Sin (continued) – Slander, Talebearing

Sin (continued)

Different interpretations have been given of the worda translated ‘for that all sinned’ (‘S’^), some seeing in them an explicitstatement thatthewholehuman racewasinvolved generically in the sin of Adam(cf . Bengel,ad loc, and Liddon, Emstle to the Romans, p. 103). Others affirm that St. Paul IS here asserting the freedom of the will, and is stating the plam proposition that all men have sinned as a matter of fact, and of their own choice. The Apostle, however, seems to have left room for a synthesis of these two ideas. It matters not whether he has done so consciously or not. As the result of Adam’s transgression sin obtained an entrance and a sphere of action in the world, and not only so, but a predisposition to sin was inherited, giving it its present power over the human will. At the same time, the simple statement all smned,’ explanatory as it is of the universahty of death, mcludes the element of choice and freedom, liven those whose consciousness of sin was weakened, if not obliterated, by the absence of positive or objective law, were subjected to death. Here we have the assumption of generic guilt arising directly out of St. Paul’s belief in the relation between sin and physical death, as that of cause and effect (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:22). Not only is the connexion here mentioned insisted on, but, passing from physical death to that of which it is but a type, spiritual or moral death, he shows the awful depth to whicn sin has sent its roots in man’s nature (Romans 6:21 ff.: , cf. v. 2:7 ff.).

Mention has been made above of the power of choice, where sin is concerned, inherent in human personality. Into the very seat of this power, however, sin has made an entrance, and has found a powerful ally in ‘the flesh’ (7:18). The will to resist is there, but its activity is paralyzed. Though St. Paul makes ‘the flesh’ or ‘the members’ of the body the seat of sin, he is tar from teaching that human nature is essentially evil. The flesh may be crucified with its ‘passions and lusts’ (Galatians 5:4) cf. 1 Corinthians 9:27, Romans 6), and the bodily members instead of being ‘servants to uncleanness’ may become ‘servants to righteousness unto sanctification’ (cf. art. ‘Flesh’ in Hastings’ DCG). An important feature of St. Paul’s doctrine of sin consists in his exposition of the function of law in revealing and arousing the consciousness of sin. A curious expression, ‘the mind of the flesh’ (Romans 8:7). emerges in this connexion, and the impossibility of its being ‘subject to the law of God’ is insisted on. ‘Apart from the law sin is dead,’ but, once the Law came, sin sprang into life, its presence and power were revealed (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:56). and by it man was confronted with his own moral weakness.

In spite of his belief in the all-pervading character and strength of sin, St. Paul’s gospel is the reverse of a gospel of despair. If, on the one band, there is a death which connotes moral corruption and slavery to sin, on the other hand there is a death unto sin which is not only a realization of, but a participation in the death of Christ. The fact of his employing the same word and idea in senses so completely contrasted lends a marvellous force and finality to his teaching on the remedial and restorative effects of Christ’s work (cf. Romans 6, Ephesians 2:1–10). A favourite idea, relative to this, is that of crucifixion. The member of Christ as such has crucified his ‘old man’ (Romans 6:6). ‘the flesh with the passions and lusts thereof (Galatians 5:24, cf. 2:20). This is the ultimate ideal result of the redemptive work of Christ. The experience of St. Paul forbade him to believe that the state of’ death unto sin ‘is fully realized here and now (1 Corinthians 9:27. cf. Sirach 37:19). His continuous references to the Christian life as one of warfare, in which it behoves the follower of Christ to be armed with weapons offensive and defensive, shows that his conception of the struggle against sin is that of one unceasing age-long conflict, issuing in victory for the individual, as for the race, only when the Kingdom of Christ is established in a peace that is everlasting (Ephesians 6:11–17, 2 Corinthians 10:4 ff. 6:7, Romans 13:12. 1 Tl 1:18; cf. Philippians 2:25. Philem^ etc.).

