Sin in the New Testament (Essentials of Biblical Studies) 9780190465742, 9780190465735, 0190465743

Table of contents :
Cover
Series
Sin in the New Testament
Copyright
Dedication
Contents
Preface
Series Introduction
1 Whatever Happened to Sin?
2 A Taxonomy of Sin in the New Testament Worlds
3 Sin in the Gospel of Mark
4 Sin in the Gospel of Matthew
5 Sin in Luke-​Acts
6 Sin in the Gospel of John and the Johannine Epistles
7 Sin in the Letters of Paul and Deutero-​Paul
8 Sin in Hebrews, James, and 1 and 2 Peter
9 Sin in Jude, Revelation, and Beyond
10 Sin Then and Now
Notes
Bibliography
Scriputure Index
Subject Index

Citation preview

 i

SIN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

ii

ESSENTIALS OF BIBLICAL STUDIES Series Editor Patricia K. Tull, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary Reading Hebrew Bible Narratives J. Andrew Dearman The History of Bronze and Iron Age Israel Victor H. Matthews New Testament Christianity in the Roman World Harry O. Maier Women in the New Testament World Susan E. Hylen

 iii

Sin in the New Testament JEFFREY S. SIKER

1

iv

1 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2020 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. CIP data is on file at the Library of Congress ISBN 978–​0 –​19–​046574–​2  (pbk.) ISBN 978–​0 –​19–​046573–​5  (hbk.) 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Paperback printed by LSC Communications, United States of America Hardback printed by Bridgeport National Bindery, Inc., United States of America

 v

For my parents, Rick and Eileen Siker May their memory be a blessing.

vi

“The LORD said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.’ ” Genesis  4:6–​7 “But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, ‘Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!’ ” Luke 5:8

 vi

CONTENTS

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Preface Series Introduction

ix xi

Whatever Happened to Sin? A Taxonomy of Sin in the New Testament Worlds Sin in the Gospel of Mark Sin in the Gospel of Matthew Sin in Luke-​Acts Sin in the Gospel of John and the Johannine Epistles Sin in the Letters of Paul and Deutero-​Paul Sin in Hebrews, James, and 1 and 2 Peter Sin in Jude, Revelation, and Beyond Sin Then and Now

1 17 37 51 68 87 108 139 158 172

Notes 182 Bibliography 202 Scriputure Index 213 Subject Index 223

 ix

PREFACE

For reasons not fully evident to me, I appear to be fascinated by sin, perhaps because it so permeates the human condition even amidst the grace that also fills this world. In particular, I have been interested in the changing understandings of sin, both individual and social. In my previous writing I have explored various aspects of sin, from the sin of Christian anti-​Judaism, to the sin of homophobia, to ethical debates over the use of Scripture, to the Christian belief in the sinlessness of Jesus.1 In my life as both an academic theologian and a Presbyterian minister I have also more recently been involved in prison ministry and discussions about restorative justice, another avenue where sin and forgiveness intersect in dynamic ways. The present book is another exploration of sin, but this time with a focus on the New Testament writings, the foundational texts of Christian tradition. My goal has been to examine what the New Testament writings have to say about sin, with attention to the distinctive and diverse voices we find there. The perspectives of the various authors on sin certainly overlap, yet they also have distinct nuances. Matthew

x

x   |    P reface

and Paul, for example, have a shared commitment to a life of righteousness, but they rather differ on the place of the Jewish law in holding sin in check. John, Hebrews, and the author of Revelation share a vision of Jesus as the perfect sacrificial offering who mediates forgiveness of sins, but otherwise their views differ markedly. Thus, I have sought to examine the New Testament perspectives on sin with attention to both continuities and discontinuities across the writings, while placing them within their larger Jewish and Greco-​Roman contexts. There are several individuals I  want to thank for their wisdom, comments, and conversations about sin (among many other things!). First, my wife, Prof. Judy Yates Siker, also a scholar of early Christianity, has been the most gracious partner in all regards, including more discussion about sin over the years than any one person should have to bear. I also want to thank Prof. Bart Ehrman and Prof. Sarah Beckwith, as well as Rev. Dr.  Lynn Cheyney and Rev. Dr.  Gary Sattler, for their long-​standing friendship and keen engagement on many intellectual and personal fronts. Special thanks are due to Prof. Alexandra Brown, especially for her comments on the chapter on Paul and sin. And thanks, finally, to the editor at Oxford University Press, Steve Wiggins, and to the series editor, Patricia Tull, for their encouragement and guidance in seeing this project through to completion.

 xi

SERIES INTRODUCTION

The past three decades have seen an explosion of approaches to study of the Bible, as older exegetical methods have been joined by a variety of literary, anthropological, and social models. Interfaith collaboration has helped change the field, and the advent of more cultural diversity among biblical scholars in the west and around the world has broadened our reading and interpretation of the Bible. These changes have also fueled interest in Scripture’s past:  both the ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean worlds out of which Scripture came and the millennia of premodern interpretation through which it traveled to our day. The explosion of information and perspectives is so vast that no one textbook can any longer address the many needs of seminaries and colleges where the Bible is studied. In addition to these developments in the field itself are changes in the students. Traditionally the domain of seminaries, graduate schools, and college and university religion classes, now biblical study also takes place in a host of alternative venues. As lay leadership in local churches develops, nontraditional, weekend, and online preparatory classes

xi

x i i   |    S eries introduction

have mushroomed. As seminaries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America grow, particular need for inexpensive, easily available materials is clear. As religious controversies over the Bible’s origins and norms continue to dominate the airwaves, congregation members and even curious nonreligious folk seek reliable paths into particular topics. And teachers themselves continue to seek guidance in areas of the ever-​expanding field of scriptural study with which they may be less than familiar. A third wave of changes also makes this series timely: shifts in the publishing industry itself. Technologies and knowledge are shifting so rapidly that large books are out of date almost before they are in print. The internet and the growing popularity of e-​books call for flexibility and accessibility in marketing and sales. If the days when one expert can sum up the field in a textbook are gone, also gone are the days when large, expensive multi-​ authored tomes are attractive to students, teachers, and other readers. During my own years of seminary teaching, I  have tried to find just the right book or books for just the right price, at just the right reading level for my students, with just enough information to orient them without drowning them in excess reading. For all the reasons stated above, this search was all too often less than successful. So I was excited to be asked to help Oxford University Press assemble a select crew of leading scholars to create a series that would respond to such classroom challenges. Essentials of Biblical Studies comprises freestanding, relatively brief, accessibly written books that provide orientation to the Bible’s contents, its ancient contexts, its interpretive methods and history, and its themes and figures. Rather than a one-​size-​had-​better-​fit-​all approach, these books may be mixed and matched to suit the objectives of a variety of

 xi

S eries introduction  

|   x i i i

classroom venues as well as the needs of individuals wishing to find their way into unfamiliar topics. I am confident that our book authors will join me in returning enthusiastic thanks to the editorial staff at Oxford University Press for their support and guidance, especially Theo Calderara, who shepherded the project in its early days, and Dr. Steve Wiggins, who has been a most wise and steady partner in this work since joining OUP in 2013.

 1

1

Whatever Happened to Sin?

SIN. WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO IT? In his 1973 classic

Whatever Became of Sin?, the psychiatrist Karl Menninger argued that traditional notions of sin had been increasingly replaced with less theologically laden understandings of human behavior.1 Sin was now understood in various ways: as an antisocial criminal act, as a psychological symptom, as a result of collective irresponsibility, as a condition that could be treated.2 Sin had become psychologized so that individual responsibility was minimized, even though feelings of guilt often persisted. The notion of some divine law that had been violated was softened to more palatable social behaviors that could be explained and treated with therapy and drugs. Twenty years later the Yale theologian David Kelsey published an important article in the journal Theology Today entitled “Whatever Happened to the Doctrine of Sin?”3 Kelsey argued that just as the notion of sin had been exported to the world of the social sciences, so also in theological circles the doctrine of sin had migrated from the biblical creation/​ fall narrative to other realms of theological reflection. Kelsey described three ways in which notions of sin had shifted from the doctrine of the creation and fall to other locations within theological discourse. First, sin became a term in theological anthropology (the doctrine of the human relationship to God) to describe the human condition in which guilt is a subjective Sin in the New Testament. Jeffrey s. Siker, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190465735.001.0001

2

2   |   S in in the N ew T estament

reality rather than an objective status before God, allowing for the psychologizing of sin as a disorder. Second, within liberation theology during the last third of the 20th century, sin was increasingly understood as a function of social injustice from which individuals needed to be redeemed. And, third, as a function of Christology, sin became defined as “willful disrelatedness to the risen Lord present here and now,” that is, the refusal to recognize Jesus as the redeeming Lord.4 Even within the Roman Catholic tradition, where confession of sin and the ritual of penance is historically an essential sacrament, confessionals are increasingly unused. This has prompted some prominent Catholics to ask, “Is Confession Dead?” As Terence O’Leary writes, “The confessionals are empty. The sinners have gone away. Or should I  say ‘sin has gone away.’  .  .  .  We seem to have assimilated the secular notion that the concept of sin places outdated, even psychologically damaging restraints on people.”5 And yet, in one of the most poignant initial interviews ever given by a new pope, in September 2013, Pope Francis answered the question, “Who is Jorge Mario Bergoglio?” (his given name) with a simple yet profound response:  “I am a sinner. This is the most accurate definition. It is not a figure of speech, a literary genre. I am a sinner.”6 It is, of course, the case that understandings of sin have gone through periods of both flux and stability, largely dependent on the contexts in which the topic of sin has been discussed. The ancient Israelites had a great deal to say about sin, which was generally associated with transgression against God’s revealed ordinances.7 The ancient Greeks, somewhat by contrast, knew little of sin but had a great deal to say about honor, shame, virtue, and vice, as did their Roman successors.8 The early Christians inherited the Jewish Scriptures in Greek translation, and over the next few centuries managed to blend the Greek and Roman moralists together with their Bible, now

 3

W hatever H appened to  S in ?   

|   3

consisting of both Old and New Testaments.9 The medieval era saw the rise of monasteries, and with them the advent of confession and penitentials, that is, lists of penances prescribed as healing remedies for different sins.10 One remedy for sin to which tens of thousands pledged their lives was the Crusades in the 11th and 12th centuries.11 Pope Urban II had promised remission of all sins to any who might die while seeking to take back the Holy Land from the Muslims for the glory of Christianity. The cathedrals and universities of medieval cities brought with them a renewed appreciation for Greek philosophers such as Aristotle. As a result theologians, like Thomas Aquinas (1225–​1274), wrote at length about the moral virtues of prudence, justice, temperance, and courage (the so-​called cardinal virtues).12 Sin was linked to vice as the inclination toward moral evil expressed in particular actions that could be parsed into mortal (more serious) or venial (less serious) categories of sin. This kind of systematic reflection led over time to the development of the manualist tradition, whereby specific sins were spelled out with legal precision, sins which confessors in their priestly duty could absolve on behalf of the Church and hence on behalf of God.13 Scriptural proof-​texts such as Matthew 16:18–​19 were invoked in support of this ecclesial authority to forgive sins.14 After all, had not Jesus given to Peter the keys of the kingdom to bind and loose as he (and his successors) saw fit? As the manuals were on the rise, so too was a rather different approach to sin and forgiveness developing within the newly forming Protestant religious movements of the 16th and 17th centuries. Whereas the Roman Catholic tradition saw a glimmer of the imago dei (image of God; e.g., Gen 1:27) still viable and present even in fallen humanity, the Protestants argued that God’s image had been completely blotted out by human sin.15 Thus, while the Roman Catholic view was that

4

4   |   S in in the N ew T estament

humans had the capacity to work in cooperation with God’s grace through the Church in bringing about forgiveness and redemption, the Protestant view of humanity only allowed for radical dependence on the unearned grace of God.16 And so, what ever became of sin? It has ever been a changing category, a dynamic umbrella term that has morphed and shifted along with changes in the philosophical, religious, and social fabrics that weave our worlds together. To talk about sin is to talk about conceptual worlds of meaning in particular times and places. To discuss a particular sinful act or thought is to invoke a particular conceptual framework that allows the particular act or thought to have meaning within a broader context. In earliest Christianity, for example, one way of expressing the bounty of God’s grace was to invoke the imagery of the heavenly banquet, the heavenly feast that God is preparing for the faithful (see Mt 22:1–​10; Lk 22:29–​30). But as early Christians developed spiritual practices of self-​denial, especially within the monastic life of the early desert fathers, feasting came to be identified with the sin of gluttony, and fasting was praised as the practice of the virtuous.17 Fasting also became an important feature of penance and the process of dealing with sin. A more recent debate over a particular sin further illustrates the shifting ground of conceptual worlds that identify certain behaviors or attitudes as faithful or sinful: the debate over homosexuality. Up until the 20th century, there was no question in the Christian tradition that same-​sex actions were deemed sinful and not in keeping with God’s desire for human flourishing. Both Scripture and tradition seemed to be clear and definitive in this regard. In the 20th century, however, things began to shift and change in discussions about same-​sex relations. People pointed out that the term “homosexuality” was itself only coined in the 19th century.18 When used to translate any words from the New Testament writings (Rom 1:26–​27; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10), or any biblical words,

 5

W hatever H appened to  S in ?   

|   5

the term “homosexual” was quite anachronistic, since modern conceptions of homosexuality were not at all the same as what the ancients appear to have been discussing. But the weight of tradition read modern conceptions back into the biblical writings, and then read those same biblical condemnations back out of Scripture to condemn modern expressions of homosexuality as well.19 The more scholars and the faithful reflected on Scripture, however, the more a consensus developed that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19)  was about inhospitality and same-​sex violence, not about same-​sex relations per se. The Levitical holiness codes prohibited not only male same-​sex relations (Lev 18:22; 20:13) but also tattoos and cross-​breeding animals or crops (Lev 19:19, 28). How were such sins to be understood in retrospect? The Apostle Paul viewed same-​sex relations as a consequence of idolatry that was against the natural order (Rom 1:25–​28). Paul’s conception of unchanging natural law increasingly came into conflict with changing Western ethical perspectives that highlighted different social constructions of what is deemed “natural.” As understandings of human sexuality have continued to develop in the 21st century, a majority consensus has emerged that views homosexuality as one natural orientation among others, rather than a choice against nature. For nearly twenty centuries there had been no question about whether same-​sex relations were sinful. Both the Bible and tradition seemed clear on this score. But by the 1950s and 1960s, the language about homosexuality shifted. Increasingly “homosexuals” were viewed as having a “sexual preference,” a much more neutral term, though still commonly seen as a choice against nature. And by the end of the 20th century, the terminology had shifted again—​and in a significant way. Now the terminology became (and remains) “sexual orientation,” a totally neutral term that connotes lack of choice. The

6

6   |   S in in the N ew T estament

overwhelmingly predominant view (at least in North America and Europe) has thus shifted from understanding homosexuality as sinful to understanding homosexuality as one sexual orientation among others. In this view one discovers one’s sexual orientation as one becomes sexually mature. People increasingly turned from Scripture and tradition to reason and experience as moral arbiters. The scientific and psychological literature on the subject compared sexual orientation to physical attributes such as handedness (left-​or right-​handed) and eye color. No longer were lesbian and gay individuals considered disordered by mainstream popular culture or by a growing body of scientific literature. Churches continued to feud and fight about the status of LGBT individuals, about ordination and marriage, even as public acceptance became an undeniable force, culminating in the United States with the Supreme Court’s landmark decision allowing lesbian and gay individuals to legally marry their same-​sex partners (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). How were Christians who revered the biblical witness as the revealed Word of God to make sense of such dramatic changes in the conception of sin? The primary response of mainstream Protestant groups, among others, was to emphasize the centrality of reading and understanding the biblical writings within their proper historical and cultural contexts. When Paul discussed same-​sex relations as being unnatural (Rom 1), and hence sinful, biblical scholars increasingly held that Paul was referring not to loving, adult, monogamous relationships, but to the only thing he knew about homoeroticism in a 1st-​ century Greco-​Roman context, namely, prostitution and pederasty.20 Rather than such biblical passages being used to argue against inclusion of LGBT individuals within the community of faith, these passages were essentially quarantined and reread through contextual interpretation as not applying to modern

 7

W hatever H appened to  S in ?   

|   7

expressions of same-​sex love. The sin shifted from homosexuality to homophobia.21 Thus, the interpretation of sin in the New Testament has increasingly emphasized context, context, context—​both the contextual worlds of the writers of the New Testament and the contextual worlds of the interpreters of the New Testament writings. Not only that, but also important are the contextual worlds in which the biblical text has been read and interpreted throughout Christian history. We do not receive the New Testament writings directly from their authors, rather they have been mediated and passed down with layers upon layers of interpretation across the centuries. Understandings of “sin” in the New Testament come pre-​interpreted through the context(s) in which readers live. Interpretations have typically been adapted by each generation of believers to their own social contexts and self-​understandings. This notion of pre-​interpretation simply means that we all live in various streams of traditions and interpretations that have been handed down and received, often without much critical reflection. We presume we know what “sin” means, for example, because we have been told that x and y are sinful. In creedal formulation one traditional expression refers to sins of “thought, word, and deed,” sins of action and inaction alike. While some argue for a more essentialist understanding of sin as the violation of the unchanging will of God expressed in the laws of the Bible, others argue for a more constructionist understanding of sin as the evolution of changing notions about the nature and character of human faith and human failure. Both sides of this debate, and everyone in between, make direct appeals to New Testament writings to prove their arguments correct. Both sides also pay particular attention to continuities and discontinuities between the Old Testament and the New Testament in how sin is characterized and developed.

8

8   |   S in in the N ew T estament

But the situation is, of course, even more complex. We cannot really discuss “the Old Testament” or “the New Testament” as if either are monoliths with only one voice regarding an understanding of sin. The Old Testament writings span a wide swath of time across various cultures and articulations of what it means to be the people of God. Similarly, though covering a much shorter period of time, the New Testament writings also range across different cultural presuppositions about human faith and faithlessness. It is not exactly a cacophony of voices, but neither is it a harmony free of discordant notes. Just as we today continue to have deep and often heated discussions about just what is or isn’t sinful, what is or isn’t faithful, so the biblical writers did the same. As we endeavor to understand what the New Testament writings have to say about sin, defining our terms and our contexts will be important every step of the way. Central to the task of this book will be the parsing of the language of sin, the various terms and metaphors that are employed in the New Testament. Though many of the writers of the New Testament shared similar conceptual worlds regarding sin, some (like Paul) reflect the strong Stoic thoughts of the Greco-​Roman world, while others (like Matthew, and also Paul!) were more influenced by the traditions carried over from Jewish tradition. Even though they shared the same Jewish Scriptures in Greek translation (the Septuagint),22 they could arrive at different understandings of what it meant to be faithful to God in light of God’s revelation in the person of Jesus the Christ. They could also come to different conclusions about the meaning of sin in light of this same conviction that Jesus is Lord. To take but one example, it would be quite something to see the Apostle Paul and the author of the Gospel of Matthew engage in a discussion about Gentile observance of the Jewish law, and how such law observance or lack thereof might be related to their respective understandings of sin. Both Paul and

 9

W hatever H appened to  S in ?   

|   9

Matthew place great emphasis on righteousness (Mt 3:15; 5:6, 10, 20; 6:33; 21:32; Rom 1:17; 3:21, 25; 4:3, 5, 9, 11; 6:13, 16, etc.). Both Matthew and Paul also see Jesus as offering God’s salvation from sin (Mt 1:21; Rom 1:16; 3:21–​25). For Matthew the righteous individual will keep the Mosaic law, as Matthew’s Jesus makes rather clear: “Whoever relaxes the least of these commandments will be least in the Kingdom of Heaven” (Mt 5:17–​19). By contrast, Paul argues that Gentiles who seek to observe the Jewish law have failed to understand that Christ’s death was for their sins, and that they do not need to (indeed should not) observe the Jewish law, symbolized most clearly by circumcision (Gal 3:1–​5; 5:12). Thus, for Matthew, any failure to keep the Jewish law revealed to Moses is an expression of unfaithfulness, of sin, missing the target God has set before humanity. For Matthew, God had not changed God’s mind about observance of the Mosaic law, rather God had fulfilled it by the sending of his Son Jesus as the messiah. Paul would agree about Jesus fulfilling the Jewish law, but he also saw the coming of Jesus as “the end” of the law (Rom 10:4). In contrast to Matthew, for Paul any insistence upon keeping the Jewish law for Gentiles is itself an expression of sin, for such law observance suggests that Christ’s death did not bring about justification and atonement for sin, whereas Paul is sure that it did (Gal 3:21; Rom 3:21–​25). At least to some degree, then, what constitutes sin is in the eye of the beholder, grounded in a particular set of presuppositions and commitments. It was certainly something of a moving target in early Christianity. Nevertheless, the problem of human sin was quite clearly a matter of great importance for the New Testament authors. Collectively they refer to “sin” some 300 times across the New Testament, using different terms in a variety of contexts. Even when the word “sin” itself is not used, it is often implied and thereby invoked. When Jesus proclaims that the Kingdom of God has drawn near, and that the appropriate response is to

10

1 0   |   S in in the N ew T estament

“repent and believe in the good news” (Mk 1:15), repentance, by definition, brings with it the recollection of sin, of failing to be faithful to God. Similarly, when the Apostle Paul calls upon believers to present their bodies to God as a “living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God,” and for them not to be conformed to this world, but to “be transformed by the renewing of your minds” (Rom 12:1–​2), he is calling for an ongoing conversion, an ongoing transformation that moves away from sin and toward God in faithful imitation of Jesus. It is a transformation from disobedience to obedience, from sin to faith (2 Cor 3:18). As we will discuss in more detail later on, the Apostle Paul has a deep sense that this world is dominated by the power of sin, which leads to death (Rom 6). But in Christ’s death and resurrection God has destroyed the cosmic powers of sin and death (1 Cor 15:3, 54–​56). Believers are now fundamentally free from the power of sin, free for a life empowered by the Spirit of God in Christ. “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal 2:20). And yet, sin and temptation persist, as we know too well (Rom 7). Much of what Paul has to say in his letters revolves around addressing the persistence of human sin, even in the face of God’s reconciliation with humanity through the person of Christ, whom God made “to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor 5:18–​21). Sin is thus one of the dominant themes of human existence and of the New Testament. In the chapters that follow, we will approach the topic of sin in these early Christian writings from a variety of perspectives and contexts. What ever happened to sin? It adapted to changing contexts across the centuries of Christian tradition. In all of these different approaches to sin, however, the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) has been the common touchstone for Christian tradition. But it has not been the only or even always the most important touchstone. So as we do our best to understand our own context in the 21st

 1

W hatever H appened to  S in ?   

|   1 1

century, it is important to realize that we cannot simply skip back to the New Testament writings, jumping over 20 centuries of social and theological development, as if our own inherited contexts do not impinge on our understanding of what the New Testament has to say about sin or even how we read through the history of biblical interpretation. Our own contexts engage with the contextual worlds of the New Testament writings, as well as with the worlds of interpretive history. Thus, on the one hand, as the prominent scholar Wayne Meeks has argued, in interpreting the early Christian worlds of the New Testament we must “protect the integrity of the past.”23 This has long been the task of historical critical study of the New Testament. And yet, on the other hand, we must also recognize that the New Testament does serve as Scripture for the confessing Christian community seeking guidance and fundamental orientation to the meaning of faith lived out in the contexts of our world. In this book I endeavor to present the various understandings of and approaches to human sin that we find in the New Testament. I seek to do so with attention to the Jewish and Greco-​Roman contexts that shaped the early Christian world. But this is not only an historical overview of sin in the New Testament. I also endeavor to translate and correlate these contextual understandings of sin in the New Testament to our present contexts. My goal is to make the writings of the New Testament my starting point, but I am fully aware that this springboard does not necessarily land us in the same place that we began. In the next chapter (Chapter 2) I will present “A Taxonomy of Sin in the New Testament Worlds.” The chapter surveys the religious worlds of the 1st century that provide immediate historical and theological contexts for understanding “sin” from the perspectives of the New Testament authors. It is important to know what was presumed about sin in 1st-​century Judaism, both what constitutes sin and how one deals with sin in relation

12

1 2   |   S in in the N ew T estament

to God and in relation to communities of faith. Within early Judaism, for example, there are different emphases regarding sin within the Qumran community and within rabbinic Judaism. The interpretation of sin in the Jewish Scriptures also provides very important contexts for how the emerging communities of Christian Jews and rabbinic Jews both agreed and disagreed about what constitutes sin and how God provides remedies for dealing with sin. The role of the Jerusalem Temple and its sacrificial cult, especially in the observance of Yom Kippur, provides another crucial context for understanding perceptions of sin in the emerging and intertwined worlds of 1st-​century Jewish and Christian identity. Similarly, it is important to understand the moral worlds of the larger Greco-​Roman context, especially as a framework for the extension of Jewish-​Christian preaching about Jesus among Gentiles. Stoic perceptions of natural law in particular provided central concepts that Paul and other early Christians used and integrated into their depiction of virtue and vice. Jewish perceptions of Gentiles as generally idolatrous and immoral (e.g., Gal 2:15) were also significant aspects in the development of Jewish and Gentile Christian understandings of sin in the 1st century. With these Jewish and Greco-​Roman contexts in view, we will then be in a position to explore understandings of sin across the New Testament Gospels, particularly in relation to the significance of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection. Four successive chapters (Chapters  3, 4, 5, and 6)  will examine sin in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke (and Acts), and John (and the Johannine Epistles). In Matthew and John in particular we will see the important context of the Jewish heritage of each Gospel, while in Luke, and to some degree Mark, we will see how understandings of sin are developed and adapted to increasingly Gentile Christian communities of faith.

 13

W hatever H appened to  S in ?   

|   1 3

In Chapter 3 we will find in Mark’s Gospel account a Jesus who picks up on the ministry of John the Baptist in his proclamation of the need to repent for forgiveness of sins (1:15). Jesus’s regular association with sinners is a cause of scandal to rival religious teachers of his day (2:15–​17), as is his claim to forgive people’s sins (2:5–​10). This is also a Jesus who will give his life as a “ransom for many” (10:45) and whose blood will be poured out for many (14:25). Although he is betrayed into the hands of sinners (14:41), God will raise him from the dead (16:1–​8). Chapter  4 will focus on the Gospel of Matthew, which builds on Mark’s Gospel, making it clear from the outset that Jesus was born to save his people from their sins (Mt 1:21). In part this salvation will come from heeding the preaching of Matthew’s Jesus regarding the interiorization of righteousness and a renewed prophetic focus on the disposition of one’s heart (5:21–​45; 25:31–​46). But, as in Mark, Jesus’s ministry will culminate in his death, which Matthew’s Jesus interprets as the pouring out of his blood for the forgiveness of sins (26:28), and in which the Gentile Centurion will confess that Jesus is the Son of God (27:54). This atoning death will give way to the resurrected Jesus in Matthew, with the risen Jesus sending the disciples out to baptize new members into the community of forgiven sinners (28:16–​20). Like Matthew, Luke builds upon notions of sin that have been developed in Mark. Chapter 5 will show how Luke goes beyond both Mark and Matthew by relating additional stories, found only in Luke, about Jesus’s teaching regarding sin. In particular we find the story of Simon Peter confessing that he is a “sinful man” (5:8), the account of the “sinful woman” who anoints Jesus (7:37), along with the story of the prodigal son who confesses that he has sinned against heaven and his father (15:21), and the tax collector who pleads for God’s mercy (18:13). Luke’s focus on sin, sinners, and forgiveness in the name of Jesus continues in the Acts of the Apostles with the

14

1 4   |   S in in the N ew T estament

preaching of Peter and Paul (2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38–​39; 26:18). In Chapter 6 we will explore the Gospel of John. Although John is likely unfamiliar with Synoptic Gospels in written form, he also presents Jesus as the one through whom forgiveness of sin is to be found. Jesus is the “lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29). John develops this lamb imagery by showing a Jesus who is unblemished even in death, just like the Passover lamb (19:36), and thus a perfect sacrifice before God. Here John blends the Yom Kippur imagery of atoning sacrifice with the Passover sacrifice, but his point is clear regarding Jesus’s unique identity as the source of forgiveness of sin. Elsewhere John’s Gospel enters into debate with rabbinic traditions regarding what characterizes sin, especially in the story of Jesus healing the man born blind (Jn 9). In this chapter, we will also explore how the Johannine Epistles continue to develop an understanding of human sin that is very much in keeping with John’s Gospel. In Chapter 7 we will attend to Paul’s understanding of sin. Paul is arguably both the most expansive and the most difficult of the early Christian authors to understand in regard to sin. Although the Gospels give us the primary accounts of Jesus’s life and ministry, Paul’s letters represent the earliest Christian writings that we have, and as such they represent the first efforts we know of to develop a theological understanding of sin in light of belief that God raised the crucified Jesus from the dead. Paul understands the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as God’s fundamental and salvific response to human sin. Both in terms of a focus on Jesus as sinless and Jesus as an atoning sacrifice for human sin, Paul’s theology of sin gave important shape to all subsequent Christian theologizing about the character of sin and the meaning of Christian life in a sinful world. It will be especially important to address various aspects of how Paul understands sin: sin as a cosmic power (Rom 6:1–​10;

 15

W hatever H appened to  S in ?   

|   1 5

1 Cor 15), sin and the flesh (1 Cor 5–​6; Rom 6–​7), sin and the Jewish law (Rom 6, Gal 3), Jesus as God’s sacrifice for sin (Rom 3) who became sin (Rom 8:3; 2 Cor 5:21), and the contrast between the faithful Christ and the sinful Adam (Rom 5; 1 Cor 15). We will then turn our attention in Chapter 8 to notions of “Sin in Hebrews, James, and 1 and 2 Peter.” These authors offer important theological reflections on human sin and God’s response to human sinfulness in the person of Jesus. In Hebrews we will see how the understanding of Jesus as the sinless high priest who offers himself as the perfect sacrifice provides the dominant context for the author’s understanding of sin and many references to it. In 1 Peter we will see how suffering as the result of sin vs. unjust suffering find development in light of Jesus as the sinless lamb offered to God in atoning sacrifice. In Chapter  9 we explore the cosmic climax of “Sin in Jude, Revelation, and Beyond.” This chapter will show how sin functions within the cosmic battle (between good and evil, God and the devil) that controls the story line in the Book of Revelation. The sacrificial blood of the slain but living lamb (1:5; 5:6) provides both forgiveness and the power to defeat the devil’s temptations to sin, as well as the power to endure the devil’s persecution of the faithful. This apocalyptic battle unfolds in Revelation as a story of assurance in the midst of suffering at the hands of sinners (18:4–​5). Finally, in Chapter 10 we will consider “Sin Then and Now.” This final chapter will begin with a return to the issues raised in the first chapter in light of the findings about sin/​sinners as presented in the New Testament. Of special importance will be the question of how we deal with changing understandings of sin and with understandings of sin in the New Testament with which we might struggle, especially in relation to developments in Christology. I will explore how new conceptions of sin have

16

1 6   |   S in in the N ew T estament

reshaped the interpretation of New Testament reflections on sin for Christian faith and theology in a 21st-​century context. Before turning to Chapter 2 and an exploration of sin in the New Testament worlds, a brief word is in order about the language of sin in the New Testament. In a little known article from 1977, V. Kerry Inman provided a valuable service by collating the great variety of words used in the New Testament writings to denote sin in some form or fashion. He came up with 48 words that are used “to express ideas relating to sin.”24 And quite a list it is. Everything from “doing wrong” (adikeō, 17x) and “misdeed” (adikēma, 3x), to the most common noun for “sin” (hamartia, 173x), its verbal form “to sin” (hamartanō, 42x), and “sinner” (hamartōlos, 47x), as well as “evil” (kakia, 11x), “transgression” (parabasis, 7x; and paraptōma, 19x), “leading astray” (planaō, 37x), and “wicked” (ponēros, 78x), to name but a few. Even so, one word I  would add to his list is “to cause to sin/​stumble” (skandalizō, 27x) and its noun form “stumbling block” or “cause of sin” (skandalon, 13x). The point is that sin comes with many nuances, which comes as no surprise. Sin is the human condition with which all people have struggled, whether in times past or present. Sin goes under many names. One person’s sin is another person’s virtue. So I will certainly not be coming close to exhausting the expansive parameters of discussing the meaning of sin, even in the New Testament. But my hope is that as a whole this introduction to various understandings of sin in the New Testament will be an instructive guide.

 17

2

A Taxonomy of Sin in the New Testament Worlds

EARLY JUDAISM AND FORMATIVE CHRISTIANITY both emerged within the larger context of Hellenistic Judaism, namely, Judaism that was in conversation with Greek culture and language (hence the Septuagint) and that was completely under the power of Roman rule, a power that celebrated Greek culture and that had grudging respect for Judaism because of its antiquity and its peculiar (to Rome) religious commitments. If Judaism, both in its Palestinian and more Hellenized versions, provided the immediate context for Christian origins, the expansion of Christianity beyond Judaism into an increasingly Gentile religious movement from 50 ce to 150 ce meant that the religious world of Christianity had to interact more and more directly with the existing and dominant worlds of Greco-​ Roman religion and philosophy. Christianity began as a small sect within Judaism, but in the short span of a couple hundred years it morphed into a religious movement indebted to its Jewish roots, but also now independent as a new Gentile religion in conversation with the broader religious marketplace of antiquity.1 It is important for us to explore both the Jewish and Greco-​Roman religious landscapes as the contexts for early Christian understandings of sin. How was “sin” understood in the worlds of early Judaism and Greco-​Roman religiosity, and how did such understandings impact formative Christianity? Sin in the New Testament. Jeffrey s. Siker, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190465735.001.0001

18

1 8   |   S in in the N ew T estament

E A R LY J U D A I S M A N D   S I N The language of “sin” is found frequently in the Jewish Scriptures. The Hebrew word most commonly translated into English as “sin” is chatta’t, occurring 269 times in the Hebrew Bible, especially in the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, as well as in Numbers, Leviticus, and the Psalms. Two other Hebrew words also are used in reference to “sin”: ‘avon (iniquity—​233 times) and pesha’ (transgression—​134 times). The terms can appear together, by way of reinforcement, as in Exodus 35:7, when Moses receives the Ten Commandments for the second time and describes God as “keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity [‘avon] and transgression [pesha’] and sin [chatta’t].” Related to this word group is the Hebrew term rasa, “sinner,” a word found frequently in the Psalms (e.g., 3:7; 38:1; 57:10; 81:4; 138:19). It typically refers to those identified as enemies of God, those who are wicked for various reasons (e.g., forsaking God’s law—​Ps 10:7; 49:16; oppressing others—​Ps 54:3). The Septuagint, the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible used by all the writers of the New Testament, translates terms for sin in roughly equivalent ways. For example, the Septuagint version of Exodus 35:7 states that God forgives “lawlessness, and unrighteousness, and sin” (anomias kai adikias kai hamartias). The most common term for “sin” in the Septuagint is hamartia (526 times), which is also the most frequent word in the New Testament writings for “sin.”2 Parallel to the Hebrew rasa is the Greek word hamartōlos, “sinner,” coming from the same root as hamartia. In the Septuagint rasa is most often translated by hamartōlos. Sin refers to a violation or transgression of a normative standard prescribed by God in thought, word, or action (or inaction). The boundaries for obedience or transgression are expressed in the written Jewish law of the Bible, especially the

 19

A T a x onomy of S in in the N ew T estament  W orlds  

|   1 9

Torah, the first five books of the Jewish Scriptures. The Jewish law constitutes the covenant tradition between Israel and God. The prophetic writings in particular criticize the people for failing to keep faith with the covenant God established with Israel. The prophet Isaiah provides a good example of how Israel has sinned against God (30:1): “Oh, rebellious children, says the LORD, who carry out a plan, but not mine; who make an alliance, but against my will, adding sin to sin” (Hebrew: chatta’t al chatta’t; Septuagint: hamartias eph hamartias). The prophets are particularly critical of the sin of social injustice, seen for example most famously in Amos’s condemnation of neglect of the poor (2:6–​7): “they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals—​they who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth, and push the afflicted out of the way.” This motif of neglect will be picked up in the ministry of Jesus in the judgment parable of the sheep and the goats (Mt 25:31–​46), where he criticizes the failure to minister to those in need. The prophetic tradition is also critical of Israel’s sin of infidelity, perhaps most clearly articulated in the prophet Hosea. Hosea lambasts Israel for whoring after other gods, a sin the people cannot readily remedy through animal sacrifices:  “I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hos 6:6). The prophet Jeremiah looked forward to the day when the law would be written upon the hearts of the people rather than a mere set of outward observances (Jer 31:31–​34). The religious leaders in early Judaism reflected upon their Scriptures and debated what constituted the normative standards of behavior instituted by God. Certainly neglect of the poor and idolatry were sins. And the Ten Commandments along with the rest of the Mosaic law spelled out how the people should keep covenant fidelity. While rabbinic tradition identified 613 commands within the Jewish law, the different groups of Jewish leaders held somewhat different views about exactly

20

2 0   |   S in in the N ew T estament

what the law permitted or proscribed. Beyond the written law, rabbinic tradition also developed traditional interpretations that became known as the oral law, binding commentary on the written law that was eventually codified in the Mishna around the year 200 ce. Through these oral traditions the rabbis sought to “build a fence around the law” (Pirke Aboth 1:1), namely, to create a kind of safe buffer to ensure that the people did not violate the law.3 One famous example of the application of the oral law is found in the story of the Pharisees’ opposition to the disciples of Jesus plucking grain on the Sabbath (Mk 2:23–​25; Lk 6:1–​5). Clearly, one should not harvest on the Sabbath, but what about plucking some kernels of dried grain? For the rabbis such action was a slippery slope that could lead to harvesting on the Sabbath and hence violate the law of Sabbath rest.4 According to the Gospel accounts, Jesus, by contrast, disagreed with this oral interpretation of the written law and argued instead that it was fine to pluck grain on the Sabbath to meet human need. Within early Judaism, sin could be a violation of a ritual ordinance (intentional or accidental) or of a moral norm. The book of Leviticus spells out, for example, many of the requirements for how sacrifices should be conducted within the Jerusalem Temple. The violation of a moral norm shows that sin is also relational in scope. Sin is not just the violation of a thing, it is also the violation of one’s relationship with God or with people. The earliest reference to “sin” (chatta’t) in the Hebrew Bible occurs in the story of Cain and Abel, from Genesis 4:6–​7. God warns Cain not to be downcast because God favors Abel’s offering over Cain’s. “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.” Here sin comes across as a powerful presence, almost an entity that must be mastered and defeated, a motif we will especially see again in the writings of Paul. Tragically, for both Cain and Abel, sin ends up mastering Cain with the result that Cain murders his brother Abel,

 21

A T a x onomy of S in in the N ew T estament  W orlds  

|   2 1

the most egregious violation of a relationship. Sin takes further hold as Cain lies to God about Abel’s whereabouts: “I do not know”; and then he demonstrates still further the violation of his relationship with his brother, distancing himself from any responsibility: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The answer, of course, is “yes.” The sin of Cain had severe consequences, as God cursed him to wander the earth. The story of Cain shows a pattern of broken relationships as a result of sin already seen in the first sin of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, in which Adam blamed Eve for his own failure. The brothers of Joseph sold him into slavery out of jealousy. David arranged to have Bathsheba’s husband Uriah killed in battle as a desperate solution to his own adultery. And one king after another did “what is evil in the sight of the Lord” throughout 1 and 2 Kings. The consequences of sin caused harm to oneself and to others. David and Bathsheba’s first child died. The evil rule of kings brought suffering to their people. And yet the naming of sin with its consequent punishment could also lead to repentance and restoration for the individual sinner and for the people as a whole. If sin was the violation of God’s commands, and an indication of broken relationships, what were the mechanisms of dealing with sins against God and one’s fellow humans within the world of early Judaism? The most important institution for dealing with human sin in the time of Jesus and Paul was certainly the Jerusalem Temple and its sacrificial system. The book of Leviticus details many of the sacrificial practices and requirements. The most important sacrifice was the annual Yom Kippur ritual, the Day of Atonement, the regulations for which are spelled out in Leviticus 16. It was observed on the tenth day of the autumn month of Tishrei shortly after the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah. The entire purpose of Yom Kippur was to deal with the sins of the Jewish people en masse, to cleanse

2

2 2   |   S in in the N ew T estament

them of their sins and to cleanse the Temple precincts (especially the sacrificial altar) and the priests from the taint of sin as well. In this way the people’s relationship with God would be restored and renewed for another year. Yom Kippur was (and still is) a sober day of fasting and penitence. Leviticus 16 stipulates that the high priest first offer a bull as a burnt offering to atone for himself and for his household. He then is to take a ritual bath to cleanse himself, put on holy vestments, and select two male goats for a “sin offering” and one ram for a burnt offering. Next, he casts lots between the two goats, one for the Lord and the other for Azazel.5 The goat that was dedicated to the Lord was sacrificed, and its blood was sprinkled around the altar along with the blood of the bull. In this way the blood sacrifice cleansed the altar and the Temple precincts. Then the high priest laid his hands upon the head of the scapegoat and confessed all the sins of the people, transferring their sins to the goat. The goat was then led out into the wilderness, the dwelling of the demonic Azazel, and the goat bore away the sins of the people.6 The general understanding was that the sins of the people would die in the wilderness with the goat. The sins of the people were thus confessed and cleansed. Having fasted and repented their sins, the people could rededicate themselves to more faithful lives during the year to come. As we will see in more detail later on, the imagery of the scapegoat bearing away the sins of the people was central in the development of early Christian theology as a way of making sense of the death of Jesus. Beyond Yom Kippur there were more regular sacrifices in the Temple to deal with particular sins rather than the generic sinfulness of the people as a whole.7 Leviticus spells out a whole series of sacrifices that individuals should offer in the Temple regulated by the priests. Leviticus 4, for example, spells out the sin offering that a person should bring to sacrifice in the Temple to seek purification for an unintentional offense.

 23

A T a x onomy of S in in the N ew T estament  W orlds  

|   2 3

The sin offering could be an unblemished animal (typically a goat or a sheep) or even flour if one could not afford the cost of a goat, a sheep, or a turtledove. There are also regulations for a “guilt offering,” in the case where an individual intentionally defrauds another person (Lev 6). The guilt offering involved repaying the person who was wronged, with a penalty of an added fifth, and then the offering of an unblemished animal. In addition to the Temple sacrificial system, the Jewish Scriptures are replete with confessions of sin that figured prominently in synagogue readings and liturgies. Synagogues were important places for the worship of God and hearing Scripture read and interpreted, including confession of sin, though the Jerusalem Temple was the only place where sacrifices could be offered. Psalm 51:1–​2 provides a good example of an extended confession of sin on the lips of King David, in response to David’s adultery with Bathsheba and his arranging for her husband Uriah to be killed in battle: Have mercy on me, O God,   according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy   blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,   and cleanse me of my sin. Sin is confessed, followed by a plea for God’s mercy and forgiveness, a cleansing from sin that has corrupted David’s relationship with God. Later in the Psalm, David acknowledges that it is not just a matter of outward sin, but a matter of the heart. God desires “truth in the inward being” (51:6), which is why David asks God to “create in me a clean heart . . . and put a new and right spirit within me” (51:10). David repents of sin and acknowledges that he needs God’s help in changing his inner being in order to restore his broken relationship with God.

