Sin.

I. Terminology
As might be expected of a book whose dominant theme is human sin and God’s gracious salvation from
it, the Bible uses a wide variety of terms in both OT and NT to express the idea of sin.
There are four main Heb. roots. ḥ t’̣ is the most common and with its derivatives conveys the underlying
idea of missing the mark, or deviating from the goal (cf. Jdg. 20:16 for non-moral usage). The vast
proportion of its occurrences refer to moral and religious deviation, whether in respect of man (Gn.
20:9), or God (La. 5:7). The noun ḥ aṭtạ ̄’ṯ is frequently used as a technical term for a sin-offering (Lv. 4,
passim). This root does not address the inner motivation of wrong action but concentrates more on its
formal aspect as deviation from the moral norm, usually the law or will of God (Ex. 20:20; Ho. 13:2; etc.).
pš‘ refers to action in breach of relationship, ‘rebellion’, ‘revolution’. It occurs in a non-theological sense,
e.g., with reference to Israel’s secession from the house of David (1 Ki. 12:19). Used of sin it is perhaps
the profoundest OT term reflecting as it does the insight that sin is rebellion against God, the defiance of
his holy lordship and rule (Is. 1:28; 1 Ki. 8:50; etc.). ‘wh conveys a literal meaning of deliberate
perversion or ‘twisting’ (Is. 24:1; La. 3:9). Used in relation to sin it reflects the thought of sin as
deliberate wrongdoing, ‘committing iniquity’ (Dn. 9:5; 2 Sa. 24:17). It occurs in religious contexts
particularly in a noun form ‘āwô n which stresses the idea of the guilt which arises from deliberate
wrongdoing (Gn. 44:16; Je. 2:22). It can also refer to the punishment which is consequent upon the sin
(Gn. 4:13; Is. 53:11). šāḡâh has as its basic idea straying away from the correct path (Ezk. 34:6). It is
indicative of sin as arising from ignorance, ‘erring’, ‘creaturely going astray’ (1 Sa. 26:21; Jb. 6:24). It
often appears in the cultic context as sin against unrecognized ritual regulations (Lv. 4:2). Reference
should also be made to rāsǎ ‘, to be wicked, to act wickedly (2 Sa. 22:22; Ne. 9:33); and, ‘āmal, mischief
done to others (Pr. 24:2; Hab. 1:13).
The principal NT term is hamartia (and cognates), which is equivalent to ḥ t’̣ . In classical Gk. it is used for
missing a target or taking a wrong road. It is the general NT term for sin as concrete wrongdoing, the
violation of God’s law (Jn. 8:46; Jas. 1:15; 1 Jn. 1:8). In Rom. 5–8 Paul personifies the term as a ruling
principle in human life (cf. 5:12; 6:12, 14; 7:17, 20; 8:2). paraptō ma occurs in classical contexts for an
error in measurement or a blunder. The NT gives it a stronger moral connotation as misdeed or trespass
(cf. ‘dead through …’, Eph. 2:1; Mt. 6:14f.). parabasis is a similarly derived term with similar meaning,
‘transgression’, ‘going beyond the norm’ (Rom. 4:15; Heb. 2:2). asebeia is perhaps the profoundest NT
term and commonly translates pš‘ in the lxx. It implies active ungodliness or impiety (Rom. 1:18; 2 Tim.
2:16). Another term is anomia, lawlessness, a contempt for law (Mt. 7:23; 2 Cor. 6:14). kakia and ponēria
are general terms expressing moral and spiritual depravity (Acts 8:22; Rom. 1:29; Lk. 11:39; Eph. 6:12).
