“Sins” and “Sin”

By I. Howard Marshall

[I. Howard Marshall is Honorary Research Professor of New Testament, University of Aberdeen, Scotland.

This is article one in a four-part series, “Four ‘Bad’ Words in the New Testament,” delivered by the author as the W. H. Griffith Thomas Lectures at Dallas Theological Seminary, February 6–9, 2001.]

The purpose of this series is to focus on four terms that depict the necessity of the gospel in view of the human situation from which people need to be delivered. Many works have been written on the positive vocabulary of Christianity but not so many on the negative counterpart. These four words serve as gateways to the concepts expressed by them.

Missing The Mark?

When I was about fourteen years old, I was in a Sunday afternoon Bible class, in which the leader explained the nature of sin more clearly than anyone had previously done by reference to the different words used to describe it. He said that the verb ἁμαρτάνω (I cannot remember whether he used the actual Greek term or not), has the sense of missing the mark, of having an aim and failing to achieve it, like a person shooting an arrow at a target and failing to land within the circle. Then he mentioned “transgression,” which conveys the sense of disobedience to a set of rules. The word “trespass,” he explained, refers to going where you ought not to go, like invading someone’s private estate. “Debt” conveys the idea of some obligation to fulfill, which the person fails to do. These may not have been the exact terms he discussed, and I may not have expounded them exactly as he presented them. He may have also mentioned other terms, such as “iniquity,” which expresses more the result of sin in making a person guilty or unclean.

However, this exposition might be penalized to some extent for committing the so-called etymological fallacy, the supposition that the origin of a word is a safe guide to its developed meaning and that this “original” sense is also found in later uses. This is most conspicuous in the case of ἁμαρτάνω, which in the earliest Greek literature was used of hurling a spear and failing to hit the intended target or of having a purpose and not succeeding in fulfilling it. This imagery provides an excellent picture of one aspect of sin. When Paul wrote that he failed to do the good that he wanted to do (Rom. 7:15–20), clearly he meant that he was missing his intended target, although he did not use the verb in question. And one might wish to interpret Romans 3:23 in the same way by arguing that “all have sinned” is paralleled by “and fallen short of the glory of God,” as if the goal of all is to attain to the glory of God and yet they have failed to do so. This, however, misinterprets the passage, since the second clause probably expresses the consequence of the first.[1] Despite the attractiveness of the imagery, it is dubious whether this literal, ancient use of the verb actually affected the usage of the verb when it was applied to sin. The same may be true of παράπτωμα (“transgression”), which originally had the sense of falling, hence “to slip, go astray,” but then has more the sense of a wrong action done against someone.[2]

Some Statistics On Sin

In the ἁμαρτία word group[3] the five words that are from the stem ἁμαρτ- occur 268 times in the New Testament.[4] The distribution may be surprising. Bearing in mind the relative lengths of the books, the term is reasonably common in the Gospels, especially in Luke, and in contrast the limited number of references in Acts is striking. In Paul the term is overwhelmingly frequent in Romans, but not so common in 1 Corinthians, and remarkably infrequent in 2 Corinthians. It is fairly frequent in Hebrews and especially in 1 John (which is perhaps not so surprising, given the repetitious nature of this letter and its somewhat limited vocabulary).

What emerges immediately is that the actual vocabulary of “sin” occurs much more patchily than might have been expected and is not a major item in several books. By comparing the number of occurrences with the number of chapters in the books, “sin” is mentioned less than once per chapter in fifteen books of the New Testament, and over twice per chapter in only Romans, Hebrews, and 1 John. Statistics are not, of course, a reliable guide to the importance of the occurrences of a word, but they do say something. And of course a biblical writer who did not use this word group very often may have been utilizing synonyms instead.

Sinners And Sins In The Synoptic Gospels

In the Synoptic Gospels the basic sense of the term “sin” is not in dispute. The verb ἁμαρτάνω refers to committing an act that is wrong, usually by God’s standards, and especially as His will is laid down in His Law or the writings of the prophets and others. An individual act of this kind is a ἁμαρτία or ἁμάρτημα, and a person who commits it is a ἁμαρτωλός.[5]

Sinners And Sin

The word ἁμαρτωλός can be used in various ways. First, in a fairly general sense it refers to people engaged in manifestly wrong activities such as crime. The word is used in this way of the people who came to put Jesus to death (Matt. 26:45; Mark 14:41; Luke 24:7); similarly Judas used the verb ἁμαρτάνω to refer to his action in betraying an innocent victim to death (Matt. 27:4).

