Popular misconceptions
The saying “Everything I like is either immoral, illegal, or fattening!” is humorous but theologically incorrect. Do you like to hurt people (immoral), steal things (illegal), or eat way too much junk food? (Well, maybe the latter.) Conversely, do you not like a gorgeous sunset, a walk in the park, spending time with friends, or playing your favorite sport?
Even though the saying is silly, it illustrates a common misunderstanding about moral rules, especially as taught by Christianity. Christianity isn’t against fun. The Bible teaches that creation is good and meant for our enjoyment. Psalms and the New Testament suggest that God wants us to experience joy and gladness.
Consider the teaching in these Psalms:
You cause the grass to grow for the cattle, and plants for people to use, to bring forth food from the earth, and wine to gladden the human heart, oil to make the face shine, and bread to strengthen the human heart. (Psalm 104:14-15, NRSV)
You have put gladness in my heart more than when their grain and wine abound. (Psalm 4:7, NRSV)
Similarly, in the New Testament, Jesus is quoted as saying:
I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete. (John 15:11, NRSV)
This misconception about Christianity may be a reaction to the doctrines of “original sin” and “total depravity.”The doctrine of original sin emphasizes human sinfulness and the need for God’s grace. In its most pessimistic form, the doctrine of original sin is seen as total depravity. This doctrine suggests all our actions are tainted by evil, only rectified by God. Total depravity says that our every action is tainted by some level of evil. This doctrine believes that only God can transform us to do what is genuinely good.
Original sin as unavoidable guilt is characteristic of the Calvinist tradition. This is based on the writings of the Protestant Reformer John Calvin. Similar beliefs were held by the 5th-century theologian St. Augustine of Hippo. Most Protestants also (officially, at least) accept some form of total depravity. The Roman Catholic Church accepts only a form of original sin. Both ideas are rejected by Eastern Orthodox believers, who prefer to speak of “ancestral” sin. They believe that there is always a measure of goodness in persons who can cooperate with God’s grace.
Given all this diversity, what would represent a balanced understanding of sin that fits the broad sweep of biblical teaching?
The problem of free will
There is yet another possible stumbling block as sin, in the biblical context, that is discussed. Contemporary Western society generally links moral responsibility with moral agency. In other words, the ability to choose and do what is right. Further, Western culture is highly individualistic and so such moral choices are, in our minds, linked with individual freedom. As a result, most instinctively rebel against the idea of “systemic” evil. This is evident in the pushback against Critical Race Theory which identifies ways that racism is systemic. Similarly, when the news reports a mass murder, there is often the insistence that it was the work of only one deranged individual.
Such views about individual freedom are not shared by all societies nor by many ancient cultures, including the ones that produced the Bible. Further, there have been sharp disagreements about this in the history of Christian teaching, as noted above.
A famous example is the debate between Dutch theologian, Desiderius Erasmus, and German theologian and religious reformer, Martin Luther. Erasmus was sympathetic to the aims of the Reformation, but he was concerned about some aspects of Luther’s teaching. In 1524 he published On the Freedom of the Will where he challenged Luther’s teachings on predestination. The next year Luther thundered back in a defense entitled On the Bondage of the Will.
Luther did not deny free will entirely. His key point was that, on our own, humans could not truly please God; that’s why we need Christ. This has implications for many aspects of Christian teaching – how we think about conversion, salvation, and sanctification, for starters, and also how we think about sin and moral responsibility.
Missing the mark
The Hebrew word for sin in the Old Testament and the Greek word in the New Testament both come from the root idea of “miss the mark, go astray.” That doesn’t sound so bad! Sin entails being “somewhat off” but there is the possibility to “aim true” with a little correction.
However, etymology (how a word is derived) alone can be misleading. In the last few decades alone, there have been dozens of examples in English of words where meanings have shifted or where new meanings have been given to existing words. To be clear about a word’s meaning, how and in what context words are used must be considered.
