Part VII: The Compelling Logic of the Plan of Salvation:
A Study of the Difference Between "Sin" and "Sins"
Chapter One | Chapter Two | Epilogue
IT HAS ALWAYS seemed to me strange that so many people should find the study of the Word of God unexciting. Sometimes I think it is because they do not read it carefully enough. I am quite convinced that the Lord was in no way speaking poetically when He said that not one jot or tittle of the Scriptures should be lost sight of until it was all fulfilled. The jot is the smallest letter in Hebrew and the tittle is an even smaller element that distinguishes between letters that might otherwise be confused because they are alike in appearance.
I am always amused to note in my older edition of the Scofield Bible that in spite of the tremendous care taken to avoid typographical errors and omissions, there is nevertheless one such omission occurring in Psalm 119. This psalm is, of course, divided into a number of sections, at the head of each of which is one of the Hebrew characters which is then spelled out. Before verse 25 is the Hebrew letter which is also spelled out there as DALETH. Over verse 73 the Hebrew character has been omitted by mistake, though its pronunciation is spelled out as JOD. This missing character is the jot to which the Lord made reference! It almost looks like perversity in human nature, but I am sure it really was only a typographical error. If the heading over verse 9 is compared with the heading over verse 81, it will be seen that the two Hebrew characters are actually a tiny bit different. The difference is the very slight extension of the bottom line of the character identified as BETH, an extension which does not appear in the CAPH. This is the tittle of which the Lord spoke.
It might be thought that the extraordinary attention which was paid by Jewish scholars to the text of the Old Testament distracted them from paying sufficient attention to its meaning. It probably did, and I may very well be accused of the same fault. Yet our Lord's words seem to me to encourage us to be careful how we read.
Essentially, what I want to deal with is the difference between sin and sins in the New Testament, and to suggest that although the Greek noun in the original is the same (either in the singular or the plural form), the meaning behind the two forms is rather different. That one should base a serious study on the difference between the singular and the plural of the same word might seem to be splitting hairs, but there is a very good precedent in Scripture itself. This occurs in Paul's letter to the Galatians where he refers to a certain promise with respect to Abraham's seed and established an important doctrinal point on the fact that the promise had reference to Abraham's seed (in the singular) and not to his seeds (in the plural). Since in English there is no distinction between the singular and plural forms of this particular word, the point is apt to be lost in the reading of the relevant Old Testament passages (Gen. 13:15; 17:8). But in the original language the plural of the word is indicated when it is intended, by the introduction of this very same little character Yod or Jot, to which the Lord had reference! So Paul wrote (Gal. 3:16):
He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Let me say plainly by way of introducing the argument of this paper that in the great majority of cases in the New Testament I think the word sin is used in its singular form to designate that element in human nature which each of us inherits by the very fact of being a descendant of fallen Adam and this predisposes each of us to rebellion against the law of God as we mature, converting us from a state of innocence to one of guilt. The situation has been epitomized by saying that in Adam, man made human nature sinful; thereafter human nature made man sinful. In short, sin is a kind of root from which arises all that is evil in human nature.
In the New Testament sins are the fruits of the root which is sin. I believe that this root, sin, is rather like a disease, an inherited disease which corrupts in due course not merely man's spiritual life but even his thinking processes. Theologians refer to the latter as the noetic effects of sin. We shall explore this further.
The distinction is borne out in the New Testament with great consistency. Things which are said to be true of sin are not applied to sins, and vice versa. And God's method of judging and of dealing redemptively with sin differs from His method of judging and of dealing with sins. By noting such differences carefully, a great deal that is otherwise puzzling is made clear, and the logic of the plan of salvation is beautifully underscored.
In the Old Testament the same picture is often to be seen, though not with the same consistency. The reason for this, I think, is that the Old Testament is not a theological statement of faith in the sense that we have it in the Epistles but rather a religious statement of experience. In fact there are good reasons for arguing that the Hebrew language is not a suitable vehicle for theological expression, but an ideal vehicle to set forth religious experience. It seems to me likely that the Hebrew language was allowed to die before the New Covenant was instituted, because in the economy of God world history had set the stage for the climax of revelation to be given to man in a form of language (Greek, which belongs within the Indo-European family) that was almost perfectly suited to convey it to the rest of the world outside of Palestine. The character of the two languages, Hebrew and Greek, is different in certain very important respects, the latter being far more precise in its use of terms and much richer in its expression of abstract ideas and in its facility for the statement of principles. (1)
Thus throughout this study the great majority of Scriptural references are taken from the New Testament, though there are some very important ones in the Old Testament and the basis of the distinction is ultimately rooted in the account in Genesis of the Fall of man. If we examine the difference between these two words, sin and sins, as they are used with great precision in the New Testament, we find that the very consistency with which appropriate aspects of the plan of salvation is applied to each is strong confirmation of the validity of treating them as concepts with precise and clearly defined meaning, and not just as alternative words for a single idea loosely employed without discrimination.
In order to make this study more readily grasped by anyone who has not seriously considered the matter previously, I have adopted the following plan which, although it will take somewhat more space, will perhaps make the distinction between the two words more obvious. In the following pages, the left hand column deals only with the word sin as it is found in a number of very significant passages in Scripture: and the right hand column deals with the word sins in a parallel manner. As far as possible where one particular aspect of sin is under consideration, the contrasting aspect of the word sins will be found directly opposite, even though this entails some blank spaces on many pages. At the very end of the paper there is a tabulation which draws together some of the evidence for the distinctions I am proposing between these two concepts.