24

2 4   |   S in in the N ew T estament

One aspect of sin in the Jewish Scriptures that is often misunderstood is the relationship between sin and impurity. Sin involved either an unintentional or intentional violation of the law that regulated the life of the people. The sacrificial system of the Temple provided mechanisms for dealing with such sins. Impurity had nothing to do with sin in and of itself. Rather, the ritual purity system associated with the sacrificial system of the Temple sought to make sure that individuals in a state of ritual impurity were first appropriately cleansed before coming into the sacred precincts of the Temple.8 Any number of things could render an individual ritually impure: touching a corpse, a woman’s menstrual cycle, various bodily discharges, a wound oozing blood, and leprosy, to name but a few. There is no moral or even ritual sin associated with being in a state of uncleanness. Indeed, attending to the arrangements of the death of a family member essentially required one to become ritually unclean in order to honor the dead. Still, before going to the Temple, one had to go through the appropriate process of becoming ritually clean again, typically with some form of ritual bath. In the case of corpse impurity, it meant following the regulations spelled out in Numbers 19:11–​14: “Those who touch the dead body of any human being shall be unclean seven days. They shall purify themselves with the water on the third day and on the seventh day, and so be clean; but if they do not purify themselves on the third day and on the seventh day, they will not become clean.” For a woman who has had a menstrual cycle, Leviticus 15:19–​20 states: “When a woman has a discharge of blood that is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening.” A woman becomes clean again by taking a ritual bath on the eighth day. Again, there is nothing sinful about being in a state of ritual impurity. It is part and parcel of the cycle of life. There were occasions when some 1st-​century Jews drew a connection between ritual impurity and sin, especially at

 25

A T a x onomy of S in in the N ew T estament  W orlds  

|   2 5

Qumran. But, in general, the rabbis tended to compartmentalize ritual impurity from the concept of sin. As Jonathan Klawans noted:  “Sin does not produce ritual impurity, and ritual impurity does not render one sinful.”9 Finally, within early Judaism there were various biblical characters seen as righteous and blameless in exemplary ways, without sin. Abraham, Melchizedek, Job, and Elijah were all perceived as ideal figures who were faithful and righteous. The Testament of Abraham,10 for example, tells the story of Abraham being given a heavenly tour of the earth by the archangel Michael. But when Abraham sees sinful humanity, he curses them, and everyone he curses dies. In this apocryphal account, God has to stop Abraham, for “Abraham has not sinned, and he has no pity for sinners.” Of course, this story runs rather counter to Abraham’s role in the Sodom and Gomorrah episode, where he expressly appeals for God to have mercy on the wicked if even only 10 righteous people can be found (Genesis 19). But in the world of early Judaism, the notion that one could live a life free from sin was not unthinkable. Indeed, even the Apostle Paul can claim that he was “blameless” (amemptos) as to “righteousness under the law” (Philippians 3:6). It is important to be aware that the understanding of “sin” in early Judaism was not static. As the studies of both Gary Anderson and Joseph Lam have clarified,11 the understanding of “sin” went through significant development through the centuries before Christianity. The most dominant early conception was that “sin” was a weight born by humanity. This is why during the Yom Kippur ritual the high priest had to shift the burden of sin, the weight of sin, from the people to the head of the scapegoat, and why the goat had quite literally to carry the sin away into the wilderness. But over time the notion of “sin” shifted to have a more primary association with economic metaphors of personal debt to be repaid. The notion of “sin” as a wrong path one took and as a stain upon the human soul

26

2 6   |   S in in the N ew T estament

also developed in addition to language of “sin” as weight and indebtedness. Overall, early Judaism had a relatively coherent understanding of human sin and how to deal effectively with sin. The problem of sin was best understood against the central conviction that God had entered a covenant relationship with Israel. Even under foreign occupation, Jews trusted that God would continue to provide mechanisms for the confession and repentance of sin through the system of Temple sacrifices, synagogue worship services, and the many scriptural witnesses to stories of those who repented and were restored (e.g., David), as well as the strong prophetic invectives against the danger of falling into sin. God’s warning to Cain remained true for Jews living in the 1st century as well (Gen 4:7): “sin is lurking at the door, it is waiting for you; but you must master it.” G R E C O -​R O M A N R E L I G I O S I T Y AND SIN By way of transition from early Jewish understandings of sin to the broader realm of the Greco-​Roman world in the first two centuries ce, it is important to note that much of early Judaism was also Diaspora Judaism—​Jews living outside of Palestine all around the Mediterranean. Diaspora Jews were by definition somewhat more directly impacted by their interaction with the Greco-​Roman world, as they were part of minority cultures in the urban areas of the empire where Jews could be found in significant numbers (e.g., Alexandria, Antioch, Corinth, Rome). Their version of Scripture, the Septuagint, was in Greek. They regularly sent delegates to represent them at the Temple in Jerusalem for the pilgrimage festivals, especially Passover and Yom Kippur, as well as paying the annual Temple tax to help support the sacrificial cult. But they also relied more on local

 27

A T a x onomy of S in in the N ew T estament  W orlds  

|   2 7

synagogues since they did not have geographic proximity to the Temple in Jerusalem.12 Jews in the Diaspora were certainly well acquainted with the various Greco-​Roman religions that surrounded them and that permeated daily life. They clearly adopted some aspects of Greco-​Roman religiosity in ways that have surprised scholars of early Judaism.13 Hellenistic Jews remained staunchly monotheistic even as they interacted with Greco-​Roman religious and philosophical traditions. The prominent 1st-​ century Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo could borrow Platonic philosophy in reinterpreting the Jewish law, but Jewish law observance remained the focus even in allegorical interpretation. The 1st-​century Jewish apologist Flavius Josephus could write a history of the Jews for an educated Greco-​Roman audience, but he remained a dedicated advocate of Jewish religion. One important feature that Greco-​Roman religions shared with Judaism was the importance of the sacrificial system as a mechanism for negotiating relationships with the divine. Sacrificial cult was something that needed little translation across religious differences, even though the purpose of sacrifice could be variously interpreted. The Romans may have been surprised not to find some extraordinary representation of the Jewish God when they destroyed the Jerusalem Temple in 70 ce, but they were not surprised by the extensive Jewish sacrificial system regulated by a priestly class. The Jewish religion was an ancient tradition that the Romans respected, if at times grudgingly, because of its antiquity. As long as the practice of their religion did not interfere with Roman rule in Palestine, the Jews were free to carry out their religious observances. Indeed, Philo recounts that since the time of Emperor Augustus, Roman rulers showed their respect for the Temple by ordering “that for all time continuous sacrifices of whole burnt offerings should be carried out every day at his own [the emperor’s] expense as a tribute to the most high God.”14 This practice simply shows

28

2 8   |   S in in the N ew T estament

that the Romans were happy to appeal to the benevolence of the God of the Jews as well as to the rest of the pantheon of gods. Still, there were important differences between the practice and meaning of Jewish sacrifice in the age of the Jerusalem Temple and the practice and meaning of sacrifice in Greco-​Roman temples. First, though obvious, it bears repeating. There was only one Jewish Temple where sacrifices could be offered, regulated by one Jewish priesthood. The Temple in Jerusalem was the gem at the heart of Herod the Great’s building campaign to make Jerusalem a world-​class city in the Roman Empire. By contrast, there were dozens of different pagan temples where sacrifices could be offered to the dozens of different pagan gods. The more the better! The more the gods were appeased, the better for everyone. To be sure, there were primary and secondary temples for the gods. One could seek healing from the god Asclepius in several temples dedicated to him throughout the empire, especially in Epidaurus or Coe. But although there were several temples in Rome devoted to the goddess Minerva (the Roman version of Athena, the goddess of crafts and weaving), if one desired to offer sacrifice to the goddess a visit to her temple on Aventine Hill in Rome was necessary. Still, one could worship many gods in many places, whereas for Jews sacrifice only took place at the Jerusalem Temple. Second, one of the primary purposes of the Jewish sacrificial system was to deal with human sin, whether the sins of an individual on any given day or the collective sins of the whole people once a year on Yom Kippur. Negotiating the forgiveness of sins was not the only function of the Jerusalem Temple. The offering of lambs at the huge Passover pilgrimage festival, for instance, had to do with remembering how God had delivered the ancestors of the Jews from bondage in Egypt and the ensuing covenant that God established with Israel. It had nothing to do with forgiveness of sins. Similarly, the festivals of

 29

A T a x onomy of S in in the N ew T estament  W orlds  

|   2 9

Sukkot and Pentecost had to do with thanking God for the fall and spring harvests, among other observances. By contrast, the function of sacrifice in the temples of the Greco-​Roman religions had virtually nothing to do with human sin. Rather, sacrifices of animals at pagan temples served as gifts to the gods on various occasions:15 perhaps to commemorate the anniversary of a death, to thank the gods for a particularly bountiful harvest, to fulfill a vow in response to good fortune from the gods, or to discern if there were good auspices to wage a battle or to go on a journey. After an animal was offered in sacrifice, the entrails of the animal would often be examined by the priests and “read” for particular signs and omens to discern the will of the gods. Not all sacrifices were animal sacrifices, just as there could be the offering of grain in the Jerusalem Temple. And not all sacrifices took place under the guidance of a priest in a pagan temple. Families also worshiped their own household gods (the lares), and it was not uncommon to offer a bowl of fruit or grain to these typically ancestral gods. Beyond the sacrificial cult, Greco-​Roman understandings of sin had much more to do with ignorance, the lack of proper knowledge, than with violating divine commands spelled out in a sacred book. The law of Moses was relatively clear and detailed about how to maintain covenant faithfulness between the Jewish people and God. To be sure, the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, and other Jewish groups all had different interpretations of how best to keep the law. But they agreed that God was one (Deut 6) and that the law should be kept. They would certainly need to pray to God for forgiveness for failing to abide by the entire law, and they would need to make appropriate sacrifices in the Jerusalem Temple as specified in the law, but there was general unity among Jews both in Palestine and across the Diaspora that the one God of the Jewish people heard their prayers wherever they were and accepted their sacrifices at the Temple in the holy city of Jerusalem.

30

3 0   |   S in in the N ew T estament

Within the religious world of Greco-​ Roman religions, people also prayed to the gods (including the God of Israel among many others), but the fundamental problem they faced was not sin, not the breaking of commandments and violating covenant fidelity, as in Judaism. Rather, the problem they faced had far more to do with the very practical issue of how to control their lives so they would be happy and fulfilled. The different religious and philosophical systems that were dominant in the Greco-​Roman world had various ways of addressing this problem. We need to remember that religion and philosophy were not separate realms in antiquity. Epicurean philosophers said that people should not be afraid of the gods or the fates, that the only way to true happiness was to enjoy the simple pleasures of life free from anxiety about the gods. According to the Epicureans, the gods did not care about or meddle in human affairs. Platonic philosophers argued that people needed to realize that they lived in a kind of shadow world, and that the goal of life was to discern the true realities that transcended time and space as experienced in this world. Various mystery religions offered salvation to those initiated into the secret knowledge of their god: Mithras, Dionysus, the Elusinian mysteries of Demeter, Isis, and Osiris. Worship of the emperor as a god also seemed to be a very practical way to ensure relative happiness in this world. Typically, people engaged in a combination of honoring and worshiping different gods who exercised power over different spheres of life. There may be one overarching god (Zeus, Jupiter) who was chief among the pantheon of gods. But if one sought to heal a physical malady, one would be well advised to consult the priests at the temple of Asclepius, the god of healing. The gods were not concerned with sin in any manner like the Jews understood it. Sin was a failure to understand the human situation in the world. As is often pointed out, the Greek verb for “sin,” hamartanō,

 31

A T a x onomy of S in in the N ew T estament  W orlds  

|   3 1

had a root meaning of “missing the mark.”16 According to Stoic philosophers, people missed the mark by failing to see that the path to a life well lived was revealed as a rational principle in the natural realm all around them. The challenge was to adapt oneself to the divine rational logic on display in nature. The primary “sin” was akrasia, the Greek term for lack of self-​control.17 As the great Stoic philosopher Epictetus argued, if one desires to be virtuous and good, one must control one’s passions. Mastery of one’s passions leads to clearer discernment of appropriate actions to take. Disciplined practice leads to habits that conform to divine reason, which in turn leads to true knowledge and understanding (Discourses 3.2.1–​2).18 The Apostle Paul’s speech to the Athenians found in Acts 17:16–​34 provides a helpful picture of how early Christians could use the Stoic emphasis on proper knowledge in an apologetic manner to show true knowledge leads people toward the one true God revealed in Jesus. The Gospel writer Luke, who also wrote Acts, has Paul give his Areopagus speech to various philosophers gathered for discussion, including Epicureans and Stoics. Luke has Paul begin by calling attention to one particular altar among the many others dedicated to the various gods in the city of Athens. Paul acknowledges that the many altars and statues honoring the gods show that the citizens there are quite religious. And yet one altar is dedicated to “an unknown god” (Acts 17:23, agnōstō theō). Since one of the goals of Greco-​ Roman religion was to avoid offending any of the gods, presumably this altar was intended to honor any god they might have missed. But they have missed more than a god. Luke has Paul use this observation as a springboard for his sermon. “What therefore you worship as unknown [agnoountes], this I proclaim to you” (17:23). The NIV translation picks up on another nuance in the Greek original:  “You are ignorant of the very thing you

32

3 2   |   S in in the N ew T estament

worship. And this is what I am going to proclaim to you.” Luke has Paul develop an effective interplay between ignorance and knowledge. Paul appeals to the Stoic tradition that humans are God’s offspring, quoting the Stoic philosopher Aratus (17:28). Because we are God’s offspring, the logic goes, “we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals” (17:29). The Athenians should realize that worshiping idols is contrary to what the natural world reveals, that there is a creator, a God of the universe, who can be known.19 Luke then has Paul connect the problem of Gentile ignorance to the impending judgment of God, an apocalyptic motif from Paul’s Jewish worldview. “While God has overlooked the human times of ignorance [agnoias], now he commands all people everywhere to repent” (17:30). After Paul’s proclamation, the Gentiles no longer have an excuse for ignorance. In the past their ignorance had led to idolatry and the worship of false gods. Their idolatry, in turn, resulted in what Paul and other Jews viewed as immoral and sinful behaviors, a whole series of typical Gentile vices (e.g., Rom 1:29–​31; 1 Cor 6:9–​10). In Galatians 2:15 Paul can even draw a contrast between “we who are Jews by birth” (physei Ioudaioi) and not “Gentile sinners” (ouk ex ethnōn hamartōloi). But Paul has come to reveal to Gentiles the truth about their false idols and the truth about the God revealed in Jesus. From Paul’s perspective, Gentiles are not first and foremost guilty of immorality, rather they are ignorant of the truth, and this ignorance has led them from false knowledge to false behavior. Sin in the form of immoral behavior is the consequence of their ignorance.20 But, fundamentally, Paul’s approach to Gentile “sin” is not far from some Stoic perceptions that ignorance of the divine reason revealed in nature is what leads to ignorance of how to embark on the path toward ongoing moral transformation that increasingly reflects what it means to be God’s offspring.

 3

A T a x onomy of S in in the N ew T estament  W orlds  

|   3 3

The difference between Paul and the Stoics, at least the most important one, is that Paul believes the God of Israel, the God of the Jews, is also the God of the Gentiles and of all creation, and that this God has been revealed and made known through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.21 When Paul refers to the resurrection of Jesus in the Areopagus speech, the response of the philosophers gathered is rather mixed (Acts 17:32): “When they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some scoffed; but others said, ‘We will hear you again about this.’ ” It was not only the reference to the resurrection that caused some to scoff, but also the notion of a crucified messiah that seemed ridiculous to both Jew and Gentile alike. The Apostle Paul got it right when he stated that preaching the salvific death of Jesus on a cross was “a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Cor 1:23). N AV I G AT I N G S I N F R O M   E A R LY J U D A I S M T O   G R E C O -​R O M A N   R E L I G I O S I T Y Having sketched understandings of sin (or lack thereof) in both early Judaism and in the Greco-​Roman world, it is important to see one central development in the early Christian shift from its Jewish origins to its increasingly Gentile makeup in the 1st century. To put it simply, Christians—​especially Paul and his followers—​introduced and translated Jewish understandings of sin and repentance into Greco-​Roman terms, now with Christ as the mediating figure offering both forgiveness and judgment in the face of human sinfulness. As we have noted, Paul’s Areopagus speech in Acts 17 (composed by Luke) provides a helpful starting point to see this transition. The key passage is 17:30–​31, “While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent,

34

3 4   |   S in in the N ew T estament

because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” The central transition moves from “human ignorance” to repentance in anticipation of judgment by God’s righteous agent, now risen from the dead. The reference to “the times of human ignorance” (17:30) hearkens back to the beginning of Paul’s speech in 17:23, where he calls attention to an altar dedicated “to an unknown god.” Now that Paul has made known what had been unknown to them, he can call them to account. He can appeal to them to act in accordance with the truth and knowledge he has shown them, that their altars and images of gold, silver, and stone gods are no gods at all, but are mere human fabrications (17:29). What should they do? Repent (metanoeō, 17:30). The call to repent blends repentance of false knowledge with repentance of sin. Now that they have true knowledge of the God revealed in Jesus, they must act in accordance with this knowledge and turn their lives away from the worship of false gods and turn toward the living God who is the source of all life. By repenting and turning to the God of the risen Christ, they will escape the wrath of God that is fast approaching on the day of judgment (17:31). This proclamation is reminiscent of what Paul has written to the Thessalonians, praising them for how they “turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—​Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath that is coming” (1 Thes 1:9–​10). Even though Paul’s speech in Acts 17 has been crafted by Luke, it is remarkably close to what Paul expresses in 1 Thessalonians. It also resonates with what Paul writes in Romans 2, “Therefore you have no excuse. . . . Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance [eis metanoian]? But by your hard and impenitent heart you

 35

A T a x onomy of S in in the N ew T estament  W orlds  

|   3 5

are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (Rom 2:1–​5).22 Just as Luke’s Paul can appeal to how God has “overlooked the times of human ignorance” (Acts 17:30), so in Romans 2 can Paul appeal to God’s kindness, which should lead to repentance. Implicit in Acts 17, 1 Thessalonians 1, and Romans 2 is the connection between Gentile idolatry and sin, at least from the perspective of Luke and Paul. Even though the language of “sin” is not overt in these passages, from the perspective of early Jews and Christians alike, Gentile idolatry was their chief sin against God. This is why in Galatians 2:15 Paul can refer to “Gentile sinners” as if the two words are interchangeable. To be a Gentile, and hence to worship idols, was by definition to be a sinner. Gentiles should repent of their sinful worship of false gods and turn to worship the true God revealed in Christ. While from the perspective of Greco-​Roman religiosity “sin” did not really function as a category in relation to the gods, Stoic and Epicurean philosophers understood the category of true knowledge as the most important aspect of human relations to the gods. Only from true knowledge could humanity embark on any genuine relationship with the divine realm. The Stoic philosopher Epictetus, for example, argued that knowledge derived from reason was the cornerstone not just for the moral life but for all life. Humans have fragments of the divine within them, but they fail to act on this knowledge (Discourses 2.8.11). Epictetus laments:  “Why, then, are you ignorant of your own kinship? Why do you not know the source from which you have sprung? . . . You are bearing God about with you, poor wretch, and know it not!”23 (Discourses 2.8.11–​13). Luke’s depiction of Paul filling in the blank about the “unknown god” is thus rather ironic, since the Stoics were so critical of those who lacked proper knowledge of the divine element within each human. Ignorance in and of itself is not a culpable sin or error, but ignorance in the face of knowledge is

36

3 6   |   S in in the N ew T estament

a culpable sin. Now they “should know better,” to use a modern phrase. God had been merciful in overlooking past ignorance, but no more, now that God had made known what previously was unknown. With this brief sketch of sin from the perspectives of early Judaism and Greco-​Roman religiosity, we turn now to a consideration of sin in the Gospels.

 37

3

Sin in the Gospel of Mark

IN THE NEXT FOUR CHAPTERS we shall examine how, with several questions in mind, the various Gospel writers understand “sin.” How do the apparent social and theological settings of the Gospel writers impact their understanding of sin? What are their presuppositions? How do they understand the life and ministry of Jesus in relation to human sinfulness? At what points do they show aspects of continuity and discontinuity with the Jewish traditions underlying all the early Christian writings? These and other questions will help us explore the Gospel traditions and their respective presentations of human sin. Although the Gospels are not the earliest Christian writings that we have, a distinction that goes to the Apostle Paul, it makes sense to start with the Gospel traditions since they purport to present the figure of Jesus, who clearly comes before Paul. In the four chapters that follow I  will not make any fundamental distinction between the quest for the historical Jesus and the image of Jesus as presented in the Gospel accounts. This is not because I think the Gospels give us real access to the historical Jesus, but because all we truly have are traditions about Jesus as they developed after his followers came to believe that God had raised a crucified messiah from the dead. All the Gospel writers tell the story of Jesus in retrospect; they are making sense of his life, ministry, and death in light of their conviction that God vindicated Jesus by raising Sin in the New Testament. Jeffrey s. Siker, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190465735.001.0001

38

3 8   |   S in in the N ew T estament

him from the dead. This kind of retrospective theologizing on the part of the evangelists is simply how the traditions about Jesus developed as they shaped and reshaped their narratives about Jesus. As we will see, all the Gospel accounts have to deal in one way or another with the scandal of Jesus’s death, and all of them do so in relation to human sin.1 We will proceed by looking at each Gospel in turn, beginning with the Gospel of Mark, which is normally viewed as the earliest written account that we have (c. 70 CE), and then moving through the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (c. 80–​85 CE), and finally John (c. 90–​100 CE). Although other Gospels were composed, the focus of this book is on the New Testament writings and their legacy throughout Christian history. What such Gospels as the 2nd-​century Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Philip, for example, have to say about Jesus and sin is certainly important, but it lies beyond the scope of this survey. On to the Gospel of Mark. The first reference to sin in Mark’s Gospel occurs at the very outset with the ministry and proclamation of John the Baptist in Mark 1:1–​5. Mark frames the introduction of John the Baptist with a citation from Isaiah 40:3:  “As it is written in the prophet Isaiah, ‘See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way’ ” (Mk 1:2). Mark then has John the Baptist enter the narrative as one who “appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (1:4). People from all over the Judean countryside are responsive to John’s proclamation. “All the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins” (1:5). Several observations can be made about Mark’s understanding of sin in this context. First, it is important that Mark connects the baptismal ministry of John with the prophetic tradition of Israel. Mark’s quotation of the Isaiah 40 passage anchors the ministry of John the Baptist in the prophetic tradition of old.

 39

S in in the G ospel of  M ark  

|   3 9

As Israel’s prophets had called for the people to repent of their sins and turn anew to God, so John the Baptist proclaims the message of a gracious God who forgives the repentant sinner. The people “will be forgiven their iniquity” (hamartia, LXX; Is 33:24). Similar prophetic pleas for repentance with the assurance of God’s forgiveness can be found in Ezekiel 18:31, Zechariah 13:1–​2, and Micah 7:18. The prophetic hope of the people turning away from sin and renewing their commitment to God finds resonance in the preaching of John the Baptist. Another aspect of the prophetic dimension has to do with the geography of where this promise of forgiveness of sins takes place. It is pointedly not in the Jerusalem Temple. Thus, already at the beginning of Mark’s Gospel, we can see an implicit critique of the Temple and its sacrificial cult. Just as the prophets of old had decried the offering of sacrifices in the Temple while injustice prevailed (e.g., Am 5:21; Is 1:14), so also Mark has John the Baptist not only proclaim forgiveness of sins in his wilderness sermon, but he also enacts this forgiveness by baptizing people in the Jordan River. Thus, the cleansing waters of the Jordan replace the ritual baths associated with the Jerusalem Temple. So also these baptismal waters cleanse the heart of the penitent and not merely prepare them to be ritually clean to offer sacrifice in the Temple. The wilderness motif seems to be a direct restating of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt under the leadership of Moses (Ex 13:4–​8). “This typology is especially likely, since Mark sets his whole story, and in particular the prologue, in the context of the new exodus prophesied in Deutero-​Isaiah.”2 It is also significant that John the Baptist has been modeled after the figure of Elijah (see 2 Kings 1:8), an identification Mark makes explicit in 9:11–​13. A point of debate about John the Baptist’s preaching and ministry has to do with what comes first in this “baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins”: repentance or forgiveness? In Mark, Jesus proclaims God’s forgiveness of sins, a forgiveness

40

4 0   |   S in in the N ew T estament

in which the repentant heart can trust and rejoice. Thus, forgiveness comes first, not repentance, though the two are inextricably bound together.3 Mark’s narrative makes it clear that as great as John the Baptist is, the one who comes after him—​Jesus—​is greater still (1:7–​8). John’s baptism with water for forgiveness of sins is thus preparatory to the greater baptism that Jesus will provide by imparting the Holy Spirit upon his followers. This makes the narrative that follows about John’s baptism of Jesus (1:9–​11) somewhat puzzling. Why is Jesus getting baptized by John? Is he coming like the rest of the people as a penitent confessing his sins? Unlikely, given Mark’s declaration already in 1:1 that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God!4 But Mark does seem intent on showing that Jesus picks up where John the Baptist left off. When Jesus is baptized by John, the Spirit of God descends upon him (1:10). Here Mark moves from water baptism to spirit baptism in a single stroke. The power of God’s Spirit drives him to temptations by Satan (1:12–​13), but it appears we are to conclude that Jesus does not yield to Satan; he does not sin. Then we hear Jesus for the first time, proclaiming his own message, one that has clear connections with what John the Baptist had preached. “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news” (1:15). John the Baptist had prepared the way. Now the way to the Kingdom of God was ready to be walked. How should people respond? Repent and believe. This message echoes what John had proclaimed:  a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” When Jesus calls upon the people to repent, the implication is clear—​repent of your sins. But not only that. Repentance means acceptance of the message Jesus is proclaiming about the coming Kingdom of God. This message will unfold in the ministry of Jesus as Mark develops the rest of his Gospel. Mark’s understanding of sin will be developed as well.

 41

S in in the G ospel of  M ark  

|   4 1

It does not take long for the issue of sin to arise again in Mark’s Gospel. The next key passage occurs in 2:1–​12, where Jesus heals a paralyzed man. But the miracle is subordinate to a larger point about Jesus and sin as the story unfolds. The story begins simply enough. Jesus is “at home” in Capernaum, and there is a large group of people crowding about so that “there was no longer room for them not even in front of the door” (2:2). As Jesus proclaims his message to those gathered, we are introduced to four additional people who want to see Jesus so that he might heal the paralyzed man they are carrying on a mat (2:3). They are so determined to bring the paralyzed man before Jesus that they go up on the roof, remove the roof above Jesus, and lower the man down on his mat. And sure enough, this got Jesus’s attention! Mark then states that “when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic . . .” (2:5). I have intentionally paused the story at this point because what we expect Jesus to say is not at all what he actually says. We expect another healing story to unfold and for the narrative to continue with something like: “when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Your faith has made you well. Rise, take your mat, and give thanks to God.’ ” Or some such thing. But instead the story takes an unusual turn: “When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven’ ” (2:5). It is likely that the paralytic man and his friends are just as surprised as everyone else. Is Jesus here drawing a connection between the man’s paralysis and his sins? To be sure, within early Jewish tradition there is often a connection made between sin and illness (e.g., Dt 28:27; Ps 107:17–​18; Is 38:17). And even Jesus appears to make this connection in John 5:14, the healing of another paralyzed man, while disputing any such connection in the story of the man born blind (John 9:2–​3). So what is Mark’s point by showing Jesus declaring that the man’s sins have been forgiven? The divine passive—​“your

42

4 2   |   S in in the N ew T estament

sins are forgiven”—​indicates that God is the one doing the forgiving that Jesus is announcing. But the point of the story draws a close connection between God’s activity of forgiving sins and the ability of Jesus as the Son of Man to forgive sins on behalf of God (2:10). Just as John the Baptist had baptized people for forgiveness of sins, and had done so outside of the Temple authorities, so now Jesus declares the forgiveness of sins quite apart from the Temple rituals. The scribes protest the power Jesus presumes and declare his pronouncement to be “blasphemy,” since only the one God can forgive sins (cf. Ex 34:6–​7; Is 43:25; 44:22). The accusation against Jesus is that he is arrogating to himself a power that only God possesses. But Jesus proceeds to heal the man of his paralysis, and the act of healing demonstrates that Jesus’s power to heal a physical malady proves his power to heal the spiritual malady of human sin. (In later church tradition, this power will be linked to the power of Peter to bind and loose; Mt 16:19.) The motif of sins and sinners continues in the narrative that follows, Mark 2:13–​17, the calling of the disciple Levi and Jesus having dinner at Levi’s house with “tax collectors and sinners” (2:15). Once again Jesus has crossed a boundary for which the scribes of the Pharisees criticize him. “They said to his disciples, ‘Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?’ ” Jesus responds rather than his disciples, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners” (2:17). Here, significantly, we again come across the connection, even if metaphorical, between sin and sickness. Jesus’s call is for those whom society at large deems to be sinners. Just as he declared forgiveness of sins to the paralyzed man earlier in Mark 2, so now he articulates his mission as one of going as a physician to those who are sick, namely, those in need of God’s forgiveness of sins. Who are these “sinners” (hamartōloi)? While some have argued that the term refers to those who ignore ritual purity

 43

S in in the G ospel of  M ark  

|   4 3

laws,5 the broader consensus is that it refers to those who violate the Mosaic covenant by immoral behavior.6 Perhaps Mark’s vice-​list from 7:21–​23 identifies the kinds of sins in view: “For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”7 Sinners refer not, then, to matters of ritual purity so much as to those who violate moral norms. Mark’s portrayal of Jesus at table with “tax collectors and sinners” is noteworthy, as having table fellowship with such individuals labels Jesus as guilty by association. This appears to be the accusation of the “scribes of the Pharisees” (2:16), who question this practice: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” Whereas Jesus had called the tax collector Levi to “follow me” (2:14), the Pharisaic scribes see Levi and his companions only in terms of their sinfulness. The tax collectors were viewed as sinners, in part, because they collected taxes that supported Roman occupation of the land. Tax collectors were also viewed as sinners because they often collected more than what was due (cf. Lk 3:12–​13). Luke refers to this practice in his story of Zacchaeus, the chief tax collector. Finally, because of their close association with the Romans, tax collectors were generally viewed by the Pharisees as being ritually unclean. Although ritual impurity was not a sin in and of itself, those who were lax about the purity laws were also suspect of being lax in regard to the rest of the Mosaic law.8 For Jesus to associate with these individuals so closely would have been considered a stain on his reputation, especially as one who purported to be a religious teacher himself. He should know better than to hang around with such people. Jesus shares in the contagion and contamination of these people as sinners. Jesus recognizes that these individuals are in fact “sinners,” but he is not worried that some form of sinful cooties will rub

4

4 4   |   S in in the N ew T estament

off on him. Rather, he characterizes himself as the physician who can heal individuals of their sickness of sin (just as he has the power to heal those with physical infirmities of their illnesses). He does so by associating with them in fellowship, in meals, and friendship. He has come to call sinners to join him on the way toward the in-​breaking of the Kingdom of God. The scribes of the Pharisees apparently think they have managed to separate themselves from sin and sinners.9 The implication is that they see themselves as righteous and pure in the sight of God. By contrast, Jesus consciously aligns himself with those in need of God’s healing grace, not only from physical infirmities, but from sin-​sick souls as well. None are excluded. All are called to the Kingdom. From 2:1–​3:6 Mark presents Jesus in constant conflict with the Jewish religious authorities, especially the scribes and Pharisees. Much of the conflict, as we have seen, revolves around sin and forgiveness. Who is Jesus that he can forgive sins? Why is Jesus associating with those who are sinners? In 2:23–​28 the Pharisees are upset with Jesus that his disciples are plucking grain on the Sabbath, and thus violating the oral law, doing what is not permitted. Jesus has a more expansive view of the Sabbath law, namely, that the Sabbath should serve human need. Similarly, in 3:1–​6 Jesus encounters a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath. The Pharisees wait and watch to see what Jesus will do. Will he keep the Sabbath law that only allows acts of healing required to save a life? Or will he heal the man and break the law, showing himself to be a sinner who goes against God’s law? The question Jesus asks in 3:4 answers itself:  “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?” Clearly, the only answer is to do good on the Sabbath, to save life, to heal. And so he heals the man’s hand. In the process of healing, Jesus redefines what is lawful and what is sinful. The sinful thing, by implication, is to do nothing to help those in need. God is

 45

S in in the G ospel of  M ark  

|   4 5

not honored by inaction on the Sabbath if the act of healing can take place. The religious context of this healing story is also noteworthy. As 3:1 indicates, Jesus entered a synagogue on the Sabbath, presumably to worship God. It is there that he encounters the man with the withered hand. How better to worship God than by healing the man? And so he does. With this healing, with this challenge to the Pharisees’ notion of sin and righteousness, Mark tells us that the religious leaders begin plotting how to destroy Jesus (3:6). The issue of sinful association arises again next in 3:20–​27, where the scribes accuse Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul, the ruler of demons. To call Jesus demonic is, of course, to link him to the power behind sin. This accusation calls for a strong retort, which Jesus gives. He cannot be casting out Satan by the power of Satan for a very simple reason: “If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided he cannot stand, but his end has come” (3:26). This sharp dialogue then leads to one of the most difficult passages about sin, namely, the “unforgivable sin.” Jesus continues (3:28–​30): “Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin—​for they had said, ‘He has an unclean spirit.’ ” What does it mean to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit? For Mark’s Jesus, the unpardonable sin is to attribute to the devil the work of God. To say that Jesus is an agent of Satan so totally confuses the work of God with the work of Satan as to invert them. It may be that some of the scribes and Pharisees were convinced that Jesus was acting in ways that were counter to God’s law, in ways that were sinful, but to say that his actions were an expression of the demonic was so egregious as to be unrecoverable. All other sins will be forgiven (3:28), but not the sin of equating the work of God’s Spirit with the work of the devil.10

46

4 6   |   S in in the N ew T estament

After the series of conflicts with the religious authorities in 2:1–​3:28, the topic of sin does not enter Mark’s narrative again until the Passion predictions of 8:31–​10:52, and then only indirectly. Jesus’s stunning Passion prediction in 8:31–​33 leads Peter to rebuke Jesus for such a crazy thought. The messiah is supposed to usher in God’s Kingdom, not die! The response of Jesus to Peter’s rebuke is telling. Jesus, in turn, “rebuked Peter and said, ‘Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things’ ” (8:33). Peter’s desire for the kind of power that Jesus had demonstrated was in the end demonic. All of this is told, of course, in retrospect—​after the death of Jesus, and after his followers came to believe that God had raised him from the dead. For Jesus to call Peter “Satan” in this context was for him to name Peter’s desire for what it was—​satanic, demonic, sinful. Missing the mark, missing the point of Jesus’s ministry. By embracing human suffering, Mark’s Jesus showed the ultimate transformative power of God, which was fully realized in God’s raising him from the dead. The coercive power Peter relished would ultimately result in sinful destruction rather than in the gracious forgiveness of a loving God. The Kingdom of God, it turns out, will enter through a crucified messiah who suffers and dies because of people’s sins. The other two Passion predictions of 9:30–​32 and 10:32–​ 34 have the same impact. The scandal of Jesus’s suffering and death is lost on the disciples at this point in the story. They did not understand what Jesus was saying (9:32). They were still seeking glory and power, arguing with each other about which of them was the greatest (9:34), even as Jesus was telling them about suffering and death. They were missing the mark, missing the point. They must be “last of all and servant of all” (9:35). They must welcome and watch out for the little ones, a little child. Whoever welcomes such a child welcomes God (9:37). But whoever causes such a little one to stumble had

 47

S in in the G ospel of  M ark  

|   4 7

better watch out. Whoever causes scandal (skandalizō; 9:42–​ 48) to another believer and misleads them to stumble in their faith, such a sin is very serious indeed. Believers must also be on guard against their own downfall in faith, no matter how they are tempted to stray. Following the path on the way to the Kingdom of God is at stake. We come, finally, to perhaps the most important passage in Mark’s Gospel in regard to sin, even though the word “sin” (hamartia or its cognates) does not appear in the passage: 10:45, “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom [lytron] for many.” This final Passion prediction is also the most extended, referring in detail to what actually happens to Jesus: Jesus is condemned by the chief priests and scribes, handed over to the Gentiles, who will mock/​spit/​scourge and then kill him, after which he will arise from the dead three days later. But the disciples are clueless. In the following narrative of 10:35–​45, the disciples come across as oblivious to what Jesus has said about his impending death, and instead they are still seeking glory and power. Thus, two of his disciples, James and John, ask to be seated with Jesus in his heavenly glory, one on the left and one on the right. This power grab annoys the other disciples (10:41). Jesus then reminds the disciples of what true greatness consists: servanthood. “Whoever among you wants to be great shall be your servant [diakonos], and whoever among you wants to be the first shall be the slave [doulos] of all” (10:43–​44). This conversation provides the immediate context for the culminating statement that Mark has Jesus make about himself: “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” The reason this passage is so weighted with meaning has to do with the last clause. Jesus came to serve, and the ultimate expression of his service is the giving of his life as a “ransom” (lytron) for many. The Greek word lytron has been the subject

48

4 8   |   S in in the N ew T estament

of immense debate, especially regarding the background of the term and possible allusions primarily to the suffering servant songs of Isaiah 52–​53 and, secondarily, to the “son of man” figure referenced in Daniel 7.11 Mark clearly is quite familiar with both the prophets Isaiah and Daniel (in their Septuagint form), as he quotes freely from each of them in his Gospel.12 The saying in Mark 10:45 so clearly reflects the beliefs of the post-​resurrection church that in my view it makes most sense to understand the passage as part of the church’s early theological reflection on the suffering and death of Jesus in light of belief in his resurrection from the dead. In any case, the significance of the passage rests not on its historical attribution but on the literary and theological context in which it functions for Mark. Part of the common usage of the term lytron with which Mark was most likely familiar involved the “ransom” or “release” of slaves and debtors.13 Mark’s reference to the language of slavery in 10:43–​45 makes this connection even stronger. As various commentators have also noted, the language of “ransom” has overtones of atonement and expiation for sin in some early Jewish texts. For example, in 4 Maccabees 6:28–​ 29, the stalwart hero Eleazar prays to God immediately before his martyrdom: “Be merciful to your people, and let our punishment suffice for them. Make my blood their purification, and take my life in exchange [antipsychon] for theirs.” Later on in 4 Maccabees 17:21–​22, we come across even stronger language, as the author reflects upon the sacrifice that the martyrs have made: “they having become, as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation. And through the blood of those devout ones and their death as an atoning sacrifice, divine Providence preserved Israel that previously had been mistreated.”14 The notion of one person’s death serving as a ransom or exchange for the sins of others thus has parallels in early Jewish literature.15

 49

S in in the G ospel of  M ark  

|   4 9

The suffering servant songs from Isaiah 52–​53 are important for Mark’s passion predictions in Mark 8, 9, and 10. Beyond the Passion predictions, however, the closest echo to Mark 10:45 can be found in Isaiah 53:12, “Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.” What stands out is the language of exchange in both Isaiah 53:12 and in Mark 10:45. Although the word lytron (ransom) is not found in Isaiah 53, the general concept of ransom or exchange resonates with the Isaiah 53 passage. The suffering servant died bearing the sins of others. The Son of Man came “to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many,” namely, he came to exchange his life for the liberation or ransom of others. Liberation or ransom from what, though? Mark’s text is not explicit at this point, though Isaiah 53:12 is. But later on in Mark 14:22–​24, during the institution of the Last Supper, Jesus “took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. He said to them ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.’ ” The language of “pouring out for many” echoes Isaiah 53:12’s “because he poured out himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors.” Most interpreters read this language of the pouring out of blood in sacrificial terms, as an atoning sacrifice for sins.16 Understanding the death of Jesus in light of Isaiah 53’s suffering servant resonated with the earliest followers of Jesus post-​death/​resurrection. “The usage of lytron in the LXX makes it probable that Mark and his audiences understood the ‘ransom’ (lytron) constituted by Jesus’ giving of his life as an expiation accomplished ‘in behalf of’ or ‘in place of’ (anti) many.”17 There are also important echoes from Daniel 7 in Mark 10:45, though as an inversion of Daniel’s “Son of Man,” who

50

5 0   |   S in in the N ew T estament

will be served by all peoples, nations, and languages (Dan 7:13–​ 14). By contrast, Mark’s “Son of Man” came expressly not to be served, but to serve. Mark ends up crafting an image of Jesus that combines important elements from both Isaiah 53 and from Daniel 7, both of which deal efficaciously with human sin. Jesus is both the “suffering servant” and the “Son of Man.” But he is a suffering servant who is vindicated by resurrection for his death as a ransom on behalf of sinners, and he is a Son of Man who is glorified and enthroned in the heavenly realm precisely because he has suffered on behalf of others.18 The final reference to “sin” in Mark’s Gospel comes in 14:41, in the context of the arrest of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane: “The hour has come; the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.” In Daniel 7 the Son of Man is a powerful heavenly figure who comes in judgment of sinners. But here in Mark 14 the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. The fulfillment of the Passion predictions from Mark 8, 9, and 10 now takes place. “The Son of Man is to be betrayed into human hands” (9:31); “The Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, . . . then they will hand him over to the Gentiles” (10:33). The “sinners” in 14:41 refer both to the immediate context of the arrest, with particular attention to Judas (“See, my betrayer is at hand”—​14:42), and to the larger opposition to Jesus that Mark has developed throughout his Gospel: the scribes and Pharisees, the demons, and even his most prominent disciple Peter. Mark has an expansive view of sin and sinners that is in keeping with a Jewish worldview that recognizes the pervasiveness of sin. And yet Mark is also quite clear that Jesus’s association with “tax collectors and sinners” is but one sign of the in-​breaking of the Kingdom of God. Mark’s Jesus will take on the power of sin in his death and pay the price of redemption with his own faithfulness.

 51

4

Sin in the Gospel of Matthew

SINCE MATTHEW USED THE GOSPEL of Mark as a written source, many of the passages we have dealt with in Mark will recur in Matthew, with a somewhat different lens. But Matthew also incorporated other source material:  the “Q” source that Matthew shares with Luke, and a source that is often termed “Special Matthew” (material found only in Matthew). In each instance, Matthew has shaped these materials to reflect his theological orientation and social location in late 1st-​century Jewish Christianity. Matthew uses a variety of terms to denote “sin” in one sense or another. The verb hamartanō (to sin) occurs in 18:15, 21; 27:4. The noun hamartōlos (sinner, sinful behavior) occurs in 9:11, 13; 11:19; 26:45. The term paraptōma (transgression) refers to a specific sin or violation of the law (6:14, 15). In the Lord’s Prayer, Matthew uses the word opheilēma (6:12), which is often translated as “debt” in the sense of owing a moral debt. Older translations render it as “trespass.” One of Matthew’s favorite terms is the verb skandalizō (11x in Mt) and its related noun skandalon (5:29–​30; 18:6, 8, 9; 24:10; 26:31, 33; 13:41; 18:7), which is translated in various ways—​especially “to cause to sin” or “to cause to stumble.” Matthew can also refer to enochos (5:21–​22; 26:66), which means to be “guilty” or “liable” for some infraction. The range of terms is broader than what we found in Mark’s Gospel.1 Sin in the New Testament. Jeffrey s. Siker, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190465735.001.0001

52

5 2   |   S in in the N ew T estament

Important for Matthew’s understanding of “sin” is his Jewish heritage, evident throughout the Gospel. This Jewish heritage can be seen at the very beginning of Matthew’s Gospel—​he starts with the genealogy of Jesus, linking him especially to David and to Abraham. Jesus comes from the proper Davidic line of descent, and he comes at precisely the right time (three sets of fourteen generations, 1:17). Having established Jesus’s appropriate heritage, Matthew moves to relate the birth story of Jesus in 1:18–​25. This is the first place where the notion of sin appears in Matthew’s Gospel. In Matthew’s account Mary is engaged to Joseph, but she becomes pregnant before they are married and living together. The reader knows that Mary is “with child from the Holy Spirit” (1:18), but in the narrative her husband Joseph does not yet have this knowledge. And because Joseph is a righteous man and does not want to “expose her to public disgrace” (1:19), he resolves to break off their engagement quietly. What goes unstated in the narrative is Joseph’s logical presumption that Mary has violated her commitment to him and has sinned by having sexual relations with another man. The notion of Mary being a sinful woman, of course, has no place in the Christian tradition. Matthew anticipates the association of Mary with sin by invoking in the genealogy (1:1–​6) four prominent women from Israel’s heritage who gave birth to children in circumstances that also appeared to link them to inappropriate sexual relations, and so to sin—​Tamar (see Gen 38), Rahab (cf. Jo 2), Ruth (cf. the Book of Ruth), and “the wife of Uriah” (aka Bathsheba; cf. 2 Sam 11–​12). But in each case the woman proved to be righteous and an agent of God’s continued deliverance of Israel.2 The same will be true of Mary. Even though Mary is given no voice in Matthew’s birth narrative (quite in contrast to Luke’s), she is given a defending angel who explains to Joseph, “the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit” (1:20).