The Old Testament was written in a time when there was often war between kingdoms or tribes. Missing the mark in the actions of battle would be a type of sin that could prove deadly. The New Testament was written in a time and culture with strong Greek influences. Missing the mark may have likely been a reference to the popular athletic competitions loved by ancient Greeks. Missing the mark in that context would have been a sinful act that caused a contestant to lose the game. In either context, the meaning of sin would have had serious consequences.
There may be a deeper understanding of what the Bible wanted us to learn about the nature of sin. To discover that, we can look at how the ancient words used for the word sin were translated. We will explore that aspect of the original meanings of sin later in this article.
Disruption of community harmony
Since individualism is so strong in modern thinking, the concept of individual free choice needs to be balanced by a sense of family and community. These concepts were key values in the world of the Bible. Many – perhaps most – Indigenous peoples have a concept of harmony in a network of relationships. Not just human relatives but the entire ecosystem (and humans are part of that system not separate from nature). Potentially, the Hebrew word shalom, conventionally translated as “peace” but includes wholeness or well-being in general, is such a concept.
In this context, the idea of unknown or secret sins, which we saw in Leviticus makes some sense. (compare Psalms 19:12; Deut. 13:5; Genesis 3:14-19). The Apostle Paul speaks of creation itself as “groaning” and longing for freedom (Romans 8:19-22).
A (cosmic) power
As noted above, in Romans the Apostle Paul repeatedly treats sin as a power that afflicts all of humanity. Note especially Rom. 3:9-20, Ephesians 2:1. Because of sin, we were (spiritually) dead (and a dead person cannot make a choice). These were some of Luther’s favorite quotes as he argued that there were severe limitations on free will.
Other passages describe sin as universal – Psalms 14:2-3 = 53:2-3 (quoted in Rom. 3:10-12); Psalms 143:2; Ecclesiastes 7:20.
Interpretation, however, is still tricky. Consider Genesis 4:7, where God tells Cain: “Sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.” Sin sounds like a power at first–yet God seems to expect that Cain can resist.
What Are Different Types of Sin
Sins of Omission or neglecting to act can be as grave as deliberate wrongdoing. Jesus emphasized this in the Parable of the Talents and the Foolish Virgins. To deliberately and knowingly commit serious offenses is Mortal Sin. A Venial Sin, though less serious than Mortal Sin, still affects our union with God. Sins of Commission are deliberate actions that go against God’s commands. Adultery, theft, lying, and sexual immorality might fall into this category. Personal Sins happen when our individual choices lead to sin. Whether through commission or omission, they affect our relationship with God.
The common thread in different types of sin seems to be the destructive consequences of our relationship with God. Adam’s sin of eating the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge marked the first sin in the Bible. Widely believed to be due to pride, this act caused a sinful nature in humans, according to the Bible. Many religious leaders also believe that pride is the root of most sins that pull us away from God.
Alienation (from God, from the earth, from one another)
It may still be uncertain just how much free will we actually have. There is more widespread agreement that a key result of sin is alienation – community harmony has been deeply disrupted. Humans can even be called enemies of God (Romans 5:10; compare Colossians 1:21). Previously noted is how creation itself was affected by sin. Because of sin, we fear and distrust one another. Forgiveness of sins is often difficult when we feel injured or betrayed by them.
Conversely, the vision of the renewed kingdom in Isaiah 11:2-9 includes both justice for the oppressed and peace among aspects of nature.
They will not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea (verse 9).
Looking Deeper at the Biblical Definition of Sin
This final section of the article explores the meaning of how God’s law in the Bible came to define sin. This helps us understand how Biblical writers believed that sin relates to our human nature.
Hebrew Bible
- Verbal root chatah (occurs 241 times) means “miss the way”; “sin”, “incur guilt/penalty”, “make a sin offering”, or “purify” (from sin or uncleanness, usually by an offering).
