Postscript: “Sin” Words: Lexical Definitions

The New Testament uses a number of different words to describe sin, its causes and its effects, in the context of confession, repentance and forgiveness. These words are not synonyms, and distinguishing them is important to understanding many of the contexts in which they are used.

The following list contains all of the words related to the concept of “sin” contained in the same context as paráptōma. It does not contain all of the words related to “sin” in the entire New Testament, though the most common words are discussed here.

Hamartanō

Verb. According to Strong’s Concordance, Greek No, 264: “to miss the mark, do wrong, sin; originally: I miss the mark, hence (a) I make a mistake, (b) I sin, commit a sin (against God); sometimes the idea of sinning against a fellow-creature is present.” According to online Thayer’s Lexicon on the same link, the verb is derived “from the alpha privative and μείρω, μείρομαι, μέρος, properly, to be without a share in, namely, the mark; properly, to miss the mark“, then later, in that sense, ” to err, be mistaken; lastly to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honor, to do or go wrong.” Thayer also notes that, in the Septuagint and NT, the uncompounded verb is always used in the sense to “sin:” …”a. absolutely: of the violation of civil laws, which Christians regard as also the transgression of divine law;” or “b. to commit (literally, sin) a sin,  in the presence of, before anyone, the one wronged by the sinful act being, as it were, present and looking on.”

Arndt & Gingrich, p. 42, also agree that, classically, this verb also meant “to miss the mark,” but indicate that, in the Septuagint and New Testament, it had narrowed to “transgress, sin against divinity, custom or law…do wrong, sin, of offenses against the religious or moral law of God.” These authors also note that the verb may be associated with a fuller indication of that of which the sin consists, of the manner of sinning, of the result of the sin, or identifying the person sinned against.

Louw & Nida, p. 289, definition no. 88.289: “to act contrary to the will of God–‘to sin, engage in wrongdoing, sin.'” These authors give as examples of this usage Luke 15:18 and 1 Timothy 5:22. Louw and Nida do not mention the derivation or secular usage of the word, and also do not mention its application to knowing omissions (see James 4:17, which uses the related noun hamartia, discussed below).

Hamartia

Noun: hamartia, almost always refers to discrete acts or omissions or patterns of discrete acts or omissions. Strong’s concordance, set forth in the link for hamartia, states the basic definition as “a sin, failure,” and states the usage of the word to be: “prop[erly]: missing the mark; hence: (a) guilt, sin, (b) a fault, failure (in an ethical sense), sinful deed.” In this sense sins are usually thought of as being “committed” (in fact, “commit” is often used as the verb of which “sin” is the object), but can clearly also include an omission to do something one knows is required–see James 4:17, which describes any knowing omission as hamartia. Thayer’s Lexicon, also set forth in the link, gives the underlying definition as “a failing to hit the mark, ” and then explains that, “in Greek writings (from Aeschylus and Thucydides down)” it means “1st, an error of the understanding…” and “2nd, a bad action, evil deed.” Thayer then states that “in the N. T. [hamartia is] always in an ethical sense,” and goes on to state four broad senses in which the word is used in the New Testament:

1. “…a sinning, whether it occurs by omission or commission,” and, in this sense, a power, sometimes rhetorically personified, that impels people to use their bodies to commit wrong acts or to do wrong, by commission or omission, citing as examples, among others, Romans 5:12, 14, 20; Romans 6:2, 6, 11; Hebrews 3:13.
2. ” that which is done wrong, committed or resultant sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law…” with two subheadings: “a. …sin viewed generally… to have sin as though it were one’s odious private property, or to have done something needing expiation, equivalent to to have committed sin…,” or “b. some particular evil deed…”
3. “collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many…” or
4. “Abstract for the concrete, equivalent to [hamartōlós]…” which is an adjective meaning “sinning, sinful, depraved, detestable” and can also be used as an abstract noun meaning a “blatant sinner,” a “person devoted to sin.”

Arndt and Gingrich’s Lexicon (2nd Ed.; see this blog’s Bibliography page), p. 43, which covers word usages in the New Testament, the Septuagint, and the first few centuries of extrabiblical Christian literature, gives the primary definition of hamartia as “sin: the action itself as well as its result, every departure fr. the way of righteousness, both human and divine.” Under this primary denotation, this lexicon notes it is “descr. as [anomia],” i.e., lawlessness; that people are said to “commit” sin, “add to” their sins and to “bring sin upon themselves;” that God and Christ are said to “let go of” or “forgive” sins, to “cleanse” sins (“thought of as a stain”), and to provide a “ransom for sins;” and that sins are also sometimes “looked upon as an entry in a ledger,” a debt, which may be “wiped away, canceled” or “take[n] account of.” Arndt and Gingrich also note that the mid-Second-Century apocryphal Shepherd of Hermas speaks of sin and sins as a “burden” and as a “disease” which may be “healed,” but do not cite any New Testament source for this usage (not even James 5:16).

Louw and Nida’s Lexicon (see Bibliography page) list hamartia in three separate places, all of them, however, found within it semantic domain number 88, “Moral and Ethical Qualities and Related Behavior.” The first of these definitions is definition 88.118 found in their subdomain 88:O, “Bad, Evil, Harmful, Damaging:”

a state of evil as an integral part of someone’s nature–“sinfulness, being evil”…[e.g.,] “you were born completely in sinfulness” or “from birth you have been evil,” Jn. 9:34. The implication of this criticism was that… [the man born blind] had not adhered rigorously to all of the OT law as interpreted by the Pharisees.”

