Greenlee, J. Harold

Turner, George A.

English

Asbury Theological Seminary

Sin and Sinfulness: A Study InNewTestament TerminologyGeorge Allen Turner and J. Harold GreenleeThe Subject DefinedThe New Testament concept of gracecannot be understood apart from its underlying concept, the doctrine of sin. Perhapsthe most subtle aspect of Biblical hamartio-logy is sinfulness, by which is meant, notthe act of sin, but the m.oial conditionswhich cause sin. Wliile sins are properlyregarded as acts of rebellion against Godand are objective in nature, sinfulness isa condition, principle, or state and hence issubiective in nature. The former is relatedto God, the latter to man. A study of sinfulness the: efore involves psychology; herehamartiology and anthropology converge.Purpose Of The StudyWith the exception of extended discussions of original sin, theologians and expositors have spent comparatively littletime on the subiective aspect of sin. Mosttreatments of sin are content to deal withthe more obvious features of sinful conduct, leaving many of the more subtle aspects of sin unexplored or superficiallytreated. It is the purpose of this study toisolate and analvze this more evasive concept of the subjective aspect called inwardsin or sinfulness.The ProblemThe New Testament uses some nine different synonyms for sin�^that is, ninefamilies of words. These nine svnonyms,together with their cognates, total twentyfour different words. There are approximately 386 occurrences of these synon5rms.Of these, hamartia (d^iapTta) and its cognate forms are the most important and occur most frequently, a total of about 214times. The basic meaning of this term isto miss the mark or the designated goal,hence is the opposite of teleios (xiXsioq)�complete, perfect, entire�and, especially in Romans, to dikaiosune(6iKaioo6vT)) �conformity to the standard, to God.''While the cautious student will bear inmind that "in the common intercourse oflife, words easily lose their original precision,"* yet a careful study of etymologyis indispensable. The statement is oftenmade that duaprta in the singular "wouldseem to denote primarily, not sin considered as an action, but sin considered as thequality of action."* This generalizationneeds to be substantiated. How accurate isthe statement? If true as a generalizationis it true of other New Testament writersor is it a characteristic of Paul only? DoesPaul use the sinerular of this word to indicate a studied and precise distinction between "sin" and "sinfulness"? Is it actuallya qualitative usage, as distinct from specificacts, or is it simplv used to designate sinsin the aes'reeate? How valid is the conventional statement that the New Testament writers are careful to maintain a distinction between the principle of sin andprts of sin? In other words, does the NewTestament recoenize a distinction betweensinful conduct and sinfulness in principleas underlying sin, and can this generalization be substantiated on objective linguistic grounds?Distinctions of this kind are admittedlyrare in the Old Testament, where a moreobjective and physical view of sin prevails.Intimations of the importance of motive,of the sin principle, are, however, apparenteven in the Old Testament in such wordsas avah (my) �^bent, crooked, perverse,*H. Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon ofNew Testament Greek, I, p. 99.*Umbreit, Die Sunde, p. 49, cited in Cremerop. cit., p. 98.'Cremer, op. eit, p. 100.110 GEORGE ALLEN TURNER AND J. HAROLD GREENLEESuch words "represent the perversion ordistortion of nature which is causedby evil doing."* The prophets speakof correcting the source of evil as well aspardon (e.g., Ezek. 36:26, "the stonyheart"). The Psalmist also is concerned notonly with his sinful acts and resultant guiltbut also with their inner source (Ps. 51 :7,10). Later writers of the inter-testamentalperiod are relatively more concerned withthe subjective side and with the source ofsin (e.g., IV Esdras 3:20-27; 4:30, 31;7:118). Rabbinic sources indicate a similarconcern with the source of sin: "an evileye and the evil principle and hatred ofmankind drive a man out of the world"(Pirke Aboth 2:15) ; and, "Who is mighty? He that controlleth his evil disposition"(Pirke Aboth 4:29). The rabbis mademuch of the Evil Yetzer ("evil imagination", as in Gen. 6:5) as the source ofrebellious acts.*Post-Reformation theological traditionhas emphasized the distinction between actand principle, between source and consequence. Calvin: "We say, therefore, thatman is corrupted by a natural depravity,but which did not originate from nature."'Barclay : "... not only their words anddeeds only, but all their imaginations areevil perpetually as proceeding fromthis depraved and wicked seed"*This evil principle is usually identified with"original sin," as in the Articles of Religion in Anglican and Methodist churches.Watson: "This connection of positive evil,as the effect, with privation of life andimage of God, as the cause, accounts forthe 'corruption of man's nature.'" Wesley:" the sin which still remains .... evenin them that are regenerate .... a conviction of our proneness to evil, of an heart*R. B. Girdlestone, Synonyms of the OldTestament, p. 130. E. g., II Sam. 19:19.