3. St. John. — (a) In order to understand St. John’s presentation of Jesus’ teaching on sin, it will be useful to see his own individual doctrine as given in his Epistles. Here the mission of Christ is dwelt on as having for its objective the taking away of sins (1 John 3:4, 8; cf. John 16:11 P’), and ‘abiding in him’ is dwelt on as constituting the guarantee of safety against sin (1 John 3:6; cf. John 15:4 ff.). as it also affords power to live the active fruitful life of righteousness. Further, there is a law " which expresses the Divine ideal of man’s constitution and growth," and whoever violates it, by wilfully putting hhnself in opposition to this law, is guilty of sin, for ‘sin is lawlessness’ (3:4). Another aspect of this law has to do with the mutual relationship of Christians who should be bound together by a love which is the reflexion of the eternal love of God for men (1 John 4:7–21). If the law of love is neglected or broken, even in the matter of intercessory prayer for brethren who have sinned, imrighteousness is present, and ‘all unrighteousness is sin’ (5:13–17). From this we see how intensely real was St. John’s belief in the presence and power of sin amongst men. Indeed, one of the tests by which a man’s sincerity may be discovered is his power of realizing this fact. He, moreover, gives as his reason for writing this Epistle, ‘that ye may not sin’ (2:1). The need of ‘an Advocate’ who is also ‘the propitiation for our sins’ is insisted on as being the special creation of Christ in Christian consciousness (I Jn 2:1 f.) cf. John 14:16). All this brings into clearer relief and greater prominence his doctrine of the sinlessness of the professing follower of Jesus Christ. The Christian as such ‘cannot sin, because he is begotten of God’ (1 John 3:9; cf. 5:18. 3 Jn"), and, on the other hand, ‘he that doeth sin is of the devil’ (1 John 3:8). The Christian abides in Christ (cf. John 15:4 ff.), and because he does so he sinneth not (3:6), whereas the committal of sin is the sure guarantee that he has neither seen nor known Him. The secret of his safety lies in the promise of Jesus that He ‘keeps’ (cf. John 17:12) His own so that ‘the evil one toucheth him not’ (1 Jn 5). The paradox in which St. John thus clothes his doctrine of sin reveals his profound conception of its character. Any sinful act by the Christian interrupts, and mars so far, his fellowship with God. If, however, the act be not the outcome of the man’s habit or character, he cannot be said to do ‘sin’ in the sense of ‘realizing sin in its completeness’ (see Westcott, Epistles of St. John, on 1 John 3:4). The fruit of Divine fellowship is developed in the Christian’s inner or central life from which sin is banished; and this reminds us somewhat of St. Paul’s view of the crucifixion of the flesh with its ‘passions and lusts.’

A peculiar reference is made by St. John to *a sin unto death.’ This might be translated with perhaps a closer adherence to the writer’s thoughtif the article were omitted. It is not any specific act or acts that he so characterizes. The saying must rather refer to sinful deeds of a character ‘which wholly separates from Christ,’ and thus tends to death (see Westcott, op. cit., on 5’‘). In so far as it springs from a heart which wilfully and with contumely rejects Christ, in so far may it be identifaed with the sin against the Holy Ghost (cf. Mark 3:29. Matthew 12: Luke 2). The writer’s refusal to insist on intercessory prayer for one thus guilty calls to mind the warnings in the Eijistle to the Hebrews against the sin of apostasy or wilful sin after the reception of’ the knowledge of truth ‘(cf. Hebrews 6:4–6 10). . It is probable that St. John has in his mind a class of sins which combines within itself the characteristics of both those mentioned (see art. ‘Sin’ in Hastings’ DB iv. p. 535). One feature of 1 John connects this Epistle very closely with the Fourth Gospel, revealing itself in those passages which identify sin with falsehood, and righteousness with truth. It seems as if the writer traced all sin back to the spirit which leads men to deny ‘that Jesus is the Christ ‘_ (1 John 2:22 4:3). , On the other hand, the acceptance of this belief carries with it the assurance of God’s abiding presence, wherein is the sure guarantee of the reahzation of His purpose in us — ‘that we might live through him’ (1 John 4:9. cf. 4:2 5:1).

