The Bible’s teaching about sin1 presents a profound, and profoundly bifurcated, vista: the plunging depravity of humanity and the surpassing glory of God. Sin shades every aspect of human existence, enticing us from the outside as an enemy and compelling us from the inside as a part of our fallen human nature. In this life sin is known intimately, yet it remains alien and mysterious. It promises freedom but enslaves, producing desires that cannot be satisfied. The more we struggle to escape its grasp, the more inextricably it binds us. Understanding sin assists us in the knowledge of God, yet it is that which distorts knowledge of even the self. But if the light of divine illumination can penetrate its darkness, not only that darkness, but also the light itself, can be better appreciated.
The practical importance of the study of sin is seen in its seriousness: Sin is contrary to God. It affects all creation, including humanity. Even the least sin can bring eternal judgment. The remedy for sin is nothing less than Christ’s death on the cross. The results of sin embrace all the terror of suffering and death. Finally, the darkness of sin displays the glory of God in a stark and terrible contrast.2
The importance of the study of the nature of sin may be understood in its relation to other doctrines. Sin distorts and casts doubt upon all knowledge. In defending the Christian faith, one struggles with the ethical dilemma of how evil can exist in a world governed by an all-good, all-powerful God.
The study of the nature of God must consider God’s providential control over a sin-cursed world. The study of the universe must describe a universe that was created good but that now groans for redemption. The study of humankind must deal with a human nature that has become grotesquely inhuman and unnatural. The doctrine of Christ faces the question of how the fully human nature of the virgin-born Son of God can be fully sinless. The study of salvation must state not only to what but also from what humanity is saved. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit must consider conviction and sanctification in light of a sinful flesh. The doctrine of the Church must shape ministry to a humanity that is distorted by sin outside and inside the Church. The study of the end times must describe, and to some extent defend, God’s judgment upon sinners while proclaiming sin’s end. Finally, practical theology must seek to evangelize, counsel, educate, govern the Church, affect society, and encourage holiness in spite of sin.
The study of sin, however, is difficult. It is revolting, focusing on the gross ugliness of widespread, open sin and the subtle deception of secret, personal sin. Today’s post-Christian society reduces sin to feelings or to acts, ignoring or wholly rejecting supernatural evil. Most insidiously, the study of sin is frustrated by the irrational nature of evil itself.
The number of nonscriptural views of sin is legion. Despite their being nonscriptural, studying them is important for the following reasons: to think more clearly and scripturally about Christianity; to defend more accurately the faith and to critique other systems; to evaluate more critically new psychotherapies, political programs, educational approaches, and the like; and to minister more effectively to believers and nonbelievers who may hold these or similar nonscriptural views.3
Building on Soren Kierkegaard’s existentialism, many theories argue that humans are caught in a dilemma when their limited abilities are inadequate to meet the virtually limitless possibilities and choices of their perceptions and imaginations. This situation produces tension or anxiety. Sin is the futile attempt to resolve this tension through inappropriate means instead of pessimistically accepting it or, in Christian versions, turning to God.4
In a more radical development, some argue that individual existence is a sinful state because people are alienated from the basis of reality (often defined as “god”) and from each other. This theme can be found in an early form in the ancient Jewish philosopher Philo. It is currently expressed by liberal theologians such as Paul Tillich and within many forms of Eastern religion and New Age thought.5
Some believe sin and evil are not real but merely illusions that may be overcome by right perception. Christian Science, Hinduism, Buddhism, the positive thinking of some popular Christianity, much psychology, and aspects of the New Age movement resonate with this view.6
Sin also has been understood as the unevolved remnants of primal animal characteristics, such as aggression. Advocates of this view say the story of Eden is really a myth about the development of moral awareness and conscience, not a fall.7
Liberation theology sees sin as the oppression of one societal group by another. Often combining the economic theories of Karl Marx (which speak of the class struggle of the ultimately victorious proletariat against the bourgeoisie) with biblical themes (such as Israel’s victory over Egyptian slavery), liberation theologians identify the oppressed in economic, racial, gender, and other terms. Sin is eliminated by removing the social conditions that cause the oppression. Extremists advocate violent overthrow of unredeemable oppressors, while moderates emphasize change through social action and education.8
Among the most ancient views of sin is dualism, the belief that there is a struggle between (virtually or actually) preexistent and equal forces, or gods of good and evil. These cosmic forces and their battle cause sinfulness in the temporal sphere. Often, evil matter (especially flesh) either carries or actually is sin that must be conquered. This idea appears in ancient Near Eastern religions such as Gnosticism, Manichaeism, and Zoroastrianism. In many versions of Hinduism and Buddhism, and their New Age offspring, evil is reduced to an amoral necessity.9
Some modern theology sees “god” as finite and even morally evolving. Until the dark side of the divine nature is controlled, the world will suffer evil. This is typical of process theology’s blending of physics and Eastern mysticism.10
Much popular thought, uninformed Christianity, Islam, and many moralistic systems hold that sin consists only in willful actions. Morally free people simply make free choices; there is no such thing as a sin nature, only actual events of sin. Salvation is simply being better and doing good.11
Atheism holds that evil is merely the random chance of a godless cosmos. Sin is rejected, ethics is merely preference, and salvation is humanistic self-advancement.12
Although many of these theories may appear to contain some insight, none take the Bible as fully inspired revelation. Scripture teaches that sin is real and personal; it originated in the fall of Satan, who is personal, wicked, and active; and through Adam’s fall sin spread to a humanity created good by an all-good God.
The Bible refers to an event in the darkest recesses of time, beyond human experience, when sin became reality.13 An extraordinary creature, the serpent, was already confirmed in wickedness before “sin entered the world” through Adam (Rom. 5:12; see Gen. 3).14 This ancient serpent is met elsewhere as the great dragon, Satan, and the devil (Rev. 12:9; 20:2). He has been sinning and murdering from the beginning (John 8:44; 1 John 3:8). Pride (1 Tim. 3:6) and a fall of angels (Jude 6; Rev. 12:7–9) also are associated with this cosmic catastrophe.15
Scripture also teaches of another Fall: Adam and Eve were created “good” and placed in an idyllic garden in Eden, enjoying close communion with God (Gen. 1:26 through 2:25). Because they were not divine and were capable of sinning, their continuing dependence on God was necessary. Similarly, they required regular partaking of the tree of life.16 This is indicated by God’s invitation to eat of every tree, including the tree of life, before the Fall (2:16), and His strong prohibition afterward (3:22–23). Had they obeyed, they may have been blissfully fruitful, developing forever (1:28–30). Alternatively, after a period of probation, they may have achieved a more permanent state of immortality either by translation into heaven (Gen. 5:21–24; 2 Kings 2:1–12) or by a resurrection body on earth (cf. believers, 1 Cor. 15:35–54).
God permitted Eden to be invaded by Satan, who craftily tempted Eve (Gen. 3:1–5). Ignoring God’s Word, Eve gave in to her desire for beauty and wisdom, took the forbidden fruit, offered it to her husband, and they ate together (Gen. 3:6). Eve was deceived by the serpent, but Adam seems to have sinned knowingly (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14; God’s tacit agreement in Gen. 3:13–19). It may be that while Adam heard the command not to eat of the tree directly from God, Eve heard it only through her husband (Gen. 2:17; cf. 2:22). Hence, Adam was more responsible before God, and Eve was more susceptible to Satan (cf. John 20:29). This may explain Scripture’s emphasis on Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:21–22) when actually Eve sinned first. Finally, it is crucial to observe that their sin began in free moral choices, not temptations (which they could have resisted: 1 Cor. 10:13; James 4:7). That is, although temptation provided the incentive to sin, the serpent did not pick the fruit or force them to eat it. They chose to do so.
Humanity’s first sin embraced all other sins: effrontery and disobedience to God, pride, unbelief, wrong desires, leading astray of others, mass killing of posterity, and voluntary submission to the devil. The immediate consequences were numerous, severe, extensive, and ironic (note carefully Gen. 1:26 through 3:24): The divine-human relationship of open communion, love, trust, and security was exchanged for isolation, defensiveness, blame, and banishment. Adam and Eve and their relationship degenerated. Intimacy and innocence were replaced by accusation (as they shifted the blame). Their rebellious desire for independence resulted in pain in childbirth, toil, and death. Their eyes were truly opened, knowing good and evil (through a shortcut), but it was a burdensome knowledge unbalanced by other divine attributes (e.g., love, wisdom, knowledge). Creation, entrusted to and cared for by Adam, was cursed, groaning for deliverance from the results of his faithlessness (Rom. 8:20–22). Satan, who had offered Eve the heights of divinity and promised that the man and woman would not die, was cursed above all creatures and condemned to eternal destruction by her offspring (see Matt. 25:41). Finally, the first man and woman brought death to all their children (Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:20–28).
The Jewish Midrash takes God’s warning that death would come when (literally, “in the day”) they ate of the tree (Gen. 2:17) as a reference to Adam’s physical death (Gen. 3:19; 5:5) since a day, in God’s sight, is as a thousand years (Ps. 90:4) and Adam lived only 930 years (Gen. 5:5). Others see it as a necessary consequence of being cut off from the tree of life. Many Jewish rabbis noted that Adam was never immortal and that his death would have come immediately if God had not delayed it out of mercy. Most hold that spiritual death or separation from God occurred that day.17
Yet, even in judgment God graciously made Adam and Eve coverings of skins, apparently to replace their self-made coverings of leaves (Gen. 3:7, 21).18
ORIGINAL SIN: A BIBLICAL ANALYSIS
Scripture teaches that Adam’s sin affected more than just himself (Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:21–22). This issue is called original sin. It poses three questions: to what extent, by what means, and on what basis is Adam’s sin transmitted to the rest of humanity? Any theory of original sin must answer these three questions and meet the following biblical criteria:
Solidarity. All humanity, in some sense, is united or bound to Adam as a single entity (because of him, all people are outside the blessedness of Eden; Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:21–22).