(1) It initiated a process of decay which introduced physical death into human experience. 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 (Rom. 5:12). and (2) Sin causes physical death. Until Adam ate the forbidden fruit and introdcued this poison into his body, he was not subject to physical death. The day he ate it he became a dying creature, though the process took almost a thousand years to complete. The life span of his descendants was steadily reduced as the effects of the poison became cumulative. |
Sins are Symptoms of the disease All men now inherit this disease It is inherited by Adam's descendants through natural generation The infective agent appears to be passed on through the male seed Man is inevitably a sinner because he is constitutionally diseased. (2) It effectually marred human behavior, making all men sinful by nature and Spiritually dead. For by one man's disobedience many were made sinners...(Rom. 5:19). Sins cause spiritual death Although every man begins life as a mortal creature, spiritual death occurs only when one becomes accountable for his behavior. It is not sin, but sins, which break our communion with God. But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that he will not hear. (Isaiah 59:2) |
THE ENTRANCE OF this disease or sickness which brought with it the penalty of physical mortality as well as an inheritable predisposition to sinful behavior, is recorded in Genesis 2:8-17 and Genesis 3:1-24. First, we are told that Adam, after being formed of the dust of the ground was placed in a garden paradise in which two trees were singled out for special attention. No prohibition was attached to one tree, the Tree of Life, until after the Fall. The fruit of the other tree was forbidden, it being expressly stated that in the day Adam and Eve ate of it they would die. The penalty is set forth in the Hebrew in a way different from English. In the Authorized Version it is rendered, "Thou shalt surely die"; in the original it is more literally, "Dying, thou shalt die." This arrangement of the wording may be intended to emphasize the penalty of disobedience, but it is also possible that it would be best rendered into English as "Thou shalt begin to die." Whatever may be the precise meaning, the end result is clear. Eating the fruit, introduced into man's body some toxic substance which disturbed its operation and ultimately brought him to the grave.
The Tree of Life, if we are to be guided by a statement in Revelation 22:2, had something about it which could have supplied an antidote to the poison ingested with the forbidden fruit. From Genesis 3:22-24 it is clear that God could not allow fallen man to make use of this antidote under any circumstances. The reason for this is that by the very act of yielding to temptation and disobeying God's express command, Adam had destroyed once for all the purity and perfection of his spirit. He had, in fact, become a fallen creature both physically and spiritually, a creature quite unlike all God's other creatures. Had he been allowed to recover his physical immortality by eating of the Tree of Life, he would have condemned himself either to living on forever (Gen. 3:22) with a corrupted spiritual nature, or ending it by deliberately taking his own life. In this light, physical death was God's merciful provision. Thus, sin entered by man, and by sin death entered into human experience....And so death passed upon all men, for it is clear that all men die. (cf. Rom. 5:12).
Whatever the nature of this poison was, it must in some way have reached Adam's seed, for he passed it on to his children, who were born mortals as all men have been since. This circumstance is important from a genetic point of view for it necessarily involves the inheritance of an acquired characteristic, the characteristic being mortality. Nothing was said to Adam about dying until he was commanded not to eat the forbidden fruit, and there is no reason to suppose that he would have died if he had not done so. Adam therefore acquired a characteristic, physical mortality, and passed that condition of mortality on to his descendants.
This physical corruption, which throughout the subsequent centuries of human history has gradually reduced the life span of man to a few score years at the best, has had an equally disastrous effect upon the human spirit. Though chemical in nature when first introduced into Adam's body, the poison had some disturbing effect which was thereafter inherited by all Adam's descendants. Consequently, as the individual matures, it is his nature to be inescapably predisposed to rebellion against God. It is no longer possible for man to render perfect obedience to the law of God. The innocence of childhood which ought to mature into virtue becomes, alas, guilt instead. On this account the law failed because of the weakness of the flesh (Rom. 8:3).
What began as a fatal poisoning of the human body has become a fatal poisoning of the human spirit. This tragic spiritual sickness which brings to nought all human aspirations after holiness, has been termed "Original Sin."
It is a curious fact that Christian scholars have paid very little attention to its basic physical or chemical origin. Luther was perceptive enough to discern the significance of the circumstances of the events in Eden and of the special emphasis in the record placed upon the seed of the woman rather than the seed of the man. He said, (2) "Through the fall of Adam sin entered into the world, and all men in Adam have consequently sinned. For the paternal sperm (i.e., seed) conveys the corruption from generation to generation." And again, according to Tertullian, (3) "The soul has its sinful condition as a result of its relation with Adam. Our race is infected...with sin which has become so to speak a natural element in mankind." The idea that a poison is responsible was voiced by Franz Volkmar Reinhard (1753-1812) (4) in his System of Christian Morals, who explained the Fall as a kind of poisoning and hereditary sin as the inheritance of a poisoned constitution. Like many others who shared his views, he held that the disposition to sinfulness arose in this way but that it is only on account of "actual sins" in which free self-determination is involved that man allows his sinful disposition to realize itself.
The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (Article ix) states:
Original sin standeth not in the imitation of Adam but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man who naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is...of his own nature inclined to evil so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit...And this infection of nature doth remain in them that are regenerated.
I think it is important in showing how compelling the logic of Scripture is in its record of the fall of Adam and the consequences to himself and his descendants, that solely on this basis the Council of Carthage in A.D. 412 condemned as heresy the three following propositions:
(1) Adam was created mortal and would have died whether he had sinned or not.
(2) The sin of Adam hurt only himself, and not all mankind.
