[See page image]

Page 434

of the will to resist it (Gen. iv. 7). Where an evil act seemed inexplicable or fatal, it was supposed to have been ordained of God (Judges ix. 23; I Sam. xxvi. 19). Later Judaism treated such as due to evil spirits. Sin is not regarded as historically inherited (Isa. xliii. 27), but as the common attribute of one generation after another (Job xiv. -1). The account in Gen. iii. was not intended to explain the origin of sin but to show that death and other evils originated through it. Its influence, beside that of Gen. vi. 1 sqq., on the conception of sin is first marked in later Judaism (Eccles. ii. 24; Sirach xxv. 32). To Adam was then charged in part evil and in part an enhanced proneness to sin in humanity. In the first case, Adam's fall was said to have injured the state of man by bringing on evil and death (Baruch), yet each one was to be morally responsible for himself. But it is further asserted that Adam's sin increased man's inclination to evil (IV Esdras iii. 20 sqq.). But at the same place there was ascribed to Adam a root of evil; hence the historical explanation of sin was not consistently carried out. Least of all does the figure of the serpent offer a satisfactory explanation of the origin of evil. Identified later with Satan (see SERPENT IN WOR smP, I., § 1), it served only to symbolize temptation. The Old Testament offers the thought of the generation of sin in its actual manifestation as well as a deep consciousness of guilt and consequent disaster, arousing the desire for deliverance; but it furnishes little for the solution of the theoretical problem.

The testimony of Jesus against sin is intimately associated with the prophetical preaching. Sin is resistance to the promotive leadership of God, hence with indifference to moral requirements (anomia, Matt. vii. 23), contempt of grace (xi. 20 sqq.), and denial of recognized truth (Matt. xii.

New Tests- ing punishment (vi. 7). Its universalment. ity is assumed; all are called to repentance (iv. 17) ; and are called evil (vii. 11). The obligation of mercy Jesus bases on the general need of forgiveness (xviii. 11 sqq.); his contemporaries he calls an evil and adulterous generation (xii. 39). The victims of particular catastrophes are not sinners beyond others, but meet a judgment that all can avoid only through penitence (Luke xiii. 2-5). The human world is so much under the dominion of sin that offenses are unavoidable (Matt. xviii. 7 sqq.). Although he mentions the righteous whom he did not come to call to repentance (Mark ii. 17), yet their righteousness is questionable. The Pharisees who claim it are hypocrites (Matt. xv. 7). Even others who assume it like the rich young man are not sufficiently earnest in self-denial (xix. 16 sqq.). He who looks upon sin in his brother instead of in himself is worse (vii. 35). Jesus carries sin from its outer appearance back to its inner origin (v. 21-25, xv. 19), and sees in it a persistent tendency (vii. 16 aqq., xii. 35). Proportions of sin and guilt vary; there are tempters worthy of the severest penalty, relative innocents misled by seducers (xviii. 6), and there is an unpardonable sin (xii. 31 sqq.). The greater the possible knowledge of the divine command, the greater the responsibility (Luke xii. 47-48) ; where the revela-

tion of grace receives no penitent response is the maximum guilt (Matt. xi. 20). Finally, the human attitude of acceptance or rejection is decisive, when the divine call to salvation is nigh (xxiii. 37). Jesus, like the prophets, does not explain the origin of sin; the fall is not mentioned in the Synoptics. From the practical point of view Jesus ascribes the present source of sin to the evil heart (Matt. xv. 19) and to the world's offenses (xviii. 7). As a further source is mentioned, repeatedly, the temptation of the wicked one (xiii. 19); but the subject is not treated theoretically. The reference serves to lay stress upon the infectious and far-reaching power of evil (v. 37; Luke xxii. 31). The thought of the kingdom of Satan involves a close relation of sin and evil (xii. 25 sqq.); their connection is illustrated (ix. 2-6), although to point out their proportion in individuals is not permissible (Luke xiii. 2r5). That God judges and punishes sin lies at the root of the teaching of Jesus throughout. Hence, there is no salvation without forgiveness (Matt. vi. 12, xviii. 23 sqq.); no way of accepting it but by confession of sins (Luke xviii. 13-14) and repentance (Luke xiii. 5). The new in the teaching of Jesus is the height of his religious-moral ideas (Matt. v. 48), in the light of which appear as sins what had been previously looked upon as excusable defects, and the way of salvation was revealed in his person (Matt. xx. 28). In connection with the contrast drawn between the salvation in Christ and the world without, Paul takes occasion to present a total picture of the nature and life of sin. It is not an individualized acting against the divine will, but a dominating power, a general tendency, and a total state (Rom. vi. 12, 14). It is personified, winning men to its service and compensating them (vi. 17, 23). Jews and gentiles are under its sway (iii. 9); so all, with the exception of Christ (II Cor. v. 21) and those whom he frees from the law of sin (Rom. viii. 3). Experience shows the universality of sin (i. 24-31), as do the Scriptures (iii. 9-20). In the last analysis the death of Christ would have been dispensable, if there had been any other way to overcome sin (Gal. ii. 21). Therefore, the universality of sin is of divine ordinance (Rom. xi. 32); the only way of escape was to ensue, that opened by grace and faith (iii. 24-26), so that no person might glory (iv. 2). Slavery to sin leaves nothing to man but the experience of his impotence and the futility of his moral efforts (vii. 18 sqq.). The religious reference of sin as a contradiction against God is ever expressly emphasized and forma the background of Paul's statements. It is disregard of divine revelation, ingratitude for God's gifts (i. 19-21, 25), alienation from God (Eph. iv. 18), enmity toward God (Rom. viii. 7), the unethical tendency of living for self (II Cor. v. 15); and leads in social life to envy, hatred, strife (Gal. v. 20). It lays weight on earthly things (Col. iii. 2), and especially yields to carnal desires (Rom. i. 24). Therefore uncleanness and unbridled sensuality hold sway over mankind (Gal. v. 19-21), especially over the heathen world (Rom. i. 24 aqq.), while the Jews are more directly exposed to the danger of self-deception and self-righteousness (x. 3). But notwithstanding all moral differences (ii. 14), there is essentially