The last of these references indicates the association of the latter term with Satan, the evil one, ho
ponēros (Mt. 13:19; 1 Jn. 3:12). adikia is the main classical term for wrong done to one’s neighbour. It is
translated variously as ‘injustice’ (Rom. 9:14), ‘unrighteousness’ (Lk. 18:6), ‘falsehood’ (Jn. 7:18),
‘wickedness’ (Rom. 2:8), ‘iniquity’ (2 Tim. 2:19). 1 Jn. equates it with hamartia (1 Jn. 3:4; 5:17). Also
occurring are enochos, a legal term meaning ‘guilty’ (Mk. 3:29; 1 Cor. 11:27), and opheilēma, ‘debt’ (Mt.
6:12).
The definition of sin, however, is not to be derived simply from the terms used in Scripture to denote it.
The most characteristic feature of sin in all its aspects is that it is directed against God (cf. Ps. 51:4; Rom.
8:7). Any conception of sin which does not have in the forefront the contradiction which it offers to God
is a deviation from the biblical representation. The common notion that sin is selfishness betrays a false
assessment of its nature and gravity. Essentially, sin is directed against God, and this perspective alone
accounts for the diversity of its form and activities. It is a violation of that which God’s glory demands
and is, therefore, in its essence the contradiction of God.

II. Origin
Sin was present in the universe before the Fall of Adam and Eve (Gn. 3:1f.; cf. Jn. 8:44; 2 Pet. 2:4; 1 Jn.
3:8; Jude 6). The Bible however does not deal directly with the origin of evil in the universe, being
concerned rather with sin and its origin in human life (1 Tim. 2:14; Jas. 1:13f.). The real thrust of the
demonic temptation in the account of the Fall in Gn. 3 lies in its subtle suggestion of man’s aspiring to
equality with his maker (‘you will be like God … ‘, 3:5). Satan’s attack was directed against the integrity,
veracity and loving provision of God, and consisted in an enticement to wicked and blasphemous
rebellion against man’s proper Lord. In this act man snatched at equality with God (cf. Phil. 2:6),
attempted to assert his independence of God, and hence to call in question the very nature and ordering
of existence whereby he lived as creature in utter dependence upon the grace and provision of his
creator. ‘Man’s sin lies in his pretension to be God’ (Niebuhr). In this act, further, man blasphemously
withheld the worship and adoring love which is ever his proper response to God’s majesty and grace,
and instead paid homage to the enemy of God and to his own foul ambitions.
Thus the origin of sin according to Gn. 3 ought not to be sought so much in an overt action (2:17 with
3:6) but in an inward, God-denying aspiration of which the act of disobedience was the immediate
expression. As to the problem of how Adam and Eve could have been subject to temptation had they
not previously known sin, Scripture does not enter into extended discussion. However, in the person of
Jesus Christ it witnesses to a Man who, though without sin, was subject to temptation ‘in every respect
as we are’ (Heb. 4:15; cf. Mt. 4:3f.; Heb. 2:17f.; 5:7f.; 1 Pet. 1:19; 2:22f.). The ultimate origin of *evil is
part of the ‘mystery of lawlessness’ (2 Thes. 2:7), but an arguable reason for Scripture’s relative silence
is that a ‘rational explanation’ of the origin of sin would have the inevitable result of directing attention
away from the Scripture’s primary concern, the confession of my personal guilt (cf. G. C. Berkouwer, Sin,
1971, ch. 1). In the end, sin, by the nature of the case, cannot be ‘known’ objectively; ‘sin posits itself’ (S.
Kierkegaard).

III. Consequences
The sin of Adam and Eve was not an isolated event. The consequences for them, for posterity and for
the world are immediately apparent.
a. Man’s attitude to God
The changed attitude to God on the part of Adam indicates the revolution that took place in their minds.