Second, the noun is used in a somewhat technical sense in the phrase “tax-collectors and [other] sinners.” This phrase was used by Jewish speakers, specifically the Pharisees or the scribes, to describe a motley company of people who followed a way of life that was inconsistent with what the Pharisees and scribes considered God’s standards, and it was used by the Evangelists in a fashion that reflects this way of speaking. Probably quotation marks should be put around the phrase to indicate that they were picking up the language of the Pharisees (Matt. 9:11–13; 11:19; Mark 2:15–17; Luke 5:30; 7:34; 15:1–2). There has been considerable debate over the usage here, and in Wilkins’s helpful discussion he draws attention to the evidence in Judaism for using the term “sinners” to refer to people outside the boundaries of the group that used the term. Thus “sinners” are those who do not conform to the Pharisaic interpretation of the Law.[6]

As an extension of this usage the term sometimes refers to a person whose sin was notorious or considered particularly flagrant by public opinion, as in the case of a prostitute (Luke 7:37, 39) or a dishonest tax collector (19:7). Jesus used the term of “tax collectors and sinners,” which probably refers to sinners in general (15:7, 10). Barclay adopted an unwieldy paraphrase for “sinners” in his translation of the Gospels: “people with whom no respectable Jew would have had anything to do.”[7]

This Jewish usage, of course, means that only some people are termed “sinners” in this sense. The Pharisees did not consider themselves sinners in that sense. But Jesus ironically called Pharisees “righteous,” thereby distinguishing them from the people whom they condemned as sinners (Mark 2:17).

Third, for Jesus people in general fall into this category of “sinners.” In Luke 13:2 Jesus challenged the belief that the people of Galilee who were slain by Pilate were greater sinners than their neighbors because they suffered such a fate; the implication is that all were equally sinners. A phrase employed by Him is “this adulterous and sinful generation” (Mark 8:38; Matt. 12:39 and 16:4 have “evil and adulterous,” with the same sense). Consequently Jesus’ mission to call sinners to repentance is of universal scope.

This particular sense is common in Luke, where the term ἁμαρτωλός occurs eighteen times. Jesus said ordinary people of the world, who act in their own interests, are “sinners” (Luke 6:32–34). This is doubtless not how they thought of themselves, and a distinctive feature in Luke is that many people who came into contact with Jesus became conscious of the fact that they were sinners in a highly personal manner. So it is with Peter (5:8) who felt unworthy to be beside Jesus. And the tax collector in the parable knew to ask God to be merciful to him inasmuch as he was a sinner (18:13).

Somewhere in the middle of a spectrum are the people whom the Pharisees regarded as notorious sinners, some of whom may have been guilty of comparatively venial offenses; at one end are the people as a whole; and at the other end are those guilty of serious offenses and crimes.

Sins And Forgiveness

The Gospels make it clear that sins against God need to be brought out into the open and dealt with. The baptism administered by John was a baptism of repentance leading to the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4). This phrase sums up nicely the understanding of the matter.

First, sins are offenses against God. It is true that in some popular circles a sin is viewed as an act committed only against God, a view that rests heavily on Psalm 51:4, “Against You, You alone, I have sinned.” This, however, can be refuted by noting other verses in which people are said to have sinned against their fellow human beings (Matt. 6:14; 18:15, 21; Luke 15:18, 21, where the son has sinned against heaven and against his father).[8] The truth is, of course, that all human offenses are against God and not just against other human beings. When the New Testament writers wanted to refer to acts committed against other people or the rest of the created world, they tended to prefer ἀδίκημα and its cognates, although this word group can also be used of actions that are wrong in relationship to God.[9]

Second, sins need to be forgiven. That is to say, something needs to be done so that they no longer stand between people and God. Jesus told people to pray for forgiveness of sins (Matt. 6:12).

Such forgiveness must also be practiced between human beings. So people are told to be ready to forgive those who have offended them (Matt. 18:21–35; Luke 17:3–4), and they must do this if they are to receive God’s forgiveness themselves (Matt. 6:14–15; Mark 11:25). Such readiness to forgive is not so much a condition of divine forgiveness as an essential accompaniment of it.

Third, forgiveness presupposes admission or confession that one has sinned (Mark 1:5). The technical term used in this context is “repentance.”

Fourth, in at least some cases God acts through an agent who has the authority to announce the opportunity of forgiveness of sins to people and to assure them of forgiveness. This is the case with John the Baptist, whose mission was to prepare people for the coming of the Lord by inviting them to accept forgiveness (Luke 1:77). It is also the case with Jesus Himself. This occurs specifically in the story of the paralytic man (Mark 2:5–11) and the story of the sinful woman (Luke 7:37–50). In the first of these two stories the conferral of forgiveness is associated with the authority of the Son of Man. And He assigned this task to His followers (24:47). Presumably, however, when disciples pray to God to forgive their sins, there is no need of an intermediary to convey the forgiveness.

Fifth, forgiveness of sins seems to be something that God can confer simply by His declaration. Nevertheless in Matthew’s record of what Jesus said at the Last Supper His blood was poured out for the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 26:28).