(3) Newborn infants die in the same state as Adam was in before the Fall.
We must assume the Council to have held, therefore, that Adam was not subject to death until he sinned; that the poison affected not only his own body but was passed on by inheritance to all his descendants and that no child of natural generation can ever avoid this physical defect and thus recover Adam's original state of deathlessness.
Calvin expressed the view that sin is a "contagion" (5)
We are not corrupted by acquired wickedness but do bring an innate corruptness from the very womb...All of us, therefore, descending from an impure seed come into the world tainted with the contagion of sin.
Again, he wrote: (6)
Original sin, then, may be defined as a hereditary corruption...which makes us obnoxious in the sight of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed "the works of the flesh."
This corruption is repeatedly designated by Paul by the term sin (Gal. 5:19), while the works which proceed from it...he terms the fruits of sin...also termed sins.
We may quote others to the same effect also. Augustine said, (7) "Original sin is not the nature itself, but a defect that happened to it and a damage in the nature." Ulrich Zwingli said, (8) "Original sin is inherited, sickness [morbus est et conditio]: it is both the disease itself and the condition, but not a guilt....It is the root of all individual sins and it makes self-redemption impossible." E. Harold Browne said, (9) "The body was infected by the Fall, whether from the poison of the forbidden fruit or whatever cause. The infection of the body was indeed fomes peccati, i.e., a fuel which might be kindled into sin." Albertus Pieters said, (10) "There is in us universal and inherent corruption which expresses itself in thought, word, and deed, poisoning all the issues of life, like an incurable and loathsome disease." W. L. Knox and A. R. Vidler said, (11) "The doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin seeks to interpret what Christians regard as a fact of human nature, that we do not start fair, with a neutral disposition which can, by our own efforts and the help of grace, be converted into one of positive holiness, but with a definite bias towards evil contracted quite apart from any sins of our own."
Man, therefore, unlike any other living thing, is born a diseased creature. From various Scriptures (and from the literature of biological research) we learn that this diseased condition begins very early in embryonic development, if not in fact at the time of conception. That which is in the womb is by nature, therefore, an unholy thing in the sight of God, in pointed contrast with the record of Scripture when referring to the Incarnation, where the Lord Jesus in Luke 1:35, yet unborn, is carefully referred to as "that holy thing."
It is not without significance that one of the world's best geneticists of our own day, Theodosius Dobzhansky, has noted the significance of the events which occurred in Eden in terms of man's hereditary constitution. In a review of one of his books, Sir Gavin de Beer wrote: (12)
One wonders if Pauline theologians realize that the doctrine of original sin involves the inheritance of an acquired character, for only genes can be inherited and, by the nature of the case, neither Adam nor Eve when they first appeared on the scene possessed the character they are alleged to have transmitted to their descendants.
It may be questioned how it is possible that a physical poison could lead to a hereditary defect with such a pronounced and fatal effect upon man's spirit throughout history. But there are poisons which are known to depress man's moral sense. Alcohol, for example, is one such poison. Though it is a toxic agent, nevertheless under certain conditions it may have medicinal value (I Tim. 5:23). Certainly in itself it is only a chemical substance. Yet it has been established beyond a shadow of doubt that it acts upon the higher centers in man to debase his powers of self-judgment and to encourage in him greater liberty in the expression of his lower nature. It is therefore clear that a poisoned body may well be related to the fact that all men grow up to be sinful in nature.
Just to make sure that my meaning is understood, since we are really setting the stage for all that follows, I should like to reiterate what is said above in slightly different terms. Not only is physical death now the appointed experience of all men in Adam (I Cor. 15:22), but all men are active sinners. Romans 3:23 has it, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." But in writing to the Roman Christians, Paul makes it very clear that though all men inherit Adam's disease, Adam's sin, they do not imitate his particular sins. They have inherited his final mortal state but their transgressions are not a "similitude" of his (Rom. 5:14). Nor is Adam's particular form of transgression imputed to his descendants, though his acquired disease is inherited by them to become a root which bears fruit in their lives. As a result they stand equally under the sentence of spiritual death by their own disobedience to the law of God, as they do under the sentence of physical death. The penalty of spiritual death is shared because each man has sinned personally not merely because Adam sinned. Each individual comes under sentence of spiritual death for his own sins.
The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England take the position that man is to be judged not for having a sinful disposition but for having been content to allow it to express itself throughout his responsible life. So the individual is not now held accountable for his mortal state, since he inherited it without consent. For this reason God has undertaken to deal with it by providing a sin-offering in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. This sin-offering is applied to all men universally without exception. God's provision for sins, however, demands an act of personal faith and is not universal, since all men do not have that truth.
Throughout the rest of this discussion, unless otherwise noted, sin is identified as an inheritable disease resident in the flesh, i.e., in the body, and transmitted to all men through natural generation. So all men now experience the same physical corruption and death. According to Romans 5:12: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin...and so death passed upon all men... Sin therefore: (1) destroyed the viability of Adam's body; (2) was inherited by all his descendants born by natural generation; and (3) [see item (3) in next column]. |
Throughout this discussion sins are the overt manifestations which bring all human behavior under the judgment of God and demonstrate the universality of the fallen nature of man. According to Romans 5:19: For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners... (3) because of its presence in the body, is the basic cause of the fallen nature of all men. That the breakdown in human behavior is traceable to the root disease, is borne out in many passages of Scripture, as in Romans 7:1-20: For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing....For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not. it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. |
Over 150 years ago, Nathaniel Taylor, (13) the eminent Congregationalist teacher at Yale, pointed out that it is inevitable that this human disease will bear fruit from the moment that man is capable of moral action. He said, "The entire moral depravity of man is by nature." Sin is a real and universal thing "to be truly and properly ascribed to nature and not to circumstances." Men commit sin "as soon as they become moral agents, as soon as they can" (emphases his). The propensity or disposition to sin is not in itself sinful, he argued, but it is the cause of actions which are.
