATONEMENT; RECONCILIATION; REDEMPTION.)
Having been forgiven their sin and freed from its power, believers then show it to be true by the way they live (Rom_6:1; Rom_6:14; Rom_6:18; Gal_5:1). Because of the continued presence of the old sinful nature (the flesh) they will not be sinless, but neither will they sin habitually (Rom_6:6-13). They can expect victory over sin, and even when they fail they can be assured that genuine confession brings God’s gracious forgiveness (Mat_6:12-15; 1Jn_1:6-10; 1Jn_2:1-2; 1Jn_3:10). (See also CONFESSION; FORGIVENESS; SANCTIFICATION.)
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.

Sin, 1
Sin, a city of Egypt, which is mentioned in Eze_30:15-16, in connection with Thebes and Memphis, and is described as 'the strength of Egypt,' showing it to have been a fortified place. The Sept. makes it to have been Sa?s, but Jerome regards it as Pelusium. This latter identification has been generally adopted, and is scarcely open to dispute. Pelusium was anciently a place of great consequence. It was strongly fortified, being the bulwark of the Egyptian frontier on the eastern side, and was considered the 'key,' or, as the prophet terms it, 'the strength' of Egypt. It was near this place that Pompey met his death, being murdered by order of Ptolemy, whose protection he had claimed. It lay among swamps and morasses on the most easterly estuary of the Nile (which received from it the name of Ostium Pelusiacum), and stood twenty stades from the Mediterranean. The site is now only approachable by boats during a high Nile, or by land when the summer sun has dried the mud left by the inundation: the remains consist merely of mounds and a few fallen columns. The climate is very unwholesome.
Sin, 2
Sin, the desert which the Israelites entered on turning off from the Red Sea (Exo_16:1; Exo_17:1; Num_33:12) [SINAI].




The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.


(Heb. Sin, ]סַי; Sept. Σάϊς [v.r. Τάνις] or Συήνη; Vulg. Pelusium), the name of a town and of a desert perhaps adjoining, upon which modern researches have thrown important light.
1. A city of Egypt, which is mentioned in Eze_30:15-16, in connection with Thebes and Memphis, and is described as “the strength of Egypt,” showing that it was a fortified place. The name is Hebrew, or, at least, Shemitic. Gesenius supposes it to signify “clay,” from the unused root סַי, probably “he or it was muddy, clayey.” It is identified in the Vulg. with Pelusium Πηλούσιον, “the clayey or muddy” town, from πηλός; and seems to be preserved in the Arabic Et-Tineh, which forms part of the names of Fum et-Tineh, the Mouth of Et-Tineh, the supposed Pelusiac mouth of the Nile, and Burg or Kal'at et-Tineh, the Tower or Castle of El- Tineh, in the immediate neighborhood, “tin” signifying “mud,” etc., in Arabic. This evidence is sufficient to show that Sin is Pelusium. The ancient Egyptian name is still to be sought for; it has been supposed that Pelusium preserves traces of it, but this is very improbable. Champollion identifies Pelusium with the Poresoum or Peresom (the second being a variation held by Quatremere to be incorrect) and Baresoum of the Copts, El-Farma of the Arabs, which was in the time of the former a boundary city, the limits of a governor's authority being stated to have extended from Alexandria to Pilak-h, or Philae, and Peremoun (Acts of St. Sarapamon MS. Copt. Vat. 67, fol. 90, ap. Quatremere, Memoires Geog. et Hist. sur l'Egypte, 1, 259). Champollion ingeniously derives this name from the article ph prefixed to ep, “to be,” and oum, “mud” (L'Egypte, 2, 82-87; comp. Brugsch. Geogr. Inschr. 1, 297). Brugsch compares the ancient Egyptian Ha-rem, which he reads Pe-rema, on our system Pe-rem, “the abode of the tear,” or “of the fish rem” (ibid. pl. 55, No. 1679). Pelusium he would make the city Samhat (or, as he reads it Sam-hud), remarking that “the nome of the city Samhud” is the only one which has the determinative of a city, and comparing the evidence of the Roman nome coins, on which the place is apparently treated as a nome; but this is not certain, for there may have been a Pelusiac nome, and the etymology of the name Samhat is unknown (ibid. p. 128; pl. 28, 17).