Corruption. Because human nature was so damaged by the Fall no person is capable of doing spiritual good without God’s gracious assistance. This is called total corruption, or depravity, of nature. It does not mean that people can do no apparent good, but only that they can do nothing to merit salvation. Nor is this teaching exclusively Calvinistic. Even Arminius (although not all his followers) described the “Free Will of man towards the True Good” as “imprisoned, destroyed, and lost … it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine Grace.” Arminius’ intent, like Wesley’s after him, was not to retain human freedom in spite of the Fall, but to maintain divine grace as greater than even the destruction of the Fall.19
Such corruption is recognized in the Bible: Psalm 51:5 speaks of David’s being conceived in sin; that is, his own sin goes back to the time of his conception. Romans 7:7–24 suggests that sin, although dead, was in Paul from the first. Most crucially, Ephesians 2:3 states that all are “by nature children of wrath” (KJV). “Nature,” phusis, speaks of the fundamental reality or source of a thing. Hence, the very “stuff” of all people is corrupt.20 Since the Bible teaches that all adults are corrupt and that like comes from like (Job 14:4; Matt. 7:17–18; Luke 6:43), humans must produce corrupt children. Corrupt nature producing corrupt offspring is the best explanation of the universality of sinfulness. While several Gospel passages refer to the humility and spiritual openness of children (Matt. 10:42; 11:25–26; 18:1–7; 19:13–15; Mark 9:33–37, 41–42; 10:13–16; Luke 9:46–48; 10:21; 18:15–17), none teach that children are uncorrupted. In fact, some children are even demonized (Matt. 15:22; 17:18; Mark 7:25; 9:17).
Sinfulness of All. Romans 5:12 says “all sinned.” Romans 5:18 says that through one sin all were condemned, implying all have sinned. Romans 5:19 says that through one man’s sin all were made sinners. Passages that speak of universal sinfulness make no exceptions for infants. Sinless children would be saved without Christ, which is unscriptural (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Liability to punishment also indicates sin.
Liability to Punishment. All people, even infants, are subject to punishment. “Children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3, KJV) is a Semitism indicating divine punishment (cf. 2 Pet. 2:14).21 The biblical imprecations against children (Ps. 137:9) indicate this. And Romans 5:12 says physical death (cf. Ps. 5:6–8, 10, 14, 17) comes on all, apparently even infants, because all have sinned. Children, prior to moral accountability or consent (the chronological age probably varies with the individual), are not personally guilty. Children are without a knowledge of good or evil (Deut. 1:39; cf. Gen. 2:17). Romans 7:9–11 states Paul was “alive” until the Mosiac law (cf. 7:1) came, causing sin “to spring to life” (cf. NIV), which deceived and killed him spiritually.
Childhood Salvation. Although infants are considered sinners and therefore liable to hell, this does not mean any are actually sent there. Various doctrines indicate several mechanisms for saving some or all: unconditional election within Calvinism; paedobaptism within sacramentalism; preconscious faith; God’s foreknowledge of how a child would have lived; God’s peculiar graciousness to children; the implicit covenant of a believing family (perhaps including the “law of the heart,” Rom. 2:14–15), superseding the Adamic covenant; prevenient grace (from Latin: the grace “which comes before” salvation), extending the Atonement to all under the age of accountability. In all events, one may rest assured that the “Judge of all the earth” does right (Gen. 18:25).
The Adam-Christ Parallel. Romans 5:12–21 and, to a lesser extent, 1 Corinthians 15:21–22 emphasize a strong parallel between Adam and Christ. Romans 5:19 is especially significant: “As through the disobedience of the one man [Adam] the many were made [Gr. kathistemi] sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man [Christ] the many will be made [kathistemi] righteous.” In the New Testament, kathistemi typically refers to one appointing another to a position. No actual act is required to attain the position. Hence, people who had not actually sinned could be made sinners by Adam. In a mirror image of Christ, Adam can make people sinners by a forensic, or legal, act not requiring actual sin on their part. (That a person must “accept Christ” to be saved cannot be part of the parallel, since infants who cannot consciously accept Christ may be saved; 2 Sam. 12:23.)
Not All Like Adam. Some people clearly did not sin in the same manner as Adam, yet they did sin and they did die (Rom. 5:14).22
One Man’s One Sin. In Romans 5:12–21, Paul repeatedly says that one man’s one sin brought condemnation and death (see also 1 Cor. 15:21–22) on all people.
The Cursed Ground. Some basis must be identified for God’s cursing the ground (Gen. 3:17–18).
Christ’s Sinlessness. Christ must be allowed a complete human nature and also safeguard His complete sinlessness.
God’s Justice. God’s justice in allowing Adam’s sin to pass to others must be preserved.
ORIGINAL SIN: A THEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
Many attempts have been made to construct a theological model or theory to fit these complex parameters. Some of the more significant are discussed here.23
Jewish Conceptions. Three main motifs are found in Judaism. The dominant theory is that of the two natures, the good, yetser tov, and evil, yetser ra‘ (cf. Gen. 6:5; 8:21). The rabbis debated the age at which these impulses manifest themselves and whether the evil impulse is true moral evil or only natural instinct. In all events, wicked people are controlled by the evil impulse while good people control it. A second theory concerns the “watchers” (Gen. 6:1–4), angels who were to oversee humanity but sinned with human females. Finally, there are ideas of original sin that anticipate Christianity. Most dramatically, the Midrash (commentary) on Deuteronomy explains the death of the righteous Moses by analogy to a child who inquires of the king as to why he is in prison. The king replies that it is because of the sin of the boy’s mother. Similarly, Moses died because of the first man who brought death into the world. In summary, original sin is not a Pauline innovation, but Paul, by the Spirit, developed it in accordance with progressive revelation.24
Agnosticism. Some hold that there is insufficient biblical evidence to form a detailed theory of original sin. Any statement beyond a connection between Adam and the human race in the matter of sinfulness is deemed philosophical speculation.25 Although it is true that doctrine ought not to be based on extra-scriptural speculation, deduction from Scripture is valid.
Pelagianism. Pelagianism strongly emphasizes personal responsibility in opposition to moral laxness. Pelagius (A.D. ca. 361–ca. 420) taught that God’s justice would not permit the transfer of Adam’s sin to others, so all people are born sinless and with a totally free will. Sin is spread only through bad example. Hence, sinless lives are possible and are found within and outside the Bible. Yet, all this is unscriptural. It also makes the biblical connections of Adam to humanity meaningless. Jesus’ death becomes only good example. Salvation is merely good works. New life in Christ is really old discipline. While rightly emphasizing personal responsibility, holiness, and that some sins are learned, Pelagianism has correctly been judged a heresy.26
Semipelagianism. Semipelagianism holds that although humanity is weakened with Adam’s nature, sufficient free will remains for people to initiate faith in God, to which He then responds. The weakened nature is transmitted naturally from Adam.27 Yet, how God’s justice is maintained in allowing innocent people to receive even a tainted nature and how Christ’s sinlessness is protected are not well explained. Most important, in some formulations, semipelagianism teaches that though human nature is so weakened by the Fall that it is inevitable that people sin, yet they have enough inherent goodness to initiate actual faith.
Natural or Genetic Transmission. This theory holds that transmission of the corrupt nature is based on the law of inheritance. It assumes that spiritual traits are transmitted in the same manner as natural ones. Typically such theories speak of the transmission of corruption but not guilt. Yet, there seems to be no adequate basis for God to inflict corrupt natures on good souls. Nor is it clear how Christ can have a fully human nature that is free from sin.28
Mediate Imputation. Mediate imputation understands God as changing or imputing guilt to Adam’s descendants through an indirect, or mediate, means. Adam’s sin made him guilty and, as a judgment, God corrupted Adam’s nature. Because none of his posterity was part of his act, none are guilty. However, they receive his nature as a natural consequence of their descent from him (not as a judgment). Yet, before committing any actual or personal sin (which their corrupted nature necessitates), God judges them guilty for possessing that corrupt nature.29 Unfortunately, this attempt to protect God from unfairly inflicting “alien guilt” from Adam upon humanity results in afflicting God with even greater unfairness, as He allows sin-causing corruption to vitiate parties who are devoid of guilt and then judges them guilty because of this corruption.
Realism. Realism and federalism (see below) are the two most important theories. Realism holds that the “soul stuff” of all people was really and personally in Adam (“seminally present,” according to the traducian view of the origin of the soul),30 actually participating in his sin. Each person is guilty because, in reality, each sinned. Everyone’s nature is then corrupted by God as a judgment on that sin. There is no transmission, or conveyance, of sin, but complete racial participation in the first sin. Augustine (354–430) elaborated on the theory by saying corruption passed through the sexual act. This allowed him to keep Christ free of original sin through the Virgin Birth.31 W. G. T. Shedd (1820–94) added a more sophisticated underpinning. He argued that beneath the will of everyday choices is the deep will, the “will proper,” which shapes the ultimate direction of the person. It is this deep will of each person that actually sinned in Adam.32
Realism has great strengths. It does not have the problem of alien guilt, the solidarity of Adam and the race of Adam’s sin is taken seriously, and the “all sinned” of Romans 5:12 appears well handled.
However, there are problems: Realism has all the weaknesses of extreme traducianism. The kind of personal presence necessary in Adam and Eve strains even Hebrews 7:9–10 (cf. Gen. 46:26), the classic traducianistic passage. The “One might even say” (Heb. 7:9) in Greek suggests that what follows is to be taken figuratively.33 Concepts like a “deep will” tend to require and presuppose a deterministic, Calvinistic view of salvation. Realism by itself cannot explain why, or on what basis, God curses the ground.
Therefore, something like the covenant is required. For His humanity to be sinless, Jesus must have committed the first sin in Adam and was subsequently purified, or He was not present at all, or He was present but did not sin and was conveyed sinless through all succeeding generations. Each of these presents difficulties. (An alternative is suggested below.) That all personally sinned seems inconsistent with one man’s one sin making all sinners (Rom. 5:12, 15–19). Since all sinned in, with, and as Adam, all appear to have sinned in Adam’s pattern, contrary to Romans 5:14.