(B) Fourth Gospel. — It is this last aspect of sin that is the dominant note of the teaching of St. John’s Gospel. Indeed, this writing may be said to be a record of the sad rejection foreshadowed in the general terms, ‘He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not’ (1). This was more particularly true of the Jews of Jerusalem and Judsea, where the story of Jesus’ ministry as told in this Gospel is for the most part laid. It is thus significant that in His last great discourse with His disciples, occurring as it did in Jerusalem, the centre of the activity hostile to His claims, Jesus lays special stress on the sin of unbelief in Him (‘The Holy Ghost will convict the world of sin . . . because they believe not on me,’ John 16:8 f.). The revelation of the Divine life, with its manifold evidences of love and mercy in and by Jesus, took away whatever excuse men might have in the presence of God’s judgment. The real reason for the rejection of Jesus by the Jews lay in their hatred of ‘the Father’ (John 15:24. cf. V.22). Indeed, it is this very revelation, designed by God as the eternal remedy agamst sin (John 1:29), which in its process and achievement affords further possibilities to sin and its consequences (John 9:41; cf. Ll£ 12:47 f.).

Nor must we omit to note that in this Gospel sin is regarded as a species of slavery. The reference to this aspect occurs but once (John 8:34), but that it occupied an important place in early Christian teaching is evident from the incidental notices found scattered throughout the NT (cf. Eo e’^-™. Titus 3:3, 2 Peter 2:19, Matthew 6:24 16:13 etc.).

The popular belief in the connexion between sin and physical suffering is noticed also in the Fourth Gospel, where Jesus is represented as denying its universal applicability (John 9:3). At the same time He recognized that in certain cases the belief was justified (John 5:14). It was, perhaps, His profound knowledge of a similar but a deeper relationship than this — the relationship of sin to the whole life — that gave to the words and actions of Jesus that exquisite tenderness in His treatment of individual sinners so noticeable in this Gospel (cf. John 4:17 f. 8:11, 15) a tenderness which He would fain impart to His followers in their dealings with fellow-sinners (cf. John 7:24, Matthew 7:1 ff.; James 2:13).

We are thus enabled to see that the view of sin held and taught by Jesus is profounder and graver than any as yet existing, for it is an offence against One who is at the same time a righteous and loving Father and a just and holy God (Luke 15:18; cf. Matthew 5:48. John 3:16 ff. etc.). The life of Christ is the object-lesson which Christians are invited to imitate in their daily relationships and life (Matthew 11:28, John 13:15, 1 John 2:6. Philippians 2:5; cf. 1 Peter 2:21 etc.), and St. John has pointed out to us, in the words of Jesus Himself, the standard to which His followers are asked to aspire, when He defied His bitter life-long enemies to convict Him of sin (John 8:46).

4. St. James. — The author of this circular letter views sin in its practical bearings on the daily life of men. Nevertheless, his conception of its character and results is as far-reaching as we have seen it to be in both the Pauline and the Johannine teaching. Its origin he traces to the surrender of the individual’s will to ‘desire’ (James 1:14 f.). ‘In itself the desire may be natural and innocent: it is when the man resolves to gratify it against what he feels to be the higher law of duty, that he becomes guilty of sin even before he carries out his resolve in act’ (J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, note on 1:15). The writer combats the idea that God is the author of evil, by Insisting on the fact that each man may make a good or a bad use of temptation. As a morally free agent he stands or he falls, and the result of this freedom may be the promised ‘crown of life’ (1:12) or hopeless ‘death’ (1). We are here reminded of the ‘sin unto death’ (1 John 5:16) referred to already, for ‘sin when full-grown, when it has become a fixed habit determining the character of the man, brings forth death’ (J. B. Mayor, op. cit. p. 53; cf . R. J. Knowling, Epistle of St. James, ad toe). This Epistle betrays its Jewish origin in the attitude of the writer to the Law; for him the result of the Incarnation has been the transmuting of the Mosaic Law into ‘the perfect law, the law of liberty’ (.1^, cf. 2:12), ‘the royal law’ (2:8). It may be said that he sometimes merely echoes the well-known opinion of contemporary Jewish Rabbins about transgressing the minutest behest of the Law (see the extracts from Rabbinical writings quoted by R. J. Knowling, op. cit., note on James 2:10). At the same time it must be admitted that his conception of sin, even when it finds expression in the seemingly trivial case of ‘respect of persons’ (2:9), ‘is founded on a true spiritual view of the relation of man to God’ (Hastings’ DB, vol. iv. p. SSS")). The law of love is the essential guiding principle of all Christian life, and where this law is transgressed in the social relations of that life, the expression in our Epistle ‘ye commit sin’ (lit. ‘ye work sin,’ 2:9) is not too strong or emphatic.