Louw & Nida, p. 755, #88.118.

This definition corresponds to Arndt & Gingrich’s second numbered definition, which is limited to the writings of the Apostle John.

Louw and Nida also list two separate, alternative definitions for hamartia in their subdomain 88:L’ “Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt:”

[hamartánō, verb], [hamartia, noun], to act contrary to the will and law of God–‘to sin, wrongdoing, sin”… [e.g., for the verb] “I will get up and go to my Father and say, Father, I have sinned against God and against you.’ Lk. 15:18. [for the noun] “take no part in the sins of others” or “do not join others in sinning,” 1 Tm 5:22.

Louw & Nida, pp. 773-774, #88.289.

[hamartia]: the moral consequence of having sinned–“guilt, sin.” … [e.g,] “the death of Jesus his Son makes us clean from every sin (or “from all our guilt”), 1 Jn 1:7…. “the forgiveness of sins,” Mt 26:28…. “stand up, be baptized, and have your sins purified by praying to him” (literally,…”by calling on his name…), Ac 22:16… “therefore, repent, turn to (God) so that your sins may be wiped away” or “…forgiven,” Ac 3:19.

Louw & Nida, p. 776, #88.310.

The point of commonality between all of these definitions is that they involve primarily wrong acts or omissions–often viewed simply as discrete offenses, but sometimes also viewed collectively, as individual or social patterns of wrongdoing, or abstractly, as the force that underlies these patterns. On this subject, Louw and Nida add to their definition 88.310 the following very useful discussion of the reason that, although hamartia primarily denotes discrete wrong acts (discrete “sins”), it is sometimes necessary to translate it using other words or constructs:

A number of languages make a clear distinction between the active event of committing sin and the resulting moral effect of guilt, so that one must speak of “committing sin” but “forgiving guilt.” This is often required in some languages since the term meaning “to forgive” is literally “to wipe away,” “to erase,” “to blot out” or “to return to someone.” The actual event of sinning often does not fit with such verb expressions, since it is not the event itself which is eliminated but the moral consequence of such an event, namely, the guilt.

Louw & Nida, p. 776, #88.310

Hamartōlos

As a noun, this word means a “blatant sinner,” in the sense of one who visibly, deliberately and habitually misses the mark; it can also be an adjective, “sinful, sinning.” Strong’s Online Concordance, Greek #268, lists the adjectival usage as primary, with the definition “sinful” and possible usages “sinning, sinful, depraved, detestable.” Helps Word Studies, on the same webpage, states “hamartōlós (a substantival adjective, derived from 264 /hamartánō, “to forfeit by missing the mark”) – properly, loss from falling short of what God approves, i.e. what is “wide of the mark”; a blatant sinner.” Thayer’s Lexicon, on the same web page, defines the word as “devoted to sin, a (masculine or feminine) sinner. In the N. T. distinctions are so drawn that one is called ἁμαρτωλός who is, a. not free from sin [or]… b. pre-eminently sinful, especially wicked…” Thayer notes that all humans are hamartōlós in the first sense, and cites a number of examples of this usage.

Paráptōma

By contrast, the online version Thayer’s Lexicon, again as found on Bible Hub, lists the primary meaning of paráptōma as “properly, a fall beside or near something,” though it then opines that the word is “nowhere found [in the New Testament] in this sense.” The second meaning listed is “tropically, a lapse or deviation from truth and uprightness; a sin, misdeed.” Thayer then notes that, in secular writings, paráptōma is also used to describe “literary faults,” i.e., stylistic or ideational deviations that render a work less effective or less well-received. It then indicates that the noun paráptōma is derived from the verb parapíptō, which, in a separate lexicon entry, is defined as “to fall in, into or away, to fail,” which is in turn derived from the preposition/prefix para-, “from beside, by the side of, beside,” and the verb píptō, “to fall.” The force of the prefix “para-” is further described in the online Helps Word Studes as :

an emphatic “from,” means “from close beside” (“alongside”). It stresses nearness (closeness) which is often not conveyed in translation. (pará) is typically theologically significant, even when used as a prefix (i.e. in composition).  (pará) usually adds the overtone, “from close beside” (implying intimate participation) and can be followed by the genitive, dative, or accusative case – each one conveying a distinct nuance.

“Para” (Strong’s No 3844) in Helps Word Studies, on Bible Hub

Help Word Studies explains “paráptōma (from 3895 /parapíptō, see there) – properly, fall away after being close-beside, i.e. a lapse (deviation) from the truth; an error, “slip up”; wrong doing that can be (relatively) unconscious, “non-deliberate.”

The picture painted by the verb is something that was once close beside or intimately connected with another thing falling away from it, and the noun describes both the action of falling away and its consequences (a fault or flaw).

It should also be noted that –ōma, the ending used in forming the noun paráptōma from the verb parapíptō, commonly forms nouns that describe a continuing condition or the result of such a condition (think of the comparable “-oma” endings on the medical English names of many diseases) rather than an act or event. See the further discussion of the “-ma” ending in the discussion of opheílēma, below.

Arndt & Gingrich, p. 621, give a definition of paráptōma similar to that of Thayer, “false step, transgression, sin,” but do not mention the relationship with parapíptō.

Louw & Nida, p. 774, definition #88.297, appears to combine the elements of falling away, failure or a false step with an active behavioral element: “what a person has done in transgressing the will or law of God by some false step or failure–transgression, sin.”

