W. G. H., Perth, Out. —You ask for something of the difference between the expressions Sin, Sins, Trangression, Iniquity, Evil, etc. Also a “practical word concerning Infirmities in contrast with Sins.”
As to the two first words, generally speaking “sin” is used for the evil nature from which “sins” —the actions—the fruit of that nature, spring, coming forth independently of any provocation by or resistance to the law. The latter may be divided into two classes, viz., devil sins and brute sins, if I may so say.
“Transgressions” are sins which become such because of the positive infringement of a known command or prohibition—a stepping over the line laid down.
There are two words in the Greek language which are frequently both translated “iniquity” in the English Bible (ἀδικία and ἄνομος); the one correctly so, and simply meaning injustice—a departure from what is righteous; the other “lawlessness,” of which more again.
“Evil” is used for what is malignant, mischievous, wicked. It comes from the same word as that “Evil One,” the author of all that is Malignant and wicked—he whose temptation caused man at first to fall, and become the heir of labor and sorrow, pain and misery.
In 1 John 3:44Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4), we read, “Sin is the transgression of the law,” which is a totally false translation, and wrong doctrine. It should be, “Sin is lawlessness,” i.e., the casting off the authority of God. It is the more remarkable when we and that Adam’s failure is not termed “sin,” but “transgression.” See Rom. 5:1414Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:14): “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression,” &c. Here the apostle is speaking of those who lived between Adam and Moses, and died—death proving that sin was there, of which it was its wages even in this world. He speaks of such as having “sinned,” i.e., come short of the mark, while God had not as yet given the law. Yet, when he speaks of Adam’s fall, he does not name it “sin,” but “transgression”—because Adam broke through a known prohibition which God had given, forbidding the eating of the fruit of the tree-and thus going beyond the mark which God had laid down.
“ Infirmity,” or its plural, is frequently used with reference to the sickness of the body; but, when used in a moral and not a physical sense, it might more correctly be translated “weakness.” See such passages as Rom. 8:2626Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. (Romans 8:26), “The Spirit also helpeth our weakness;” 1 Cor. 2:33And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. (1 Corinthians 2:3), “I was with you in weakness;” 2 Cor. 11:3030If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities. (2 Corinthians 11:30), “These things which concern my weaknesses;” ch. 12: 5-9, which read, “For my power is perfected in weakness; most gladly, therefore, will I rather boast in my weaknesses,” &c., “that the power of Christ may dwell upon me.” See also v. 10, 13:4; Gal. 4:1313Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. (Galatians 4:13); Heb. 4:15; 1115For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)
15And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. (Hebrews 11:15). 34.
It is something of which we can glory, as you may readily perceive. Sometimes persons use the word with respect to the failings of the Christian, and I think that this, coupled with the way it is translated frequently in the English version, leads to the making excuses for these things. Scripture uses it with regard to the weakness of the Christian as a man, and, as 2 Cor. 12 shows, that in this felt weakness (which God makes us feel consciously) He works, and thus the thing done is His work, through the weakness of the vessel. If the vessel works, it only hinders and ceases to be a vessel. If I have a tumbler on my table to hold water, that is its work; if it moves (supposing this possible), it ceases to be of use as a vessel, for the time. So with the Christian; he is “not sufficient to think of himself,” or to act of himself. Then comes in a power, which is not the life he possesses in Christ; nor is it the vessel which contains the treasure, but God, holding the vessel in weakness by and through the sorrows of the way, and manifesting the life of Jesus in our mortal flesh.
Now, as to “sins,” we know that these are forgiven us, thank God, through the precious blood of Christ, who died for them, and by faith in Him. God says He will remember them no more. A person learns this through a free gospel, and is happy in the truth of it. Another thing comes; he finds, perhaps through some trip, that he has the same tendencies and the same nature as ever in him, albeit having learned forgiveness for what he had done. Then comes another thing; he must know not only that Christ died for his sins, but that he has died with Christ, and has thus been delivered from sin—the nature, or state of the nature, for which there is no forgiveness. This becomes a question of experience, as that had been a question of faith, and hence more difficult to learn deliverance. I say to a person, “Christ died for your sins and put them away,” a he is happy at having learned this. I continue— “And you’ve died with Christ—you’re dead.” “No, no,” he says; “I foolishly lost my temper this morning over such a trifle—that proves I am not dead.” Thus you find the soul struggles and struggles to get free from the bondage of an evil nature, and really never gets deliverance till it ceases to struggle, and submits to be delivered by another—even Christ—and “reckons itself dead to sin.” Then all is free. Yet the nature is unchanged; but it is no more “I.” There is an old “I” and a new “I” discovered, and no confidence in the old.
