Re: Hamartia, cHata, and related concepts :)

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Tue Jan 02 1996 - 07:58:34 EST


At 10:15 PM 1/1/96, David Moore wrote:
>
> 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.

I don't really disagree with any of David's comments. I would even
underscore the implications of the opening sentence of the last paragraph
("IMO, ..."): I think the very attempt to define sin "in a way that allows
us a clear conscience" is one of those behavioral traits Paul identifies at
several points as indications of immaturity, and then there's 1 John, "If
we say we have no sin, ..." If, as the Jesus of Mt puts it, we must "be
perfect, as our Father in Heaven is perfect," there's no doubt that we're
all going to be underachievers.

I'm reminded of Martin Luther's admonition to concentrate on the First
Commandment: "Love God and do as you please." (That's pretty much what
Luther says, isn't it?). The problem that the Church (in the broadest
sense) has had in relationship to OT standards is its ever-renewed attempts
to define righteousness in concrete behavioral terms which will constitute
a standard whereby we can include and exclude whom we may choose to have as
legitimate and valued members of our community of believers--which in turn
reinforces our deeply-ingrained tendencies toward self-righteousness and
condemnation of those who don't conform to our standard.

While this discussion has not (so far) engendered flames, I rather think
that its broad theological and moral focus is EXTRA CANONEM as a
list-topic.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



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