A further point in connexion with St. James’ teaching occupies the closing passages of his Epistle. In this, as in the whole of his writing, he deals with it from the point of view of the daily life. In his exhortation to mutual confession of sins and intercessory prayer for forgiveness he is incidentally dwelling on the truth that all real Christian life is conditioned by its adherence, both in word and in deed, to the principle of love (cf. 2:15 f.). The same may be said of his advice with regard to the corporate prayer oJ the Church on behalf of one who is physically sick (5:14 f.). It is probable that our author held the common Jewish belief that sin and disease were connected as cause and effect, and his conviction that ‘the prayer of faith’ reaches out in its power to the whole man, extending even to the forgiveness of his sins by God, is based on his belief in the solidarity of human life as well as of the law to which it owes its allegiance. As in the case of the member of the community whose bodily and spiritual needs are ministered to by the active intervention of the Church, so he urges each individual member to prayer on behalf of his erring brother. The twofold blessing promised to this act of brotherly love may well be taken as an expression of his conviction that the individual lives of the members of the Christian community are knit so closely together that no single act of sin can be committed without so far bringing death within range of all, and that no act of love can be exercised without so far bringing mercy and forgiveness to all, and thus ‘covering a multitude of sins’ (cf. 1 Peter 4:8).

6. Hebrews. — It cannot be said that there is any special doctrine of sin in this Epistle. Its readers were well acquainted with OT conceptions and teaching, and the writer deals mainly with the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old in supplying means whereby there shall be ‘no more conscience of sins’ (Hebrews 10:2; cf. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Add. Note on 9:9). The central feature of this writing is the stress laid on the discovery by Christianity of ‘a new and living way’ (10:20) by which we have direct access to God. It is by the removal of guilt in the forgiveness of sins by the sacrifice of Jesus that this way is opened ‘once for air (10:10) cf. v. 18 9:12 etc.). Special emphasis is therefore laid on the failure of the Mosaic institutions to’ take away sins’ (10:11, cf. 9:9), and on the awful character of the danger of harbouring ‘an evil heart of unbelief (S’^).

The temptation to which the ‘Hebrews’ were exposed was that, under stress of persecution, they would reject the final revelation of God in Christ, or revert, under the influence of the Hellenistic Judaizers, to the somewhat eclectic faith of the latter. This wilfiil sin the writer characterizes as ‘crucifying the Son of God afresh’ (6:6) and as treading Him under foot (cf. lO^‘). In warning them against the dangers to which they would be exposed during the time of suffering and trial now imminent, he points out to them that these trials may become in their own hands the means of their spiritual advancement. Instead of being the sole outcome of sin, suffering is often the chastisement of a loving Father’ that we may be partakers of his holiness’ (12:10). The great Example, whose solution of an age-long problem we are asked to study, was Jesus, ‘who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame’ (12:2), and who though ‘in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin’ (4:15), was nevertheless made ‘perfect through sufferings’ (2:10).

See also artt. Atonement, Forgiveness, Guilt, Phopitiation, Redemption, etc. J. R. Willis.

Sin

‘The stronghold (fortress) of Egypt,’ Ezk 30’»- i«, must be Felusium, the Egyp. name of which is not clearly known, or some fortress in its neighbourhood. In the list of governors appointed by Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, while native princes were retained elsewhere, Sin is the only city put in charge of an Assyrian: no doubt he was placed at Pelusium to keep open the gate of Egypt for the Assyrian king. F. Ll. Griffith.

SIN, WILDEKNESS OF (name probably derived from the moon-god Sin) . — A region on the route of the Hebrews from Egypt to Mt. Sinai. It is usually identified with the plain lying S. of the Ras Abu Zenimeh. Upon the view held in many quarters that Mt. Sinai must be located somewhere in the Negeb, the wilderness of Sin was on the more direct route from Egypt to Kadesh, near to if not identical with the desert of Zin (Numbers 13:21 20:1 27:14 33 34, Deuteronomy 32:51, jog 15:1, 3). ct. Zin.