They ‘hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God’ (Gn. 3:8; cf. v. 7). Made for the presence and
fellowship of God, they now dreaded encounter with him (cf. Jn. 3:20). *Shame and fear were now the
dominant emotions (cf. Gn. 2:25; 3:7, 10), indicating the disruption that had taken place.
b. God’s attitude to man
Not only was there a change in man’s attitude to God, but also in God’s attitude to man. Reproof,
condemnation, curse, expulsion from the garden are all indicative of this. Sin is one-sided, but its
consequences are not. Sin elicits God’s wrath and displeasure, and necessarily so, because it is the
contradiction of what he is. For God to be complacent towards sin is an impossibility, since it would be
for God to cease to take himself seriously. He cannot deny himself.
 c. Consequences for the human race
The unfolding history of man furnishes a catalogue of vices (Gn. 4:8, 19, 23f.; 6:2–3, 5). The sequel of
abounding iniquity results in the virtual destruction of mankind (Gn. 6:7, 13; 7:21–24). The Fall had
abiding effect not only upon Adam and Eve but upon all who descended from them; there is racial
solidarity in sin and evil.
d. Consequences for creation
The effects of the Fall extend to the physical cosmos.
‘Cursed is the ground because of you’ (Gn. 3:17; cf. Rom. 8:20). Man is the crown of creation, made in
God’s image and, therefore, God’s vicegerent (Gn. 1:26). The catastrophe of man’s Fall brought the
catastrophe of curse upon that over which he was given dominion. Sin was an event in the realm of the
human spirit, but it has its repercussions in the whole of creation.
e. The appearance of death
*Death is the epitome of sin’s penalty. This was the warning attached to the prohibition of Eden (Gn.
2:17), and it is the direct expression of God’s curse upon man the sinner (Gn. 3:19). Death in the
phenomenal realm consists in the separation of the integral elements of man’s being. This dissolution
exemplifies the principle of death, namely, separation, and it comes to its most extreme expression in
separation from God (Gn. 3:23f.). Because of sin death is invested with a fear and terror for man (Lk.
12:5; Heb. 2:15).

IV. Imputation
The first sin of Adam had unique significance for the whole human race (Rom. 5:12, 14–19; 1 Cor.
15:22). Here there is sustained emphasis upon the one trespass of the one man as that by which sin,
condemnation and death came upon all mankind. The sin is identified as ‘the transgression of Adam’,
‘the trespass of the one’, ‘one trespass’, ‘the disobedience of the one’, and there can be no doubt that
the first trespass of Adam is intended. Hence the clause ‘because all men sinned’ in Rom. 5:12 refers to
the sin of all in the sin of Adam. It cannot refer to the actual sins of all men, far less to the hereditary
depravity with which all are afflicted, for in v. 12 the clause in question clearly says why ‘death spread to
all men’, and in the succeeding verses the ‘one man’s trespass’ (v. 17) is stated to be the reason for the
universal reign of death. If the same sin were not intended, Paul would be affirming two different things
with reference to the same subject in the same context. The only explanations the two forms of
statement is that all sinned in the sin of Adam. The same inference is to be drawn from 1 Cor. 15:22, ‘in
Adam all die’. If all die in Adam, it is because all sinned in Adam.
According to Scripture the kind of solidarity with Adam which explains the participation of all in Adam’s
sin is the kind of solidarity which Christ sustains to those united to him. The parallel in Rom. 5:12–19; 1
Cor. 15:22, 45–49 between Adam and Christ indicates the same type of relationship in both cases, and
we have no need to posit anything more ultimate in the case of Adam and the race than we find in the
case of Christ and his people. In the latter it is representative headship, and this is all that is necessary to
ground the solidarity of all in the sin of Adam. To say that the sin of Adam is imputed to all is but to say
that all were involved in his sin by reason of his representative headship.
While the imputation of Adam’s sin was immediate according to the evidence of the relevant passages,
the judgment of condemnation passed upon Adam, and hence upon all men in him, is in Scripture seen
as confirmed in its justice and propriety by every man’s subsequent moral experience. Thus Rom. 3:23
‘all have sinned’ is amply proved by reference to the specific, overt sins of Jews and Gentiles (Rom.