- Forms of the related noun chattat (occurs 297 & 8 times) both forms mean “sin” or “sin-offering”, and sometimes “purification (by an offering)”. Another form of the noun occurs 34 times; it includes the meanings “sin”, “guilt” and “punishment”.
- The related adjective chatta (occurs 19 times) means “sinful.”
Even without careful study of the Hebrew words, it is clear there is a variety of uses and nuances of these words. Cataloging or summarizing all these variations without imposing one’s biases on the text would prove difficult. Additionally, many related terms are usually translated as “iniquity,” “offense,” “fault,” and “guilt.” Terms such as “sin” versus “sin offering” serve to further complicate the discussion.
There are at least two considerations that may not be evident to modern humans.
- Several times sins against fellow humans are described as sins against God. This may indicate that since God created and loves all humans, to hurt any human is to sin against God.
- The concept can include things that are done unintentionally (Leviticus 4:2, Numbers 15:25-29) or even without knowing (Leviticus 5:17-18). At least some of these may be cases of errors in ritual. These may be unknown except through the guidance of a priest. For example, when someone kills a person without intent (Numbers 35:11, Joshua 20:3, Ecclesiastes 5:5.) Except for the last couple of examples, these passages suggest that the context is a culture rather different than today’s. Since these reflect mainly the cultural context, it is not clear that they should be considered biblical “teaching.” However, even if they do not apply today, it is important to be aware of them. This helps us better understand what the Bible is saying.
The Septuagint (translation of the Old Testament into Greek, 2nd – 3rd centuries B.C.E.)
The Greek regularly (150 times) uses the verb hamartanó to translate the verb chatah above. It also regularly (231 times) uses the noun hamartia to translate the first noun chattat above. A technical detail, yes. But it does confirm that people who knew these ancient languages better than we do considered the meanings of these Greek words to be close to the Hebrew terms listed above.
A partial exception to this pattern involves the meaning “sin offering.” Sometimes the Septuagint follows this pattern when the context clearly requires the meaning “sin offering.” Here are some examples. Exodus 29:14; Leviticus 4:8, Leviticus 4:3, Hebrews 10:6 quotes the Septuagint translation of Psalm 40:6, [offering] “about sin.” All other NT uses seem to derive from the basic idea of “miss the mark, err, fail, do wrong, sin.”
- the verb hamartanó occurs 43 times in the New Testament, usually in the sense of offenses against the religious and moral law of God.
- the noun hamartia occurs 173 times in the New Testament. Among the patterns noted by the lexicon are:
- in the Johannine literature, sin is a condition or characteristic that one “has” (John 9:41; John 1:8; compare John 8:21, John 3:5).
- In Paul, sin is described in almost personal terms (i.e., it is personified) as a ruling power (for example Romans 3:9; Deuteronomy 30:11-14). Modern minds easily connect that with individual free will: sin is a choice.This is reinforced by other passages that call for a choice: “Choose this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15; note verses 14-22). “I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19). At the same time, there are many passages where the reference is not about human choice but about God choosing Israel (and later widening that choice in Christ). Compare John 15:16 where Jesus says, “You did not choose me but I chose you.”
Conclusion
It can be difficult to develop a clear, simple, and persuasive definition of sin. There may not be one! Any conclusions drawn are strongly influenced by the attitudes and assumptions brought to the biblical text.
Still, please permit one final appeal. Do not let modern ideals of free will and individualism blind us. Community is a rich element of the biblical dialogue on this and many other questions.
What do you think? Please share your thoughts below.
Too often, people answer faith questions with dogmatic certitude and neglect the historic diversity and complexity of Christian ideas. The Questions Project is a resource that responds to questions about faith, history, and scripture in a way that honors the historic diversity and complexity of Christian thought. But, this is a work in process and we need your help. Please provide feedback. We are particularly interested in knowing what we have missed and how we can improve our responses. Please keep all comments kind or risk deletion.
About Post Author