Federalism. The federal theory of transmission holds that corruption and guilt come upon all humanity because Adam was the head of the race in a representative, governmental, or federal sense when he sinned. Everyone is subject to the covenant between Adam and God (the Adamic covenant, or covenant of works, in contrast to the covenant of grace). Analogy is made to a nation that declares war. Its citizens suffer whether or not they agree with or participate in the decision. Adam’s descendants are not personally guilty until they actually commit sin, but they are in a guilty state and liable to hell by the imputation of Adam’s sin to them under the covenant. Because of this state, God punishes them with corruption. Many federalists therefore distinguish between inherited sin (corruption) and imputed sin (guilt) from Adam. Most federalists are creationists concerning the origin of the soul, but federalism is not incompatible with traducianism.34 Adam’s covenant included his stewardship over creation and is the just basis of God’s curse on the ground. Christ, as the head of a new covenant and race, is exempt from the judgment of corruption and so is sinless.
Federalism has many strengths. The covenant, as a biblical basis for the transmission of sin, is in reasonable agreement with Romans 5:12–21 and provides mechanisms for cursing the ground and protecting Christ from sin. However, federalism also has weaknesses. Romans 7 must describe only Paul’s realization of his sinful nature, not the actual experience of sin killing him. More important, the transmission of “alien guilt” from Adam is often seen as unjust.35
An Integrated Theory. Several of the above theories may be combined in an integrated approach. This theory distinguishes between the individual person and the sin nature of flesh. When Adam sinned he separated himself from God, which produced corruption (including death) in him as an individual and in his nature. Because he contained all generic nature, it was all corrupted. This generic nature is transmitted naturally to the individual aspect of the person, the “I” (as in Rom. 7).36 The Adamic covenant is the just basis of this transmission and also of the curse of the ground. The “I” is not corrupted or made guilty by the generic nature, but the generic nature does not prevent the “I” from pleasing God (John 14:21; 1 John 5:3). Upon reaching personal accountability, the “I,” struggling with the nature, either responds to God’s prevenient grace in salvation or actually sins by ignoring it, and so the “I” itself is separated from God and becomes guilty and corrupt. God continues to reach out to the “I” through prevenient grace, and it may respond to salvation.
Therefore, Romans 5:12 can say “all sinned” and all can be corrupt and in need of salvation, but guilt is not inflicted upon those who have not yet actually sinned. This is consistent with the struggle of Romans 7. Not all people sin like Adam (Rom. 5:14), but one man’s one sin does bring death and make all sinners; it does so by the Adamic covenant, a mechanism parallel to Christ’s making sinners righteous (Rom. 5:12–21). Extreme semipelagianism is avoided since the “I” can only acknowledge its need but cannot act in faith because of the generic human nature (James 2:26). Since separation from God is the cause of corruption, Christ’s union with His part of the generic nature restores it to holiness. Because the Spirit came to Mary in the conception of the human “I” of Christ it was preresponsible and therefore sinless. This arrangement is just, because Christ is the Head of a new covenant. Similarly, the Spirit’s union with the believer in salvation is regenerating.37
Although Scripture does not explicitly affirm the covenant as the basis for transmission, there is much evidence in favor of it. Covenants are a fundamental part of God’s plan (Gen. 6:18; 9:9–17; 15:18; 17:2–21; Ex. 34:27–28; Jer. 31:31; Heb. 8:6, 13; 12:24). There was a covenant between God and Adam. Hosea 6:7, “Like Adam, they have broken the covenant,” most likely refers to this covenant since the alternative translation of “like men” is tautological. Hebrews 8:7, which calls the covenant with Israel “first,” does not preclude the Adamic covenant because the context indicates that it refers only to the first covenant of God with Israel (not all humanity) and there is an explicit, earlier covenant with Noah (Gen. 6:18; 9:9–17). Biblical covenants are binding over future generations for good (Noah, Gen. 6:18; 9:9–17) or ill (Joshua and the Gibeonites, Josh. 9:15). Covenants are often the only observable basis for judgment (the Israelites who died at Ai because of Achan’s sin at Jericho [Josh. 7]; the suffering of the people due to David’s numbering them [2 Sam. 24]). Covenantal circumcision could bring even alien children into Israel (Gen. 17:9–14).
Some object that any theory that transmits any consequence of Adam’s sin to others is inherently unfair because it imputes his sin gratuitously, that is, without basis. (Only Pelagianism fully avoids this by making everyone personally responsible. Realism’s preconscious sin retains most of the difficulties.) Covenants are, however, a just basis for such transmission for the following reasons: Adam’s descendants would have been as blessed by his good behavior as they were cursed by his evil work. The covenant is certainly more fair than mere genetic transmission. The guilt and consequences transmitted by the covenant are similar to sins of ignorance (Gen. 20).
Some object that Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 prohibit transgenerational judgment. But other passages speak of such judgment (the firstborn of Egypt; Moab; Ex. 20:5; 34:6–7; Jer. 32:18). It is just possible, however, to see the former passages as referring to biological headship as an insufficient ground for transmitting judgment and the latter passages as referring to a covenantal basis, which is adequate for passing on judgment. Alternatively, in the integrated theory, since the corrupt nature is not a positive judgment of God, the issue of punishment for the father’s sin does not really occur. Finally, who, even without corruption and in the perfect Garden, would do better than Adam at obeying God’s commandments? And surely what some call the “unfairness” of imputed sin is more than overcome by the graciousness of freely offered salvation in Christ!
Although speculative, and not without its difficulties, this integrated theory utilizing the covenant appears to account for much of the scriptural data and may suggest a third alternative to the dominant theories of realism and federalism.
How can evil exist if God is all good and all powerful?38 This question, and the related one concerning the source of evil, is the specter that haunts all attempts to understand sin. Before proceeding further, several kinds of evil must be distinguished. Moral evil, or sin, is lawlessness committed by volitional creatures. Natural evil is the disorder and decay of the universe (natural disasters, some sickness, etc.). It is connected to God’s curse on the ground (Gen. 3:17–18). Metaphysical evil is unintentional evil resulting from creaturely finitude (mental and physical inability, etc.).
The Bible affirms God’s moral perfection (Ps. 100:5; Mark 10:18) and power (Jer. 32:17; Matt. 19:26). He alone created (Gen. 1:1–2; John 1:1–3), and all He created was good (Gen. 1; Ecc. 7:29). He did not create evil, which He hates (Ps. 7:11; Rom. 1:18). He neither tempts nor is tempted (James 1:13). Yet, two apparently contradictory passages must be considered: First, in Isaiah 45:7, the KJV says God creates “evil.” But ra‘, “evil,” also has a nonmoral sense (e.g., Gen. 47:9, KJV), as in the NIV’s “disaster.” This best contrasts with “peace” (cf. Amos 6:3) and is the preferred translation. Hence, God brings moral judgment, not immoral evil.
Second, God’s hardening or blinding of people also raises questions. This can be a passive “giving over” in which God simply leaves people to their own devices (Ps. 81:12; Rom. 1:18–28; 1 Tim. 4:1–2) or an active imposition of hardening in people who have irrevocably committed themselves to evil (Ex. 1:8 through 15:21; Deut. 2:30; Josh. 11:20; Isa. 6:9–10; 2 Cor. 3:14–15; Eph. 4:17–19; 2 Thess. 2:9–12).
Note the example of Pharaoh (Ex. 1:8 through 15:21). Pharaoh was not created for the purpose of being hardened, as a superficial reading of Romans 9:17 (“I raised you up”) might suggest. The Hebrew ‘amad and its counterpart in the Septuagint (LXX), diatereō (Ex. 9:16), refer to status or position, not creation, which is within the semantic range of exegeirō (Rom. 9:17). Pharaoh deserved God’s judgment when he first rejected Moses’ plea (Ex. 5:2). But God preserved Pharaoh so He might be glorified through him. Initially, God only predicted His hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. 4:21, Heb. ’achazzeq, “I will make strong”; 7:3, Heb. ’aqsheh, “I will make heavy,” i.e., hard to move). Before God acted, however, Pharaoh hardened his own heart (implicitly, 1:8–22; 5:2; and explicitly, 7:13–14). Pharaoh’s heart “became hard” (literally, “became strong”), apparently in response to the gracious miracle that removed the plague, and God said Pharaoh’s heart was “unyielding” (Heb. kavedh, “is heavy”39; Ex. 7:22–23; 8:15, 32; 9:7). Pharaoh then continued the process (9:34–35) with God’s assistance (9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17).
This pattern is explicit in or compatible with the other cases and with God’s holy justice (Rom. 1:18). Therefore, God can accelerate self-confirmed sinfulness for His purposes (Ps. 105:25), but sinners remain responsible (Rom. 1:20).40
Since God did not create evil yet did create all that exists, evil cannot have a unique existence. Evil is an absence or disordering of the good. This may be illustrated by common table salt, a compound, or tightly bound mixture, of two chemicals, sodium and chloride. When not bound together, both elements are highly lethal. Sodium bursts into flame upon contact with water, and chlorine is a deadly poison.41 Like disordered salt, God’s perfect creation is deadly when thrown out of balance by sin.42 Through the falls of Satan and Adam all evil arises. Therefore, natural evil stems from moral evil. All sickness is ultimately from sin, but not necessarily the sin of the one who is sick (John 9:1–3), although it may be (Ps. 107:17; Isa. 3:17; Acts 12:23). The great irony of Genesis 1 through 3 is that both God and Satan use language: one creatively to bring reality and order ex nihilo, the other imitatively to bring deception and disorder. Evil is dependent on the good and Satan’s work is only imitation.
Because God was capable of stopping evil (by isolating the tree, for instance) and yet did not, and because He certainly knew what would happen, it seems He allowed evil to occur. (This is far different from causing it.) It follows that the Holy God saw a greater good in allowing evil. Some of the suggestions of the exact nature of this good follow: (1) that humanity would mature through suffering (cf. Heb. 5:7–9);43 (2) that people would be able to freely and truly love God since such love requires the possibility of hate and sin;44 (3) that God could express himself in ways that would otherwise be impossible (such as His hatred of evil, Rom. 9:22, and gracious love of sinners, Eph. 2:7).45 All these understandings have some validity.46
Describing sin is a difficult task. This may result from its parasitic nature, in that it has no separate existence but is conditioned by that which it attaches to. Yet, an image of sin’s chameleonic, derivative existence does appear in Scripture.