1:18–3:8) before Paul makes any reference whatever to imputation in Adam. In similar vein Scripture
universally relates man’s ultimate judgment before God to his ‘works’ which fall short of God’s
standards (cf. Mt. 7:21-27; 13:41; 25:31–46; Lk. 3:9;Rom. 2:5–10; Rev. 20:11–14).
Rejection of this doctrine betrays not only failure to accept the witness of the relevant passages but also
failure to appreciate the close relation which exists between the principle which governs our relation to
Adam and the governing principle of God’s operation in salvation. The parallel between Adam as the
first man and Christ as the last Adam shows that the accomplishment of salvation in Christ is based on
the same operating principle as that by which we have become sinners and the heirs of death. The
history of mankind is finally subsumed under two complexes, sin-condemnation-death and
righteousness-justification-life. The former arises from our union with Adam, the latter from union with
Christ. These are the two orbits within which we live and move. God’s government of men is directed in
terms of these relationships. If we do not reckon with Adam we are thereby excluded from a proper
understanding of Christ. All who die die in Adam; all who are made alive are made alive in Christ.

V. Depravity
Sin never consists merely in a voluntary act of transgression. Every volition proceeds from something
that is more deep-seated than the volition itself. A sinful act is the expression of a sinful heart (cf. Mk.
7:20–23; Pr. 4:23; 23:7). Sin must always include, therefore, the perversity of heart, mind, disposition
and will. This was true, as we saw above, in the case of the first sin, and it applies to all sin. The
imputation to posterity of the sin of Adam must, therefore, carry with it involvement in the perversity
apart from which Adam’s sin would be meaningless and its imputation an impossible abstraction. Paul
states that ‘by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners’ (Rom. 5:19). The depravity which sin
entails and with which all men come into the world is for this reason a direct implicate of our solidarity
with Adam in his sin. We come to be as individuals by natural generation, and as individuals we never
exist apart from the sin of Adam reckoned as ours. Therefore the psalmist wrote, ‘Behold, I was brought
forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me’ (Ps. 51:5) and our Lord said, ‘That which is born
of the flesh is flesh’ (Jn. 3:6).
The witness of Scripture to the pervasiveness of this depravity is explicit. Gn. 6:5; 8:21 provides a closed
case. The latter reference makes it clear that this indictment was not restricted to the period before the
judgment of the Flood. There is no evading the force of this testimony from the early pages of divine
revelation, and later assessments are to the same effect (cf. Je. 17:9–10; Rom. 3:10–18). From whatever
angle man is viewed, there is the absence of that which is well-pleasing to God. Considered more
positively, all have turned aside from God’s way and become corrupted. In Rom. 8:5–7 Paul refers to the
mind of the flesh, and flesh, when used ethically as here, means human nature directed and governed
by sin (cf. Jn. 3:6). Further, according to Rom. 8:7, ‘The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God’. No
stronger condemnatory judgment could be arrived at, for it means that the thinking of the natural man
is conditioned and governed by enmity directed against God. Nothing less than a judgment of total
depravity is the clear implication of these passages, i.e. there is no area or aspect of human life which is
absolved from the sombre effects of man’s fallenness, and hence no area which might serve as a
possible ground for man’s justification of himself in the face of God and his law.
Depravity however is not registered in actual transgression to an equal extent in all. There are multiple
restraining factors. God does not give over all men to uncleanness, to a base mind, and to improper
conduct (Rom. 1:24, 28). Total depravity (total, that is, in the sense that it touches everything) is not
incompatible with the exercise of the natural virtues and the promotion of civil righteousness.
Unregenerate men are still endowed with conscience, and the work of the law is written upon their
hearts so that in measure and at points they fulfil its requirement (Rom. 2:14f.). The doctrine of
depravity, however, means that these works, though formally in accord with what God commands, are
not good and well-pleasing to God in terms of the full and ultimate criteria by which his judgment is
determined, the criteria of love to God as the animating motive, the law of God as the directing
principle, and the glory of God as the controlling purpose (Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; cf. Mt. 6:2, 5, 16; Mk.
