Distinction Between “Sin” (Singular) and “Sins” (Plural) — Part 2

The Scriptures generally draw a qualitative distinction between "sin," in the singular, and "sins," in the plural. "Sin" is our inward attitude of rebellion against God. "Sins" are bad actions. This post gives a series of examples from John and the shorter Pauline Epistles.

This post is the second in a series demonstrating the important qualitative distinction the Scriptures frequently draw between “sin” in the singular and “sins” in the plural. To review, “sin” in the singular, if not used in a context in which it obviously refers to a single discrete and countable act, usually refers to our rotten heart with its attitude and fixed dynamic of disbelief of and rebellion toward God. On the other hand, “sins” in the plural refers to an aggregation of discrete bad acts. The first post in this series discussed examples from Romans, First and Second Corinthians in which “sin” in the singular clearly refers to an inner dynamic rather than bad acts. This post will discuss similar examples from the Gospel of John and the remaining Pauline Epistles.

Sin (Singular)–Life Principle or Attitude of the Heart–References–Part 2-John, Galatians and 1 Timothy

John 1:29:

John the Baptizer said of Jesus: ““Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” As far as I can ascertain, all Greek texts say Jesus takes away tēn hamartian, “the sin,” a single, definite “sin,” in the singular, of the world, and all English translations faithfully follow with the translation “the sin.” What Jesus takes away, and takes out of our way as his followers, is the definitive sin of the world–its spiritual motivation to rebellion against God. He does not only take the guilt of this rebellion, he also takes away the rebellion itself, as we live by the Spirit (see the comments to Romans 8:3-10, in the previous post).

John 8:7:

In speaking to an angry crowd of Pharisees who wanted to stone a woman taken in adultery: “When they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Often this verse is often interpreted as saying that the first to throw a stone should be the one who “has not sinned”–i.e., is not aware of having committed any discrete sinful acts. But this is not literally what Jesus said. What he said was that the only qualified judge was the one “without sin,” singular–i.e., without knowledge of any inward rebellion against God. Jesus was himself the only one present who qualified.

John 8:21:

“Then He said again to them, ‘I am going away, and you will look for Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.'” Here, Jesus uses “sin” in the singular–the phrase literally reads “in the sin of yours” (en tē hamartia hymōn), and both the article and the noun are clearly singular. Jesus is saying that, after he “goes away”–dies, is raised, and ascends into heaven–those who are still bound by their sin, by the sin which is in them, their rebellion against God, will look for him but will not be able to follow him to where has gone. They will die, and will perish in their sin (singular). As noted in the section on examples of “sins” (plural), below, Jesus appears to turn this into a riddle by repeating his saying, this time using the plural, “sins,” but this riddle is easily explained and neatly demonstrates the distinction that is often drawn between “sin” (singular) and “sins” (plural).

John 8:34:

“Jesus answered them, ‘Truly, truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.'” This verse uses “sin” in the singular twice. The first usage, at least, on first blush appears to be using “sin” as the singular of “sins”–i.e., a single, discrete bad act–but, in fact, it is not using the word in this way. Jesus had just told the audience of Jews who “had believed him”–that is, believed what he had said–that day that “if you continue in my word, then you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (v. 32). In response, his audience had protested that they had never been slaves to anyone and did not need to be set free (v. 33). Jesus replied with verses 34 through 36. He begins by saying that everyone practicing (poiōn, present participle active, preceded by a definite article) the sin (tēn hamartian) is a slave of the sin (tēn hamartian). His point is not that everyone who ever commits a sin–a specific, discrete sinful act–is a slave of that same sin, a proposition which is rather easily refuted. Many criminals offend only once, never repeating the same crime. No, Jesus’ point is that anyone who is practicing rebellion against God is a slave of their rebellion, and needs someone from the outside to set them free. This was exactly the state of Jesus’ audience on that day. “ Now the slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son sets you free, you really will be free.” (vv. 35-36.

John 9:41:

“Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now that you maintain, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.'” Both uses of “sin” in this verse are in the singular–the first one is “no sin,” the second one is literally “the sin of you,” singular with a definite article. To understand what Jesus was saying, the preceding context must be explained. In John 9:1-3, Jesus and his disciples see a man born blind, and Jesus’ disciples ask him “who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus’ answer is “it was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” Then, in verses 4-8, Jesus gives the man his sight by spreading mud on his eyes and sending him away to wash. After he receives his sight, his friends and those who had seen him as a beggar hear him say what Jesus did, and bring him before the Pharisees for an investigation. The Pharisees verify that he was born blind and can now see, but cannot accept his answer that Jesus gave him his sight. (vv. 8-29). The blind man then gives his testimony of Jesus, ending with “if this man were not of God, he could do nothing.” The only answer the Pharisees can give is that the blind man is disqualified as a witness by his “sins” (plural): “‘You were born entirely in sins, and yet you are teaching us?’ So they put him out.” (vv. 30-34).