Thus, paráptōma can connote a ” lapse, slip,[or] false step,” which becomes a “trespass” when the thing fallen away from is a law, a moral standard or the truth, and a “sin” when the person fallen away from is God. The emphasis is on falling away from close beside, and the falling away need not consist of an evil act or being guilty of a discrete omission. Indeed, Eve “fell away” when she listened to the serpent and “saw” that the forbidden fruit appeared good, although the discrete sin of eating the fruit followed. And Adam “fell away” when he decided to join his wife in her decision, before he actually ate. The decision to “fall away” created a character flaw, which led to the act. So paráptōma can reasonably be translated as a “fault” in the usual English sense: a weakness or flaw, a “falling away” from God, that causes a failure, a sinful act.

Thus, the emphasis in all of these definitions is on a flaw, failure or falling away from being close to God, in contrast to the hamartia group of “sin” words which emphasize discrete acts which miss the mark.

Parabasis,

Strong’s online concordance, Greek #3847, defines this noun as “a going aside, a transgression,” with usages “a transgression, overstepping, deviation.” Helps Word Studies, on the same webpage, states “parábasis  (from  3844 /pará, “contrary” and bainō, “go”) – properly, an “overstepping” … ; a deliberate going over “the line.,,” in the NT refers to the willful disregard (breaking) of God’s law which defies His drawn-lines (boundaries); an arrogant “over-stepping.” This same source also notes that “in classical Greek, 3847 (parábasis) likewise means “a going aside, a deviation (Aristotle) – in later writers, an overstepping; metaphorically, transgression (Plutarch, etc.).” Thayer’s Lexicon, quoted on the same webpage, gives the definition ” properly, a going over; metaphorically, a disregarding, violating… absolutely, the breach of a definite, promulgated, tariffed law… ” Thayer notes, in a parenthetical, that parabasis, as the breach of a promulgated law, is to be distinguished in this sense from hamartia, which is “is wrong-doing which even a man ignorant of the law may be guilty of.”

Arndt & Gingrich essentially agree with Thayer. Louw & Nida. definition number 36.28, give the basic definition “to act contrary to established custom or law–‘to disobey, break the law [for the related verb parabainō]; disobedience, transgression” [for the noun parabasis].” Louw & Nida then add a discussion about translation which is useful in considering all of the sin-related words:

Languages differ considerably in the way in which they speak of disobeying or transgressing a law. It is rarely possible to speak of ‘breaking a law,’ since nothing is actually done to the law in the process of transgression, but languages do employ such expressions as ‘to tramp on a law,’ ‘to ridicule a law,’ and ‘to laugh at a law,’ See also discussion at 36,29

Louw & Nida, p. 468, definition #36.28, note.

Definition number 36.29, dealing with the related noun parabatēs {“a person who customarily breaks or disobeys he law–transgressor”) then adds this note, referenced in the previous definition:

For terms involving ‘disobedience’ or ‘transgression’. there are often a number of distinctions reflecting several different types of contrasts. For instance, there may be important distinctions between disobeying a person or disobeying a law or custom. A number of languages also make a clear distinction between intentional and unintentional disobedience or transgression. Another distinction may involve repeated activity or consistency of attitude, so the choice of terms may specify whether a person has consistently disobeyed or has only disobeyed once or twice. A further distinction is sometimes made between disobedience of children or those who are mentally incapacitated and the disobedience of those who should know better, Accordingly, in the choice of terms for various passages of Scripture it is extremely important to note the distinctive features of the meaning: otherwise much of the emphasis upon disobedience and transgression as stated in the Scriptures may be seriously distorted.

Louw & Nida, pp. 468-469, definition #36.29, note.

Parakoḗ 

The essence of this word is willful or reckless inattentiveness, selective hearing, hearing what we want to hear (instead of what was actually said) and doing that, i.e., “hearing” that will not comply. Strong’s online Concordance, Greek No. 3876, defines this word as “a hearing amiss, by implication disobedience” and gives its usage as “disobedience, imperfect hearing.” Helps Word Studies, on the same webpage, gives the following explanation: “parakoḗ  (from  3844 /pará, “contrary by close comparison” and 191 /akoúō, “hear”) – properly, contrary-hearing, i.e. disobedience  which springs from a negative (opposing) attitude, i.e. the refusal to listen properly. This “hearing” has the attitude of refusing to take heed and therefore is inattentive (“hearing” that will not comply). 3876 /parakoḗ reflects the attitude that chooses to disobey because of disinterest.” Thayer’s online Lexicon, on the same page, gives two translations: “1. properly, a hearing amiss (Plato, epistles 7, p. 341 b.). 2. (unwillingness to hear i.e.)  disobedience:  Romans 5:19; 2 Corinthians 10:6; Hebrews 2:2. (Cf. Trench, § lxvi.).”

There is no disagreement among the sources about the meaning or usage of this word.