The exact site of Pelusium is not fully determined. It has been thought to be marked by mounds near Burg et-Tineh, now called El-Farma, and not Et-Tineh. This is disputed by Capt. Spratt, who supposes that the mound of Abu-Khiyar indicates where it stood. This is further inland, and apparently on the west of the old Pelusiac branch, as was Pelusium. It is situate between Farma and Tel-Defenneh. Whatever may have been its exact position, Pelusium must have owed its strength not to any great elevation, but to its being placed in, the midst of a plain of marsh land. and mud, never easy to traverse. The ancient sites in such alluvial tracts of Egypt are in general only sufficiently raised above the level of the plain to preserve them from being injured by the inundation. It lay among swamps and morasses on the most easterly estuary of the Nile (which received from it the name of Ostium Pelusiacum), and stood twenty stades from the Mediterranean (Strabo, 16, 760; 17, 801, 802; Pliny, Hist. Nat. 5, 11). The site is now only approachable by boats during a high Nile, or by land when the summer sun has dried the mud left by the inundation; the remains consist only of mounds and a few fallen columns. The climate is very unwholesome (Wilkinson, Mod. Egypt. 1, 406. 444; Savary, Letters on Egypt, 1, let. 24; Henniker, Travels).
The antiquity of the town of Sin may perhaps be inferred from the mention of “the wilderness of Sin” in the journeys of the Israelites (Exo_16:1; Num_33:11). It is remarkable, however, that the Israelites did not immediately enter this tract on leaving the cultivated part of Egypt, so that it is held to have been within the Sinaitic peninsula, and therefore it may take its name from some other place or country than the Egyptian Sin. (See No. 2.),
Pelusium is noticed (as above) by Ezekiel, in one of the prophecies relating to the invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, as one of the cities which should then suffer calamities, withl probably, reference to their later history. The others spoken of are Noph (Memphis), Zoan (Tanis), No, (Thebes), Aven (Heliopolis), Pi-beseth (Bubastis), and Tehaphnehes (Daphnae). All these, excepting the two ancient capitals, Thebes and Memphis, lay on or near the eastern boundary; and, in the approach to Memphis, an invader could scarcely advance, after capturing Pelusium and Daphnae without taking Tanis, Bubastis, and Heliopolis. In the most ancient times, Tanis, as afterwards Pelusium, seems to have been the key of Egypt on the east. Bubastis was an important position from its lofty mounds, and Heliopolis as securing the approach to Memphis. The prophet speaks of Sin as “the stronghold of Egypt” (30:15). This place it held from that time until the period of the Romans. Pelusium appears to have been the perpetual battlefield between the Egyptians and their foreign enemies. As early as the time of Rameses the Great, in the 14th century B.C., we find Sin proving itself to be what the prophet termed it, “the strength of Egypt.” One of the Sallier papyri in the British Museum contains a record of the war between the Egyptians and the Sheta; and the victory which Rameses gained in the neighborhood of Pelusium is detailed at length. The importance of this victory may be gathered from the fact that the Sheta are said to have made their attack with 4500 chariots. As Diodorus specifies the number of this Pharaoh's army, which he says amounted to 60,000 infantry, 24,000 cavalry, and 27,000 chariots of war, it is no wonder that he was enabled successfully to resist the attacks of the Sheta. Diodorus also mentions that Rameses the Great “defended the east side of Egypt against the irruptions of the Syrians and Arabians with a wall drawn from Pelusium through the deserts, as far as to Heliopolis, for the space of 1500 furlongs.”
He gives a singular account of an attempt on the part of his younger brother to murder this great Pharaoh, when at Pelusium after one of his warlike expeditions, which was happily frustrated by the adroitness of the king (Diod. Sic. 1, 4). Herodotus relates (2, 141) that Sennacherib advanced against Pelusiim, and that near Pelusitum Cambyses defeated Psammenitus (3, 10-13). In like maner the decisive battle in which Ochus defeated the last native king, Nectanebos (Nekht-nebf), was fought near this city. It was near this place that Pompey met his death, being murdered by order of Ptolemy, whose protection he had claimed (Hist. Bell. Alexand. p., 20, 27; Livy, 45, 11; Josephus, Ant. 14, 8, 1; War, 1, 8, 7; 1, 9, 3). It is perhaps worthy of note that Ezekiel twice mentions Pelusium in the prophecy which contains the remarkable and signally fulfilled sentence, “There shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt” (30, 13). As he saw the long train of calamities that were to fall upon the country, Pelusium may well have stood out as the chief place of her successive humiliations. Two Persian conquests and two submissions to strangers first to Alexander, and then to Augustus may explain the especial misery foretold of this city: “Sin shall suffer great anguish” (Eze_30:16).