Some years later, J. C. Jones rightly pointed out that the only thing of importance to the rest of humanity in Adam's behavior was this one single offense; of the rest of his life we know virtually nothing and may suppose that the silence of Scripture is intentional. Jones said: (14)
St. Paul traces the stream of human evil to its fountainhead in the "one offense" of the "one man." The "one offense," of course, was the partaking of the forbidden fruit. The subsequent offenses of Adam are not referred to at all, either by Moses in his narrative or by Paul in his commentary thereon. Evidently, then, the other offenses were private concerning no one but the individual Adam--they do not concern us at all, nor had they any influence in determining the course of history.
But the "one offense" concerns us as much as it concerned him; it brought sin upon us and death, and all our woe. It is the one hinge on which the destiny of the race hung. Without contradiction that "one offense" of that "one man" bears a closer relation to posterity than any of Adam's other sins.
The point is well taken because it underscores the pivotal nature of Adam's action and shows that it is not in any way by example that Adam passed on to all generations the spirit of self-will and disobedience. Human failure stems from an event in which something was disrupted in the human organism. It is not the effect of Adam's example communicated to his own generation and through them to the next generation so that society and the individual have become what they are by example. Even T. H. Huxley was honest enough to see the cogency of this truth: (15)
... it is the secret of the superiority of the best theological teachers over the majority of their opponents that they substantially recognize these realities...
The doctrines of...original sin, of the innate depravity of man...appear to me to be vastly nearer the truth than the liberal, popular illusions that babies are all born good, and that the example of a corrupt society is responsible for their failure to remain so; that it is given to everybody to reach the ethic ideal if he will only try...and other optimistic figments.
Interestingly, in his book The Ghost in the Machine, Arthur Koestler (16) admits to a suspicion that there really is something biologically wrong with man that in part helps to account for his moral depravity. He put it this way:
When one contemplates the streak of insanity running through human history, it appears highly probable that Homo Sapiens is a biological freak, the result of some remarkable mistake in the evolutionary process.
The ancient doctrine of original sin...could be a reflection of man's awareness of his own inadequacy, of the intuitive hunch that somewhere along the line of his ascent something has gone wrong...There is nothing particularly improbable in the assumption that man's native equipment...may contain some serious fault in the circuitry of his most precious and delicate instrument--the central nervous system.
One can hardly accept his evolutionary thinking in the light of Genesis 3, but his comment does suggest that the evidence favors a genuine organic disturbance which has affected the whole man--body, mind, and spirit. We know this from Scripture, of course, but it is interesting to see recognition of it from an entirely secular source.
Another writer of a former generation, James Gall, (17) was perceptive enough to see that man's fallen nature is very much like a disease, for reasons he sets forth as follows:
It is its suicidal character that proves it to be a disease. It is because sin injures the interests, mars the enjoyments, and shortens the days of the individual who indulges in it, that demonstrates it is not "natural." It has not a single element of goodness in it nor connected with it, so that a moderate indulgence in it might be salutary. It is essentially and entirely harmful.
What he really means, as he is at pains to show in his book, is that no animal does by nature things which injure its interests, mars its enjoyment of life, or shortens its days to no purpose. The behavior of predators, for example, which sometimes looks extremely savage thus reminding us of human savagery, really has none of the characteristics of human savagery. For the animal is without hate, revenge, or desire to hurt merely for the pleasure of hurting. In fact, it probably "hurts" neither its prey, nor itself. When man acts according to his nature, however, he almost always acts self-destructively. This is what James meant by the suicidal character which proves that sin is a disease. Natural human behavior is diseased behavior.