Opheílēma

This word refers literally to a financial “debt,” a ledger entry against a person, that which is owed, the result of having a debt, focusing on the after-effect of the obligation. Strong’s online Concordance, Greek No. 3783 gives the definition as “that which is owed, a debt” and the usages as “a debt, offense, sin.” Helps Word Studies, on the same webpage, states “opheílēma (a neuter noun) – the result of having a debt, focusing on the after-effect of the obligation (note the -ma suffix).” Thayer’s online Lexicon, on the same webpage, explains the extension of the concept of a monetary “debt” to a “sin” by giving two alternative definitions:

a. properly, that which is justly or legally due, a debt; so for מַשָּׁאָה, Deuteronomy 24:12 (10); ἀφιέναι, 1 Macc. 15:8; ἀποτίνειν, Plato, legg. 4, p. 717 b.; ἀποδιδόναι, Aristotle, eth. Nic. 9, 2, 5 (p. 1165a, 3). κατά ὀφείλημα, as of debt, Romans 4:4.

b. in imitation of the Chaldean חוב or חובָא (which denotes both debt and sin), metaphorically, offence, sin (see ὀφειλέτης, b.); hence, ἀφιέναι τίνι τά ὀφειλετα αὐτοῦ, to remit the penalty of one’s sins, to forgive them, (Chaldean חובִין שְׁבַק), Matthew 6:12. (Cf. Winer’s Grammar, 30, 32, 33.)

Thayer’s Lexicon keyed to Strong’s NT Greek Entry No. 3783, on Bible Hub.

Arndt and Gingrich give as primary meanings “1) a debt=that which is owed, one’s due,” including as a New Testament example of this primary meaning Romans 4:4 (“it is considered not as a favor, but as his due.)” “2. In a relig. sense, debt=sin =” like Thayer following an Aramaic usage of a parallel word.

Louw & Nida list three separate definitions. The first definition is found within definition 57.221, which occurs within the broad section of the lexicon dealing with possession of goods and their transfer in commerce, and more narrowly with owing or canceling debts:

opheílē… f.; opheílēma ,,, n: (derivatives of opheilō, ‘to owe,’ 57.219) that which is owed–“debt, amount owed.”… opheílēma… “the wages of a man who works are not regarded as a gift but as what is owed to him.” Ro. 4:4. It is also possible to understand opheílēma in Ro. 4:4 as meaning “obligation” (see 71.26).”

louw & Nida, p. 582, Definition # 57.221.

The definition of the related verb opheilō, referenced in the above definition, states:

“To be under obligation to make a payment as the result of having previously received something of value–‘to owe, be in debt…[e.g.] “if he has done you any wrong or owes you anything.’ Phm 18.”

Louw & Nida, p. 582, definition #57.219.

As Louw & Nida’s example from Philemon shows, when used in this sense a “debt,” or the condition of “owing,” is something analytically separate from wrongdoing, even though the debt may flow from a discrete wrong act (as in Onesimus case, running away from his master Philemon and possibly taking some of his property with him).

The second definition is found in a section denominated “Mode… Should, Ought:”

That which one must do out of a sense of duty or as the result of a commitment — “obligation.”

Louw & Nida, p. 671, definition #71.26,

.Louw & Nida’s final definition occurs under their heading “Moral and Ethical Qualities and Related Behavior–Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt:”

… (derivatives of opheilō, ‘to sin against,’ 88.298) the moral debt incurred as the result of sin– ‘offense, sin, transgression, guilt.’ … ‘[e.g.,] forgive us our sins,” Mt. 6:12 .

Louw & Nida, p. 774, definition #88.299

Finally, in the paragraph immediately above this definition, Louw & Nida give the matching alternative definition of the verb opheilō:

to commit a sin against someone and thus to incur a moral debt–‘to sin against, to offend’ … [e.g.,] “we forgive everyone who sins against us.’ Lk. 11:4.”

Louw & Nida, p. 774, definition #88.298.

Thus Louw & Nida clearly recognize, as some of the other lexical sources do not, that the obligation resulting from a sinful act is analytically distinct from the act itself–and that opheilō/ opheílēma when used in the context of sin, refers to the resulting obligation rather than the discrete act or acts that may have created it. They are not the same, though it is common to confuse them to simplify translation.

However, what none of these sources adequately explains is why, once it has been decided that the “moral obligation” connotation of these words primarily applies in passage, this determination completely excludes from consideration any related financial or legal obligations flowing from the same act(s). Why is it, for example, that a Christian can properly say of someone who wrongs them “I forgive the wrong”–i,e., I do not hold them morally indebted to me, and I know God forgives their moral debt– yet insist that they be kept out of our church, out of our sight, out of our city, state and world, and made by our initiative to pay us the last penny of legal damages and the last possible minute of jail time? (See, Matthew 5:23-26). Isn’t there something missing in this “forgiveness” that never lets go of anything but the wish for eternal vengeance for “moral guilt” only?

Consider also that an ordinary commercial obligation becomes a “debt”–in precisely the sense of an offense (ask any professional debt collector!)– for which various coercive and often deliberately mean-spirited actions may lawfully be taken be taken by the creditor or their agents in order to collect the debt from the “deadbeat” indebted offender (who is thus publicly portrayed as being morally guilty of failing to pay, an offense akin to theft).

I suspect that the line has traditionally been drawn so sharply between the “moral” obligations of sins and all other obligations creating indebtedness because we generally don’t want to even think about the full implications of truly forgiving our debtors.

Opheilétēs,

This word translates literally as a “debtor,” someone who owes an opheílēma, literally a money debt, metaphorically a reparation for a wrong done. Its meaning flows directly from the related verb opheilō and nouns for the amount owed, opheílē and opheílēma (see the discussion immediately above).