 53

S in in the G ospel of M atthew  

|   5 3

It is the next verse, however, that explicitly introduces sin into Matthew’s account. The angel continues to explain to Joseph (1:21): “She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” Even before Jesus is born, the purpose of his life is foreshadowed in this angelic pronouncement. His very name indicates his destiny, as the name “Jesus” (the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua, or in Aramaic Yeshua) literally means “he who delivers,” “he who saves.” How will Jesus save? Matthew is quite clear:  “he will save his people from their sins” (hamartiōn). How will Jesus save his people from their sins? Although Matthew does not state it explicitly here, the reader nevertheless already understands that Jesus will save his people from their sins by offering his life in death upon the cross. His salvific birth will culminate in his salvific death and resurrection, though that too is not explicitly stated quite yet. The statement of Jesus at the Last Supper in Mt 26:28 recapitulates what was announced at the outset of the Gospel: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Thus, the salvific death of Jesus is already announced in his birth story.3 The generic statement that he will save his people from their sins suggests that he will save them from sins in a generic manner. The reference to “sins” in the plural implies that he will deliver the people from multiple transgressions. Given the Jewish-​Christian character of the Gospel as a whole it is difficult not to invoke the annual Yom Kippur ritual where the high priest lays his hands upon the head of the scapegoat and confesses over it “all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins [hamartias] (Lev 16:21). But given that the Yom Kippur ritual occurred annually only while the Temple was still standing, Matthew appears to be making not only a generic statement about saving the people from their

54

5 4   |   S in in the N ew T estament

sins but also a salvation from sin in perpetuity, or “once for all” (ephapax), as the Epistle to the Hebrews put it (7:27). Who exactly are “his people”? The most obvious and likely answer is that “his people” refers to Israel, the descendants of the long list of generations found in the genealogy.4 At least this is who “his people” are at the outset of the Gospel. But his rejection in Nazareth (Mt 13:53–​58), the constant heated conflict with the scribes and Pharisees (e.g., Mt 23), and the people’s rejection of Jesus as the messiah, most notably in Mt 27:25 (“his blood be on us and on our children”) certainly suggest that the people he will “save” from their sins are those who believe in him. In light of the Great Commission in 28:16–​20, this salvation from sin is extended to “all nations,” namely to Gentiles as well as Jews. Why must Jesus die to save them from their sins? He hasn’t even been born yet! The clearest explanation for why he must die comes primarily by way of assertion. Matthew 16:21 provides a good case in point:  “Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering  .  .  .  and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” Why must he go? Because he must! A  more satisfactory answer comes in retrospect. Since this is what happened to Jesus, it must have been necessary, even though the disciples would have prevented it from happening (Mt 16:22). The necessity of Jesus’s death becomes clear only in hindsight. Because he did die, his death must have been necessary to effect forgiveness of sins and salvation. He was not the conquering messiah people had expected. But he saved his people in an even greater way. He may not have saved them from Roman occupation, but he saved them from their sins. Matthew continues in 1:22, “All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet.” Matthew then quotes Isaiah 7:14 about a virgin who shall conceive and bear a son. Matthew is clearly convinced that everything about Jesus has a parallel reference

 5

S in in the G ospel of M atthew  

|   5 5

in the Jewish Scriptures that anticipates his coming and his mission to save his people from their sins. Jesus is thus the new Moses who will deliver his people through his sacrificial death for sin.5 After the birth story, flight to Egypt, and return to settle in Nazareth, Matthew moves on to the ministry of John the Baptist (3:1–​12). As in Mark’s Gospel, John the Baptist preaches the need to repent in anticipation of the coming of God’s Kingdom. People from Jerusalem and all the surrounding region of Judea went to him at the Jordan River to be baptized, “confessing their sins” (3:6). But we are then introduced to sayings of John the Baptist from the Q material that Matthew shares with Luke’s Gospel. In Matthew 3:7–​10, John the Baptist sees many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism (only in Matthew), and he addresses them directly: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit that befits repentance, and do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you God is able from the stones to raise up children to Abraham.” Whereas in Mark we saw that forgiveness led to repentance, in Matthew it appears that John the Baptist requires fruit that shows genuine repentance before forgiveness and baptism can occur. Simply being baptized apart from demonstrative repentance means nothing. Only after this fire-​and-​brimstone sermon by John the Baptist in Matthew 3 does Jesus appear on the scene to be baptized by John. Matthew’s approach to the baptism of Jesus is rather different from Mark. Whereas Mark simply said that John baptized Jesus, Matthew understands the problems associated with having John the Baptist administer baptism to Jesus. The problems are twofold. First, it makes John the Baptist appear superior to Jesus, even though John has just referred to one coming after him who is greater. But even more important, second, the scene has the potential to make Jesus appear

56

5 6   |   S in in the N ew T estament

to be a penitent seeking John’s baptism for forgiveness of sins. Matthew deals with these two problems by adding a significant dialogue between Jesus and John in 3:14–​15 that is found only in Matthew’s Gospel. “John would have prevented him, saying ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’ ” John the Baptist recognizes his subordination to Jesus as the greater prophet. The response of Jesus both answers John’s question and gives a reason for the baptism: “Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he [John] consented.” The reason for the baptism of Jesus is not for forgiveness of sins, but “to fulfill all righteousness.” This answer picks up on two prominent themes throughout Matthew’s Gospel—​the fulfillment motif we have already seen, and the motif of righteousness with which Matthew is deeply concerned (see 3:15; 5:6, 10, 20; 6:33; 21:32). Exactly what the fulfillment of all righteousness means is not entirely clear. But it is a sufficient explanation to associate Jesus with fulfilling Scripture and being righteous so as to draw all attention away from any association of Jesus with a penitent sinner. In comparison to the Gospel of Mark’s rather truncated story (Mk 1:12–​13) of Jesus’s temptation following his baptism, Matthew’s version of the temptation story is rather extended (Mt 4:1–​11). Like the baptism scene, the temptation scene again raises the potential motif of sin in relation to Jesus. Would Jesus give in to temptation? Could Jesus in fact give in to temptation and sin? The answer for the evangelists, of course, is no. Jesus is the faithful Son of God who defeats every effort by the devil to tempt him to sin. This tradition of a sinless Jesus took hold fairly early in Christian tradition. Even though in his ministry Jesus is often juxtaposed with sin and sinners, in light of his salvific death and resurrection, the early Christian tradition defended him as sinless (1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 5:21; Jn 1:29; Heb 4:15; 1 Pt 1:18; 1 Jn 3:5).

 57

S in in the G ospel of M atthew  

|   5 7

In later Christian tradition there was a debate about whether Jesus even had the capacity to sin, about his “peccability.” If Jesus were God, could God sin? One would think not! But Jesus was also human, so if he could not sin, then in what sense was he truly a human being tempted as we are? This is one of the age-​old dilemmas of Christian doctrine that argues for the full divinity and the full humanity of Jesus at the same time—​one person with two natures.6 Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5–​7) provides the next occasion for Matthew to consider the topic of sin, which he does both indirectly and directly. Matthew indirectly raises the issue of sin in relation to observance of the Jewish law in 5:17–​19. Far from coming to abolish the law or the prophets, Jesus has come to fulfill them, a motif we have already seen strongly represented in Matthew. This affirmation of the written Jewish law (in contrast to the oral law) raises the question of whether transgressing the written law constitutes sin. Even if such transgression of the law is sinful, it appears that those who violate the least of the commandments will still be included in God’s Kingdom. Related to the detailed observation of the Jewish law, which Matthew appears to endorse (contrary to Mark 7 or to Paul), is Matthew’s larger concern that the ultimate goal of keeping the law is righteousness:  “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (5:20). Matthew sees the scribes and Pharisees as setting a low bar for righteousness, as elsewhere in his Gospel he shows particular disdain for these religious teachers (see Mt 23). The centrality of the concept of righteousness for Matthew can be seen simply from how often he appeals to the term “righteousness” and “righteous” (dikaiōsunē and dikaios), indicating proper relationship to both God and neighbor. (See: Mt 1:19; 3:15; 5:6, 10, 20, 45; 6:1, 33; 9:13; 10:41; 13:17, 43, 49; 21:32;

58

5 8   |   S in in the N ew T estament

23:28–​29, 35; 25:37, 46.) For Matthew righteousness functions as the opposite of sin.7 The notion of “sin” can also be seen operating in the “antitheses” of Matthew 5:21–​48, where Jesus refers to one of the commandments (e.g., “You shall not murder”) and then offers an interpretation that moves from outward act to inward disposition. Since the inward disposition leads to the outward sinful act, it is actually the inward disposition that is sinful, from which one needs to repent. Thus, the internal feeling of anger can lead to murder. The internal feeling of lust can lead to adultery. The only direct reference to “sin” occurs in the context of the “antitheses,” in 5:29–​30, which Matthew draws from Mark 9:43–​48 (it does not occur in Luke’s Gospel). In Matthew it reads: “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell.” This is the translation from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), which renders the verb skandalizei as “causes you to sin.” In this context, however, it makes sense to render skandalizō as a term that connotes sin that gets in the way of righteousness, that causes one to stumble on the path of faith. Later in the sermon Jesus sharply criticizes hypocritical behavior, where words and actions do not cohere (6:1–​-​19; 7:1–​5). Is hypocritical behavior sinful? For Matthew it is certainly not an expression of righteousness. There appear to be degrees of both sin and righteousness for Matthew. Quoting Psalm 6:9 (LXX), Matthew can address those who have deceived themselves into thinking they are truly doing God’s will, “Go away from me, you evildoers” (literally, “doers of lawlessness,” 7:23). Are the evildoers sinful? He can also refer to the contrast between the wise man who built his house upon rock and the foolish man

 59

S in in the G ospel of M atthew  

|   5 9

who built his house on sand (8:24–​27) as an analogy for those who hear and follow Jesus’s words in contrast to those who do not. Is the foolish man sinful? The foolish man is certainly on the wrong path and will suffer the consequences. Matthew also knows of those who are faithful but struggle with “little faith” (6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; 17:20). Similarly, he calls his followers to love not only their neighbors but also to love their enemies (5:44). His disciples are to be not only faithful but also “perfect” (5:48). Their righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees (5:20). Matthew’s Jesus calls for transformation of the heart, not only conformity of outward actions. The followers of Jesus must discern where they stand between sin and righteousness. Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer in 6:9–​13 (compare with Luke’s 11:1–​4) asks for forgiveness of opheilēmata (“debts,” “trespasses,” “wrongdoings”) as we have forgiven those who are indebted to us or have wronged us. In Matthew 6:14–​15, Jesus explains the correlation between God’s forgiveness and our forgiveness. Matthew shifts terminology here, from “debts” (6:12, opheilēmata) to “transgressions” (6:14–​15, paraptōmata), but the general meaning is similar. “If you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”8 For Matthew there is reciprocity and conditionality when it comes to forgiveness of sins. God forgives the believer’s sins only if the believer likewise forgives others their sins. Matthew’s use of the term opheilēmata (debts) indicates a significant shift in the conception of sin within early Judaism.9 In the Hebrew Bible sin is most often understood in terms of a weight, a burden that must be lifted. This is why in the ritual of Yom Kippur the high priest confesses the sins of the people upon the head of the scapegoat, and the goat quite literally bears the sins of the people away into the wilderness. But

60

6 0   |   S in in the N ew T estament

in early Judaism, during the period of the Second Temple, the imagery shifts to the notion of sin as moral debt. One must literally “pay” for one’s sins. Thus, the believer’s sins place the person in moral debt to God and to those individuals who have been wronged. We will return to this important shift when discussing Matthew 18 below, especially in regard to the parable of the unforgiving servant, which is found only in Matthew’s Gospel. Matthew includes various material from Mark that links Jesus to sin. In Mt 9:1–​8, for example, Matthew tells the story of Jesus healing a paralytic (compare Mk 2:1–​12). Although Matthew omits the radical action of removing the roof to let the paralyzed man down, Matthew keeps the radical statement of Jesus to the man: “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven” (Mt 9:2), which leads the scribes who are present to accuse Jesus of blasphemy (9:3). Matthew sharpens the response of Jesus, changing Mark’s “Why do you question thus in your hearts?” (Mk 2:8) to “Why do you think evil in your hearts?” (Mt 9:4). This is in keeping with Matthew’s much harsher approach to the Jewish scribes and Pharisees throughout his Gospel (see especially Matthew 23). As in Mark, so also in Matthew, Jesus heals the man to demonstrate that as the “Son of Man” he has authority on earth to forgive sins (9:6–​7). The charge of blasphemy is immediately followed by Jesus calling Matthew to be a disciple (9:9–​10), which leads the Pharisees to charge Jesus with guilt by association: “They said to his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?’ ” (9:11), to which Jesus responds, as in Mark, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick” (9:12). But Matthew adds a significant additional statement in response to the charge against him: “Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice” (9:13), quoting from Hosea 6:6 (which Matthew quotes again in 12:7 and 23:23). By the time Matthew is writing (likely in the mid-​80s

 61

S in in the G ospel of M atthew  

|   6 1

of the 1st century) the Jerusalem Temple had been destroyed along with its sacrificial cult. Matthew’s appeal to Hosea’s critique of Temple sacrifice suggests that Matthew understands the forgiveness of sins now to have been accomplished through the ministry and saving death/​resurrection of Jesus. Matthew further develops the accusation of Jesus as a sinner through his inclusion of Q material in 11:18–​19 (compare Luke 7:33–​35). In commenting on the ministry of John the Baptist, Jesus states: “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon’; the Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.” Of course, for Matthew, far from being a sinner, Jesus is an expression of God’s wisdom, which can be seen in Jesus’s actions. His association with tax collectors and sinners does not contaminate him with sin but shows mercy to those in need of God’s gracious forgiveness, those who hear the call of John the Baptist and of Jesus and respond with genuine repentance. The failure to repent results in judgment and condemnation worse than that suffered by Sodom and Gomorrah. The day of judgment is approaching, Jesus warns, and those who do not respond to his preaching with repentance will suffer the most terrible consequences (11:21–​24). Matthew 12 picks up on motifs from the Gospel of Mark regarding two issues related to sin. First, in 12:1–​8 the Pharisees criticize Jesus because by plucking grain on the Sabbath his disciples are violating the oral law regarding Sabbath observance. But Matthew adds a significant retort found only in Matthew that shows his disdain for both the Temple priesthood and the sacrificial cult. In 12:5–​7 Jesus says, “Or have you not read in the law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are guiltless? I  tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have

62

6 2   |   S in in the N ew T estament

condemned the guiltless.” The combination of Jesus’s sharp critique of the priests in the Temple, his quotation from Hosea 6:6 again, and his declaration that “something” greater than the Temple is here (namely, himself!), all point to Matthew’s conviction that Jesus has replaced the Temple sacrificial system, especially now that it is gone. As the Son of Man, Jesus is lord of the Sabbath, and also the one whose own mercy provides forgiveness of sins. The Sabbath controversy continues in Mt 12:9–​ 14 as Jesus heals a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath, another story Matthew takes over from Mark (3:1–​6). Matthew 12 concludes with two more conflict stories with the Pharisees that Matthew draws from a combination of Mark and Q materials. In 12:22–​30 we find a repetition of the charge found already in Mt 9:32–​34 that Jesus gets his power to heal from the “prince of demons” (Mt 9:34), “Beelzebul” (Mt 12:24). As in Mark 3:22–​27, Jesus dismisses this assertion by pointing out that “no city or house divided against itself will stand” (Mt 12:25). Furthermore, drawing on Q material, Jesus declares that if he casts out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has drawn near (Mt 12:28). This leads, then, to Jesus’s countercharge of blasphemy against the scribes and Pharisees in Mt 12:31–​37). “Whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Mt 12:32). This statement introduces a prominent motif in Matthew’s Gospel, namely, the impending judgment of all that is evil (Mt 12:34–​47). Trees and people alike bear either good fruit or bad fruit (Mt 12:33; 7:16–​20). Just as the sign of Jonah warned of the need for repentance, so Jesus warns the religious teachers in particular of the necessity of repentance before the day of judgment arrives (Mt 12:38–​42). In all of these materials from Matthew 12, the debate over sin is prevalent, even if the term itself is not prominent: Sabbath observance, association with the devil, the unforgivable blasphemy against God’s Spirit, the role of a merciful Jesus as a replacement for Temple sacrifice for sin,

 63

S in in the G ospel of M atthew  

|   6 3

and a Jesus who at the same time announces God’s judgment against sin. This judgment motif continues in Matthew 13:36–​ 43, the interpretation of the parable of the wheat and the weeds (13:24–​30). Both the parable and its interpretation occur only in Matthew’s Gospel. In the coming judgment the Son of Man will send his angels, “and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire” (13:41–​42). The next major section where Matthew addresses the topic of sin comes in c­ hapter  18, on issues related to maintaining church order and dealing with conflict in the community of faith. The challenge and accusations of the scribes and the Pharisees was one thing, but how should believers deal with each other when one member sins against another? These practical problems are addressed throughout Matthew 18. The chapter begins with Jesus extolling the centrality of childlike humility for genuine discipleship that leads to God’s Kingdom (18:1–​5). This is followed immediately by a severe warning to anyone who would cause such a believer to sin (18:6, skandalisō). Although Matthew gives no specific example of what kind of stumbling block might be at issue here, the dire consequences for the one who misleads another to sin are clear (18:6–​7). Thus, one of the most grievous sins is causing another member of the church community to sin, that is, to stumble and fall in their faith. As for the practical matter of how to deal with a fellow-​ believer who “sins against you,” Matthew has developed a process that he alone describes (18:15–​18). There are various levels of escalation for dealing with the wrongdoer. First, try to work out the problem one-​on-​one, and if the person listens (admits to the wrongdoing?), then reconciliation can take place. But, second, if that fails to work, then bring along one or two other members of the church as witnesses who can vouch that the one who was wronged called the other individual to account.

64

6 4   |   S in in the N ew T estament

Finally, third, if even that fails to work, then a more formal process of bringing the person up on charges before the church should ensue. And if even this last step fails to get the person to repent of their sin that has caused harm to another church member, then the church as a whole is to expel the person from the congregation. This whole process clearly indicates that Matthew is addressing a developed church community that is figuring out rules of behavior for members of the church. Paul had to deal with a specific case of incest in Corinth (1 Cor 5), but now Matthew has come up with generic guidelines for how to deal with one member of the church who has sinned against another member of the church. This is one way that Matthew addresses problems that can arise in maintaining church order.10 The goal in such cases of conflict is for the one who has sinned to express remorse, which then obliges the one who was wronged to forgive the individual. Of course, this raises the question of how often one is obliged to forgive another person. This is the question Peter asks of Jesus in Matthew 18:21–​22 (cf. Lk 17:4): “ ‘Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?’ Jesus said to him, ‘I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.’ ” Peter appears to think that forgiving another person seven times is excessive. Yet the response of Jesus indicates boundless forgiveness. Seventy times seven! But what happens when forgiveness is not forthcoming? This is the situation that Matthew alone addresses in 18:25–​ 35:  the parable of the unforgiving servant. Jesus tells this parable in order to explain something about the Kingdom of heaven. A servant who could not pay the king what he owed was put up for sale by the king, along with the servant’s family, in order to pay at least part of the debt. But the servant begged and pleaded with the king to have more patience, and that he would pay it all back. The king was moved and took pity on

 65

S in in the G ospel of M atthew  

|   6 5

the servant, forgiving his entire debt (18:23–​27). But the servant who had been forgiven came upon another servant who owed him some money, but when this poor servant asked for more time and patience, the servant who now had no more debt refused and had the man taken off to prison until he paid off the debt. Other servants witnessed the whole affair and told the king what had happened. The king, understandably, was furious that the servant had not extended to the other indebted servant the same kind of pity and forgiveness that he had received from the king for a much greater debt. The king summoned the man and condemned him (18:32–​33):  “You wicked slave! I  forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I  had mercy on you?” The king then withdrew the forgiveness he had bestowed upon the servant and handed him over to be tortured until he paid his entire debt, which clearly would never happen (18:34). Jesus tells this story to illustrate how God will deal with those who fail to show their gratitude for God’s forgiveness by not extending such forgiveness to one’s brother or sister “from your heart” (18:35). This passage, not unlike the Lord’s Prayer, again shows how the conception of sin had morphed to include the notion of indebtedness along with the more traditional understanding of sin as weight or burden. Matthew 23 inveighs at length against the Pharisees and scribes, convicting them of the sins of hypocrisy and pride. They have focused on the minutiae of the law without paying attention to the weightier matters of justice and mercy and faith (23:23). They are also guilty of shedding the blood of the righteous (23:34–​35), clearly a foreshadowing of Jesus’s death in Matthew. Because they are full of hypocrisy, neglect what truly matters in the law, and disdain righteousness, they will not fare well in God’s judgment. “How can you escape being sentenced to hell?” (23:33). Although Matthew does not explicitly label any of the Pharisees’ actions as sinful, there can be no

6

6 6   |   S in in the N ew T estament

doubt that their self-​importance and hypocrisy show that they are full of sin and deceit. This condemnation also shows us the kind of animosity that existed between the Jewish leaders and Matthew’s Jewish-​Christian community in the post-​70 era, as they represent the only two surviving groups of early Judaism toward the end of the 1st century CE.11 Another last judgment passage, Matthew 25:31–​ 46, introduces the sin of neglecting those in need as the reason for condemnation. This passage is unique to Matthew. There are significant parallels to the judgment passage about the unforgiving servant (18:23–​35). Just as the king had handed the merciless servant over to eternal torture, so in the parable of the sheep and the goats from Matthew 25 the king condemns those who had neglected “the least of these my brethren” to eternal punishment (25:40–​ 46). But the righteous ones who had ministered to those in need were granted eternal life (25:46). The central point of the parable is by attending to the needs of those who were hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick, and imprisoned, the righteous had ministered to the king himself. “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me” (25:40). Ministering to those in need turns out to be the defining characteristic (and character) of those who are righteous. Failing to do so warrants the severe judgment of the king:  “Depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (25:41). Here, then, we find an egregious sin of omission, the failure to act in a righteous manner when faced with human need. We turn, finally, to Matthew’s version of the Last Supper in 26:26–​29. After sharing the bread with his disciples, “he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying ‘Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins’ ” (26:27–​28). Matthew has used Mark as a source for this passage, but in the process, Matthew has made explicit what is only implicit

 67

S in in the G ospel of M atthew  

|   6 7

in Mark. Whereas Mark has “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” (Mk 14:24), Matthew reads: “this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt 26:28). This reference to “forgiveness of sins” hearkens back to 20:28, where Matthew borrows the language from Mark 10:45, “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for man.” It reminds us even more of the passage from Matthew’s birth story, that Jesus “will save his people from their sins” (1:21). How? By means of his sacrificial blood, the only time in Matthew that Jesus refers to his blood and associates it with a covenant for the forgiveness of sins. The notion of Jesus dying for human sin is so commonplace in Christian history and theology that we miss the radical character of this idea. Many other prophets had died and shed their blood in faithful witness to God before Jesus came along. But their deaths were not understood in sacrificial terms to atone for human sin. As the post-​resurrection faithful reflected on the death of Jesus, they drew connections between his death and the timing of his death in the immediate context of Passover, when lambs were sacrificed in the Temple to commemorate God’s liberating the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt so long ago. But the offering of Passover lambs had to do with freedom, not with forgiveness of sins. The primary sacrificial ritual that dealt with forgiveness of sins was Yom Kippur. The early Christians read the significance of Yom Kippur into the death of Jesus as a sacrificial death for sins.12 In view of the destruction of the Temple in 70 ce, abruptly ending the entire Jewish sacrificial system, the atoning sacrificial death of Jesus took on transcendent proportions. Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice, the ultimate sin offering. This theology became more thoroughly developed in the Epistle to the Hebrews and was already a prominent feature of Paul’s theology, as we will see in more detail in the chapters that follow.

68

5

Sin in Luke-​Acts

LUKE’S GOSPEL HAS PERHAPS RECEIVED the most attention from scholars regarding sin in the Gospel traditions.1 The reason is due to Luke’s unique materials, many addressing the topic of sin. In particular, Luke develops narratives around a “sinful woman” (Lk 7:38–​50), the prodigal son who repents of his sin against his father (15:11–​32), a repentant tax collector (18:9–​14), and the chief tax collector Zacchaeus (19:1–​10). Luke also draws on parallel materials about sin from both Mark and Q, but Luke has a strong emphasis on forgiving sinners, a motif he continues in the Acts of the Apostles with the preaching of Peter and Paul (2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38–​39; 26:18). Luke’s first reference to sin appears in the prophecy of Zechariah regarding his son John (soon to be the Baptist) in 1:76–​77, “And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to his people by the forgiveness of their sins.” Luke alone includes the birth story of John the Baptist, the forerunner to Jesus, and, in the process, Luke anticipates the baptismal ministry of John through which people repent of their sins and receive God’s merciful forgiveness.2 Luke shares the material from Mark 1:4 about John the Baptist “proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Lk 3:3), along with the Q material about the need to “Bear fruits worthy of repentance” (Lk 3:8; cf. Mt 3:8). But Luke adds dialogue between John the Baptist and Sin in the New Testament. Jeffrey s. Siker, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190465735.001.0001

 69

S in in L uke - A cts  

|   6 9

those seeking baptism (3:10–​14), including “the crowds,” “tax collectors,” and “soldiers,” all asking John what they should do to bear such fruit.3 This material shows Luke’s special interest in tax collectors as responsive and repentant sinners, a motif that Luke will develop more fully in Luke 18 and 19. John the Baptist’s answer is a fairly simple one (3:13): “Collect no more than the amount prescribed for you.” Luke also includes the baptism of Jesus, but goes out of his way to distance Jesus from John’s baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins by having John imprisoned immediately before Jesus is baptized (3:18–​20), rather than following Mark’s narrative structure of having John imprisoned several chapters after Jesus was baptized (by John; Mk 6:17). In this way Luke avoids the entire problem of having Jesus submit to John’s baptism of repentance.4 Luke shares the Q temptation story of Jesus that Matthew also includes (Lk 4:1–​13; Mt 4:1–​11), emphasizing both before and after the story how Jesus is filled with God’s Spirit. Luke also stresses that the devil tempted Jesus with “every temptation” (4:13), departing until “an opportune time” (4:13), which will occur in 22:3 when “Satan entered into Judas.” It is only after the departure of the devil that Jesus, “filled with the power of the Spirit” (4:14), commences his public ministry, going first to his hometown of Nazareth (4:16). Here we have the programmatic core of Jesus’s ministry and message (4:16–​30), a proclamation grounded in the prophet Isaiah (Is 61), a message of God’s radical inclusion of the poor and the oppressed, those outside society’s structures of power. This is a message of reversal and how God’s coming Kingdom will turn things upside down. So radical is Jesus’s message here that he appeals to the Jewish prophets Elijah and Elisha to proclaim that God’s inclusion is even meant for the Gentiles (4:25–​27).5 This is but one indication of how Luke’s Gospel appeals to an increasingly Gentile Christian audience.6 The message of Gentile inclusion

70

7 0   |   S in in the N ew T estament

enrages the hometown Jewish crowd, and they seek to kill Jesus, a not so subtle rejection of his message. But Jesus is undeterred, and he “continued proclaiming the message [of the Kingdom of God] in the synagogues of Judea” (4:43–​44). An unusual reference to sin, found only in Luke, occurs in the context of Jesus calling his first disciples (5:1–​ 11). Jesus boarded a boat belonging to Simon Peter on the lake of Gennesaret. From there Jesus preached to the crowds gathered on the shore. He instructs Peter to go out a bit farther and to let down the nets for a catch. Peter grudgingly agrees to do so, alerting Jesus that “we have worked all night long but have caught nothing” (5:5). When they let down the nets, they caught more fish than their nets could handle. They enlisted the help of another boat to bring in a haul of fish so large that both boats began to sink under the weight of the catch. It is at this point in the story that Luke tells the reader (5:8): “But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, ‘Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!” Luke explains that Peter and the others were astonished at the catch of fish. Why does this lead Peter to say what he does? Here Peter represents for Luke the ideal disciple, for he recognizes in the miraculous catch of fish two things simultaneously: who Jesus is and who Peter is. First, Peter knows that he must be standing in the presence of divine authority and power. All he can do is fall down before Jesus in awe and humility. Second, in the presence of the divine, Peter becomes starkly aware of his own identity as one who falls infinitely short of being worthy of divine favor. He is, as Luke puts it so plainly, a sinful man. The miraculous catch of fish functions as a theophany, an experience of divine revelation. We are reminded of Moses in fear before the burning bush (Ex 3:6) or of Isaiah’s response to God’s call (Is 6:5): “Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!” As one scholar has put it,

 71

S in in L uke - A cts  

|   7 1

“The appearance of the numinous uncovers the sins of human beings and becomes dangerous for them. . . . One cannot see God without dying.”7 By declaring that he is a sinful man, Peter is not confessing any particular sin, rather he is confessing to the human condition and how far he is from holiness. Jesus’s response to Peter is one of reassurance: “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching people” (5:10). Peter and the others come to shore with the boats, and “they left everything and followed him” (5:11). The humble awareness of one’s status before God as a sinner is the beginning of discipleship. Following the healing/​cleansing of a leper (5:12–​16), Luke relates the story about the healing of the paralytic from Mark 2:1–​12 in Luke 5:17–​26. Luke populates the scene at the outset with “Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting by, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem” (5:17). The reader is prepared for the forthcoming conflict that this setting suggests will occur. Luke follows Mark’s description of a paralyzed man being carried on a bed by others who let the man on the bed down through the roof because there was no room in the crowded house. One difference in Luke is the introduction of a “tile” roof, reflecting Luke’s urban setting. As in Mark (2:5), when Jesus saw their faith he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven you” (5:20). The Pharisees respond with a predictable criticism (5:21): “Who is this who is speaking blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” The miracle story has morphed into a conflict story. There is no small irony here. The Pharisees accuse Jesus of sinning (blasphemy) by virtue of his declaring the man’s sins forgiven. Significantly, as in Mark, Luke does not have Jesus say, “I forgive you your sins.” Rather, he announces forgiveness in the passive voice, clearly implying that God is the one who forgives.8 As in Mark, Luke has linked together spiritual malady with physical malady. To be healed physically does not solve the problem of human sinfulness. The declaration of forgiveness appears intended to

72

7 2   |   S in in the N ew T estament

elicit both an awareness and a response. For the paralytic to recover his ability to walk is one thing, but even greater is the man’s opportunity to begin a renewed walk of faith in the work of a gracious God. Jesus goes on to demonstrate his authority to pronounce forgiveness on God’s behalf by then healing the man of his paralysis. But accusations against Jesus by the Pharisees are not over. Immediately after Jesus pronounces the forgiveness of sins upon the paralytic, Jesus invites the tax collector Levi to follow him (5:27). In response to Jesus the new disciple Levi hosts a great banquet for a large crowd, including his tax-​collector buddies. The Pharisees complain (5:30), “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners [hamartõloi]?” Luke records the same response we saw in both Mark and Matthew. Jesus says (5:32), “I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance.” By sharing table fellowship with “tax collectors and sinners” Jesus is enacting the very forgiveness that God has extended to all people who recognize their identity as sinners.9 Jesus continues to defy the traditions of the oral law by defending his disciples’ plucking grain on the Sabbath (6:1–​ 5), and then by healing a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath (6:6–​11). The Pharisees are again at the ready to accuse Jesus of violating the law. The question of what is lawful and what is not lawful on the Sabbath finds redefinition in the ministry of Jesus. It is not a sin to do good on the Sabbath. Far from it. If anything, Jesus’s actions of meeting the human needs of food and restored health suggest that the sin is failing to do that which is life—​giving on the Sabbath. We come next to one of the most important passages in Luke regarding sin, the story of the “sinful woman” who anoints Jesus’s feet during a meal at the home of a Pharisee (Luke 7:36–​50). Although both Mark and Matthew have a similar story (Mk 14:3–​9; Mt 26:6–​13), in my view the differences far outweigh the similarities. For this reason, I view this story

 73

S in in L uke - A cts  

|   7 3

as unique to Luke. This remarkable story begins, once again, with the Pharisees. One of the Pharisees, Simon, has invited Jesus to his home for a meal. (This is a significant parallel to the disciple and tax collector Levi, who had also hosted a banquet for Jesus and his associates.) Jesus accepts the invitation. We are immediately introduced to “a woman in the city, who was a sinner” (7:37). Exactly what her sin was is not expressed, though apparently her sin involved some known violation of social standards. It could be that Luke infers she is a prostitute since she is “in the city.”10 While this is certainly a possibility, nonetheless her sin is not specified—​nor need it be. Although she is identified as a sinner, to Luke she is clearly a penitent sinner who has apparently experienced the kind of forgiveness that Jesus has extended to others. Why else would she go to the Pharisee’s house where she learned Jesus was eating? She went explicitly to see Jesus, despite risking that the Pharisees would view her as an unwelcome sinner. But what motivated her to bring an alabaster jar of ointment (7:37)? She appears to have determined when she heard where Jesus was that she would go and anoint his feet while he was at table in the Pharisee’s house. As was customary, there were no chairs at the low table; rather, one lay down on one’s side, perhaps supported by a cushion, with one’s legs and feet extended behind. This is what it meant to “recline” at table. The woman approached Jesus from behind and was weeping to such a degree that her tears fell on his feet. Rather than using water to wash his feet, she used her tears. Rather than using a towel to dry his feet, she used her hair. This is a remarkably intimate scene, which grows even more intimate (almost erotic) as she then kisses his feet and anoints them with the perfumed ointment (7:38). The host Pharisee is then reintroduced to the story (7:39), and he is scandalized both by the woman and by Jesus for allowing the woman to touch him. Surely, the Pharisee concluded, Jesus could not be a prophet since he was allowing

74

7 4   |   S in in the N ew T estament

this sinful woman to touch him. Jesus responds to what he perceives his host is thinking, calls his attention, and then tells him a parable of two debtors. One owed fifty denarii, and the other owed ten times as much, five hundred denarii. The creditor canceled both debts when they could not pay. Which, Jesus asks, would love the creditor more? The use of the word “love” here is striking, since one would rather expect something like “which would be more thankful?” But the use of the word “love” is a further indication of the intimacy of the scene and of the relationships involved. The Pharisee answers, “I suppose the one for whom he canceled the greater debt” (7:43). It seems like an obvious answer, an answer Jesus affirms. But then this becomes the springboard for Jesus’s rather sharp defense of the so-​called sinful woman and his sharp criticism of Simon the Pharisee, who should know better. Jesus calls Simon’s attention to the woman (7:44): “Do you see this woman?” The question resonates on two levels. Simon had physically seen this woman, and he had been repulsed by her. But on another level, he had failed to truly see the woman weeping and pouring her soul out to Jesus in gratitude as she wiped his feet. Jesus had seen and welcomed the woman’s loving actions; she had been a far better host to Jesus than the Pharisee Simon, the purported host of the meal. Jesus compares the woman’s extravagant hospitality with Simon’s total lack of hospitality (7:44–​46):  “I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her teas and dried them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I  came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment.” Jesus then draws a conclusion from this comparison (7:47): “Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love.”11 As with the story of the paralytic from Luke 5, so also here Jesus is announcing that God has forgiven this woman’s sins.

 75

S in in L uke - A cts  

|   7 5

The proof of her repentance can be seen in her great love, which has been quite literally poured out upon Jesus. The Pharisee also stands in need of forgiveness for his sins, including his most recent sin of judging and misjudging both the woman and Jesus, but he seems completely unaware of this. She has responded to God’s forgiveness with tearful repentance and a loving heart, even at the risk of being shamed by others and creating a rather awkward social scene. But Jesus comes across as being overwhelmed by her gracious actions. And he again declares, this time directly to the woman, “Your sins are forgiven” (7:48). This pronouncement causes even more scandal among those gathered (7:49): “Who is this who even forgives sins?” We are reminded of what Jesus said in 7:23, “Blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me [mē skandalisthē en emoi].” But Jesus ignores the offended table guests and turns his attention once again to the woman:  “Your faith has saved you; go in peace” (7:50). This story exemplifies the kind of reversal that Luke sees taking place in the ministry of Jesus. Rather than distancing himself from “sinners,” Jesus embraces them and allows them to embrace him. Forgiveness begets love and reconciliation. Forgiveness of sins makes another prominent appearance in Luke’s version of the Lord’s Prayer (11:1–​4), which Luke draws from Q material that Matthew enlarged (6:9–​13). The prayer in Luke is compact:  “When you pray, say:  Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread; and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive every one indebted to us; and do not bring us to the time of trial.” Luke uses two different terms here for sin: hamartias (sins) and opheilonti, the passive participle of the verb opheilō, which means to be indebted or to owe. In contrast, Matthew uses the language of “debt” in both clauses (6:12—​“ forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors”). But the contrast between “sins” and “debts” should not be overdrawn. The

76

7 6   |   S in in the N ew T estament

logic of the “sin as debt” metaphor translates a Semitic idiom. When we sin, there is the danger of becoming debt slaves.12 God shows mercy, however, and forgives or releases us from the moral debt of sin. In so doing God becomes the exemplar of how we should treat those who owe a moral debt to us, those who have sinned against us. “Jesus spins human behavior from the cloth of divine behavior; the embodiment of forgiveness in the practices of Jesus’ followers is a manifestation and imitation of God’s own character.”13 Jesus breaks the cycle of debt and repayment whereby one forgives without the expectation of a return. In this way Jesus comes across as “ripping the fabric of the patronage system by treating others as (fictive) kin rather than as greater or lesser than oneself.”14 Luke 15 presents three noteworthy parables about God’s joy over the lost being found: the lost sheep (15:3–​7), the lost coin (15:8–​10), the lost son (15:11–​32). Only the first parable finds a parallel in Matthew from Q material (Mt 18:12–​14). The other two parables appear only in the Gospel of Luke. The significance of the lost being found is spelled out explicitly in 15:7, “There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-​nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” And again in 15:10, “There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” The story of the “lost” son, the prodigal son, is by far the most developed of the parables. Sin, repentance, and forgiveness permeate this story. The story is so well known that a brief summary will suffice. The younger of two brothers demanded that his father give him his share of inheritance. He goes off and squanders all the money “in dissolute living” (15:13). When a famine ravages the country, the now destitute son is in great need, so much so that he hires himself out to feed pigs. He had hit rock bottom—​ degraded, unclean, broke.15 Finally, he “came to himself” (15:17; REB, “came to his senses”) and remembered how much

 7

S in in L uke - A cts  

|   7 7

better off his father’s servants were than he was, for he was dying of hunger. And so he resolved to return to his father with the following admission of guilt: “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands.” So off he went with a penitent heart, hoping to receive some mercy from his father, while at the same time realizing that he was no longer worthy of being his son. What exactly was his sin? Demanding his inheritance rather than waiting for his father to bestow it?, and so dishonoring his father by treating him as if he is already dead? Abandoning his father and brother to manage the estate? Using the inheritance in profligate living? Rejecting his Jewish heritage and going off to a “far country” (15:13) and living like a Gentile? Presuming he could just return home and get a second chance as a servant if no longer as a son? His sin was a combination of all of these things. Having come to his senses, the son follows through with his plan. He returns home. At this point we come to the most amazing part of the parable, for we learn of the depth of love that the father has for the son, even as the father has been dishonored shamed, and rejected by his son. The father sees him coming in the distance and runs to his son to welcome him home. The father has no idea what the son plans to say, and for the father it really does not matter. The son gets out the first part of his planned speech (15:21): “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I  am no longer worthy to be called your son.” But the father’s response is gracious beyond measure. It is almost as if he does not hear his son’s confession and repentance. The father has already forgiven his son. He is simply filled with joy that his son has seemingly come to his senses and returned home. The son is, indeed, no longer worthy “to be called your son.” But that is for the father to decide, and the father had already forgiven him even before he saw him returning in the distance.

78

7 8   |   S in in the N ew T estament

The father restores his son fully to the family (15:22–​ 24): “Quickly, bring out a robe—​t he best one—​a nd put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!” The son has not acted in a worthy manner, but the father has restored him and accepted him because the father’s love is boundless. It is important for the story and its readers that the son is shown to repent of his actions. But his repentance does not cause or merit his father’s forgiveness. His father has already forgiven, and the son has only to accept this forgiveness, to allow the robe and the ring and sandals to be put on him. He has only to humbly accept his father’s gracious response. The older brother in the story is not so gracious and is completely unforgiving. He can only bitterly and angrily refer to his younger brother as “this son of yours,” when speaking to his father (15:30). Forgiveness and reconciliation are not easy. The father reassures his older son that “you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours” (15:31). Still, “we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found” (15:32). Whether the older brother comes around is not answered. He represents one who has been steadfastly faithful, and he resents what appears to be the special treatment his younger sibling has received after sinning so seriously against his father. He is apparently among the “righteous persons who need no repentance” (15:7), and yet at the end of the story we are left wondering if he too does not need to repent of his unforgiving heart. In Luke 17 we come upon sayings of Jesus having to do with one believer causing another to stumble and sin, with parallels in both Matthew 18 and Mark 9. As in Matthew and Mark, so in Luke causing a “little one” to stumble is a very serious matter (17:1–​2). Luke continues with Q material about

 79

S in in L uke - A cts  

|   7 9

forgiveness (17:3–​4):  “If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive. And if the same person sins against you seven times a day and turns back to you seven times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive.” Here it appears that forgiveness is conditioned upon repentance, even though the parable of the prodigal son seems to suggest that forgiveness can be extended quite apart from repentance. But perhaps Luke is addressing a different point here. The faithful are called to confront sinfulness and to be ready to forgive. “Unlike the elder brother in the parable of the lost son (15:11–​32), then, Jesus’ followers are not to stand at a distance from the sinner, but to seek actively for his or her restoration.”16 Jesus advocates limitless forgiveness in the face of repentance, though perhaps one is justified in wondering about the sincerity of repentance if “the same person sins against you seven times a day”! Jesus’s point remains, however, that the faithful disciple is obliged to forgive as often as a person repents. Luke continues the motif of great reversal with the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in 18:9–​14, found only in Luke. Both men go to the Temple to pray. The Pharisee is supposedly a righteous man, but he shows himself to be self-​ righteous, haughty, and condescending (18:11–​12). By contrast, one would presume that the tax collector is a sinful individual. And indeed he is. But he is a repentant sinner who humbly seeks God’s mercy (18:13): “the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ ” As Jesus states in the parable, it is this man who went home justified (18:14), for he had humbled himself before God, unlike the self-​righteous Pharisee who had exalted himself. Another tax collector, Zacchaeus, is at the center of Luke’s most developed story about a tax collector (19:1–​10). Zacchaeus was a “chief tax collector and was rich” (19:2). He

80

8 0   |   S in in the N ew T estament

was curious to see Jesus, but because he was short, he could not see. So he ran ahead and climbed a tree to watch Jesus pass by. But Jesus stopped and called him down by name: “Zacchaeus, hurry and come down; for I must stay at your house today.” He did as Jesus said “and was happy to welcome him” (19:6). Meanwhile, the crowd who saw this were offended (19:7): “He has gone to be the guest of one who is a sinner [hamartōlos].” Once again we see the charge of guilt by association. But Luke’s point is that Jesus has come precisely to invite those burdened by sin to accept God’s forgiveness and so be reconciled with God and others through repentance. Zacchaeus shows his repentance by his response to Jesus (19:8): “Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I  will give to the poor; and if I  have defrauded anyone of anything, I  will pay back four times as much.” Jesus responds with joy (19:9–​10):  “Today salvation has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” As the prodigal son had been restored to his father, here Zacchaeus has been restored as a faithful son of Abraham. As the prodigal son was lost, but now is found, so too was Zacchaeus lost, but now he has been found by Jesus and has been saved. It took the prodigal son losing everything before he came to his senses and repented. Jesus’s welcoming invitation to Zacchaeus brought about his change of heart. In both cases, lost individuals repented of sin and were reconciled to God and to those they had wronged. Luke’s last reference to sin in the Gospel occurs in the resurrection narrative of ­chapter  24, where the risen Jesus appears to the disciples and opens their minds to understand the Scriptures (24:46–​47): “And he said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.’ ” When we read “Thus it is written,”

 81

S in in L uke - A cts  

|   8 1

we expect that Luke is quoting some particular passage from the Jewish Scriptures. Alas, there is no such Scripture about a suffering/​dying/​r ising messiah. This is more assertion than anything else, as the early Christians came to believe that since they experienced Jesus as the messiah who had risen from the dead, it must be in continuity with the Scriptures of old. They reread their Scriptures in light of their conviction that God had raised Jesus from the dead. They certainly had not expected this to happen, and yet they came to believe it. SI N I N TH E ACTS OF THE APOSTLES The reference in Luke 24:47 to the proclamation of repentance and forgiveness of sins anticipates what will happen in the second volume of Luke’s work, the Acts of the Apostles. This passage also recapitulates Luke’s emphasis on the forgiveness of sins that began with the song of Zechariah in 1:77 as he reflected on the birth of his son John, who would baptize people for the forgiveness of sins. In Acts there is one overriding development in the preaching about the forgiveness of sins. This can be seen already in the response of the people to Peter’s preaching about the death and resurrection of Jesus, “whom you crucified” (2:36). Upon hearing this message, the people were “cut to the heart,” and they wanted to know “what should we do?” Peter’s answer is clear and direct (2:38): “Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’ ” I have italicized the central addition to what had been the preaching of John the Baptist before Jesus:  “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.” But now, in light of the death and resurrection of Jesus,

82

8 2   |   S in in the N ew T estament

baptism would be in the name of Jesus Christ, through whom sins would be forgiven.17 We find the same message in Acts 3:19, as Peter addresses the Jewish crowd: “Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah appointed for you, that is Jesus.” The key to repentance and turning to God for forgiveness of sins is the coming of Jesus, as well as the anticipated second coming of Jesus. Peter again proclaims God’s raising of Jesus in 5:31: “God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” Forgiveness of sins is negotiated only through Jesus. In Acts 7 Stephen famously takes up the mantle of preaching a long sermon narrating the story of Israel’s salvation history, culminating in the coming of Jesus. When Stephen sees the risen Jesus standing at the right hand of God he says (7:56), “I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” This confession leads the people to drag him out of the city and stone Stephen to death for such blasphemy. But as he is dying, he prays (7:59–​60), “ ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’ Then he knelt down and cried out in a loud voice, ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them.’ ” As is well known, Luke has taken the very words of Jesus as he died on the cross (Lk 23:34, 46) and has put them on Stephen’s lips as the first martyr to die because of his faith in Jesus as the risen messiah. This is the ultimate prayer for forgiveness of sin, as Stephen cries out for God’s forgiveness upon the very people who are stoning him to death. Luke turns the preaching of Peter from the Jews to the Gentiles in the character of Cornelius, the God-​fearing Gentile centurion, from Acts 10. Peter summarizes his message to Cornelius by appealing to the Jewish Scriptures (10:43): “All the prophets testify

 83

S in in L uke - A cts  

|   8 3

about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” Luke transitions from Peter to Paul in Acts 13, beginning by having Paul and Barnabas preach the Gospel message to Jews in Pisidian Antioch. Appealing to the Jewish Scriptures Paul says (13:38–​39): “Let it be known to you therefore, my brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you; by this Jesus everyone who believes is set free from all those sins from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.” This claim raises an interesting question: From what sins could one not be freed by the law of Moses? Did not Yom Kippur atone for all the sins of the people in conjunction with the people’s own penitence? But such a question was irrelevant to the early Christians, as they were convinced that the death and resurrection of Jesus was necessary for forgiveness of sins and for salvation. Even though Luke does not share Mark and Matthew’s view of Jesus’s death as an atoning death for sins, nonetheless, Luke connects belief in the resurrection of the crucified messiah with forgiveness of sins. In Acts 22 Luke has Paul recount his call/​conversion experience in a long speech addressing a crowd of Jews in Jerusalem. This is an extended version of the narrative from Acts 9. In relating the story, Luke has Paul describe how Ananias spoke to him about how God had chosen Paul to be a witness to Jesus “to all the world” (22:15), namely to Jew and Gentile alike. Ananias then called him to “Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name” (22:16). Again, the linkage between baptism, forgiveness of sins, and calling on the name of Jesus is a distinctive formula that Luke repeats in Acts over and over. A similar scene is struck when Paul stands trial before Herod Agrippa in 26:23–​ 32. As Paul relates his call/​conversion story again, he relates how the risen Jesus commissioned him to go to the Gentiles “so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me [Jesus]” (26:18).

