SIN
tion
lay,
not
merely
in
his
natural
inability
to
be
guilty
of
a
breach
of
trust
towards
his
master,
but
still
more
in
his
intense
realization
that
to
yield
would
be
a
'
great
wickedness
and
sin
against
God'
(Gn
39').
Thus,
while
it
is
true
to
say
that
the
dominant
conception
of
sin
in
the
OT
is
that
it
is
the
great
disturbing
element
in
the
personal
relations
of
God
and
man,
it
seems
to
have
been
realized
very
early
that
the
chief
scope
for
its
exercise
lay
in
the
domain
of
human
intercourse.
The
force
of
Abimelech's
complaint
against
Abraham
lay
in
the
fact
that
the
former
was
guiltless
of
wronging
the
latter,
whereas
he
was
in
serious
danger
of
sinning
against
God
in
consequence
of
the
patriarch's
duplicity.
2.
The
Sinaitic
Law.
—
The
next
great
critical
point
in
the
evolution
of
human
consciousness
of
sin
is
reached
in
the
promulgation
of
the
Law
from
Sinai.
Here
the
determinative
process
of
Divine
election
is
seen
in
its
widest
and
most
elaborate
working.
The
central
purpose
of
the
Law
may
be
considered
as
of
a
twofold
character.
Not
only
are
the
restrictions
tabulated
in
order
to
the
erection
of
barriers
against
the
commission
of
sin
('
God
is
come
to
prove
you,
and
that
his
fear
may
be
before
you,
that
ye
sin
not,'
Ex
202"),
but
positive
enactments
regulating
the
personal
communion
of
God
and
Israel
provide
frequently
recurring
opportunities
of
loving
and
joyful
service
(Ex
23'<*).
The
law
of
restitution,
as
given
in
Ex
21-22,
may
be
regarded
as
harsh
in
some
of
its
enactments,
but
it
may
be
easily
conceived
as
an
immense
stride
forward
on
the
road
to
'the
royal
law.
Thou
shalt
love
thy
neighbour
as
thyself
(Ja
2').
Nor
can
it
be
said
that
restitution
and
mutual
service
between
God
and
His
people
are
left
out
of
sight
in
those
chapters
of
Exodus
which
are
universally
recognized
as
containing
the
oldest
part
of
the
Mosaic
Code.
These
anthropopathic
conceptions
of
God
abound,
and
are
seen
m
the
idea
of
His
jealousy
being
roused
by
idolatrous
practices
(Ex
20*),
in
the
promises
made
to
Israel
that.
In
return
for
services
to
Jehovah,
He
will
save
His
people
in
the
face
of
their
enemies
(Ex
23"ff-).
Thus
it
will
be
easily
understood
that,
as
the
Levitical
and
Priestly
Codes
were
gradually
elaborated
into
a
somewhat
intricate
system
of
legal
and
ceremonial
obligations,
the
nomenclature
of
sin
in
its
various
aspects
came
to
be
accordingly
enlarged.
For
example,
in
one
verse
three
distinct
words
occur
in
connexion
with
Divine
forgiveness
('
forgiving
iniqmty
and
trans-gression
and
sin,'
Ex
34'),
and
though
there
is
a
certain
vagueness
in
the
precise
meaning
to
be
attached
to
each
of
these
words,
whether
it
be
guilt
or
punishment,
rebellion
or
sin-offering,
wickedness
considered
as
a
condition,
or
trespass,
which
is
in
the
writers'
minds,
the
thoughts
underlying
each
have
to
do
with
the
relations
between
God
and
His
people.
It
must
not
be
forgotten,
moreover,
that
the
ceremonial
enactments
provided
a
circle
of
ideas
of
permanent
importance
in
the
Hebrew
conception
of
Jehovah's
character.
The
law
of
clean
and
unclean
animals
and
things
paved
the
way
for
truer
and
nobler
thoughts
of
God's
holiness,
and
of
the
uncleanness
of
sin
as
being
its
contradiction.
The
'
trespass
'
of
Achan,
Involving
as
it
did
the
whole
of
Israel
in
his
guilt
and
punishment,
did
not
consist
so
much
in
his
stealing
of
the
common
spoil
taken
from
the
enemy,
as
in
his
appropriating
what
was
'holy,'
or
'devoted'
unto
the
service
of
God
(Jos
7'-
"*■).
The
presence
of
'the
devoted
thing'
with
the
common
property
of
the
army
dragged
the
whole
people
into
a
position
of
guilt,
which
could
be
expiated
only
by
the
death
of
the
offender.
In
this
way
alone
could
they
be
restored
to
Divine
favour,
and
their
army
receive
Divine
succour.
3.
Deuteronomy
and
the
Historical
Books.
—
In
the
Deuteronomic
summary
of
the
Law,
whatever
be
the
date
at
which
it
was
edited,
a
loftier
ground
of
obedience
is
attained.
Love,
of
God
and
of
their
fellow-men,
is
more
explicitly
dwelt
on
as
the
motive
power
of
human
life
(Dt
6^
10'2
etc),
and
the
heart
is
again
and
again
SIN
referred
to
as
the
seat
of
that
love,
both
passively
and
actively
(ll's
6«
IQi^).