In the Old Testament, sin is covered (Ps. 32: 1). In the New Testament, sin is taken away (John 1:29), sin is put away (Heb. 9 :26), sin is cleansed (I John 1:7). Forgiveness is neither appropriate to nor applied to this root disease in Scripture. In the sight of God, sin in the body, in the flesh, is evidence of the Fall and though it cannot come under moral condemnation, it must nevertheless be condemned as undesirable in man (Rom. 8:3) and something must be done about it. Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body...(Phil. 3:21). This is what God will do about it in the case of His children when they die. While they live, the Holy Spirit quickens or revitalizes the mortal body. But if the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies...(Rom. 8:11). In order to see how God has dealt with the disease itself we have to note a few of the specific statements which are to be found both in the Old and the New Testament regarding it. (1) The disease is inherited. We are conceived in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me (Ps. 51:5). (2) Sin permeates our members. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. (Rom. 7:23). I suggest that the phrase "the law of sin which is in my members" is a direct reference to this inevitable consequence of the effect of the disease that is in the flesh (in every member of the body) upon the spirit of man of which the body is the temple. Moreover, I believe that in most instances in the New Testament the term flesh means what it says and is not to be spiritualized as a reference to man's lower nature, though the disease of the flesh always tends to degrade his spirit. The Lord said, "The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Mark 14:38). Here the weakness is clearly physical, since they simply could not keep awake. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and as a sin-offering judged sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3). and (3) [go to (3) in next column] It is therefore sin in the flesh which makes the law ineffective. |
Here, then, is the heart of the problem. We are plagued with a disease which is resident in our bodies, is inherited from our parents, and ultimately brings us to the grave. And this same disease effectively turns the innocence of childhood, not into virtue as it might otherwise have been in the absence of sin, but into guilt, making every man a sinner in the sight of God. Yet it is not sin which separates us from God, but sins (Isa. 59:2). Scripture gives us some clues as to how early in human life the symptoms of the disease become identifiable. In II Samuel 12:23 David ceases to mourn for his newborn son, assuredly believing that both he and the infant would be reunited in heaven. It is important to note that this baby died on the 7th day, and was therefore uncircumcised (Gen. 17 :12). So David's assurance was not based on any completed ritual. It must have been predicated on the baby's innocence in the sight of God, though he knew the baby had been born in sin (doubly so, in the circumstances). In Isaiah 7:16 we are told that as a child we learn evil. This, then, is where true discernment begins: not necessarily experience, but recognition--as must have been the case with the Child Jesus. In Genesis 8:21 we are told that the thoughts of a man's heart "are only evil from his youth up...." and not from his birth. There seems to be some progression here. The baby is completely innocent though born in sin. The child begins to learn the meaning of the difference between evil and good, without necessarily being involved in making any personal choice. The youth is capable of thinking evil, not merely thinking about it, and by this further step in moral development becomes accountable to God and falls under condemnation. By contrast, in the New Testament, sins are forgiven. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins...(I John 1:8, 9). This verse makes an important distinction and should preserve us against a dangerous misconception. The Early Church and its councils were very anxious to underscore the fact that when we accept the Lord's sacrifice and for His sake (I John 2:12) are forgiven all our sins, this does not mean that we are at once freed. from the burden of the disease (sin) itself. The disease remains with us, but it is now subject to the restraining influences of the Holy Spirit. The struggle between the aspirations of the new man in Christ Jesus toward holiness and the old predisposition due to the presence of sin must still be carried on. Paul vividly describes this conflict in himself and observes that only when death removes this body are we finally free of its influence. (Rom. 7: 1 8-24). But since man is truly a body-spirit entity, we do not seek to be robbed altogether of a body, but rather that we should be given a new body in the resurrection (II Cor. 5:4). Forgiveness is by no means automatic, it is conditioned upon our faith in the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, "Who bore our sins in his own body on the tree" (I Pet. 2:24). It is important to notice that this divine forgiveness is always limited to those who have believed. It is always our sins, not the sins of the whole world. It is to be noted that the Pharisees misquoted this passage in John 9:34 by saying to the man who had been born blind, "Thou wast altogether born in sins." To say this is to neglect the fundamental difference between the two words, sin and sins. We cannot be born in sins, but we can die in sins (John 8:21). (3) All manner of evil impulses spring out of sin. But sin...wrought in me all kinds of evil desires (Rom 7:8). We are thus tempted from within. For from within proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, pride and foolishness--all these evils come from within and defile the man (see Mark 7:21-23). Jesus Christ was also tempted, but apart from sin (Heb. 4: 15). |
Many of our English versions have rendered this as "without sin," as though the truth intended by the words is simply that Jesus never failed in any temptation. This is a truth, but I do not believe it is the truth of this passage. The Greek is very specific: choris means "apart from" and not merely "without." The true significance of this statement is that whereas we are tempted from within because of sin in our members, "in him is no sin" (I John 3:5), and therefore temptation could not arise from within, when Satan comes to us there is within us that which gives him a leverage, but this was not true of the Lord Jesus Christ. When the prince of this world came to Him, he had nothing in Him whereby to secure an entrance into his spiritual life (John 14:30). Had the intent of the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews been merely to express sinlessness, he would not have used the Greek preposition choris, but the common word in Greek for sinlessness, namely anamartetos, as it is found in John 8:7, where the Authorized Version has used the same English phrase "without sin."
How did He, born of woman-kind, come to be free of sin since, as Job says, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" (Job 14:4). Or to put the problem slightly differently, in another perceptive question asked by, "How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of woman?" (Job 25:4). The Lord Jesus Christ, being born of a virgin (Luke 1:27 ) escaped the poison of sin and thus, as a Second Adam, was made "after the power of an endless life" (Heb. 7:16). Augustine said of the First Adam that "it was not impossible for him to die but possible for him not to die." This was precisely true of the Second Adam, for being made after the power of an endless life, so that He need not have died, it was nevertheless possible for Him to die--indeed, it was essential, for our sakes. In Adam, as created, there was no poison of sin to bring about his death. Of Jesus Christ as born of a virgin, it is said that in Him was no sin, though He who knew no sin was made to be a sin-offering for us (II Cor. 5:21).
MAN IS A body-spirit entity, the union of the two resulting in the emergence of soul, or self. The body without the spirit is dead. These two fundamental elements of the individual, in the theology of the New Testament as well as in some quite explicit Old Testament references, are treated quite specifically as requiring salvation. This subject has been discussed analytically in one of the Doorway Papers from which the following list of passages provides a useful summary. These references show, rather contrary to popular opinion, that although there is a real sense in which man can be viewed as body, soul, and spirit, he is fundamentally a body-spirit entity with the soul rather as a resultant, than having existence in its own right.