7:6–7,; Rom. 13:4; 1 Cor. 10:31; 13:3; Tit. 1:15; 3:5; Heb. 11:4, 6).

VI. Inability
Inability is concerned with the incapacity arising from the nature of depravity. If depravity is total, i.e.
affecting every aspect and area of man’s being, then inability for what is good and well-pleasing to God
is likewise comprehensive in its reference.
We are not able to change our character or act differently from it. In the matter of understanding, the
natural man cannot know the things of the Spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor.
2:14). In respect of obedience to the law of God he is not only not subject to the law of God but he
cannot be (Rom. 8:7). They who are in the flesh cannot please God (Rom. 8:8). A corrupt tree cannot
bring forth good fruit (Mt. 7:18). The impossibility in each case is undeniable. It is our Lord who affirms
that even faith in him is impossible apart from the gift and drawing of the Father (Jn. 6:44f., 65). This
witness on his part is to the same effect as his insistence that apart from the supernatural birth of water
and the Spirit no-one can have intelligent appreciation of, or entrance into, the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:3,
5f., 8; cf. Jn. 1:13; 1 Jn. 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18).
The necessity of so radical and momentous a transformation and re-creation as regeneration is proof of
the whole witness of Scripture to the bondage of sin and the hopelessness of our sinful condition. This
bondage implies that it is a psychological, moral and spiritual impossibility for the natural man to receive
the things of the Spirit, to love God and do what is well-pleasing to him, or to believe in Christ to the
salvation of his soul. It is this enslavement which is the premise of the gospel, and the glory of the gospel
lies precisely in the fact that it provides release from the bondage and slavery of sin. It is the gospel of
grace and power for the helpless.

VII. Liability
Since sin is against God, he cannot be complacent towards it or indifferent with respect to it. He reacts
inevitably against it. This reaction is specifically his wrath. The frequency with which Scripture mentions
the wrath of God compels us to take account of its reality and meaning.
Various terms are used in the OT. In Heb., ’ap̱ in the sense of ‘anger’, and intensified in the form harô n
‘ap̱ to express the ‘fierceness of God’s anger’ is very common (cf. Ex. 4:14; 32:12; Nu. 11:10; 22:22; Jos.
7:1; Jb. 42:7; Ps. 21:9; Is. 10:5; Na. 1:6; Zp. 2:2); hēmâ is likewise frequent (cf. Dt. 29:23; Pss. 6:1; 79:6;
90:7; Je. 7:20; Na. 1:2); ‘eḇrâ (cf. Ps. 78:49;Is. 9:19; 10:6; Ezk. 7:19; Ho. 5:10) and qeṣep̱ (cf. Dt. 29:28; Ps.
38:1; Je. 32:37; 50:13; Zc. 1:2) are used with sufficient frequency to be worthy of mention; za‘am is also
characteristic and expresses the thought of indignation (cf. Pss. 38:3; 69:24; 78:49; Is. 10:5; Ezk. 22:31;
Na. 1:6). It is apparent that the OT is permeated with references to the wrath of God. Often more than
one of these terms appear together in order to strengthen and confirm the thought expressed. There is
intensity in the terms themselves and in the constructions in which they occur to convey the notions of
displeasure, fiery indignation and holy vengeance.
The Gk. terms are orgē and thymos, the former frequently predicated of God in the NT (cf. Jn. 3:36;
Rom. 1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5; 5:9; 9:22; Eph. 2:3; 5:6; 1 Thes. 1:10; Heb. 3:11; Rev. 6:17), and the latter less
frequently (cf. Rom. 2:8; Rev. 14:10, 19; 16:1, 19; 19:15; see zēlos in Heb. 10:27).
