Rumball, Edwin A.

OpenSIUC

THE CHANGING CONTENT OF SIN.BY EDWIN A. RUMBALL.AS this paper does not design to be a contribution specially to- Christian ethics it will be necessary for us at the very outsetto say what we mean by the word sin. The definition given byChristian theology is hardly broad enough if, as we intend, con-sideration is given not only to pre-Christian days, but to times andlands far removed from the divine revelation essential to that theol-ogy. True to this theology, Ullman in his Siiilcssncss of Jesus, saysthat "the idea of sin can only exist where a divine rule of life, anda highest aim of human existence resulting therefrom are recog-nized."The primitive consciousness akin to our modern sense of sinvery seldom if ever possessed an ethical content, therefore thesimple yet broad definition, much in vogue of late, that "sin isselfishness," is excluded. This primitive consciousness is constantlyfound in connection with animistic notions, particularly tabu ; there-fore when we speak of sin we must not exclude from our definitionthese non-ethical elements. The following suggests itself as broadenough for the needs of our subject, Sin is that which is conceivedof as tending to sunder man from his ideals. From our modernstandpoint many of these ideals may seem unworthy of the name,in some cases they mean nothing more than positive existence, but asto the possessor they form something to be realized, we shall dowell to recognize them as such.A fixed standard whereby to judge the acts of man, however,will prove a barrier to a just appreciation of the primitive sense ofsin, and its changing content down the ages. He who maintainsthat sin is a violation of God's law as given in the Bible must bereminded that there are a few books which reveal the changuig con-tent more. The hopelessness of making the Bible our standardof morality often leads us to reduce the sphere of the revelation ofTHE CIIAXGIXG CONTEXT OF SIX. 57such a standard to Jesus. W^e are told as Dr. Fairbairn tells usthat "the supreme act of re\'elation is the Incarnation." It is be-coming however more and more obvious to us that the ])ortrait ofthe Gospels partakes of the ideals of ardent admirers and that whileJesus may have been a grand test for morality in A. D. 30. andeven to-dav becomes in his idealized form a test that yet allowssome of us to say, "\Xc test our lives by Thine," we do not seereason for thinking that his life shall always decide whether we aresinners or not in certain acts and dispositions. "The man has neverlived who can feed us ever."The failure of the so-called standards of morality to give us thekey to the consciousness of sin imposes on us the task of showingsome justification for thinking that the sense or consciousness ofsin does not arise from objective standards but from subjective no-tions of right and wrong. We shall find that because of this sub-jective estimation sin has had a varying content in difilerent periods,dififerent lands and different individuals. In the estimation of char-acter we shall see that sin must be judged as such, more from theconsciousness of the sinner in regard to it, than by its appearanceto society. Writing of this distinction between the subjective andobjective value of life, we are reminded that Professor Deussen inhis recently translated Philosophy of tJic UpaiiisJiads has hintedthat this distinction is not only ethical but geographical. In con-trast with the Hindus, he tells us that "Europeans, practical andshrewd as they are, are wont to estimate the merits of an actionabove all by its objective worth. . . .He who has obtained the greatestresults by this standard passes for the greatest man of his time, andthe widow's mite is never anything more than a mite." Judgingotherwise, we hold that a man is a sinner not because wc think hesins, but because he knows that his life is sinful.As we have already hinted, the primitive consciousness of sinwas devoid of all morality in our modern use of this term. Mostwriters on early religions and primitive culture recognize this fact.Professor Smith in his Religion of the Semites, says that "wdiileit is not easy to fix the exact idea of holiness in ancient Semiticreligion, it is Cjuite certain that it had nothing to do with moralityor purity of life." In another place he adds, that there was no"abiding sense of sin or unworthiness, or acts of worship expressingthe struggle after an unattained righteousness, thc^ longing for un-certain forgiveness. .. .Men were satisfied wdth the gods and theyfelt the gods were satisfied with them."The mistake must not be made, which is yet sometimes made58 THE OPEN COURT.by those unacquainted with primitive rehgious ideas, that the awfulsacrifices and asceticism of primitive devotees form a witness to theexistence of our modern sense of sin. These horrors were seldomconceived of as appeasing the god but most often were used as ameans of establishing the blood-bond of communion with the god;even fasting was only a physical preparation for eating the sacredflesh. De la Saussaye in his Manual of the Science of Religion,has said that not only in "Israelitic and Christian but in Indian.Persian and Assyrian prayers the consciousness of sin is expressed."These early prayers like the sacrifices have often been appealed to asproviding evidence of the sense of sin. It is true it is there, but thecontent is something very different from what we understand by itto-day. For instance in the Vedic hymns we have the following:"Through want of