4. St. John (Epistles). — (a) The great contribu- tion which 1 John makes to the doctrine of sin is a i)aradox. Nowhere is the reality of sin more strongly insisted on as occurring in the Christian life, and nowhere is the sinlessness of tlie Christi.an miu'e distinctly asserted. In 1 .In 1 the sinfulness of Christians is presented in three different aspects (reality, responsibility, fact ; see Westcott, in lor.). Again, it is involved in the very piirpo.se of the Epi.stle (1 Jn 2', and cf. T)]"). But in 1 .In 3" " and &'* he who is begotten of God and abides in God does not, cannot, sin. St. .John is not intention- ally putting the.se opposing statements side by side, but they are called out by different forms of error (TrXtii'T;). While some denied in various ways the reality of sin, others were under the delusion that, for the enlightened, conduct is a matter of indifference. The answer to the first was this : we have sin (1'); and, to the second, whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not (;!''). .So far as we sin we fall short of our position as children of God abiding in Him. There must be inlirmities need- ing rejieated advocacy and propitiation (2'-), but the choice of the man is against all sin, anil towards complete conformity to the will of God. He still needs to purify himself (3'); but sin is no longer at the centre of the inner life, it has been driven out to the circumference. Further, St. .lolin goes on to teach a certain security again.st sin, regarded .as coming from without. 'The evil one toucheth him not ' (•')'*). The Christian abides in Christ and is ' kejit.' The agency of Satan in occasioning human sin is strongly marked in this Epistle (3*-'- 5'*- W), as it had been also in the Lord's teaching recorded by St. .fohn (.In S**). On the whole section cf. above iii. 3 {(/). (b) A second but less important point in 1 John is the sin unto death (o"'). It is inconceivable that this should be some particular kind of sin, the name of whieh is con- cealed. A chissilicatiun of sins as mortal and Venial, though n<it without its grounds and its u.ses, is alien from the spirit of the gosjiel, which teaches us that the guilt of sins is estimated by their conditions rather than by the actual thing done. The sin unto death is nearly related to, but not the same as, the sin against the Holy Ghost ; again, it is also nearly related to the sin of wilful apostasv. already treated under Ep. to Ilihrevs. But the three must not be identified. Any sin wilfully persisteil in would satisfy the conditions of 1 Jn Ti'", and the 'sin unto death ' is perhaps to be regarded as a genus under which the two sins above mentioned are to be cliusseii. St. .lolin docs not forbid intercession for such ,a ca.se, he only says that such a case is not what he is speaking about, and that he cannot attach a distinct promise to such intercession, (c) Another
536
SIX
SINAI, MOUNT
characteristic of these Kpistles is the lepreseiita- tioii of sin and righteousness ill the aspect of false- hood and truth (cf. above. Sin in I'xalms). Sin is falsehood. It came in with the primal lie, ' thou shall not die' (cf. Jn S-i'). It rests for its power upon deceit. But the life of love is the life of truth : it corresponds with the movement of the Divine government, with its purposes of mercy, with the Being and attributes of God (2 Jn !-•).
LlTEKATiEE.— or.— Ochlcr, r/ieol. of OT, Eng. tr. vol. i. l>p. ■.'•J'.l-2-45 (very valuablf); Schultz, OT Tlieol.; Clomen, Leitre Ton tier Siintle ; TiiUocU. Ofa'intitai Voclritie o/Sitl ; *.>T com- mentaries, e-sp. DiUmann ou llf.vateiicb, Davidson on Job and Kzekiel, Ctieyue on Psalms.
-V7'.— Dorncr. Si/aleui «f C/ir. JDnrtrine, En-r. tr. vols, ii., iii. (i-xcellent) ; liey.schlas, AT T/ieot., Eng. tr. vol. ii. bk. iv. o. » ; LechltT, Apotytolic Timen, Eng. tr, vol. i. pj). 342--Si;G (verv useful); Weber, ,/«rf. Thi:ot.-i%i6-iA: WeniW, Derf/irist iiin/ die S<'ni<lei/ei J'aiitiiK ; Kitsclil, Juntijication and Jlemiiciliii- thill, V.ng. tr. pp. .SiT-'SCfi; Tliacliera.\', SI. Paul and Conlem- porari/ JeicUk Thoitghty ch. ii. ; Commentaries, esp. Sandav- lleaillain, Roman.\{^i;Q 'Sin' in index); We.stcott,//e^r^?fSve.sp. pp. ul, »-'l. and Kjip. John (esp. pp. .'JT-IO) ; Mayor. St. Jniitet. < )n the .subject as a whole, Muller, ('hristiaii Doctrine o/Sin, is still the only comprehensive worlc known to the writer. It contains much valuable thotiirht, but is unattractive in form and style, and is largely open to ciiticisiu, e.ff. in its recourse to a theory of pre-existctice of souls to account for the origin of inborn sinfulness, bk. iv. ch. 4. E^ R^ BEIiX.\UD.
SIN (I'D; Sdis, 2y7ij/77,A in Ezk .Sm^ Tdms ; Vuls. I'l'lnxium). — A city in Kgypt mentioned in Ezk 3o'^''- along with Patliros (Upper Egyiit), Zoan (Tanis), .Sin, No (Thebes), Jioph (Memphis), Aven (Helio- polis), I'i-beseth (Bubastis), and Tehaphnehes (Daphn*). Arranging these in geographical order, we hnd them to be the mo.st important cities in the N.E. of the Delta and along its eastern edge leading to Memphis, the capital of Lower Egypt, followed by Pathros (Upper Egypt) and its capital No. Sin is characterized by Ezek. as ' the strong- hold of Egypt' (RV), yet it is not mentioned by .lereiuiah. LXX tr. it by .Sais (the capital of the 2()th Dynasty, in power at the time of the prophecy), or Syene, the southern frontier. The latter identification is, however, impossible. In all probability Sin is Pelusium. The name Sin seems, like I'elusiiim, to be connected with ' mud ' ; and a modern name that clings to the neighbourhood of Pelusium j.s et-'Pineh. whicli is from the same root as .Sin. Unfortunately, nothing is known of the history of Pelusium before the time of Hero- dotus, in whose days it w'as a place of importance owing to the development of commerce by sea ; and soon it became the key of Egypt on the N.E., as in the Persian war and long afterwards (Her. ii. 17, 1.54, iii. 10). From the wording of Ezek. it would seem to have held this position at a date when Daphnie was still a great garrison city, guarding tlie approach to Memphis. The ancient Egyptian name of Pelusium is still unknown. In Coptic it is Perfmiin, in Avuh-el-Feniiit. The ruins are about a mile distant from the sea in the ex- treme N.E. corner of the Delta. They consist of a long narrow mound parallel to the sea, containing ruins of a temple and a large red brick enclosure, evidently a Byzantine or Arab fortress. At the E. extremity, after a slight gaji, is anotlier high mound, ntarly touching the desert, and crowned by a structure of red brick. These brick buildings are of the Arab, period. West and south all is barren salt marsh, without a living .soul for miles ; the marsh is now indeed intersected by the Suez canal, whicli brings human beings within 20 miles. Yet even down to the 11th cent. A.l>. el-FermS was a large city, and the country round, though marshy, was to u great extent cultivated and populous. Near the shore were salt-pans, and places for salting fish. F. Ll. Gi{1KI--itii.