Sixth, divine forgiveness is available for all sins committed by people. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, however, will not be forgiven; the person who commits it will be guilty of an eternal sin, that is, a sin that will never be forgiven (Mark 3:28–29; cf. Matt. 12:31). Matthew, in common with Luke, has a similar saying in which blasphemy against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but not blasphemy against the Spirit (12:32; Luke 12:10). On the surface these sayings seem difficult because they are in the future indicative without any statement of conditions. They seem to say that all sins will in fact be forgiven, but blasphemy or speaking against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. The solution to the problem is to recognize that in the former case the usual conditions for forgiveness must be met, and in the latter case the sin is an ongoing state or attitude that cannot be forgiven so long as it persists. Both of these qualifications are clearly justified in the context of biblical teaching as a whole.

Sin And Evil

The term πονηρός or πονηρία (“evil”) in the Gospels expresses the badness or evil character of people who do wrong. It is used in contexts where the concept of sin is not present, as when a master scolds a disobedient or inefficient slave (Matt. 18:32; 25:26; Luke 19:22), but it is also applied to sinners and sin. The devil is sometimes referred to as “the evil one,” although in some cases it is not clear from the ambiguous Greek word whether the reference is personal or impersonal (Matt. 5:37; 6:13; 13:19), and those who behave like him are said, in Semitic idiom, to be his children (13:38). Jesus assumed that human beings in general are evil, though without specifying to what degree they are evil (7:11). Yet He divided humanity into the evil and the good (5:45) in a way that recognizes that there are people who (generally) do good and that there are people who (generally) do evil. This is a rough and ready distinction, but it warns against saying that depravity means that ordinary people can do no good at all. Jesus also addressed the Pharisees, doubtless with some exaggeration, as evil people who were incapable of good. This was because He located the source of evil actions in the heart, and if people’s hearts are evil, then their deeds will inevitably be evil also (12:34–36).

Summary

The term ἁμαρτία is used consistently in the plural in the Synoptic Gospels of the actual offenses committed by people for which they need to be forgiven. Nevertheless the terms “sinner” and “evil” indicate that people are of a sinful disposition, although the Gospels do not discuss the issues raised by this assumption. All sins are forgivable except for sins that express total opposition to God.

Sin In The Gospel Of John

Several points may be noted about the subject of sin in the Gospel of John.

First, some Jews accused Jesus of being a sinner, apparently because of things He said that they regarded as blasphemous (John 9:24). Therefore people were puzzled that He could perform miracles (v. 16), since the power to do them must come from God, who hears one who is “God-fearing and does His will” but who does not hear sinners (v. 31). This is a helpful clarification of how the term “sinner” should be defined: A sinner is one who does not honor God and does not do what He commands. The blind man whom Jesus healed did not know whether Jesus was a sinner. But he did know that a miracle had been wrought on him, and from this he drew the conclusion that God had heard Jesus and that therefore Jesus could not be a sinner (v. 25). Jesus could therefore challenge people to state what sin He had committed (8:46).

Second, when the Jews accused the same blind man of being born in sin (9:34), their point was that his blindness was proof that he or his parents had sinned. But Jesus denied this, saying human suffering is not necessarily a sign of divine disfavor and punishment (9:2–3). Nevertheless, when Jesus told the cured paralytic to go and sin no more (5:14), the implication is that up till that point he had been sinning, although the sin was not necessarily the reason for the disease.

Third, Jesus accused some of the Pharisees of sin. Paradoxically He asserted that if they had been blind, they would not have been sinners, but because they said that they could see, they were sinners (9:40–41). The blindness He referred to was, of course, spiritual. Jesus seems to have been saying that because they could see and yet did not acknowledge that what He was doing was from God, they were sinners. This is confirmed in 15:22, where Jesus said that if He had not come and spoken to them they would not have had sin; but now they had no excuse for their sin because He had come and spoken to them. This is consistent with the fact that in the Gospel of John sin consists specifically of a wrong attitude to Jesus Himself, a failure to recognize that He is the Son of God and to honor Him accordingly. This point is underlined by Jesus’ comment about the way in which the Paraclete will convict the world of sin “because they do not believe in Me” (16:8–9). This does not mean that other transgressions against the will of God are not sin, but it does mean that sin is supremely seen in one’s rejection of God’s agent.

Fourth, Jesus warned that sinners will die in their sin (8:21, 24). More precisely He added that unless they believed that He is,[10] they would die in their sins (v. 24).

Fifth, He taught that persons who sin are the slaves of sin, and then He commented that slaves do not stay forever in the house, whereas sons do. The latter belong in a way that the former do not. This seems to refer to Jews who committed sin; they were warned that they would not retain their place among the people of God.

Slaves needed to be set free from their sin, and this will be achieved by the Son (8:34–36).

Sixth, sin is taken away by the Lamb of God (1:29). This language, reminiscent of the Old Testament, suggests that Jesus functioned as a sacrifice that makes expiation for sin (Lev. 10:17) or that He bears the penalty for sin on behalf of others (Isa. 53:12).[11]

Seventh, just as in Luke 24:47, so here Jesus committed to His disciples the authority to forgive sins or to withhold forgiveness. If they forgave, the sins would be forgiven by God, and if they withheld forgiveness, it would be withheld by God (John 20:23).