84

8 4   |   S in in the N ew T estament

SYNOPTIC GOSPELS SUMMARY Before turning to consider how the Gospel of John develops the theme of sin, it will be helpful to summarize briefly what we have observed about the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), as well as Luke’s second volume, Acts. Several motifs are common across the Synoptic Gospels, beginning with the preaching of John the Baptist and his practice of baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Each of the Synoptic Gospels drew connections between the Jewish Scriptures, especially the prophetic writings, and their fulfillment in John’s baptism as preparatory for the ministry of Jesus. Each also included the baptism of Jesus, but Matthew and Luke distanced Jesus from any baptism for repentance of sins. Luke went as far as to remove John the Baptist completely from the baptism story by having him arrested immediately before Jesus was baptized. What mattered was the transition from John’s baptism for forgiveness of sins with water to the message that Jesus would come baptizing with the Holy Spirit. The Synoptic Gospels also portrayed Jesus as having the authority to announce that sins had been forgiven by God, causing no small dissension among the Jewish religious authorities, who viewed this as Jesus arrogating to himself the power of God alone. Both the emphasis on John’s baptism for forgiveness of sins and Jesus’s pronouncing forgiveness of sins were also a direct critique of the Temple sacrificial system, which had been the primary vehicle for forgiveness of sins. Another recurring scandal was Jesus’s practice of healing on the Sabbath, which was considered a sinful violation of the Jewish law. But the healings themselves were deemed justification for Jesus’s practice of bringing physical wholeness especially on the Sabbath. All the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus’s critics associate his power to cast out demons with being in league with Beelzebul (the devil) himself, casting out demons by the power of demons.

 85

S in in L uke - A cts  

|   8 5

Although Jesus refuted the charge by showing how illogical it was, nonetheless, the religious authorities could not reconcile Jesus’s actions with their understanding of what it meant to be a faithful, law-​observant Jew. And if the accusation of being in league with the devil was not bad enough, Jesus’s practice of fraternizing with “tax collectors and sinners” was viewed as another indication that he was guilty of some form of sin. Jesus’s response was that he came not to call the righteous, but sinners. Thus, we see a variety of approaches to sin shared by all three Synoptic Gospels, not a surprise given that Mark was a common source for Matthew and Luke. The same can be said for the Q material on sin shared by Matthew and Luke, but unknown to Mark. And yet, each of the Synoptic Gospels also had particular emphases in relation to sin not shared by the others. Mark stresses the radical character of God’s forgiveness, which is proclaimed even before repentance. This is in contrast to the Q material’s understanding that those seeking baptism by John must first bear fruit that indicates a repentant heart. Coming for baptism apart from such repentance was undeserving of forgiveness. Matthew announces already in the birth story of Jesus that he will “save his people from their sins” (1:21). In the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew emphasizes the connection between internal and external sin, namely, that one must repent even the inward attitudes (anger, lust) that can result in outward sin (murder, adultery). Matthew is also concerned with sin as the failure to act in a righteous manner that attends to the plight of those who are downtrodden for one reason or another (25:31–​46). Through the use of various parables, Luke stresses that God is especially interested in saving those who are lost, from sinful tax collectors to a sinful woman. In the process he tells several stories of those whose repentance is demonstrated by their subsequent actions. Luke also emphasizes the need for those who are forgiven in turn to forgive others. In Luke’s second volume,

86

8 6   |   S in in the N ew T estament

Acts, Luke introduces a new motif associated with Christian baptism, namely, the importance of being baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. As we turn to the Gospel of John, we will see that the elevation of Jesus to divine status takes on new dimensions that have significant implications for the Fourth Gospel’s understanding of sin and forgiveness.

 87

6

Sin in the Gospel of John and the Johannine Epistles

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN HAS the loftiest view of Jesus as a divine figure in human form, “the Word become flesh” (1:14). As the ultimate expression of God, Jesus also shows himself in John to be the ultimate arbiter of sin, both savior from sin and accuser of sin. There are a variety of terms that the Gospel of John associates with sin: darkness (1:5; 3:19–​20; 8:12; 12:46), not believing or accepting Jesus (1:10–​11; 3:18; 5:38; 6:36; 12:37), sin in the singular with a collective understanding (1:29; 9:41), sins in the plural indicating individual transgressions (8:7; 8:34, 46; 9:16, 24–​25, 34), sin in connection with a physical malady (5:14; 9:2–​3), sexual sin (8:3–​5), sin as hatred (15:22–​25; 17:14), and sin as betrayal (19:11). John’s Gospel presents sin in a much more oblique manner than the relatively straightforward approach found in the synoptic Gospels with their focus on repentance of sin and forgiveness of sin. In John’s Gospel we do not find such language, nor does John associate Jesus with “tax collectors and sinners” or with casting out demons. We do find Jesus being accused of violating the Sabbath in ­chapters 5 and 9 of John, which leads the Pharisees to conclude that Jesus is a sinner (9:24). John’s Jesus is also accused of blasphemy (10:33), not unlike the Synoptic Gospels depicting the scribes and Pharisees outraged by Jesus’s claim to have the authority to Sin in the New Testament. Jeffrey s. Siker, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190465735.001.0001

8

8 8   |   S in in the N ew T estament

pronounce divine forgiveness (Mk 2:7). The words for “sin” in John are limited to hamartia (12x) and hamartanō (4x), though the idea of sin as failure to believe in Jesus, and hence to remain in darkness and be alienated from God, permeates John’s Gospel. As is well known, the Gospel of John begins with a dramatic prologue (1:1–​18) that presents Jesus quite literally on a cosmic scale as the agent of creation and the one who gives life and light to all people. In short, Jesus is the divine Word become flesh (1:14). Since Jesus was preexistent with God and as God there can be no doubt that even in his fleshly form Jesus is perfect. A  significant implication for John is that physical matter, bodily existence, is not sinful. Humans are certainly corrupted by sin, but that does not make the physical world sinful by definition, in contrast to what many Gnostics argued.1 The belief that God became incarnate in the person of Jesus is a mystery that Christians have been trying to explain from the outset, but the conviction that Jesus came to redeem humanity from sin is expressed perhaps nowhere more eloquently than in the Gospel of John. The key passage comes shortly after the prologue, with the introduction of John the Baptist (whose presence already interrupts the prologue in 1:6–​8 and 1:15). John appears and makes it clear that he is not the messiah (1:19–​26), although the Gospel of John never states why John the Baptist is baptizing people. Unlike the Synoptic Gospels which stress that he is baptizing for the forgiveness of sins, in the Gospel of John, he serves as one who bears witness to “the one who is coming after me” (1:27), whose sandals the Baptist is unworthy to untie. This introduction gives way to 1:29, “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, ‘Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!’ ” This is the only place in the New Testament where Jesus is referred to as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” (John 1:36 is the only

 89

S in in the G ospel of J ohn and the J ohannine E pistles  

|   8 9

other place that refers to Jesus as the “Lamb of God.”) While sacrificial lamb imagery does appear elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 1 Cor 5:7; 1 Pt 1:19; Rv 5:6),2 this singular reference to Jesus as “the Lamb of God” has generated considerable debate among scholars as to its origin and what it means that this Lamb “takes away the sin of the world.” The Lamb of God imagery resonates with several parallels from the Jewish Scriptures, with which John’s Gospel is very familiar. First, there are clear connections to the Suffering Servant song of Isaiah 53:6–​7, which describes the servant as a lamb upon whom human sins are laid: All we like sheep have gone astray;   we have all turned to our own way, and the LORD has laid on him   the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,   yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,   and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,   so he did not open his mouth. The Isaiah 53 passage became a favorite proof-​text for early Christians as they sought to explain the meaning of Jesus’s death in ways that showed continuity with their Jewish Scriptures. Elsewhere in the New Testament we find Isaiah 53 employed to refer to the death of Jesus: Acts 8:32; 1 Pt 2:22–​25; Rv 14:4–​5. Second, the “Lamb of God” is often connected with the Passover lamb, and there are clear allusions to the paschal lamb in John’s Gospel. Unlike the Synoptic Gospels, where Jesus dies on the first day of Passover, in John’s Gospel Jesus dies one day earlier—​on the Day of Preparation, when the Passover lambs were sacrificed in the Jerusalem Temple in preparation for the Passover feast celebrated that evening.3 John’s Gospel further

90

9 0   |   S in in the N ew T estament

connects Jesus to the Passover lamb by stating that while Jesus was on the cross a sponge soaked in wine was raised up to him on a branch from a hyssop bush (19:29). This detail is significant because the blood of the Passover lamb was applied to the doorposts of the Hebrews with a hyssop branch (Ex 12:22). One final connection is that the Passover lamb had to be ritually pure with no broken bones (Ex 12:46), and John’s Gospel goes out of its way to quote this passage as a fulfillment of Scripture in John 19:36. All of these connections make it most likely that the “Lamb of God” in John’s Gospel is a definite reference to the Passover lamb that was offered in the Temple. This does not mean that John did not also apply the Suffering Servant language from Isaiah 53 to Jesus.4 Far from it. John liked to pile on multiple images and motifs in an attempt to state just how significant Jesus was.5 For John the importance of Jesus is inexhaustible and there is not sufficient language to express the fullness of his identity. But “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” comes close. Most intriguing about John’s use of the Lamb of God title, especially with its Passover overtones, is the simple observation that the Passover lamb had nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins in Israel’s traditions. Rather it symbolized God’s saving the Hebrew people from slavery in Egypt, delivering them from Pharaoh, and leading them to the promised land they would inherit. And yet here in John 1:29 we find John the Baptist declare that precisely as the Lamb of God Jesus “takes away” the “sin” of the world. Several observations are important here. First, John’s use of the verb “take away” (airō) has overtones of bearing away the weight of sin, especially with a combination of Isaiah 53 and the Passover lamb.6 The “sin of all” was “laid upon” the Suffering Servant as a burden to carry or take away. This language reminds us of another central Jewish religious ritual: Yom Kippur, where (as Leviticus 16:21–​23 details) the scapegoat bears away all the sins of the people into the

 91

S in in the G ospel of J ohn and the J ohannine E pistles  

|   9 1

wilderness, where it will die—​and the people’s sins with it. Similarly, the Suffering Servant will be led to slaughter like a lamb; it will die bearing all the sins of the people. Second, John 1:29 states that as the Lamb of God Jesus takes away the “sin” of the world. The use of the singular “sin” rather than the plural “sins” suggests that the Lamb of God will not remove individual sins, but the sinful condition in which humans find themselves.7 By having John the Baptist state that Jesus is the Lamb of God who will take away sin, the Gospel of John announces at the outset the fundamental message of the Gospel as a whole: Jesus will die a sacrificial death that will atone for the sin of the whole world. This is not simply the annual ritual bearing away of sin envisioned in the Yom Kippur ceremony; rather, this is a cosmic taking away of human sinfulness. This is an even more expansive understanding than what we saw in Matthew 1:21, “You are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” What the author of John’s Gospel has done is to take elements of both the Passover ritual and the Yom Kippur ritual and recombine them into a whole new and more powerful ritual in light of the suffering and death of Jesus. John essentially creates a Yom Kippured Passover whereby Jesus takes on the meaning and significance of both central Jewish festivals. Jesus is both the Passover lamb and the scapegoat for Yom Kippur who bears away the sin not only of the Jewish people but also of the entire world—​and not as a temporary measure, but as a once-​for-​all event since he does so as God’s Son.8 Elsewhere in John this conviction finds expression in the dialogue with Nicodemus from John 3. There Jesus states (3:14–​ 15): “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” The language of “lifted up” in John has a double meaning based on the verb hypsoō, which means both to physically lift something up (i.e., Jesus on the cross) and to

92

9 2   |   S in in the N ew T estament

glorify (i.e., the crucified and now risen messiah). Perhaps the best expression of this belief is the famous passage that follows immediately afterward, John 3:16: “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.” Unstated in this formulation is the understanding that God gave his Son up to death for the forgiveness of human sin. In John 5:1–​16 we find the story of Jesus healing a paralyzed man in Jerusalem. After Jesus heals him, we learn that it was the Sabbath. This causes a controversy with the Jewish leaders because, by healing the man on the Sabbath, Jesus violated the Sabbath law (5:9–​16). The violation of the Sabbath had become apparent when some Jews saw the healed man carrying his mat on the Sabbath, something prohibited by Sabbath law. When told he was violating the law the man responded, “ ‘The man who made me well said to me, ‘Take up your mat and walk,’ ” shifting the blame to Jesus (5:11), even though he did not know Jesus’s name. Jesus later found him in the temple and said to him (5:14), “See, you have been made well! Do not sin any more [mēketi hamartane], so that nothing worse happens to you.” The connection Jesus makes between sin and physical illness here is surprising, since later in John 9:2–​3 Jesus expressly denies any such connection. Nevertheless, when the man learns Jesus’s name, he reports it to the Jewish leaders (5:15), which in turn results in the Jews persecuting Jesus “because he was doing such things on the Sabbath” (5:16). Jesus justifies his healing on the Sabbath: “My Father is still working” (5:17), which only makes the Jewish leaders angrier. The real sin, a culpable missing of the mark for John, is the failure of the Jewish leaders to see Jesus’s Sabbath healing as testimony to his identity as God’s Son who comes bringing life. Although the story of the woman caught in adultery from John 7:53–​8:11 is not part of John’s original Gospel, it has been part of John’s Gospel from early in the life of the church.9 In

 93

S in in the G ospel of J ohn and the J ohannine E pistles  

|   9 3

some ways it parallels the story of the “sinful woman” from Luke 7, though in other ways it is unique. In the story the woman caught in the act of adultery is to be judged by the townspeople (8:1–​3), and the law of Moses is referenced as providing the just penalty for such a sinful act: stoning to death. The scribes and the Pharisees ask Jesus what he thinks about it, which leads to Jesus’s memorable statement: “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” (8:7). The crowd slowly disperses as Jesus crouches and writes on the ground. After all had left, Jesus “straightened up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ ” (8:8–​10). In response she says, “No one, sir,” to which Jesus replies, “Neither do I  condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again” (8:11). Several things stand out. First, the woman is clearly guilty under Mosaic law, which Jesus does not deny. But Jesus appeals for mercy rather than severe judgment, and he does so on the basis that all humanity is guilty of sin. By saying that he does not condemn her, Jesus is also saying that she stands forgiven by God. But forgiveness of sin comes with an opportunity and an obligation, both of which are the same—​not to sin again. Jesus calls her to take advantage of her forgiveness as she goes on her way. Significantly, there is no indication that the woman has repented of anything. There is nothing like the tears of the sinful woman from Luke 7. In addition, the words of Jesus at the end of the scene, “Do not sin again” (8: 11), are exactly the same words spoken by Jesus to the healed paralytic from John 5:14. What the connection between these two stories might be is unclear, though in both accounts Jesus is quite clear about the importance of not taking one’s healing/​forgiveness for granted.10 What follows in John 8:21–​59 is a scene between Jesus and the Pharisees that escalates in antagonism as the passage progresses. It does not begin on a particularly congenial note

94

9 4   |   S in in the N ew T estament

either. Jesus says to them (8:21), “I am going away, and you will search for me, but you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.” He continues with a slight expansion in 8:24, “I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I AM.” Here Jesus gives the reason that they will die in their sins—​because they fail to believe that Jesus is the path to God. The end of 8:24 is open to various translations. At issue is how to translate “you will die in your sins unless you believe hoti ego eimi (that I am).” “That I am” what, who? While the NRSV translates it with the pronoun “he” as understood (“unless you believe that I am he”), the REB translates “unless you believe that I am what I am,” an allusion to the divine name revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14. John, of course, is using the Septuagint version of the Jewish Scriptures, and where the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14 reads “I am who I  am” the Septuagint translates it as egō eimi, simply “I am.” Thus when Jesus says, “you will die in your sins unless you believe that I AM,” Jesus is revealing his identity with the divine name.11 Unless they believe that he comes from God and reveals God, they will die in their sins. In 8:28 Jesus restates the claim of his divine identity, this time with a clear allusion to his being both lifted up and glorified on the cross: “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I AM.” John reports that many believed in him as he spoke (8:30), but then Jesus challenges even these would-​be believers. “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (8:31–​32). But they misunderstand Jesus (another favorite ploy of John) and claim that as descendants of Abraham they have never been slaves to anyone. So how can Jesus say, “You will be made free?” As it turns out, Jesus is talking about freedom on a much deeper level (8:34): “Very truly, I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.” And since no slave is truly free, only if the Son sets the slave free will they truly be freedmen of

 95

S in in the G ospel of J ohn and the J ohannine E pistles  

|   9 5

the Son (8:36). In other words, for John the only true freedom from sin is found through believing in Jesus. When the Jews object that Abraham is their father, Jesus tells them that their true father is the devil (8:44), for they are seeking to kill him rather than believing in him.12 Again, it all boils down to whether they believe in Jesus. The failure to believe is the sin that leads them to reject Jesus. Jesus retorts (8:46): “Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?” This leads to a heated debate about who can truly claim Abraham. Jesus then makes the ultimate claim:  “Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day; he saw it and was glad” (8:56). This only further mystifies and angers the Jews (8:57), “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Again, they miss the depth level on which Jesus is speaking, and they get lost in the literal meaning of the words. Jesus, then, for one last time makes clear exactly what he is saying, in all its scandalous fullness (8:58): “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I AM.” And we are reminded of the prologue from John 1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Before Abraham was, “I AM.” This bold claim of divine identity results in the people picking up stones to throw at him for his blasphemous statement (8:59). But Jesus escapes and leaves the Temple. Turning to John 9, we come to a long narrative about Jesus healing a man born blind, found only in John’s Gospel. This passage (9:1–​41) begins and ends by discussing sin. After encountering a man blind from birth (9:1) Jesus’s disciples ask: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” The disciples presumed a connection between sin and physical malady. Either God foreknew that the man would sin and, in essence, punished him in advance by blinding him from birth or the man’s parents had sinned and God’s punishment was visited upon the otherwise innocent son. Jesus responds to this

96

9 6   |   S in in the N ew T estament

presumption by saying (9:3), “Neither this man nor his parents sinned.” Rather, “he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him” (9:3). Although the reader anticipates the healing of the blind man that will follow, John seeks to make a more important point by developing the interplay between the surface and depth meanings of sight and blindness. We are also reminded of John 6:28–​29, which also refers to “the work of God”: “Then they [a crowd following Jesus] said to him, ‘What must we do to perform the works of God?’ Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.’ ” As John 9 unfolds, the man born blind will not only see physically, but he will also progressively “see” spiritually and come to believe in Jesus (9:35–​38), hence doing the work of God. The Pharisees, in turn, may be able to see physically, but they will show themselves to be spiritually blind and, as a result, their “sin remains” (9:41). The whole story is full of double meaning and the contrast between surface and depth levels of understanding. The Feast of Tabernacles, also known as the Feast of Booths or Sukkot, provides the larger context for the narrative (7:2, 37).13 The last day of this feast (7:37), which celebrated the fall harvest, featured both a water ritual and a light ceremony, since water and light were essential for a good harvest. It is precisely in this context that Jesus identifies himself as the source of “living water” (7:37–​39) and as “the light of the world” (8:12). Jesus subsumes the true meaning of the festival, just as earlier he had combined in his person the deeper meaning of both Passover and Yom Kippur. Early Christians were not only concerned to show continuity with their Jewish Scriptures but also with the rich ritual practices associated with the most important Jewish festivals that centered around the Jerusalem Temple. Just as early Christians read their (Jewish) Scriptures in light of their faith in Jesus, so also did they come to understand the Jewish festivals in light of Jesus.

 97

S in in the G ospel of J ohn and the J ohannine E pistles  

|   9 7

In 9:5 Jesus expands upon the “I am” statement from 8:12, “As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” Jesus then anoints the blind man’s eyes with a mixture of mud and saliva, and tells him to “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam (which means Sent)” (9:7). Throughout John’s Gospel Jesus identifies himself as the one who has been “sent” by his Father.14 Just as Jesus has been “sent” by God, so the man born blind is healed by washing in the pool of the sent one, namely, by washing himself in Jesus—​perhaps a baptismal metaphor.15 John piles on the imagery. Initially, the now healed man born blind can only identify the one who healed him as “the man called Jesus” (9:11) in response to his neighbors’ questions. When the Pharisees next ask the man to tell them what happened and ask him what he thinks about Jesus, even though by healing the man Jesus has apparently violated the Sabbath, the man responds, “He is a prophet” (9:17). The Pharisees next interrogate the man’s parents, who are afraid of being put out of the synagogue (9:22), and so refer them back to their adult son. At this point in the story the Pharisees have arrived at a conclusion about Jesus. Previously they were divided because on the one hand Jesus had violated the Sabbath and so must be a “sinner” (9:16), but on the other hand he had performed a miraculous deed by healing the man. Now, however, addressing the man for a second time, the Pharisees have made a decision about Jesus (9:24): “Give glory to God! We know that this man is a sinner.” The man, in turn, shows a deepening faith in Jesus: “I do not know whether he is a sinner. One thing I know, that though I was blind, now I see” (9:25). The man continues to defend Jesus in 9:31–​33, “We know that God does not listen to sinners, but he does listen to one who worships him and obeys his will. . . . If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” At this the Pharisees condemn the former blind man by again drawing a connection between sin and his having

98

9 8   |   S in in the N ew T estament

been born blind (9:34):  “ ‘You were born entirely in sins, and are you trying to teach us?’ And they drove him out.” Jesus has been physically absent throughout the questioning of the neighbors, the man, his parents, and a second questioning of the man by the Pharisees, culminating in his expulsion for defending Jesus as a prophet from God rather than as a “sinner” for violating the Sabbath law. But now, when Jesus hears that the man had been cast out, Jesus finds the man and asks him (9:35), “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” When the man asks who that might be, Jesus responds (9:37), “You have seen him, and the one speaking with you is he.” The man has seen Jesus not only with his newfound physical sight but also with his ever-​deepening spiritual sight. The man now makes the ultimate confession (9:38): “ ‘Lord, I believe.’ And he worshiped him.” The story has a postlude of sorts in 9:39–​41, in which some of the Pharisees overhear Jesus saying that he came into the world for judgment, “so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind” (9:39). And they inquired of Jesus, “ ‘Surely we are not blind, are we?’ Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains’ ” (9:40–​41). The story has come full circle. The man born blind was presumed to have been born without sight because of sin. But Jesus countered that his being born blind was so that the work of God might be made manifest. The work of God was to come to believe that Jesus was the one sent by God, that Jesus was the prophet, the Son of Man, the Lord. And so the man has come to believe. He has come not only to physical sight but also to the deepest spiritual insight. By contrast, the Pharisees have shown themselves to be blind sinners for failing to perceive that far from being a sinner for breaking the Sabbath, Jesus was the one sent by God for true judgment. Their false judgment of the man born blind as a sinner only further confirms their sin. The failure of the

 9

S in in the G ospel of J ohn and the J ohannine E pistles  

|   9 9

Pharisees to believe in Jesus shows their real identity as spiritually blind sinners.16 The conclusion of the Pharisees expressed in 9:24, that Jesus is a sinner, continues to find expression as the Gospel proceeds. In 10:31–​33 the Jews again pick up stones to stone Jesus to death because of his blasphemous statements, in this case Jesus saying, “The Father and I are one” (10:30). The charge against Jesus was that “you, though only a human being, are making yourself God” (10:33). Jesus’s response is a call to believe in him because of the works of God he is doing (10:37–​ 38). The first half of John’s Gospel, the public ministry of Jesus, ends in 12:37 with an editorial summary:  “Although he had performed so many signs in their presence, they did not believe in him.” His miraculous works and his teaching had been rejected. Although some had come to believe in him, the people as a whole did not. Jesus had announced his purpose: “I have come as light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me should not remain in the darkness” (12:46), but by rejecting Jesus the world remained in sin. Jesus withdrew from his public ministry (12:36) and shifted his focus to a private ministry to his disciples, preparing them for his departure and its aftermath. The last discourse of Jesus in John (13–​17) encourages the disciples to abide in his love (15:9–​12), exemplified in his serving them even as their teacher and master (13:13–​16). By contrast, Jesus warns his disciples that the world he came to save would respond only with hatred for them, as it had with hatred for him (15:20–​21). Those who rejected Jesus had no excuse for their sin of not believing since he had told them the truth (15:22):  “If I  had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.” Similarly with the works of Jesus (15:24):  “If I  had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not have sin. But now they have seen and hated both me and my Father.” Jesus had both spoken

01

1 0 0   |   S in in the N ew T estament

and acted in ways that should have led to belief that Jesus had been sent from God and that Jesus came to offer salvation, life, and freedom from sin.17 He was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, but the world has to accept and believe in him to be delivered from sin, which it has failed to do. Therefore, people are liable to God’s judgment for the sin of rejecting God’s messiah. The Gospel of John is very much on the attack against all who refuse to believe. Jesus promises that when he departs, he will send the Spirit to defend his disciples against the world. At the same time the Spirit, the Advocate, will convict the world of its sin (16:8) “because they do not believe in me” (16:9). The private discourse of Jesus with his disciples comes to a stop with the arrest of Jesus in John 18. After Jesus is interrogated by the high priest (18:19–​24), Jesus is sent to Pilate for questioning and eventually sentenced to death. Pilate is presented as being frustrated by Jesus’s refusal to speak (19:10):  “Do you not know that I  have power to release you, and power to crucify you?” But Jesus is cool and collected in response (19:11): “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” Although Jesus is in the midst of being judged by Pilate, Jesus is the one who pronounces judgment. Once again we see John’s sharp attack on the Jewish leaders for their role in delivering Jesus to Pilate for execution (19:6). Their sin and guilt remain since, in John’s view, they had reason to know better. For John there is no forgiveness of the sin of persistent unbelief. We come, finally, to the last reference to sin in John’s Gospel, in the resurrection narrative of John 20:19–​23. The risen Jesus had already appeared to Mary Magdalene (20:11–​18), and now he appears to the disciples gathered in a locked room “for fear of the Jews” (20:19). Jesus breathes upon them and they receive the Holy Spirit (20:22) that had been promised. And then Jesus

 10

S in in the G ospel of J ohn and the J ohannine E pistles  

|   1 0 1

empowers his disciples with the responsibility of forgiving or retaining the sins of others (20:23): “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”18 As Jesus had exercised judgment upon those who failed to believe as the ultimate sin, so now the disciples of Jesus are to continue preaching so that people may come “to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God,” and that through believing they may have life in his name (20:31). But if people continue to respond with disbelief, even in light of the resurrection, John’s judgment is that their sins are retained. THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES The Epistles of John (1, 2, 3 John) have long been recognized as coming from a similar thought-​world and background as the Gospel of John, if not necessarily from the same author or the same time addressing exactly the same issues.19 In general, it appears that these letters develop the theological vision established in the Gospel of John. The community associated with John’s Gospel has shifted from battles with non-​Christian Jews outside the community to intramural battles among different subgroups of the community’s believers.20 For this reason it makes sense to treat the development of sin in the Johannine Epistles here, as an extension of the discussion of sin in the Gospel of John. We begin with the development of sin in 1 John, as it is the longest and most significant of the three letters. There are sixteen references to “sin” in the singular, and seven references to “sin” in the plural in the five chapters of 1 John. In every instance the word group from hamartia is used (1:7, 9; 2:1–​2, 12; 3:4–​5, 8–​9; 4:10; 5:16–​18), with the verb hamartanō occurring a total of seven times (1:10; 2:1; 3:6 and 8).21 Whereas “sin” in the Gospel of John has primarily to do with the failure of the Jews

012

1 0 2   |   S in in the N ew T estament

to believe in Jesus as the messiah and Son of God, in 1 John there appears to be a presumption that the author is addressing believers. At issue is how the believers are treating each other. Thus, while sin in the Gospel of John has to do with unbelief, in 1 John it has more to do with the ethical behavior of believers toward each other.22 The same kind of dualism between “light” and “darkness” that we saw in John’s Gospel (1:4, 7; 3:19–​21; 8:12; 9:5; 11:9; 12:35, 46) also appears in 1 John (1:5, 7; 2:8).23 The author encourages his audience to “walk in the light” (1:7), which leads to a supportive fellowship within the community of faith. Believers can be confident that “the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin [apo pasēs hamartias]” (1:7). This emphasis on the atoning death of Jesus is much more explicit in 1 John than in John’s Gospel, though the reference in John 1:29 to the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” has the same basic meaning, if without reference to Jesus’s cleansing blood. 1 John thus reassures believers that their sins have been forgiven by virtue of trusting in the salvific death of Jesus (also in 2:12 and 4:10). Anyone who thinks they have not sinned is self-​deceived (1:8, 10). Rather, the faithful must confess their sins with the assurance that “he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1:9). In 1:10 the author reiterates that true believers recognize that they have sinned. No particular sin or sins are referenced here, rather the author of 1 John makes a general statement about sin:  those who are faithful are cognizant both that they are sinners and that God forgives sins by means of the atoning blood of Jesus. Implicit here is the conviction that sacrifice in the Jerusalem Temple no longer atones for sin, if it ever did so fully. The theme of sin continues in 1 John 2:1, “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.” Again, there does not appear to be any particular sin in view

0 13

S in in the G ospel of J ohn and the J ohannine E pistles  

|   1 0 3

here. Immediately in 2:2 the author is eager to assure the faithful that if anyone does sin, “we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” This is the same “advocate” referred to in John’s Gospel (14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). After offering this reassurance, 1 John repeats in 2:2 the same basic thought from 1:7, that Jesus is “the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” This statement is parallel to John 1:29 about the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, as well as to John 3:16 regarding the depth of God’s love for the world—​that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him might have eternal life. 1 John 3:4–​10 introduces a dualism between “everyone who commits sin” (3:4) and “everyone who does what is right” (3:7). The author equates committing sin with being “guilty of lawlessness,” for “sin is lawlessness” (3:4). Of course this equation raises the question of what is meant by the term “lawlessness.” In Psalm 50:5 (LXX) we find a similar equation of “sin” and “lawlessness:” “I know my anomia and my hamartia is ever before me.” The word anomia can also be translated as “iniquity” or “transgression.” It may be a generic reference to violating some aspect of the Jewish law, perhaps to a relaxed approach to the law bordering on libertine practices. But observance of the Jewish law does not appear to be at issue in 1 John. It may also have a more apocalyptic sense, especially in light of 1 John’s reference to the “works of the devil” (3:8, 10) and the Antichrist (2:18–​21).24 1 John 3:4 finds further development in 3:5–​6, where the significance of Jesus in relation to sin is explained. Jesus was revealed “to take away sins.” This thought restates what we have already seen in 1:7, though in more general terms. The reason he can take away sins is because “in him there is no sin” (3:5). The identity of Jesus as the sinless atonement for human sin has moral ramifications for the believer. “No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known

014

1 0 4   |   S in in the N ew T estament

him” (3:6). This statement approaches the topic of sin from two sides. The one who abides in Jesus by definition does not sin. By implication the one who sins does not see, know, or abide in Jesus. The language of “abiding” has several parallels with the Gospel of John, where Jesus tells his disciples (15:10):  “If you keep my commandments, you will abide [meneite] in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide [menō] in his love.”25 The language of “abiding” has overtones of “indwelling.” In John 6:56, in the aftermath of Jesus feeding five thousand and the bread of life discourse, we find an allusion to Eucharistic language that invokes this understanding of “abiding”:  “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” For John, the literal ingestion of the Eucharistic elements affords a spiritually mutual abiding with Jesus. The author of 1 John is concerned that the faithful not be deceived by those who are sinful (3:7–​8) and hence “children of the devil.” The probable social and ecclesial context of 1 John provides important insight for understanding just what situation the author is addressing. In this discussion I  find Raymond Brown’s general reconstruction of developments in the Johannine community persuasive.26 1 John 2:18–​19 makes it clear that the community has suffered an internal split that has been the source of great trouble. The venom with which the author of John writes is apparent: “Children, it is the last hour! As you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. From this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for it they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But by going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us.” It is difficult to imagine a sharper “us” versus “them” split than in this passage. And what have “they” done? They have “gone out” from us. They have left the community.

0 15

S in in the G ospel of J ohn and the J ohannine E pistles  

|   1 0 5

Why? Apparently over rival understandings of the true nature of the Gospel message. And what is the true Gospel? In 1 John 4:2–​3 we find a litmus test for true believers versus false believers from the perspective of this author. “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.” The same view is expressed in 2 John 7: “Many deceivers have gone out in the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist!” The fight between “us” and “them” is over Christology and whether Jesus truly came “in the flesh” and whether his saving activity took place in the flesh. The docetic view that Jesus did not come in the flesh suggests an early form of gnostic spirituality that advocated only the appearance of a physical body, or that salvation came through Jesus’s spirit and not by any bodily action.27 The fight is with those Christians who affirm the incarnation (as in John 1:14) and those Christians with a docetic understanding of Jesus as coming only in the Spirit and not in the flesh. Such a docetic Christology is from “the antichrist” (4:3), and this false message is spread by “false prophets” (4:1). “They” are from the world, whereas “we” are from God (4:5–​ 6). By applying the litmus test of incarnational Christology believers will “know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (4:6).28 The author of 1 John emphasized that “the blood of Jesus his [God’s] Son cleanses us from all sin” (1:7). Jesus has provided “the atoning sacrifice for our sins” (2:2), as well as for the sins of the whole world. His blood sacrifice must take place in the flesh. From the perspective of 1 John, the false believers do not deny that salvation comes through Jesus, rather they deny that it has anything to do with his fleshly existence. But, for 1 John, the cleansing and atoning blood of Jesus has everything

016

1 0 6   |   S in in the N ew T estament

to do with his physical body, his flesh and blood, which the faithful celebrate and commemorate in the Eucharist. Rival beliefs have moral implications. This can be seen especially in 2 and 3 John in regard to the offering of hospitality. After the statement in 2 John 7 about the deceivers who deny Christ having come in the flesh, the author warns the audience to “be on your guard” (v. 8). If anyone should come bearing this false doctrine, do not extend hospitality to them (v. 10), “for to welcome is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person” (v. 11). This is guilt by association. As with the Gospel of John, failure to believe in Jesus is sinful, but in the Epistles of John, belief in Jesus must be of a certain kind, one that affirms his coming in the flesh. In 3 John we find that the refusal of hospitality advocated in 2 John has now been turned against the author and his associates. “Diotrephes  .  .  .  does not acknowledge our authority . . . he refuses to welcome the friends, and even prevents those who want to do so and expels them from the church” (v. 9–​ 10). Whether the reason Diotrephes refuses to extend hospitality is because of a dispute over Christology is unclear. What is clear is that beliefs have moral and ethical repercussions, so that the internal disputes within the Johannine community have resulted in a splintered community of believers where one group is adamant that the other group consists of sinners, false believers. This brings us back to 1 John 3, where sin is revealed in behavior: “The children of God and the children of the devil are revealed in this way: all who do not do what is right are not from God, nor are those who do not love their brothers and sisters” (3:10). One can hear in this complaint that “they” have failed to love “us” as brothers and sisters. This shows that “they” do not come from God because “those who have been born of God do not sin” (3:9), and the failure to show love is sinful. 1 John returns to this theme of love as the ultimate test of true belief in 4:19–​20: “We love because he first loved us. Those who say, ‘I love God,’ and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for

0 17

S in in the G ospel of J ohn and the J ohannine E pistles  

|   1 0 7

those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen.” Has the community of 1 John experienced hatred from those who “went out” from them? What might it mean to love brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree about Jesus coming in the flesh? Clearly 1 John views such individuals as antichrists and false believers. Does their rival and sinful belief mean not extending love to them? One final passage about sin in 1 John calls for attention, as it has been the locus of significant debate, 5:16–​17. It comes across almost as an addendum to the letter, adding both clarification and confusion to our understanding of sin in 1 John. The passage reads: “If you see your brother or sister committing what is not a mortal sin, you will ask, and God will give life to such a one—​to those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin that is mortal; I do not say that you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not mortal.” Apparently 1 John conceives of different levels of sin. Some sins do not lead to death and can be forgiven. Other sins do lead to death.29 Most likely the reference to “sins that are not mortal,” concerns sins that can be forgiven, minor sins. Such sins do not result in spiritual death. But, there are greater sins that are mortal, namely that result in a kind of spiritual death; such sins apparently cannot be forgiven, and 1 John seems to suggest that praying about such sins is relatively pointless.30 This notion of an unforgivable sin coheres with the Synoptic Gospels’ understanding of the sin against the Holy Spirit, which cannot be forgiven (Mk 3:29; Mt 12:31). 1 John does not specify exactly what constitutes an unforgivable sin, but clearly the understanding that one could possibly commit such a sin was a widespread conviction in early Christianity.

018

7

Sin in the Letters of Paul and Deutero-​Paul

IT IS NO UNDERSTATEMENT TO say that the letters of Paul have been the most generative for subsequent Christian discourse regarding sin. As we will see, especially in his letter to the Romans, Paul develops both sophisticated and highly complex understandings of sin that have been a central arena of debate throughout Christian history. Well did the author of 2 Peter write regarding Paul’s letters (3:16–​18): regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability.

Nowhere are Paul’s letters more demanding than in their discussion of sin and its relation to the Jewish law, to flesh, to the Spirit, to baptism and Eucharist, to faith, to behavior in the Christian community, to death in general, and especially to the specific death of Jesus and its consequences. Paul manages to coordinate his understanding of sin around all of these Sin in the New Testament. Jeffrey s. Siker, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190465735.001.0001

0 19

S in in the L etters of P aul and D eutero - P aul  

|   1 0 9

important variables that comprised Christian existence in the 1st century, which continue to be touchstones of Christian faith to this day. In what follows my goal is to navigate Paul’s thinking about sin by organizing the material under three general headings: (1) Paul and his language for sin; (2) Paul’s pre-​ Christian understanding of sin; and (3) Paul’s transformative understanding of sin in light of his Christian faith. Though the third topic will be the most extended discussion, the first two are important for establishing contexts and parameters for understanding Paul’s thought as it developed. 1 .   PA U L A N D H I S L A N G U A G E FOR SIN Just as we saw the Gospel traditions utilize a variety of terms to denote different aspects of sin, so also does Paul make use of a wide variety of terms. By far the most common term for sin in Paul’s letters is the noun hamartia (48x in Romans alone; 11x in other undisputed letters; 6x in disputed letters) and its verbal form hamartanō (14x in undisputed letters; 3x in disputed letters). As has often been noted, in Paul’s development the term hamartia takes on a kind of personification as an active agent, a cosmic power or force at work in the world for ill.1 Most importantly, everyone is “under the power of sin” (Rom 3:9). Sin mediates death (Rom 5:12). Sin increased through the law and “exercised dominion in death” (Rom 5:20–​21). Sin “enslaves” (Rom 6:6, 16–​17; 7:25) and exercises “dominion in your mortal bodies” (Rom 6:12). Sin “seized opportunity in the law, deceived me, and through it killed me” (Rom 7:11). Sin is an active agent that dwells within and motivates by taking one’s will captive (Rom 7:17, 20). Sin is a powerful force that uses the law in conjunction with weak human flesh to bring about death. We shall have more to say about sin as a cosmic power below.