�See S. Schecter, Some aspects of RabbinicTheology, pp. 219-93.�John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II, 1, p. 277.^Robert Barclay, Theses Theologicae, cited byPhilio Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, I,p. 790.�Richard Watson, Theological Institutes, II,p. 79.bent to backsliding, a conviction ofthe sin still cleaving to all our words andactions.'" None is more precise than aPuritan preacher in Boston in 1699:"Every actual sin leaves a spot, a stain, afilthiness behind it. There is therefore atwo-fold taking away of sin, answerableto the two-fold mischief which it doeth theman, by its adhesion to him : the formeris by Justification, the latter by Sanctification."" Likewise Kuizenga :"The personal nature both of sin and salvationmake necessary not only the experience of conversion but also the nature of sanctification.""Mozeley: " there is a goodness anda sinfulness in disposition as well as inacts."" The question now raised is whetherthese theologians and expositors have correctly supposed that a qualitative distinction between sins and sinfulness isset forth in the New Testament.Grammarians as well as theologiansstreak of the two-fold nature of sin.Trench quotes Chrysostom as distinguishing between hamartia (anaprta) as designating original sin and hamartema(&[i&prY\\La) as "the several acts and out-com'T^.crc. of Sin" from which infants arefree." Cremer, in the work previously cited,concludes that ot^apxia in the singular withthe article designates sin as "a principlemanifestinp- itself in the conduct of thesubject. Without the article d^apxla .... isused where the reference is to the idea itself and not to the collective sum of manifestations."" Likewise Thayer:In this sense f| d^iaptla ... as a power exercising dominion over men (sin as a principle andpower) is rhetorically represented as an imperialpersonage . . . ; the dictate of sin or an impulse�John Wesley, 'The Scripture Way of Salvation," Standard Sermons, II, pp. 454 ff."Samuel Williard, The Fountain Opened, pp.78f."John A. Kuizenga, "Sin," InternationalStandard Bible Encyclopedia, IV, 2801."J. B. Mozeley, Predestination, cited in JamesOrr. Sin as a Prdblem of Today, p. 240."R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, 7th ed., p. 228."Cremer, op. cit., p. 101.SIN & SINFULNESS : A STUDY IN NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY 1 1 ]proceeding from it Thus dt^apTia is thesource whence the several evil acts proceed."But the quotations cited by Thayer insupport of these generalizations are, withone exception, all from Paul's writings.Is this a habit of Paul, due perhaps to theinfluence of rabbinic modes of expression,or is it a grammatical principle which wasgenerally observed? The investigation narrows down, therefore, to whether or notdpaptLa in the singular designates a principle of sin which needs cleansing as distinct from acts which need pardon.The EvidenceFrom the standpoint of etymology,dudpxri^ia signifies the result of action,and duapxla signifies quality of an action."Old Testament usage bears out these distinctions in the case of the former but notthe latter. In the Greek Old Testamentboth words mean "an act of sin," "a sincommitted." There may be partial exception in the idea of "a sin offering," whichis expressed by ''^epl d^iapxtaq or a similarphrase; but even in these instances the sin-offering seems to be for a sin rather thanfor sinfulness. In The Old Testament,therefore, we must assume that bothd^iapxia and d^idpxrina are regular wordsfor an act of sin, and that the formeris more commonly used than the latter.In the New Testament, on the otherhand, the distinction between these twowords is often clear. While dpapxia appears more than 200 times, diAdpxri^a occurs only five times, according to Moultonand Geden^s Concordance. The meaningof dudpxTitia is always "an act of sin." Asthe ratio of their frequency would suggest, d^iapxia also is used to mean an actof sin; and it carries this meaning inpractically all of the 75 instances or sowhere it is used in the plural. In the singular, however, the situation is quite different. After allowing for differences ofinterpretation of some passages, it appears that of the approximately 125 in-"J. H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of theNew Testament, p. 31."Samuel G. Green, Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament, rev. ed., pp. 144-5.stances of the singular of dtiapxia in theNew Testament, only between ten andtwenty designate an act of sin.'Aiiapxta is used both with and withoutthe definite article. In the plural, the presence or absence of the article would generally imply only the difference betweendefinite and indefinite acts of sin. It isthe significance of this word when it isused in the singular which is of particularimportance to this study.In the New Testament, the worddtiapxta without the article doubtless sometimes designates an act of sin. In theseinstances d^apxCa may be considered as synonymous with di^dpxrina. Yet these instances are distinctly in the minority, comprising no more than ten per cent.