The teaching about sin in John goes beyond that in the Synoptic Gospels in respect to the sinlessness of Jesus, His function as the Lamb of God in taking away sin, and the point that sin is primarily to be noted in terms of one’s attitude to Him.

The teaching in John must also be seen as standing in continuity with the Synoptic Gospels. Four facts point this up. First, Jesus’ function in taking away sin is linked to His death in Matthew 26:28.

Second, the task of the disciples in being the agents of forgiveness is in line with Luke’s understanding of their postresurrection mission and has some relationship to what is said in Matthew 16:19 about the power of the keys given to Peter.

Third, in the Synoptic Gospels the ultimate sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but in John it is failure to acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God. This may seem to stand in tension with the way in which sin against the Son of Man is forgivable, but in both cases it is rejection of the clear revelation of Jesus as God’s agent.

Fourth, all four Gospels distinguish between rejection of Jesus as God’s agent and other sins. This might suggest that it is only when people reject Jesus that they are rejected. More likely, it means that the coming of Jesus brought sin to a clear focus and unmasks its real nature as rebellion against God Himself.[12]

The teaching in John can thus be seen as a continuation of and consistent development from the teaching in the Synoptic Gospels. What John’s Gospel brings out more powerfully is the nature of sin as rejection of God and His revelation in Jesus Christ. It is also significant that in John the term “sin,” which appears in the plural in the Synoptic Gospels, is used in the singular form to indicate the sinfulness that is characteristic of those who sin.

Forgiveness Of Sins In The Preaching Of The Early Church

As noted earlier, the term “sin” occurs a surprisingly small number of times in Acts. Nevertheless they are significant.

Acts presents humanity as fallen and sinful and in need of salvation. Taeger has argued that according to Acts human beings are not really so bad and that what they need is correction rather than total renewal.[13] Stenschke, however, has argued convincingly that the Gentiles need much more than mere correction.[14]

Acts is concerned almost exclusively with the remedy for sin. Right at the outset, Peter summoned his hearers to repentance and baptism, which would result in sins forgiven (Acts 2:38). The close connection of forgiveness with baptism is brought out in 22:16, where the washing of the body is used as a symbol of the washing away of sin. Similarly in 3:19 Peter called his audience to repentance and conversion so that their sins may be wiped out. Such conversion is specifically stated to be a turning away from wicked acts (3:26, πονηρία).[15] Presumably repentance and turning oneself around are pictured by baptism, just as in John’s baptism. Jesus is of course the agent through whom this happens. He was exalted by God to His right hand to give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel (5:31). This offer, however, was not confined to Israel; it was also made to the Gentiles through Paul’s ministry to them so that they might turn to God and receive forgiveness (26:18). Consequently it is through Him that forgiveness of sins is proclaimed and everyone who believes in Him can be justified from all the sins from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses (13:38–39).

Opinions differ as to whether this means that Christ confers actual repentance on people or gives them the opportunity to repent. Forgiveness is dependent on the offer of God; He takes the initiative in providing it. So someone must be God’s agent to proclaim that this is the day of salvation and that people need to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20–6:2). When people heard Paul say, “God commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), many grasped the opportunity provided by this proclamation and repented. Some writers say that God did more than provide the opportunity; they say He actually produced the repentance in them.[16]

However, more than repentance is involved. Paul referred specifically to believing in Jesus (13:39), and this is confirmed in 10:43 in which Peter is said to have referred to the prophets’ teaching that all who believe in Jesus receive forgiveness of sins. Repentance and belief are two sides of the same coin.

One other reference needs to be noted, namely, Stephen’s appeal to God not to hold the sin of those who put him to death against them (7:60). That prayer was certainly answered with respect to one young man who was consenting to Stephen’s death (8:1), even if he did not actually cast a stone. God offered Saul the opportunity to believe in Jesus and become His follower, to which he gave a positive response. Stephen’s prayer would thus seem to be that God would not withhold the opportunity of repentance and forgiveness from his executioners.

Acts, then, focuses on the possibility of forgiveness. Assuming the sinfulness of both Jews and Gentiles, it concentrates on the fact that sins can be forgiven or washed away. In Acts salvation consists essentially of forgiveness of sins, the reception of the Holy Spirit, and entry into the family of God. The problem faced is that of canceling out the record of past sins. The question of how one deals with the problem of ceasing from sinning is hardly central, although the thought of deliverance from the power of Satan and sanctification through faith in Christ is certainly present (26:18).

Sin As A Power In The Teaching Of Paul

The vast preponderance of references to sin in Paul’s epistles are in Romans. In fact there are more references in Romans than in all the rest of Paul’s letters put together. It may be significant that Paul used the nouns for sin seven times as often as the verb. And he used the singular form of the noun far more frequently than the plural. In fact in Romans he used the plural only five times but he used the singular forty-two times.