10

1 1 0   |   S in in the N ew T estament

The hamartia word group also includes hamartēma (sin, Rom 3:25; 1 Cor 6:18) and hamartōlos (sinner, Rom 3:7; 5:8, 19; 7:13; Gal 2:15, 17). In Romans 3:25, a passage that will call for more thorough exposition below, Paul states that God had passed over previous sins. A more specific kind of sin is in view in 1 Corinthians 6:18: “Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself.” Although Paul is convinced that all of humanity is weighed down by the power of sin, at the same time he is convinced that “God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8). Human alienation from God because of sin does not ultimately condemn all humanity to death. Rather, God vindicated the life of Jesus by raising him from the dead. For Paul, the death of Jesus conquers the power of sin to kill, and in the resurrection of Jesus God conquers the power of death as the final word (1 Cor 15:55). Other terms that provide a deeper nuance to Paul’s understanding of human sin tend to refer to sinful behaviors and actions, either generically or with reference to specific sins. Paul can speak of “wrongdoing” (adikeō and adikia). For example, in 1 Corinthians 6, Paul is annoyed with the Corinthian church because they are wronging one another by taking other members of the church to court and suing them (6:7–​8). In 2 Corinthians 7:2, Paul defends himself and his ministry against charges of wrongdoing:  “We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one.” And in Galatians 4:12, Paul is seeking to change his angry tone in the letter, apparently seeking some form of reconciliation with his troubled church: “Friends, I beg you, become as I  am, for I  also have become as you are; you have done me no wrong.” Of course, it actually appears that they have wronged him by accepting the rival Gospel message from law-​observant Christians. Paul uses a variety of terms that serve as cognates for hamartia. For example, in quoting Psalm 31:1 (LXX) in Romans

 1

S in in the L etters of P aul and D eutero - P aul  

|   1 1 1

4:7 he refers to anomia, literally “lawlessness,” but also rendered as “iniquities” in the NRSV:  “Blessed are those whose iniquities [anomia] are forgiven, and whose sins [hamartiai] are covered.” The parallel structure equates anomia with hamartia. In Romans 6:19 Paul exhorts believers to present themselves as “slaves to righteousness for sanctification,” just as they once had been slaves to impurity (akartharsia) and to “iniquity upon iniquity [anomia eis tēn anomia].” In 2 Corinthians 6:14, Paul draws a practical consequence from the contrast between “righteousness” (dikaiōsunē) and “lawlessness” (anomia), namely, that believers should not be married, and hence mismatched, to non-​believers, for “what fellowship is there between light and darkness?” Another way Paul can talk about sin is by referring to the word group for “disobedience” (apeitheia, apeitheō, apeithēs). In particular, Paul presents a remarkable juxtaposition between disobedience and mercy as it relates to Gentiles and Jews in Romans 10–​11 (10:21; 11:30–​31). In Paul’s understanding the former disobedience of the Gentiles helped to highlight the obedience of the Jews. But now the Jews have been disobedient to God through their disbelief in Jesus as the messiah, and this development has occasioned the astonishing extension of God’s mercy to the previously disobedient Gentiles. In turn, Paul is confident that in God’s grace Gentile obedience will eventually result in Jewish obedience as well, since God is faithful to God’s promises. The disobedience of Jew and Gentile alike will be resolved in a merciful obedience of all to God. Similarly, God will save Gentiles and Jews from ungodliness and impiety (asebeia; Rom 1:18; 11:26; asebēs; Rom 4:5; 5:6), though Gentiles in particular are guilty of the sin of idolatry (Rom 1:18–​25). In Galatians 2:15 Paul makes a passing comment drawing a sharp contrast between Jews and Gentiles: “We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners.” In Paul’s Jewish world, to be a Gentile was by definition to be a sinner,

12

1 1 2   |   S in in the N ew T estament

as Gentiles were idolatrous and were especially associated with sexual sins. So, also, in 1 Thessalonians 1:9 Paul gives thanks that the Thessalonians have turned from worshiping idols to “serve a living and true God.” Other terms for sin appear in vice lists, which Paul uses on several occasions in good Stoic fashion (e.g., Rom 1:29–​31; 13:13; 1 Cor 5:10–​11; 6: 9–​10; 2 Cor 12:20–​21; Gal 5:19–​21). Romans 1:29–​31 provides a good example, as Paul describes the kind of debased morality that befell those who failed to acknowledge God:  “They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-​haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towards parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.” Quite the list!2 Such terms as “evil” (kakia and kakos; Rom 1:30; 2:9; 3:8; 7:19–​21; 12:17, 21; 13:3–​4) and “wickedness” (ponēria and ponēros; Rom 1:29; 12:9; 1 Cor 5:8) are common occurrences in such lists. Paul can also write more generically about “transgressions” (paraptōma; Rom 4:25; 5:5:15–​18, 20; 11:11–​12; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 6:1), which refers collectively to individual sins. Another term for “transgression,” parabasis, is used by Paul to denote violation of the Jewish law. Thus, Romans 2:23, “You that boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?” and Galatians 3:19, “Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions.” What we have seen, then, in Paul’s language about sin is a cluster of terms that orbit around the fundamental notion of sin as hamartia. Sin is a dynamic power with cosmic scope; it enslaves humanity and brings about death, both spiritually and physically. Sin finds expression in the weakness of human flesh and in the failure of humans to recognize the God to whom all of creation points. In Romans 7, Paul develops the notion of the power of sin as a virtual entity “seizing an opportunity in the commandment”

1 3

S in in the L etters of P aul and D eutero - P aul  

|   1 1 3

and producing “all kinds of covetousness” (7:8, 11). Sin “deceived me and through it [the law] killed me” (7:11). Paul may will with his mind to be obedient to God’s law, but there is “another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members” (7:23). The result is that “with my flesh [sarx] I am a slave to the law of sin [nomō hamartias].” These reflections by Paul on the coordination of law, flesh, and the power of sin have given rise to a great number of parallels and theories underlying the thought-​world expressed in Romans 7.3 There are likely overlapping influences here on Paul’s thought. In my view, one source often overlooked that was part of Paul’s Jewish world can be found in Genesis 6:5, which gives rise to God’s decision to flood the earth and destroy humanity: “The LORD saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.” Even after the flood, when God promises never again to curse the ground because of human evil, still God recognizes that humanity has not improved any (Gen 8:21): “I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth.” In Genesis 6:5, humanity’s evil inclination is the cause of God’s judgment, whereas in Genesis 8:21, God is merciful despite humanity’s evil inclination. This notion of an “evil inclination” within the human heart developed eventually in early rabbinic thought into the notion of the “yetzer hara,” the “evil impulse” within the human soul.4 There is a resonance between this evil impulse and the power of sin to enslave people with the very law that was supposed to protect God’s people from yielding to sin. Sin generates a desire (epithumia) that is self-​destructive. As Paul warns in Romans 6:12, “Do not let sin exercise dominion [basileuetō] in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions [epithumias].” The term basileuetō comes from the Greek root for “king” or

14

1 1 4   |   S in in the N ew T estament

“ruler” (basileus). Paul’s concern is that the faithful not allow sin to exercise lordship in their lives. They must, therefore, guard against giving in to their base desires. We find a significant parallel in James 1:14–​15, “But one is tempted by one’s own desire [epithumias], being lured and enticed by it; then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin [hamartia], and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death [thanaton].”5 This capacity for the power of sin to entice through desire, and so bring about transgression and death, is what concerns Paul as he describes this inner battle between the power of sin and the power of God’s Spirit. “It is no longer I that do it [what I do not want], but sin that dwells within me” (Rom 7:20). This is why God sent his Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin” (Rom 8:3). Through the power of Christ’s obedient and faithful life God redeemed him from the grave by the power of the Spirit, the same Spirit that will bring all believers to be with God since nothing “will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (8:39). Beyond the terms Paul uses in discussing sin, it is also worth noting that in contrast to the Gospel narratives examined in the preceding chapters, when we turn to the letters of Paul, we are dealing not with polished narratives with clear structure and character development, but with occasional letters responding to particular situations that have arisen in Paul’s churches (with the exception of the letter to Rome, where Paul did not establish the church). The genre of letter writing is an important factor in evaluating Paul’s understanding of sin, since Paul is not providing us with a systematized theology of sin. Instead, he is addressing concrete issues that certainly can involve sin, especially in writing to the Corinthian congregation, but his concerns are primarily practical and pastoral. The only letter where we can see Paul discussing the topic of sin in greater depth and from a larger perspective on the nature of the Gospel is in his letter to the Romans. But, again, there are

1 5

S in in the L etters of P aul and D eutero - P aul  

|   1 1 5

contingent reasons for this. Paul develops his understanding of sin more fully in Romans because he is trying to anticipate objections that the Christians at Rome may have to Paul and his message. After all, Paul has told them that he plans to visit them on his way to Spain, and he clearly hints at his desire for financial support “to be sent on by you” (15:24). But Paul knows that he has been a controversial figure and that the Christians at Rome have heard about him and most likely the problems he has caused for the church in Jerusalem and elsewhere. This is why Paul adopts the rhetorical style of the diatribe throughout Romans—​to respond to the possible objections and questions about the consequences of his preaching that Paul imagines the Roman Christians may have.6 Is Paul truly opposed to the Jewish law? Does Paul have lax moral standards? How can he hope to hold sin in check with appeals to the Spirit alone? Wouldn’t recourse to the strictures of the Jewish law be more effective? Had God changed God’s mind about the law? So many questions for Paul, and so many of them revolving around the issue of sin. Paul has some explaining to do, and he uses the letter to the Romans to articulate his thoughts on sin, which will be important to coordinate with what else Paul has to say about sin in his other letters. But before turning our attention to a more cohesive understanding of Paul’s view of sin, it is important to establish Paul’s pre-​Christian understanding of sin as a 1st-​century Jew in order to highlight areas of both continuity and discontinuity between Paul’s present identity as a believer in Jesus and his “former” life in Judaism (Gal 1:11). 2 .  PA U L’ S P R E -​C H R I S T I A N U N D E R S TA N D I N G   O F   S I N Before Paul came to believe in Jesus as the dying/​rising messiah, he was diametrically opposed to the newly formed Christian

16

1 1 6   |   S in in the N ew T estament

movement. As a Pharisaic Jew (Phil 3:5–​6), Paul took a leadership role in persecuting the church (Acts 8:1–​3; 9:1–​2; Gal 1:13). He apparently joined with other Jewish religious leaders in seeing the beginnings of the Christian movement as a dangerous threat to fidelity to God as expressed through observance of the Jewish law, and perhaps also because Christians were proclaiming Jesus as risen Lord, an idolatrous claim at best7. Paul thus agreed with the Pharisaic emphasis on keeping the oral traditions associated with the Jewish law (Gal 1:14). In this regard Paul states that “as to righteousness under the law” he was “blameless” (amemptos; Phil 3:6). From his perspective as a Jewish leader, it was the law given by God through Moses that mediated the covenant relationship with Israel and its people, not some false messiah who had been justly crucified by the Romans. Paul’s pre-​ Christian understanding of human sin was completely in line with early Jewish Pharisaic understandings of sin as primarily the failure to keep the law as God intended, as Moses had received it in both written and oral form, as Paul and other Pharisees interpreted it. As the Mishnah tractate Pirke Aboth (Sayings of the Fathers) from around 200 ce put it:8 “Moses received the Law from Sinai and committed it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets committed it to the men of the Great Synagogue. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgement, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around the Law.”9 Two aspects stand out in this saying in relation to Paul. First, the last phrase is especially important for understanding how the Pharisees (and Paul with them) viewed the Jewish law. To “make a fence around the Law” meant to safeguard the observance of the Jewish law as an expression of covenant fidelity with God. To relax the law was an invitation to sin. Therefore, the early rabbis devoted themselves to careful observance and articulation of the law, both in written form and

 17

S in in the L etters of P aul and D eutero - P aul  

|   1 1 7

in the traditions of oral interpretation that arose as the result of generations of observance. These oral interpretations were eventually gathered together in written form in the Mishnah by Judah the Prince and in the Gemara and other later rabbinic compilations. When Paul states that he was “advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors” (Gal 1:14), his reference to “the traditions of my ancestors” is another way of describing the interpretive traditions of the oral Torah.10 The 1st-​century Jewish historian Josephus wrote “the Pharisees handed down to the people certain observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses” (Ant. 13.10.6).11 Proponents of the oral Torah came to believe that it had been revealed to Moses on Sinai at the same time as the written Torah was given to Moses, thus giving the oral law, as interpreted by the Pharisees, the same kind of binding authority that the written law had. This leads to a second and perhaps even more important observation when comparing Paul’s pre-​ Christian self-​understanding as a Pharisee with his transformed understanding as a believer in Christ. The contrast between “the traditions of the fathers,” referenced by Paul in Galatians 1:14, and the adversative “but” of Galatians 1:15–​16 is noteworthy:  “But when God, who had set me apart before I  was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being.”12 As Paul had already stressed at the beginning of Galatians, his apostolic credentials had nothing to do with a line of human tradition:  “Paul an apostle—​sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father” (Gal 1:1). In sharp contrast to the Pharisaic understanding of the legitimizing role of tradition—​from God to Moses to Joshua to the elders to the prophets to the men of the great synagogue, a

18

1 1 8   |   S in in the N ew T estament

line of tradition in which Paul and his fellow Pharisees proudly stood—​Paul’s experience of God’s direct revelation to him of God’s Son completely undercut all tradition. This apocalyptic revelation out of the blue was, for Paul, self-​authorizing in a radical way. His newfound call to proclaim Jesus among the Gentiles completely upended his prior Pharisaic convictions about the law as traditioned from one generation to another. Paul’s Gospel “is not of human origin” (1:11); he “did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it” (1:12). Rather, “I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (1:12). After this experience Paul “did not confer with any human being” (1:16), “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me” (1:17). Why? Because there was no need to confer or confirm what he knew had taken place; against all odds, God had revealed God’s Son to Paul as the crucified and now risen messiah. And that changed everything. This experience showed “the sharp discontinuity between the old age of sincere Law observance and the new age of apostolic vocation.”13 It also began a radical change in Paul’s understanding of human sin in relation to the Jewish law. 3 .   PA U L’ S T R A N S F O R M AT I O N T O   C H R I S T I A N FA I T H A N D H I S N E W U N D E R S TA N D I N G   O F   S I N Although there has been much debate about whether to refer to Paul’s transformation as a “call” or as a “conversion,” both aspects are present in this experience. The question is whether one wishes to stress continuity or discontinuity between Paul and his Jewish identity. Using Paul’s own language of “call” (Gal 1:15) highlights Paul’s continuity with Jewish tradition and its connection with the well-​k nown tradition of prophetic call in Israel, noting that the prophets who experienced such a

1 9

S in in the L etters of P aul and D eutero - P aul  

|   1 1 9

call from God were often severely criticized and rejected by the people of God.14 To refer to Paul’s experience as a “conversion,” by contrast, highlights Paul’s discontinuity with Jewish tradition. He joined a movement that he previously violently persecuted. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul stresses his independence as an Apostle with credentials that come directly from God and are not mediated by any human tradition or by those who were Apostles before him. Paul’s authority is not subject to human correction. In Galatians, then, discontinuity with Jewish tradition is at the fore, even as Paul uses Jewish tradition and Jewish Scriptures to make his point. By contrast, in his letter to the Romans, Paul is fighting a different battle, namely, his own embattled position as an Apostle who has drawn sharp criticism. Thus, in his letter to the Romans, Paul strikes a much more irenic tone than in his highly polemical letter to the Galatians. In Romans we find Paul drawing on Scripture and tradition to show his continuity with the covenant tradition of Abraham, and his deep, if qualified, respect for Jewish law. As he states in Romans 7:12, “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.” So how does Paul’s positioning relative to the Jewish law reflect his new understanding of human sin? Before Paul had his call/​conversion experience, he was convinced as a Pharisaic Jew that observance of the Jewish law was not only possible but was also necessary. The failure of some Jews to keep the law was no indictment of the law. By contrast, the Gentiles were doomed as incorrigible and sinful idolaters (Gal 2:15). But Paul’s apocalyptic revelation of the risen Christ radically transformed Paul’s self-​understanding as a Jew and his understanding of human sinfulness. The key text that unlocks Paul’s new understanding of sin comes in a passage that does not even refer to sin, Galatians 2:21: “if justification [dikaiōsunē] comes through the law, then

210

1 2 0   |   S in in the N ew T estament

Christ died for nothing.” The term dikaiōsunē can also be translated as “righteousness.” The question for Paul is simple: How does one attain righteousness before God? Prior to his call/​conversion experience, Paul’s answer was that one attains righteousness through faithful obedience to the laws that God had established in the Torah, written and oral. Faith plays an important role here, in that one’s faith in God is made manifest by living according to the law that God set down, the law that had been passed on from one generation of Jews to the next. But in light of the Christ-​event, Paul has a radically new outlook and understanding, a perspective that is largely retrospective. The logic of Paul’s argument is as follows: since God raised Jesus from the dead, which Paul knows from his own revelatory experience, then God has vindicated the life that Jesus lived; therefore, Jesus must have died for a reason. And not only his death in and of itself, but also the scandalous manner of his death by crucifixion must have had a purpose. The death of Jesus had to have a profound meaning; otherwise the resurrection of Jesus made no sense to Paul. Christ must have died for a reason. What was that reason? Paul draws on a combination of Jewish Scripture and Jewish ritual to make sense of Jesus’s death. Like other early Christians, Paul first turned to his Scriptures to find an explanation for the unexplainable—​a crucified messiah. The fundamental answer is that Jesus’s death must be understood in relation to human sin. Thus Paul can quote perhaps the earliest Christian confession/​creed, from 1 Corinthians 15:3–​4, “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.” The appeal to Scripture here is a generic assertion. For the earliest Christians their faith in the saving death and resurrection of Jesus gave them a new lens through which to

 12

S in in the L etters of P aul and D eutero - P aul  

|   1 2 1

understand their sacred Scriptures. Everything now had to be coordinated around Jesus’s death and resurrection, even if at times it meant asserting that Jesus fulfilled a Scripture quotation that does not exist! Luke 24:45–​46 records the risen Jesus opening the minds of his disciples “to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations.’ ” Here we again see the coordination of the death of Jesus with the proclamation of forgiveness of sins “in his name.” The problem, of course, is that nowhere in the Jewish Scriptures is any of this to be found. The notion of a dying and rising messiah in Jewish tradition originates with the early Christians. These Christians certainly held the strong conviction that the death and resurrection of Jesus must be in accordance with Scripture, but they had a very difficult time convincing non-​Christian Jews of this.15 Since there was nothing in their Scriptures about a dying and rising messiah who would somehow atone for sins, they concluded that Jesus could not be the messiah. Besides, they had a well-​established means for dealing with sin as articulated in the Jewish law and in the rituals of Temple sacrifice sanctioned by Scripture. By contrast, the experience that Paul and other early Christians had of the apocalyptic revelation of the risen Jesus compelled them to a radical rereading of their Scriptures and to aligning their Scriptures with their profound experience. They came to explain this experience of the crucified and risen Jesus in part by characterizing his death as “for our sins, in accordance with the scriptures.” Beyond Paul’s generic appeal in 1 Corinthians 15:3 to Christ’s death “for our sins” according to Scripture, are there other specific proof-​texts that Paul draws on elsewhere? What Scripture might he have had in mind? Many interpreters see

12

1 2 2   |   S in in the N ew T estament

here an implied reference to the fourth Servant Song from Isaiah 53:5,16 he was wounded for our transgressions [anomias],   crushed for our iniquities [hamartias]; upon him was the punishment that made us whole,   and by his bruises we are healed. While it is true that Isaiah 53 loomed large for various early Christians (e.g., 1 Pt 2:24–​25), Paul does not make overt links between sin, the death of Jesus, and Isaiah 53. Paul certainly knows Isaiah well and uses it especially in Romans 9–​11 as he reflects on Israel’s unbelief in Jesus as the messiah. But Paul has found another passage from Scripture that will secure the kind of connection he envisions between the death of Jesus and human sin, Deuteronomy 21:23, which Paul cites in Galatians 3:13. Remarkably, this is the only scriptural text explicitly used by Paul to interpret the death of Jesus.17 The relevant portion that Paul cites from Deuteronomy 21:23 reads:  “anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse.” Paul’s citation of it in Galatians 3:13 states: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—​for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.” For Paul, “hanging on a tree” is a clear reference to Christ on the cross. Paul’s insistence on the centrality of the cross for Christian faith is of paramount importance. “I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2). Similarly, the cross is at the center of the famous Hymn to Christ from Philippians 2:5–​11, Christ “emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—​even death on a cross” (Phil 2:7–​8).

 123

S in in the L etters of P aul and D eutero - P aul  

|   1 2 3

Why is the cross so central for Paul? Because in the cross Paul sees the radical and scandalous love of God poured out for humanity through the embrace of human sin and suffering in the singular person of Jesus, whom God redeems in the resurrection. In Deuteronomy 21:23, Paul has found a proof-​text that links the death of Jesus on a cross to Jesus taking on the curse of human sin. But Paul reads Deuteronomy 21:23 in light of Deuteronomy 27:26, which he cites just above in Galatians 3:10, “All who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law.’ ” Paul’s argument is intended to show that submission to the law is submission to a curse, since righteousness and justification come not from law observance but from living by faith (Gal 3:11). Far from delivering people from sin, the law becomes a tool and weapon of sin to bring about death. By submitting himself to the law, Jesus submitted himself to the curse of the law, which itself pronounced that all who were hung on a tree were cursed (Dt 21:23). By identifying with humans under the curse of the law Jesus “gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age” (Gal 1:4).18 Fundamental for Paul is that this freedom from the power of sin finds extension through Christ to the Gentiles. It is important to read Galatians 3:13 as leading into 3:14 to see Paul’s complete thought: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—​for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’—​in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” There is a lot going on in these two verses. But what stands out is that Gentiles are incorporated into the people of God not through law observance, for that is not a blessing but a curse. Rather, the blessing of Abraham is the reception of God’s Spirit through faith, which Paul is convinced has now been mediated in the

124

1 2 4   |   S in in the N ew T estament

person of Jesus. For Paul, the law was only a temporary measure to hold sin in check (Gal 3:17–​18) until Christ should come (Gal 3:19). But now that Christ has come, the law has been shown to be a servant of sin, for it condemns, convicts, and curses all who fall short of righteous perfection. “If a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law. But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe” (Gal 3:21–​22). It is to this very curse of the law that Jesus submitted himself, even though in Paul’s view Jesus was not deserving of the curse since, as Paul makes clear in 2 Corinthians 5:21, Jesus “knew no sin”: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Paul develops a reciprocity between Jesus and those who identify with Jesus. This can be termed a participationist Christology, though it might also be called a Christology of indwelling. The whole idea is that through the obedient life and death of Jesus, God has done for humans what humans cannot do for themselves—​provided and empowered a path from sin and death to righteousness and life. This participation with and in Christ permeates Paul’s language. As Paul puts it in Galatians 2:19, “through the law I  died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” This indwelling of the Spirit of Christ has direct implications for Christian life in relation to sin. Paul develops this notion especially in his reflections on baptism in Romans 6:2–​5: How can we who died to sin go on living in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were

 125

S in in the L etters of P aul and D eutero - P aul  

|   1 2 5

baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For it we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

For Paul, belief and participation in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ has direct implications for how Christians live their lives in the here and now. It means that Christians no longer live “under the law” but are “under grace” (Rom 6:14). It means that in Christ they are free from the power of sin to kill. In Christ they have the capacity to deny sin “dominion in your mortal bodies” (Rom 6:12). Embracing the lordship of Christ rather allowing sin to rule is not automatic, for Christians still must exercise their freedom to live as “instruments of righteousness” (Rom 6:13). But it is their calling in Christ to “no longer present your members to sin as instruments of wickedness” (Rom 6:13). Since Christ chose to give himself on behalf of human sin, according to Paul, “the death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Rom 6:10–​11). So far we have noted Paul’s generic and, at least in the case of Deuteronomy 21:23, specific use of Scripture to discuss the death of Jesus in relation to sin. We have also called attention to Paul’s somewhat complicated understanding of the interrelationship between the Jewish law, sin, and the death of Jesus. What remains is to discuss another source of Paul’s reflection on the death of Jesus in relation to sin, namely, the Jewish ritual observances of Passover and Yom Kippur. In 1 Corinthians 5:7, Paul makes a passing reference linking the death of Jesus to the sacrifice of a lamb at Passover. Invoking the Passover imagery of unleavened bread, Paul develops a

126

1 2 6   |   S in in the N ew T estament

slightly awkward comparison for this Gentile congregation between the Corinthians’ “yeast” of sinful boasting and how yeast leavens a whole batch of dough. If left unchecked, Paul infers, the haughtiness of some in the Corinthian church will infect/​ leaven the entire congregation. Just as faithful Jews prepare for Passover by ridding their homes of yeast, the Corinthian Christians need metaphorically to clean out the old yeast, to do away with the leavening, so that they can become a batch of unleavened bread. And so he writes (1 Cor 5:6–​7), “Your boasting is not a good thing. Do you not know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch, as you really are unleavened. For our paschal lamb Christ has been sacrificed.” Even though this is somewhat of a passing reference, it is a significant invocation of the Jewish Passover festival, and Paul’s reinterpretation of it to have Christ as the Passover lamb.19 Since the death of Jesus took place in close proximity to the Passover festival (either the first day of Passover—​so the Synoptic Gospels—​or the Day of Preparation before the beginning of Passover—​so John), there is a certain natural association between Jesus’s death and the observance of the Passover festival. But whereas the Gospel of John makes overt reference to Jesus as the “lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29), Paul does not draw this explicit connection here in 1 Corinthians 5. And yet, Paul does move directly from the introduction of Jesus as the Passover sacrifice in 1 Corinthians 5:6–​7 to a reminder to the Corinthians not to associate with sinful people, especially those guilty of sexual immorality: “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons” (1 Cor 5:9). This suggests that Paul’s language of cleaning out the old leaven means that the Corinthians need to exercise more stringent judgment against community members engaged in sinful behavior. This is certainly the case in 1 Corinthians 5:1–​5, where Paul condemns the Corinthians

 127

S in in the L etters of P aul and D eutero - P aul  

|   1 2 7

for tolerating “a man living with his father’s wife” (1 Cor 5:1), apparently a reference to sexual immorality between a man and his stepmother. By invoking the image of Jesus as the Passover lamb in 1 Corinthians 5, amidst all of the other language in this chapter about sinful behavior in Corinth, Paul is calling upon the Corinthians to “celebrate the festival, not with the old yeast [of sinful behavior], the yeast of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor 5:8). That Paul still makes a clear connection, however, between the death of Jesus and the atoning character of Jesus’s death is evident especially from Paul’s use of Yom Kippur language and imagery in Romans 3:21–​26, to which we now turn our attention. To begin, it is helpful to cite this important passage in full: But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ [pistis Christou] for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement [hilasterion] by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus [pisteōs Iēsou].

Here Paul invokes the imagery of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, the regulations for which are spelled out in Leviticus 16. This was (and remains) the holiest day of repentance of sin in the Jewish calendar. It is not difficult to imagine that Paul was present in Jerusalem for the observance not only of Passover but also of Yom Kippur. The most important feature of the Yom Kippur ritual observance was the transfer of

218

1 2 8   |   S in in the N ew T estament

sin from humans to a goat. Leviticus 16:20–​22 specifies the following actions: When he [the high priest] has finished atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat. Then Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness by means of someone designated for the task. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness.

The imagery here is of sin as a weight to be born away, sent off to the wilderness for its destruction.20 This was an annual and most solemn ritual. Most significant for our purposes is how early Christians, including Paul, reimagined the rituals of Passover and Yom Kippur in light of the death of Jesus. If Scripture provided some means of explaining Jesus’s death as Jesus giving himself over to the curse of the law (Dt 21:23), the rich ritual life of 1st-​century Judaism gave Christians additional language for reflecting on the death of Jesus through the imagery of sacrifice in the Jerusalem Temple. Several features of ritual sacrifice associated with Yom Kippur stand out, especially as Paul and other early Christians applied them to Jesus. First, just as the sacrificial victim (animal) had to be ritually unblemished, so did the early Christians apply and develop this understanding to the person of Jesus. The temporal proximity of Passover to the crucifixion of Jesus contributed to this alignment. This is why the Gospel of John has Jesus die at the same time as the Passover lambs were sacrificed on the Day of Preparation. Like the sacrificial lamb, the logic goes, Jesus also must have been metaphorically unblemished. Of course, for a sheep or lamb to be unblemished meant that it was a good physical specimen without physical

 129

S in in the L etters of P aul and D eutero - P aul  

|   1 2 9

defect, namely, good teeth, no broken limbs, no skin disorders, no disease, and so forth. But when this same metaphor of being unblemished was applied to Jesus, it had nothing to do with his physical appearance. Instead it had everything to do with his moral standing, unlike an animal that has no moral standing. Thus, Jesus was “spotless,” “unblemished,” in the sense that he was a perfect human, sinless.21 This is why Paul could say in 2 Corinthians 5:21 that “for our sake he [God] made him to be sin who knew no sin.” In this way Jesus could serve as a perfect sacrifice to atone for human sin. This meant that just as the high priest could transfer the sins of the Jewish people to the head of a goat that would bear the sins away on an annual basis, so also could (and did) God transfer the sins of humanity (Jew and Gentile alike) to the person of Jesus. Jesus would bear these sins on the cross, and the sins would die with him once and for all. God’s raising Jesus from the dead vindicated Jesus as the spotless, crucified messiah that Paul believed him to be. Second, as discussed in ­chapter 6, we need to understand that as the early Christians were making sense of the death of Jesus in relation to human sin, Jewish Scripture, and Jewish ritual, they developed a kind of pastiche that drew on and reinterpreted a combination of these various traditions. One way in which they accomplished this reworking of tradition was through combining imagery from Passover with imagery from Yom Kippur, so that in Jesus the two morphed together. In this way Jesus became the “lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29), or he became “our paschal lamb,” who has been sacrificed (1 Cor 5:7). The early Christians thus effectively “Yom Kippured Passover,” and the two festivals—​ both of which involved animal sacrifice—​came to be conflated in early Christian theologizing and tradition.22 For a deeper understanding of Romans 3:21–​26, three additional features are important to notice. First, 3:21 states that “apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed.”

310

1 3 0   |   S in in the N ew T estament

This thought calls to mind the main theme of Romans expressed in 1:16–​17, the righteousness of God. “I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith.” The question about the righteousness of God is essentially a question about theodicy, about the justice of God. What kind of a God is God? Who is responsible for sin in the world? Paul’s answer in Romans 1:18–​3:20 is clear. God is just and righteous. God had given the revelation of natural law, natural theology, to the Gentiles (1:19–​20), so that they should have known about God (1:20):  “Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse.” Instead of worshiping the one true God, Gentiles “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-​ footed animals or reptiles” (1:23). In other words, the fundamental Gentile sin was idolatry, not recognizing God as God. Therefore, “God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done” (Rom 1:28). Idolatry resulted in sinful alienation from God. But Gentiles were not alone in sin. God had given special revelation to the Jews in the form of the Jewish law. God had chosen the Jews from among all the nations of the earth to be in covenant relationship. As Paul puts it in Romans 9:4–​5, “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all.” But this special relationship between God and the Jews was fraught with the violation of God’s law and the rejection of God’s prophets. Paul put the matter most directly in Romans 2:23–​24, “You that boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? For, as it is

 13

S in in the L etters of P aul and D eutero - P aul  

|   1 3 1

written, ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you’ ” (quoting Isaiah 52:5). Thus, the Jews have also collectively sinned against God by breaking their covenant relationship with God. If the sin of the Gentiles was idolatry, the sin of the Jews was disobedience. And so Paul could sum up the whole human situation as he did in Romans 3:9, “all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin,” followed immediately by a lengthy citation of an amalgamation of Psalm 14:1–​3, Psalm 5:10, Psalm 130:4, Psalm 10:7, and Psalm 35:2, as well as Isaiah 59:7 and Proverbs 1:16, all of which condemn humanity as unrighteous sinners.23 Just as important as Paul’s universal condemnation of human sinfulness, Paul also states that the righteousness of God has been made manifest “apart from the law” (Rom 3:21). Far from being the vehicle of demonstrating God’s righteousness, the law had become a tool and a vehicle for sin. “Through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20). Further, “the law brings wrath” (Rom 4:15) since people violate the law and are subject to punishment as a result. Although “sin was indeed in the world before the law” (Rom 5:13), no sin was counted before the law was given (Rom 5:13). When the law came in, “trespass multiplied” (Rom 5:20). The law does, indeed, bear witness to the righteousness of God, as do the prophets (Rom 3:21), but observance of the law does not ultimately lead to life or salvation, nor was it ever intended to, in Paul’s view. This is why the key to righteousness both on the part of God and the believer is hearing with faith, not doing works of the law. “We hold that a person is justified by faith, apart from works prescribed by the law” (Rom 3:28). This was as true for the premier example of faith, the patriarch Abraham, as it proved to be for the faithful Jesus. The second important feature of Romans 3:21–​26, then, has to do with the faithfulness of Jesus. If the Jews were as a people disobedient to God, Paul is at pains to show that Jesus was faithful to God in all regards.

132

1 3 2   |   S in in the N ew T estament

There is a phrase in Romans 3:21–​26 that occurs twice which has been the subject of much debate, since it can be translated in either of two ways. The phrase is pistis Iēsou Christou, literally “faith Jesus Christ” (3:22, 26). The difficulty in translation is that in the original Greek there is no preposition to specify the relation between pistis (faith) and Iēsou (Jesus). Historically this phrase has been translated as “faith in Jesus Christ,” often with a translator’s footnote to alert the reader that the expression can also be translated as “faith of Jesus Christ.” The question is whether Paul is referring to the believer’s faith in Jesus as that which brings justification, OR whether Paul is referring to Jesus’s own faithfulness as that which brings about justification. It can be translated in either direction. Over the last generation of scholarship, there has been a decided move toward reading this phrase as referring to Jesus’s own faithfulness.24 This is significant because it points to the growing importance of seeing Paul’s focus on the faithful obedience of Jesus to God, which demonstrates what it means to be justified and righteous before God, even to the point of death. This emphasis on the faithfulness of Jesus can especially be seen in Romans 5, where Paul develops the notion of Jesus as the “new Adam” in contrast to the “old Adam” of the creation story. The key passage is Romans 5:12, “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned.” Adam functions as the prototype for a sinful and disobedient humanity. Sin led to death and alienation from God. Indeed, as Paul continues, “death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come” (5:14). Paul reads the story of Adam in Genesis as a typology for the eventual appearance and revelation of Jesus as the messiah. The coming of Jesus put the entire human drama into perspective, for Paul, as he continues to develop the contrast

 13

S in in the L etters of P aul and D eutero - P aul  

|   1 3 3

between Adam and Jesus in Romans 5:18–​19. “Just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all” (5:18). The emphasis is on the actions of Adam and Jesus, respectively. Adam trespassed against God’s command. But Jesus’s life and death was an “act of righteousness.” Paul has in view here a collective understanding of the life, ministry, and death of Jesus as exemplifying the meaning of faithful obedience to God. This is why Paul can encourage the Corinthian congregation to “[b]‌e imitators of me, as I am of Christ.” Paul sums up his Adam/​ Christ typology in Romans 5:19, “just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” The faithful obedience of Jesus to God leads other believers on the path to righteousness before God. And yet, it is not all about Jesus. Rather, and this is the third important feature of Romans 3:21–​26, even amidst Jesus’s own faithfulness, it is God who renders Jesus’s faithful action salvific and redemptive for humanity. The key verse is 3:25, where Paul refers to “Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed.” Paul seems intent on stressing two things in describing the faithful actions of Jesus and God. On the one hand, Jesus acted of his own accord. He was not a marionette performing an act for a divine puppet master. This is why Paul can say that Jesus “gave himself for our sins” (Gal 1:4) and that “I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:20). And yet on the other hand, God used Jesus’s faithful obedience to bring about what the law could never do—​redemption from sin as a gift of God’s grace. In Christ God chose to pass over former sins. Thus, for Paul, the faithfulness of Jesus and the faithfulness of God coalesced in one act of salvation in which

314

1 3 4   |   S in in the N ew T estament

God demonstrated God’s righteous character:  “For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly” (Rom 5:6). “God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8). This act of God in Christ was both salvific and exemplary. The self-​emptying Christology of the Christ hymn in Philippians 2:5–​11 is prefaced by Paul’s admonition: “Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus” (Phil 2:4–​5). Paul is convinced that it is possible for Christians to live sinless lives empowered by the Spirit of Christ. As he put it in Romans 8:2: “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.” His churches certainly give plenty of evidence to the contrary. It is difficult to imagine a church more corrupted by human sinfulness than what Paul had to put up with in Corinth. Factions, sexual immorality, lawsuits, getting drunk at the Lord’s Supper, privileging oneself over others, not caring about how one’s actions might harm the faith of another, insisting on one’s privileges even at the expense of another, and on and on. Sin was certainly a rampant feature not quite stamped out yet! And yet Paul persisted. He was thoroughly convinced of the utter faithfulness of God, that in the apocalyptic revelation of the crucified and risen Jesus God had shown Godself anew in ways that included all people, Jew and Gentile alike. God’s forgiveness in Christ was extended to all. Christ’s faithful obedience was a gracious example for all to follow—​if God raised this rejected and crucified messiah from the dead, what sinner could not experience God’s call to new life in the Spirit of Christ? Perhaps Paul put it best in two passages from his Corinthian correspondence. In 1 Corinthians 13:12 Paul writes: “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.” In other words, even amidst Paul’s confidence in

 135

S in in the L etters of P aul and D eutero - P aul  

|   1 3 5

what God has done in the person of Jesus, he is mindful that we still do not see everything clearly. Sin remains an ever-​present reality. There is also a gradual coming to the fullness of faith that Paul recognizes in 2 Corinthians 3:18: “And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit.” The transformation in faith from sin to obedient freedom is not something that happens all at once, for Paul, but gets worked out, perhaps in faltering steps. 4. SIN IN THE D E U T E R O -​PA U L I N E   E P I S T L E S It has become customary to treat the six Deutero-​Pauline Epistles—​ 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1  & 2 Timothy, Titus—​separately from the so-​called seven undisputed letters of Paul, and I shall follow that practice here. When it comes to the topic of sin, there is significant overlap between the undisputed letters of Paul examined earlier and the disputed letters of Paul that we now take up. The Deutero-​Pauline Epistles can be readily divided into three categories, with Ephesians and Colossians sharing the same thought-​world, the Pastoral Epistles (1  & 2 Timothy, & Titus) grouped together, and 2 Thessalonians occupying a unique place as perhaps the most debated of the so-​called disputed letters of Paul. Most scholars are in agreement that these six letters represent a post-​Pauline situation within the early church toward the end of the 1st or beginning of the 2nd century CE (with the Pastorals typically seen as the latest of the letters). The most important reason to treat all of these epistles separately from the undisputed letters is out of caution in seeking to present Paul as Paul presented himself in his letters, rather than allowing later letters written in the name of Paul to

316

1 3 6   |   S in in the N ew T estament

influence the views expressed in the seven undisputed letters. Though much debate still revolves around the question of the authorship of these letters, if not so much in more conservative theological circles, in my view they do give us a window into the world of post-​Pauline churches toward the end of the 1st century. We begin with the letters to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, where several things stand out both by way of continuity and discontinuity with the letters of Paul. In terms of continuity Ephesians and Colossians share, like Paul, a worldview where there are sinister cosmic forces at work against which Christians must guard themselves. As Ephesians 6:12 states, “Our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” Similarly, Colossians 2:13, which reminds believers that Christ “disarmed the rulers and authorities,” and Colossians 3:12 states, “with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe.” Ephesians 6:10–​17 famously encourages Christians to put on the “whole armor of God” to fight against “the evil one.” Further, Colossians and Ephesians can also appeal to standard vice-​lists (Col 3:5; Eph 5:3), as Paul does in the undisputed letters. The only slight discontinuity between Ephesians/​Colossians and the undisputed letters of Paul in terms of “sin” is a matter of emphasis and word usage. Whereas Paul has a strong preference for the collective term hamartia (sin), though he can use words like paraptōma (transgressions) as well, in Ephesians and Colossians the situation is reversed. The author/​s of Colossians and Ephesians use the word hamartia only once in each letter (Col 1:14; Eph 2:1), in contrast to the dozens of times Paul uses the term in his undisputed letters. The author/​s of Colossians and Ephesians is fonder of the word paraptōma, referring to

 137

S in in the L etters of P aul and D eutero - P aul  

|   1 3 7

individual transgressions (Eph 1:7; 2:1; 2:5; Col 2:13). It is not a huge difference, but a matter of emphasis. Beyond word usage, Ephesians shares with Paul confidence that in Christ “we have redemption [apolytrōsis] through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses [paraptōmata], according to the riches of his grace” (Eph 1:7). They have been brought near to God “through the blood of Christ” (Eph 2:13). Ephesians also parallels Paul’s view in Romans 6: “You were dead through the trespasses and sins [nekrous tois paraptōmatois kai tais hamartiais] in which you once lived” (Eph 2:1; cf. 2:4). They were formerly powerless to resist the “the course of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air” (Eph 2:2). But now in Christ they have been freed from slavery to their passions (epithymias; Eph 2:3). Therefore, Ephesians encourages believers to stand fast against sin, with an appeal to such typical vices as anger, evil speech, slander, and malice (Eph 4:26–​32). Sinners will not inherit the kingdom of Christ (5:3–​5). Believers are “children of the light” and must resist the forces of darkness (Eph 5:6–​9). Colossians also shares Paul’s fundamental conviction that Christ “has rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins [aphesin tōn hamartiōn]” (Col 1:13–​14). All powers are subject to him, for through him God brought reconciliation “through the blood of his cross” (Col 1:20). And, like Paul, Colossians admonishes the faithful to “put to death” earthly vices such as “fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed . . . anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive language from your mouth” (Col 3:5–​8), for such sins will merit only the wrath of God. Instead, they should clothe themselves with the love of God in Christ (Col 3:12–​14). In the Pastoral Epistles there are a few references to hamartia in the plural (1 Tim 5:22, 24; 2 Tim 3:6), referring to

138

1 3 8   |   S in in the N ew T estament

individual sins, but no references to the cosmic power of sin in the singular. The Pastorals also can employ vice and virtue lists, especially in regard to character traits for church leaders (1 Tim 3:1–​3, 8; 1:9; 2 Tim 3:1–​4; Tit 1:7–​8; 3:3). There is special concern about the selection of church leaders, and 1 Timothy urges caution in such matters, for while the sins of some people are “conspicuous and precede them to judgment,” the sins of other people “follow them there” (1 Tim 5:24). In contrast to Paul’s comparison of the disobedient Adam and the obedient Christ (Rom 5), 1 Timothy 2:8–​15 blames sin on Eve, who was deceived by the serpent (1 Tim 2:14). For this reason, according to 1 Timothy, women are not permitted to have authority over men, since they were second in creation, yet first in sin. 1 Timothy, like Paul, confesses that Christ “gave himself a ransom [antilytron] for all” (1:7), implicitly linking the death of Jesus to forgiveness of sin. Titus 2:14 similarly refers to Christ as the one “who gave himself for us that he might redeem us [hina lytrōsētai] from all iniquity [anomia] and purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.” Finally, just as Paul can call for firm discipline in response to sinful behaviors (e.g., 1 Cor 5:1), so does Titus call for a limit to tolerating anyone causing dissension, “since you know that such a person is perverted and sinful, being self-​condemned” (Tit 3:11).

 139

8

Sin in Hebrews, James, and 1 and 2 Peter

IN THIS CHAPTER WE WILL look at four writings in the New Testament where sin plays a prominent role: Hebrews, James, and 1 and 2 Peter. All of these writings are typically understood as coming from a Jewish-​Christian perspective, a perspective with which I agree. Though some Gentile Christians may well be in view, the bulk of these letters address the situation of Jewish-​Christians in the latter half of the 1st century or beginning of the 2nd century ce.

HEBREWS AND SIN The so-​called letter to the Hebrews is more appropriately understood as a homily or a sermonic speech to which an epistolary conclusion has been added (13:22–​25).1 Hebrews refers to itself as a “word of exhortation [paraklēsis]” (13:22), perhaps a formal way of referring to its character as an “oratorical performance.”2 One thing abundantly clear in Hebrews is that it engages in careful and thorough reinterpretation of the Jewish Scriptures, all in light of the ministry of and early Christian message about Jesus as read through the sacrificial cult system of the Jerusalem Temple. This is one reason why Sin in the New Testament. Jeffrey s. Siker, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190465735.001.0001

410

1 4 0   |   S in in the N ew T estament

many 21st-​century readers find Hebrews particularly foreign, because of the centrality of the language of sacrificial cult with which Hebrews operates. As we saw in ­chapter  2, sin lies at the very heart of the Jewish sacrificial cult regulated within the Jerusalem Temple. From sacrifices for inadvertent sins (sin offering—​e.g., Lev 4)  to sacrifices for overt sins (guilt offering—​e.g., Lev 6), the sacrificial system was at the center of how Israel negotiated the forgiveness of sins before God. Foremost among the rituals associated with confession and forgiveness of sins was the observance of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement (Lev 16). Hebrews picks up on this central ritual as the key to understanding the significance of Jesus’s death and resurrection, which we will discuss shortly especially in relation to Hebrews 9. Even before Hebrews develops explicit language about Jesus as the Yom Kippur sacrifice, however, we already find Hebrews’ focus on Jesus as God’s singular Son who has made “purification for sins” (1:3). God has spoken to us “in these last days” through God’s Son, who is the agent of creation, reflects God’s glory, and is the “exact imprint of God’s very being” (1:2–​ 3). It would be difficult to find loftier language to describe the divine identity and authoritative power of Jesus. “When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (1:3). Exactly how Jesus has made purification for sins is not yet articulated, though the reader understands full well that this is a reference to Jesus’s salvific death. Already at the beginning of Hebrews Jesus has implicitly replaced the Temple sacrificial cult as God’s ultimate way of dealing with human sin. The glorification of Jesus continues, as Hebrews makes clear that Jesus is superior not only to angels (1:4–​14) but also to Moses (3:1–​6) since Jesus is God’s Son while Moses was but God’s servant. Early on in Hebrews, the greatness of the salvation that Jesus has accomplished is contrasted with the danger of falling

4 1

S in in H ebrews , J ames , and 1 and 2   P eter  

|   1 4 1

away from this salvation among second-​generation Jewish-​ Christians. We see this motif already in 2:1–​3, “Therefore we must pay greater attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it. For if the message declared through angels was valid, and every transgression or disobedience received a just penalty, how can we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?” What becomes evident in Hebrews is that although Jesus has brought salvation, the hearers of this message are in danger of neglecting their salvation. Indeed, one of the main themes developed in Hebrews is the horrendous sin of apostasy, of falling away from the faith.3 This theme finds further development in Hebrews 3:12, again with a warning:  “Take care, brothers and sisters, that none of you may have an evil, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God.” The danger is what amounts to the “sin” of unbelief, especially having once believed. Instead, the hearers of this message are to “exhort one another every day  .  .  .  so that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (3:13). Hebrews then proceeds to illustrate this danger by appealing to the well-​k nown story of what happened to the Israelites while they were in the wilderness on their way to the promised land, having left Egypt in the exodus. Hebrews appeals to the account from Exodus 17 where in the wilderness the people complained to Moses, which angered God, with dire consequences (Heb 3:17): “Was it not those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?” For the author of Hebrews, the faithlessness of the Israelites and their consequent punishment (death!) serves as a warning to those who have come to believe in the saving power of Jesus’s death and resurrection. The implication is clear from Hebrews 3:18–​19 that failing in faith means no longer having access to the salvation in Christ, and thus no longer access to the heavenly rest awaiting the truly faithful: “And to whom did he [God] swear that they would not enter his rest, if not to those who were disobedient? So we see

412

1 4 2   |   S in in the N ew T estament

that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.” The audience of Hebrews dare not flag in their faith commitment, even amidst suffering and the danger of persecution, lest they lose the salvation Christ has secured. The warning continues in 4:1: “Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest is still open, let us take care that none of you should seem to have failed to reach it.” The way to salvation is open, but so is the great danger that some will fail along the path. Just as those “who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience” (Heb 4:6), so should those who have believed in Jesus take to heart the warning of Psalm 95:7, cited in Hebrews 4:7, “Today if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” The exhortation continues in 4:11, “Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such disobedience as theirs.” This is followed by yet another warning that God knows the “thoughts and intentions of the heart” (4:12), so that nobody can hide their lack of faith from God, as God is “the one to whom we must render an account” (4:13). This theme is reprised yet again in a passing reference in Hebrews 5:11. The author has just introduced the central figure of Melchizedek (Heb 5:10), who will play a prominent role in Hebrews 7.  But the author pauses to scold the hearers of the exhortation: “About this we have much to say that is hard to explain, since you have become dull in understanding.” The author appears not at all confident that the recipients of his message will be able to understand the deep and theologically advanced explanation of the significance of Melchizedek in light of the coming of Christ (5:12–​14): “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic elements of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food; for everyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is unskilled in the word of righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained

4 13

S in in H ebrews , J ames , and 1 and 2   P eter  

|   1 4 3

by practice to distinguish good from evil.” This rhetoric is reminiscent of Paul’s complaint against the Corinthians, that they are mere babes in Christ, though they think of themselves as advanced (1 Cor 3:1–​2). A  similar point is drawn here by the author of Hebrews, namely, that his audience should be much more mature in their faith than they currently are. For this reason they are in danger of falling away from their faith. This is why in Hebrews 6:1–​3 the author exhorts his audience to move toward perfection, “leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ,” which he identifies as including such things as “repentance from dead works and faith toward God, instruction about baptism, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment” (Heb 6:1–​2). Hebrews 6:4–​8 then presents the sharpest warning against apostasy. “For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, since on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt.” Like a field that produces only thorns and thistles, those who renounce their faith will be cursed: “its end is to be burned over” (6:8). The emphasis in this warning falls on all the good things that the believer has experienced: enlightenment, the heavenly gift, the Holy Spirit, God’s word, and the powers of the age to come. If, despite all of these blessings, one should choose to renounce their faith, then they are renouncing the power of Christ’s salvific sacrificial death. They are foolishly throwing God’s gracious gift away. These warnings are followed in Hebrews 6:9–​18 with assurances of God’s faithfulness and God’s mercy. The author of Hebrews is thus seeking to walk a fine line between severe warning and strong encouragement. They need to hang on and endure the difficulties they face because of their faith.