strength, Thou Strong, Bright God have I gone astray."and"Agni, drive away from us, sin, which leads us astray."When we read, however, the following:'Trom the sins which knowingly and iinknoivingJy we have committed,Do ye, all Gods, of one accord, release us."we suspect at once that we are dealing with a non-ethical stage inthe evolution of the idea of sin.Tabu seems to have been intimately connected with the primi-tive sense of sin. It was so non-ethical that from our modern pointof view it could be both holy and unclean. That which to us nowforms a strong contrast then existed in a mysterious unity. TheGreek ay and the Latin sacer provide us with words meaning holi-ness and also pollution. The dictionaries of such languages as thatof New Zealand or Polynesia define tabu or tapu quite in harmonywith the equivocal nature of the Greek and Latin roots. The wordsare defined as meaning "spiritual, sacred, consecrated, wonderful,incomprehensible, mysterious, uncanny, weird." They are appliedby the savage equally to a woman in child-birth and to the missionaryand his Bible. The primitive sinner may be either the murderer,his victim, the man who buries the victim or even those who mournfor him, they are all "tabu." It is as Dr. Fraser has expressed itin his Golden Bough, "The odor of sanctity and the stench of cor-ruption alike provide the savage with sin."Another instance is seen in the Hebrew root^ of the words^ ii?^p (cf. kadcsh and kadosh) W. R. Smith Prophets of Israel, p. 225,also Enc. Biblica, vol. i, col. 836. See also an instructive article on "Chastityand Phallic Worship," which touches on this subject—Open Court, Vol. XVII,p. 614.THE CHANGING CONTENT OF SIN. 59signifying- "hoi}"' and "harlot." This root according- to RobertsonSmith stood for "every tlistinctive character of Godhead." He addsin another place that "if the Aral)ic commentaries on the Koran areto l)e believed, the etymological idea is that of distance or separa-tion." In other words, it is but another instance of tabu.It may l)e felt by some that the penalties for such imaginarytransgressions not appearing, the consciousness in regard to then-iwould soon pass away. The evidence however is overwhelming toshow to the savage that the penalties do appear. The fear and horrorof having contracted the mysterious indignation of spirits and being-tabued, works so powerfully on the imagination of the victims thatas one New Zealand writer expresses it, "the victims die under itas though their strength ran out like water."While it is true that the sundering element between nian and hisideal in the past was tabu, its non-ethical mysterious content in-vested it with those powers necessary for atonement. Blood, whichabove all else was tabued, could bring defilement and also cleanse.Instances are too numerous to c^uote, survivals of the idea yet existm the terminology of systems that have long discarded the originalsignificance.It will not be out of place to notice at this point the nature ofPaul's consciousness of the content of sin. It is impossible to ignoreit because it seems to possess elements of the animistic period wehave just noticed. The writer is indebted to Pfleiderer's PrimitiveChristianity, for the pointing out of this fact. Paul conceives of sinas having its home in the flesh ; the flesh is "the seat of an activeGod-opposing principle." This is the source of sinful acts. Attimes this principle seems to receive personification, it is thoughtof as an independent entity, "an active subject to which all mannerof predicates can be attached." It came into the world, it is a tyrantto whom man is sold, it gives its slaves the wages of death ; it is ademon spirit. The deadly miasma of this demon within Paul giveshim his justification for such phrases as "the body of death," "theflesh lusteth against the spirit," "walking after the flesh." LikeSeneca and Epictetus, Paul inherits the popular animistic notionsof his age and thus it is natural for him like others to reckon "thecontempt of the body" to be "the soul's true freedom."As a logical consequence of these notions sin became somethingwe could transfer to another. Having very little to do with the willit could fulfil its own pleasure or do the bidding of another. Tothese beliefs belong the scapegoat custom and the "catching" of sinby physical contact. Sin was contagious. In the Zendavesta, touch-6o THE OPEN COURT.ing a corpse is called sin. Among" the Narringcri of South Australia,the sorcerer lavs his charm in the bosom of a dead body in order thatit may derive a deadly potency by contact with corruption. To thisstage also belong accidental sins, the sins which the book of Levit-icus says are done "unwittingly" ; and doubtless, the origin of thatearly Christian dogma of the perpetuation of sin through physicalconnection with Adam, could be traced to ideas that we have alreadymentioned.The passing from the animistic to the ethical ideas of sin canseldom if ever be clearly traced. The higher concept only comesgradually, and often we find the old and the new existing side byside in the minds of men. Dr. Farnell in his Hibbert Lectures hasdrawn attention at one point to the fact that while Mazdaism is fullof ritualism the spiritual concept of a ])ure heart has an importantplace. God says to the prophet, ''Purity is for man, next to life,the highest good : that purity, O Zarathustra, that is in the religionof Mazda for him who cleanses himself with good thoughts, wordsand deeds." Darmesteter has thrown some doubt on the ethicalcontent of