“Sins” In Paul’s Writings

Paul used the term “sin” in the same way as noted—to refer (usually in the plural or a virtual plural, “every sin”) to individual sinful actions (Rom. 3:25; 4:7, 8; 11:27; 1 Cor. 6:18; 15:3, 17). To get the full picture, however, these occurrences of “sin” must be supplemented by the instances of παράπτωμα, which Paul used for individual sins (Rom. 4:25; 2 Cor. 5:19; Gal. 6:1; Eph. 1:7; 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13 [twice]), and particularly for the sinful actions of Adam (Rom. 5:15–20) and the falling away of Israel (11:16–24).[17] Also Paul used παραβαίνω and cognate words to refer to transgressions of the Law,[18] and he used ἀνομία and its cognates of lawlessness.[19]

“Sin” In Paul’s Writings

Over against this usage stands the distinctive use of the term ἁμαρτία in the singular, which refers not so much to individual acts of sin as to sin itself. Sin is thought of as an entity with a rather broad range of meaning. This usage goes beyond the concept of “sinfulness” in the Gospel of John.

Six observations may be made about sin in the Pauline Epistles.

First, sin is conceived of as something that has entered into the world and is now in the world. It resembles a hostile power or a malignant disease. Its entry is traced back to Adam’s act of transgression. Sin took up its residence in the world, and with sin came death (Rom. 5:12). Paul did not state here that death was God’s sentence on those who committed it. What he did say is that sin pays a wage and the wage is death (6:23).

Consequently death also began to rule in the world. Death is God’s judgment on those who commit sin. But death also seems to be portrayed as an alien, evil power that has come into the world along with sin. So sin may be seen as inherently self-destructive, or death may be viewed as affixed by God to sin. Either way those who sin die, and this death is seen as the judgment from which people need to be delivered.

Second, just as death rules over the world, so also does sin rule in the world (5:21). Sin holds people in its grasp and does not let them go. Its sway is universal. All people die, and from this one can reason backwards and say that all people are sinners. So, whereas it is dubious whether one can work back from a person’s suffering to some prior sin (Luke 13:1–5; John 9:3), for Paul the universality of death is due to the universality of sin (Rom. 5:12; cf. 3:23).

Paul also taught that people will appear before God and be judged for what they have done. Paul used various terms for this judgment including “destruction,” “wrath,” and “anger” (2:5–16).

Third, an event of fundamental importance in Paul’s understanding of sin is the giving of the Law, by which Paul almost always meant the Law of Moses. Before the Mosaic Law was given, death reigned. Nevertheless there is a sense in which sin is not counted up when there is no law. Thus people may drive at excessive and dangerous speeds, but unless a specific law is enacted that prohibits travel at over, say, sixty miles per hour, there is no indictable offense for which motorists can be prosecuted. Nevertheless their driving is still dangerous and wrong. The law brings the offense into the open and defines it more precisely.

Yet even before the Law was given there was something equivalent to it. In Romans 2 Paul discussed the situation of the Jews, those who have the Law, and the Gentiles, those who are without the Law. He affirmed that fundamentally it does not matter in which category people are. People may do the works of the Law even if they do not have the Law, and people who have the Law can certainly disobey it. God will judge them appropriately, whether they are under the Law of Moses or not. In fairness God worked on the same principles with those who were before the Law and those who were under the Law.

Fourth, regardless of whether people are under the Law or not, the fact of sin is universal; Jews assumed that Gentiles were all sinners (Gal. 2:15), but for Paul Jews are every bit as much sinners as the Gentiles. He pictured sin as a power that holds people in its grasp. In the classic description of the person who cannot escape from its grip Paul wrote that they are sold so as to be “under sin” (Rom. 3:9) as their master (7:14; cf. Gal. 3:22). They are like slaves to sin (Rom. 6:6, 17) or prisoners of war (7:23), whose normal fate would be slavery. The various parts of their body are used by it like a soldier’s weapons or a cook’s utensils (6:13). No doubt Paul was thinking here of the power of temptation, but this power is overwhelming. Sin rules.

Fifth, Paul wrote that people are “invaded” by sin. He referred to sin as living or dwelling in a person (7:17, 20). He wrote that people remain “in sin” (6:1), which probably means “continuing to yield to the mastery of sin.” The body has been taken over by sin and made its tool (v. 6).

These verses demonstrate that sin is not simply the wrong actions people may perform. The fact that evil words and deeds proceed from an evil heart is now developed almost systematically and taken further. Paul presented sin as a malevolent force that has taken tight hold of humanity and established itself in their hearts and minds. As a faint analogy one might think of the way in which an evil delusion could fill the minds of a mob and lead them collectively into wicked actions, but this is more than a delusion. Behind all this there may lie the figure of Satan or the devil, but somewhat surprisingly Paul did not mention Satan in this discussion. Satan is more the enemy of Christians and is partly responsible for the hardships they endure (Rom. 16:20; 2 Cor. 12:7; 1 Thess. 2:18), but occasionally he is referred to as the tempter who leads people into sin (1 Cor. 7:5; 2 Cor. 2:11; 11:14; Eph. 4:27; 6:11; 1 Tim. 3:6–7; 5:15; 2 Tim. 2:26). One gains the impression that Satan is just one of the causes of human sinfulness, but Paul preferred to think of sin itself as the enslaving power.