41

1 4 4   |   S in in the N ew T estament

The final development of apostasy as the ultimate sin comes in Hebrews 10:26–​31. This passage follows another section of general encouragement (10:19–​25), where the faithful are told to “hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who has promised is faithful” (10:23–​24). But in 10:26 encouragement gives way again to a fearful warning:  “if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment and a fury of fire that will consume adversaries” (10:26–​28). To intentionally reject the truth of the saving, sacrificial death of Jesus is the same as persisting in sin. For those who persist in denouncing what they once had embraced, Hebrews envisions nothing but fiery judgment as the penalty for such apostasy.4 By rejecting Christ’s sacrificial death they have rejected God’s saving mercy, and Christ’s sacrifice is no longer efficacious for them. In striking contrast to the harsh warnings against apostasy in Hebrews, the author can also adopt a gentle tone of encouragement, reminding the audience of their strong faith in the past even amidst suffering and persecution. “Recall those earlier days when, after you had been enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings” (10:32). In this way they had modeled their behavior after Christ, whose suffering death brought their salvation. The litany of heroes of the faith recounted in Hebrews 11 continues the hortatory encouragement to remember that many other giants of faith had gone before them: Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and on and on (11:8–​ 40). The struggling audience of Hebrews should find strength and courage in these faithful heroes of old. Above all, Jesus is “the pioneer and perfecter of our faith” (12:2; 2:10). Even if the audience of Hebrews has endured much suffering, “in your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood,” which Jesus did beyond measure on the

4 15

S in in H ebrews , J ames , and 1 and 2   P eter  

|   1 4 5

cross (12:4). And so, they should “lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees” (12:12) for their journey is not yet finished. The reason why Hebrews so stresses the radical character of how the sin of disbelief completely undercuts salvation revolves around what Hebrews argues that Jesus and nobody else has ever done, namely, to enter the heavenly sanctuary and offer himself as the perfect sacrifice to atone for all sins for all time. This is where Hebrews brings in the central imagery of Yom Kippur and the sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. Hebrews offers a Christological rereading of the Yom Kippur ritual from Leviticus 16, a ritual that was followed in the Jerusalem Temple up until the time it was destroyed in 70 ce toward the end of the Jewish War (66–​70 ce). In order to understand the logic of Hebrews’ argument about the radical efficacy of Jesus’s sacrificial and atoning death for sin, we need to understand the details of the Yom Kippur ritual outlined in Leviticus 16. The procedure from Leviticus 16 is relatively straightforward.5 Once a year the high priest enters the sanctuary “inside the curtain before the mercy seat that is upon the ark” (Lev 16:2). This is the only time the high priest is to enter inside the curtain, the area known as the holy of holies. He comes with a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering (Lev 16:3). After engaging in a ritual washing and putting on the appropriate vestments, the high priest takes two male goats from the people for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering (Lev 16:8). He then sacrifices the young bull as a sin offering for himself, “making atonement for himself and for his house” (Lev 16:6). Then he takes the two goats and casts lots between them, designating one for the Lord and one for Azazel (16:7).6 He then sacrifices the goat set aside for the Lord as a sin offering, “but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it,

416

1 4 6   |   S in in the N ew T estament

that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel” (Lev 16:10). Leviticus 16:11–​28 provides a more elaborate description in which the high priest takes some of the blood from the bull and sprinkles it on and around the altar within the sanctuary. He then follows by taking some of the blood from the goat and sprinkling it on and around the altar.7 In this way the high priest atones for his sins (with the bull’s blood) and for the sins of the people (with the goat’s blood). In the process the blood cleanses and purifies the sacrificial altar so that it may continue to function as an altar where the sins of the people are forgiven by means of sacrificial rites. After the bull and the goat have been sacrificed, and the blood from each animal has been appropriately sprinkled, then the high priest presents the live goat. At this point the high priest “shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness by means of someone designated for the task. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region, and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev 16:21–​22). Having rehearsed the Yom Kippur ritual, we are now in a position to understand and appreciate Hebrews’ discussion of Jesus as both the high priest and the scapegoat in Hebrews 9. In Hebrews 9:7 the author refers to the practice of the high priest going behind the second curtain only once a year (9:7), taking blood with him to offer atonement for “himself and for the sins committed unintentionally by the people” (9:7). The actions of the high priest serve as a springboard for the author of Hebrews to reflect upon the high priestly actions of Jesus. Whereas the high priest entered once a year into the holy of holies, Christ entered “once for all” the holy place,

4 17

S in in H ebrews , J ames , and 1 and 2   P eter  

|   1 4 7

not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls  .  .  .  sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God! (Heb 9:12–​14)

Several things stand out in the comparison of the high priest from Leviticus 16 and Jesus as the high priest. First, Aaron, the high priest in Leviticus 16, representing all successive high priests, has to make atonement for his own sins by sacrificing a bull and sprinkling its blood upon the altar. But Hebrews has already established that Jesus is “without sin” (Heb 4:14), so he does not need to atone for his own sin. Every high priest in the line of Aaron, by contrast, “must offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people” (Heb 5:3). Second, Aaron offered the blood of the bull and the goat, whereas Jesus offered his own blood as the perfect unblemished sacrifice of atonement (Heb 9:12). Thus, Jesus is both the ultimate, perfect high priest and the ultimate, perfect blood sacrifice. Third, the Yom Kippur ritual was an annual event in which the high priest offered temporary atoning sacrifices for sin. This is why the ritual had to be repeated year after year, whereas the sacrifice of Jesus was “once for all” and would never need to be repeated again (Heb 9:24–​26). This was because, fourth, the high priest offered sacrifice in a Temple made by human hands in the earthly realm. By contrast, because Jesus is perfectly divine, he could and did offer the sacrifice of himself in the heavenly Temple, in the true and eternal sanctuary on which the earthly sanctuary was patterned. Here Hebrews employs notions from Platonic dualism where there is a real world of true forms and a shadow world (in which we live) of mere copies. Because Jesus could enter the heavenly realm of true forms, he could and did

418

1 4 8   |   S in in the N ew T estament

offer the sacrifice of himself in the heavenly Temple once for all. “He has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb 9:26).8 In turn, Christ will appear a second time, not to deal with human sin again but for judgment (9:27–​28), “to save those who are eagerly waiting for him” (9:28). Whether or not the Second Temple was still standing when Hebrews was written, this radical rereading of the Yom Kippur ritual in terms of Christ’s sinless, sacrificial death to atone for human sin once for all was intended by the author of Hebrews to dissuade believers from renouncing their faith and perhaps returning to non-​Christian Jewish practice and belief. As Hebrews presented the human situation, the stakes could not be higher. The ultimate sin would be to renounce Christ’s perfect atoning death for human sin. This is especially the case for Hebrews since, in the person of Jesus, God had fully identified with humanity and its weakness. Thus, Christ was subject to every temptation and yet did not sin (4:14). Furthermore, Christ learned obedience in suffering (5:8) and was perfected through his suffering (2:10), so that his suffering served a larger purpose that followers of Christ could emulate. This is not to say that Christians could, through their own suffering and death, atone for the sins of anyone. But it is to say that, from the perspective of Hebrews, like Jesus they could learn and grow toward perfection in their suffering. Hebrews picks up on a play between the Greek words for “suffer” (pathein) and “learn” (mathein), which share a euphony. Pathein can lead to mathein; suffering can lead to deeper understanding and comprehension of God’s mercy.9 Thus, in Hebrews 5:8, “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.” While Christians do not come from the heavenly realm like Jesus, in Hebrews, believers can grow in faith toward perfection. Though they are sinners in need of

4 19

S in in H ebrews , J ames , and 1 and 2   P eter  

|   1 4 9

redemption, through the cleansing of their sin in Christ they can aspire to the heavenly realm with Christ.10 JA M E S A ND   SI N The letter of James, not unlike Hebrews, is not exactly a letter. But whereas Hebrews reads most like a sermon or homily, James is very much a kind of hybrid between Jewish wisdom literature and the parenesis of Hellenistic moralists, with a definite Christian perspective.11 Like these writings, James is replete with moral exhortations and admonitions.12 It makes good sense that as a Christian moralist drawing on Jewish tradition James should have a fair amount to say about sin. And so he does, if not always directly. One of the primary categories for James is the role played by human desire, from the Greek word epithymia. This term recurs throughout the New Testament, especially in the letters of Paul, almost always with negative connotations (Jn 8:44; Rom 1:24; 6:12; 7:7; 13:14; Gal 5:16, 24; etc.). It appears in James 1:14–​15, as the author reflects upon the source of evil desires. James makes it clear that God does not tempt (Jas 1:13). Rather, “one is tempted by one’s own desire [epithymia], being lured and enticed by it; then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown gives birth to death.” James does not indicate from where such desires arise, but clearly it is part of the human condition. James develops a connection between desire and sin by personifying “desire” as conceiving and giving birth to sin. Such desire results in a sinful action, and, in turn, “when it is fully grown,” it gives birth to death. The notion of sin “growing up” in a person suggests a kind of maturation of sin that eventually leads to the person’s total spiritual demise. Thus, just as sin is the consequence of desire, so death is the consequence of sin. This is not at all

510

1 5 0   |   S in in the N ew T estament

unlike what we saw in Paul (Rom 6–​7). It also reminds us of the antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, where Jesus distinguishes between a sinful act (e.g., adultery) and the lustful desire that results in the act (“everyone who looks at a woman with lust”; Mt 5:28). The connections and consequences that James draws between desire, sin, and death imply a kind of general pattern for how sin works and takes hold in human behavior (or misbehavior). James further develops this understanding of “desire” in 4:1–​2. In 4:1 he writes, “Those conflicts and disputes among you, where do they come from? Do they not come from your cravings [hēdonōn] that are at war within you?” The term translated by the NRSV as “cravings” comes from the Greek word for “passions” or “pleasures.” Such passions or cravings are but the expression of human desires, as James makes clear in 4:2, “You want something and do not have it; so you commit murder. And you covet something and cannot obtain it; so you engage in disputes and conflicts.” The human desire to have and possess something (or someone) leads to sinful actions to secure that something.13 While it is unlikely that James is accusing his would-​be audience of murder, his larger point remains. People, even Christians, will engage in destructive behaviors in order to have what they desire. Desire, then, gives way to sin, and, eventually, as we have seen, the ingrained pattern of sin gives way to death.14 Closely related to the role of desire as leading to sin is the warning of James that people should not be deceived, for deception can result in sinful behavior. James develops this notion of deception in relation to the early Christian conflict about faith and works, hearing the word versus doing the word. As James writes in 2:22, “Be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves.” From James’s perspective, those who only hear the word tend to forget the need to put the word into action, whereas those who are doers of

 15

S in in H ebrews , J ames , and 1 and 2   P eter  

|   1 5 1

the word “will be blessed in their doing” (2:25). James will develop this contrast further as he discusses the relation between faith and works in 2:14–​17. James is convinced that genuine faith must have demonstrable works to accompany it. As James puts it rather bluntly, “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (2:17). The example that James uses to illustrate his point is rather telling for our discussion of James’s view of sin. In 2:15–​ 16 James imagines encountering a fellow Christian who is “naked and lacks daily food” (2:15). If someone should then say to that person (2:16), “ ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,’ and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that?” Thus, James concludes, faith without works is dead. The example that James provides is a “sin of omission,” namely, failing to do something that one has a moral obligation to do, rather than the more typical “sin of commission,” namely, directly violating one of God’s commandments. Even though James does not here label the failure to provide for the bodily needs of another as “sin,” we are reminded of the striking parable of the sheep and the goats from Matthew 25:31–​4 6, where those who provided for “the least of these my brethren” were welcomed in God’s Kingdom and to eternal life, while those who failed to recognize those in need were dispatched to “eternal punishment” (Mt 25:46). James does address sins of omission more directly in 4:17:  “Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin.” Just as faith calls for works, knowledge calls for appropriate ethical action.15 The section of James that immediately follows 4:17 addresses another kind of sinful omission, this time on the part of those who are wealthy. James, as is well known, has a generally negative view of rich people.16 “Your riches have rotted, and your clothes are moth-​eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you, and

152

1 5 2   |   S in in the N ew T estament

it will eat your flesh like fire” (5:2–​3). The particular sin of the rich that James here laments is their fraudulent withholding of wages from “the laborers who mowed your fields” (5:4). “The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts” (5:4). Those who have suffered such injustice need only be patient until the coming of the Lord for God’s righteous judgment (5:7ff). Earlier in 2:1–​11, James refers to the sin of partiality, showing favoritism toward the wealthy at the expense of the poor. “But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors” (2:9). For James the Jewish law still provides a fundamental moral code for the faithful to follow, and that includes a check on the excesses of the wealthy at the expense of the poor. A common theme of discussion among ancient moralists of all stripes was the problem and danger of “the tongue.”17 James picks up on this motif as well in 3:5–​6: “the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great exploits . . . the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, . . . and is itself set on fire by hell.” Although James does not explicitly call the tongue sinful, it remains clear that for James the tongue, as a “restless evil, full of deadly poison” (3:8) is ever a potential vehicle for sinful actions of harmful speech. Overall, James is concerned that the faithful follow the wisdom that comes from above (3:17), which is “pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy.” This “wisdom from above” is a list of virtues in contrast to the “wisdom from below,” which is the source of “bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts” (3:14). Such wisdom “is earthly, unspiritual, devilish” and leads to disorder and “wickedness of every kind” (3:15–​16). Further, James can connect sin with sickness. If some are suffering from illness, they should call for the elders of

 153

S in in H ebrews , J ames , and 1 and 2   P eter  

|   1 5 3

the church “and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord” (5:14), for “the prayer of faith will save the sick,” and, as James continues, “anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven” (5:15). Here, as elsewhere in the New Testament (1 Cor 11:29–​30; Jn 5:14; though see Jn 9:1–​3), there seems to be a connection drawn between ill health and sin (so also Dt 28:58–​62; Prv 3:28–​ 35; etc.).18 But James admonishes in general that the faithful should “confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed” (5:16). Whether the healing envisioned is only or primarily physical is unclear, but James also speaks of spiritual healing, as in his closing thought in 5:19–​10. Here James writes, “My brothers and sisters, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and is brought back by another, you should know that whoever brings back a sinner from wandering will save the sinner’s soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” And so ends the letter. Exactly what “bringing back a sinner from wandering” entails is not immediately clear, but it does suggest the role of fellow Christians in correcting and calling to account those who have “strayed,” perhaps not unlike the practical wisdom expressed in Matthew 18:15–​17 when one believer has sinned against another. The solution is to call the person to account in hopes of bringing them back into the community by means of repentance.19 1 AND 2 PETER AND SIN In turning to 1 Peter we encounter a letter that, somewhat like Hebrews, addresses the situation of Christians who are suffering for their faith, most likely toward the end of the 1st century ce.20 The suffering the Christians in 1 Peter are enduring is certainly more palpable than what we saw in Hebrews, as

514

1 5 4   |   S in in the N ew T estament

unjust suffering is one of the main themes of 1 Peter, whereas in Hebrews a central motif was the danger and sin of apostasy from the faith. Language for sin is not prominent in 1 Peter, at least as it relates to believers falling into sin. More significant is the conviction of 1 Peter, shared with Hebrews, that Jesus’s sacrificial death provided salvation and forgiveness of sin to those who believed. Thus 1 Peter states that Christ “committed no sin,” citing Isaiah 53:9 in the process. Rather, Christ “bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed” (1 Peter 2:24), with appeal to Isaiah 53. And again in 1 Peter 3:18 we read, “Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God.” One of the most striking features of 1 Peter are the household codes with which the author addresses slaves (2:18–​25), wives (3:1–​6), and husbands (3:7) regarding their appropriate duties within the household, now in light of Christian faith. Indeed, 1 Peter is most concerned with the behavior of those who count themselves as Christians, especially that Christians should pattern their behavior after that of Christ, who suffered unjustly but was redeemed by God. Thus, Christian slaves must accept their unjust suffering as Christ did (2:18–​21) “because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps” (2:21). Like Christ, slaves should entrust themselves “to the one who judges justly” (2:24), trusting that God will redeem them as God has redeemed Christ, and that God will “put to shame” (3:17) those “who do not obey the gospel of God” (4:17). In other words, a little unjust suffering now will lead to “eternal glory in Christ” (5:10) for those who are faithful, but divine retribution in God’s righteous judgment for those who have dealt unjustly with God’s faithful sheep. Thus, the faithful are called to holiness (1:15) and a mutual love for fellow believers (2:22), trusting all the while that

 15

S in in H ebrews , J ames , and 1 and 2   P eter  

|   1 5 5

God “will himself restore, support, strengthen, and establish you” (5:10). Those who are in Christ do not belong to this world but are “aliens and exiles” (2:11), biding their time until God should rescue them from their present “fiery ordeal” (4:12). In the meantime, those who have come to believe in Christ are called upon to resist behaving in ways that dishonor the salvation God has brought about in the atoning death of Christ. They have been purified (1:22), “ransomed by the blood of Christ” (1:18–​19), and, as a result, they must behave in a manner that does not give in to their earthly desires (1:14). 1 Peter’s view of sin has much less to do with external cosmic powers (as in Paul), and more to do with actively disobeying the will of God.21 What constitutes such disobedience? For 1 Peter sin would be, in part, to go against the generic moral codes of society that appear in standard vice lists. Thus 1 Peter warns against “all malice, and all guile, insincerity, envy, and all slander” (2:1). Similarly, 1 Peter warns against “human desires” such as “living in licentiousness, passions, drunkenness, revels, carousing, and lawless idolatry” (4:3). All such behaviors would fall into the category of sin. And in 4:15, for good measure, 1 Peter warns against suffering “as a murderer, a thief, a criminal, or even as a mischief maker.” If one is going to suffer, it should be for righteous behavior that God will vindicate, not sinful behavior that warrants punishment. Beyond the stock vice lists to which 1 Peter appeals, the household codes also provide societal norms and patterns of behavior that appear to be guidelines for proper and ethical living in the world.22 Thus, slaves should obey their masters even if they suffer unjustly in the process (2:18–​21). Wives should likewise accept the authority of their husbands, even of unbelieving husbands. Similarly, wives should be modest in their dress and so adorn their inner selves with “a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in God’s sight” (3:4). Social conformity seems

516

1 5 6   |   S in in the N ew T estament

to be in line with 1 Peter’s understanding of what it means to avoid sin and bad behavior. Unjust suffering in the process of giving way to social convention simply comes with the territory of being an upright Christian. This is certainly a far cry from Paul’s notion in Romans 12:1–​2 that Christians should not conform to this world but be transformed by the renewal of their minds. Still, Paul does not disagree with the rather practical objective of behaving according to Greco-​Roman social norms to avoid persecution by non-​Christians. In turning to 2 Peter, we come again to the role of epithymia, “desire,” as a central motif related to human sin. The author of 2 Peter is concerned that the faithful “may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust [epithymia] and may become participants of the divine nature.” The author of 2 Peter continues the motif from 1 Peter that believers are “resident aliens” in this world, something that the letter of James also suggests when he writes that whoever is a friend of the world is an enemy of God (Jas 4:4). For 2 Peter the faithful must exercise self-​control (1:6). The way to keep sin at bay is through the promotion of “godliness with mutual affection, and mutual affection with love” (1:7). Anyone who lacks this kind of mutual love risks forgetting “the cleansing of past sins” (1:9), and so may end up stumbling and repeating them (1:10). The author of 2 Peter also warns about false teachers who will bring about licentiousness and greed (2:1–​3) that will destroy the community of faith. The examples of Noah’s flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah should be sufficient warning not to follow the path of the ungodly (2:5–​6). 2 Peter has especially in mind sins of the flesh (2:10). The ungodly “have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin” (2:14). They have gone astray and tempt others to do the same:  “with licentious desires of the flesh they entice people who have just escaped from those who live in error” (2:18). The author of 2 Peter, like Hebrews, is particularly worried about those who have known the truth of

 157

S in in H ebrews , J ames , and 1 and 2   P eter  

|   1 5 7

the Gospel but have fallen away. “It would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment that was passed on to them” (2:21). They are like dogs that have returned to their own vomit (2:22). Thus, the author of 2 Peter is concerned to strengthen those who have remained faithful and to guard them against a hostile world.

518

9

Sin in Jude, Revelation, and Beyond JUDE The little letter of Jude receives very little attention among the minor Epistles in the New Testament. But in terms of addressing the topic of sin, the letter of Jude has a fair amount to say. The author of Jude is primarily concerned with divisions in the community of faith, especially with “certain intruders . . . who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness” (Jude 4).1 Jude reminds his audience of how God punished the unbelieving Egyptians, fallen angels, and the immoral people of Sodom and Gomorrah, who “indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust” (5–​7). Jude issues strong warnings about the coming judgment of God against “all the deeds of ungodliness” and “all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken” (14–​15). Jude reassures his audience that the early Apostles had predicted this kind of outbreak of sin (18): “for they said to you, ‘In the last time there will be scoffers, indulging their own ungodly lusts.’ ” Such people are worldly and “devoid of the Spirit” (19). Because they are living in the end times, the faithful must be especially vigilant against such ungodly and sinful behavior. Jude expresses concern that his audience not yield to temptation and lose their salvation by falling into defilement and sin (23–​ 24). Although Jude appears to be addressed to a generic situation of division among second-​or third-​generation Christians, Sin in the New Testament. Jeffrey s. Siker, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190465735.001.0001

 159

S in in J ude , R evelation , and  B eyond  

|   1 5 9

the overall message of the letter is one of encouragement to stand fast against sin and false belief in the end times. R E V E L AT I O N Like Jude, the Book of Revelation is concerned with living in the end times. Here we come full circle to the apocalyptic context for understanding sin that we initially encountered in the Gospel traditions associated with John the Baptist and the preaching of Jesus. John the Baptist warned of the need to be baptized for repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mk 1:4), in order to prepare for the one who was coming with more power and a baptism of the Holy Spirit. In turn, after his own baptism by John, Jesus came proclaiming the good news of God (Mk 1:15): “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.” For both John and Jesus repentance was the first step in putting oneself right with God in anticipation of God’s impending apocalyptic triumph, ushering in the reign of God and the overthrow of the powers of evil that currently held sway in the world and opposed God. Both John and Jesus had revealed the mystery of God’s coming victory over the forces of sin and death. The Book of Revelation tells the same story in the context of the only full-​blown apocalypse in the New Testament. While there are many apocalyptic sections in the Gospels (e.g., Mk 13) and Paul (e.g., 1 Thes 4–​ 5), only the Book of Revelation utilizes the full force and mystery of the genre of apocalyptic literature to, ironically, make plain the victory over human sin that God had already won on a cosmic level in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the Lamb of God.2 It is important to understand the purpose of the apocalyptic genre represented by the Book of Revelation in order

610

1 6 0   |   S in in the N ew T estament

to appreciate the role of sin that is developed within its cycle of visions. Simply put, apocalyptic literature like the Book of Daniel or 4 Ezra arose to explain a fundamental mystery: Why are the people of God suffering such trauma if their God is truly powerful and in charge? The basic answer is that the people of God are suffering because they are living at the nexus of a great cosmic battle between the forces of God and the forces of evil. God’s faithful have been targeted by the evil powers aligned against the people of God, just as Jesus had been crucified by Rome. But as God raised Jesus from the dead and thereby both vindicated him and condemned the powers that had put him to death, so the Book of Revelation promises that those who remain stalwart and faithful, despite persecution and suffering, will likewise be raised to new life. But they must hold fast and persevere. In the Book of Revelation, such perseverance means continuing an ongoing process of conforming oneself to God’s will, namely, repenting of sin that threatens to corrupt one’s identity as a faithful and practicing Christian within a larger community of faith. Repentance of sin is not a once-​for-​all-​time event that shields an individual from the ever-​present power of sin and its many temptations. The salvific sacrificial death of Jesus is a death that has defeated the power of sin once and for all on a cosmic scale. But Christians must constantly be vigilant in claiming that victory and clinging to the power of the Spirit of the risen Christ. This is the basic message of Revelation in regard to human sin: repent and manifest the works of faith in the whole of life, and thereby hold fast to the freedom from sin that was accomplished through the sacrificial blood of Jesus on the cross. The word “sin” (hamartia) occurs only three times in the Book of Revelation, once in 1:5 and twice in 18:4–​5. We will see that Revelation has much more to say about sin than what we find in these two passages, but these passages provide a helpful starting point for understanding sin in Revelation.

 16

S in in J ude , R evelation , and  B eyond  

|   1 6 1

Revelation 1:5 occurs toward the very beginning of the book in the context of the author John writing to the seven churches in Asia and extending grace and peace to these churches (1:4– ​6): from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loved us and freed us from our sins by his blood, and made us to be a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Immediately following the wish of grace and peace in 1:4–​5a, the author launches into a brief doxology offering praise to Christ “who loved us and freed us from our sins by his blood” (1:5b). The connection between forgiveness of sins and the blood of Jesus, poured out in his sacrificial death, is nothing new with Revelation. Indeed, this connection has become so fixed in early Christian theology that no real explanation is needed by the author for his readers/​listeners to understand his meaning. (Already the Apostle Paul had expressed a similar understanding in Romans 3:21–​25.) The blood of Jesus “freed us from our sins,” plain and simple. But how and why? The “why” is answered in the immediate context: “To him who loved us.” The love of God in Christ for humanity is what motivated Jesus to offer himself up in sacrificial death. The “how” is answered by invoking Jewish sacrificial ritual associated with the offering of lambs. As we saw in the Gospel of John, so again we can see a kind of “recombinant sacrifice” of Passover and Yom Kippur at work in this passage from Revelation.3 The imagery of freedom invokes the celebration of Passover and God’s freeing of the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt. The Hebrews were commanded by God to paint their

612

1 6 2   |   S in in the N ew T estament

doorposts with the blood of a lamb so that God’s angel of death would pass over their households and kill only the firstborns of the Egyptians who had enslaved them (Ex 12:21–​27). But at the same time, the reference to the blood of Jesus freeing people from their sins invokes the ritual of Yom Kippur (Lev 16). Although it was a goat and not a lamb sacrificed in this ritual, nonetheless, it was the blood of this animal that cleansed the altar where animals were sacrificed throughout the year, including sacrifices for sin. By invoking the Yom Kippur ritual, the Book of Revelation also invokes the scapegoat onto which the sins of the people were transferred by the high priest (Lev 16:20–​22). Jesus takes on the roles not only of both goats (the sacrificial goat and the scapegoat), but also—​as we saw in the Epistle to the Hebrews—​of the high priest making the sacrifice and confessing the sins of the people. In turn, Jesus commissions the faithful to be a kingdom of priests serving God (Rv 1:6). The faithful will share in the glory of the slain and risen Lamb of God, but “those who pierced him . . . will wail” when he comes again in glory on the clouds (1:7). Those who crucified Jesus, along with “all the tribes of the earth” who took sides against Jesus and thus against God will not be forgiven their sins, but they will face God’s judgment and harsh wrath (1:7). All of this imagery is at play in the doxological confession of faith in Revelation 1:4–​8. The motif of the saving blood of Jesus in Revelation 1:5 finds repetition throughout the book in its many references to blood.4 Most significant are the references to the blood of the Lamb.5 As was the case in the Gospel of John, Revelation refers to Jesus as the Lamb in order to invoke an array of associations. These associations include allusions to Passover, to Yom Kippur, to the sacrificial cult of the Jerusalem Temple, and to the apparent weakness of the slain Lamb that turns out to be the Lamb’s greatest power. In 5:9 the Lamb is praised as worthy to open the scroll that will unleash the events of the end times.

6 13

S in in J ude , R evelation , and  B eyond  

|   1 6 3

“You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation.” Two things stand out here. First is the notion that the blood of the Lamb served as a ransom for the saints before God. This is parallel to the blood of Jesus freeing people from sin (1:5). But the author can use other imagery, as in 7:14, referring to saints who have been cleansed: “they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” This striking imagery of robes washed in the Lamb’s blood turning white communicates purification, parallel to the reference in 1:5 about being freed from sins (cf. 19:13). Second is the explicit reference to the blood of the Lamb atoning those “from every tribe and language and people and nation,” a motif that recurs in 7:9 and 14:6. The emphasis on the redemptive power of the Lamb’s blood for those from every tribe/​language/​people/​nation stresses the inclusion of Gentiles but uses Jewish sacrificial imagery to do so. We are thus introduced to sin in Revelation by way of praising Jesus for his bloody sacrifice of atonement for the forgiveness of sins. The second passage in Revelation to use the term hamartia (sin) occurs in 18:4–​5. The larger context of the passage has the author seeing an angel coming down from heaven with the grand proclamation (18:1), “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great!” Babylon is a symbol in the Book of Revelation for Rome and the worldly powers associated with Rome, which rules on behalf of Satan.6 But the vision of Revelation makes it clear that from a heavenly perspective Babylon has already fallen and has been defeated by God. Part of the reason for the fall of Babylon is its utter sinfulness. “All the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have grown rich from the power of her luxury” (18:3). In other words, Babylon

614

1 6 4   |   S in in the N ew T estament

and all the nations under its sway are guilty of “fornication” (porneia), a generic way of describing the utter sinfulness of Babylon. Already in Revelation 16:19, God had given Babylon the “wine-​cup of the fury of his [God’s] wrath.” Those aligned with Babylon cursed God and “did not repent and give him glory” (16:9). But Babylon is not only guilty of fornication but also of economic injustice (18:3): “The merchants of the earth have grown rich from the power of her luxury.” This is yet another part of the indictment against Babylon and the nations under “her” sway. In this context we come to 18:4–​5. This time the voice from heaven speaks to the people of God, those who have been faithful: “Come out of her, my people, so that you do not take part in her sins, and so that you do not share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.” Just as God had saved Lot and his family from the destructive wrath that God poured on Sodom and Gomorrah (except for Lot’s wife who disobeyed God), so in the Book of Revelation God calls for the faithful to come out of Babylon and to avoid taking part in her sins. In 18:5 “sins” is further amplified by the term “iniquities” (adikēmata), the root meaning of which is “injustice.” The moral failure of Babylon is directly linked to its licentiousness and self-​seeking gratification at the expense of others. The Book of Revelation warns the faithful not to be seduced by Babylon’s (i.e., Rome’s) egregious sinfulness, which is “heaped high as heaven” (18:5). This warning to “come out of her, my people” echoes the same warning from Jeremiah 51 and Isaiah 48:20, where the prophets describes the many ways in which God will punish Babylon. In 51:45 Jeremiah cries out on behalf of God: “Come out of her, my people. Save your lives, each of you, from the fierce anger of the Lord.” Just as God had poured plagues on Egypt, so will God afflict Babylon (Rome) with plagues, pestilence, mourning, and famine, “for mighty is the Lord God who judges her” (Rv 18:8).

6 15

S in in J ude , R evelation , and  B eyond  

|   1 6 5

Beyond these two passages in Revelation that refer explicitly to hamartia (sin), there are numerous other passages that refer to (1) the generic sinfulness of the world, (2) the need for the faithful to avoid such sinfulness, and (3) the importance of repentance for the faithful who have fallen into sin. 1.  The Sinfulness of the World While Revelation 18:4–​5 warns the faithful against falling into the sins of the world (aka Babylon), if we press further to see exactly what such sins might be, we mostly get a list of generic sins. Most typical is “fornication” (porneia), which most often denotes sexual sins associated with Gentile vices (2:21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2). Beyond fornication, there is also a condemnation of idolatry. Thus Revelation 9:20–​21 refers to those who “did not repent of the works of their hands or give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk.”7 The author of Revelation can also use what amounts to brief vice lists of generically wicked behaviors: “They did not repent of their murders or their sorceries or their fornication or their thefts” (9:21). Or in 17:4 the great whore of Babylon holds a cup “full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication.” 2.  The Need for the Faithful to Avoid Sinfulness We have seen this motif in Revelation 18:4–​5, where the author calls upon the faithful to come out from the world’s sins. But there are also clear threats against false apostles (2:2) and against those who fail to be engaged in “the works you did at first” (2:5). The threat is that their “lampstand” will be removed, apparently a reference to the viability of their church community. Rather than succumbing to the sins of the world and the

61

1 6 6   |   S in in the N ew T estament

pressure to conform to the world’s ungodliness, the faithful need to recognize that even in their hardships God is reproving and disciplining them because of God’s love for them (3:19). 3.  Repentance of the Fallen Faithful The call to repentance among the faithful finds development in the letters to the seven churches from Revelation 2:1–​3:22. Here there is a pattern in which the letter to each church begins with an acknowledgment of “the works” of the church (2:2, 9; 12, 19; 3;1, 8, 15). This is then followed by a reproof for ways in which the church is faltering and a call to repent (2:5, 16, 21; 3:3, 19). Thus, the church in Ephesus “has abandoned the love you had at first. Remember then from what you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first” (2:4–​5). The church at Pergamum is accused of some false teaching that has misled people into idolatry and fornication (2:14). “Repent, then. If not, I will come to you soon and make war against them with the sword of my mouth” (2:16). Similarly, the church at Thyatira is engaging in idolatry and fornication (2:20), having been misled by “that woman Jezebel.” Then comes a dire warning: “I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her fornication; . . . I will strike her children dead” (2:21–​23). The church at Sardis is warned to “Wake up” (3:2). “If you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I  will come to you” (3:3). The church at Philadelphia is warned against the “synagogue of Satan” (3:9), and the church at Laodicea is warned not to be “lukewarm” (3:16). Whereas the sins of the world clearly warrant God’s wrath, for the author of Revelation, the faithful are warned of the danger they face if they do not repent of sins such as idolatry, fornication, and losing the zeal with which they first began. The author of Revelation is trying to encourage the faithful to endure and so preserve their hope of salvation in Christ.

6 17

S in in J ude , R evelation , and  B eyond  

|   1 6 7

Finally, fitting the apocalyptic character of Revelation, the scale on which the author operates is truly cosmic. The author is caught up in the heavenly realm and from there is able to observe the cosmic battle waged by Satan against God and God’s faithful (2:9, 13, 24; 3:9; 12:9; 20:2; 20:7). Chapter 12 of Revelation presents the vision and outcome of this cosmic battle in a nutshell. War breaks out in heaven (12:7). The dragon and its forces attack the heavenly realm, but they are defeated by God’s angelic forces led by Michael. The dragon (Satan, the devil) is thrown out of heaven down upon the earth. There is great rejoicing in heaven because of this inevitable cosmic victory by God (12:10–​12), brought about by the “blood of the lamb” (12:11). But the consequence of this heavenly victory is that the dragon will now wage war against God’s faithful on earth:  “woe to the earth and the sea, for the devil has come down to you with great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!” The remainder of the Book of Revelation plays out the war that has now fallen on earth, with its eventual and equally inevitable outcome—​the victory of the Lamb (Rv 20–​21). In the meantime, the faithful must resist the sinful temptations of the world generated by Satan, “the deceiver of the whole world” (Rv 12:9). By claiming the power and victory of the Lamb, Christians can avoid falling into sin. A N D   B E YON D While Revelation is the final book of the New Testament and represents one picture of Christian approaches to sin at the end of the 1st century ce, Christians in the 2nd century and beyond continued to reflect upon and struggle with sin. But by the end of the 1st century ce, the Christian movement was well on its way to a transformation from its original identity within a Jewish matrix to an evolving identity as a Gentile religious

618

1 6 8   |   S in in the N ew T estament

movement. While it held onto central aspects of its Jewish heritage (Scripture, a Jewish messiah, a first generation of Jewish Christians), at the same time it had morphed in ways that also made it no longer recognizably Jewish in either belief or practice. The Jewish law and its ritual embodiment had provided fundamental contours for regulating sin and ways of removing sin. This was the case not only for non-​Christian Jews but also for Jewish-​Christians (e.g., Mt 5:17–​20) seeking to live righteously. But already the Apostle Paul had, if with difficulty, navigated his Gentile churches away from Jewish law observance, calling them instead to rely on the indwelling Spirit of the risen Christ to guide their behavior (e.g., Gal 3:1–​5) and so fulfill the “law of Christ” (Gal 6:1–​5). The move away from the observance of Jewish law combined with the conviction that God’s covenant was now mediated through the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and especially the worship of Jesus as God’s salvific divine incarnation, led to an increasing “parting of the ways” between Jews and Christians.8 From a Jewish perspective, Christians had abandoned the Jewish law and had embraced an idolatrous belief that Jesus was God. Early in the 2nd century ce, Roman rulers began to distinguish Christians from Jews on the basis of religious practice (e.g., no circumcision or law observance among Christians) and belief (worshiping Jesus as divine).9 Christians increasingly saw themselves as the successor religion to Judaism, with the sacrificial death of Jesus as the way that God now dealt with forgiveness of human sin, both fulfilling and replacing the sacrificial system of Judaism that had been practiced for centuries, until the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 ce. One significant aspect of early Christian approaches to sin developed in response to Jewish rejection of Jesus as God’s promised messiah, namely, non-​ Christian Jews were now collectively condemned by Christians (primarily Gentile Christians) for the sin of deicide, for killing

6 19

S in in J ude , R evelation , and  B eyond  

|   1 6 9

Jesus and so killing God. What greater sin could there be? There are traces of early Christian charges of deicide already in the New Testament (e.g., Mt 27:25). Christians also accused Jews of being “children of the devil” (Jn 8:44) and of belonging to the “synagogue of Satan” (Rv 2:9; 3:9). No wonder Christians came to believe that God had rejected the Jews as punishment for their rejection of Jesus as the messiah and especially for handing Jesus over to be crucified (Lk 24:20). Examples of Christian attacks on Jews as sinful murderers of Christ, and hence God, can be found throughout 2nd-​and 3rd-​century Christian writings, from Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (c. 150) and Melito of Sardis’ Peri Pascha (On the Passover, c. 160–​170 ce) to Tertullian’s Adversus Judaeos (Against the Jews, c. 220–​240  ce).10 Along with its bellicose separation from Judaism, Christianity in the 2nd and 3rd centuries saw a shift toward addressing Gentile (pagan) audiences with apologetic treatises seeking to convince them of the truth of Christianity, with regular appeals to Hellenistic philosophy and reason in the process. This meant some adaptations in previous Jewish-​ Christian understandings of sin as well. Thus, for the apologist Justin Martyr (c. 100–​165 ce), sin was less the violation of divine commands than it was the bad behavior resulting from similarly bad intellectual understandings of God. Sin is the result of acting “contrary to right reason” (Dialogue with Trypho, 141). Christianity, and his version of it, represents the true philosophy that results in virtuous behavior (2 Apology 13). Justin also appeals to a thoroughly Christocentric reading of the Jewish Scriptures, arguing that it was really Christ who appeared to Abraham at Mamre, or was present in the lion’s den with Daniel, and was present at creation. Any truth that pagan philosophy discerned had its source in what God had long before revealed through Christ in the Jewish Scriptures. The fundamental sin of pagans was idolatry, the worship of

710

1 7 0   |   S in in the N ew T estament

false gods. But Justin also leveled this same charge against the Jews, drawing on Stephen’s speech from Acts 7.11 In the latter half of the 2nd century, Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–​215 ce), viewed sin primarily as human ignorance and a refusal to be educated about the truth. God’s chastisement of humanity was simply part of the sometimes harsh education of humanity. In this Clement could cite and agree with Plato:  “Plato says beautifully:  ‘For all who suffer punishment are in reality treated well, for they are benefited since the spirit of those who are justly punished is improved.’ And if those who are corrected receive good at the hands of justice, and according to Plato, what is just is acknowledged to be good, fear itself does good, and has been found to be men’s good.”12 For Clement human sinfulness is simply an occasion for divine instruction so that ignorance could be replaced with true understanding. In this conviction Clement opposed two rival views of sin and Christian faith. On the one hand, he opposed gnostic Christians such as Valentinus (c. 100–​175 ce), who argued for a docetic Christ (Jesus did not really come in the flesh) and viewed physical existence as something to be transcended through special knowledge only available to some. Sin was less a violation of moral law and more a failure to understand the true nature of human existence. Clement might agree with Valentinus about sin as a consequence of ignorance, but he radically disagreed with Valentinus’s docetic view of Jesus and with the notion that only some were capable of being truly enlightened with saving knowledge that would free them from error.13 On the other hand, Clement staunchly opposed Marcion (c. 85–​160 ce), who argued that the creator god (the Jewish God) was a god of fear and vengeance and in Jesus a new and greater god of love had been revealed. This bifurcation between a “god of the Old Testament” and a “god of the New Testament,” still

7 1

S in in J ude , R evelation , and  B eyond  

|   1 7 1

commonplace even today, failed to see that the God of Moses and the God of Jesus were one and the same. For Clement, the righteousness of God expressed in divine wrath against sin and the merciful love of God expressed in divine forgiveness of sin were two sides of the same coin. Thus, for Clement, fear of God is good if it helps to protect the believer from falling into sin. “The bitter roots of fear arrest the eating sores of our sins” (Paidagogos 1.9.83). Quoting Ezekiel 34, Clement can appeal to God as the great shepherd who will bind up what is lame and so heal the sin-​sick soul.14

712

10

Sin Then and Now

WE BEGAN THIS BOOK BY reflecting on how in modern culture language of sin and moral culpability has been increasingly psychologized as various conditions to be treated. We can see this in how some of the classic seven deadly sins have morphed in our modern world: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth. Gluttony is less a sin than an eating disorder. Sloth is not necessarily laziness but attention deficit disorder. Greed is actually good, or so we were told by the character Gordon Gekko in the 1987 film Wall Street. Lust could be a sexual addiction. Wrath is an anger-​management problem. And so on. In addition to the psychologizing of sin, in modern culture sin has also ceased to be viewed as a transcendent cosmic and demonic power that leads to death. Instead, we may talk about the dangers of transnational corporate powers that threaten the environment. Big business or big government are often seen as imposing and intrusive powers. But sin is not typically a category that we use for defining such entities. Still, within communities of faith, the language of sin remains important, and this is due in no small part to how the foundational Scriptures have presented sin as the fundamental human dilemma from which we need to be saved by God. The mechanism for such salvation within Christian tradition is always linked to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. As we have noted throughout virtually every chapter, explaining the death of Jesus was the primary focus for how the early Sin in the New Testament. Jeffrey s. Siker, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190465735.001.0001

7 13

S in T hen and  N ow  

|   1 7 3

Christians came to understand God’s extension of forgiveness of sins, as well as the defeat of the power of sin and sin’s consequence, death. A brief rehearsal of this connection between the death of Jesus and forgiveness of sin will help summarize this important theme. As we saw with the Gospel of Matthew, already in the birth story of Jesus it becomes clear that Joseph is to “name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Mt 1:21). This promise comes to fruition in the story of the Last Supper, where Jesus declares, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (26:28). Significantly, in following the Gospel of Mark here, Matthew has added, “for the forgiveness of sins,” whereas Mark only has, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (Mk 14:24). Matthew is explicit that the blood of Jesus will atone for human sin, but only in view of the resurrection that vindicates his life and sacrificial death. The Gospel of Mark overtly links the death of Jesus to forgiveness of sins in Mark 10:45, where Jesus speaks about the Son of Man who came “to give his life as a ransom [lytron] for many” (a passage that Matthew also has in 20:28). As we saw in the discussion about the meaning of “ransom” (lytron), the term has connections with the release of slaves and debtors (see, e.g., Lev 19:20 and Is 45:13). For Mark, the death of Jesus has redeeming value, but redemption from what? It appears that Mark has in view a redemption from a metaphorical slavery or indebtedness, and the parallels we saw with 4 Maccabees 6:28–​29 and 17:21–​22 strongly suggest a redemption from sin. The language of “blood of the covenant” from Mark 14:24 also draws on the imagery of the sacrificial blood of animals offered to sustain the covenant between God and Israel. The Gospel of Luke is the one Gospel that does not develop the imagery of an atoning sacrificial death in relation to sin. In parallels to Mark 10:45 and Mark 14:24 (and the

174

1 7 4   |   S in in the N ew T estament

related passages in Matthew), Luke studiously omits any reference to the Son of Man giving his life as a ransom for many, noting instead that Jesus has come as “one who serves” rather than one who sits at table expecting to be served (Lk 22:27). And in the Last Supper scene, Luke has Jesus take the cup and say, “`This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood’ ” (Lk 22:20). Luke’s Jesus does not say that it is poured out “for many,” as do both Matthew and Mark, nor that it is “for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt 26:28). Rather than seeing in the death of Jesus a redemption for human sin, Luke presents Jesus as a martyr, which finds explicit reference on the lips both of one of the criminals crucified with Jesus and Luke’s centurion at the cross: “Truly this man was innocent” (Lk 23:41, 47). As we saw in Luke’s development of sin, his primary concern rests with repentance of sin that goes hand in hand with forgiveness. Luke appears most interested in getting through the unavoidable crucifixion of Jesus and on to the vindicating and powerful resurrection of Jesus, a power that Jesus will pour out upon his disciples in the giving of the Spirit in Acts 2 at Pentecost. With the Gospel of John, we return to the tight connection between the death of Jesus and forgiveness of sin. John the Baptist bears witness to Jesus as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29). How does this Lamb of God take away sin? The reader/​hearer is supposed to understand that the death of Jesus will atone for sin, for otherwise the imagery of the “Lamb of God” makes no sense. In addition, John’s timing of the death of Jesus to coincide with the sacrifice of the Passover lambs on the Day of Preparation (Jn 19:42), and his calling attention to the fulfillment of Scripture that “none of his bones shall be broken” (Jn 19:36; cf. Ex 12:46; Num 9:12; Ps 34:20), indicate that Jesus is the true Lamb of God who frees God’s people not from bondage in Egypt but from bondage to sin. John thus combines the sacrificial meaning of Passover

7 15

S in T hen and  N ow  

|   1 7 5

with the atoning significance of the Yom Kippur sacrifice and applies both to the death of Jesus. The “death of Jesus  =  atoning sacrifice for sin(s)” theme continues full force in the letters of the Apostle Paul. We saw this especially in Romans 3:21–​25, where Paul explicitly refers to Jesus as God’s “sacrifice of atonement by his [Christ’s] blood.” In this way God passed over former sins. As the Gospel of John could use both Passover and Yom Kippur imagery to describe the death of Jesus, so could Paul. The Yom Kippur imagery is clear from Romans 3:21–​25, and, in 1 Corinthians 5:7, Paul can refer to Jesus as “our Passover lamb” who has been sacrificed. We also saw in Romans 6:1–​11 the close connections Paul drew between the death of Jesus and believers being baptized into the death of Jesus, which ironically results in their being set on the path to new life and eventually resurrected life in Christ. The Epistle to the Hebrews made perhaps the most explicit and extended connections between the death of Jesus and its atoning significance for human sin. Jesus is presented as both the perfect high priest who is without sin and the sacrificial victim whose death atones once for all, rather than having to be repeated year after year by an inferior and mere earthly Yom Kippur ritual. The sacrifice of Jesus takes place in the heavenly Temple, which only Jesus can do because he is the sinless Son of God and the unblemished offering to God on behalf of humanity. 1 Peter similarly can refer to how the faithful have been “ransomed by the blood of Christ” (1 Pt 1:18–​19). Finally, in the Book of Revelation we saw a reprise of the Jesus as Lamb motif, most explicitly in Revelation 1:5, which refers to Jesus as “him who loved us and freed us from our sins by his blood.” In short, the connection between the death of Jesus and its atoning significance for human sin can hardly be exaggerated in the New Testament. And yet, that is only one piece, if perhaps the most important one, of how the New Testament writings address the overall topic of sin.