The *wrath of God is therefore a reality, and the language and teaching of Scripture are calculated to
impress upon us the severity by which it is characterized. There are three observations which
particularly require mention. First, the wrath of God must not be interpreted in terms of the fitful
passion so commonly associated with anger in us. It is the deliberate, resolute displeasure which the
contradiction of his holiness demands. Secondly, it is not to be construed as vindictiveness but as holy
indignation; nothing of the nature of malice attaches to it. It is not malignant hatred but righteous
detestation. Thirdly, we may not reduce the wrath of God to his will to punish. Wrath is a positive
outgoing of dissatisfaction as sure as that which is pleasing to God involves complacency. We must not
eliminate from God what we term emotion. The wrath of God finds its parallel in the human heart,
exemplified in a perfect manner in Jesus (cf. Mk. 3:5; 10:14).
The epitome of sin’s liability is, therefore, the holy wrath of God. Since sin is never impersonal, but
exists in, and is committed by, persons, the wrath of God consists in the displeasure to which we are
subjected; we are the objects. The penal inflictions which we suffer are the expressions of God’s wrath.
The sense of guilt and torment of conscience are the reflections in our consciousness of the displeasure
of God. The essence of final perdition will consist in the infliction of God’s indignation (cf. Is. 30:33;
66:24; Dn. 12:2; Mk. 9:43, 45, 48).

VIII. The conquest of sin

Despite the sombreness of the theme, the Bible never completely loses a note of hope and optimism
when dealing with sin; for the heart of the Bible is its witness to God’s mighty offensive against sin in his
historical purpose of redemption centred in Jesus Christ, the last Adam, his eternal Son, the Saviour of
sinners. Through the whole work of Christ, his miraculous birth, his life of perfect obedience, supremely
his death on the cross and resurrection from the dead, his ascension to the right hand of the Father, his
reign in history and his glorious return, sin has been overcome. Its rebellious, usurping authority has
been vanquished, its absurd claims exposed, its foul machinations unmasked and overthrown, the
baleful effects of the Fall in Adam counteracted and undone, and God’s honour vindicated, his holiness
satisfied and his glory extended.
In Christ, God has conquered sin; such are the great glad tidings of the Bible. Already this conquest is
demonstrated in the people of God, who by faith in Christ and his finished work are already delivered
from the guilt and judgment of sin, and are already experiencing, to a degree, the conquest of sin’s
power through their union with Christ. This process will be culminated at the end of the age when Christ
will return in glory, the saints will be fully sanctified, sin banished from God’s good creation and a new
heaven and earth brought into being in which righteousness will dwell. (Cf. Gn. 3:15; Is. 52:13–53:12; Je.
31:31–34; Mt. 1:21; Mk. 2:5; 10:45; Lk. 2:11; 11:14–22; Jn. 1:29; 3:16f.; Acts 2:38; 13:38f.; Rom. passim;
1 Cor. 15:3f., 22f.; Eph. 1:3-14; 2:1–10; Col. 2:11–15; Heb. 8:1–10:25; 1 Pet. 1:18–21; 2 Pet. 3:11–13; 1
Jn. 1:6–2:2; Rev. 20:7–14; 21:22–22:5.)
Bibliography. J. Muller, The Christian Doctrine of Sin, 1877; J. Orr, Sin as a Problem of Today, 1910; F. R.
Tennant, The Concept of Sin, 1912; C. Ryder Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Sin, 1953; E. Brunner, Man in
Revolt, 1939; R. Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man, 1941 and 1943; J. Murray, The Imputation of
Adam’s Sin, 1959; G. C. Berkouwer, Sin, 1971; W. Günther, W. Bauder, NIDNTT 3, pp. 573–587; TDNT 1,
pp. 149–163, 267–339; 3, pp. 167–172; 5, pp. 161–166, 447–448, 736–744; 6, pp. 170–172, 883–884; 7,
pp. 339–358. j.m.
B. A. Milne.