After being put out of the synagogue by the Pharisees who were its leaders as a man born entirely in “sins,” the man who recently received his sight found Jesus, and, on learning who he was, worshipped him (verses 35-38). It is at this point that Jesus tells one of his riddles, using the man restored from physical blindness as an illustration: “For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind” (verse 39). The Pharisees among those in the crowd that followed Jesus responded to this riddle with a question: “We are not blind too, are we?” Recall that, whereas the Pharisees who investigated the situation believed the man’s years of blindness proved he had been “born entirely in sins,” Jesus said at the beginning of the chapter that his blindness had not been caused by either his sins or those of his parents. Jesus’ use of “sin” in the singular in his answer to the Pharisees’ question placed the emphasis right where it belonged–on their rebellion against God (the sin of them) rather than the blind man’s sinful acts: “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now that you maintain, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.” When the blind man came to Jesus and ended his rebellion, he was restored and could see. But as long as the Pharisees continued their rebellion–falsely claiming they could see–they would remain blind!

John 15:18-25:

This passage uses the word “sin,” in the singular three times, twice in verse 22 and once in verse 24. When these two verses are read in their full context, it is quite plain that the “sin” of which Jesus is speaking is rebellion against the Father and it’s consequence-hatred of those who speak for God: ““If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you as well; if they followed My word, they will follow yours also. But all these things they will do to you on account of My name, because they do not know the One who sent Me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. The one who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well. But this has happened so that the word that is written in their Law will be fulfilled: ‘They hated Me for no reason.”

John 16:1:

“These things I have spoken to you so that you will not be led into sin.” Here again, the context–only a few verses after 15:18-24 in the same discourse clarifies that the “sin” of which Jesus is warning his disciples is the sin of falling away from following him, thereby falling back into rebellion, because of the persecution which is about to come upon them.”

John 16:7-11: In this passage, Jesus directly states that the “sin” of which the Spirit will convict the world is their refusal to believe or trust him: “But I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I am leaving; for if I do not leave, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. And He, when He comes, will convict the world regarding sin, and righteousness, and judgment: regarding sin, because they do not believe in Me; and regarding righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you no longer are going to see Me; and regarding judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.”

Galatians 2:15-19:

We are Jews by nature and not sinners from the Gentiles; nevertheless, knowing that a person is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law; since by works of the Law no flesh will be justified. But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Far from it! For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a wrongdoer. For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live for God.

Galatians 2:15-19 (NASB).

This passage uses the word “sin”–hamartias, genitive singular but without an article–once, in verse 17, the related word “sinners”–hamartōloi, nominative plural–twice, in verses 15 and 17, and the broadly conceptually similar word “transgressor”–parabatēn, accusative singular–once, in verse 18. The general meaning of hamartia, singular, has previously been discussed. An hamartólos, the singular of hamartōloi, is a person who is characterized by hamartia–a person who is failing, a person who is missing the mark God has set for them. In the Synoptic Gospels, the use of the word hamartōloi is sometimes attributed to the Scribes and Pharisees, who called people who did not live as strictly as they did hamartōloi–by which they meant something like a “blatant sinner” or “detestable person”–not realizing that they were themselves also in this category. (See, for example, Matthew 9:11-13, Matthew 11:19, Mark 2:15-17, Luke 7:34-48 and Luke 15:1-7). A parabátēs is a “lawbreaker,” a “transgressor,” someone who deliberately violates a law–the word carries with it both the idea of breaking a law and the idea of deliberate action. It does not apply to someone who unknowingly breaks a law, to someone who involuntarily breaks a law, or to someone who just barely (and even begrudgingly) complies with the law.

If verse 17–which is only a fragment of a larger context– is read by by itself, it asks whether, if, while we say we are looking for or seeking (zētéō, present participle active) to be or to have been (passively) justified (dikaiōthēnai, aorist infinitive passive) in Christ, we are (passively) found to have been (heurethēmen, aorist indicative passive–the active verb in the clause) hamartōloi –people who are characterized by missing the mark set for us–this makes Christ the servant or minister (diakonos–deacon!) of sin (singular)? In other words, does the fact that we continue to be found to miss the mark set for us while seeking justification in Christ make Christ serve the rebellious dynamic within us which makes keep missing the mark? The passive grammatical construction of the question leaves open the question whether the mark that “has been set” for us, and which we continually miss, was set by God, by ourselves, by other people, by larger “society” or social institutions, or by all of the above. In context, all of these sources may be intended! But the answer to the question is clearly “no,” “may it never be.” The justification Christ provides us is not provided to serve, or to feed, the dynamic of rebellious sin within us which causes us–outside of him–to continually miss the mark.