176

1 7 6   |   S in in the N ew T estament

Another common theme revolves around what exactly constitutes sin in relation to Jewish law observance, which was a defining debate in the first few generations of Christianity as it morphed from a Jewish sect into a Gentile religious movement with Jewish roots, Jewish Scriptures, and a Jewish messiah. In Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, it became clear that sin is not merely a matter of outward action but also of a parallel inward disposition that could lead to an overt commission of sin, such as anger leading to murder or lust leading to adultery. But in this regard Matthew’s Jesus echoes the prophetic writings that speak of the law ideally being written on one’s heart (Jer 31:31–​34). In no way, however, does this mean that the law no longer holds. Far from it. And yet Matthew’s Jesus can strongly disagree with the Jewish religious leaders about the oral interpretation of the written law, especially regarding Sabbath observance (e.g., Mt 12:1–​14). But for Matthew this was more an intramural rabbinic debate, which was not uncommon for rabbis representing different schools of thought (Hillel and Shammai being the most famous). Matthew’s Jesus makes it clear, overall, that whoever relaxes the least of the commandments will be least in God’s kingdom. Relaxing the commandments, thus, appears to be a form of sin for Matthew. The Gospel of Mark has a decidedly different approach to Jewish law observance than Matthew. Mark’s Jesus has similar fights over the observance of Sabbath law (cf. Mk 2:23–​3:6). But in Mark’s Gospel, Jesus takes a significant step further away from law observance when we find the editorial comment that Jesus “declared all foods clean” (Mk 7:19), a sentiment found only in Mark. Here Mark goes well beyond debate over the oral law and expressly abandons the laws of Moses related to kosher food observance, which was a significant marker for Jewish identity in antiquity. We can see from the controversy over Peter’s eating with Paul’s Gentiles in Galatians 2:11–​14 that observing kosher food laws was a very sensitive subject in

7 1

S in T hen and  N ow  

|   1 7 7

early Christians communities as they expanded increasingly to include Gentile believers who were unaccustomed to such food restrictions. This is evident as well from the imposition of Jewish food laws regarding blood in the Jerusalem decree of James in Acts 15:19–​21. The penalties for violating the food laws spelled out in Leviticus, especially eating blood, are fairly clear. Leviticus 7:27 states, “Anyone of you who eats blood shall be cut off from your kin” (cf. also Lev 19:26; Dt 12:21–​25).1 Those who eat unclean animals have defiled themselves and are not holy before God (Lev 11:44–​45).2 Paul also weighs in on debates over observance of Jewish food laws. Given that Paul relaxed the most important marker of Jewish identity, circumcision, it is not surprising that he also relaxed the food laws for his Gentile communities. While for Matthew the food laws apparently still held sway, and a violation of these laws would likely be considered sinful, for Paul what mattered most was not to scandalize other Christians with the liberty of eating non-​kosher food (1 Cor 8). As he writes in Romans 14:20, “Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for you to make others fall by what you eat.” The sin is not in what one eats, but in how what one chooses to eat might scandalize others in the community. The sin is insisting on one’s privilege at the expense of another’s conscience. What we see in the debates over Jewish law observance is how adaptive early Christianity was as it welcomed an increasing number of Gentiles to faith in Christ. Parameters and boundaries for sinful behavior had some anchors for Gentile Christians, such as the Ten Commandments, but even there we find some flexibility, for example, in relation to the Fourth Commandment about keeping the Sabbath holy. As Christians came to worship more on Sunday, “the Lord’s day,” in honor of the resurrection of Jesus, there remained disagreement about what day was holy. The Ten Commandments are

718

1 7 8   |   S in in the N ew T estament

rather clear about keeping the Sabbath (the seventh day) holy. But Paul can say in Romans 14:5–​6, “Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord.” While this is not an explicit reference to Sabbath observance, worship on Sundays, or reverence for other days as holy, it nonetheless suggests a significant degree of flexibility over practices that had long been settled within Jewish law observance.3 Another recurring motif in various New Testament writings is a connection drawn between sin and the failure to believe or the failure to persist in faith. The Gospel of John in particular links Jewish refusal to believe with sin and death (Jn 8:24): “I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I AM.” John 12:37 expresses frustration that “although he had performed so many signs in their presence, they [the Jews] did not believe in him.” This sentiment is already reflected in prologue from John 1:11, “he came to his own [people], and they did not accept him.” From John’s perspective, the Pharisees are condemned because they presume that they can see clearly, but in reality they are blind. The story of the healing of the man born blind in John 9 thus concludes with this indictment: “Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, “We see,” your sin remains’ ” (9:41). Whereas the Gospel of John condemns as sinful those who do not come to believe, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation have a sharp warning against those who have come to believe sinning by falling away from faith. Hebrews in particular develops the theme of apostasy from the faith. Those who neglect their faith will receive a just punishment for their transgressive disobedience (Heb 2:1–​3). The danger of falling into disobedience is a real one (Heb 4:11). If they should fall into apostasy, there is no return, no coming back to the faith.

7 19

S in T hen and  N ow  

|   1 7 9

It is a sin that cannot be reversed (Heb 6:4–​8). The Book of Revelation has comparable warnings, but less against apostasy per se. and more a reprimand for believers to repent of growing lukewarm in their faith (Rev 3:16) and of losing the intensity of their initial faith (Rev 2:4–​5). The social, religious, and political contexts in which early Christian faith developed is, of course, central to understanding how and why it developed as it did. This applies also to notions about sin in the formative Christian traditions found in the New Testament writings. The immediate religious context of Judaism provided a rich set of Scriptures along with already well-​developed ritual practices (Passover, Yom Kippur, etc.) that gave the Gospel writers and Paul language for comprehending the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus—​especially his death. The overwhelming strategy for interpreting the scandalous death of Jesus was to exploit precisely the scandal of his death and to link it directly to human sin. Not only was human sinfulness responsible for putting Jesus to death, but early Christians came to believe that God also used that death to atone for human sin. Just as the ritual sacrifice of lambs at Passover and the ritual confession of sin upon the scapegoat at Yom Kippur were pivotal for Jewish identity as people freed and forgiven by God, so the earliest Jewish Christians took over the ritual imagination associated with these observances and applied them to Jesus, further supported by appeals to Israel’s Scriptures (e.g., Is 53; Ps 110). All of this helped Christian believers solidify their identity as a community who stood in the shadow of the cross, trusting in a God and a messiah who not only delivered them from sin but also did so once for all. This same God raised this crucified messiah to resurrected life, a new life now promised to all who came to believe, a promise that was expected to be brought to apocalyptic completion very soon, if never soon enough. Believers would have to endure suffering at the hands of sinful unbelievers. But final redemption was just around the

810

1 8 0   |   S in in the N ew T estament

corner, just as redemption from the power of sin and death had already been accomplished in the person of Christ. Having developed various understandings of sin in the New Testament, we are now in a position to ask what such approaches might mean in our 21st-​ century contexts. For those with a more historical interest, understanding the developments regarding sin is sufficient, as it helps explain the origins of some central features of Christian tradition: veneration of Jesus’s sacrificial death for sin; baptism for forgiveness of sins; the call for repentance in the face of human sin; Christian supersessionism in relation to Judaism; recurring apocalyptic expectation about the sudden return of Christ to bring God’s vindication and judgment to final completion; and more. For those who identify as Christians, this descriptive analysis of early Christian attitudes toward and understandings of sin provides recognizable touchstones of the faith. But, in part, modern Christian re-​appropriations of early Christian views of sin depend on the kind of Christian faith tradition with which one identifies. Some see the New Testament stress on the atoning death of Jesus and his bloody sacrifice on the cross as the unchanging center of Christian faith. Others argue that it is important to develop a nonviolent understanding of atonement, seeing Jesus’s death as an expression of his faithfulness to God rather than as a blood sacrifice required by God. Regardless, nobody can simply leap over 2,000  years of Christian tradition and claim a blank slate that adopts the earliest attitudes toward sin and redemption. The New Testament writings do not provide a sufficiently uniform view of sin to allow for such an approach. Partly as a result of this diversity of approaches, not surprisingly, modern Christian traditions both agree and disagree with each other about the relative significance and seriousness of sin. All might agree in principle, for example, to the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount as setting fundamental boundaries, but the devil, of course, is in the

 18

S in T hen and  N ow  

|   1 8 1

details.4 One person’s sin can be another person’s virtue, and as we know—​changing understandings of what counts as sin (and why) means this conversation will continue. But my hope is that the exposition of sin in the New Testament provided in this book will at least help animate the ongoing conversation with greater clarity and humility along the way.

812

NOTES

Preface

1. See J. S. Siker, Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy (Louisville:  Westminster John Knox Press, 1991); Siker, ed., Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994); Siker, Scripture and Ethics: 20th Century Portraits (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007); and Siker, Jesus, Sin, and Perfection in Early Christianity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015). Chapter 1

1. Menninger, Whatever Became of Sin? (New  York:  Hawthorn Books). 2. Already in 1931 L. M. Birkhead had published an interview with Menninger that anticipated some of his later argument:  From Sin to Psychiatry, an Interview on the Way to Mental Health with Dr.  Karl A.  Menninger. Little Blue Books Series #1585 (Girard, KS: Haldeman-​Julius Press). 3. D. Kelsey, “Whatever Happened to the Doctrine of Sin?” Theology Today 50:2 (1993): 169–​178.

8 13

N otes  

|   1 8 3

4. Kelsey, “Whatever Happened to the Doctrine of Sin?,” 177. See also Charles Bouchard, O.P., Whatever Happened to Sin? Virtue, Friendship and Happiness in the Moral Life (Chicago: New Priory Press, 2013). 5. Terence O’Leary, “Is Confession Dead?” The Catholic Thing, March 1, 2015, https://​w ww.thecatholicthing.org/​2015/​03/​01/​ confession-​dead/​. 6. Pope Francis offered these comments in an interview with Antonio Spadaro, S.  J., editor in chief of La Civiltà Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit journal. An English version was published in the Jesuit magazine America, September 30, 2013, http://​w ww. americamagazine.org/​f aith/​2 013/​0 9/​3 0/​big-​heart-​open-​god-​ interview-​pope-​francis. When Pope Francis accepted his election to the papacy, he said, “I am a sinner, but I trust in the infinite mercy and patience of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 7. Gary Anderson traces the shift from sin as a burden to sin as a debt in the Hebrew Bible.Sin:  A History (New Haven:  Yale University Press, 2009). See also Harry Attridge, “Sin,” The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 5, ed. K. D. Sakenfeld (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006), 263–​279. 8. See Lisa Hau, Moral History from Herodotus to Diodorus Siculus (Edinburgh:  Edinburgh University Press, 2016); John T. Fitzgerald, ed., Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-​Roman Thought (New York: Routledge 2008); and Teresa Morgan, Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2007). 9. See Runar Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism:  A Comparative Study of Ancient Morality (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010); Wayne Meeks, The Origins of Christian Morality:  The First Two Centuries (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994); and Luke Timothy Johnson, Among the Gentiles:  Greco-​ Roman Religion and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009). 10. See John T. McNeill and Helena Gamer, Medieval Handbooks of Penance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1938); and Clare Costley King’oo, Miserere Mei:  The Penitential Psalms in Late Medieval and Early Modern England (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2012).

814

1 8 4   |    N otes

11. See Christopher Tyerman, God’s War:  A New History of the Crusades (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006). 12. Thomas Aquinas, Disputed Questions on Virtue, trans. J. Hause and C. Murphy (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2010). 13. See especially John Mahoney, The Making of Moral Theology: A Study of the Roman Catholic Tradition (New  York:  Oxford University Press, 1987). 14. See Raymond Brown, ed., Peter in the New Testament:  A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (New York: Paulist Press, 1973). 15. For a discussion of various Protestant approaches to sin in the 20th century, see, e.g., Andrew Finstuen, Original Sin and Everyday Protestants (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2009). 16. See G. C. Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics:  Sin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971). 17. See Veronika Grimm, From Feasting to Fasting: The Evolution of a Sin (New York: Routledge 1996). 18. The first reference to the term “homosexual” was in an 1869 German pamphlet on sodomy laws, written anonymously by Karl-​ Maria Kertbeny (an Austrian-​ born Hungarian journalist). The term came into English by way of an 1892 translation of Richard van Krafft-​ Ebing’s Psychopathia Sexualis. See David Halperin, One Hundred Years of Homosexuality (New York: Routledge, 1990). 19. See Mark Jordan, The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology (Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 1997); and Martti Nissenen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World:  A Historical Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998). 20. See J. S. Siker, Homosexuality in the Church:  Both Sides of the Debate (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994). 21. See, e.g., Maria Lopez Vigil, “The Sin Is Homophobia, Not Homosexuality,” The Havana Times, June 22, 2016, http://​w ww. havanatimes.org/​?p=119531. She was writing in response to the massacre at an Orlando gay club on June 12, 2016 (https://​ en.wikipedia.org/​w iki/​2016_​Orlando_​nightclub_​shooting). 22. Throughout this book I will use the standard abbreviation LXX for referring to the Septuagint.

8 15

N otes  

|   1 8 5

23. Meeks, The Origins of Christian Morality, 211. Regarding his analysis of the early Christian moral world, Meeks also states that his study will have been successful “if it has done no more than to make the ethos of the early Christians seem even more distant from the ordinary concerns and beliefs of people today than it did before” (211). 24. “Distinctive Johannine Vocabulary and the Interpretation of 1 John 3:9,” Westminster Theological Journal 40 (1977), 136–​144.

Chapter 2

1. See B. D. Ehrman, The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2018). 2. It is no accident that hamartology is the term typically used to describe the Christian doctrine of sin. 3. For a good overview of post-​biblical Jewish interpretation, especially as seen in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Talmud, see H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Minneapolis:  Fortress Press, 1992); and B. W. Holtz, ed., Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2008). 4. See Exodus 31:12–​17, as well as the rabbinic commentary on Exodus 31:12, the Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael. 5. Azazel was the name associated with a demon who lived in the desert. 6. See the commentary of J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–​16 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1009–​1084. 7. See E. P. Sanders, Judaism:  Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–​66 CE (London: SCM Press, 1992). 8. See J. Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple:  Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006). 9. Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 117. 10. Likely from the second half of the 1st century. See E. P. Sanders, “The Testament of Abraham,” in Outside the Old Testament,

816

1 8 6   |    N otes

ed. M. de Jonge (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1986),  56–​59. 11. See G. Anderson, Sin:  A History (New Haven:  Yale University Press, 2009); J. Lam, Patterns of Sin in the Hebrew Bible: Metaphor, Culture, and the Making of a Religious Concept (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015). 12. See J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–​117 CE) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999). 13. When the synagogue at Dura Europos was discovered scholars were amazed by the art that decorated the four walls of the synagogue with depictions of stories from the Jewish Scriptures. See Clark Hopkins, The Discovery of Dura Europos (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979). 14. Embassy to Gaius, 23. 15. See Christopher Faraone and F. S. Naiden, eds., Greek and Roman Animal Sacrifice:  Ancient Victims, Modern Observers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012); Jennifer Knust and Zsuzsanna Varhelyi, eds., Ancient Mediterranean Sacrifice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); and Marcel Detienne and Jean-​Pierre Vernant, The Cuisine of Sacrifice Among the Greeks (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998). 16. Erin Roberts calls attention to the ways that translators have consistently rendered hamartia as “sin” in the New Testament writings, while employing other translations for hamartia (e.g., mistake, error) in non-​Christian Greek texts from the same time period. See “Reconsidering Hamartia as ‘Sin’ in 1 Corinthians,” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 26 (2014): 340–​364. See also J. M. Bremer, Hamartia: Tragic Error in the Poetics of Aristotle and in Greek Tragedy (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1969). 17. See Christopher Bobonich and Pierre Destrée, eds., Akrasia in Greek Philosophy from Socrates to Plotinus (Leiden: Brill, 2007). 18. For a helpful discussion of Stoic religious philosophy in relationship to Christian origins, with particular attention to the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, see L. T. Johnson, Among the Gentiles:  Greco-​ Roman Religion and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2090), 64–​78.

8 17

N otes  

|   1 8 7

19. Paul argues along similar lines in Romans 2:14–​15. “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature [physei] things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law” (NIV). 20. By contrast, the Jews are guilty of disobedience, since they know the one true God yet fail to abide by the covenant established with God; Rom 2:17ff. 21. See C. Kavin Rowe, One True Life: The Stoics and Early Christians as Rival Traditions (New Haven:  Yale University Press, 2016). Rowe draws a sharp distinction between Stoic and early Christian understandings of lived truth. On the Areopagus speech, see also J. W. Jipp, “Paul’s Areopagus Speech of Acts 17:16–​34 as Both Critique and Propaganda,” Journal of Biblical Literature 131:3 (2012): 567–​588. 22. Paul’s language echoes similar expressions in Wisdom 11:23, “But you [God] are merciful to all, for you can do all things, and you overlook people’s sins, so that they may repent.” 23. A similar motif can be seen in Wisdom 14:21–​22, “And this became a hidden trap for humankind, because people, in bondage to misfortune or to royal authority, bestowed on objects of stone or wood the name that ought not to be shared. Then it was not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God, but though living in great strife due to ignorance, they call such great evils peace.” See also Wisdom 15:11. Chapter 3

1. See J. S. Siker, Jesus, Sin, and Perfection in Early Christianity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 206–​246. 2. J. Marcus, Mark 1–​8 (New Haven:  Yale University Press, 1999), 151. 3. E. Boring, Mark:  A Commentary (Louisville:  Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 40. 4. For an exploration of how Jesus came to be seen as sinless in early Christian tradition, see Siker, Jesus, Sin, and Perfection. 5. Most notably J.  Jeremias, New Testament Theology (New York: Scribner, 1971), 108–​113.

81

1 8 8   |    N otes

6. See especially E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New  York:  Penguin, 1993), 225–​233. As E. Boring notes, “The call of Levi and the party at his house are not an individual case, but a paradigm of God’s reconciling act” (Mark: A Commentary, 82–​83). 7. So J. Marcus, Mark 1–​8, 226. 8. On sin, purity, and impurity in early Judaism see J. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (New  York:  Oxford University Press), 2000. 9. See the helpful discussion in Marcus, Mark 1–​8, 230–​231. 10. See the discussion in Marcus, Mark 1–​8, 283–​285. 11. On the debate over this passage, see R. Guelich, Mark 1–​8:26 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 110–​126. 12. Mark makes 19 references to Isaiah (direct and indirect), 14 of them to Isaiah 40–​66. Mark makes 9 references to Daniel. See the discussion by R. E. Watts in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 111–​251. On Mk 10:45 see 203–​206. On Mark’s use of the Jewish Scriptures, see J. Marcus, The Way of the Lord:  Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992). 13. Leviticus 19:20 (LXX) references the manumission of a slave using the term lytron. Isiah 45:13 uses the term lytron in reference to a ransom paid for the release of prisoners of war. See A. Y. Collins, Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 501. 14. 4 Maccabees is typically dated to the 1st century ce. See J.W. Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviors of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabbees (Leiden: Brill, 1997). 15. See Marcus for further parallels:  Mark 8–​16, 749–​757. Within the New Testament 1 Peter reminds his audience that “you were ransomed [lytroō] . . . with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish.” 16. See, e.g., Marcus, who comments “ ‘which is poured out on behalf of many’ specifies the means of eschatological liberation by echoing Isa 53:12:  the Lord’s Suffering Servant will save his people by pouring his soul out to death on their behalf” (Mark 8–​16, 966–​967). So also Boring, Mark: A Commentary, 391, and most other commentaries.

8 19

N otes  

|   1 8 9

17. Collins, Mark, 502. She also suggests (p. 503) that “the term lytron (‘ransom’) in v.  45 is a synonym of hilastērion (‘expiation’ or ‘propitiation’). Jesus’ death is interpreted here as a metaphorical ritual act of expiation for the offenses of many.” The connections with Paul’s terminology is also significant, as Paul uses both the language of lytron and hilastērion in Romans 3:24–​25. 18. See Marcus, Mark 8–​16, 751–​757. Chapter 4

1. See M. J. Nel, “The Conceptualisation of Sin in the Gospel of Matthew,” In die Skriflig/​In Luce Verbi 51:3 (2017): 1–​8, https://​ indieskriflig.org.za/​index.php/​skriflig/​article/​v iew/​2097/​4360. 2. See R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1999),  71–​74. 3. See further discussion in J. S. Siker, Jesus, Sin, and Perfection in Early Christianity (New  York:  Cambridge University Press, 2015),  65–​75. 4. So U. Luz, Matthew 1–​ 7:  A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 121. Eugene Boring notes: “The reader would suppose the reference is to Israel, but as the plot develops the identity of the Messiah’s people, the people of God, will be one of the points of conflict (21:43; 27:25).” “The Gospel of Matthew,” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 8 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 135. 5. See D. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991), 46–​50. 6. See the discussion in J. E. McKinley, Tempted for Us: Theological Models and the Practical Relevance of Christ’s Impeccability and Temptation (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock/​Paternoster, 2009). See also Siker, Jesus, Sin, and Perfection in Early Christianity, 141–​144. 7. See B. Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980). 8. This passage parallels Mark 11:25–​26, but in Matthew it is a comment on the prayerful request for forgiveness, while in Mark it functions as a general comment on what one should do when praying:  “Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have

910

1 9 0   |    N otes

anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may also forgive your trespasses” (Mk 11:25). Some ancient manuscripts add 11:26, “But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses.” 9. See G. Anderson, Sin:  A History (New Haven:  Yale University Press, 2009), 27–​39. 10. Throughout church history, different Christian groups have developed all sorts of rules and regulations to provide guidance in such conflicts. My own denomination (PCUSA) has as part of their constitution the Rules of Discipline that spells out what to do in cases where one member is at serious odds with another in the church and feels wronged. 11. The Essenes and Zealots had been wiped out in the Jewish War with Rome from 66–​70 ce. The destruction of the Second Temple in 70 ce meant the end of the locus of power for the Sadducees. Only Pharisaic Judaism and Messianic Judaism survived, and both fought as only siblings can do for supremacy, with Pharisaic Judaism by far being the larger and more influential group. Christian Jews were viewed as betraying the heart of Jewish identity by relaxing the Jewish law, especially by including Gentiles apart from the law, and by elevating Jesus to divine status, an expression of idolatry. 12. See J. S. Siker, “Yom Kippuring Passover: Recombinant Sacrifice in Early Christianity,” in Ritual and Metaphor:  Sacrifice in the Bible, ed. C. Eberhardt (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011), 65–​82. Chapter 5

1. See especially D. W. Adams, The Sinner in Luke (Eugene, OR:  Pickwick, 2008); and D. A. Neale, None but the Sinners:  Religious Categories in the Gospel of Luke (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991). 2. See F. Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–​ 9:50 (Minneapolis:  Augsburg Fortress, 2002), 72–​77. J.  Green rightly calls attention to the parallel in Psalm 130:6–​ 7, “O Israel, hope in the LORD! For with the LORD there is steadfast love, and with him is great power to redeem. It is he who will

 19

N otes  

|   1 9 1

redeem Israel from all its iniquities.” The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 118–​119. 3. So J. Carroll, Luke:  A Commentary (Louisville:  Westminster John Knox, 2012), 93. 4. See Siker, Jesus, Sin, and Perfection in Early Christianity, 114–​118. 5. See J. S. Siker, “First to the Gentiles: A Literary Analysis of Luke 4:16–​30.” Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 69–​86. 6. So Carroll, Luke: A Commentary, 3–​4; Bovon, Luke 1, 10–​11, and most commentators. Bovon especially notes Luke’s connection to Paul’s Gentile ministry, as expressed in part in the Acts of the Apostles. 7. Bovon, Luke 1, 170. See also Adams, The Sinner in Luke, 110–​113. The Testament of Abraham (likely a 1st-​or 2nd-​century ce Jewish writing) shows Abraham falling to the ground in the presence of the archangel Michael, saying: “I am a sinner and your completely unworthy servant” (9:3). Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, ed. J. H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 886. Translation by E. P. Sanders. 8. See Bovon, Luke 1, 182, on the forgiveness of sins in Luke. 9. So Bovon, Luke 1, 190. A similar charge against Jesus for associating with “tax collectors and sinners” appears also in Luke 7:34. 10. Bovon, Luke 1, 293. So also Green, The Gospel of Luke, 309; “Undoubtedly, this characterization marks her as a prostitute by vocation, a whore by social status, contagious in her impurity, and probably one who fraternizes with Gentiles for economic purposes.” 11. The REB translates the phrase as:  “So, I  tell you her great love proves that her many sins have been forgiven.” The NIV translates:  “Therefore, I  tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—​as her great love has shown.” 12. G. Anderson, Sin: A History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 32. 13. Green, The Gospel of Luke, 444. 14. Green, The Gospel of Luke, 443. 15. Green, The Gospel of Luke, 60. 16. Green, The Gospel of Luke, 613. 17. See E. Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 166–​185.

912

1 9 2   |    N otes Chapter 6

1. On John as an anti-​gnostic writing that was nonetheless used by gnostic Christians, see J. M. Lieu, “Gnosticism and the Gospel of John,” The Expository Times 90:8 (1979): 233–​237. On Gnosticism more generally, see D. Brakke, The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity (Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press, 2010). 2. The Book of Revelation refers to Jesus as arnion (lamb) 20 times. Elsewhere in the New Testament one finds frequent references to probata (sheep, 39 times), but never in reference to Jesus. 3. Remember that a day in the Jewish world begins at sundown and ends the following sundown. Thus, the sacrifice of the Passover lambs took place the day before it was eaten, namely in the morning or afternoon before the evening meal, which was the next day since it was after sundown. 4. So also R. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i–​xii) (Garden City: Doubleday, 1966), 62–​63. 5. For example, in John 1 alone Jesus is referred to as the “Word” of God, the “Lamb of God,” “rabbi,” “Messiah,” “Son of God,” “King of Israel,” and “Son of Man”! 6. See 1 John 3:5, which reads: “You know that he was revealed to take away sins; and in him there is no sin.” See also W. Farmer, ed., Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1998); and J. S. Siker, Jesus, Sin, and Perfection (New  York:  Cambridge University Press, 2015), 240–​243. 7. So also R.  Brown, The Gospel According to John, 56. See S. Schneiders, “The Lamb of God and the Forgiveness of Sin(s) in the Fourth Gospel,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 73 (2011): 1–​2 9. 8. See J. S. Siker, “Yom Kippuring Passover: Recombinant Sacrifice in Early Christianity,” in Ritual and Metaphor:  Sacrifice in the Bible, ed. C. Eberhardt (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011), 65–​82. See also D. S. Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). 9. On the history of interpretation of the woman caught in adultery, see J. Knust and T. Wasserman, To Cast the First Stone: The

 193

N otes  

|   1 9 3

Transmission of a Gospel Story (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018). 10. R. Schnackenburg comments on 8:11, “The point is not the condemnation of sin but the calling of sinners:  not a doctrine but an event. Jesus accepts sinners in God’s name; his will is not to judge but to save.” The Gospel According to St. John, vol. 2 (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 168. 11. On the “I am” sayings in John, see Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, vol. 2, 79–​89. 12. The intensity of John’s polemic against the Jewish leaders has done great harm in the history of Jewish-​Christian relations. It is important for readers of John’s Gospel (and all the early Christian writings) to be aware that John’s community felt persecuted by non-​Christian Jews, including being expelled from the synagogues (9:22; 12:42; 16:1–​4). John 8:44 in particular has caused great trouble by accusing the Jews of being children of the devil, quite literally demonizing the Jews. The context of the fight between Johannine Christianity and non-​Christian Judaism has been developed in two classic works: R. E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1979); and J. L. Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (New York: Harper and Row, 1968). See also J. S. Siker, Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1991). 13. We need to remember that the story of the woman caught in adultery (7:53–​8:11) was not an original part of John’s Gospel, and so it interrupts the flow of the narrative in John 7–​9, all of which is connected by themes of light and darkness, sight and blindness. 14. See 4:34; 5:24, 30, 36–​37; 6:29, 38–​39, 44, 57; 7:16, 18, 28–​29, 32; 8:16, 18, 26, 29, 42;12:44–​45, 49; 13:20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5; 17:8, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21. 15. So Brown, The Gospel According to St. John, 380–​382; Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, vol. 2, 257–​258. 16. See Siker, Jesus, Sin, and Perfection, 178–​180; Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, vol. 2, 252–​256. 17. See Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, vol. 3, 116–​117.

914

1 9 4   |    N otes

18. This statement is similar to Matthew 18:18 about “binding and loosing.” See R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, vol. 3, 326–​327. 19. See R. E. Brown, The Epistles of John (New  York:  Doubleday, 1981),  19–​35. 20. See Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple. 21. 1 John also refers to “evil” (poneros; 2:13; 3:12; 5:18) and to the verb “to deceive” (planan; 1:8; 2:26; 3:7). 22. The approach of 1 John to sin has been the topic of several studies. In addition to the standard commentaries, see S. P. Vitrano, “The Doctrine of Sin in 1 John,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 25:1 (1987):  123–​131; E. J. Cooper, “The Consciousness of Sin in 1 John,” Laval théologique et philosophique 28:3 (1972): 237–​ 248; V. K. Inman, “Distinctive Johannine Vocabulary and the Interpretation of 1 John 3:9,” Westminster Theological Journal 40 (1997): 136–​144; S. Lyonnet and L. Sabourin, “The Notion of Sin in the Johannine Writings,” in Sin, Redemption, and Sacrifice: A Biblical and Patristic Study, ed. S.  Lyonnet (Rome:  Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1998), 38–​45. 23. See G. Strecker, The Johannine Letters (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1996), 26–​28. 24. A  full discussion of the various options, including parallels to Qumran literature, can be found in Brown, The Epistles of John, 398–​400. 25. The Gospel of John uses this notion of “abiding” in 6:56; and 15:4–​9. 1 John uses the term in 2:6, 24, 27–​28; 3:17, 24; 4:13, 15. See Strecker, The Johannine Epistles, 44–​45, on the use of menein (abiding) in 1 John. 26. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple. 27. See Brown, The Epistles of John, 503–​504; Strecker, The Johannine Epistles, 133–​ 135; J. Verheyden, R. Bieringer, J. Schroter, I. Jager, eds., Docetism in the Early Church (Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2018). 28. See the discussion in Brown, The Epistles of John, 485–​511. 29. Numbers 18:22 warns that only Levites shall enter the “tent of meeting” to perform services for God. “From now on the Israelites shall no longer approach the tent of meeting, or else they will incur guilt and die.”

 195

N otes  

|   1 9 5

30. See Brown, The Epistles of John, 610–​619. Later theologians would see the distinction as between mortal vs. venial sins. See, e.g., R. G. Newhauser and S. J. Ridyard, eds., Sin in Medieval and Early Modern Culture (Woodbridge: York Medieval Press, 2012). Chapter 7

1. See, e.g., S. Lyonnet, Sin, Redemption, and Sacrifice:  A Biblical and Patristic Study (Rome:  Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970), 46–​47; J. C. Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia:  Fortress Press, 1980), 213–​ 234; J. D.  G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 111–​127; and P. Fredriksen, Sin: The Early History of an Idea (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), 35–​49. 2. See, e.g., A. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation:  A Greco-​ Roman Sourcebook (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986). 3. See, e.g., P. Jewett, Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 454–​473; J. Fitzmyer, Romans (New  York:  Doubleday, 1993), 472–​477; B. Byrne, S. J., Romans (Collegeville, MN:  Liturgical Press, 1996), 216–​234. 4. On the yetzer hara, see I. Rosen-​Zvi, Demonic Desires:  “Yetzer Hara” and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia:  University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011); and C. Keith and L. Stuckenbruck, eds., Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016). 5. See further J. Marcus, “The Evil Inclination in the Epistle of James,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982): 606–​621. 6. See S. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981). 7. On early Jewish attitudes toward a messiah, see Judaism and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, ed. J. Neusner, W. S. Green, E. Frerichs (Cambridge University Press, 1988); and M. Novenson, Christ Among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism (New  York:  Oxford University Press, 2012). 8. Although the written form of this tradition dates to c. 200 ce, many of the underlying oral traditions come from a much earlier

916

1 9 6   |    N otes

time, perhaps contemporary with Paul himself, though dating the Mishnaic traditions is very difficult. For a discussion of the origins of the Mishnah, see D. Kraemer, “The Mishnah,” in Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 4: The Late Roman-​Rabbinic Period, ed. S. Katz (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2006), 299–​315; and H. Lapin, “The Origins and Development of the Rabbinic Movement in the Land of Israel,” in Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 4, 206–​229. 9. The Mishnah, trans. H. Danby (Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1933), 446. 10. See M. de Boer, Galatians (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 87. 11. See S. Cohen’s comments on Galatians 1:13-​14 in A-​J. Levine and M. Z. Brettler, eds., The Jewish Annotated New Testament, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 499. 12. See J. L. Martyn, Galatians (New  York:  Doubleday, 1997), 136–​151. 13. Martyn, Galatians, 157; emphasis his. For a thorough discussion of the apocalyptic character of Paul’s revelation, see de Boer, Galatians,  77–​84. 14. See the discussion in de Boer, Galatians,  89–​94. 15. The 2nd-​century debate between Justin Martyr and Trypho the Jew provides an important window for the fight over the Jewish Scriptures and to what degree they support the claims of the Christians. See Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, in which both Justin (representing Christians) and Trypho (representing Jews) fight back and forth with each other by quoting one biblical passage after another and construing their meanings in accord with their respective faith convictions; T. B. Falls, ed. and trans., Justin Martyr:  The First Apology, the Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, Exhortation to the Greeks, The Monarchy of the Rule of God (Fathers of the Church Patristic Series; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2008). See also J. Siker, Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy (Louisville: Westminster/​John Knox Press, 1991), 163–​184. 16. See, e.g., J. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians (New Haven:  Yale University Press, 2008), 546. See also W. Bellinger and W. Farmer, eds., Jesus and the Suffering Servant:  Isaiah 53 and Christian

9 17

N otes  

|   1 9 7

Origins (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 1998), especially the essay in the volume by R. Wagner, “Heralds of Isaiah and the Mission of Paul: An Investigation of Paul’s Use of Isaiah 51–​55 in Romans” (193–​222). See also R. Wagner’s larger study, Heralds of the Good News:  Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans (Boston: Brill, 2003). Finally, see the general importance of Isaiah for Christian reflection in J. F. A. Sawyer, The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996). 17. See Martyn, Galatians, 319. 18. See de Boer, Galatians, 209–​215; Martyn, Galatians, 307–​336. 19. Does Paul’s reference to Passover here suggest that Paul’s Gentile-​ Christian church in Corinth was observing the Passover festival, now reinterpreted with the death of Jesus as the Passover sacrifice? See Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 241–​242. 20. On sin as weight, see G. Anderson, Sin:  A History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010). 21. For a full study of how Jesus came to be viewed as sinless in early Christianity, see J.S. Siker, Jesus, Sin, and Perfection in Early Christianity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015). 22. See J. S. Siker, “Yom Kippuring Passover: Recombinant Sacrifice in Early Christianity,” in Ritual and Metaphor:  Sacrifice in the Bible, ed. C. Eberhardt (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011), 65–​82. 23. See the discussion in J. Fitzmyer, Romans (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 333–​339; and P. Jewett, Romans (Minneapolis:  Fortress Press, 2007), 253–​264. 24. See especially R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ:  The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–​4:11, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). Chapter 8

1. See C. Koester, Hebrews (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 80–​82. 2. So H. Attridge, “Paraenesis in a Homily,” Semeia 50 (1990): 217. See also F. Craddock, “Hebrews,” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 12, ed. L. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 14–​15.

918

1 9 8   |    N otes

3. The faithful addressed in Hebrews are most likely second-​ generation Jewish Christians c. 60–​90 ce. As Hebrews 2:3 states, “It [the message of salvation] was declared at first through the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him.” See Koester, Hebrews, 50–​52. It appears that the addressees have been Christians for a while and that they have suffered as a result of their faith (10:32–​36), which is why they need a word of encouragement to endure. 4. See Attridge, Hebrews, 292–​293; Koester, Hebrews, 455–​458. 5. For a full discussion of the Yom Kippur ritual, see J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–​16 (New  York:  Doubleday, 1991), 1009–​1084. On Yom Kippur in early Christian interpretation, see J. Siker, Jesus, Sin, and Perfection in Early Christianity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 243–​246. 6. The reference to Azazel is understood to be an evil spirit dwelling in the desert. The high priest will confess the sins of the people on the head of the live goat, and the goat shall literally bear away the sins into the desert, where both the goat and the sins will be destroyed. In later rabbinic tradition it was understood that the live goat was led into the wilderness and thrown off a sharp cliff, again bearing all the sins of the people with it. See Yoma 67b. 7. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–​16, 1036–​1038. 8. On Platonic imagery in Hebrews, see Koester, Hebrews, 59–​62, 97–​100, 430–​431; and Attridge, Hebrews, 261–​264. 9. See Koester, Hebrews, 290. Similarly, L. Johnson, Hebrews:  A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 51–​53. 10. On theosis (becoming divine) in early Christian tradition, see N. Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004). 11. See L. T. Johnson, The Letter of James (New  York:  Doubleday, 1995), 16–​ 24; J. Painter, “Letter of James,” The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, ed. K.  Sakenfeld (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2008), 192–​194. 12. L.  T. Johnson notes that there are some 59 imperatives in the 108 verses of James; “The Letter of James,” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 12, ed. L. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 179. 13. See Johnson, The Letter of James, 276–​277.

9 1

N otes  

|   1 9 9

14. Augustine famously developed the notion of sin as a habit from which one could not escape by one’s own will apart from God. See J. Prendiville, “The Development of the Idea of Habit in the Thought of Saint Augustine,” Traditio 28 (1972):  29–​99; and Augustine’s Confessions, Book VIII.1–​6. 15. See Johnson, The Letter of James, 298. 16. See J. Gonzalez, Faith and Wealth: A History of Early Christian Ideas on the Origin, Significance, and Use of Money (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1990). 17. See the discussion in M. Dibelius, James (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 181–​206. 18. See Johnson, The Letter of James, 333. 19. See Johnson, The Letter of James, 338–​339. Ultimately Paul has the same hope when it comes to disciplining a sinful man in the Corinthian congregation (1 Cor 5:1–​5). 20. See J. H. Elliott, 1 Peter (New York: Random House, 2000), 136–​ 138; D. Bartlett, “The First Letter of Peter,” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 12, ed. L. Keck (Nashville:  Abingdon Press, 1998), 234–​235. 21. Elliott, 1 Peter, 715. 22. On the household codes in 1 Peter, see J. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless:  A Sociological of 1 Peter, Its Situation, and Strategy (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981); and D. Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive:  The Domestic Code in 1 Peter (Atlanta:  Society of Biblical Literature, 1981). Chapter 9

1. This concern with intruders who have perverted the Gospel message reminds us of Paul’s similar struggle with the Galatians (1:6–​ 10), though in Galatians the false teachers have been preaching the need for law observance, whereas in Jude the intruders have engaged in sexual immorality and licentiousness (Jude 4, 7). See D. Watson, “The Letter of Jude,” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 12, ed. L. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 484–​485. 2. On apocalyptic literature in general, see J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 3rd

20

2 0 0   |    N otes

ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016); as well as P. Vielhauer’s classic essays, “Introduction,” and “Apocalyptic in Early Christianity,” in New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, ed. E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), 581–​607 and 608–​642. 3. See J. Siker, “Yom Kippuring Passover: Recombinant Sacrifice in Early Christianity,” in Ritual and Metaphor: Sacrifice in the Bible, ed. C. Eberhart (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011), 65–​82. 4. There are 19 references to “blood” in Revelation: several refer to the blood of Jesus or the Lamb (1:5; 5:9; 7:14; 12:11; 19:13), several refer to the blood of the saints who have been martyred (6:10; 17:6; 18:24; 19:13), and several are part of apocalyptic signs (6:12; 8:7; 11:6; 14:20; 16:3–​4). 5. Even more prevalent than references to blood in Revelation are references to the Lamb (29x), always referring to Jesus and invoking his sacrificial death. See 5:6, 7, 12–​13; 6:1, 16; 7:9-​10, 14, 17; 12:11; 13:8, 11; 14:1, 4, 10; 15:3; 17:14; 19:7, 9; 21:9, 14, 22-​23, 27; 22:1, 3. On the Lamb in Revelation, see D. Harrington, Revelation (Collegeville, MN:  Liturgical Press, 1993), 25–​ 28; D. Aune, Revelation 1–​5, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 52A (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 329–​335; and C. Rowland, “The Book of Revelation,” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 12, ed., L. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 600–​607. 6. The Book of Revelation uses “Babylon” as a symbol for Rome in 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; and 18:2, 10. On the use of Babylon in Revelation, see D. Aune, Revelation 17–​22 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 984–​989. 7. See Rowland, “The Book of Revelation,” 632–​633. 8. See J. D. G. Dunn, Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), and the responses in A. Becker and A. Reed, eds., The Way that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007). 9. See R. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003); and J. Siker, “The Second and Third Centuries,” in The Early Christian World, 2nd ed., ed. P. Esler (New York: Routledge, 2017), 197–​219.