Sixth, Paul also spoke of people being under the Law. The phrase “under the Law” was used in a somewhat neutral fashion to characterize Jews as contrasted with Gentiles, in that before the coming of Christ Jews were placed by God under the jurisdiction of a law that established how they were to live as God’s people. That Law condemned them for failing to do so. So to some extent the Law served to bring the inward rule of sin out into the open in actual sins. It could in a sense provoke sin. The command “You shall not covet” had the effect of making Paul want to covet, and so he committed the sin of coveting (Rom. 7:7–12). Sin, in a sense, made an ally of the Law and seized the opportunity afforded by the existence of a code of practice to encourage people to break the code. This does not mean that the Law was itself sin or part of the sinful system, but it was used by sin for its own ends; the Law itself remained holy, just, and good. In this way, Paul said, sin became all the more sinful (v. 13); it was revealed in its true colors.

The result is that to some extent Paul could make a distinction between himself and the sin that inhabited him. He could contrast what in himself he wanted to do, namely, to fulfill God’s Law, with what actually happened, namely, that another power was at work in him, making him a prisoner compelled to follow the law or rule imposed by sin and so coming into the sway of death (vv. 21–24). Opinions differ as to whether in this account Paul was speaking of the situation of a person before or after Christian conversion, and some people have thought it unlikely that Paul could have described a person before his conversion as delighting in the Law of God. But it is precisely because of this conflict that people turn to Christ and accept the deliverance He offers. The purpose of the Law was to make them do just this. That is what Paul meant when in Galatians he said the Law is like a guardian to guide people to Christ (Gal. 3:23–24).

The Coming Of Christ And The Spirit

Alongside the entry of sin into the world and the enactment of the Law another event is of decisive importance in understanding Paul’s view of sin. This is the coming of Christ, who was born under the Law but was not “under sin.” What Christ does is described in several ways.

First, Paul was concerned with the problem of how people may become righteous, that is, be in good standing with God with their sins not being held against them. This topic assumed particular importance because the Jews in general held that keeping the Law was the essential element in the solution. Paul took up the language of “justification” from the story of Abraham and developed it to refer to the way in which God puts people in the right with Himself through the redemption that was effected by Christ. Paul defined this redemption more precisely as taking place through the death of Christ as a sacrifice for humankind, and the effect is that a person’s broken relationship with God is restored, through faith in Christ (Rom. 3:24–25). Christ was put to death because of transgressions and raised from the dead because of justification (4:25). As in Isaiah 59:20–21, God will take away the sins of His people and turn aside ungodliness from them (Rom. 11:26–27). David spoke of the covering over of sin and the happiness of the person whose sin is not reckoned against him by the Lord (Ps. 32:1–2; Rom. 4:7–8). Christ died for humanity’s sins (1 Cor. 15:3); He gave Himself up (to death) for sins (Gal. 1:4); and through His blood those who believe in Him have forgiveness (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14).[20] All these texts make it clear that the death of Jesus has to do with actual sins and with the covering up or forgiveness of them so that they no longer count against the ones who believe in Him (2 Cor. 5:19).

Second, the death of Jesus is also related to sin as an evil power ruling in the world. In Romans 5 a strong contrast is drawn between the sinful act of Adam, which resulted in sin’s entry into the world, and the powerful righteous act of Christ, through which grace entered into the world to begin its reign. This is not a separate aspect of Christ’s work apart from justification, since the express purpose of Christ’s righteous act is to bring about justification rather than condemnation (5:16), to bring about life rather than death (v. 17), to make people righteous rather than sinners (v. 19), and to free them and make them kings instead of slaves (v. 17). Thus the overcoming of the power of sin and the new status of its prisoners are tightly bound up together, but in this section of Romans the thought is more in terms of victory and defeat of the enemy.

What Paul did not explain is how the righteous act of Christ had this effect. How did the death of Jesus unleash this mighty power into the world? Part of the answer is given in 2 Corinthians 5:19–21, where Christ is said not to have known sin but to have been made sin by God so that believers might become the righteousness of God in Him. In this cryptic statement Paul came near to saying that Christ became one with sinners, that is, that He became Himself a sinner, so that sinners might become righteous people through Him. However, to say that Christ became a sinner would have meant that Christ Himself personally sinned, which is carefully ruled out by the comment that He did not know sin. So Paul used the abstract noun instead to say that Christ became one with sinners in their sin so that they might become one with Him in His righteousness. Even so, however, Paul did not explain how this “exchange” took place, and the missing factor that has to be supplied from the context is manifestly the death of Jesus for all people (5:14–15). As a result, sinners who believe in Christ are set free so that they can live for Him rather than for themselves.

