appears (cf. 1 Co -i'^O- It «''""1'1 ^^ ^''^"'^ ""1 Wis law-, which appears to make for a doctrine ot inborn sin, applies only to the Canaanites. and not to mankind at large. The idea of the derivation of a universal taint from Adam's transgression is altogether wanting.
Pni'/er of Mnnasges.—We here encounter the first unquaiified presentation of the later Judaic belief in the complete sinlessness of the patriarchs C Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which have not sinned aoainst thee,' 4). This attribute was extended afterwards to many other t)T personages (see Weber, Jiid. Tlwoi:^ pp. 32 and r,4 fi.). Lk 15' does not necessarily admit the existence of absolute human sinlessness, and must be interpreted, nrf liomim'm, as addressed to Pharisees and scribes /see 15-) in a spirit not far removed from irony. St Paul exi5resslv dissociates himself from the above tendency (Ro 3-=^), but Rev 14i-' seems to show traces of it. ,..»•,.
" E'idrax (chs. 3-14).— This book ought in strict- ness to be dealt with separately, as being post- Christian (prob. A.u. 81-UO). Its close relation (along with Apoc. Baruch, see BAi:t-ciI [Al-ciA-
1 YPSK OFl) to the line of thought in the Kp. to Romans has been fully brought out in Sanday- lleadlam, Eomans ; see esp. p. loi • " e learn trom
2 Esdras that at the time at which it was written there was in Judaism a doctrine of inborn inherited sin. It is hard to see how such a doctrine could be expressed more definitely than is the case m 2 Ls4-' 'a grain of evil seed was sown in the he.art of Adam from the beginning, and how much wicked- ness hath it brought forth unto this time. In the li^vht of this pa.ssage the less clear utterances of '''Es S'-if' and T** become unambiguous. On the side of human free-will Sanday-Ueadlara (I.e.) quote 2 Es 8^" '.!" and esp. Apoc. 15ar bi^'- i». They truly remark that both works 'lay stress at once on the inherited tendency to sin, and on the freedom ot choice in those who give way to it (p. l-H). li the biblical doctrine of sin finds its most important expression in Romans, then 2 Esdras, as illustrat- ing Romans, has a special value for the study ot tliT- subject. Cf. Thackeray, I.e.
m. I.v TiiE New Te^tamext.— TermiH-
oloyij. — '
1 The i>i«pii".v group. •.\^.pTia nwy mean sin as a habit a stale, a pmver ^so fie.i, in Kou.ans), an,l also a single act of "in; while i^ap'^^M. Is re.tricte,! to the latter; see Westcott, EPD ,/oAn, .idil. Note on 1 .In 1". , „ „,
•i ^apa^aatt. tnn,>.gre«»io,i ; ^api„r^^a. trfspam (more precisely, fall or declinalwn). • These two wonts are cl..sel> Luie.1, referring respectively to the <=""^<^1"<'",'^';?, "" "'" "F;"', anrt to the line tran>presse.l. I!..th presnpposc »he existemo or a law.' (LiKhtfoot. .V..^f« o« K/tp. .-.V. Punt. r.o.V«), and herein ?hV^difrer fro,n iAapr.a. While law multiplies transgression,
" 3 ' TvoA'"' AV ini,,mt>j. The word had been so coloured by Its LXX use, as a frequent rendering of I^>; and other words meaning sin, that its proper sense, violation of '""•j f " fe certainly recognized only in one passage, 1 Jn i*. In Us strict
sense it trulv represents the conception of sin given in the Epji
so ia.^e.a is the same attitude towards liod's Person. Itex- nresses the insult and blasphemy involved m sin. t- 1. 1.
■^ 5 i5.".a This word brings forward that side of sin which Is aL-iinst our nei'-hbour and does him a wrong, and as such is ;!:,mmon to hu.mm and to IMvine law (see Westcott, Epp. John f)". note for relation of iSiKio to ojiapTia). .„„„i„i !,„
G iAeiAwa. Though occurring but once, it has a spec mi im- porianJc from being the term for sin chosen by the L"^^ "jn'^^" to t)e used bv us in our dailv prayer for lorgiveness, the Lulvan f rm i^T « (Lii If) being 'probabiy a paraphrase isee Chase, 77 e LorU'H Praytr. p. .>! If.) - Other words for sin are rather aspects or it, su?h a.s falsehood, darkness, Ignorance, and do not come under terminology
i Syxoi'TIC Gospel?.— Looking back on the of as a whole, we are struck willi the range and completeness of the doctrine of sin which it pre- sents. This accounts for a feature in Christ s teaching as given in the Synoptic Gospels which would otlierwise be surprising, namely, the pa,ucity of teaching about sin. Sin is mentioned almost exclusively in connexion with its forgiveness. Jesus appears as one who forgives sin, and not as insist- in" and enlarging on it, or as convicting ot it. It is obvious how different would have been the effect of His ministry on the world, if it had been primarily a ministry of conviction of sin. In the 1- ourth Gos- pel He explicitly disclaims such an aim (Jn 12''), thus confirming the impression derived from the Svnoptists. At the same time it is forgiveness not indifference. There is no trace of the lutschlian view that till He came all sin was practically ionorance, and that sinners only needed to lay a'side their sense of guilt. That ignorance even where it exists, is but a partial and not a sufficient excuse, appears in Lk U*", and the explanation of that passage is that moral ignorance is never tota, and onlv comes near totality by nian'.s own fault. The sharp distinction between sins of ignorance which are forgivable, and sins without ignorance which are not, is untrue to life. The nian who sins from ignorance has still some spark ot knowledge which is enough to condemn him, and the man who sins against light has still some ignorance, for how can a man in his present limitati.ms realize the .rravitv of the issues which are presented to him here »" For the first point see Lk 2:5« ; the soldiers in their ignorance. neverthele.<is, need forgiveness ; and for tlie second see the lament over Jerusalem,