 210

N otes  

|   2 0 1

10. On the “adversus Ioudaeos” literature, see M. Simon, Verus Israel:  A Study of the Relations Between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire, 135–​ 425 (New  York:  Oxford University Press, 2009). 11. See the larger discussion in P. Fredriksen, Sin: The Early History of an Idea (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), 79–​92. 12. Clement of Alexandria, Paidagogos 1.8.67; in Ante-​Nicene Fathers. 13. See further Fredriksen, Sin: The Early History of an Idea,  64–​73. 14. See further Fredriksen, Sin: The Early History of an Idea, 73–​79, for Marcion on sin. Chapter 10

1. The notion of drinking the “blood of Christ” in Eucharistic celebrations was likely a difficult concept for non-​Christian Jews, in that it suggested not only drinking blood but also drinking human blood. 2. See E. Boring, Mark:  A Commentary (Louisville:  Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 203–​204. 3. See B. Byrne, Romans (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996), 408–​ 410; J. Fitzmyer, Romans (New  York:  Doubleday, 1993), 686–​692; W. Rordorf, Sunday:  The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church (London: SCM Press, 1968); and D. Carson, ed., From Sabbath to Lord’s Day:  A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982). 4. See, e.g., J. Siker, Scripture and Ethics: Twentieth Century Portraits (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).

20

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, D. W. The Sinner in Luke. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2008. Anderson, G. Sin:  A History. New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press, 2009. Aquinas, T. Disputed Questions on Virtue. Translated by J. Hause and C. Murphy. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2010. Attridge, H. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1989. Attridge, H. “Paraenesis in a Homily.” Semeia 50 (1990): 211–​226. Attridge, H. “Sin.” The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 5, ed. K. D. Sakenfeld. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006, 263–​279. Aune, D. Revelation 1–​5. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997. Aune, D. Revelation 17–​22. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998. Balch, D. Let Wives Be Submissive:  The Domestic Code in 1 Peter. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1981. Barclay, J. M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–​117 CE). Berkeley:  University of California Press, 1999. Bartlett, D. “The First Letter of Peter.” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 12, ed. L. Keck. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998.

 230

B ibliography  

|   2 0 3

Bauer, W., F. Danker, W. Arndt, and F. Gingrich, eds. A Greek-​English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Beale, G. K., and D. A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007. Becker, A., and A. Reed, eds. The Way that Never Parted:  Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007. Beker, J. C. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1980. Bellinger, W., and W. Farmer, eds. Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1998. Ben Ezra, D. S. The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Berkouwer, G. C. Studies in Dogmatics:  Sin. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971. Bird, M. F., ed. Four Views on the Apostle Paul. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012. Birkhead, L. M. From Sin to Psychiatry, an Interview on the Way to Mental Health with Dr. Karl A. Menninger. Little Blue Books Series #1585. Girard, KS: Haldeman-​Julius Press, 1931. Bobonich, C., and P. Destrée, eds. Akrasia in Greek Philosophy from Socrates to Plotinus. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Boring, E. “The Gospel of Matthew.” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 8, ed. L. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994. Boring, E. Mark: A Commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. Bouchard, C., O.P. Whatever Happened to Sin? Virtue, Friendship and Happiness in the Moral Life. Chicago, IL: New Priory Press, 2013. Bovon, F. Luke 1:  A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–​9:50. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2002. Brakke, D. The Gnostics:  Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010. Bremer, J. M. Hamartia: Tragic Error in the Poetics of Aristotle and in Greek Tragedy. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1969. Brown, R. E. The Birth of the Messiah. New York: Doubleday, 1999.

204

2 0 4   |    B ibliography

Brown, R. E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. New York: Paulist Press, 1979. Brown, R. E. The Epistles of John. New York: Doubleday, 1981. Brown, R. E. The Gospel According to John (I–​XII). Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966. Brown, R. E., ed. Peter in the New Testament:  A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars. New York: Paulist Press, 1973. Byrne, S. J., B. Romans. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996. Caputo, J., and L. Alcoff, eds. St. Paul Among the Philosophers. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009. Carey, G. Sinners: Jesus and His Earliest Followers. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. Carroll, J. Luke:  A Commentary. Louisville, KY:  Westminster John Knox Press, 2012. Carson, D., ed. From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982. Cartwright, S. A Companion to St. Paul in the Middle Ages. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Charlesworth, J. H., ed. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol 1. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Collins, A. Y. Mark. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007. Collins, J. The Apocalyptic Imagination:  An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016. Cooper, E. J. “The Consciousness of Sin in 1 John.” Laval théologique et philosophique 28:3 (1972): 237–​248. Craddock, F. “Hebrews.” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 12, ed. L. Keck. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998. Danby, H., ed. and trans. The Mishnah. Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1933. de Boer, M. Galatians. Louisville, KY:  Westminster John Knox Press, 2011. Detienne, M., and J.-​P. Vernant. The Cuisine of Sacrifice Among the Greeks. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Dibelius, M. James. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1976. Dunn, J. D. G. Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999.

 205

B ibliography  

|   2 0 5

Dunn, J. D.  G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Ehrman, B. D. The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2018. Elliott, J. H. A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological of 1 Peter, Its Situation, and Strategy. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1981. Elliott, J. H. 1 Peter. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Falls, T. B., ed. and trans. Justin Martyr:  The First Apology, the Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, Exhortation to the Greeks, The Monarchy of the Rule of God. Washington, DC:  Catholic University of America Press, 2008. Faraone, C., and F. S. Naiden, eds. Greek and Roman Animal Sacrifice:  Ancient Victims, Modern Observers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Ferguson, E. Baptism in the Early Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. Finstuen, A. Original Sin and Everyday Protestants. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2009. Fitzgerald, J., ed. Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-​ Roman Thought. New York: Routledge, 2008. Fitzmyer, S. J., J. First Corinthians. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008. Fitzmyer, S. J., J. Romans. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Fredriksen, P. Sin:  The Early History of an Idea. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012. Gonzalez, J. Faith and Wealth:  A History of Early Christian Ideas on the Origin, Significance, and Use of Money. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row, 1990. Green, J. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. Grimm, V. From Feasting to Fasting:  The Evolution of a Sin. New York: Routledge 1996. Guelich, R. Mark 1–​8:26. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989. Halperin, D. One Hundred Years of Homosexuality. New York: Routledge, 1990. Harrington, D. The Gospel of Matthew. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991. Harrington, D. Revelation. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1993.

206

2 0 6   |    B ibliography

Hau, L. Moral History from Herodotus to Diodorus Siculus. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016. Hays, R. B. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–​4:11, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002. Holtz, B. W., ed. Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2008. Hopkins, C. The Discovery of Dura Europos. New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press, 1979. Inman, V. K. “Distinctive Johannine Vocabulary and the Interpretation of 1 John 3:9.” Westminster Theological Journal 40 (1977): 136–​144. Jeremias, J. New Testament Theology. New York: Scribner, 1971. Jewett, R. Romans. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007. Jipp, J. W. “Paul’s Areopagus Speech of Acts 17:16–​ 34 as Both Critique and Propaganda.” Journal of Biblical Literature 131:3 (2012): 567–​588. Johnson, L. T. The Letter of James. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Johnson, L. T. Among the Gentiles:  Greco-​ Roman Religion and Christianity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009. Johnson, L. T. Hebrews: A Commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. Johnson, L. T. “The Letter of James.” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 12., ed. L. Keck. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998. Jordan, M. The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1997. Keith, C., and L. Stuckenbruck, eds. Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Kelsey, D. “Whatever Happened to the Doctrine of Sin?” Theology Today 50:2 (1993): 169–​178. King’oo, C. C. Miserere Mei: The Penitential Psalms in Late Medieval and Early Modern England. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2012. Klawans, J. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Klawans, J. Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple:  Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Koester, C. Hebrews. New York: Doubleday, 2001.

 207

B ibliography  

|   2 0 7

Knust, J. and Z. Varhelyi, eds. Ancient Mediterranean Sacrifice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Knust, J. and T. Wasserman. To Cast the First Stone:  The Transmission of a Gospel Story. Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 2018. Kraemer, D. “The Mishnah.” In Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 4:  The Late Roman-​Rabbinic Period, ed. S. Katz. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 299–​315. Lam, J. Patterns of Sin in the Hebrew Bible: Metaphor, Culture, and the Making of a Religious Concept. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. Lapin, H. “The Origins and Development of the Rabbinic Movement in the Land of Israel.” In Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 4:  The Late Roman-​Rabbinic Period, ed. S. Katz. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 206–​229. Levine, A.-​J., and M. Z. Brettler, eds. The Jewish Annotated New Testament, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. Lieu, J.M. “Gnosticism and the Gospel of John.” The Expository Times 90:8 (1979): 233–​237. Luz, U. Matthew 1–​7:  A Continental Commentary. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1989. Lyonnet, S., and L. Sabourin. “The Notion of Sin in the Johannine Writings.” In Sin, Redemption, and Sacrifice:  A Biblical and Patristic Study. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1998, 38–​45. Mahoney, J. The Making of Moral Theology:  A Study of the Roman Catholic Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. Malherbe, A. Moral Exhortation:  A Greco-​ Roman Sourcebook. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1986. Marcus, J. “The Evil Inclination in the Epistle of James.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982): 606–​621. Marcus, J. Mark 1–​8. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999. Marcus, J. The Way of the Lord:  Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Louisville, KY:  Westminster John Knox Press, 1992. Martyn, J. L. Galatians. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Martyn, J. L. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.

208

2 0 8   |    B ibliography

McKinley, J. E. Tempted for Us: Theological Models and the Practical Relevance of Christ’s Impeccability and Temptation. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock/​Paternoster, 2009. McNeill, J. T., and H. Gamer. Medieval Handbooks of Penance. New York: Columbia University Press, 1938. Meeks, W. The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994. Menninger, K. Whatever Became of Sin? New  York:  Hawthorn Books, 1973. Milgrom, J. Leviticus 1–​16. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Montanari, F., ed. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Morgan, T. Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Neale, D. A. None but the Sinners: Religious Categories in the Gospel of Luke. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Nel, M. J. “The Conceptualisation of Sin in the Gospel of Matthew.” In die Skriflig/​In Luce Verbi 51:3 (2017): 1–​8. https://​indieskriflig. org.za/​index.php/​skriflig/​article/​v iew/​2097/​4360. Neusner, J., W. S. Green, and E. Frerichs, eds. Judaism and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Newhauser, R. G., and S. J. Ridyard, eds. Sin in Medieval and Early Modern Culture. Woodbridge: York Medieval Press, 2012. Nissenen, M. Homoeroticism in the Biblical World:  A Historical Perspective. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998. Novenson, M. Christ Among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism. New  York:  Oxford University Press, 2012. O’Leary, T. “Is Confession Dead?” The Catholic Thing, March 1, 2015. https://​w ww.thecatholicthing.org/​2015/​03/​01/​confession-​dead/​. Painter, J. “Letter of James.” The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, ed. K.  Sakenfeld. Nashville, TN:  Abingdon Press, 2008. Prendiville, J. “The Development of the Idea of Habit in the Thought of Saint Augustine.” Traditio 28 (1972): 29–​99. Przybylski, B. Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

 209

B ibliography  

|   2 0 9

Roberts, E. “Reconsidering Hamartia as ‘Sin’ in 1 Corinthians.” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 26 (2014): 340–​364. Rordorf, W. Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church. London:  SCM Press, 1968. Rosen-​Zvi, I. Demonic Desires:  “Yetzer Hara” and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity. Philadelphia:  University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. Rowe, C. K. One True Life: The Stoics and Early Christians as Rival Traditions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016. Rowland, C. “The Book of Revelation.” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 12, ed. L. Keck. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998. Rubenstein, J. The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995. Russell, N. The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. New York: Penguin, 1993. Sanders, E.P. Judaism:  Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–​ 66 CE. London: SCM Press, 1992. Sanders, E. P. “The Testament of Abraham.” In Outside the Old Testament, ed. M. de Jonge. Cambridge, UK:  Cambridge University Press, 1986, 56–​59. Sawyer, J. F. A. The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Schnackenburg, R. The Gospel According to St. John, 3 vols. New York: Seabury, 1982. Schneiders, S. “The Lamb of God and the Forgiveness of Sin(s) in the Fourth Gospel.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 73 (2011): 1–​29. Siker, J. S. “Abraham in Greco-​Roman Paganism.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 18 (1988): 188–​208. Siker, J. S. Disinheriting the Jews:  Abraham in Early Christian Controversy. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1991. Siker, J. S. “First to the Gentiles: A Literary Analysis of Luke 4:16–​30.” Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 69–​86. Siker, J. S., ed. Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. Siker, J. S. Jesus, Sin, and Perfection in Early Christianity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

210

2 1 0   |    B ibliography

Siker, J. S. Scripture and Ethics:  Twentieth Century Portraits. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Siker, J. S. “The Second and Third Centuries.” In The Early Christian World, 2nd ed., ed. P. Esler. New York: Routledge, 2017, 197–​219. Siker, J. S. “Yom Kippuring Passover: Recombinant Sacrifice in Early Christianity.” In Ritual and Metaphor: Sacrifice in the Bible, ed. C. Eberhardt. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2011, 65–​82. Simon, M. Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations Between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire, 135–​425. New  York:  Oxford University Press, 2009. Spadaro, A. “Pope Francis:  The Interview.” America Magazine, September 30, 2013. Strack, H. L. and G. Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992. Strecker, G. The Johannine Letters. Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Fortress, 1996. Thorsteinsson, R. Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism:  A Comparative Study of Ancient Morality. New  York:  Oxford University Press, 2010. Tyerman, C. God’s War: A New History of the Crusades. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. van Henten, J.W. The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviors of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabbees. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Verheyden, J., and R. Bieringer, J. Schroter, and I. Jager, eds. Docetism in the Early Church. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. Vielhauer, P. “Introduction,” and “Apocalyptic in Early Christianity.” In New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, ed. E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1963, 581–​ 607 and 608–​642. Vigil, M. L. “The Sin is Homophobia, Not Homosexuality.” The Havana Times, June 22, 2016. http://​w ww.havanatimes.org/​ ?p=119531. Vitrano, S. P. “The Doctrine of Sin in 1 John.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 25:1 (1987): 123–​131. Wagner, R. W. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans. Boston, MA: Brill, 2003. Wagner, R. W. “Heralds of Isaiah and the Mission of Paul:  An Investigation of Paul’s Use of Isaiah 51–​55 in Romans.” In Jesus

 21

B ibliography  

|   2 1 1

and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, ed. W. Bellinger and W. Farmer. Harrisburg, PA:  Trinity Press, 1998, 193–​222. Watson, D. “The Letter of Jude.” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 12, ed. L. Keck. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998. White, B. L. Remembering Paul: Ancient and Modern Contests Over the Image of the Apostle. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Wiles, M. F. The Divine Apostle: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles in the Early Church. Cambridge, UK:  Cambridge University Press, 1967. Wilken, R. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.

12

 213

SCRIPTURE INDEX

For the benefit of digital users, indexed terms that span two pages (e.g., 52–​53) may, on occasion, appear on only one of those pages. Gen 1:27, 3–​4 Gen 4:6-​7, vi, 20–​21 Gen 4:7, 26 Gen 6:5, 113 Gen 8:21, 113 Gen 19, 5 Gen 38, 52 Exod 3:6, 70–​71 Exod 3:14, 93–​94 Exod 12:21-​27,  161–​62 Exod 12:22, 46, 89–​90, 174–​75 Exod 13:4-​8, 39 Exod 17, 141–​42 Exod 34:6-​7,  41–​42 Exod 35:7, 18 Lev 4, 22–​23, 140 Lev 6, 22–​23, 140 Lev 7:27, 176–​77 Lev 11:44-​45,  176–​77

Lev 15:19-​20, 24 Lev 16, 22, 140, 145, 147–​48, 161–​62 Lev 16:2-​8,  145–​46 Lev 16:11-​28,  145–​46 Lev 16:20-​22, 127–​28,  161–​62 Lev 16:21, 53–​54 Lev 16:21-​23, 90–​91, 146 Lev 18:22, 5 Lev 19:19, 28, 5 Lev 19:20, 173, 188n13 Lev 19:26, 176–​77 Lev 20:13, 5 Num 9:12, 174–​75 Num 18:22, 194n29 Num 19:11-​14, 24 Deut 6, 29 Deut 12:21-​25,  176–​77 Deut 21:23, 122, 123, 125, 128 Deut 27:26, 123

214

2 1 4   |    S c r i p t u r e Inde x Deut 28:27, 41 Deut 28:58-​62,  152–​53 Josh 2, 52 Ruth, 52 2 Sam 11-​12, 52 2 Kings 1:8, 39 Ps 3:7, 18 Ps 5:10, 130–​31 Ps 6:9, 58–​59 Ps 10:7, 18, 130–​31 Ps 14:1-​3,  130–​31 Ps 31:1, 110–​11 Ps 34:20, 174–​75 Ps 35:2, 130–​31 Ps 38:1, 18 Ps 50:5, 103 Ps 51:1-​2, 23 Ps 51:6, 23 Ps 51:10, 23 Ps 54:3, 18 Ps 57:10, 18 Ps 81:4, 18 Ps 107:17-​18, 41 Ps 110, 179–​80 Ps 130:4, 130–​31 Ps 138:19, 18 Prov 1:16, 130–​31 Prov 3:28-​35,  152–​53 Isa 1:14, 39 Isa 6:5, 70–​71 Isa 7:14, 54–​55 Isa 30:1, 18–​19 Isa 33:24, 38–​39 Isa 38:17, 41

Isa 40, 38–​39 Isa 40:3, 38 Isa 43:25, 41–​42 Isa 44:22, 41–​42 Isa 45:13, 173 Isa 48:20, 164 Isa 52-​53, 47–​48, 49 Isa 52:5, 130–​31 Isa 53, 89–​91, 122, 179–​80 Isa 53:5, 121–​22 Isa 53:6-​7, 89 Isa 53:9, 154 Isa 53:12, 49, 188n16 Isa 59:7, 130–​31 Isa 61, 69–​70 Jer 31:31-​34, 18–​19, 176 Jer 51:45, 164 Ezek 18:31, 38–​39 Ezek 34, 170 Dan,  159–​60 Dan 7, 47–​48, 49–​50 Dan 7:13-​14,  49–​50 Hos 6:6, 18–​19, 60–​62 Amos 2:6-​7,  18–​19 Amos 5:21, 39 Micah 7:18, 38–​39 Zech 13:1-​2,  38–​39 Wisdom 11:23, 187n22 Wisdom 14:21-​22, 187n23 Wisdom 15:11, 187n23 4 Macc 6:28-​29, 48, 173 4 Macc 17:21-​22, 48, 173

 215

S c r i p t u r e Inde x   

Matt 1:17, 52 Matt 1:18-​25, 52 Matt 1:19, 57–​58 Matt 1:20, 52 Matt 1:21, 8–​9, 13, 52, 66–​67, 85, 91, 173 Matt 1:22, 54–​55 Matt 3, 55–​56 Matt 3:1-​12, 55 Matt 3:7-​10, 55, 68–​69 Matt 3:14-​15,  55–​56 Matt 3:15, 8–​9, 55–​56, 57–​58 Matt 4:1-​11,  69–​70 Matt 5-​7, 57 Matt 5:6, 10, 20, 8–​9, 55–​56, 57–​58 Matt 5:17-​19, 9, 57, 167–​68 Matt 5:20, 57–​58 Matt 5:21-​22, 51 Matt 5:21-​48, 58 Matt 5:21-​45, 13 Matt 5:28, 149–​50 Matt 5:29-​30, 51, 58 Matt 5:20, 44, 48, 59 Matt 6:1, 33, 57–​58 Matt 6:1-​19,  58–​59 Matt 6:9-​13, 59 Matt 6:12, 14-​15, 51, 59 Matt 6:30, 59 Matt 6:33, 8–​9, 55–​56 Matt 7:1-​5,  58–​59 Matt 7:16-​20,  62–​63 Matt 7:23, 58–​59 Matt 8:24-​27,  58–​59 Matt 8:26, 59 Matt 9:1-​8, 60 Matt 9:9-​13,  60–​61 Matt 9:11, 13, 51, 57–​58 Matt 9:32-​34,  62–​63 Matt 10:41, 57–​58 Matt 11:18-​19, 51, 61 Matt 11:21-​24, 61

|   2 1 5

Matt 12:1-​8,  61–​62 Matt 12:1-​14, 176 Matt 12:7, 60–​61 Matt 12:9-​14,  61–​62 Matt 12:22-​30,  62–​63 Matt 12:31, 107 Matt 12:31-​37,  62–​63 Matt 12:38-​42,  62– ​63 Matt 13:17, 43, 49, 57–​58 Matt 13:24-​30,  62–​63 Matt 13:36-​43,  62–​63 Matt 13:41-​42, 51, 62–​63 Matt 13:53-​58, 54 Matt 14:31, 59 Matt 16:8, 59 Matt 16:18-​19, 3 Matt 16:19, 41–​42 Matt 16:21-​22,  54–​55 Matt 17:20, 59 Matt 18, 78–​79 Matt 18:1-​7, 63 Matt 18:6-​9, 51 Matt 18:12-​14, 76 Matt 18:15-​21, 51, 63–​64, 152–​53 Matt 18:18, 194n18 Matt 18:21-​22, 64 Matt 18:25-​35, 64–​65, 66 Matt 18:32-​35,  65–​66 Matt 20:28, 66–​67, 173 Matt 21:32, 8–​9, 55–​56, 57–​58 Matt 22:1-​10, 4 Matt 23, 54, 57–​58, 60, 65–​66 Matt 23:23, 60–​61, 65–​66 Matt 23:28-​29, 35, 57–​58 Matt 23:33-​35,  65–​66 Matt 24:10, 51 Matt 25:31-​46, 13, 18–​19, 66, 85, 151 Matt 25:37, 46, 57–​58 Matt 26:6-​13,  72–​73 Matt 26:26-​29,  66–​67 Matt 26:28, 13, 53, 66–​67, 173–​74

216

2 1 6   |    S c r i p t u r e Inde x Matt 26:31, 33, 51 Matt 26:45, 51 Matt 26:66, 51 Matt 27:4, 51 Matt 27:25, 54, 168–​69 Matt 27:54, 13 Matt 28:16-​20, 13, 54 Mark 1:1, 10, 12-​13, 40 Mark 1:1-​5, 38 Mark 1:4, 15, 159 Mark 1:7, 40 Mark 1:9-​11, 40 Mark 1:12-​13, 56 Mark 1:15, 9–​10, 13, 40 Mark 2:1-​12, 41, 60, 71–​72 Mark 2:1-​3:6,  44–​45 Mark 2:1 -​3:28, 46 Mark 2:2-​3, 41 Mark 2:5, 41, 71–​72 Mark 2:5-​10, 13 Mark 2:7, 87–​88 Mark 2:13-​17,  41–​42 Mark 2:15-​17, 13 Mark 2:14, 16, 43 Mark 2:23-​25,  19–​20 Mark 2:23-​28,  44–​45 Mark 2:23-​3:6,  176–​77 Mark 3:1, 44–​45 Mark 3:1-​6, 44–​45,  61–​62 Mark 3:10, 41–​42 Mark 3:20-​27, 45, 62–​63 Mark 3:28-​40, 45 Mark 3:29, 107 Mark 4:1-​11, 56 Mark 6:17, 69 Mark 7, 57–​58 Mark 7:19, 176–​77 Mark 7:21-​23,  42–​43 Mark 8:31-​33, 46 Mark 8:31-​10:52, 46, 49

Mark 8:33, 46 Mark 9, 78–​79 Mark 9:11-​13, 39 Mark 9:30-​32,  46–​47 Mark 9:31, 50 Mark 9:35, 37, 46–​47 Mark 9:42, 46–​47 Mark 9:43-​48, 58 Mark 10:32-​34,  46–​47 Mark 10:33, 50 Mark 10:35-​45, 47 Mark 10:43-​45, 48 Mark 10:45, 13, 47–​4 8, 49–​5 0, 66– ​6 7, 173–​74,  188n12 Mark 11:25-​26, 189–​90n8 Mark 13, 159 Mark 14, 68–​69 Mark 14:3-​9,  72–​73 Mark 14:22-​24, 49, 173 Mark 14:24, 41, 13, 66–​67, 173–​74 Mark 14:41-​42, 50 Mark 16:1-​8, 13 Luke 1:76-​77, 68, 81–​82 Luke 3:3, 8, 68–​69 Luke 3:10-​14,  68–​69 Luke 3:12-​13, 43, 68–​69 Luke 3:18-​20, 69 Luke 4:1-​13,  69–​70 Luke 4:16-​30,  69–​70 Luke 4:43-​4 4,  69–​70 Luke 5, 74–​75 Luke 5:1-​11, 70 Luke 5:8, vi, 13–​14 Luke 5:12-​16,  71–​72 Luke 5:17-​26,  71–​72 Luke 5:27, 30, 32, 72 Luke 6:1-​5, 19–​20, 72 Luke 6:6-​11, 72 Luke 6:12, 75–​76 Luke 7, 92–​93

 217

S c r i p t u r e Inde x   

Luke 7:23, 74–​75 Luke 7:33-​35, 61 Luke 7:36-​50,  72–​73 Luke 7:37, 13–​14 Luke 7:37-​38,  72–​73 Luke 7:38-​50, 68 Luke 7:39, 43, 73–​74 Luke 7:44-​47, 74 Luke 7:48-​50,  74–​75 Luke 11:1-​4, 59, 75–​76 Luke 15, 76 Luke 15:11-​32, 68, 76, 78–​79 Luke 15:13, 17, 76–​77 Luke 15:21, 13–​14, 77 Luke 15:22-​24, 78 Luke 15:30-​32, 78 Luke 17:1-​4,  78–​79 Luke 17:4, 64 Luke 18-​19,  68–​69 Luke 18:13, 13–​14 Luke 18:9-​14, 79 Luke 19:1-​10, 68, 79–​80 Luke 22:20, 27, 173–​74 Luke 22:29-​30, 4 Luke 23:41, 47, 173–​74 Luke 24:20, 168–​69 Luke 24:45-​46, 121 Luke 24:46-​47,  80–​82 John 1:1-​18, 88 John 1:4, 7, 102 John 1:5, 14, 87–​88 John 1:6-​36, 88 John 1:11, 178 John 1:14, 105 John 1:29, 14, 56, 87–​88, 90–​91, 102, 126–​27, 129,  174–​75 John 3:14-​15, 16, 91–​92 John 3:16, 102–​3 John 3:19-​20, 87–​88, 102 John 4:34, 193n14

|   2 1 7

John 5:1-​16, 92 John 5:14, 41, 87–​88, 93, 152–​53 John 5:24, 30-​37, 193n14 John 5:38, 87–​88 John 6:29, 38-​39, 44, 193n14 John 6:36, 87–​88 John 6:56, 103–​4, 194n25 John 7:2, 37-​39, 96 John 7:16, 18, 28-​32, 193n14 John 7:53-​8:11,  92–​93 John 8:1-​11,  92–​93 John 8:3-​5,  87–​88 John 8:7, 34, 46, 87–​88 John 8:11, 93–​94 John 8:12, 87–​88, 96, 97 John 8:16, 18, 26, 193n14 John 8:21-​24,  93–​94 John 8:21-​59,  93–​94 John 8:24, 178 John 8:28-​36,  94–​95 John 8:44, 149–​50, 168–​69 John 8:44-​59, 95 John 9, 14, 95–​96 John 9:2-​3, 41, 87–​88, 92, 152–​53 John 9:5, 7, 97, 102 John 9:16-​34,  97–​98 John 9:16-​41,  87–​88 John 9:17, 97 John 9:24, 99 John 9:37-​38, 98 John 9:39-​41,  98–​99 John 9:41, 178 John 10:31-​38, 99 John 10:33, 87–​88 John 12:37, 46, 87–​88, 99–​100, 178 John 12:44-​45, 49, 193n14 John 13:13-​16,  99–​100 John 13:20, 193n14 John 14:16, 26, 102–​3 John 14:24, 193n14 John 15:4-​9, 194n25

218

2 1 8   |    S c r i p t u r e Inde x John 15:9-​12, 20-​24,  99–​100 John 15:10, 103–​4 John 15:21, 193n14 John 15:22-​25,  87–​88 John 15:26, 102–​3 John 16:5, 193n14 John 16:7, 102–​3 John 16:8-​9,  99–​100 John 17:8, 18-​25, 193n14 John 17:14, 87–​88 John 18, 100 John 19:6-​11, 100 John 19:11, 87–​88 John 19:29, 36, 89–​90 John 19:36, 14, 174–​75 John 20:19-​23,  100–​1 John 20:21, 193n14 John 20:31, 100–​1 Acts 2, 173–​74 Acts 2:36-​38,  81–​82 Acts 2:38, 13–​14, 68 Acts 3:19, 13–​14, 68, 82 Acts 5:31, 13–​14, 68 Acts 7, 82, 169–​70 Acts 7:56-​60, 82 Acts 8:1-​3,  115–​16 Acts 8:32, 89 Acts 9, 83 Acts 9:1-​2,  115–​16 Acts 10, 82–​83 Acts 10:43, 13–​14, 68, 82–​83 Acts 13:38-​39, 13–​14, 68, 82–​83 Acts 15:19-​21,  176–​77 Acts 17, 34–​35 Acts 17:16-​34, 31, 187n21 Acts 17:23, 31, 33–​34 Acts 17:28-​29,  31–​32 Acts 17:29, 33–​34 Acts 17:30, 32, 33–​35 Acts 17:30-​31,  33–​34

Acts 17:32, 33 Acts 22:15-​16, 83 Acts 26:18, 13–​14, 68 Acts 26:23-​32, 83 Rom 1, 6–​7 Rom 1:16-​17, 8–​9,  129–​30 Rom 1:18, 111–​12 Rom 1:18-​25, 111–​12,  129–​30 Rom 1:19-​28,  129–​30 Rom 1:24, 149–​50 Rom 1:25-​28, 5 Rom 1:26-​27,  4–​5 Rom 1:29-​31, 32, 112 Rom 2:1-​5,  34–​35 Rom 2:9, 112 Rom 2:14-​15, 187n19 Rom 2:17, 187n20 Rom 2:23, 112 Rom 2:23-​24,  130–​31 Rom 3:7, 110 Rom 3:8, 112 Rom 3:9, 109, 130–​31 Rom 3:20-​21, 131 Rom 3:21-​25, 8–​9, 126–​27, 129–​30, 131–​32, 133–​34, 161, 175 Rom 3:25, 110 Rom 3:28, 131–​32 Rom 4:3, 5, 9, 11, 8–​9 Rom 4:15, 131 Rom 4:25, 112 Rom 5, 14–​15, 131–​32, 138 Rom 5:6, 111–​12, 133–​34 Rom 5:8, 19, 110 Rom 5:12, 20-​21, 109 Rom 5:13, 20, 131 Rom 5:15-​18, 20, 112 Rom 5:18-​19,  132–​33 Rom 6, 10, 14–​15, 149–​50 Rom 6:1-​10, 14–​15, 175 Rom 6:2-​5, 124

 219

S c r i p t u r e Inde x   

Rom 6:6, 16-​17, 109 Rom 6-​7,  14–​15 Rom 6:12, 113–​14, 149–​50 Rom 6:12-​14, 125 Rom 6:13, 16, 8–​9 Rom 6:19, 110–​11 Rom 7, 10, 112–​13 Rom 7:7-​11, 112–​13,  149–​50 Rom 7:11, 17-​25, 2–​3 Rom 7:12, 119 Rom 7:13, 113 Rom 7:19-​21, 112 Rom 7:20, 113–​14 Rom 8:2, 134 Rom 8:3, 14–​15, 113–​14 Rom 9:4-​5,  130–​31 Rom 9-​11, 122 Rom 10-​11,  111–​12 Rom 10:4, 9 Rom 10:21, 111–​12 Rom 11:11-​12:2, 112 Rom 11:26, 111–​12 Rom 11:30-​31,  111–​12 Rom 12:1-​2, 9–​10,  155–​56 Rom 12:9, 112 Rom 12:17, 21, 112 Rom 13:3-​4, 112 Rom 13:13, 112 Rom 13:14, 149–​50 Rom 14:5-​6,  177–​78 Rom 14:20, 177 Rom 15:24, 114–​15 1 Cor 1:23, 33 1 Cor 2:2, 122 1 Cor 3:1-​2, 142–​43 1 Cor 5, 63–​64 1 Cor 5:1, 127 1 Cor 5-​6, 14–​15 1 Cor 5:7, 88–​89, 125–​27, 129, 175 1 Cor 5:8, 112, 126–​27

|   2 1 9

1 Cor 5:9, 56, 126–​27 1 Cor 5:10,-​11, 112 1 Cor 6:7-​8, 110 1 Cor 6:9, 4–​5 1 Cor 6:9-​10, 32, 112 1 Cor 6:18, 110 1 Cor 8, 177 1 Cor 11:29, 152–​53 1 Cor 13:12, 134 1 Cor 15, 14–​15 1 Cor 15:3-​4, 120–​21 1 Cor 15:3, 54-​56, 10 1 Cor 15:55, 110 2 Cor 3:18, 9–​10, 134–​35 2 Cor 5:18-​21, 10, 112 2 Cor 5:21, 14–​15, 56, 123–​24,  128–​29 2 Cor 6:14, 110–​11 2 Cor 7:2, 110 2 Cor 12:20-​21, 112 Gal 1:1, 117–​18 Gal 1:4, 123, 133–​34 Gal 1:6-​10, 199n1 Gal 1:11, 114–​15 Gal 1:11-​17,  117–​18 Gal 1:13-​14, 196n11 Gal 1:14, 115–​17 Gal 1:14-​16,  117–​18 Gal 1:15, 118–​19 Gal 2:11-​14,  176–​77 Gal 2:15, 12, 32, 34–​35, 111–​12, 119 Gal 2:19, 124 Gal 2:20, 10, 133–​34 Gal 2:21, 119 Gal 3, 14–​15 Gal 3:1-​5, 9, 167–​68 Gal 3:10, 123 Gal 3:13, 122, 123–​24 Gal 3:17-​22,  123–​24

20

2 2 0   |    S c r i p t u r e Inde x Gal 3:19, 112 Gal 3:21, 9 Gal 4:12, 110 Gal 5:12, 9 Gal 5:16, 24, 149–​50 Gal 5:19-​21, 112 Gal 6:1, 112 Gal 6:1-​5,  167–​68 Eph 1:7, 137 Eph 2:1, 5, 137 Eph 2:2-​4, 137 Eph 2:13, 137 Eph 4:26-​32, 137 Eph 5:3, 136 Eph 5:3-​5, 6-​9, 137 Eph 6:10-​17, 136 Eph 6:12, 136 Phil 2:5-​11, 122, 133–​34 Phil 3:6, 25, 115–​16 Col 1:13-​14, 20, 137 Col 1:14, 136 Col 2:13, 136 Col 3:5, 136 Col 3:5-​8, 137 Col 3:12, 136 Col 3:12-​14, 137 1 Thes 1, 34–​35 1 Thes 1:9-​10, 34, 111–​12 1 Thes 4-​5, 159 1 Tim 1:7, 138 1 Tim 1:9, 138 1 Tim 1:10, 4–​5 1 Tim 2:8-​15, 138 1 Tim 3:1-​3, 8, 138 1 Tim 5:22, 24, 138 2 Tim 3:1-​4, 138 2 Tim 3:6, 138

Tit 1:7-​8, 138 Tit 3:3, 11, 138 Heb 1:3, 140 Heb 1:4-​14, 140 Heb 2, 198n3 Heb 2:1-​3, 140–​41,  178–​79 Heb 2:10, 144–​45, 148 Heb 3:1-​6, 140 Heb 3:12, 17-​19, 141–​42 Heb 4:1, 6, 11-​13, 142 Heb 4:11, 178–​79 Heb 4:14, 147–​48 Heb 4:15, 56 Heb 5:3, 147–​48 Heb 5:8, 148–​49 Heb 5:10-​14,  142–​43 Heb 6:1-​3,  142–​43 Heb 6:4-​8, 143, 178–​79 Heb 7, 142–​43 Heb 7:27, 53–​54 Heb 9, 140 Heb 9:7, 146 Heb 9:12-​14, 147 Heb 9:24-​28,  147–​48 Heb 10:19-​25, 26-​31, 144 Heb 10:32, 144–​45 Heb 11:8-​40,  144–​45 Heb 12:2, 4, 12, 144–​45 Heb 13:22-​25,  139–​40 Jam 1:14-​15, 113–​14, 149–​50 Jam 2:1-​11,  151–​52 Jam 2:14-​17,  150–​51 Jam 2:15-​17, 151 Jam 2:22, 25, 150–​51 Jam 3:5-​6, 152 Jam 3:14-​17, 152 Jam 4:1-​2, 150 Jam 4:4, 156–​57 Jam 4:17, 151

 21

S c r i p t u r e Inde x   

Jam 5:2-​3, 4-​7,  151–​52 Jam 5:14-​15, 19-​20,  152–​53 1 Pet 1:15, 154–​55 1 Pet 1:18-​19, 154–​55, 175 1 Pet 1:18, 56 1 Pet 1:19, 88–​89 1 Pet 1:22, 154–​55 1 Pet 2:1, 155 1 Pet 2:18-​25, 154–​56 1 Pet 2:22-​25, 89, 122, 154 1 Pet 3:1-​6, 154 1 Pet 3:4, 155–​56 1 Pet 3:17, 154 1 Pet 4:3, 155 1 Pet 4:12, 154–​55 1 Pet 4:15, 155 1 Pet 4:17, 154 1 Pet 5:10, 154 2 Pet 1:6-​10, 156–​57 2 Pet 2:1-​6, 10-​18, 156–​57 2 Pet 2:21-​22, 156–​57 2 Pet 3:16-​18, 108 1 Jn 1:5, 7, 102 1 Jn 1:7, 9; 2:1-​2, 12, 101–​2, 105–​6 1 Jn 1:8, 194n21 1 Jn 2:1-​2, 102–​3 1 Jn 2:6, 24-​28, 194n25 1 Jn 2:13, 194n21 1 Jn 2:18-​19, 104–​5 1 Jn 2:26, 194n21 1 Jn 3:4-​6, 103–​4 1 Jn 3:4-​10, 103 1 Jn 3:4-​5, 8-​9; 4:10, 101–​2 1 Jn 3:5, 56 1 Jn 3:7-​8, 104–​5, 194n21 1 Jn 3:8-​10, 103 1 Jn 3:9-​10, 106–​7 1 Jn 3:12, 194n21 1 Jn 3:17, 24, 194n25 1 Jn 4:1-​6, 105 1 Jn 4:2-​3, 105

|   2 2 1

1 Jn 4:13, 15, 194n25 1 Jn 4:19-​20, 106–​7 1 Jn 5:16-​18, 101–​2, 107, 194n21 2 Jn 7, 105 2 Jn 7-​10, 106 3 Jn 9-​10, 106 Jude 4, 7, 199n1 Jude 5-​7, 14-​19, 158 Jude 23-​24,  158–​59 Rev 1:5, 15, 160, 161, 162–​63, 175, 200n4 Rev 1:6-​7,  161–​62 Rev 2:1-​3:22, 166 Rev 2:2, 5, 165–​66 Rev 2:2, 9, 12, 19, 166 Rev 2:4-​5, 14-​23, 166, 178–​79 Rev 2:9, 13, 24, 167 Rev 2:21, 165 Rev 3:1, 8, 15, 166 Rev 3:2-​3, 9, 16, 166 Rev 3:16, 178–​79 Rev 3:19, 165–​66 Rev 5:6, 15, 88–​89, 200n5 Rev 5:9, 162–​63, 200n4 Rev 6:10, 12, 200n4 Rev 7:9, 14, 162–​63, 200n4 Rev 9:21, 165 Rev 12:7, 9, 10-​12, 167 Rev 12:!1, 200n4 Rev 14:4-​5, 89 Rev 14:8, 165, 200n6 Rev 16:19, 163–​64, 200n6 Rev 17:2, 4, 165 Rev 17:6, 200n4 Rev 18:2, 200n6 Rev 18:4-​5, 15, 160, 163–​64, 165–​66 Rev 18:24, 200n4 Rev 19:2, 165

2

2 2 2   |    S c r i p t u r e Inde x Rev 19:13, 200n4 Rev 20:2, 7, 167 Other Ancient Sources 4 Ezra, 159–​60 Josephus, Antiquities 13.10.6,  116–​17 Pirke Aboth 1:1, 19–​20, 116–​17 Testament of Abraham, 25 Epictetus, Discourses 3.2.1-​2, 30–​31

Epictetus, Discourses 2.8.11-​13,  35–​36 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 141, 169–​70 Melito of Sardis, Peri Pascha, 169 Tertullian, Adversus Judaeos, 169 Clement of Alexandria, 170 Clement of Alexandria, Paidagogos 1.9.83, 170 Valentinus, 170 Marcion, 170–​71

 23

SUBJECT INDEX

For the benefit of digital users, indexed terms that span two pages (e.g., 52–​53) may, on occasion, appear on only one of those pages.   Abraham, 25 Jesus Aquinas, 3 birth of, 52–​55, 66–​67, 68, 85 Areopagus speech, 31–​35 blood of, 13, 15, 49, 53, 66–​6 7, Aristotle, 3 102, 105–​6 , 127, 133–​3 4, Asclepius, 28 147– ​4 8, 154–​55,  160– ​61 faithfulness of, 131–​33, 146–​48 Clement of Alexandria, 170–​71 Jewish law and, 9, 19–​20, 57–​58,  119–​20 desire (epithymia), 113–​14, Sabbath and, 19–​20, 44–​45, 61–​ 149–​50,  156–​57 62, 72, 84–​85, 92, 98, 123–​24 Docetism, 104–​5, 170 sacrifice of, 14–​15, 67, 102–​3 , 105– ​6 , 125–​2 9, Epictetus,  35–​36 144–​4 5,  147–​4 8 Epicureans, 30 sinlessness of, ix, 14–​15, 56, 103–​ evil inclination (yetzer 4, 128–​29, 148, 175, 187n4 hara),  113–​14 John the Baptist, 38–​40, 51–​52, 55–​ 56, 84, 88–​89 homosexuality,  4–​7 Josephus, 27 Justin Martyr, 169–​70 imago dei,  3–​4 Inman, V. Kerry, 16 Kelsey, David, 1

24

2 2 4   |    S u bjec t   I n de x Lamb of God, 14, 88–​91, 162–​63 Last Supper, 66–​67 Leviticus, 22, 145–​48 little faith, 59 Lord’s Prayer, 59, 64–​65, 75–​76 man born blind, 95–​99 manualist tradition, 3 Marcion,  170–​71 Meeks, Wayne, 7 Melchizedek,  142–​43 Melito of Sardis, 169 Menninger, Karl, 1 Minerva, 28 O’Leary, Terence, 2 passover, 26–​27, 67, 125–​27 Paul, Apostle, 83 and Adam/​Christ,  132–​33 and faith of Jesus, 131–​33 as Pharisaic Jew, 115–​18 as Jewish Christian, 112–​35 and righteousness, 119–​20, 129–​32 and Scripture, 120–​22 Philo, 27 Pope Francis, 2 Pope Urban II, 2–​3 prodigal son, 76–​78 righteousness,  55–​59 sacrifice, 22–​23, 29 Sermon on the Mount, 57 sinful woman (Luke), 72–​75 sin apostasy and, 143–​45 blasphemy and, 45, 60–​61, 62–​63,  99 blood and, 49, 53, 66–​67, 105–​6 confession of, 23

demons and, 45, 46, 84–​85, 95 early Judaism and, 18–​26 forgiveness and, 63–​65, 78–​79 gentiles and, 50, 82–​83 Greco-​Roman world,  26–​33 ignorance and, 29 impurity and, 24 inhospitality and, 106–​7 last judgment and, 66 prophets and, 18–​20 ransom for, 47–​49 repentance and, 81–​82, 85, 166–​67 Sabbath and, 44–​45, 61–​62, 72, 92 sickness and, 41, 71–​72 Simon Peter and, 70–​71 stumbling and, 78–​79 Son of Man and, 49–​50 Temple sacrifice and, 53–​54, 60–​61,  84 temptation and, 69–​70 terms for, 16, 18, 51, 101–​2,  109–​12 unbelief and, 99–​100 unforgivable sin, 45 vice lists and, 155–​56 Sodom & Gomorrah, 25 stoicism, 8, 12, 30–​36 tax collectors & sinners, 42, 61, 72, 79–​80, 84–​85 Tertullian, 169 Valentinus, 170 woman caught in adultery (John), 92–​94 Yom Kippur, 21–​22, 25–​27, 28–​29, 53–​54, 59–​60, 67, 90–​91, 127–​29, 140, 145–​46, 161–​64

 25

26