There have been many suggestions of the essence of sin: unbelief, pride, selfishness, rebellion, moral corruption, a struggle of flesh and spirit, idolatry, and combinations of the preceding.47 While all these ideas are informative, none characterizes every sin, for example, sins of ignorance, and none adequately explains sin as a nature. Most significantly, all these ideas define sin in terms of sinners, who are many, varied, and imperfect. It seems preferable to define sin with reference to God. He alone is one, consistent, and absolute, and against His holiness the contrariness of sin is displayed.
Perhaps the best definition of sin is found in 1 John 3:4—“Sin is lawlessness.” Whatever else sin is, at its heart, it is a breach of God’s law. And since “all wrongdoing is sin” (1 John 5:17), all wrongdoing breaks God’s law.48 So David confesses, “Against you, you only, have I sinned” (Ps. 51:4; cf. Luke 15:18, 21). Furthermore, transgression forces separation from the God of Life and Holiness, which necessarily results in the corruption (including death) of finite, dependent human nature. Therefore, this definition of sin is biblical, precise, and embraces every type of sin; it accounts for sin’s effects on nature and is referenced to God, not humanity. That is, we see its true nature by observing its contrast to God, not by comparing its effects among human beings.
Although believers are not under the Mosaic law, objective standards still exist and can be broken (John 4:21; 1 John 5:3; the many regulations in the Epistles). Because of the human inability to fulfill law, only a relationship with Christ can provide atonement to cover sin and power to live a godly life. The believer who sins must still confess and, where possible, make restitution, not for absolution, but to affirm his or her relationship with Christ. It is this faith that has always been contrary to “works righteousness” (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38), so that whatever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23; cf. Titus 1:15; Heb. 11:6). Therefore, sin—in believers or unbelievers, before or after the Crucifixion—is always lawlessness, and the only solution is faith in Christ.
Sin is not defined by feelings or philosophy,49 but only by God in His law, desire, and will. This is discovered most concretely through Scripture. Although optimally the believer’s heart (broadly defined) can sense sin (Rom. 2:13–15; 1 John 3:21), its spiritual sensitivity to good and evil requires development (Heb. 5:14). The heart has been deeply wicked (Jer. 17:9) and can be seared (1 Tim. 4:2); it can also feel false guilt (1 John 3:20).50 For this reason, subjective feelings must never be placed above God’s objective, written Word. Yet, one must be spiritually sensitive.
The idea of sin as breaking law is imbedded in the very language of Scripture. The chatta’th word group, the most important in Hebrew for “sin,” carries the basic idea of “missing the mark” (Judg. 20:16; Prov. 19:2). With this idea of an objective mark or standard, it can refer to willful sins (Ex. 10:17; Deut. 9:18; Ps. 25:7), an external reality of sin (Gen. 4:7), a pattern of sin (Gen. 18:20; 1 Kings 8:36), errors (Lev. 4:2), and the offerings required for them (Lev. 4:8). ’Awon, “iniquity,” from the idea of “crooked” or “twisted,” speaks of serious sins, often being paralleled with chatta’th (Isa. 43:24). The verb ‘avar speaks of the crossing of a boundary, and so, metaphorically, of transgression (Num. 14:41; Deut. 17:2). Resha‘ can mean wrong (Prov. 11:10) or injustice (Prov. 28:3–4).
In Greek, the hamartia word group carries the generic concept of sin in the New Testament. With the basic meaning of “missing the mark” (as in chatta’th), it is a broad term originally without moral connotation. In the New Testament, however, it refers to specific sins (Mark 1:5; Acts 2:38; Gal. 1:4; Heb. 10:12) and to sin as a force (Rom. 6:6, 12; Heb. 12:1). Anomia (Gr. nomos, “law,” plus the negating a), “without law,” “lawlessness,” “iniquity,” and its related terms represent perhaps the strongest language of sin. The adjective and adverb may refer to those without the Torah (Rom. 2:12; 1 Cor. 9:21), but the word usually identifies anyone who has broken any divine law (Matt. 7:23; 1 John 3:4). It is also the “lawlessness” of 2 Thessalonians 2:7–12.
Another term for sin, adikia, is most literally translated “unrighteousness” and ranges from a mere mistake to gross violations of law. It is great wickedness (Rom. 1:29; 2 Pet. 2:13–15) and is contrasted with righteousness (Rom. 6:13). Parabasis, “overstepping,” “transgression,” and its derivatives indicate breaking a standard. The word describes the Fall (Rom. 5:14; cf. 1 Tim. 2:14), the transgression of law as sin (James 2:9, 11), and Judas’ loss of his apostleship (Acts 1:25). Asebeia, “ungodliness” (the negating a added to sebomai [“to show reverence,” “to worship,” etc.]), suggests a spiritual insensitivity that results in gross sin (Jude 4), producing great condemnation (1 Pet. 4:18; 2 Pet. 2:5; 3:7).
The idea of sin as lawbreaking or disorder stands in stark contrast to the personal God who spoke into existence an ordered and good world. The very idea of personness (whether human or divine) demands order; its absence gives rise to the common and technical term “personality disorder.”51
Many of the facets of sin are reflected in the following characteristics drawn from the biblical record.
Sin as unbelief or lack of faith is seen in the Fall, in humanity’s rejection of general revelation (Romans 1:18 through 2:2), and in those condemned to the second death (Rev. 21:8). It is closely connected with Israel’s disobedience in the desert (Heb. 3:18–19). The Greek apistia, “unbelief” (Acts 28:24), combines the negating a with pistis, “faith,” “trust,” “faithfulness.” Whatever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23; Heb. 11:6). Unbelief is the opposite of saving faith (Acts 13:39; Rom. 10:9), ending in eternal judgment (John 3:16; Heb. 4:6, 11).
Pride is self-exaltation. Ironically, it is both the desire to be like God (as in Satan’s temptation of Eve) and the rejection of God (Ps. 10:4). Despite its terrible price, it is worthless before God (Isa. 2:11) and is hated by Him (Amos 6:8). It deceives (Obad. 3) and leads to destruction (Prov. 16:18; Obad. 4; Zech. 10:11). It helped make the unbelief of Capernaum worse than the depravity of Sodom (Matt. 11:23; Luke 10:15) and stands as the antithesis of Jesus’ humility (Matt. 11:29; 20:28; cf. Phil 2:3–8). In the final judgment, the proud will be humbled and the humble exalted (Matt. 23:1–12; Luke 14:7–14). Although having a positive side, the Hebrew ga’on (Amos 6:8) and the Greek huperēphanos (James 4:6) typically denote a deep and abiding arrogance.
Closely related to pride, unhealthy or misdirected desire and its self-centeredness are sin and a motivator to sin (1 John 2:15–17). Epithumia, “desire” (James 4:2), used in a bad sense, leads to murder and war, and pleonexia, an impassioned “greed” or “desire to have more,” is equated with idolatry. Consequently, all wicked desire is condemned (Rom. 6:12).
Whether Adam’s disobedience or the believer’s lovelessness (John 14:15, 21; 15:10), all conscious sin is rebellion against God. The Hebrew pesha‘ involves deliberate, premeditated “rebellion” (Isa. 59:13; Jer. 5:6). Rebellion is also reflected in marah (“be refractory, obstinate”; Deut. 9:7) and sarar (“be stubborn”; Ps. 78:8), and in the Greek apeitheia (“disobedience”; Eph. 2:2), apostasia (“apostasy” or “rebellious abandonment, defection”; 2 Thess. 2:3), and parakoē (“refusal to hear,” “disobedience”; Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 10:6). And so, rebellion is equated with the sin of divination, which seeks guidance from sources other than God and His Word (1 Sam. 15:23).
Sin, the product of the “father of lies” (John 8:44, Weymouth), is the antithesis of God’s truth (Ps. 31:5; John 14:6; 1 John 5:20). From the first, it has deceived in what it promised and incited those deceived to further prevarication (John 3:20; 2 Tim. 3:13). It can give dramatic, but only temporary, pleasure (Heb. 11:25). The Hebrew ma‘al, “unfaithfulness,” “deceit” (Lev. 26:40), and the Greek paraptōma, “false step,” “transgression” (Heb. 6:6), can both signify betrayal due to unbelief.
The objective side of the lie of sin is the real distortion of the good. “Iniquity,” ‘awon, from the idea of twisted or perverted, conveys this (Gen. 19:15, KJV; Ps. 31:10, KJV; Zech. 3:9, KJV). Several compounds of strephō, “turn” (apo-, Luke 23:14; dia-, Acts 20:30; meta-, Gal. 1:7; ek-, Titus 3:11), do the same in Greek, as does skolios, “crooked,” “unscrupulous” (Acts 2:40).
In general, the biblical concept of evil encompasses both sin and its result. The Hebrew ra‘ has a wide range of uses: animals inadequate for sacrifice (Lev. 27:10), life’s difficulties (Gen. 47:9), the evil aspect of the tree of Eden (Gen. 2:17), the imaginations of the heart (Gen. 6:5), evil acts (Ex. 23:2), wicked people (Gen. 38:7), retribution (Gen. 31:29), and God’s righteous judgment (Jer. 6:19). In Greek, kakos typically designates bad or unpleasant things (Acts 28:5). However, kakos and its compounds can have a wider, moral meaning, designating thoughts (Mark 7:21), actions (2 Cor. 5:10), persons (Titus 1:12), and evil as force (Rom. 7:21; 12:21). Ponēria and its word group develop strongly ethical connotations in the New Testament, including Satan as the “evil one” (Matt. 13:19; see also Mark 4:15; Luke 8:12; cf. 1 John 2:13) and corporate evil (Gal. 1:4).