Thus, Strong’s online Concordance, Greek No. 3781, states the definition of this word to be “a debtor,” then indicates its usages are “(a) a debtor, one who owes, one who is indebted, (b) one who has sinned against another (an Aramaism), a sinner.” Helps Word Studies, on the same website, expands on this as follows: “opheilétēs (a masculine noun) – a debtor; someone under obligation to pay back (discharge) a debt. For the believer, 3781 /opheilétēs (“being a debtor“) ends at Calvary where Christ paid all our debt in His blood. He extends total release to us, forgiving the penalty for each time we spent His gift of life rather than invested it. Indeed, the blood of Jesus removes all the penalty (condemnation) of sin (Jn 19:30).” Thayer’s online Lexicon, on the same webpage, gives one main definition with two lettered metaphorical subdefinitions:

ὀφειλέτης, ὀφειλετου, ὁ (ὀφείλω), one who owes another, a debtor: properly, of one who owes another money (Plato, legg. 5, 736 d.; Plutarch; others); with a genitive of the sum due, Matthew 18:24. Metaphorically,

a. one held by some obligation, bound to some duty: ὀφειλέτης εἰμί, equivalent to ὀφείλω, followed by an infinitive, Galatians 5:3 (Sophocles Aj. 590); ὀφειλέτης εἰμί τίνος, to be one’s debtor i. e. under obligations of gratitude to him for favors received, Romans 15:27; τίνι (dative commodi), to be under obligation to do something for someone, Romans 1:14; Romans 8:12.

b. one who has not yet made amends to one whom he has injured: Matthew 6:12; in imitation of the Chaldean חַיָב, one who owes God penalty or of whom God can demand punishment as something due, i. e. a sinner, Luke 13:4.

Thayer’s Lexicon keyed to Strong’s NT Greek entry 3781

Louw & Nida give separate definitions of opheilétēs corresponding to each of their separate definitions of opheilō. Definition No. 57.222 corresponds to definition No. 57.219 of the verb, and is said to mean a money debtor, someone who owes money. Louw & Nida cite Matthew 18:24 and Luke 7:41 as examples of this usage. Definition No. 71.27 corresponds to Definition No. 71.25 of the corresponding verb, and is said to mean “one who is obligated to do something–‘one who is obliged to, one who is obligated to, one who must.'” Definition No. 88.300 corresponds to Nos. 88.298 and 88.299: “one who commits sin and thus incurs a moral debt.” But, as noted in the discussion of the last word, above, there is really no good reason to insist that these three senses must be strictly separated from each other in contexts in which any or all of them makes sense.

Anomia

This is a fairly frequent and quite simple word. Literally, it describes the state of being without law. Strong’s online Concordance, Greek No. 458, gives the definition as “lawlessness” and the usages as “lawlessness, iniquity, disobedience, sin.” Helps Word Studies, on the same web page, explains: “anomía (from 1 /A “not” and 3551 /nómos, “law”) – properly, without law; lawlessness; the utter disregard for God’s law (His written and living Word). 458 /anomía (“lawlessness”) includes the end-impact of law breaking – i.e. its negative influence on a person’s soul (status before God).” Thayer’s Lexicon entry, also on the same page, gives two related alternative definitions: ” 1. properly, the condition of one without law — either because ignorant of it, or because violating it. 2. contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness…”

Louw & Nida contains only a single definition, No. 88.139, corresponding to Thayer’s second definition: “to behave with complete disregard for the laws or regulations of a society–‘to live lawlessly, lawlessness, lawless living.'”

Anomos

This word is closely related to anomia, above, and describes a person who is without law. This does not necessarily imply in every case that the person has rejected or disobeyed the law–they may simply be ignorant of it or not subject to it. This is, in fact, the sense in which it is used in Romans 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 9:21–some people have sinned without disobeying any law because they were not among the group of people (the Jews) to whom God gave his Law. Such Gentiles are, thus, without law (anomos), but being outside the law is not what makes them sinners. They can, and in most ways usually do, choose to follow the promptings of the conscience God has placed within them (this is the point of Romans 2:12-16), even though they are anomos. It is only their rejection of the knowledge of God himself that renders them sinners. (Romans 1:18-19). However, the more common usage of this word is found in the main definition reflected in Strong’s NT Greek No. 459: “lawless, without law,” with the usages “lawless, wicked, without law.” Thayer’s Lexicon, on the same webpage, reflects both usages: 1. destitute of (the Mosaic) law: used of Gentiles, 1 Corinthians 9:21, (without any suggestion of ‘iniquity’… ) . 2. departing from the law, a violator of the law, lawless, wicked…”

Louw & Nida contains three separate definitions for this Word: No. 11.42 (“heathen”); No. 33.57 (“without the law”) which corresponds to Thayer’s first definitions of anomia and anomos; and No 88.140 (“lawless”) which corresponds to 88.139 and Thayer’s second definitions of anomia and anomos.