It has often been pointed out how that Rom. 3-5:11, deals with the question of sins;” and Rom. 5:1212Wherefore, 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)-ch. 8, with “sin.” The first is met by Christ dying for me; the second, by my dying with Him. Adam brought in the state of sin, in which Cain was born; but Cain murdered his brother, which was the fruit of an evil nature in this state. The one was sin-the nature; the other, the sinful deed produced by it. We must have deliverance from the former, and forgiveness for the latter, before we can stand in God’s presence in the light and at peace.
A sinner is not chargeable before God as a matter of judgment for what he is, but for what he has done. The son of an exile for high treason was not held guilty of what his father had done against the king. He was born in exile; but he might have returned as a loyal subject. But he sins against the king too in the state in which his parent involved him, and becomes expatriated himself for his own sin as high treason as well.
So we, born in sin, have also sinned against God; and thus our practice and our state are both a state of ruin. Take a common case to illustrate sin, sins, and transgressions. My child has had very evil habits; he throws stones and breaks the windows. His conscience tells him that it is wrong. Where did he get the mischievous nature that liked to do wrong? This is sin. But the actions are sins; known, too, by his natural conscience. I send him a message, forbidding this evil practice. Again he does it. This is transgression or trespass. This was like the law given to sinners. It added the authority of God to what the natural conscience knows of good and evil, in forbidding the evil. But the law always assumed sin in the nature, though it did not reveal the fact of its existence. You could not forbid a person to do a thing that he had no intention or nature capable of doing. Hence, “by the law is the knowledge of sin,” i.e., the nature, which it has discovered. If you tell the children when you go out, that there is something in that drawer, but that they are not to know what is there, every child in the house is at once, as the common expression goes, “dying to know.” The command provoked the nature which is opposed to it. This is what the law did. “Therefore,” says Paul, “it was added for the sake of (χωρις) transgression;” and “sin by the commandment became exceedingly sinful,” i.e., it became transgression. Hence, too, in Rom. 5:1313(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. (Romans 5:13), “ Sin is not imputed when there is no law.”
A.-First of all, the Apostles are the “we” in the passage and context. God was in Christ reconciling; this was during His service on earth. Then He was rejected and crucified, man proving himself hostile to the fullness of His grace in Jesus. Then Christ’s ambassadors we sent with the word of reconciliation. Their credentials were that He, had sent them—their power the Holy Ghost, who was sent down to witness to the glorification of Christ, and to the completeness of redemption in Him. Still, while the Apostle had this ministry committed to him in a special manner, the principle goes on, and Christ sends those who can say as He, “We also believe, and therefore speak.” (2 Cor. 4:1313We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; (2 Corinthians 4:13).) This is ever the credentials of His ambassadors, their power the Holy Ghost, who speaks in and by them.
I believe, while there may arise a nice and delicate question as to the translation of v. 20, that it would be too familiar to say that God was the beseecher: it would be wanting in reverence to Him. Still, as done on His behalf by the ambassadors He sends, it amounted to its being done by Himself. Still, the Apostle would not say so formally, but softens it by the “as” (ὠς). The thought is conveyed tolerably in the authorized version of the Bible: God was in Christ; then they were Christ’s ambassadors; He was as beseeching by them. This is the evident and lovely thought. I do not think the sense would warrant “considering that,” &c.
A.-The context, as the truth of the passage generally, seems to be best rendered by Liddell and Scott as “reflecting the glory.” I have used “mirroring the glory,” but it has been thought too poetical; while “reflecting” conveys the idea in a less poetical word. Contemplating the glory by faith, we become a reflection of it; we reflect it here, and are changed, &c. “Beholding” is scarcely adequate to convey the whole thought.
The passage is, I believe, one of acknowledged difficulty as to translation; but the sense of it is simple.