7. A native of Cyrene and the father of Alexander and Rufus. As a passerby who was coming from the country, Simon was pressed into service to help carry Jesus’ torture stake.—Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26; see CYRENE, CYRENIAN.

8. A magician in the city of Samaria who so amazed the nation with his magical arts that the people said of him: “This man is the Power of God, which can be called Great.” Due to Philip’s ministry, Simon “became a believer” and was baptized. Later, when the believers received the holy spirit as the apostles Peter and John laid their hands upon them, Simon displayed a wrong motive, offering money for the authority needed so that those upon whom he laid his hands would receive holy spirit. Peter strongly rebuked him, telling Simon that his heart was not straight in God’s sight and urging him to repent and pray for forgiveness. In response, Simon asked these apostles to make supplication to Jehovah in his behalf.—Acts 8:9-24.

9. A tanner of Joppa in whose house by the sea the apostle Peter was entertained for quite a few days in 36 C.E.—Acts 9:43; 10:6, 17, 32.

SIN, I

The term so translated in Hebrew is hhat·taʼthʹ and in Greek ha·mar·tiʹa. In both languages the verb forms (Heb., hha·taʼʹ; Gr., ha·mar·taʹno) mean “to miss,” in the sense of missing or not reaching a goal, way, mark or right point. At Judges 20:16 hha·taʼʹ is used (with a negative) to describe the Benjamites who were ‘slingers of stones to a hairbreadth and would not miss.’ Greek writers often used ha·mar·taʹno with regard to a spearman missing his target.

Both these words were used to mean missing or failing to reach, not merely physical objects or goals (Job 5:24), but also moral or intellectual goals or marks. Proverbs 8:35, 36 says the one finding godly wisdom finds life, but the ‘one missing [Heb., hha·taʼʹ] wisdom is doing violence to his soul,’ leading to death. In the Scriptures both the Hebrew and Greek terms refer mainly to sinning, missing the mark by God’s intelligent creatures with regard to their Creator.

“Sin” (hhat·taʼthʹ; ha·mar·tiʹa) from the Scriptural standpoint is basically anything not in harmony with, hence contrary to, God’s personality, standards, ways and will; it is anything marring one’s relationship with God. It may be in word (Job 2:10; Ps. 39:1), in deed (doing wrong acts [Lev. 20:20; 2 Cor. 12:21] or in failing to do what should be done [Num. 9:13; Jas. 4:17)), or in mind or heart attitude. (Prov. 21:4; compare also Romans 3:9-18; 2 Peter 2:12-15.) Lack of faith in God is a major sin, showing, as it does, distrust of him or lack of confidence in his ability to perform. (Heb. 3:12, 13, 18, 19) A consideration of the use of the original-language terms and examples associated therewith illustrates this.

MAN’S PLACE IN GOD’S PURPOSE

Man was created in “God’s image.” (Gen. 1:26, 27) He, like all other created things, existed and was created because of God’s will. (Rev. 4:11) God’s assigning to him work showed that man was to serve God’s purpose on earth. (Gen. 1:28; 2:8, 15) According to the inspired apostle, man was created to be both “God’s image and glory” (1 Cor. 11:7), hence to reflect the qualities of his Creator, conducting himself so as to reflect the glory of God. As God’s earthly son, man should resemble, be like his heavenly Father. To be otherwise would be to contradict and reproach the divine parenthood of God.—Compare Malachi 1:6.

Jesus showed this when encouraging his disciples to manifest goodness and love in a way surpassing that done by “sinners,” persons known to practice sinful acts. He stated that only by following God’s example in mercy and love could his disciples ‘prove themselves sons of their Father who is in the heavens.’ (Matt. 5:43-48; Luke 6:32-36) Paul ties in God’s glory with the matter of human sin in saying that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom. 3:23; compare Romans 1:21-23; Hosea 4:7.) At 2 Corinthians 3:16-18; 4:1-6 the apostle shows that those turning from sin to Jehovah “with unveiled faces reflect like mirrors the glory of Jehovah, [and] are transformed into the same image from glory to glory,” because the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, shines through to them. (Compare also 1 Corinthians 10:31.) The apostle Peter quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures in stating God’s express will for his earthly servants, saying: “In accord with the holy one who called you, do you also become holy yourselves in all your conduct, because it is written: ‘You must be holy, because I am holy.’”—l Pet. 1:15, 16; Lev. 19:2; Deut. 18:13.