The spirit is given and taken away by God Eccl. 12:7
It is formed by God Zech. 12:1
God is the God of all the spirits of all flesh Num. 16:22
God is the Father of the spirits of the saved Heb. 12:9
At death God gathers the spirit to Himself Job 34:14,15
When the time comes, man cannot retain his spirit Eccl. 8:8
Ananias and Sapphira surrendered their spirits Acts 5:5,10
Stephen commended his spirit into Jesus' keeping Acts 7:59
Jesus dismissed His Spirit Matt. 27:50, etc.
Once the spirit has left the body, the body is dead James 2:26
The spirit departs with the last expiration of breath Gen. 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:33;
Job 10:18; 27:3; 34:14,15The spirit is given with the drawing of the first breath Gen. 2:7 and Job 27:3
In any resurrection from the dead it is the spirit which returns to the body
Luke 8.55, Ezek. 37:5The spirit made perfect is kept by God waiting to be clothed with a resurrected body Heb. 12:23
It is the spirit, not the soul, which is born again John 3:3,7
Both of these fundamental components, the body and the spirit require salvation if the whole man is to be saved. In dealing with the body, salvation is from the effects of sin, i.e., from the effects of a disease. In dealing with the spirit, man needs salvation from his sins both from their effects and from their penalty. And this Jesus came to do: "He shall save His people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21).
Because we are born in sin, because we inherit it without having any choice in the matter and therefore without being responsible for it, God took upon Himself this responsibility. In this respect His provision is truly universal, is for all mankind. As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (I Cor. 15:22). To be made alive is not the same thing as being resurrected. Resurrection is a temporary reprieve, the kind of reprieve which was granted to Lazarus, the widow of Nain's son, or Jairus' daughter. Each of these people died again in due time. The Lord Jesus was not the first one to be resurrected, but He was the first one to be made alive: in this sense being the first fruits (I Cor. 15:23). All men will be made alive, because the sin which brings about their death was laid upon Jesus who tasted death for every man. We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man (Heb. 2:9). Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29). In Scripture this aspect of His sacrifice is referred to as a "ransom." Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time (I Tim. 2:6). The Lord accomplished this by being made sin, though He knew no sin (II Cor. 5:21); and by being made in the likeness of sin--full flesh and as a sin-offering (Rom. 8:3), and then by dying as the Lamb of God, as the Last Adam, undoing the work of the First Adam (I Cor. 15:45). Sin is never forgiven, for in the nature of the case it serves very little purpose merely to forgive it if it is a disease. However, the disease itself is offensive to God and something must be done about it. As a temporary measure it can, like an open sore, be dressed or covered over. This "covering" is the basic provision of the atonement, which is the meaning of the word. It is temporary. The disease will not be taken away altogether until we are given new bodies in the resurrection. In the meantime, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us. But the cleansing is needed constantly for the disease plagues us, as Paul makes all too clear in Roman 7, until we are rid of this body. The nature of the resurrected body is a mystery, but it will be as real as the body we now have. The body of the redeemed will be sown in corruption but raised without corruption (I Cor. 15:42), being sown a natural body but raised a spiritual body (I Cor. 15:44): nevertheless it will be a real body. It will be like His glorious body (Phil. 3:21). The bodies of the unredeemed will also be freed of this disease, sin, but their fate appears to be reserved for a second death (Rev. 20:14). That they will be raised in body is quite certain from John 5:28, 29: All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation [judgment]. There are these two factors, then: covering or atonement is needed to remove the offense of the disease in the sight of God; and repeated cleansing is required to reduce the effect of the disease in our own lives. |
Such is the nature of sin that the individual is not held responsible. But we are held responsible for our sins. Either we bear the penalty, or by faith we accept the Lord's sacrifice in our place. Forgiveness applies therefore only to to those who accept the Lord as Savior. It is always our sins that He bore, our sins that are forgiven. Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness (I Peter 2:24). Your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake (I John 2:12). Sins are forgiven, not merely covered (I John 1:9). As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us (Ps. 103:12). There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8: 1). To him gave all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43). The promise is remission or sending away, not merely covering up. This "sending away" of sins is now, whereas the "taking away" of sin is yet in the future. One passage in the New Testament speaks of sin as being cleansed, in contrast with sins which are forgiven (I John 1 :9). As though to offset the danger of the child of God supposing that by the cleansing he is completely and altogether freed from sin, Scripture goes on to say, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves" (I John 1:8). It is all too painfully clear that only death will rid us completely of the diseased body, or "body of death," as Paul has put it (Rom. 7:24). And our own experience fully confirms this. |
I do not know whether there is a precise difference in Scripture between washing with water and cleansing with blood, but a number of passages seem to suggest that the washing of water refers to the body and the disease of sin, whereas the blood relates rather to forgiveness of sins which infect and arise out of the spirit of man.
Thus rebirth seems to involve both the action of water and of blood (I John 5:6). And the full assurance of faith is associated with being "sprinkled" (with blood) from an evil conscience, but our bodies washed with pure water (Heb. 10:22). The need of daily cleansing seems to be reflected by the Lord's words, "He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet..." (John 13:10); but this is predicated on the fact that we already have received an overall "washing." The baptism of infants was at first based on the idea that though without sins, a child is still unclean in terms of sin in God's sight. To render such a one whole, a symbolic washing away of the sin of the body with water was felt to have meaning.
Thus the logic of the Plan of Salvation is really beautifully maintained throughout Scripture. In His Person the Lord Jesus Christ provided for all who believe a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice. In being made sin for us, He who knew no sin gave His life on our behalf that we might be made alive for ever. And by bearing the penalty of our sins which have separated us from God, He suffered the same inevitable separation from His God (Matt. 27:46), making it possible for God to remain just and yet forgive us our sins for His sake. Such is God's Plan of Salvation of the whole man.