H. L. WiLLETT.

Sdtai

(Mountain). A holy moimtain In the Sinaitic peninsula (whose name is said to be derived from that of Sin, the moon-god). It is called Horeb by E and D, whereas J and P employ the name ‘Sinai.’ Here Moses was granted the vision of the burning bush (Exodus 3:1), whereby he first received a call to lead the Israelites to adopt Jahweh as their covenanted God; and here took place the tremendous theophany which is the central event of the Pentateuch, wherein the covenant was ratified.

The identification of Mt. Sinai is a matter of some difficulty, and various attempts to discover it have been made from time to time. The traditional site is Jebel Musa, "the mountain of Moses,’ almost in the centre of the triangle; here there has been a convent ever since at least a.d. 385, about which date it was visited by St. Silvia of Aquitaine — whose account of her pilgrimage still survives in part. This identification has therefore the warrant of antiquity. It is not, however, wholly free from difficulty, principally connected with questions of the route of the Exodus; but it is possible that with further study and discovery these difBculties may be found to be evanescent.

In recent years the tradition has been questioned, and two suggestions have been made calling for notice. The first is that originally suggested by Lepsius, who would place Sinai at Mount Serbal, some distance north-west of Jebel MQsa. This theory has been championed, with a good deal of force, by the latest investigator. Professor Petrie’s assistant, Mr. C. T. Currelly (see Petrie, Researches in Sinai, ch. xvii.). The region appears more suitable for the occupation of a large host than the neighbourhood of Jebel MQsa, and it accords better with the probable site of Rephidim.

The second view would place the mountain out of the peninsula altogether, unless it can be proved that the Land of Midian included that region. And, indeed, the close connexion evident between Sinai or Horeb and Midian, which appears, for example, in Exodus 3, makes this a theory worth consideration. But we are still in the dark as to the limits of Midian: all we can say is that it is not known whether Midian extended west of the Gulf of ‘Akabah, and that therefore it is not known whether Sinai was west of ‘Akabah. It must, however, be freely granted that to place Sinai east or north of ‘Akabah would entirely disjoint all identifications of places along the line of the itinerary of the Exodus.

For the allegorical use of ‘Sinai’ in Galatians 48, see art. Hagar. R. a. S. Macalisteh.

Sinai

(Peninsula). The triangular tongue of land intercepted between the limestone plateau of the Tih desert in the north, and the Gulfs of Suez and ‘Akabah, at the head of the Red Sea, on the south-west and south-east. It is a rugged and waste region, little watered, and full of wild and impressive mountain scenery. Except at some places on the coast, such as Tor, there is but little of a settled population.

This region was always, and still is, under Egyptian infiuence, if not actually in Egyptian territory. From a very early period it was visited by emissaries from Egyptian kings in search of turquoise, which is yielded by the mines of the Wady Magharah. There sculptured steles were left, and scenes engraved in the rock, from the time of Semerkhet of the first dynasty, and Sneferu of the third— dated by Professor Petrie in the fifth and sixth millennia b.c. These sculptures remained almost intact till recent years; till a party of English speculators, who came to attempt to re-work the old mines, wantonly destroyed many of them (see Petrie, Researches in Sinai, p. 46). What these vandals left was cut from the rock andremoved forsafety, under Professor Petrle’sdirectlon, to the Cairo Museum. A remarkable temple, dedicated to Hathor, but adapted, it would appear, rather to Semitic forms of worship, exists at SerabU d-Khadem, not far from these mines. It was probably erected partly for the benefit of the parties who visited the mines from time to time.

Geologically, Sinai is composed of rocks of the oldest (Archaean) period. These rocks are granite of a red and grey colour, and gneiss, with schists of various kinds — hornblende, talcose, and chloritio — overlying them. Many later, but still ancient, dykes of diorite, basalt, etc., penetrate these primeval rocks. Vegetation is practically confined to the valleys, especially in the neighbourhood of water-springs.

R. A. S. Macalisteh.

Sincere

The Eng. word ‘sincere,’ as it occurs in 1 Peter 2:2 ‘the sincere milk of the word,’ is used in its old sense of ‘unmixed,’ ‘pure’ (RV ‘without guile’).