The
basis
upon
which
it
is
rested
is
the
fact
of
God's
love
for
them
and
their
fathers
evidenced
in
many
vicissitudes
and
in
spite
of
much
to
hinder
its
activity
(4"
7"-
10").
Though
there
are
numerous
echoes
of
the
older
conception
tliat
the
keeping
of
God's
commandments
is
one
side
of
a
bargain
which
conditions
men's
happiness
and
prosperity
(424.
40
61'),
yet
we
observe
a
lofty
range
of
thought
bringing
in
its
train
truer
ideas
of
sin
and
guilt.
The
sternness
of
God
is
insisted
on,
but
as
having
for
its
objective
the
good
of
His
people
(10"
6").
It
is
a
necessary
phase
of
His
love,
compelling
them
to
rec-ognize
that
sin
against
God
is
destructive
of
the
sinner.
The
ultimate
aim
of
the
Deuteronomist
is
the
leading
of
men
to
hate
sin
as
God
hates
it,
and
to
love
mercy
and
righteousness
as
and
because
God
loves
them
(cf.
Dt
lO'a'-,
Lv
IQss'O,
by
establishing
the
closest
relationship
and
communion
between
Him
and
His
people
(cf.
Dt
14"-
7*
26i"-
27'
289
etc.).
One
sin
is
specially
insisted
on
by
the
Deuteronomist,
namely,
the
sin
of
idolatry.
No
doubt
this
is
largely
due
to
the
experience
of
the
nation
under
the
judges,
and
during
the
history
of
Israel
subsequent
to
the
great
schism.
The
national
disasters
which
recur
so
frequently
during
the
former
of
these
periods
are
always
attributed
to
this
sin;
while
the
return
of
the
people,
under
the
guidance
of
a
great
representative
hero,
is
always
marked
by
the
blessings
of
peace
and
prosperity.
So
in
the
story
of
the
Northern
Kingdom
the
constant
refrain
meets
us
in
each
succeeding
reign:
'He
cleaved
unto
the
sins
of
Jeroboam
the
son
of
Nebat,
where-with
he
made
Israel
to
sin'
(2
K
3»
10"
13^
etc.).
During
the
vigorous
and
successful
reign
of
Ahab
and
Jezebel,
the
seeds
of
national
decay
were
sown,
and
the
historian
neglects
not
to
point
out
the
source
to
which
the
later
mournful
decline
may
be
traced
(1
K
16^').
On
the
other
hand,
there
is
little
reference
to
this
sin
during
the
reigns
of
Saul
and
David,
and,
in
spite
of
the
weaknesses
of
character
displayed
by
the
former,
the
historian
pictures
for
us
a
great
advance
in
national
vigour
and
growth
under
these
kings
and
their
successors
in
the
Southern
Kingdom.
The
great
rebellion
against
the
Davidic
dynasty
is
itself
attributed
to
the
de-clension
of
Solomon
in
his
old
age
from
the
pure
Jehovah-
worship
so
zealously
and
consistently
advocated
by
his
father.
We
must
remember
also
that,
side
by
side
with
the
introduction
of
foreign
religious
ideas,
vice
peculiar
to
Oriental
despotism
invaded
the
royal
court
and
the
nation
of
Israel.
We
are
not,
however,
alto-gether
limited
to
what
is
here
interentially
taught
as
to
national
sin,
with
its
consequent
national
punishment.
David
himself
is
represented
as
guilty
of
a
sin
which
marred
his
character
as
an
individual,
and
of
an
act
of
indiscretion
which
seems
to
have
been
regarded
as
a
breach
of
that
trust
held
by
him
as
God's
vicegerent
on
earth.
Both
these
cases
are
of
interest
for
the
light
which
they
throw
on
the
doctrine
of
sin
and
its
conse-quences.
In
the
case
of
Bathsheba,
which
was
a
purely
personal
transgression,
the
prophet
Nathan
comes
not
only
as
the
bearer
of
a
message
of
Divine
pardon
to
the
repentant
sinner,
but
also
as
the
stern
judge
pronouncing
sentence
of
severe
and
protracted
punishment.
The
death
of
the
newly
born
child
and
the
subsequent
distractions
arising
out
of
the
affair
of
Absalom
are
looked
on
as
expressions
of
God's
wrath
and
of
retrib-utive
justice
(see
2
S
12"'-'s).
Whatever
the
con-temporary
reasons
may
have
been
for
regarding
his
public
act
as
sinful,
and
even
the
reckless
Joab
con-sidered
it
an
act
of
wanton
folly,
we
find
the
same
features
of
repentance
and
forgiveness,
and
the
same
inclusion
of
others
in
the
suffering
consequent
on
its
commission.
The
prophet
Gad
comes
to
the
king
as
the
revealer
of
God's
wrath
and
the
messenger
of
God's
pardon
(2
S
24'-").
Into
this
narrative,
however,
another
element
is
introduced,
telling
of
the
difficulty