Adikia

Adikia, a noun, is most simply defined as as describing a person, decision or state of affairs that is “without justice” or “without righteousness,” and, therefore, to the extent that whatever exists without these becomes their opposite, a state of “injustice” or “unrighteousness.” Referring to the same sources as in previous entries, Strong’s online Concordance on Bible Hub, NT Greek No. 93, states the definition of adikia to be “injustice, unrighteousness,” with the usages “injustice, unrighteousness, hurt.” Helps Word Studies on the same webpage then explains: “adikía (a feminine noun derived from 1 /A “not” and 1349 /díkē, “justice”) – properly, the opposite of justice; unrighteousness, as a violation of God’s standards (justice) which brings divine disapproval; a count (violation) of God’s justice, i.e. what is contrary to His righteous judgments (what He approves).” This definition stresses the usage of adikia as a theological term of art, the negation of díkē, “justice” (or “a judicial verdict”) or dikaiosunē (“righteousness”), all three of which are very frequently thought to be used as theological terms of art having related non-obvious definitions found only in the mysterious character of God, as practically reflected in the moral and political pronouncements of the particular church organization using or expounding the terms. (I personally doubt either God or those to whom he gave the Scriptures intended that any of these words should have non-obvious, technical, church-defined meanings, but who am I to question this?) The online version of Thayer’s Lexicon, on the same webpage, gives three alternative definitions, each of which follows a branch of “without justice” or “without righteousness:”

1. injustice, of a judge: Luke 18:6; Romans 9:14.

2. unrighteousness of heart and life;

a. universally: Matthew 23:25 Griesbach; Acts 8:23 (see σύνδεσμος); Romans 1:18, 29; Romans 2:8; Romans 6:13; 2 Timothy 2:19; opposed to ἡ ἀλήθεια, 1 Corinthians 13:6; 2 Thessalonians 2:12; opposed to ἡ δικαιοσύνη, Romans 3:5; Hebrews 1:9 Tdf.; owing to the context, the guilt of unrighteousness, 1 John 1:9; ἀπάτη τῆς ἀδικίας deceit which unrighteousness uses, 2 Thessalonians 2:10; μισθός ἀδικίας reward (i. e., penalty) due to unrighteousness, 2 Peter 2:13 (see ἀδικέω, 2 b. at the end).

b. specifically, unrighteousness by which others are deceived: John 7:18 (opposed to ἀληθής); μαμωνᾶς τῆς ἀδικίας deceitful riches, Luke 16:9 (cf. ἀπάτη τοῦ πλούτου, Matthew 13:22; others think ‘riches wrongly acquired’; (others, riches apt to be used unrighteously; cf. Matthew 13:8 and Meyer at the passage)); κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας, a phrase having reference to sins of the tongue, James 3:6 (cf. κόσμος, James 3:8); treachery, Luke 16:8 (οἰκονόμος τῆς ἀδικίας (others take it generally, ‘acting unrighteously’)).

3. a deed violating law and justice, act of unrighteousness: πᾶσα ἀδικία ἁμαρτία ἐστι, 1 John 5:17; ἐργάται τῆς ἀδικίας, Luke 13:27 αἱ ἀδικίαι iniquities, misdeeds, Hebrews 8:12 (from the Sept. Jeremiah 38:34 (); cf. Daniel 4:20 (24)); μισθός ἀδικίας reward obtained by wrong-doing, Acts 1:18; 2 Peter 2:15; specifically, the wrong of depriving another of what is his, 2 Corinthians 12:13 (where a favor is ironically called ἀδικία.)

Thayer’s Lexicon keyed to Strong’s NT Greek No. 93.

Louw & Nida offer only a single definition of this word, No. 88.21 (“an activity which is unjust–‘unjust deed, unrighteousness, doing what is unjust'”) which corresponds most closely to Thayer’s third definition in that it emphasizes a deed or an activity.

Adikos

Adjective of the same derivation as the noun adikia that attributes to people, actions or states of affairs the property of constituting examples of, or participating in or partaking of the character of, adikia. Similar to the discussion in the last section, Strong’s Strong’s online Concordance on Bible Hub, NT Greek No. 94, states the definition of adikos to be “unjust, unrighteous” with the usages “unjust, unrighteous, wicked.” Helps Word Studies, on the same website, expands this: “ádikos (an adjective, derived from 1 /A “no” and 1349 /díkē, “justice”) – properly, without justice; unjust, because violating what God says is just; divinely disapproved. See 93 (adikia). ádikos (“unjust”) is injustice as a breach of divine justice, i.e. in violation of God’s standards. ádikos (“unjust”) describes being found guilty in God’s court of law, i.e. as a binding, legal infraction against His law which calls for divine retribution for disrespecting true justice.”

The online version of Thayer’s Lexicon, on the same website, gives a single general, secular definition, followed by three sub-definitions, two of which stress the word’s (and adikia‘s) use as a theological term of art that parallel the usages of its opposite, dikaios as a term of art:

ἄδικος, (δίκη) (from Hesiod down); descriptive of one who violates or has violated justice:

1. unjust (of God as judge): Romans 3:5; Hebrews 6:10.

2. of one who breaks God’s laws, unrighteous, sinful (see ἀδικία, 2): (1 Corinthians 6:9); opposed to δίκαιος, Matthew 5:45; Acts 24:15; 1 Peter 3:18: opposed to εὐσεβής, 2 Peter 2:9; in this sense according to Jewish speech the Gentiles are called ἄδικοι, 1 Corinthians 6:1 (see ἁμαρτωλός, b. β.).

3. specifically, of one who deals fraudulently with others, Luke 18:11; who is false to a trust, Luke 16:10 (opposed to πιστός); deceitful, μαμωνᾶς, ibid. Luke 16:11 (for other interpretations see ἀδικία, 2 b.).

Thayer’s Lexicon Keyed to Strong’s NT Greek No. 94.