In the table (below), it is apparent that far more space is given in Scripture to the nature of sin, the disease itself, than to the symptoms. It is obvious that this must be so, for the disease itself is at the root of all else. If there is a key verse which sheds light on man's innate propensity for wickedness, it could be the simple fact stated in Romans 7:8: "But sin...wrought in me all manner of concupiscence."
The Greek word rendered concupiscence in the KJV (epithumia) is much more frequently translated as "lust," and there can be little doubt that the phrase "lusts of the flesh" employs the word flesh in the physical sense. Paul uses this phrase several times (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 5:16, 24; Eph. 2:3), as does Peter (I Pet. 2:11; 4:2), and John (I John 2:16). Bodily appetites are here in view. While the term flesh may also have reference to the behavior of the natural man, there is no question that at the root of it is the concept of a diseased body inherited by natural generation. The disease is the root cause of those driving passions which in man are so suicidal. In classical Greek the word epithumia meant "craving" or "passion," whether for things allowable or forbidden. This powerful symptom of the fatal disease in the body is the cause of our temptations from within.
Both Adam and Eve, while unfallen, were tempted "apart from" sin in the flesh, and therefore from outside--Eve by Satan, and Adam by Eve. After they had eaten the forbidden fruit, temptations arose as much from within as from without. James warns against the idea that we are only tempted from outside (James 1:14): "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, [epithumia] and enticed." Whereby we may see that sin is indeed that which generates all kinds of distressing appetites, until the spirit also surrenders itself to the corruption within (II Pet. 2:19); and we then become the slaves of the disease (Rom. 7:20), which thereafter reigns in our mortal body (Rom. 6:12).
The interaction of spirit and body is very complex, and very real. When we are angry, jealous, bitter, hateful a chemical substance, adrenalin, is sent coursing through our blood to prepare every member of the body for violent action. This chemical is not neutralized at once, but continues to sustain the tension for some time after the original stimulus has disappeared. For a while it generates a stimulus of itself, and we can easily come into bondage to the upset, so that we no longer master our feelings. Thus the spirit first acts on the body and sets up a chemical situation which then makes the body act upon the spirit. Our character may take a set, even when we struggle to suppress it. This seems to be analogous to the way the disease of sin infects our will. Perhaps in some mystical, but very real way, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us by neutralizing this infection.
There are chemicals released in the body which regulate human behavior, such as acetylcholine, which are neutralized--in this case by cholinesterase--as soon as the behavior pattern is to be changed. Where cholinesterase is not synthesized as a neutralizer of acetylcholine, the muscles become seized up, tensed in a way that knows no release--paralysis and death can be the result. Perhaps the poison of sin acts in a similar way upon the spirit of man. But for the child of God the reaction may be neutralized every time we seek cleansing. This promise of cleansing is part of our salvation.
And it may yet be discovered that hate generates a poison for which there
is a chemical neutralizer generated by love, a kind of esterase which acts
in much the same way as cholinesterase neutralizes acetylcholine to allow
tense muscles to relax. It would be adrenalinesterase, as it were.
By Adam Sin entered and by sin Death both of the Body...(Rom. 5: 12) Jesus took Sin away for All Men (John 1 :29), i.e., of the WHOLE world...(go to next Column) He who knew no Sin was made a Sin-offering (II Cor. 5:21). He tasted Death for all men (Heb. 2:9) that All Men might be made Alive (I Cor. 15:22). In the O.T. Sin is COVERED (Ps. 32:1): In the N.T. it is TAKEN AWAY (John 1 :29) OR PUT AWAY (Heb. 9:26). Conceived in Sin we are also BORN in Sin (Ps. 51:5)...(go to next Column) Sin permeates our Members (Rom. 7:23). Sin makes law ineffective (Rom. 8:3). Out of Sin spring all manner of evil desires (Rom. 7:8). In the LIKENESS of Sinful flesh was Jesus made in order to judge it (Rom. 8:3). The disease of Sin can never be forgiven: It must be CLEANSED (I John 1 :7) and finally removed when we have a new Body in the RESURRECTION....(go to next Column) In him was no Sin (I John 3:5): That is to say, "in his flesh" (cf. Rom. 7:13). HE was therefore tempted Apart From (choris) Sin (Heb. 4: 15)...(go to next Column) Hence Satan had "nothing in him" (John 14:30) with which to work. Thus the logic of the Plan of Salvation is really beautifully maintained throughout Scripture. In His person, the Lord Jesus Christ provided for all who believe a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice. In being made sin for us. He who knew no sin gave His life on Our behalf that we might be made alive forever. |
...And of the Spirit, so by one man's disobedience many were made Sinners leading to separation from God, which is SPIRITUAL Death. Bore OUR Sins (I Pet. 2:24). ...Out of this fatal Root comes the Fruit, that is to say, Sins. Evil thoughts, adulteries, blasphemies, wickedness, deceit, envy, murder theft, pride (Mark 7:21-23). Sin engenders in us every kind of evil desire (Rom. 7:8). ...Our Sins are FORGIVEN (I Pet. 2:24, I John 2:12), and our spirits are reborn (John 3:3) when we personally accept Jesus Christ as SAVIOR. ...We are tempted (James 1:14) From Within. And by bearing the penalty of our sins which have separated us from God, He suffered the inevitable separation from His God (Matt. 27:46), making it possible for God to remain just and yet forgive us our sins for His sake. Such is God's Plan of Salvation for the whole man. |
THE TABLE COMPARING sin and sins (above) presents evidence for a different treatment in Scripture of the words sin and sins, as though the difference were clear and unmistakable. But a fair criticism of my presentation is that I have been eclectic in my choice of passages to demonstrate my thesis. This is true. There are many perplexing "exceptional" references which any keen student of the Word of God will call to mind and which undoubtedly challenge it. Yet I believe there is a fundamental truth here. Some of the exceptions are more apparent than real. For instance, it is obvious that because of the scarcity of words for the concept of sin in the New Testament and the absence of a specific term for the phenomenon of inborn corruption inherited from Adam, which we commonly call "Original Sin," there must be a number of occasions where a single word is used in one sense in one place and in a rather different sense elsewhere. At times it is necessary to speak of a single sinful act and to use the word sin to describe it. It is necessary at times to speak of the abstract idea of wickedness of any kind, and again the word sin must be employed.
