(3) The next point is the development and in- crease of sin (Gn C- "•''). Sin is a parasitic growth
7/«r/A» .StTiffner't Sons
SIX
SIX
529
which mulliplies in its appropriate soil. It is not luert'ly a number of isolated rebellions, but results in a state of sin both in the individual and in the race. This state of sin takes posses.siou of the thoughts of the heart, and its outward effect is violence (°f7) between man and man.
(4) At the Flood the method of God is, so to speak, changed. He recognizes (Gn O'') the pre- dominance of -the evil imagination' (-t? ''?.■), a term which afterwards plays an imporiant part in .lewisli theology (see Weber, Jihl. Tlieul:- p. 213 ff., and Dillniann, a(/ ?oc.). Sin must be dealt with in other ways, by an election and a covenant. The one righteous man is taken, special relations are established with him, and a covenant given. This covenant is followed by those with Abraham, and with Israel at Sinai. But these covenant-s, while designed for salvation, open out, each of them, new possibilities of sin. It is no longer a matter of transgression against undefined moral law, but there are definite ordinances. Sin is not merely the breach of the universal relation between creature and Creator, but the breach of covenant, A revolt (■•^■?)- Moreover, with patriarchal re- ligion, the contrast of faith and unbelief comes in in a definite way (Gn 15*). Esau's sin also is plainly unbelief. This is gradually shown to be the root of sin. and every particular sin is regarded as a manifestation of it. When, with Abraham, we reach the distinction between those within and those without the covenant, the question arises. Is there a recognition of the moral law and a con- sciousness of sin in the Gentile world ? Tlie <iues- tion is answered in the aftirmalive by the case of Abiinehch (Gn 20), and the existence of such a law outside the covenant is implied throughout theOT. e.f/. Am 1. Thus there is nothing in the or claim of uiii^ue revelation to Israel, which is inconsistent with that con.sciousness of sin which is to be found in Babylonian, Persian, Vedic, and Greek sources, though there it is sin against Istart, Ahuramazda, or Varuna, not against Jehovali. As to what conduct is sin, the range is narrow, and the moral standard within the covenant does not materially differ from that outside it. Deceit, sensuality, and cruelty are not yet distinctly felt as sinful.
(;■>) 'Die Miisnir rnminnt. The terminology of ftin now increa.st'S and becomes definite, and it will therefore be necessary to examine it in detail. The three most important terms occur together in one ver.se, Kx .'U' (cf. I's 32'-), iniquity (I'v), trans- gression (■•p?), sin C¥;q, •''«:;•?, *<^d).
(a I Sin. — Tlirce cof;nntu fonnAln Heb., with no distinction of liivantrij,', uxlin-ss ^i^ as miHuitig oiie'n iibu, nni! correspond to a^aprla nnd its cojjnatcs in NT. Tlie etyinoloj,'y does not fil(t(?est ft person nf^ftinst wlioni tlie sin is eoinmltted, and does not necessarily imply intentional wronc-doinp. Hut tile use <if tlie word Is not Hniited liv its ctvMioiojry. and the sin may bo A^lnst man ((in 4oi, 1 S iio'j or nua'insl t»oil ( lix :12™). Clemen's concession yLfhre run der Silttt/i', pp. 2'i, 'i3), tliftt sin ,ind Inl4|ulty meant failure to coinpiv with national custom ( Vntn-n- »itU). must be ipiallfied tiy the consideration that national custom was praclicaily relijfion, and was always associated with snpernatitnd sanction, so that sin against It was considered Bin ajfainst (itKl, even where (toil is not mentioned. It Is no doubt true tliat this implicit thoiifrht that sin Is against God, comes ru'Kii more distinctly to the surface In Deulerononiy. Tw<» sul)sidiary uses of .~N':n must be noticed. Like IV,. U Is used for the punlslimcnt of sin, as well as for sin itself (Zee 14't', Iji 339). The passntre from one sense to the other Is seen in Nu :V.;**. These instances open the <iuestion of the meanint; of TN'jn (and I'i^l In a class of passages In the Psalms, where modern ex- positors lake them to sicnifv not Hin or {fuilt. but ptiDinhvifut. See thoyne on l"s :<1". This doulile sense of l>oth wi.rds Is a witness to the lleb. view of the close connexion of sin and •utferlnc. which will demand special altenUon In .lob. Secondlv, rKOn Is use<l for tin-nfftring (I,v 4'). This use of the some won! for the offence and the olferlng meets us a(-aln under DC*N (trespass),
(Al Iniiiuily (!'!)), literally ' perversion,' ' distortion ' [but see Driver, Slim. i:|.'i n., who follows Uigarde In dlstinpulsldni; two roots •"liy, nne:>! 'bi-nd. twist,' llie otlier (the root of I''^) = 'err
VOL. IV.— 34
(from the way)'].— It is to be distinguished from (a) as bcinfr a iiuatity of actions rather than an act, and it thus acquires the sense'of 'puilt,' which might well have been adopted l>y liV as the rendering of IV. O'uiH as distinguished IVom ^in tuny bo described as the sinner's position in regai-d to (lod wiiicli results from his sin. Guilt involves punishment, and thus tiie eoiuuita- tion of I'> is enhlrged still further. As :>cliultz says (C/' Thcot. li. p. 30(1), 'in the consciousness of the pious Israelite, sin, guilt, and punishment are ideas so directly connected that the words for them are interchangeable.' See esp. Gn 4'^, Lv 26*'. An illustration of this connexion is the phmse 'bear iniquity* (less frequently ' bear sin '). first occurring tin 4'^, and fVeque'nt in IC/.eliiel, II and I*. The idea is that of being involve«l in guilt with the inevitable consequence of ]>unishment (Nu 14^), and the phrase is nearly equivalent to the verb D'J'N ; cf, Lv y-*. It must, however, be noticed that the verb translated ' bear' (N'J'J) some- times has for its subject the person offended against, and Is used In the sense of " taking away ' sin. Kor refT. ,sce Ox/, ilib. Lex. p, (>"t. In Lv l('r^ the goat for Azazel 'bears iniquities' into a land not inhabited, llere both the senses above men- tioneil are implied : and the same uiay be said of the n]t>ru important passage in Is 5;3'2, where tlie Servant oi the Loud both bears and takes away the sin of many. Thus this phrase lies at the root of the doctrine of the Atonement,