Sinew

(that shrank). See Genesis 32:32 for the traditional origin of a special food-taboo (cf. Food, § 10), the result of which was that the Hebrews abstained from eating the sciatic muscle (RV ‘the sinew of the hip ‘) of animals otherwise clean. The prohibition is not mentioned in any of the legislative codes of the Pentateuch.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

Singers

See Priests and Levites, hi. 1. 2.

Sinhh

The ‘land of Sinim’ (Isaiah 49:12) must, from the context, have been in the extreme south or east of the known world. In the south. Sin (.Pelusium, Ezekiel 30:15 f.) and Syene (Ezekiel 29:10 30:6) have been suggested. The latter is favoured by recent discoveries of papyri (cf. Seveneh). The LXX favours the view that a country in the east was intended, and some modern commentators have Identified Sinim with China, the land of the Sinae.

Sinites

A Canaanlte people (Genesis 10:17 = 1 Oh I’s). Their identification is quite uncertain.

Sin-offering

SeeSACRIFICEANDOFFERINQ, §14.

Sion

1. A name of Hermon, Deuteronomy 4:48. Sion is taken by some to be a textual error for Sirion (wh. see). 2. See Zion In art. Jerusalem, ii. 1.

Siphmoth

One of the places to which a portion of the spoil of the Amalekites was sent after David’s return to Ziklag (1 Samuel 30:28). The site has not been recovered.

Sippai

See Saph.

Sirach

See Apochtpha, 13.

Sirah, the Well of

The place at which Joab’s messengers overtook Abner (2 Samuel 3:26). It lay on the road from Hebron to Jerusalem, and is now probably ‘Ain Sarah, near Hebron.

Sirion

The name said to be given by the Zidonians to Mt. Hermon, Deuteronomy 3:9. Like Senir, it may originally have been the designation of a particular part of the mountain. Cf. Sign, 1.

Sisera

1. In Judges 4:2 ff. SIsera is represented as captain of the host of Jabin, a Canaanlte king; his army is overcome by the Israelites under Barak. In his flight after the battle, Sisera, overcome by fatigue, seeks refuge in the tent of Jael, who treacherously kills him while asleep. In another account (Judges 5, the older account) Sisera appears as an independent ruler, and Jabin is not even mentioned; the two accounts differ in a number of subsidiary details, but in two salient points they agree, namely, as to the defeat of Sisera and as to the manner of his death. It is clear that two traditions, one concerning Jabin and another concerning Sisera, have been mixed up together; in order to harmonize them Sisera has been made Jabin’s captain (see Babak, Deborah, etc.). 2. A family of Nethinim (Ezra 2:53 = 1 Esdras 5:32 Serar). W. O. E. Oestehley.

Sisinnes

The governor of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia under Darius (1 Esdras 6:3, 7, 27 7:1). In Ezra 5:3 etc., he is called Tattenai (wh. see).

Sismai

A Jerahmeelite (1 Chronicles 2:40).

Sith

‘Sith,’ that is ‘since,’ occurs in Jeremiah 15:7 and other places; while ‘sithence’ occurs in 2 Esdras 10:14.

Sithri

A grandson of Kohath (Exodus 6:22).

Sitnah

(‘strife’). The name given to a well dug by the herdmeu of Isaac in the region of Gerar (Genesis 26:21). The site is uncertain. H. L. Willett.

Sivan

See Time.

Skirt

See Dhess 4 (b).

SKULL, PLACE OF A.— See Golgotha.

Slander, Talebearing

Both noun and verb ‘slander’ are used of malicious gossip of varying degrees of heinousness. The references are all to the slandering of persons, except Numbers 14 AV, where RV has ‘an evil report against the land.’ The expression ‘walking with slanders’ (Jeremiah 6:28, c£. 9:4) is in the original identical with ‘going about as a talebearer’ (Leviticus 19:16, Proverbs 11:13 20:19; cf. Ezekiel 22:9 in AV and RV). The element of falsehood in the gossip is seen in 2 Samuel 19:27. where ‘slandered’ is ssmonymous with ‘falsely accused.’ ‘Of no sin and wickedness are there so many complaints in OT as of slander and false accusation — whereof the Psalms are witness’ (Cornill, Jeremia, 89). See, further. Crimes AND Punishments, § 6. A. R. S. Kennedy.