Developments of the Concept of ‘Sin’

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Any analysis of a Christian philosophy would be incomplete if the biblical theme of sin is not taken into consideration. The Bible asserts sin’s subsistence and the human nature substantiates it. Sin is not a falsehood, it is not an illusion of the psyche; sin is a verity. Thus, if one seeks the answer to what does it mean to sin, he essentially seeks a definition of sin. (Sprinkle, 45) The most wide-ranging definition available in the bible is the one found in 1 John 5:17, which states that: “All unrighteousness is sin.” (Strauss, 1) Analyzing various parts of the bible one may come across a few actions which leads to the action of sin.

The one’s which emphasize the theme of sin the most are:

The transgression of the law (1 Jn 3:4; Jam 2:9-10).
To come short of God’s glory (Ro. 3:23).
To turn to one’s own way (Is. 53:6).
To forsake the Lord (Ju. 10:10; 1 Sa. 12:10).
To do that which is wicked in the sight of God (De. 9:18).
To do that which is amiss, wrong (2 Ch. 6:37).
Lack of righteousness (Ro. 3:10).” (Strauss, 1)

Experts have presented a listing of Hebrew and Greek words in the bible which refer to the concept of sin. They assert that in the Hebrew version there are minimally eight essential words: “ra, bad (Genesis 38:7); rasha, wickedness (Exodus 2:13); asham, guilt (Hosea 4:15); chata, sin (Exodus 20:20); avon, iniquity (I Samuel 3:13); shagag, err (Isaiah 28:7); taah, wander away (Ezekiel 48:11); pasha, rebel (I Kings 8:50)”, (Strauss, 1) which refer to the act of sin. The treatment of these terms brings about specific opinions in relation to the philosophy of sin as presented in the Old Testament. Sin was perceived of as being primarily defiance of laws created by God. While this defiance incorporated both affirmative as well as pessimistic ideas, the prominence was categorically on the optimistic commission of wrong doing instead of the pessimistic exclusion of good. Specifically, it may be said that sin was not just perceived as missing the correct mark, but stumbling upon the wrong spot. It may also be concluded from the readings of the Old Testament that sin appears in several forms, and the Israelite was conscious of the specific form which his sin was categorized into. (Sprinkle, p. 23)

In a similar manner, experts also identify twelve fundamental expressions in the New Testament which refer to the notion of sin. They are: “Kakos, bad (Romans 13:3); poneros, evil (Matthew5:45); asebes, godless (Romans 1:18); enochos, guilt (Matthew 5:21); hamartia, sin (I Corinthians 6:18); adikia, unrighteousness (I Corinthians 6:9); anomos, lawlessness (I Timothy 2:9); parabates, transgression (Romans 5:14); agnoein, to be ignorant (Romans 1:13); planan, to go astray (I Corinthians 6:9); paraptomai, to fall away (Galatians 6:1); and hupocrites, hypocrite (I Timothy 4:2)”. (Strauss, 1) The treatment of such expressions in the literature also brings about several conclusions. It may be said that there always exists an unambiguous standard against which the committed sin is perceived. Eventually every act of sin is an affirmative insurgence against God and a misdemeanor as per His standards. The New Testament too preaches that Evil may perhaps manifest itself in a number of diversities. (Sprinkle, 75) In addition, it states that Man’s conscientiousness is explicit and clearly understood.

The Hebrew and Greek expressions which translated into “sin” all through the Biblical scriptures essentially tend to revolve around two key conceptions. The first among the two refers to “transgression”. To transgress implies to step across or to go past a stipulated margin or edge. This concept can be conceived to be analogous to an athletic playing arena with marked lines demarcating the precincts within which the sport is to be played. In the event of a player going across those delineating lines, he, by doing so, commits a “transgression”. Boundaries clearly delineate the specific playing area, and the participants are obliged to stay within the confines of that area. (Sprinkle, p. 46)

The other expressions or words referring to the notion of “sin” in the Biblical literature induce a second conception which is, “to miss the mark.” In this case, to cite an analogy from the sporting field, we may consider the case of a player who targets the goal and misses, and in the course receives no accolades for the act. This perception of sin incorporates the thought of one traversing in a certain direction but wandering away off track and not following the course he planned to pursue, with the consequence that he doesn’t accomplish the set goals and thus misses the mark. This perception also engulfs the notion of being incompetent to match up to a standard. A bare minimum intensity of performance is expected form all, and achieving anything less than that stipulated level is considered to be failure. One may miss the mark by either missing his target on which he focused or by coming short of that target. In either instance one falls short of reaching the specific mark.

Both of the ideas, “transgressing” and “missing the mark”, entail a fundamental prerequisite. When one transgresses, which implies going beyond an asserted limit or border, then, there must exist a border line or limit which can be crossed over. When one misses the mark, there must exist, a specific mark, goal or standard which can be missed. Sin, consequentially, is the transgression of those restrictions i.e., contravention of the rules God has laid down for Man to comply with. (Sprinkle, p. 41)

In this context, the biblical characterization of sin assumes immense significance, for the reason that the biblical literatures explicate the confines and standards God laid down for the Man. They delineate the arena where the Man is to live his life. They, in addition, describe the goals which the Man is to seek, the minimum norms Man is expected to comply with. Broadly it may be said that, the biblical explanations of sin provide the standards God has laid down in order to characterize what is acceptable to Him and what is not. They provide a guideline for what is consistent with and what comes short of those values, the elementary ideology God has provided to base one’s life on. (Sprinkle, p. 34)

According to various theorists the references to sin in the Biblical scriptures are not merely subjective dos and don’ts. On the other hand, they implicate the practices of the God himself. They illustrate the devout doctrines by which He lives, the identical standard of demeanor He supposes His human creations should live by.