Sins that are especially repugnant to God are designated as detestable (“abominations,” KJV). To‘evah, “something abominable, detestable, offensive,” can refer to the unjust (Prov. 29:27), transvestism (Deut. 22:5), homosexuality (Lev. 18:22), idolatry (Deut. 7:25–26), child sacrifice (Deut. 12:31), and other grievous sins (Prov. 6:16–19). The corresponding Greek word bdelugma speaks of great hypocrisy (Luke 16:15), the ultimate desecration of the Holy Place (Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14), and the contents of the cup held by the prostitute Babylon (Rev. 17:4).
As indicated throughout this chapter and in the study of Satan (chap. 6), a real, personal, and evil force is operating in the universe against God and His people. This suggests the crucial importance of exorcism, spiritual warfare, and the like, but without the ungodly hysteria that so often accompanies these efforts.
Sin is not only isolated actions, but also a reality or nature within the person (see Eph. 2:3). Sin as nature indicated the “seat,” or “location,” of sin within the person as the immediate source of sin. Negatively, it is seen in the requirement for regeneration, the giving of a new nature to replace the old sinful one (John 3:3–7; Acts 3:19; 1 Pet. 1:23). This is emphasized by the idea that regeneration is something that can happen only from outside the person (Jer. 24:7; Ezek. 11:19; 36:26–27; 37:1–14; 1 Pet. 1:3).
The New Testament relates the sin nature to the sarx, or “flesh.” While originally referring to the material body, Paul innovatively equates it with the sinful nature (Rom. 7:5 through 8:13; Gal. 5:13, 19). In this sense, sarx is the seat of wrong desire (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 5:16, 24; Eph. 2:3; 1 Pet. 4:2; 2 Pet. 2:10; 1 John 2:16). Sin and passions arise from the flesh (Rom. 7:5; Gal. 5:17–21), nothing good dwells in it (Rom. 7:18), and gross sinners within the Church are handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, possibly sickness that will cause them to repent (1 Cor. 5:5; cf. 1 Tim. 1:20). Soma, “body,” is only occasionally used in a similar way (Rom. 6:6; 7:24; 8:13; Col. 2:11). The physical body is not looked on as evil in itself.52
The Hebrew lev or levav, “heart,” “mind,” or “understanding,” indicates the essence of the person. It can be sinful (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 15:9; Isa. 29:13) above all things (Jer. 17:9). Hence, it needs renewal (Ps. 51:10; Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 11:19). Evil intention flows from it (Jer. 3:17; 7:24), and all its inclinations are evil (Gen. 6:5). The Greek kardia, “heart,” also indicates the inner life and self. Evil as well as good comes from it (Matt. 12:33–35; 15:18; Luke 6:43–45). It may signify the essential person (Matt. 15:19; Acts 15:9; Heb. 3:12). The kardia can be hard (Mark 3:5; 6:52; 8:17; John 12:40; Rom. 1:21; Heb. 3:8). Like the sarx, the kardia can be the source of wrong desires (Rom. 1:24). Similarly, the mind, nous, can be evil in its workings (Rom. 1:28; Eph. 4:17; Col. 2:18; 1 Tim. 6:5; 2 Tim. 3:8; Titus 1:15), requiring renewal (Rom. 12:2).
Sin struggles against the Spirit. The sin nature is utterly contrary to the Spirit and beyond the control of the person (Gal. 5:17; cf. Rom. 7:7–25). It is death to the human (Rom. 8:6, 13) and an offense to God (Rom. 8:7–8; 1 Cor. 15:50). From it comes the epithumia, the entire range of unholy desires (Rom. 1:24; 7:8; Titus 2:12; 1 John 2:16). Sin even dwells within the person (Rom. 7:17–24; 8:5–8) as a principle or law (Rom. 7:21, 23, 25).
Actual sins begin in the sinful nature often as the result of worldly or supernatural temptation (James 1:14–15; 1 John 2:16). One of sin’s most insidious characteristics is that it gives rise to more sin. Sin, like the malignancy it is, grows of itself to fatal proportions in both extent and intensity unless dealt with by the cleansing of Christ’s blood. Sin’s self-reproduction may be seen in the Fall (Gen. 3:1–13), in Cain’s descent from jealously to homicide (Gen. 4:1–15), and in David’s lust giving birth to adultery, murder, and generations of suffering (2 Sam. 11 through 12). Romans 1:18–32 recounts humanity’s downward course from the rejection of revelation to complete abandon and proselytization. Similarly, the “seven deadly sins” (an ancient catalog of vices contrasted with parallel virtues) have been viewed not only as root sins, but also as a descending sequence of sin.53
This process of sin’s feeding on sin is realized through many mechanisms. The ambitious author of wickedness, Satan, is the archantagonist of this evil drama. As the ruler of this present age (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2:2), he constantly seeks to deceive, tempt, sift, and devour (Luke 22:31–34; 2 Cor. 11:14; 1 Thess. 3:5; 1 Pet. 5:8), even inciting the heart directly (1 Chron. 21:1). The natural inclination of the flesh, still awaiting full redemption, also plays a part. The temptations of the world beckon the heart (James 1:2–4; 1 John 2:16). Sin often requires more sin to reach its elusive goal, as in Cain’s attempt to hide his crime from God (Gen. 4:9). The pleasure of sin (Heb. 11:25–26) may be self-reinforcing. Sinners provoke their victims to respond in sin (note the contrary exhortations: Prov. 20:22; Matt. 5:38–48; 1 Thess. 5:15; 1 Pet. 3:9). Sinners entice others into sin (Gen. 3:1–6; Ex. 32:1; 1 Kings 21:25; Prov. 1:10–14; Matt. 4:1–11; 5:19; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13; 2 Tim. 3:6–9; 2 Pet. 2:18–19; 3:17; 1 John 2:26).54 Sinners encourage other sinners in sin (Ps. 64:5; Rom. 1:19–32).55 Individuals harden their hearts against God and try to avoid the mental distress of sin (1 Sam. 6:6; Ps. 95:8; Prov. 28:14; Rom. 1:24, 26, 28; 2:5; Heb. 3:7–19; 4:7). Finally, the hardening of the heart by God can facilitate this process.
Temptation must never be confused with sin. Jesus suffered the greatest of temptations (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13; Heb. 2:18; 4:15) and was without sin (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 7:26–28; 1 Pet. 1:19; 2:22; 1 John 3:5; and the proofs of deity). Furthermore, if temptations were sin, God would not provide help to endure it (1 Cor. 10:13). Although God does test and prove His people (Gen. 22:1–14; John 6:6) and obviously allows temptation (Gen. 3), He himself does not tempt (James 1:13). Practically, the Bible admonishes about the danger of temptation and the need to avoid and be delivered from temptation (Matt. 6:13; Luke 11:4; 22:46; 1 Cor. 10:13; 1 Tim. 6:6–12; Heb. 3:8; 2 Pet. 2:9).
The Bible is abundantly supplied with descriptions of sinful acts and warnings against them, including catalogs of vices (typically: Rom. 1:29–31; 13:13; 1 Cor. 5:10–11; 6:9–10; 2 Cor. 12:20–21; Gal. 5:19–21; Eph. 4:31; 5:3–5; Col. 3:5, 8; Rev. 21:8; 22:15). Such accountings show the seriousness of sin and display its incredible variety; however, they also carry the danger of inciting morbid despair over past or future sins. Even more seriously, they can reduce sin to mere actions, ignoring the profundity of sin as law, nature, and a force within the person and the universe, leading the person ultimately to see only the symptoms while ignoring the disease.
Scripture describes many categories relating to sin. Sins may be committed by unbelievers or believers, both of whom are injured by it and require grace. Sins may be committed against God, others, self, or some combination. Ultimately, however, all sin is against God (Ps. 51:4; cf. Luke 15:18, 21). Sin may be confessed and forgiven; if unforgiven, sin will still exercise its sway over the person. The Bible teaches that an attitude can be as sinful as an act. For example, anger is as sinful as murder, and a lustful look is as sinful as adultery (Matt. 5:21–22, 27–28; James 3:14–16). An attitude of sin defeats prayer (Ps. 66:18). Sin can be either active or passive, that is, doing evil and neglecting good (Luke 10:30–37; James 4:17). Bodily sexual sins are very grievous for Christians because they misuse the body of the Lord in the person of the believer and because the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:12–20).
Sins can be done in ignorance (Gen. 20; Lev. 5:17–19; Num. 35:22–24; Luke 12:47–48; 23:34).56 The Psalmist wisely asks help in discerning them (Ps. 19:12). It seems those who have only the law of nature (Rom. 2:13–15) commit sins of ignorance (Acts 17:30). All people are to some degree responsible and without excuse (Rom. 1:20), and willful ignorance, like that of Pharaoh, from continued self-hardening is vigorously condemned. Secret sin is as wicked as sin done in public (Eph. 5:11–13). This is especially true of hypocrisy, a form of secret sin in which outward appearance belies inward reality (Matt. 23:1–33; note v. 5). Sins done openly, however, tend to presumption and subversion of the community (Titus 1:9–11; 2 Pet. 2:1–2). Many rabbis believed that secret sin also effectively denied God’s omnipresence.57
A person commits sins of infirmity because of a divided desire, usually after a struggle against temptation (Matt. 26:36–46; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:31–34, 54–62; perhaps Rom. 7:14–25). Presumptuous sins are done with deeply wicked intent or with “a high hand” (Num. 15:30). Sins of weakness are of less affront to God than presumptuous sins, as indicated by the severity with which Scripture regards presumptuous sins (Ex. 21:12–14; Ps. 19:13; Isa. 5:18–25; 2 Pet. 2:10) and the absence of atonement for them in the Mosaic law (although not in the gospel). However, this distinction of weakness and presumption must never be used unbiblically as an excuse for taking any sin lightly.