Sin, therefore, mars man’s reflection of God’s likeness and glory; it makes man unholy, that is, unclean, impure, tarnished in a spiritual and moral sense.—Compare Isaiah 6:5-7; Psalm 51:1, 2; Ezekiel 37:23; see HOLINESS.

All these texts, then, stress God’s original purpose that man should be in harmony with God’s personality, be like his Creator, similar to the way a human father who loves his son desires the son to be like him as to outlook on life, standards of conduct, qualities of heart. (Compare Proverbs 3:11, 12; 23:15, 16, 26; Ephesians 5:1; Hebrews 12:4-6, 9-11.) This, of necessity, requires man’s obedience and submission to the divine will, whether that will is conveyed in the form of an express commandment or not. Sin, thus, involves a moral failure, a missing of the mark, in all these aspects.

THE INTRODUCTION OF SIN

Sin was introduced first on the spirit plane before its introduction on earth. For unknown ages full harmony with God prevailed in the universe. Disruption came through a spirit creature referred to simply as the Resister, Adversary (Heb., Sa·tanʹ; Gr., Sa·ta·nasʹ; Job 1:6; Rom. 16:20), the principal False Accuser or Slanderer (Gr., Di·aʹbo·los) of God. (Heb. 2:14; Rev. 12:9) Hence, the apostle John says: “He who carries on sin originates with the Devil, because the Devil has been sinning from the beginning.”—1 John 3:8.

By the “beginning” John clearly means the beginning of Satan’s career of opposition (even as “beginning” is used to refer to the start of the discipleship of Christians at 1 John 2:7; 3:11). John’s words show that, once having introduced sin, Satan continued his sinful course. Hence, any person that “makes sin his business or practice” (The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. V, p. 185) reveals himself to be a ‘child’ of the Adversary, spiritual offspring reflecting the qualities of his “father.”—John 8:44; 1 John 3:10-12.

Since cultivation of wrong desire to the point of fertility precedes the ‘birth of sin’ (Jas. 1:14, 15), the spirit creature who turned opposer had already begun to deviate from righteousness, had experienced disaffection toward God, prior to the actual manifestation of sin.

Revolt in Eden

God’s will expressed to Adam and his wife was primarily positive, setting forth things they were to do. (Gen. 1:26-29; 2:15) One negative command was given to Adam, that prohibiting eating of (or touching) the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. (Gen. 2:16, 17; 3:2, 3) God’s test of man’s obedience and devotion is notable for the respect it showed for man’s dignity. By it God attributed nothing bad to Adam; he did not use as a test the prohibition of, for example, bestiality, murder, or some similar vile or base act, thereby implying that God felt Adam might have some despicable inclinations residing within him. Eating was normal, proper, and Adam had been told to “eat to satisfaction” of what God gave him. (Gen. 2:16) But God now tested Adam by restricting his eating of the fruit of this one tree, God thus causing the eating thereof to symbolize that the eater comes to a knowledge that enables him to decide for himself what is “good” or what is “bad” for man. Thus, God neither imposed a hardship on the man nor did He attribute to Adam anything beneath his dignity as a human son of God.

The woman was the first human sinner. Her temptation by God’s adversary who employed a serpent as a medium of communication (see PERFECTION [The first sinner and the king of Tyre]), was not through an open appeal to immorality of a sensual nature. Rather, it paraded as an appeal to the desire for supposed intellectual elevation and freedom. After first getting Eve to restate God’s law, which she evidently had received through her husband, the tempter then made an assault on God’s truthfulness and goodness. He asserted that eating fruit from the prescribed tree would not result in death but in enlightenment and Godlike ability to determine for oneself whether a thing was good or bad. This statement reveals that the tempter was by now thoroughly alienated in heart from his Creator, his words constituting open contradiction plus veiled slander of God. He did not accuse God of unknowing error but of deliberate misrepresentation of matters, saying, “For God knows . . . ” The gravity of sin, the detestable nature of such disaffection, is seen in the means to which this spirit son stooped to achieve his ends, becoming a deceitful liar and an ambition-driven murderer, since he obviously knew the fatal consequences of what he now suggested to his human listener.—John 8:44.

