Re: Hamartia, cHata, and related concepts :)

From: David Moore (dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us)
Date: Mon Jan 01 1996 - 23:15:56 EST


cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl W. Conrad) quoted R. Decker and D. Moore and wrote:

>>> The NT pix of sin is, IMHO, something more than hitting the outer ring of a
>>> target. Too often the etymologizing approach goes to the slingsmen of the
>>> OT who could cast a stone at a handsbreadth and not 'sin'--i.e., miss
>>> ('harmartanw' in LXX). It is more like shooting at the _wrong target_. It
>>> is not that people try to "hit God's mark" but come a bit short. "Sin"
>>> points to a deliberate rebellion against his standard (to mix the metaphors
>>> a bit). This explan. cannot be based on the "mng." of the word 'harmartia'
>>> but comes from the biblical theology of sin (context, not etymology).

>> The passage that comes to mind right away is Rom. 3:23, "For all
>>have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Gross rebellion against
>>God is sometimes pointed out as sin in the NT, but it appears that sin is
>>not limited to that. We should take into account also Paul's statements
>>about those who try to please God by the "flesh." These certainly may
>>not be aware of any rebellion against God on their part, but they sin in
>>falling short of the righteousness God has provided.

>My own reading of Rom 1 is that "sin" is fundamentally idolatry, worship
>directed toward creation rather than Creator, and that all the things
>generally called "sins" are CONSEQUENCES resultant from that (the 3
>PAREDWKEN verses).

        Paul's statement that the love of money is a root of all kinds of
evil (I Tim. 6:10 NIV) would seem to support Carl's hypothesis, but if we
take a more global view of what the NT says about sin, we should be able
to come to a more broadly based understanding of the meaning of hAMARTIA.
I would suggest that any incorrect relationship with God constitutes a
root of sin which then is manifested in the actions the person in question
as *sins* (viz. Paul's concepts of "in the flesh" and "in the Spirit").
One of those *sins* might be idolatry which, in turn would have its
effects in predisposing to other sins. If, of course, we take "idolatry"
in the very wide sense that we find it expressed in 1 Jn. 5:20, 21, it
could probably include any incorrect concept of, or relationship with God.

        Regarding Rod's suggestion that "sin," in the NT, "points to a
deliberate rebellion against [God's] standard," Walter Grundmann implies
as much in an article s.v. hAMARTANW in the TDNT (I:303). He takes the
prodigal son as an illustration and says that sin "is going out from the
father's [_sic_] house, i.e., godlessness and remoteness from God working
itself out in a life in the world with all its desires and its filth." It
seems precarious, however, to take a story meant to dramatize lostness,
repentance, forgiveness and redemption and draw from it a rather technical
concept of what sin is.

        IMO, there is a danger in our taking too limited a view of what is
defined by "sin," since (human as we are) we have a tendency to define it
in a way that allows us a clear conscience. The Lord's saying about His
not having come to call righteous but rather sinners illustrates this
point well. I find deep irony in this saying. Jesus wasn't really
excluding the Pharisees from those who needed to repent. But what He said
went over their heads since they counted themselves righteous. The Lord's
repeated confrontations with them and His proclamation of woes for their
teachings and practices shows clearly that He did not approve of the
"righteousness" they claimed for themselves.

David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:35 EDT