Roman Catholic theology distinguishes between venial (Latin venia, “favor,” “pardon,” “kindness”) and mortal sins. In venial sins (as in sins of weakness) the will, though assenting or agreeing to the act of sin, refuses to alter its fundamental godly identity. Venial sins can lead to mortal sins. Mortal sins, however, involve a radical reorienting of the person to a state of rebellion against God and a forfeiture of salvation, though forgiveness remains possible. The real distinction between these sins, however, seems to be not in the nature of sin but in the nature of salvation. Catholicism believes that sins are not inherently venial, but that believers have a righteousness which largely mitigates the effect of lesser sins, making them venial. As such they are not a direct detriment to the believer’s relationship with God and technically do not require confession.58 This is not scriptural (James 5:16; 1 John 1:9).
Beyond all other sins, Jesus himself taught that there is a sin without pardon (Matt. 12:22–37; Mark 3:20–30; Luke 12:1–12; cf. 11:14–26). There has been much debate over the nature of this “unforgivable sin” or “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.” The texts suggest several criteria that any analysis must take into account.
The sin must have reference to the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:31; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10). Yet, blasphemy against God or other members of the Trinity (Matt. 12:31–32; Mark 3:28; Luke 12:10; Acts 26:11; Col. 3:8; 1 Tim. 1:13, 20) is forgivable. It cannot be a sin that the Bible lists as forgiven. Such sins include those committed prior to a knowledge of God—demon possession (Luke 8:2–3), crucifying the Lord (23:34), nearly lifelong ungodliness (23:39–43), blaspheming (1 Tim. 1:13), compelling believers to blaspheme (Acts 26:11)—and sins committed after a knowledge of God. In addition, the unpardonable sin does not include denying the God of miracles (Ex. 32), returning to idolatry in spite of great miracles (Ex. 32), murder (2 Sam. 11 through 12), gross immorality (1 Cor. 5:1–5), denial of Jesus (Matt. 26:69–75), seeing Jesus’ miracles yet thinking Him “out of his mind” (Mark 3:21 [Weymouth], just before His teaching on blasphemy), and turning to law after knowing grace (Gal. 2:11–21).
The sin must be blasphemy (Gr. blasphēmia), the vilest slander against God. In the LXX, blasphēmia often describes the denying of God’s power and glory, which is consistent with the Jewish leaders’ ascribing Jesus’ miracles to the devil.59 The sin must be comparable to the Jewish leaders’ charge that Jesus had an evil spirit (Mark 3:30). The sin cannot be merely denying the witness of miracles, because Peter denied Christ (Matt. 26:69–75) and Thomas doubted Him (John 20:24–29) after seeing many miracles, and they were forgiven.
Since Jesus explicitly says all other sins may be forgiven (Matt. 12:31; Mark 3:28), the sin against the Holy Spirit must be compared with Hebrews 6:4–8; 10:26–31; 2 Pet. 2:20–22; and 1 John 5:16–17, which also describe unforgivable sin. Notably, Hebrews 10:29 connects unforgivable sin with insulting the Spirit.60 It also appears that irrevocable hardening of the heart and presumption could be included (e.g., 2 Thess. 2:11–12). As a corollary, neither the incarnate Jesus nor the apostles need to be present for this sin to be committed, since they were seen neither by anyone in the Old Testament nor (most likely) by those addressed in Hebrews, 2 Peter, and 1 John. Hence, the unpardonable sin cannot be a failure to respond to miraculous manifestations of the incarnate Jesus or of the apostles.61 Nor can it be a temporary denial of the faith,62 since Scripture considers this forgivable.
The unpardonable sin is best defined as the final, willful rejection of the Holy Spirit’s special work (John 16:7–11) of direct testimony to the heart concerning Jesus as Lord and Savior, resulting in absolute refusal to believe.63 Therefore, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not a momentary indiscretion but an ultimate disposition of will, although Jesus’ statements do suggest that it may be manifested in a specific act.64 This is consistent with John’s assessment that believers cannot commit continuing sin (1 John 3:6, 9). True heartfelt concern indicates the unpardonable sin has not occurred. Such concern, however, is not measured in emotions or even suicidal depression (Matt. 27:3–5; perhaps Heb. 12:16–17), but rather in a renewed seeking after God in faith and dependence upon Him. The passages in Hebrews exemplify this firm, yet sensitive, pastoral balance.65
The Bible admits degrees of sin. This is demonstrated in several of the categories of sin (above) and differing divine judgments (Matt. 11:24; Mark 12:38–40; Luke 10:12; 12:47–48; John 19:11). Yet, Scripture also teaches that to sin at all makes one fully a sinner (Deut. 27:26 through 28:1; Gal. 3:10; James 2:10).66 The apparent discrepancy is resolved by the fact that both the most insignificant sin and the most heinous sin are sufficient to bring eternal condemnation. However, more serious sin usually does have more significant implications not only for those sinned against, but also for the sinner as he or she moves farther from God’s presence.
The Bible teaches that only God and unfallen spiritual beings (such as angels) are unstained by sin. The idea that ancient people lived a simple, quiet life is belied by modern anthropology, which reveals the dark side in all human societies.67 Even liberal theology’s evolutionary explanations of sin admit sin’s universality.
Sin contaminates the spirit world. Satan’s fall (Job 1:6 through 2:6), Satan’s fall from heaven (Luke 10:18 and Rev. 12:8–9; however interpreted), “war” in heaven (Dan. 10:13; Rev. 12:7), and references to evil or unclean spirits (2 Cor. 12:7; Eph. 6:10–18; James 4:7) all attest to this. Sin has infected the universe to an extent well beyond the scope of physical science.
Scripture also teaches that every individual is sinful, in some sense. Since Eden, sin has also occurred within groups. Sin is clearly encouraged through group functioning. Contemporary society is a breeding ground for bias based on ability (in the case of the fetus), gender, race, ethnic background, religion, sexual preference,68 and even political stands.
As in Israel, sin is found in the Church. Jesus anticipated it (Matt. 18:15–20) and the Epistles testify to its presence (1 Cor. 1:11; 5:1–2; Gal. 1:6; 3:1; Jude 4–19). A Church without spot or wrinkle will not be a reality until Jesus returns (Eph. 5:27; Rev. 21:27).
Scripture teaches that the effects of sin are found even in nonhuman creation. The curse of Genesis 3:17–18 marks the beginning of this evil and Romans 8:19–22 proclaims nature’s disordered state. The creation groans awaiting the consummation.69 The Greek mataiotēs, “frustration,” “emptiness” (Rom. 8:20), describes the uselessness of a thing when divorced from its original intent, epitomizing the futility of the present state of the universe itself. The divine thought here may range from plants and animals to quarks and galaxies.
The extent of sin is circumscribed chronologically. Prior to creation, and for an unspecified period after, sin did not exist and all was good. Yet not only Christian memory, but also Christian hope knows a future when sin and death will no longer exist (Matt. 25:41; 1 Cor. 15:25–26, 51–56; Rev. 20:10, 14–15).
Sin, by its nature, is destructive. Hence, much of its effect already has been described. Yet a brief summation is required.
Discussion of the results of sin must consider guilt and punishment. There are several types of guilt (Heb. ’asham, Gen. 26:10; Gr. enochos, James 2:10). Individual or personal guilt may be distinguished from the communal guilt of societies. Objective guilt refers to actual transgression whether realized by the guilty party or not. Subjective guilt refers to the sensation of guilt in a person. Subjective guilt may be sincere, leading to repentance (Ps. 51; Acts 2:40–47; cf. John 16:7–11). It may also be insincere, appearing outwardly sincere, but either ignoring the reality of sin (responding instead to being caught, shamed, penalized, etc.) or evidencing only a temporary, external change without a real, lasting, internal reorientation (e.g., Pharaoh). Subjective guilt also may be purely psychological in origin, causing real distress but not based on any actual sin (1 John 3:19–20).
Penalty or punishment is the just result of sin, inflicted by an authority on sinners predicated on their guilt. Natural punishment refers to the natural evil (indirectly from God) incurred by sinful acts (such as the venereal disease brought on by sexual sin and the physical and mental deterioration brought on by substance abuse). Positive punishment refers to the direct supernatural infliction of God: The sinner is struck dead, etc.
The possible purposes for punishment follow: (1) Retribution or vengeance belongs to God alone (Ps. 94:1; Rom. 12:19). (2) Expiation brings restoration of the guilty party. (This was accomplished for us in Christ’s atonement.70) (3) Judgment makes the guilty party become willing to replace what was taken or destroyed, which can be a witness of God’s work in a life (Ex. 22:1; Luke 19:8). (4) Remediation influences the guilty party not to sin in the future. This is an expression of God’s love (Ps. 94:12; Heb. 12:5–17). (5) Deterrence uses the punishment of the guilty party to dissuade others from behaving similarly, which may often be seen in divine warnings (Ps. 95:8–11; 1 Cor. 10:11).71
The results of sin are many and complex. They may be considered in terms of who and what they affect.
Sin affects God. While His justice and omnipotence are not compromised, Scripture testifies of His hatred for sin (Ps. 11:5; Rom. 1:18), patience toward sinners (Ex. 34:6; 2 Pet. 3:9), seeking of lost humanity (Isa. 1:18; 1 John 4:9–10, 19), brokenheartedness over sin (Hosea 11:8), lament over the lost (Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34), and sacrifice for humanity’s salvation (Rom. 5:8; 1 John 4:14; Rev. 13:8). Of all the biblical insights concerning sin, these may be the most humbling.
All the interactions of a once pure human society are perverted by sin. Scripture repeatedly decries the injustice done to the “innocent” by sinners (Prov. 4:16; social, James 2:9; economic, James 5:1–4; physical, Ps. 11:5, etc.).
The natural world also suffers from the effects of sin. The natural decay of sin contributes to health and environmental problems.
The most varied effects of sin may be noted in God’s most complex creation, the human person. Ironically, sin has apparent benefits. Sin can even produce a transient happiness (Ps. 10:1–11; Heb. 11:25–26). Sin also spawns delusional thinking in which evil appears good; consequently, people lie and distort the truth (Gen. 4:9; Isa. 5:20; Matt. 7:3–5), denying personal sin (Isa. 29:13; Luke 11:39–52) and even God (Rom. 1:20; Titus 1:16). Ultimately, the deception of apparent good is revealed as evil. Guilt, insecurity, turmoil, fear of judgment, and the like accompany wickedness (Ps. 38:3–4; Isa. 57:20–21; Rom. 2:8–9; 8:15; Heb. 2:15; 10:27).
