The Lord's teaching as to sin, so far as He touched it was not so much to correct OT doctrine regard- ing it, as much rather to get rid of a spurious tle- velopment of it, represented by the legalism and casuistrv of the Jewish scribes. The ch.aracter of prophetic invective appears in one class ot discourses o„lv— those addressed to the Pharisees. We are next led to consider what exceptiinis must be maUe to the general statement above as^ to the absence in the Gospels of denunciations of sin. The) are as follows : —
(O Hypocrisy, (2) offences ((T.irSaAal. (3) sin against the^lloly r.l . 't it wilfbe seen that two of these are closely cognate, am I i tl-ree a tach more or less to the same class of persons.
T^^z:^' ^^^^:^^^^^^'^^'^^-
t';h:w r-Srin OT i;.'" hy ,ocHte''have not that "-jmng^see art IveorBlTFl Yct nltliough no correspon.ling Heb. word "ccnrs he c!u iition of soul is described it. Is -..". ""d .s quo ted as s ucli bv Christ (Mk 7«). Further. It had already been brought Ts a ciarge against the Saddncees b.v «"- fhansees a.Sp.- ,r<ip.<r«oi being used to denote I'.vpocrites (1 s■^ol J» ). 1 Hi. we^e now to Imve the reproach cast back "l'"" /hemsehes b^ Clirist -Ci) OffenceK. This sin is fairly prominent in 01 , as. lor instance the sin of Hophni and Phinehas, who made the Lord s
«jrisdJ4^::^^Sf"h^ Sb.»t^s.s^ rsis-f ^r e! rr^f
cause of stumbling mav be in itself !'"«"r'''> »'"''•,„"," 'of he
from Him. AtlutliiT ilistuncu i> that of >iiiioii IVtur. whoso couiisol was iiu 'olli-lioe' to Christ Ilimsi'll' (Mt 1C=1. Or, mmmiikHv, the cuuso of ottonce mav be in itsflf ijiiite an iiinocont act, as 111 Ko 14*, aiul only sinful because of its easily foreseen eonse^iuenues (Ko 14=^). 'I'liis principle explains the ollierwi.fo unnecessary payment of the half-shekel (Mt 1"-'). Yet, further, the act cjiusinj; offence may be not only inntteent, but necessary In itself, io which ease its incidental consequences cannot make It sinful. Christ Himself, His sayings. His cross, are all described in NT as 'offences.' The f;eneral teachiiii:, if we anticipate and incluilo St. Paul's development of the subject, is that we are bound to look forward to the probable conseiinences of our actions, even when those ciuisciiuences are far IVom our inten- tions. Ko 14 grows naturally outof Mt ls'\ Nothing is gained by c«infi>undlni;, as Clemen docs {Lehre ron t/er iS««(/c, p. airilf.i. the sin of causing otTences with the general topic of the self-pri>p:igalioii of sin, anrl its power to bring men into bondage, on which see below, § ii. 2. — C-i) ^in afjainxt t/ie liulij (ikoiii. This was cxemplilicd in, but is not t*) be limited to, the attribution to evil spirits of the work of the Holy Si-irit in the actions and wonls of Christ. For a pndmble explanation of the different judgments pronounced by Christ on blasphemy against the Utily Spirit and that against the Son of man, see art. Blasi'Mkmv' T he persistent denial of the inspiration of Jesus by those who in some measure felt the truth of His claims was an unpai-donablc sin. The three passjiges, .Mt I'i^i- ^-, Mk 'i'^- =*, Lk 1-"". are, like most of the Lord's teaching, not a new unrelated utterance, but rather a republication and .idapta- tlon to the Kingdtim of Ood of the ancient law of blasphemy, Lv '24'". It must he aiided that the unpardonable sin does not consist in the utterance of particular words, but in the condi- tion of soul which Is expressed by them, namely, that persistent resistance to the Holy Ghost which was afterwards emphasized by Stephen (Ac T").
Tiikin;; a general survey, it may be said that there are three points which appear specially in the Synoptists of wliich the last is by far the most iniportiint. (1) An extension of the ari'a of sin by the spiritual inlerpretation of the Mosaic law, and by the new retiiiirements of the Kingdom of God. (2) A limitaticiii of its area by the great principle now clearly formulated, that sin cannot be con- tracted by physical contact with things ceremoniall.y unclean, but must proceed from within (Mk 7"', Mt 15"). (:!) The Lord's own attitude towards sin in man a.s a revelation of God's attitude to it, namely forgivencs,s. The message which lie brought and which He entnistod to the apostles (I,k "24") was the fnrgivene.ss of sins, and it is this which wi' lind them declaring in Acts and cxpaniling in the Epistles.
ii. Till; KiifliTH G isPKL. — The same note is struck by St. John at the outset : ' Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world ' (Jn 1^). Yet His coming and gracious work opened the pcssibilily of a new sin, that sin of rejection of salvation wliich overshadows so largely the first twelve cliaplci's of the Fourth (iospel, and re- appears under other circumstances in the Ej). to the Hebrews (He 2» -l' V,^ '- 10*).
1. In short, the principal teaching as to sin in the Fourth Gospel is the capital nature of the sin of un- belief in ilesus as the Christ the Son of (iud. There had heen unhilief in Galilee, and that unbelief had called forth the severe denunciation in Lk 10'--'". But the unbelief of Jud;ea was far more marked and genei-al, and the gospel of the .ludiean mini.stry i.-» darkened everywhere by collision with it. This i» the sin of wliicli the Holy Spirit will specially convict men, 'of sin because they believe not on me.' Could this sin be regarded as a sin of igno- rance'i" It could not, for Christ had come and manifested Himself. 'if I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin : hut now they have no excuse for their sin' (.In l.V--). We are here clo.se to the sin against the Holy Ghost, wliich has been already treated. 'I'liat is a special and aggravated form of the more general sin of unbelief.