Third, because of what Paul wrote in the second part of Romans 5 he could then in chapter 6 assure believers that they need no longer live under the power of sin (or under the power of the Law). A new picture comes in at this point, the picture of people living under the dominion of an evil ruler, who forces them to do his will. But they die, and once a person is dead, no one can force them to do anything, nor can they hear the commanding voice. So believers die to sin. But the picture includes a resurrection in which they emerge into a different sphere. C. S. Lewis perhaps captures the idea in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, in which the children go through a secret door at the back of a wardrobe and find themselves in a new world. They have, as it were, died to the old world, and now live in a new one. So believers are enabled to do this because, through the power of God, they are linked to Christ in His death and resurrection (6:3–6, 8–11). Their old being has in effect been put to death and so they need no longer be slaves to sin. They are now alive in the new world of God and are free to obey Him instead (vv. 17–20).

Fourth, Romans 8 begins with a kind of summary, which states that there is no condemnation for people who are joined to Christ (v. 1). Paul then added that this is possible because God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin and so condemned sin in the flesh. This is yet another statement of the divine remedy for sin in Christ’s advent. It emphasizes the fact of the Incarnation and then affirms that Christ was sent “for sin.” Moo argues strongly that this phrase means “as a sin offering.”[21] It is then said that God condemned sin. This statement must be seen in the light of verse 1, which says that there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ. This has become possible because the condemnation of sin has already been carried out in the death of Jesus, and with it the sentence, and therefore there is no longer any condemnation left for people, provided that they are in Christ. On the contrary, they are able to carry out the righteous requirements of the Law.

But now comes a surprise, in that for the first time in Romans Paul mentioned the Holy Spirit. There is a logic to this, in that the previous chapter was concerned with the Law of Moses, to which the Spirit stands in contrast. Previously people lived under a law, a regime that led to sin and death, but now that they are in God’s new world they are under the regime of the Spirit, who brings life. God has made it possible for people to fulfill the righteous requirements by the Holy Spirit. He has opened up the possibility of a new life in which sin is no longer in charge.[22]

Summary

Paul went beyond the teaching on sin in the Gospels and Acts by discussing the nature of sin as a power that controls people but which has been overcome by Christ. Because of this Paul expressed a deeper theology than is found reflected in the Book of Acts. This is not altogether surprising, since he was writing meditative letters rather than a narrative that is concerned primarily with evangelism and the place of the Gentile mission in it (even though it was the Gentile mission that raised these issues most acutely for Paul).

Paul’s doctrine of course has affinities with Jewish thought, notably with the doctrine of the two inclinations, the good and the bad, which struggle with each other in the lives of individuals, but it obviously goes far beyond this.[23]

The effect of Paul’s teaching is to show that the problem created by sin goes beyond that of guilt and judgment on individual sins. There is also the problem of people’s sinful nature and how it can be overcome. This goes beyond Jesus’ explicit teaching in the Synoptic Gospels. And sin is a superhuman power that invades people; to speak of “sin” is to say something more than simply that individuals have a propensity to sin. Instead they have a malady that spreads like an epidemic and leaves no one unscathed. What is not clear is what kind of existence or character Paul ascribed to this power. One might understand all his statements metaphorically, treating sin as if it were an active power, almost as if it were personal, almost as if it were demonic. But is there more to it than that? One important consideration is that the antidote to sin is the power and presence of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life, and this strongly suggests that the opposition is also a real entity.[24]

The purpose of the New Testament teaching on sin is not to lead people to speculate on the origin or nature of sin but rather to emphasize the magnitude of the problem created by sin and to demonstrate that however great the problem the remedy provided by God is more than sufficient to cope with it. “Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom. 5:20).