According to many, the most unfortunate chapter in the Bible, Genesis 3, holds the record of how sin came into existence in this world. The significance of this narration to the human understanding is spreads to such a large extent that theorists believe that God conserved it for the entire human race. The origin of sin is cannot be traced in the customs and scriptures of the different races and archeological finds present on the earth. The critics of the Bible suggest that the preliminary chapters of the Genesis as a Babylonian myth. However, no Babylonian description of the inflowing of sin onto the humankind has ever been discovered. Genesis 3 is a exquisitely enthused narration of the specifics which has to do with the Fall of Man as they essentially came to pass, and this historical testimony is accepted in the New Testament as well (II Corinthians 11:3; II Timothy 2:13). When Paul inscribed, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12) (Strauss, 1) he implied that sin embarked on the earliest man Adam and that Adam was responsible for all men were transpired to be sinners.. Adam played the role of the entryway through which sin crossed the threshold and trickled into all of his descendants since the “one man” in Paul’s testimonial is Adam. Adam was the earliest man who came into existence and the father to the entire human race. So by the merit of the commonality of the race, on account of Adam’s sins, the whole humanity sinned in him. Attributed sin is not the solitary base for drawing conclusions. However, the perception of the accusation of Adam’s sin to the entire humanity is an obvious element of the philosophy which Paul’s statements present.

Certainly, there are unrequited issues and unsettled tribulations associated with the origin of sin and also the Fall of man. Surely the knew that Satan would be able to mislead Eve and about the devastating consequences that would ensue, for the reason that He is omniscient. He God could have undoubtedly barred Satan from going into Eden and misleading Eve, for the reason that He is all-powerful. Indubitably, the whole episode in Eden was a manifestation of the pre‑ definitive counsel and was within the precognition of God. “Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18). However, irrespective of the stance one assumes in relation to the precognition, intentions and permissibility of God, it is an absolute fact that Adam and Eve complied with a wrong ethical selection. They chose to contravene God and decided to comply with the evil, aware of what the outcomes could be. The fact that Adam’s fall inflicted grievous upshots upon himself as well as his progeny is the unadorned idea in both the Old and New Testaments. (Sprinkle, p. 134)

The power of the Almighty and the misleading conduct by the Evil Spirit, although very much a verity, does not do away with the fact that it is the man who commits and is responsible for the committed sin. Consequently, he cannot be freed of the blame for it. Adam and Eve were enticed by Satan, nevertheless, they were judged as being blameworthy and penalized by God. In due course, the people who are tricked in by Satan and the Antichrist are held accountable to God and are adjudicated by Him (II Thessalonians 2:9‑12). According to the text of the Bible, the reality of sin lies within man himself. It states, “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies” (Matthew 15:19). (Strauss, 1) The heart of man is the source of all aberrant feelings, expressions and deeds. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9). (Strauss, 1) As per biblical teachings, there lies sin within each individual for which every individual is responsible and that the latent ability for evil exists in even the most virtuous men. The outcomes of sin are without a doubt more numerous than one can conceive about. However, according to theorists the primary manifestation is guilt.

Everyone recognizes the problems associated with neurotic or pseudo guilt, but one must confront the actuality of genuine guilt which originates from the intentional contravention of God’s commandments. Genuine guilt for God stems from the enlightenment one obtains from the Biblical teachings. It materializes as the consequence of a collapse in man’s compliance towards God’s rules and his absolute faith on God. It is honestly a genuine guilt when the sinner is consciously aware of the fact that he has broken the rules God, and also that each such noncompliance is a sin. If an individual is immersed in guilt‑feelings which is an effect of committing sin and the condemning authority of the Holy Spirit, there is just one resolution. He ought to fall back on God, having faith in the redemptive effort of Christ, and he may perhaps be truly guaranteed of pardon and purification. In this regard, the Bible asserts, “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool” (Isaiah 1:18). The New Testament makes its addition by quoting that, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (I John 1:9) (Strauss, p. 1).

The Old Testament illustrates the sacrificial structure God provided to the Israelites to momentarily cover up their sins. The New Testament elucidates that this scheme refers to the sacrifice of the Christ by means of whom and no-one else deliverance can be found (Acts 4:12; Hebrews 10:4-10). The Old Testament witnessed paradise lost whereas the New Testament illustrates the way in which paradise was recuperated for the human race through the second Adam (Christ) and the way in which it will in the future be refurbished. The Old Testament pronounces that His human creations were estranged from God through the act of sin (Genesis 3), and the New Testament affirms that Man could now be reinstated in his association to God (Romans chapters 3–6).

In conclusion, it may be said that the Old Testament puts down the underpinning for, and was preordained to get the Israelites ready for, the arrival of the Messiah who would forfeit Himself to redeem the sins of the entire world (I John 2:2). The New Testament provides an account of the existence of Jesus Christ and then in retrospect, reviews on His deeds and how we should act in rejoinder to His bequest of perpetual life and live our times in appreciation and thankfulness for all that He has done for us (Romans 12). Both testaments divulge on the same sacred, compassionate and virtuous God who is obliged to denounce sin but at the same time who wishes to bring close to Himself a fallen humanity of sinners by means of the amnesty only feasible through Christ’s expiating sacrifice.

References

Sprinkle, Joe. Biblical Law and Its Relevance: A Christian Understanding and Ethical Application for Today of the Mosaic Regulations. Lanham: University Press of America, 2006.
Strauss, Lehman. “The Doctrine of Sin“. Bible.org. 2007. Compassion. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Developments of the Concept of ‘Sin’

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)