�possibly much less�of the examples. In thiscategory may be listed Matt. 12:31, "everysin and blasphemy" (ARV) ; II Cor. 11 :7,"did I commit a sin" (ARV) ; and I John5:16, "a sin which is not unto death,"and "a sin unto death."Much more common, however, are theinstances where duapxia seems to have thevery meanmg which its etymology suggests�sinfulness, the quality of sin. It is acommonly recognized grammatical principle that nouns may be thus used withoutan article to denote quality. A very few ofthe many available examples include John13:35, "if ye have love one to another";Rom. 14:15, "thou walkest no longer inlove" (ARV) �literally, according tolove"; Luke 2:14, "Glory to God in thehighest, and on earth peace"; and Matt.17:20, "If ye have faith." d^apxla is notthus used in the Synoptic Gospels, Matt.12:31, cited above, being the only occurrence of this word in the singular in thesegospels. From the Fourth Gospel may bementioned John 16 :8, "he will reprove theworld of sin" (similarly 16:9), and possibly some other instances. In the FirstEpistle of John, this idea seems jto be present in 1 :8, "If we say that we have nosin"; 3:5, "in him is no sin"; and 5:17,"All unrighteousness is sin"; and in Heb.11 :25, "the pleasures of sin." In the Paulinewritings, the idea of quality is probably112 GEORGE ALLEN TURNER AND J. HAROLD GREENLEEintended in Cor. 5 :21, "him . . . who knewno sin" (better, "him who did not knowsin"). Most Pauline instances occur in Romans: e.g., 3:20, "knowledge of sin";5:13, "sin was in the world: but sin is notimputed when there is no law"; 7:7, 'Tsthe law sin? '; and perhaps 8:10, "the bodyis dead because of sin."With the article, duapxia in the singular sometimes refers to an act of sin, thearticle denoting definiteness. Acts 7:60,"lay not this sin to their charge," is an example. Yet obvious as such usage mayseem, the mstance just given is practicallyunique in the New Testament.A second usage with the article is foimdin the examples where the phase refers tosin in a generic or collective sense�thatis, in the same sense in wiiich the singular"man" is used to mean "mankind," "thehmnan race." This usage occurs in John8:21, "ye � � � shaU die in your sin" ARV;the Authorized Version incorrectly reads"sins") �cf. verse 24, "ye shall die inyour sins�and in Rom. 5:20, "where sinabounded."Akin to the generic sense is the use ofthe article to refer to a noun typical of itsclass, as in the similar use of the word"man" in Matt. 12:35, "The good manout of his good treasure bringeth forthgood things: and the evil man out of hisevil treasure bringeth forth evil things"(ARV; the Authorized Version incorrectly reads "a good man" and "an evil man").In this passage, "the good man" and "theevil man" is any good man and any evilman, each being held up as representativeof all men of their class. Examples of thisuse of the word "sin" are rather rare inthe New Testament, but an example probably occurs in John 8 :34, "whosoever com-mitteth sin," where the word "sin" may beunderstood as any sin, standing as a representative of all sins.By far the largest group of instances ofdtiaptla in the singular with the definitearticle, however, are those in which, according to the regular grammatical rule,the article seems to signify sin as anabstract noun personified or made a separate object of thought." This is similar tothe English custom of capitalizing an abstract noun when the noun is personified,as in Acts 28:4, "whom .... Justice hathnot sutiered to live" (ARV). This usageseems to comprise a great majority of theoccurrences of d^apTia�^the singularnoun with the definite article. As in thecommon usage without the article, herealso, in thus picturing sin with personalcharacteristics, as a figurative person or"thing," the New Testament writers follow a practice recognized in the usage ofother abstract nouns. I Cor. 13:4-7 presents an extended list of "personal" characteristics of love (AV, "charity"). Rom.5 :3-5 refers to tribulation, steadfastness,approvedness, and hope (ARV) as working or accomplishing goals, as though theseabstract ideas were objective realities. Eph.2:14 speaks of Christ as "our peace," justas we might speak of him as "our Lord,"thus figuratively picturing peace as thoughit were a person or "thing." (Contrast thefollowing verse, 2:15, where "peace" without the article denotes quality - - "makingpeace.")This personification of sin, dcnaptla,or of picturing it figuratively as a "thing"in itself, is particularly characteristic ofRom. 