Notes

1. Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 226.
2. Wilhelm Michaelis, “παραπίπτω, παράπτωμα,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 6:170–72; Wolfgang Bauder, “παράπτωμα,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 3:585–86; and Michael Wolter, “παράπ-τωμα,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 3:33–34.
3. Gottfried Quell, George Bertram, Gustav Stählin, and Walter Grundmann, “ἁμαρτάνω, ἁμάρτημα, ἁμαρτία,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1 (1964), 267–316; Karl H. Rengstorf, “ἁμαρτωλός, ἀναμάρτητος,” in ibid., 1:317-35; Walter Günther, “ἁμαρτία,” in New International Dictionary of New TestamentTheology, 3:577-85; Peter Fiedler, “ἁμαρτία κ.τ.λ.,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 1 (1990), 65-69. Cf. Michael J. Wilkins, “Sinner,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green and Scott McKnight (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 757-60; and Stanley E. Porter, “Sin, Wickedness,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 1095-98. For a broader, more conceptual approach see Henri A. G. Blocher, “Sin,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 781-88.
4. Matthew: 15 times; Mark: 14; Luke: 33; John: 25; Acts: 9; Romans: 60; 1 Corinthians: 12; 2 Corinthians: 3; Galatians: 5; Ephesians: 2; Colossians: 1; 1 Thessalonians: 1; 1 Timothy: 5; 2 Timothy: 1; Titus: 1; Hebrews: 29; James: 9; 1 Peter: 8; 2 Peter: 4; 1-3 John: 27; Jude: 1; Revelation: 3. The occurrences in John include ἀναμάρτητος in John 8:7, which records Jesus’ challenge of His audience to state which of them was without sin.
5. Doubtless a theoretical distinction exists between people who have committed a sin and therefore constituted themselves sinners and people who are habitually sinners and therefore can be expected to commit sin. In practice this line is almost impossible to draw, and the New Testament generally uses ἁμαρτωλό́ς in the latter sense. Behind this sense lies the idea that the person is by nature a sinner.
6. Wilkins, “Sinner,” 757–60. Wilkins tends to side with Joachim Jeremias, who said “sinners” refers in a broad sense to those who disagreed with the Pharisees (New Testament Theology [London: SCM, 1971], 108–13), while taking note of the criticisms by E. P. Sanders, who wanted to restrict the term more to those who sinned willfully and heinously (Jesus and Judaism [London: SCM, 1985], 174–211).
7. William Barclay, The New Testament: A New Translation (London: Collins, 1968), 1:16.
8. Paul said that he had not sinned against Caesar (Acts 25:8), but this is a secular usage. Also Paul even spoke of a sin against one’s own body (1 Cor. 6:18).
9. For examples of the former use see Matthew 20:13; Luke 16:8–11; Acts 18:14; 25:10–11; 1 Corinthians 6:7–8; and 2 Corinthians 7:2. For the latter sense see Romans 1:18; 6:13; and especially 1 John 5:17. Paul used ἀδικία in much the same way as ἁμαρτία to denote a reality that can dominate people and from which they need to be freed (Rom. 2:8; 6:13). See Gottleb Schrenk, “ἄδικος κ.τ.λ.,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1 (1964), 149–63, for a penetrating analysis. See also Walther Günther, “ἀδικία,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3:573–76; and Meinrad Limbeck “ἀδικέω κ.τ.λ.,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 1 (1990), 31–33.
10. Presumably they were to believe that He is the Son of God (John 8:36).
11. P. Stuhlmacher, “Das Lamm Gottes—eine Skizze,” in Geschichte Tradition—Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengelzum 70. Geburtstag, ed. H. Cancik et al. (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1996), 3:529–42.
12. The coming of Jesus thus functions in a manner that shows some similarity to the function of the Law in “increasing trespass” (Rom. 5:13, 20).
13. J.-W. Taeger, Der Mensch und sein Heil: Studien zum Bild des Meschen und zur Sicht der Bekehrung bei Lukas (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1982).
14. C. W. Stenschke, Luke’s Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1999).
15. The adjective πονηρός is used of evil spirits in Acts, but otherwise its use is nontheological.
16. Stenschke, Luke’s Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith, 156–64.
17. The corresponding verb παραπίπτω is used only in Hebrews 6:6 (of falling away from one’s Christian profession).
18. Παραβαίνω is used in this way in Matthew 15:2–3. Παραβάτης (“transgressor”) is explicitly linked with the Law each time it occurs (Rom. 2:25, 27; Gal. 2:18–19; James 2:9, 11). Παράβασις occurs in Romans 2:23; 4:15; 5:14; Galatians 3:19; 1 Timothy 2:14; Hebrews 2:2; 9:15. See Johannes Schneider, “παραβαίνω κ.τ.λ.,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 5 (1967), 736–42; Walther Günther, “παράβασις,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3:583–85; and Michael Wolter, “παράβασις κ.τ.λ.,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 3 (1993), 14–15.
19. Paul used these terms to refer to the Gentiles who were not under the jurisdiction of the Law of Moses (Rom. 2:12; 1 Cor. 9:21), but more frequently he used them of people who disobey or repudiate the Law of God. In some contexts the term “lawlessness” means much the same as “rebellion” (2 Thess. 2:3, 7; 1 John 3:4; see I. H. Marshall, The Epistles of John [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978], 176–77). Essentially it is a synonym for “sin” (Rom. 4:7; 6:19; Titus 2:14). See Walter Gutbrod, “ἀνομία,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 4 (1967), 1085–87; and Meinrad Limbeck, “ἀνομία, ἄνομος, ἀνόμως,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 1 (1990), 106.
20. Paul generally preferred to speak of justification rather than forgiveness.
21. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 480.
22. Space does not allow discussion of the question of how it is that people still sin as Christian believers.
23. Cf. W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 2d ed. (London: SPCK, 1955), 17–35.
24. However, sin is also contrasted with righteousness, which is more of an abstraction.