these words, but, while not granting the truth of the doubt,it can be seen at least how they provide a natural transition fromritualism to spiritual life. An instance of the confusion of bothnotions may be the following from the Vasishtha-Darmasastra, "Thebody is purified by water, the internal organ by truth, the soul bysacred learning and austerities, the understanding by knowledge."Delitzsch tells of a Babylonian magus, who, having been called into a patient, seeks to know what sins have thus thrown him on asick-bed. He does not stop short at such sins as theft and nuirder,but asks, "Have you failed to clothe a naked person or to cause aprisoner to see the light?" Here side by side we perceive the oldnotion that sickness is the result of sin and the high ethical conceptsof certain sins of omission.Somewhat akin to the double consciousness of sin that we haveiust noticed as characteristic of the transitionary periods, is theOriental sense of sin so prominent in Hinduism. In this conscious-ness sin and evil are synonymous. This may be best illustrated bygiving the following list of sins from the Upanishads : "Theft, drink-ing of spirits, adultery, killing a Brahmin" (Khand. 5. 10 9.) ;"miserliness, ignorance" (Kb. 10. 7) ; "lying, disrespect for parentsand friends, Ix'wildermcnt, fear, grief, sleep, sloth, carelessness, de-cay, sorrow, hunger, thirst, niggardliness, wrath, infidelity, envy,cruelty, folly, shamelessness, meanness, pride, changeability" (Tait.I. II. 2). Here it is evident that the evils of existence form theTHE CHANGING CONTENT OF SIN. 6lcontent of the Himki consciousness of sin. There the sense of sinis the sense of this Hfe; necessarily therefore, salvation, which is thelosing" of sin and consciousness of it, with them means the negationof all sensuous experience. "Man," says Hegel, "so long as hepersists in remaining in his own consciousness, is according to theHindu idea, ungodly."The content of the consciousness of sin often in the past changedfor geographical reasons. Goodness and sinfulness were dependenton tribal boundaries. It was possible for a man to be a saint in oneland but a sinner in another. Baudhayana (i. 2. 1-8) speaks ofcertain customs which while legitimate in the South of India, makea person a sinner if practiced in the North. Robertson Smith hasalso pointed out that among the Semites, "a man is held answerableto his god for wrong done to a member of his own kindred orpolitical community, but he may deceive, rob or kill an alien withoutofifence to religion." It would seem that the present more cosmo-politan sense of sin is the result of the division which has takenplace in the minds of men, between religion and the nation. As soonas the multitude of priests, which each nation kept to deal with itssins, were thrown into each other's company, by the breaking downof tribal and national barriers, they found their work confusing, soconfusing that only the coming of prophets to take their place, gaveany hope of understanding clearly again the meaning of right andwrong.The sense of sin is. as Mr. A. C. Benson has hinted in one ofhis best essays, "in a certain degree an artificial sense." It changesas man changes, he was a sinner once who cared for the sick anddying, now he is a saint. Only a madman would have done FatherDamien's work in the days of early man. It changes as customchanges, a prostitute was once a sacred person, with holy work,now one hesitates to write the word for the sad dark sin for whichit stands.That which we have observed to be true of the past will be trueof the future. Aluch that we are conscious of as sin now, will thenproduce an opposite consciousness ; much that we now do withoutreproach will then produce a condemning conscience. H. G. Wellsin his essay on "The New Republic" promises us a scientific recon-struction of our ethics, and says that "the most loathsome of allconceivable sins" in the future will be the encouraging of the survivalof the unfit. He anticipates that a certain portion of the populationwill exist only on sufiferance on the understanding that they do not])ropagate themselves. He adds, "I do not foresee any reason to62 THE OPEN COURT.suppose that they will hesitate to kill when that suiTterance is abused."In those days the criminal who pleads insanity as a reason for mercy,will find it judged as only an added reason for death. This mayjirovide some future writer on the changing content of sin with agood illustration that whereas in the twentieth century it was a sinto kill "a poor fellow" who was not responsible for the blood hehad shed, now it is a sin to let him live.This paper may well be closed with "the eternal years which areours for growth." The seers of mankind have assured us that inthose eternal years "there will be no more "sin" ; and every one of uswho have the least conviction of the reality of the Unseen, agreethat the former things will pass away, and with them what we nozvcall sin. Growth however is inconceivable without a passing on tosomething as yet not realized and away from that which is realized.If a Heraclitus taught there is no Being without Becoming, thesinner then as now will be he who tries to evade this law, who,instead of passing on with the moving All to the perfection whichis not Being but Becoming, lives for Being, for the present, for self.

The Changing Content of Sin.

http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2197&context=ocj

The Changing Content of Sin.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

OpenSIUC