Abstract
Table of Contents
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
Part VII
Part VIII
|
Vol.3: Man in Adam and in Christ
PART VII
THE COMPELLING LOGIC OF THE PLAN
OF SALVATION:
A STUDY OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "SIN" AND "SINS"
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1. Sin and Sins
Chapter 2. The Salvation of the
Whole Man
Publishing History:
1972 Doorway paper No. 58, published
privately by Arthur C. Custance
1975 Part VII in Man in Adam and in Christ, vol.3 in The
Doorway papers Series, published by Zondervan Publishing Company
1997 Arthur Custance Online Library (html)
2001 2nd Online Edition (corrections, design revisions)
pg.1
of 5
In Adam, a
single individual corrupted human nature.
In his offspring, human nature corrupts each individual.
INTRODUCTION
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
pg
2 of 5
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 (Genesis 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 (Galatians 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
pg.3
of 5
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. 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 University Press 1962, pp.8-20.
pg.4
of 5
SIN |
SINS |
Sin
is a disease |
Sins
are Symptoms of the disease |
The
first man, Adam, acquired the disease |
All
men now inherit this disease |
It
was acquired by Adam through the forbidden fruit |
It
is inherited by Adam's descendants through natural generation |
The
fruit presumably contained some infective agent |
The
infective agent appears to be passed on through the male seed
Man is inevitably a sinner because he is constitutionally
diseased. |
This
agent has two effects: |
|
(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 (Romans 5:12).
|
|
and
(2) ���������������������> |
(2) It effectually marred human behaviour,
making all men sinful by nature and spiritually dead.
For by one man's disobedience many were
made sinners. . . (Romans 5:19).
|
Sin
causes physical death. |
Sins cause spiritual death |
Until
Adam ate the forbidden fruit and introduced 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. |
Although every man begins
life as a mortal creature, spiritual death occurs only when one
becomes accountable for his behaviour. 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)
|
pg.5
of 5
Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White. All rights
reserved
Previous Chapter Next
Chapter
|