We find in the Bible a geographical name which has the form of a gentile noun derived from Sin, and is usually held to apply to two different nations, neither connected with the city Sin. In the list of the descendants of Noah, the Sinite, סַינַי, occurs among the sons of Canaan (Gen_10:17; 1Ch_1:15). This people, from its place between the Arkite and the Arvadite, has been supposed to have settled in Syria north of Palestine, where similar names occur in classical geography, and have been alleged in confirmation. This theory would not, however, necessarily imply that the whole tribe was there settled, and the supposed traces of the name are by no means conclusive. On the other hand, it must be observed that some of the eastern towns of Lower Egypt have Hebrew as well as Egyptian names, as Heliopolis and Tanis; that those very near the border seem to have borne only Hebrew names, as Migdol; so that we have an indication of a Shemitic influence in this part of Egypt, diminishing in degree according to the distance from the border. It is difficult to account for this influence by the single circumstance of the Shepherd invasion of Egypt, especially as it is shown yet more strikingly by the remarkably strong characteristics which have distinguished the inhabiants of Northeastern Egypt from their fellow countrymen from the days of Herodotus and Achilles Tatius to our own.
Nor must we pass by the statement of the former of these writers that the Palestine Syrians dwelt westward of the Arabians to the eastern boundary of Egypt (2Ch_3:5). Therefore it does not seem a violent hypothesis that the Sinites were connected with Pelusium, though their main body may perhaps have settled much farther to the north. The distance is not greater than that between the Hittites of Southern Palestine and those of the valley of the Orontes, although the separation of the less powerful Hivites into those dwelling beneath Mount Hermon and the inhabitants of the small confederacy of which Gibeon was apparently the head is perhaps nearer to our supposed case. If the wilderness of Sin owed its name to Pelusium, this is an evidence of the very early importance of the town and its connection with Arabia, which would perhaps be strange in the case of a purely Egyptian town. The conjecture we have put forth suggests a recurrence to the old explanation of the famous mention of “the land of Sinlim,” אֶרֶוֹ סַינַים, in Isaiah (Isa_49:12), supposed by some to refer to China. This would appear from the context to be a very remote region. It is mentioned after the north and the west, and would seem to be in a southern or eastern direction. Sin is certainly not remote, nor is the supposed place of the Sinites to the north of Palestine; but the expression may be proverbial. The people of Pelusium, if of Canaanitish origin, were certainly remote compared to most of the other Canaanites, and were separated by alien peoples, and it is also noticeable that they were to the southeast of Palestine. As the sea bordering Palestine came to designate the west, as in this passage, so the land of Sinim may have passed into a proverbial expression for a distant and separated country. SEE SINIM; SEE SINITE.
2. A “wilderness” (מַדְבִראּסַין; Sept. ἔπημος Σίν; Vulg. desertum Sin) which the Israelites reached after leaving the encampment by the Red Sea, (Num_33:11-12). Their next halting place (Exo_16:1; Exo_17:1) was Rephidim, either Wady Feiran, or the mouth of Wady es-Sheikh, SEE REPHIDIM; on which supposition it would follow that Sin must lie between those wadies and the coast of the Gulf of Suez, and of course west of Sinai. Since they were by this time gone more than a month from Egypt, the locality must be too far towards the southeast to receive its name from the Egyptian Sin of Eze_30:15, called Σάϊς by the Sept., and identified with Pelusium. (See above.) In the wilderness of Sin the manna Was first gathered, and those who adopt the supposition that this was merely the natural product of the tarfa bush find from the abundance of that shrub in Wady es-Sheikh, southeast of Wady Ghurundel, a proof of local identity. SEE ELIM.
As the previous encampment by the Red Sea must have been in the plain of Mukhah, the “wilderness of Sin” could not well have been other than the present plain el-Kaa, which commences at the mouth of Wady Taiyibeh, and extends along the whole southwestern side of the peninsula. At first narrow, and interrupted by spurs from the mountains, it soon expands into an undulating, dreary waste, covered in part with a white gravelly soil, and in part with sand. Its desolate aspect appears: to have produced a most depressing effect upon the Israelites. Shut in on the one hand by the sea, on the other by the wild mountains, exposed to the full blaze of a burning sun, on that bleak plain, the stock of provisions brought from Egypt now exhausted we can scarcely wonder that they said to Moses, “Would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots, when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger” (Exo_16:3). SEE EXODE.



CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores