SIN
obliterated,
by
the
absence
of
positive
or
objective
law,
were
subjected
to
death.
Here
we
have
the
assumption
of
generic
guilt
arising
directly
out
of
St.
Paul's
belief
in
the
relation
between
sin
and
physical
death,
as
that
of
cause
and
effect
(cf.
1
Co
15^2).
Not
only
is
the
connexion
here
mentioned
insisted
on,
but,
passing
from
physical
death
to
tliat
of
which
it
is
but
a
type,
spiritual
or
moral
death,
he
shows
the
awful
depth
to
whicn
sin
has
sent
its
roots
in
man's
nature
(Ro
6««
,
cf.
v.8»'
2'").
Mention
has
been
made
above
of
the
power
of
choice,
where
sin
is
concerned,
inherent
in
human
personality.
Into
the
very
seat
of
this
power,
however,
sin
has
made
an
entrance,
and
has
found
a
powerful
ally
in
'the
flesh'
(7").
The
will
to
resist
is
there,
but
its
activity
is
paralyzed.
Though
St.
Paul
makes
'the
flesh'
or
'the
members'
of
the
body
the
seat
of
sin,
he
is
tar
from
teaching
that
human
nature
is
essentially
evil.
The
flesh
may
be
crucified
with
its
'
passions
and
lusts
'
(Gal
5<;
cf.
1
Co
9",
Ro
61'),
and
the
bodily
members
instead
of
being
'servants
to
uncleanness'
may
become
'servants
to
righteousness
unto
sanctification
'
(cf.
art.
'Flesh'
in
Hastings'
DCG).
An
important
feature
of
St.
Paul's
doctrine
of
sin
consists
in
his
exposition
of
the
function
of
law
in
revealing
and
arousing
the
consciousness
of
sin.
A
curious
expression,
'the
mind
of
the
flesh'
(Ro
8'),
emerges
in
this
connexion,
and
the
impossibility
of
its
being
'subject
to
the
law
of
God'
is
insisted
on.
'Apart
from
the
law
sin
is
dead,'
but,
once
the
Law
came,
sin
sprang
into
life,
its
presence
and
power
were
revealed
(cf.
1
Co
15''),
and
by
it
man
was
confronted
with
his
own
moral
weakness.
In
spite
of
his
belief
in
the
all-pervading
character
and
strength
of
sin,
St.
Paul's
gospel
is
the
reverse
of
a
gospel
of
despair.
If,
on
the
one
band,
there
is
a
death
which
connotes
moral
corruption
and
slavery
to
sin,
on
the
other
hand
there
is
a
death
unto
sin
which
is
not
only
a
realization
of,
but
a
participation
in
the
death
of
Christ.
The
fact
of
his
employing
the
same
word
and
idea
in
senses
so
completely
contrasted
lends
a
marvellous
force
and
finality
to
his
teaching
on
the
remedial
and
restorative
effects
of
Christ's
work
(cf.
Ro
62-",
Eph
2'-"').
A
favourite
idea,
relative
to
this,
is
that
of
crucifixion.
The
member
of
Christ
as
such
has
crucified
his
'old
man'
(Ro
6'),
'the
flesh
with
the
passions
and
lusts
thereof
(Gal
5",
cf.
2™).
This
is
the
ultimate
ideal
result
of
the
redemptive
work
of
Christ.
The
experience
of
St.
Paul
forbade
him
to
believe
that
the
state
of
'
death
unto
sin
'
is
fully
realized
here
and
now
(1
Co
9",
cf.
Sir
ST").
His
continuous
references
to
the
Christian
life
as
one
of
warfare,
in
which
it
behoves
the
follower
of
Christ
to
be
armed
with
weapons
offensive
and
defensive,
shows
that
his
conception
of
the
struggle
against
sin
is
that
of
one
unceasing
age-long
conflict,
issuing
in
victory
for
the
individual,
as
for
the
race,
only
when
the
Kingdom
of
Christ
is
established
in
a
peace
that
is
everlasting
(Eph
6"-",
2
Co
10*«-
6',
Ro
IS'^,
1
Tl
1";
cf.
Ph
2^,
Philem^
etc.).
3.
St.
John.
—
(a)
In
order
to
understand
St.
John's
presentation
of
Jesus'
teaching
on
sin,
it
will
be
useful
to
see
his
own
individual
doctrine
as
given
in
his
Epistles.
Here
the
mission
of
Christ
is
dwelt
on
as
having
for
its
objective
the
taking
away
of
sins
(1
Jn
Z<-
«;
cf.
Jn
16"
P'),
and
'abiding
in
him'
is
dwelt
on
as
constituting
the
guarantee
of
safety
against
sin
(1
Jn
3»;
cf.
Jn
IS**),
as
it
also
affords
power
to
live
the
active
fruitful
life
of
righteousness.
Further,
there
is
a
law
"which
expresses
the
Divine
ideal
of
man's
constitution
and
growth,"
and
whoever
violates
it,
by
wilfully
putting
hhnself
in
opposition
to
this
law,
is
guilty
of
sin,
for
'sin
is
lawlessness'
(3').
Another
aspect
of
this
law
has
to
do
with
the
mutual
relationship
of
Christians
who
should
be
bound
together
by
a
love
which
is
the
reflexion
of
the
eternal
love
of
God
for
men
(1
Jn
4'-2i).
If
the
law
of
love
is
neglected
or
broken,
even
in
the
matter
of
intercessory
prayer
for
brethren
who
have
sinned,
imrighteousness
is
present,
and
'
all
unrighteous-
SIN
ness
is
sin'
(5"-").
From
this
we
see
how
intensely
real
was
St.
John's
belief
in
the
presence
and
power
of
sin
amongst
men.