Sin is futility. The Hebrew ’awen (“harm,” “trouble,” “deceit,” “nothingness”) summons the image of sin’s fruitlessness. It is the trouble reaped by one who sows wickedness (Prov. 22:8) and is the current uselessness of Bethel’s (derogatorily, Beth ’Awen, “house of nothing”) once great heritage (Hosea 4:15; 5:8; 10:5, 8; Amos 5:5; cf. Gen. 28:10–22). Hevel (“nothingness,” “emptiness”) is the recurrent “vanity” (KJV), or “meaningless,” of Ecclesiastes and the cold comfort of idols (Zech. 10:2). Its counterpart, the Greek mataiotēs, depicts the emptiness or futility of sin-cursed creation (Rom. 8:20) and the puffed-up words of false teachers (2 Pet. 2:18). In Ephesians 4:17, unbelievers are caught “in the futility of their thinking” because of their darkened understanding and separation from God due to their hardened hearts.
Sin envelops the sinner in a demanding dependency (John 8:34; Rom. 6:12–23; 2 Pet. 2:12–19), becoming a wicked law within (Rom. 7:23, 25; 8:2). From Adam to Antichrist, sin is characterized by rebellion. This can take the form of testing God (1 Cor. 10:9) or of hostility toward God (Rom. 8:7; James 4:4). Sin brings separation from God (Gen. 2:17, cf. 3:22–24; Ps. 78:58–60; Matt. 7:21–23; 25:31–46; Eph. 2:12–19; 4:18). This may result in not only God’s wrath, but also His silence (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 1:28; Micah 3:4–7; John 9:31).
Death (Heb. maweth, Gk. thanatos) originated in sin and is sin’s final result (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12–21; 6:16, 23; 1 Cor. 15:21–22, 56; James 1:15). Physical and spiritual death may be distinguished (Matt. 10:28; Luke 12:4).72 Physical death is a penalty of sin (Gen. 2:17; 3:19; Ezek. 18:4, 20; Rom. 5:12–17; 1 Cor. 15:21–22) and can come as a specific judgment (Gen. 6:7, 11–13; 1 Chron. 10:13–14; Acts 12:23). However, for believers (who are dead to sin, Rom. 6:2; Col. 3:3; in Christ, Rom. 6:3–4; 2 Tim. 2:11) it becomes a restoration by Christ’s blood (Job 19:25–27; 1 Cor. 15:21–22) because God has triumphed over death (Isa. 25:8; 1 Cor. 15:26, 55–57; 2 Tim. 1:10; Heb. 2:14–15; Rev. 20:14).
The unsaved live in spiritual death (John 6:50–53; Rom. 7:11; Eph. 2:1–6; 5:14; Col. 2:13; 1 Tim. 5:6; James 5:20; 1 Pet. 2:24; 1 John 5:12). This spiritual death is the ultimate expression of the soul’s alienation from God. Sinning believers even experience a partial separation from God (Ps. 66:18), but God is always ready to forgive (Ps. 32:1–6; James 5:16; 1 John 1:8–9).
Spiritual death and physical death are combined and become most fully realized after the final judgment (Rev. 20:12–14).73 Although ordained by God (Gen. 2:17; Matt. 10:28; Luke 12:4), the fate of the sinful is not pleasurable to Him (Ezek. 18:23; 33:11; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9).
The only way to deal with sin is to love God first, then become a channel of His love to others through divine grace. Only love can oppose that which is opposed to all (Rom. 13:10; 1 John 4:7–8). Only love can cover sin (Prov. 10:12; 1 Pet. 4:8) and ultimately remedy sin (1 John 4:10). And only “God is love” (1 John 4:8). In relation to sin, love may express itself in specific ways.
Knowledge of sin should engender holiness in the life of the individual and an emphasis on holiness in the church’s preaching and teaching.
The Church must reaffirm her identity as a community of God-saved sinners ministering in confession, forgiveness, and healing. Humility should characterize every Christian relationship as believers realize not only the terrible life and fate from which they are saved, but also the more terrible price of that salvation. When each person is saved from the same sinful nature, no amount of giftedness, ministry, or authority can support the elevation of one above another; rather, each must place the other above himself or herself (Phil. 2:3).
The universal breadth and supernatural depth of sin should cause the Church to respond, with an every-member commitment and a miraculous Holy Spirit power, to the imperative of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20).
Understanding the nature of sin ought to renew sensitivity to environmental issues, reclaiming the original mandate of caring for God’s world from those who would worship the creation rather than its Creator.
Issues of social justice and human need should be championed by the Church as a testimony of the truth of love against the lie of sin. Such testimony, however, must always point to the God of justice and love who sent His Son to die for us. Only salvation, not legislation, not a social gospel that ignores the Cross, and certainly not violent or military action, can cure the problem and its symptoms.
Finally, life is to be lived in the certain hope of a future beyond sin and death (Rev. 21 through 22). Then, cleansed and regenerate, believers will see the face of Him who remembers their sin no more (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 10:17).
1. Why is the study of sin important and what difficulties does it encounter?
2. Identify, describe, and critique the major nonscriptural views of sin and evil.
3. What was the nature and significance of the fall of Adam?
4. What are the biblical issues relevant to the study of original sin?
5. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each of the major theories of original sin?
6. How can evil exist since God is both good and powerful?
7. What is the essence of sin? Give scriptural support.
8. What are the major characteristics of sin? Identify and discuss them.
9. What are some major categories of sin? Briefly discuss them.
10. Discuss the problem of the unpardonable sin. Suggest pastoral concerns and how you would deal with them.
11. Discuss the extent of sin. Give scriptural support.
12. Describe the results of sin. Give special attention to the issue of death.
1The technical term for the study of sin is “hamartiology,” derived from Greek hamartia, “sin.”
2See Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary Press, 1947), 227–28, 252–53.
3For a summary of many of these views, see Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), 581–95.
4On Christian existentialism, Soren Kierkegaard, The Concept of Dread, 2d ed., Walter Lowrie, trans. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957); id., Fear and Trembling and The Sickness unto Death, Walter Lowrie, trans. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954). For a fully developed theory: Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man: A Christian Interpretation, vol. 1 Human Nature (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1964), 178–86.
5Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1957), 19–78. J. Isamu Yamamoto, Beyond Buddhism: A Basic Introduction to the Buddhist Tradition (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter Varsity, 1982). Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976). Karen Hoyt, The New Age Rage (Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1987).
6Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures (Boston: First Church of Christ, Scientist, 1934), 480.
7Frederick R. Tennant, The Origin and Propagation of Sin (London: Cambridge University Press, 1902).
8Alfred T. Hennelly, ed., Liberation Theology: A Documentary History (New York: Orbis, 1990), an anthology of primary sources.
9R. C. Zaehner, The Teachings of the Magi, A Compendium of Zoroastrian Beliefs (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956).
10Royce Gordon Gruenler, The Inexhaustible God (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), a general critique of process.
11Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur’an (Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1980).
12Paul Kurtz, ed., Humanist Manifestos I and II (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1973), 15–16.
13It is crucial to the present argument that the narratives of the creation and, by extension, the Fall are factual and historical. Where We Stand (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1990), 105.
16Pelagianism denies Adamic immortality. “Contingent” immortality first appears in Theophilus of Antioch (115–68–81): “To Autolycus,” 2.24.
17Meir Zlotowitz, Bereishis, Genesis vol. 1 (New York: Mesorah Publications, 1977), 102–3. U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis Part 1 (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1972), 125. Some, in this connection, say that that meant Adam and Eve “became mortal.” But the Bible is very clear that God alone has immortality (1 Tim. 6:16). “You will surely die” occurs twelve other times in the Old Testament and always refers to punishment for sin or untimely death as punishment. Cf. Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17: New International Commentary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1990), 173–74. J. H. Hertz, ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, 2d ed. (London: Soncino Press, 1978), 8. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974), 128. He points out, “The contention that the Old Testament does not know spiritual death, because it does not happen to use that very expression, is a rationalizing and shallow one, which misconstrues the whole tenor of the Old Testament.”
18Note the possible symbolism of the God-given coverings, which necessitated the spilling of blood, suggesting atonement (cf. Gen. 4:2–5; Heb. 9:22).
19Arminians would not define the acceptance of God’s offer of salvation as a meritorious act. H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology, vol. 2 (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1940), 138. Arminius (1560–1609), “Public Disputations” in The Writings of James Arminius, vol. 3, trans. W. R. Bagnall (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 375. See also Carl Bangs, Arminius, A Study in the Dutch Reformation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), 343. John Wesley, “Sermons LXII.—On the Fall of Man,” Sermons on Several Occasions, vol. 2 (New York: Carlton & Porter, n.d.), 34–37.
20Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 42 (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 99.
21Ibid., also G. Braumann’s treatment of teknon in “Child” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown, ed., vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), 286.
22Because Paul stipulates the period between Adam and Moses, he must be primarily thinking about adults disobeying a direct command of God with a death penalty attached, as did Adam in Eden and Israel after the Mosiac law. That is, since Adam’s sin brought death, God was just in decreeing that their sins should bring death. This can refer to infants (as some think), but only by extension.
23Space precludes subtleties such as the precise nature of corruption and dozens of other positions, such as the philosophical realism of Odo and the Arbitrary Divine Constitution and Approval of Edwards. More complete, if still biased, summaries include Henri Rondet, Original Sin, the Patristic and Theological Background, trans. C. Finegan (Staten Island, N.Y.: Alba House, 1972); F. R. Tennant, The Sources of the Doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin (London: Cambridge University Press, 1903); Norman P. Williams, The Ideas of the Fall and Original Sin: A Historical and Critical Study (London: Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd., 1927).