5-8. Yet it is not unknown elsewherein the New Testament. John 8:34 refersto being "the servant of sin," picturing"Sin" as a master who rules. James 1 :15figuratively pictures both "lust" and "sin"as giving birth to offspring, which obviously is literally possible only to livingbeings." Heb. 3:13 thus speaks of sin as adeceiver, and 12:4 as an enemy in warfare;and in the light of the latter passage Heb.12:1 doubtless refers to laying aside, not aparticular sin, as the AV and ARV bothseem to imply�"the sin which doth soeasily beset us"�but rather "sin" as a realobject (figuratively, of course) meaning the"Green, op. cit., pp. 183-4."It is possible, however, that the article here isused merely for definiteness, as ARV implies:". . . drawn away by his own lust . . .Then the lust, . . . beareth sin: and the sin,. . . bringeth forth death."SIN & SINFULNESS : A STUDY IN NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY 113force, the idea itself, the principle of sin.*'Not as a person, but as a material object,I Cor. 15:56 graphically describes sin as"the sting of death." In all this it must beborne in mind, however, that this personification of these abstract nouns, or considering them as tangible objects, is purelyfigurative. It must not be supposed that theNew Testament writers conceived of sin,peace, etc., as material objects.We may now turn to the occurrences off| dpapxia in Rom. 5-8, observing the use ofthis phrase to describe sin, not as a particular act of sin, not as the sum total of sins,but as "Sin," a force or principle underlying sinful acts. Since ottiapxia is capable of the other meanings, it is possible thata few instances here referred to may besubject to alternative interpretations without invalidating the general conclusion.The following passages are pertinent:Rom. 5 :12, "sin entered into the world,and death by sin." 5 :21, "sin hath reignedunto death." 6:6ff., "the body of sin"; "hedied unto sin . . . , he liveth untoGod"; "dead indeed unto sin"; "Let notsin therefore reign"; "Neither yield yeyour members . . . unto sin"; "servants of sin"; "made free from sin"; "thewages of sin . . . the gift of God."7:8ff., "sin . . . wrought in me allmanner of concupiscence"; "sin revived,and I died"; "sin . . . deceived me";"that sin ... might become exceeding sinful" ; "sin that dwelleth in me" doesthe evil ("Sin" ; not a particular act of sin).ConclusionsIt is sometimes suggested that r) duapxia,particularly Paul's use of this expressionin Romans 5-8, refers to sin as a principle,the idea being that the definite article prefixed to the noun is the identifying mark ofthe sin principle. The present investigationdoes not contradict this idea in general.A more comprehensive point of view, however, may be stated as follows: In general,"See, e.g., Expositor's Greek Testament, ad loc.d^iaptia in the New Testament refers, notto an act of sin, hut rather to somethingwhich underlies and issues in acts of sin,something which also accompanies andfollows these acts of sin.Without the definite article, this nounrefers particularly to sin from the point ofview of its quality, essence, or nature. Itcarries the idea of sinfulness. Sinfulness,being a quality, requires, not forgiveness,but rather purging, removal, cleansing.With the definite article, this noun regularly refers to "Sin"�sin as a force figuratively objectified, either as a person, ableto rule over man, to bring him into subjection to itself, and to act in a number ofways as a personal agent would act; or assome other material object, such as a"sting." This usage is to be clearly distinguished from the comparatively few instances where the same phrase is used torefer to sin in a generic or collective sense,as simply the totality of acts of sin. Hereagain, sin is pictured, not as an act whichneeds to be forgiven, but as a person whomust be put to death, a force which mustbe rendered completely inoperative"(Rom. 6:6), or as some other objectivereality which must be dealt with in a drastic manner.In the New Testament, therefore, butnot commonly in the Old Testament,d^apTia, when used in the singular, eitherwith or without the article, appears usually to refer to ideas which are associatedwith a need in the human heart which goesbeyond the need of forgiveness of sinfulacts, a need which arises from the presence of sinful tendencies in man. The NewTestament seems clearly to teach that thisdeeper need can and should be met. Grammar and exegesis, therefore, appear to bearout the insights of generations of gospelpreachers, who, like the Puritan divine ofBoston, afifirm that "there is a two-foldtaking away of sin, answerable to the twofold mischief which it doeth the man . **

Sin and Sinfulness: A Study in New Testament Terminology

https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2262&amp;context=asburyjournal

Sin and Sinfulness: A Study in New Testament Terminology

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Asbury Theological Seminary