In the Second Epistle (and also in Jude) the demonology is still more pronounced. The re- bellion in heaven against God, and the expulsion of the rebels to hell (2 P 2', Jude")— this is the ultimate cause of the sin in the world, on which the Divine judgment by fire will fall (2 P 3'- '=).
6. Apocalyptic teaching. — A vivid anticipation of this last judgment pervades the Revelation (6'" 15' 20'=) : God will at last triumph over sin. But into the detailed account of that victory it is not necessary here to enter, as it belongs to escha- tology {q.v,).
SIN
SIRACH
503
Sii})i7nary. — It will be useful, havinj; thus passed the iliH'erent apostolic writers in review, to attempt a more systematic statement, of the apostolic teaching. In the background tliere is the Jewish denumoiogy and eschatoloj^y, although it would be a mistake so to emphasize the personal agency of Satan as to give the impression that siu was always thought of in this connexion. St. Paul distinctly personihes sin as a power; and we must recognize this personilication as a characteristic feature of his teaching. In accordance with Jewish belief also, the entrance of sin and its penalty death into the race is connected with the Fall of Adam. A morally defective nature is not ascribed to Adam ; and such moral freedom and responsibility are assigned to him as make his transgression an act of disobedience deserving punishment. The whole race is subject to the penalty of death ; but it is not taught that the guilt of his sin is imputed as personal cul])ahility to his descendants, for the sin of all is atlirmed, and imputation of sin, where there is no law, is denied. The assumption that, when there is no outward law, there is an inward, however, de- prives the latter statement of its significance. While St. Paul does thus connect tlie death of all with the sin of all, it would be quite in accord with Jewish thought if he regarded all men as guilty in the sense of liable to the penalty of deatli, while not guilty as personally culpable for volun- tary transgression of known law. It is very probable, if not altogether certain, that he did connect tihe perversion and corruption of human nature, which he indicates in the use of the term ' Hesh,' with the sin of Adam by physical heredity ; for it is not likely that he left this fact unex- plained, or had another explanation of it than that which he gives of the introduction of sin. While the use of the term 'flesh' in this special sense is peculiar to St. Paul, St. James indicates that the desires of man often issue in sin. All the apostolic writings agree in recognizing the univer- sality of human sinfulness, although St. Paul alone gives a proof of it. The possibility of the process of sin going so far that no recovery is possible is recognized by St. John in his reference to the sin unto death, and by the Epistle to the Hebrews in its warnings against apostasy. The Law fails to restrain, it even provokes, sin ; and the gospel alone otters an etiective deliverance from sin. The worst sin is the unbelief that rejects the sole means of salvation from sin. For all sin there is judgment ; but the severest judgment falls on the neglect of the ottered salvation. In Christ there is both the forgdveness of sin and the victory over the power of sin. While actually the conflict with sin still continues in the believer, ideally, according to St. Paul, he is dead to sin as crucilied with Christ, or, according to St. John, he cannot sin, for he is kept by Christ. While the Epistle to the Hebrews specially emphasizes the objective aspect of sin as guilt rather than the subjective aspect as weakness, in the NT generally the need of atone- ment for the guilt is probably even more insisted on than the need of deliverance from weakness. The doctrine of sin is everywhere presentetl, not for its own .sake, but as the dark background on which shines the more brightly the glory of the gospel of the grace of God.
While we cannot subject Christian faith to-day to Jewish eschatology, demonology, psychology, or anthropology, even on the authority of a Christian apostle, and while the apostolic doctrine must in these i-espects at least be modihed for our thought, yet, as it rests on a real moral and religious ex- perience, such truths as the universality of sinful- ness in the race, the reality of the moral bondage of the individual, the certainty of future judgment
on persistent transgression, the necessity of for- giveness an<l deliverance, t he s\i(iiciency of the grace of God for salvation, will lind conlirmation from the moral conscience and the religious conscious- ness wherever there has been the obedience of faith to the Divine revelation and human redemption in Christ Jesus. To most modern thought the ajjos- tolic emiibasis on tli'ise truths seems dis|iropor- tionate and exaggerated ; but, whatever dill'ereiu;e of terms and even of ideas there may have been between the disciples and the Master, they did not take sin more seriously than diil He who gave His life a ransom for many, and who in His own blood instituted the New Covenant unto the remission of sins.