Mémphomai

Verb: “to blame, find fault,” usages, per Strong’s online Concordance on Bible Hub: “I blame, censure, find fault.” Helps Word Studies, on the same web page: “

Louw & Nida also offer only a single definition of this word, No. 88.21: “pertaining to not being right or just–‘unjust, unjustly, unrighteous.'”mémphomai (from mempteos, “rejected because condemned”) – find fault, see as fully blameworthy (disgraceful, condemnable); hence, rejected because deep wrongs by omission or commission.”

The online version of Thayer’s lexicon, on the same webpage:

to blame, find fault: absolutely, Romans 9:19; the thing found fault with being evident from what precedes, Mark 7:2 Rec.; αὐτούς, Hebrews 8:8 L T Tr marginal reading WH text, where R G Tr text WH marginal reading αὐτοῖς, which many join with μεμφόμενος (for the person or thing blamed is added by Greek writings now in the dative, now in the accusative; see Passow (or Liddell and Scott), under the word, cf. Krüger, § 46, 7, 3); but it is more correct to supply αὐτήν, i. e. διαθήκην, which the writer wishes to prove was not faultless (cf. 7), and to join αὐτοῖς with λέγει; (Buttmann, § 133, 9).

Thayer’s Lexicon keyed to Strong’s NT Greek #3201, on Bible Hub.

Planáō

Verb: “to cause to wander, to wander,” usages, per Strong’s Concordance on Bible Hub: “I lead astray, deceive, cause to wander.” Helps Word Studies, on the same web page: “planáō – properly, go astray, get off-course; to deviate from the correct path (circuit, course), roaming into error, wandering; (passive) be misled.[4105 (planáō) is the root of the English term, planet (“wandering body”). This term nearly always conveys the sin of roaming (for an exception – see Heb 11:38).]”

The online version of Thayer’s Lexicon, on the same web page:

to cause to stray, to lead astray, lead aside from the rigid way;

a. properly; in passive, the Sept. chiefly for תָּעָה, to go astray, wander, roam about (first so in Homer, Iliad 23, 321): Matthew 18:12; 1 Peter 2:25 (from Isaiah 53:6, cf. Exodus 23:4; Psalm 118:176 (); Hebrews 11:38.

b. metaphorically, to lead away from the truth, to lead into error, to deceive: τινα, Matthew 24:4, 5, 11, 24; Mark 13:5, 6; John 7:12; 1 John 2:26; 1 John 3:7; 2 Timothy 3:13a; Revelation 2:20 G L T Tr WH; ; ἑαυτόν, 1 John 1:8; passive, to be led into error (R. V. be led astray): Luke 21:8; John 7:47; Revelation 2:20 Rec.; to err, Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24, 27; μή πλανᾶσθε, 1 Corinthians 11:9; 1 Corinthians 15:33; Galatians 6:7; James 1:16; especially through ignorance to be led aside from the path of virtue, to go astray, sin: Titus 3:3; Hebrews 5:2; τῇ καρδία, Hebrews 3:10; ἀπό τῆς ἀληθείας, James 5:19; to wander or fall away from the true faith, of heretics, 2 Timothy 3:13b; 2 Peter 2:15; to be led away into error and sin, Revelation 18:23. (Compare: ἀποπλανάω.)

Thayer’s Lexicon keyed to Strong’s NT Greek #4105.

Plánē

Noun: “a wandering,” usages, per Strong’s Concordance on Bible Hub: “a wandering; fig: deceit, delusion, error, sin.” Helps Word Studies, on the same web page:” plánē (a feminine noun derived from 4105 /planáō) – deviant behavior; a departure from what God says is true; an error (deception) which results in wandering (roaming into sin). See 4105 (planaō).”

The online version of Thayer’s Lexicon, on the same webpage:

a wandering, a straying about, whereby one, led astray from the right way, roams hither and thither (Aeschylus (Herodotus), Euripides, Plato, Demosthenes, others). In the N. T. metaphorically, mental straying, i. e. error, wrong opinion relative to morals or religion: Ephesians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Thessalonians 2:11; 2 Peter 2:18; 2 Peter 3:17; 1 John 4:6; Jude 1:11 (on which (cf. Winers Grammar, 189 (177) and) see ἐκχέω, b. at the end); error which shows itself in action, a wrong mode of acting: Romans 1:27; πλάνη ὁδοῦ τίνος (R. V. error of one’s way i. e.) the wrong manner of life which one follows, James 5:20 (πλάνη ζωῆς, Wis. 1:12); as sometimes the Latin error, equivalent to that which leads into error, deceit, fraud: Matthew 27:64.

Thayer’s Lexicon keyed to Strong’s NT Greek #4106, on Bible Hub.

Plános

Adjective: “wandering, leading astray (adjective), a deceiver (subst.),” usages, per Strong’s online Concordance on Bible Hub: “misleading, deceiving, wandering; as subst: a deceiver, imposter.” Helps Word Studies, on the same web page: “plános (a substantival adjective, derived from 4105 /planáō, “wander”) – a deceiver, trying to get others to also veer off God’s course (path of safety). See 4105 (planáo).”

The online version of Thayer’s Lexicon, on the same webpage:

wandering, roving; transitively and tropically, misleading, leading into error: πνεύματα πλανᾷ, 1 Timothy 4:1 (πλάνοι ἄνθρωποι, Josephus, b. j. 2, 13, 4). ὁ πλάνος substantively (Cicero, others,planus), as we say, a vagabond, ‘tramp,’ impostor (Diodorus, Athen., others); hence, universally, a corrupter, deceiver, (Vulg.seductor): Matthew 27:63; 2 Corinthians 6:8; 2 John 1:7. (Cf. ὁ κοσμοπλάνος, ‘Teaching’ etc. 16, 4 [ET].)