24E.g., Talmud: Berakoth 61a and Nedarim 32b; Genesis Rabbah 9:10; Testament of Asher 1:5. A. Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud (New York: Schocken, 1949), 88–93. Baruch 56:11–16; 1 [Ethiopic] Enoch 1:5; 10:8–15; 12:2–4; 13:10; 14:1–3; 15:9; 39:12–13; 40:2; and Jubilees 4:15, 22; 7:21; 8:3; Testament of Reubin 5:6; Damascus Document (Zadokite Fragment) 2:17–19; Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) 2:1. In Talmud: Shabbath 88b, 104a; Pesahim 54a; Behoraoth 55b; Tamid 32b. In Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: Apocalypse of Moses (The Greek Life of Adam and Eve) 14, 32; 2 Baruch 17:2–3; 23:4; 48:42–43; 54:15–19; 56:5–10; Ecclesiasticus or The Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach 14:17; 25:24; 2 Enoch 30:14–31:8; 4 Ezra 3:7, 21–22; 4:30–32; 7:116–18; Life of Adam and Eve 44; Wisdom of Solomon 2:23–24, cf. 10:1–4. Rabbah 9:8, cf. Aboth 5:18.
25Supporters include Peter Lombard (ca. 1100–1160), Sentences II 30.5; The Councils of Trent (1545–63), and Vatican II (1962); G.W. Bromiley, “Sin” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988), 519–20.
26Pelagius (ca. 360–ca. 420), Celestius (fl. 411), Rufinus Tyrannius (ca. 355–ca. 410), Julian of Eclanum (born 380–died between 425 and 455), and many modern theological liberals hold the position.
27Key supporters include Johannes Cassianus (ca. 360–ca. 435), Hilary of Arles (ca. 401–ca. 450), Vincent of Lerins (flourished ca. 450), some later Arminians, and the New School Presbyterians (nineteenth century).
28E.g., John Miley, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989), 505–9.
29Key supporters are Placaeus (1596–1655 or 1665) and the School of Saumur.
31E.g., On Marriage and Concupiscence, vol. 1, 27, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Peter Holmes and R. E. Wallis (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, reprinted 1971), vol. 5, pp. 274–75.
32William G. T. Shedd, Theological Essays, reprint (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1981), 209–64. Realism began with Tertullian (fl. 200) and has been held by many theologians since.
33See Ronald Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970), 103–9. Heb. 7:9–10 may support a genetic traducianism.
35Little-appreciated foreshadowings of federalism are first found in Irenaeus (ca. 130–ca. 200; Against Heresies: Adam and Christ: III.22.3–4; Adam and the race: II.19.6, 21.2, 21.33, 23.8, 33.7; IV.22.1; guilt: V.34.2). Many of the Reformed held this view (Hodge, in extemis), as did Arminius (“Public Disputations” XXXI.9; but cf. VII.16’s realist emphasis), but not all of his followers. Wesley’s key materials are cautiously federalist (Notes on the New Testament, Rom. 5:12–21; Doctrine of Original Sin, sec. VI–VII), as are many of his followers (Wiley). Wesleyans tend toward traducianism.
36This theory is compatible with either dichotomy or trichotomy and with either creationism or a moderate traducianism in which personhood emerges in human conception.
37It is of no small moment that Adam and Eve passed the sentence of separation from God upon themselves by fearing and hiding prior to God’s passing the sentence upon them.
38This is the key question of theodicy.
39The Hebrew does not indicate any action by God in this.
40William Hendriksen, Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 325–26.
41Household bleach is only about 2 percent chlorine.
42Augustine thought this disordering resulted when a creature sought other than the highest good (City of God, 12.6–8); cf. Rom. 1:25.
43Held by Irenaeus and many of the Eastern fathers.
44Held by Augustine and many of the Western fathers.
45See Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary Press, 1974), 229–34.
46Good introductions include Norman Geisler, Philosophy of Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974), 311–403, and the liberal John Hick, Evil and the God of Love (New York: Harper and Row, 1966).
47For a good summary see Erickson, Christian Theology, 577–80; on idolatry, see Tertullian, On Idolatry, 1.
48The Westminster Divines are notably concise: “Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God” (Answer 14, The Shorter Catechism).
49On moral philosophy see, for instance, Emmanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and Critique of Practical Reason. Ironically, “conscience,” such a relativized term in today’s society, derives from the Latin, conscientia, “with knowledge,” or “shared knowledge.”
50“Seared” may mean “branded.” Habitual criminals were branded. Therefore a seared conscience is one that acts like a criminal’s conscience and excuses sin.
51Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3d ed. rev. (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 1987), 335–58, lists some eleven types of personality disorders.
52See chap. 7, under sub-subhead “Monism.”
53The classic formulation is pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, anger, and sloth. Relevant literature includes John Cassian, Conference 5; Gregory the Great, Moralia on Job 31:45; and especially Aquinas, Summa Theologica 2:2.
54Many rabbis considered murder less grave than enticing another to sin, because the former only removes one from this world while the latter keeps one from heaven (Sifr Deut. sec. 252; 120a; Sanhedrin 55a, 99b). Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud, 102.
55Note the Hebrew resha‘, “wickedness” or “troubling” (Job 3:17; Isa. 57:20–21), in relation to the general idea of sinners stirring up trouble.
56The KJV’s “ignorance” and the NIV’s “unintentionally” (e.g., Lev 4:1 through 5:13) are imprecise. They are better rendered “to err” (shagag and shagah), as the NIV does elsewhere. Clearly, some of these sins were committed knowingly, but out of human weakness rather than rebellion (e.g., 5:1). The contrast seems to be with “defiant” sins or, literally, sins done with a “high hand” (Num. 15:22–31). R. Laird Harris, “Leviticus” in Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., vol.1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 547–48.
57Higagah 16a
58See G. C. Berkouwer, Sin, trans. Philip C. Holtrop (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1971), 302–14. Loraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1956).
59Hermann Wolfgang Beyer, “Blasphemia,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, ed., Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964), 621–25. For a fascinating parallel see the Dead Sea Scrolls, “The Damascus Document,” section 5, which focuses on the lack of discernment among the people.
60That these epistolary passages speak of unforgivable sin that causes forfeiture of salvation is in harmony with the position of the Assemblies of God, Where We Stand, 108.
61The opposite position is often attributed to Jerome (Letter 42) and Chrysostom (“Homilies on Matthew,” 49; Matt. 12:25–26, sec. 5). Yet it seems, especially for Chrysostom, that a rejection refers to the Spirit’s inner witness in any period. The latter may be seen in John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publishing Society, 1886), 271–73.
62So held the rigorist Bishop Novation (fl. mid-third century) concerning the “lapsi” (Lat. “those who have fallen or failed”; applied to Christians who worshiped false gods to escape the persecution of Decius, A.D. 249–51). Jerome’s Epistle 42 contains both description and rebuttal.
63This view, in essence, was held by Augustine, by many Lutherans, and by most Arminian theologians. For a good analysis see Stanley M. Horton, What the Bible Says about the Holy Spirit (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1976), 96–102.
64Often blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has been distinguished from final impenitence or consistent disregard for the witness of the Spirit that leads to salvation. However, especially in an Arminian soteriology, continued rejection (complete obduracy) of the Holy Spirit’s offer of salvation results in a hardness of heart that prevents any possibility of repentance, reducing the distinction to one of appearance only.
65In passing, Jesus’ statement concerning the impossibility of forgiveness “in the age to come” (Matt. 12:32) does not imply post-death forgiveness or purgatory (cf. Mark 10:30). It is probably a peremptory denial of the rabbinic hope that blasphemy can be forgiven in death. See John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, vol. 2 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1979), 206–7. His argument is strengthened by Talmud, Yoma 86b’s use of Isa. 22:14.
This discussion evokes a progression of provocative corollaries. In some sense, it may be said that all those eternally damned have committed the unpardonable sin. Their final and willful rejection of God brings ultimate separation from Him. This separation of the dependent being from its source necessarily brings ultimate impairment. This impairment certainly extends to the imago dei (the image of God), which seems to be a locus of sensitivity to the wooing, direct testimony of the Spirit within the person. Because the rejection of and separation from God in the Garden profoundly distorted human nature and because sin typically separates one from God, further damaging the person, this final rejection and separation may result in the total loss of the image. It seems that the loss of the image is what constitutes the rejection of and separation from God as irrevocable. For the person bereft of the image of God, the call of God would not merely cease to resonate but would be distorted by senseless ears into repellent, cacophonous silence. The unpardonable sinner’s choice to refuse to accept God is also an ultimate acceptance to refuse choice.
Such a conception also provides an elegant solution to the problem of how God can command the killing of humans while forbidding murder because of the presence of the image within the person (Gen. 9:6, cf. James 3:9) and of how God can condemn people to eternal damnation without at the same time damning His image eternally. Here also emerges a clue to theodicy reminiscent of supralapsarian formulations, but without their difficulties concerning the reprobate, being birthed in their wickedness from the perfect, divine will. The damned receive what they deserve as they become what they desire: godless.
66Although Deut 27:26 does not contain the word “all,” there are several good reasons for accepting it as implied: (1) It is required by the context of Deut 28:1. (2) It is translated so in the LXX. (3) Paul includes it in his citation in Gal. 3:10. (4) Although the Mosaic law is in view, clearly Paul sees this and the “law of nature” (Rom. 2:13–15) as closely connected.
67E.g., Melvin Konner, The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit (New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 1982).
68This is not to condone homosexual behavior but to condemn anti-homosexual violence.
69This passage does not refer to persons. (1) Believers are mentioned separately (Rom. 8:18, 21–25). (2) Sinners would not eagerly expect “the sons of God” (8:19, 21; Weymouth). (3) It would imply universal salvation. (4) Paul uses ktisis to mean “creation” elsewhere (cf. Rom. 1:20). (5) It is consistent with God’s curse on the ground (Gen. 3:17). (6) It is consistent with the eschatology (2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1–2). For a defense, see William Hendriksen, Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 266–69.
70Some see this in Isa. 10:20–21 and 1 Cor 5:5, but such an interpretation seems contrary to the Atonement. On Isa. 10:20–21, see Erickson, Christian Theology, 610.
71Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1941) 255–61, is useful on penalty and punishment.
72Ibid., 258–59. He seems extreme in stating, “The Bible does not know the distinction.”