Thus sin can mean active sinfulness, as in John 15:22 or John 16:8, 9. It can mean sinfulness in the form of a certain kind of behavior, as in John 19:11; Acts 7:60; Romans 3:20; or Romans 6:1. It can mean "a sinful or harmful thing" as in Romans 7:7. It can mean a single act in a special circumstance as in James 4:17. Negatively, it can mean no sinful act of any kind as in John 8:46 and I Peter 2:22. And it can mean one sinful act specifically forgiven or not forgiven as in Matthew 12:31.
All these are from the New Testament. As I said in the Introduction, the Old Testament is much less theologically oriented and there is much poetry in it which can never be used to establish word meanings. Sometimes it seems to bear out the New Testament differences but at other times it rides across them, especially in the Psalms.
In the New Testament there are whole chapters (like Rom. 6) which seem to be devoted to the consideration of the inborn corruption of the body, which is appropriately referred to in the singular as sin throughout. In Romans 6:6 it seems to me that Paul is saying we need not be subject to this corruption within us. We have a new source of power to deal with it, whereby to "destroy" it, or as the Greek has it, "to make it powerless," the same word being used in Romans 3:3. This poison so permeates our members (Rom. 7:23) that even our minds are affected. Man's thinking processes have been fatally disturbed and must be "turned around" to acknowledge the truth that is in Christ Jesus. This is, in fact, the meaning of repentance (metanoia), "a change of mind." As children of God, our minds are renewed (Rom. 12:1; Eph. 4:23). It is part of our salvation.
That it is our sins, and not the sins of unbelievers, for which Christ died is clearly implied in Scripture. I Corinthians 15:3: "Christ died for our sins." Galatians 1:4: "...gave himself for our sins." Colossians 1:14: "in whom we have the forgiveness of sins." This was Calvin's view, of course, and I am persuaded it is the position of the Word of God.
There is only one verse in the New Testament which seems to challenge it. I John 2:2 says: "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but for the whole world." I can only suppose that John meant the "ours" to refer to his particular readers (or possibly he was writing primarily to his Hebrew Christian brethren) and wanted to include all God's children everywhere whether they read his letter or not. "Not only your sins and mine are forgiven, but all the saints anywhere in the whole world. We are all forgiven because He died for us all." Perhaps this will not satisfy some who have worried over this particular verse. Yet it is a rule in all such studies that if a framework is really useful it should not be abandoned merely because one or two verses seem to conflict with it.
On the whole I believe the distinctions made in this paper are valid and that many other verses bear them out and are illuminated in this light. The rationale of the Plan of Salvation is in no sense weakened merely because it must be accepted by faith. By faith we understand...
References:
1. On this point see Thorlief Boman, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek., S. C. M. Press, London, 1960, 224 pp., and also James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, Oxford U. Press 1962, pp. 8-20.
2. Luther: in A History of Christian Thought, J. L. Neve, Muhlenberg Press, Philadelphia, 1946, Vol. 1, p. 230.
3. Tertullian: in Neve. ref. 2. p. 139.
4. Reinhard, F. V.: in Religious Encyclopedia, Philip Schaff, Funk and Wagnalls, New York, 1883, Vol. 111, p. 2187.
5. Calvin, Institutes, Bk 2, Chap. 1, Sect. 5.
6. Ibid., Sect. 8.
7. Augustine: in Neve, ref. 2, p. 335.
8. Zwingli: in Neve, ref. 2, p. 244.
9. Browne, E. Harold, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, Parker, London, 1860, p. 235.
10. Pieters, Albertus, Divine Lord and Saviour, Revell, New York, 1949, p. 64.
11. Knox, W. L. and A. R. Vidler, The Development of Modern Catholicism, 1933: quoted by David Lack, Evolutionary Theory and Christian Belief, Methuen, London, 1957, p. 106.
12. de Beer, Gavin; in Sci. Amer., Sept., 1962, p. 268.
13. Taylor, Nathaniel: in The American Adam, R. B. W. Lewis, U. of Chicago Press, 1959.
14. Jones, J. C, Primeval Revelation, Hodder and Stoughton, London 1897, p. 261.
15. Huxley, T. H.: quoted by David Lack, Evolutionary Theory and Christian Belief, Methuen, London, 1957, p 107.
16. Koestler, Arthur, The Ghost in the Machine, Hutchinson, London, 1967, p. 267.
17. Gall, James, Primeval Man Unveiled, Hamilton, Adams, London, 1871, p. 91.
Corrections, August 14, 1997.
To Part VIII Chapter One
Return to Table of Contents
Return to Custance Library Home Page