Thayer’s Lexicon keyed to Strong’s NT Greek #4108, on Bible Hub,

Aitia

Noun: “cause, reason,” usages, per Strong’s online Concordance on Bible Hub: “a cause, reason, excuse; a charge, accusation; guilt; circumstances, case.” “From the same as aiteo.”

The online version of Thayer’s Lexicon, on the same webpage:

1. cause, reason: Acts 10:21; Acts 22:24; Acts 28:20; κατά πᾶσαν αἰτίαν for every cause, Matthew 19:3; δἰ ἥν αἰτίαν for which cause, wherefore, Luke 8:47; 2 Timothy 1:6, 12; Titus 1:13; Hebrews 2:11; cf. Grimm on 2 Macc. 4:28.

2. cause for which one is worthy of punishment; crime of which one is accused: Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; John 18:38; John 19:4 (6; Acts 23:28); αἰτία θανάτου (A. V. cause of death) crime deserving the punishment of death, Acts 13:28; Acts 28:18.

3. charge of crime, accusation: Acts 25:18, 27. (All these meanings are in secular writings also; (but Liddell and Scott now make meaning 3 the primary one).) In Matthew 19:10 the words εἰ οὕτως ἐστιν ἡ αἰτία τοῦ ἀνθρώπου μετά τήν γυναικός find a simple explanation in a Latinism (causa equivalent tores:si ita res se habet, etc.) if the case of the man with his wife is so.

Thayer’s Concordance keyed to Strong’s NT Greek #156, on Bible Hub

.

Rhupoō

Verb. “[to] pollute, defile,” usages, per Strong’s online Concordance on Bible Hub: “I am filthy; hence (morally): I am stained with sin.” Helps Word Studies on the same website: “rhypóō – to become dirty, spiritually filthy. See 4509 (rhypos).” “Variant reading for rhupainō , q.v.” “From rhupos.”

The online version of Thayer’s Lexicon, on the same webpage, lists two brief and closely related definitions: “1. to make filthy, defile, soil: Homer, Odyssey 6, 59. 2. intransitive for ῤυπάω, to be filthy: morally, Revelation 22:11.”

.

Rhupainō

Verb. Per Strong’s online Concordance on Bible Hub, definition: “to make filthy.” “From rhupos.”

.

Rhupos

Noun: “Filth,” usages, per Strong’s online Concordance on Bible Hub: “filth, filthiness, dirt, squalor.” Helps Word Studies on the same website: “rhýpos (a masculine noun) – properly, “grease-filth,” soiling all it touches; (figuratively) uncleanness that results from doing what is morally unfit, i.e. what is unacceptable because (morally) filthy (LS).“

The online version of Thayer’s Lexicon, on the same webpage, lists a single definition: “from Homer down, filth: 1 Peter 3:21 .”

.

Rhuparia

Noun: Definition “to make filthy,” usages, per Strong’s online Concordance on Bible Hub: “filth, pollution, defilement.” Helps Word Studies on the same website: “rhyparía (a feminine noun) – properly, dirt (filth); (figuratively) moral filth that soils (desecrates) the soul, emphasizing a specific application (influence) of moral filth… rhyparía (“moral filth”) is only used in Js 1:21. [See also the cognate masculine noun 4509 (rhýpos), “moral filth viewed as a working principle.”]

The online version of Thayer’s Lexicon, on the same webpage, lists a single definition: “filthiness (Plutarch, praecept. conjug. c. 28); metaphorically, of wickedness as moral defilement: James 1:21.”

.

Rhuparos

Adjective. Definition “filthy,” usages, per Strong’s online Concordance on Bible Hub: “filthy, defiled, dirty.” Helps Word Studies on the same website: “rhyparós (an adjective, derived from 4509 /rhýpos, “moral filth”) – filthy, foul (used only in Js 2:2). See 4509 (rhypos).”]

The online version of Thayer’s Lexicon, on the same webpage, lists a single definition: “filthy, dirty: properly, of clothing (A. V. vile), James 2:2 (the Sept. Zechariah 3:3f; Josephus, Antiquities 7, 11, 3; Plutarch, Phocylides, 18; Dio Cassius, 65, 20; ῤυπαρᾷ καί ἀπλυτα, Artemidorus Daldianus, oneir. 2, 3 at the end; χλαμύς, Aelian v. h. 14, 10); metaphorically, defiled with iniquity, base (A. V. filthy): Revelation 22:11 G L T Tr WH. ((In the sense of sordid, mean, Dionysius Halicarnassus, others.)).”

.

Rhusis

Noun: Definition “a flowing,” usages, per Strong’s online Concordance on Bible Hub: “a flowing, an issue.” Also notes that the word comes “From rhoumai in the sense of its congener rheo; a flux (of blood) — issue.” The link for rheo, in turn, points to rhupos; see above.

The online version of Thayer’s Lexicon, on the same webpage, lists a single definition: “(from an unused present ῤύὧ, from which several of the tenses of ῤέω are borrowed), a flowing, issue: τοῦ αἵματος, Mark 5:25; Luke 8:43…”

.

NEXT: The Crediting of Righteousness to Abraham and the Question of Whether Jesus Died for our Weaknesses or for Our Discrete Sins Only–Romans 4:25.

.