tc) Tranttgretmioii i>^P). — The original sense of the noun ia clear from the use of the verb (cf. 1 K l'J'(* ' Israel rebelled against the house of David'). It is a breaking away froui law or covenant, and thus it implies a law and lawgiver. It im- plies what r'H'jri does not necessarily imply, namely, the volun- tariness of sin. This distinction comes out clearly iu .Job »4^ • lie addelti rebellion unto his sin.'
(</) }\'ic/i'ednf*is tV'^'?.).— This is sin become a habit or state.
Its adjective >"w'i In phir. describes sinners as a doss, ' tha
wickc<l ' ; and is invariably the correlative of p'ts (' righteous ') j
cf. Gn 1S».
Besides the foregoing, three other words require brief notice,
D'lTN with '^j.'S and >"^. AV does not sufliciently distinguish thom, rendering '''/'O 'trespass,' ' tran.sgression,' and C'C'N or ."IC'J'N * trespass,' * trespass-offering' ; whereas '?>in is strictly an act of unfaithfulness or treachery towards God or man, pro- ducing a state of guiltiness designated by O'y'N, requiring an ollering to atone for it, which offering is also expressed by the same word =PS (KV ' guilt-offering '). See Oehler, OT 'fheol. § l.t". ^>'5 is a word of limited range belonging to the priestly termii.ology (see Driver. LOT Vi't [« 1:34]). while DU'N and its cognates run througli OT, There is In the latter word the sense of a need of compensation, and the guilt-ottering is to bo regarded os a compensatory offering for an injury done (see O-cf. lleb. Lex. p, 711),
We now proceed to the Mosaic covenant, not merely as contained in Ex 20-23, but as developed in the whole of Ex. - Lv. - Xitmbers, keeping in mind the widely different dates to which iliffetcnt portions may belong. The object of this law .as a whole, if we regard it as providentially developed, ai)pears to be not so much dirctaly to advance morality or to deepen a sense of moral imperfec- tion, as to create a nati(jn within which comiimiiion with the One God might be realized and prosorved, — or, in other words, to f(U'in a hard external .shell, within which a higher religious life might be gradu- ally and .securely evolved. Hence the jiolitical and ceremonial elements were the prominent ones. And hence sin under the Law meant much more negli^ct, conscious or uncon.sciou.s, of ceremonial regulations than moral transgression, and no dis- tinction was drawn between the two. This was a necessary first stage. Again, God was the King of the new nation. Thus there was no room for non-ri'ligious law. His purview embraced all acts. Therefore there was no ilistinctioii between sin and crime. In the present day there are sins which are not regarded by English law as crimes or torts. It was not so in Israel. If an act was outside the Law, it was not sin. He who kept the Law w.ts lilamele.ss. Conversely, there are offences against the law of England which the most conscientious would hardly regard .as sin ; but in Lsrael all enact- ments were jiart of the Divine law, and the breach of any of them was sin. This religious character of law was. of cour.se. not peculiar to Israel. It is characteristic of early Brahmanic law (see Maine, Kitrh/ Law ami Custom, c. ii. esp. p. 42 £t.) and of other systems.
530
~Tl ■,< seems urobable. Deut. U cavlior in dale
S""™.!, .a. calk,! aa .<;»»...-« ;™
r.:-,rarSx^tE4Sr9=i
/sr., Eng. U. p. 000).
--rr S?ii^ *^^!^'<;r z>:^ '^^ri;^ rp
""" r ;;? «^i'h n^ted to what »as clean P'H,.) and unclean :r4' T : e coVeen,ed not only food, but persons and tMn.s. ^teslnrespeetor,hese^ve«.^J^a^d^n.aWew,^^^
There are tl"" c-M^a.-t-';^ f^tf:, ftTi^possible to regard be set aside. Taking tnem as , designedly
them as bavins »J'"; "^^^^cTose this character they possess ,,i<*!,or«v</ bo foi as theyi ao ^^^^__ ^^^ ^^
it not by virtue "'.,"'7?^,, , J' | ° „ J' Thev grew out of man s origin long before t'"^.!''''^ "' '^^""for t Lis consciousness of sense of the unseen his 'f "■,*"';,^t °^ 'jni The proof of this physical and spiritual dangers b setting Imn. 1^^_ ,|eanness
lies in the e^i*"-"",,"' e sriS as foi instance in the Vendidad and '■"'il''J"T7A,TArK,i "r .narmesteter, vol. iv.). Thirdly. (.S,.c,Yd •«"."*"'; 'r„f'';'iundean was not a «/».7«r.v one. the conception of clean »"" "o^. f " ' incidentallv) with modern ,„d had nothing n common (",^''P'^;,^^^;^X''Vertain things. ,„„i„„s of cleanliness. ^,''- "^',,,[,"1,' yAu and death, carried c,i.,.cially -verythmg Conn«^led wUh b'rtn ^^^ ^^^
-^.:^;:srrt3U i^- e -;^f - -
doctrine of sin i« as Mlo« . ( J Ah m^^^^ _^_^._^,j, ,,„,
the area of sin lUo o- ), )f '];'■", j. j^ , At the same time ""^ '''■f,'effi1haT\5hos[A,hooteerved them they also it must be aildcd that l"J^"°'- „„( ,i,e opportunities of
increased the area of "f?''''^* ."»"«'; '^™i„„ of the hoUness of conscious joyf"! ""'-'lienc^ <p ^^^^ an unclean had a close God, to which ">« .fy»'e™. " ,e"°?"„i"",s. especially by Isaiah, relation, was so """"'"^.'j^ ','°, '"° .'ten or their equivalents that the terois ^"X!f th^ ocabul^^^^^^^^^^^^ came to supply nuicli of the Y"'"""'- j ^ „.„r,is as xaSapos,
l^Jil^rnor tndli^toSTv^i^hJ^ recalling their source in the I.aw
^"irT.iK l>uorilETS.-(a) The Former Prophets.- If the esse, cef .in istleparture froii. U0.I, iben, In wUateve. forui, laolatry must be the wt.rst s.u ^:.c:ur:he lU compute. That .s Its posiuon ihiou-hout the histcncal bo.jks lu -""d es .t is the catise of all Israel'.s s>'fi«'"«';- 1° / ""^^J, ^anmel it Is comparatively ahse t . m c n^ .ttently there is ^^^^^^ ^^^^