This reading of verse 17 is fully consistent with the context of the verse–Galatians 2:11-21. When Cephas (Peter) first came to Antioch, he gladly associated with Gentile believers. But, after messengers from James, from the church in Jerusalem, arrived, Peter withdrew in “hypocrisy” (hypokrisei–play acting), now acting like an observant Jew and refusing to associate with Gentile “sinners” (hamartōloi) even when they were fellow believers. In so doing, he led the other Jewish believers at Antioch astray in his hypocrisy. Paul directly and publicly confronted Peter on this issue, giving a speech of which verses 15 through 19 are the heart. In verse 15, Paul affirms that “we”–both Paul and Peter–were by nature Jews, people having a special covenant relationship with God–not “sinners” from among the Gentiles. In so saying, he agrees that, before Jesus came, God had given over the Gentiles to their sin, and they were, at least as a group, without hope. But then, as verse 16 states, Jesus came, and now even Paul and Peter no longer may rely on their Jewish heritage and their observance of the Mosaic Law for hope, but only on Christ Jesus in whom they had believed, “since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.”

Then Paul ask his question–if we are now seeking our justification in Christ, not in keeping laws, and we are seen to continue to miss the mark–as Peter did when he started play acting again as if he was relying on being a Jew–does this make Christ the servant of the rebellious sin dynamic within us? No. When went back to a public reliance on the Law, on being an observant Jew, thus rebuilding the false reliance which he had previously abandoned, all he proved was that that he himself was a deliberate lawbreaker (v. 19). The act did not negatively reflect on Christ at all. In fact, both Peter and Paul, and all who follow Christ, have died to the Law, and it is now Christ who lives through us:

For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.

Galatians 2:19-21 (NASB).

The last sentence contains the complete answer to Peter’s hypocrisy on that occasion–and to ours when we try to convert following Christ into living by rules and looking good (not like “sinners”) to others.

Galatians 3:22:

 Why the Law then? It was added on account of the violations (parabaseōn), having been ordered through angels at the hand of a mediator, until the Seed would come to whom the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only; but God is only one. Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? Far from it! For if a law had been given that was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.  But the Scripture has confined everyone under sin (hypo hamartian), so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe..

Galatians 3:19-22 (NASB)

Here, the Law was added to demonstrate our plural, multiple violations–as we repeatedly, willfully choose to cross the lines God has drawn. These multiple, willful violations would demonstrate clearly to us, if we would simply look, our inward heart of determined rebellion against God. But the Law does not confine us under the power of discrete, countable offenses–of particular “sins.” No, the Law binds us under the power of “sin”–our inward rebellion–by giving it many opportunities to demonstrate its presence, so that we will be ready to receive God’s promise of deliverance.

1 Timothy 5:20-22 (both concepts, and as a verb):

Do not accept an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.  Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning. I solemnly exhort you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality. Do not lay hands upon anyone too quickly and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.

1 Timothy 5:19-22 (NASB)

The first “sin” word in this passage is the verb hamartanontas in verse 20, a present participle, active voice, of the verb hamartánō, used as a noun. it is preceded by a matching definite article. Hamartánō means to miss the mark, to make a mistake. In this context, the verbal noun means roughly “the one who continues to miss the mark”–thus, with the verse before, it applies to the “elder”–the recognized church leader–who continues to miss the mark of God’s will. It is not generally referring to a one-time failing of which the elder has repented, but to a continual missing of the mark, a way of life that is disobedient in some respect. An elder who is continuing to miss the mark should be rebuked openly in the presence of the whole church–not by whispered innuendo–but only on the testimony of two or three witnesses who have observed the problem. This particular verbal noun usage is, thus, closer in spirit to the singular hamartia with a definite article, referring to the underlying attitude of rebellion, than it is to the plural usage which refers to individual, discrete sins.

On the other hand, “sins” in verse 22 is plural hamartiais without an article. It warns that, if we endorse the character or ministry of others by laying hands on them too hastily, without really knowing or investigating them, we may find ourselves to be seen as publicly endorsing (and, so, partaking in) their “sins”–their discrete bad acts.

NEXT: Distinction Between “Sin” (Singular) and “Sins” (Plural)–Part 3–Hebrews

.