Indeed,
one
of
the
tests
by
which
a
man's
sincerity
may
be
discovered
is
his
power
of
realizing
this
fact.
He,
moreover,
gives
as
his
reason
for
writing
this
Epistle,
'that
ye
may
not
sin'
(2').
The
need
of
'an
Advocate'
who
is
also
'the
propitiation
for
our
sins
'
is
insisted
on
as
being
the
special
creation
of
Christ
in
Christian
consciousness
(IJn
2"-;
cf.
Jn
14").
All
this
brings
into
clearer
relief
and
greater
prominence
his
doctrine
of
the
sinlessness
of
the
professing
follower
of
Jesus
Christ.
The
Christian
as
such
'cannot
sin,
because
he
is
begotten
of
God'
(1
Jn
3»;
cf.
5'',
3
Jn"),
and,
on
the
other
hand,
'
he
that
doeth
sin
is
of
the
devil
'
(1
Jn
38).
The
Christian
abides
in
Christ
(cf.
Jn
15««-),
and
because
he
does
so
he
sinneth
not
(3'),
whereas
the
committal
of
sin
is
the
sure
guarantee
that
he
has
neither
seen
nor
known
Him.
The
secret
of
his
safety
lies
in
the
promise
of
Jesus
that
He
'keeps'
(cf.
Jn
17'2)
His
own
so
that
'the
evil
one
toucheth
him
not'
(1
Jn
5'*).
The
paradox
in
which
St.
John
thus
clothes
his
doctrine
of
sin
reveals
his
profound
conception
of
its
character.
Any
sinful
act
by
the
Christian
interrupts,
and
mars
so
far,
his
fellowship
with
God.
If,
however,
the
act
be
not
the
outcome
of
the
man's
habit
or
char-acter,
he
cannot
be
said
to
do
'sin'
in
the
sense
of
'realizing
sin
in
its
completeness'
(see
Westcott,
Epistles
of
St.
John,
on
1
Jn
3*).
The
fruit
of
Divine
fellowship
is
developed
in
the
Christian's
inner
or
central
life
from
which
sin
is
banished;
and
this
reminds
us
somewhat
of
St.
Paul's
view
of
the
crucifixion
of
the
flesh
with
its
'
passions
and
lusts.'
A
peculiar
reference
is
made
by
St.
John
to
*a
sin
unto
death.'
This
might
be
translated
with
perhaps
a
closer
adherence
to
the
writer's
thoughtif
the
article
were
omitted.
It
is
not
any
specific
act
or
acts
that
he
so
characterizes.
The
saying
must
rather
refer
to
sinful
deeds
of
a
character
'which
wholly
separates
from
Christ,'
and
thus
tends
to
death
(see
Westcott,
op.
cit.,
on
5'').
In
so
far
as
it
springs
from
a
heart
which
wilfully
and
with
contumely
rejects
Christ,
in
so
far
may
it
be
identifaed
with
the
sin
against
the
Holy
Ghost
(cf.
Mk
3",
Mt
12=-'-,
Lk
2"').
The
writer's
refusal
to
insist
on
intercessory
prayer
for
one
thus
guilty
calls
to
mind
the
warnings
in
the
Eijistle
to
the
Hebrews
against
the
sin
of
apostasy
or
wilful
sin
after
the
reception
of
'
the
knowledge
of
truth
'
(cf.
He
6«
-«
10=")
.
It
is
probable
that
St.
John
has
in
his
mind
a
class
of
sins
which
combines
within
itself
the
characteristics
of
both
those
mentioned
(see
art.
'Sin'
in
Hastings'
DB
iv.
p.
635'').
One
feature
of
1
John
connects
this
Epistle
very
closely
with
the
Fourth
Gospel,
revealing
itself
in
those
passages
which
identify
sin
with
falsehood,
and
righteousness
with
truth.
It
seems
as
if
the
writer
traced
all
sin
back
to
the
spirit
which
leads
men
to
deny
'
that
Jesus
is
the
Christ
'_
(1
Jn
222
43)
,
On
the
other
hand,
the
acceptance
of
this
beUef
carries
with
it
the
assurance
of
God's
abiding
presence,
wherein
is
the
sure
guarantee
of
the
reahzation
of
His
purpose
in
us
—
'that
we
might
live
through
him'
(1
Jn
4^,
cf.
4^
5^.
(B)
Fourth
Gospel.
—
It
is
this
last
aspect
of
sin
that
is
the
dominant
note
of
the
teaching
of
St.
John's
Gospel.
Indeed,
this
writing
may
be
said
to
be
a
record
of
the
sad
rejection
foreshadowed
in
the
general
terms,
'He
came
unto
his
own,
and
they
that
were
his
own
received
him
not'
(1").
This
was
more
particularly
true
of
the
Jews
of
Jerusalem
and
Judsea,
where
the
story
of
Jesus'
ministry
as
told
in
this
Gospel
is
for
the
most
part
laid.
It
is
thus
significant
that
in
His
last
great
discourse
with
His
disciples,
occurring
as
it
did
in
Jerusalem,
the
centre
of
the
activity
hostile
to
His
claims,
Jesus
lays
special
stress
on
the
sin
of
unbelief
in
Him
('The
Holy
Ghost
will
convict
the
world
of
sin
.
.
.
because
they
believe
not
on
me,'
Jn
16*').
The
revelation
of
the
Divine
life,
with
its
manifold
evidences
of
love
and
mercy
in
and
by
Jesus,
took
away
whatever
excuse
men
might
have
in
the
presence
of
God's
judgment.
The
real
reason
for
the
rejection
of
Jesus
by
the
Jews
lay
in
their
hatred
of
'
the
Father
'
(Jn
152',
cf.
V.22).
Indeed,
it
is
this
very
revelation,
designed
by
God
as
the
eternal
remedy
agamst
sin