As the account reveals, improper desire began to work in the woman. Rather than react in utter disgust and righteous indignation on hearing the righteousness of God’s law thus put in question, she now came to look upon the tree as desirable. She coveted what rightly belonged to Jehovah God as her Sovereign—his ability and prerogative to determine what is good or bad for his creatures. Hence, she was now starting to conform herself to the ways, standards and will of the opposer in contradiction of her Creator, as well as of her God-appointed head, her husband. (1 Cor. 11:3) Putting trust in the tempter’s words, she let herself be seduced, ate of the fruit and thus revealed the sin that had been born in her heart and mind.—Gen. 3:6; 2 Cor. 11:3; compare James 1:14, 15; Matthew 5:27, 28.

Adam later partook of the fruit when it was offered to him by his wife. The apostle shows that the man’s sinning differed from that of his wife in that Adam was not deceived by the tempter’s propaganda, hence put no stock in the claim that eating of the tree could be done with impunity. (1 Tim. 2:14) Adam’s eating, therefore, must have been due to desire for his wife, and he ‘listened to her voice’ rather than to that of his God. (Gen. 3:6, 17) He thus conformed to her ways and will, and, through her, to those of God’s adversary. He therefore ‘missed the mark,’ failed to act in God’s image and likeness, did not reflect God’s glory, and, in fact, insulted his heavenly Father.

EFFECTS OF SIN

Sin put man out of harmony with his Creator. It thereby damaged, not only his relations with God, but also his relations with the rest of God’s creation, including damage to man’s own self, to his mind, heart and body. It brought consequences of enormous evil upon the human race.

The conduct of the human pair immediately revealed this disharmony. Their covering portions of their divinely made bodies and thereafter their attempting to hide themselves from God were clear evidences of the alienation that had taken place within their minds and hearts. (Gen. 3:7, 8) Sin thus introduced to them feelings of guilt, anxiety, insecurity, shame. This illustrates the point made by the apostle at Romans 2:15, that God’s law was ‘written on man’s heart’; hence a violation of that law now produced an internal upheaval within man, his conscience accusing him of wrongdoing. In effect, man had a built-in lie detector that made impossible his concealing his sinful state from his Creator, and God, responding to the man’s excuse for his changed attitude toward his heavenly Father, promptly inquired: “From the tree from which I commanded you not to eat have you eaten?”—Gen. 3:9-11.

To be true to himself, as well as for the good of the rest of his universal family, Jehovah God could not countenance such sinful course, either on the part of his human creatures or that of the spirit son turned rebel. Maintaining his holiness, he justly imposed the sentence of death on them all. The human pair were then expelled from God’s garden in Eden, hence cut off from access to that other tree designated by God as the “tree of life.”—Gen. 3:14-24.

Results to mankind as a whole

Romans 5:12 states that “through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.” (Compare 1 John 1:8-10.) Some have explained this as meaning that all Adam’s future offspring shared in Adam’s initial act of sin because he represented them as their family head, thereby making them, in effect, co-participants with him in his sin. The apostle, however, speaks of death as ‘spreading’ to all men, which implies a progressive rather than a simultaneous effect on Adam’s descendants.

Additionally, the apostle goes on to speak of death as ruling as king “from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression by Adam.” (Rom. 5:14) Adam’s sin is rightly called a “transgression” since it was an “overstepping” of a stated law, an express command of God to him. Also, Adam sinned of his own free choice as a perfect human, free from disabilities, a state his offspring have clearly never enjoyed. So, these factors seem out of harmony with the view that ‘when Adam sinned, all his as yet unborn descendants sinned with him.’ For all Adam’s descendants to be held accountable as participants in Adam’s personal sin would require some expression of will on their part as to having him as their family head. Yet none of them in reality willed to be born of him, their birth into the Adamic line resulting from the fleshly will of their parents.—John 1:13.

The evidence, then, points to a passing on of sin from Adam to succeeding generations due to the recognized law of heredity. This is evidently what the psalmist refers to in saying: “With error I was brought forth with birth pains, and in sin my mother conceived me.” (Ps. 51:5) Sin (and its consequences) entered and spread to all the human race not merely because Adam was the family head of the race but because he (and not Eve) was its progenitor or human life source. His offspring would inescapably inherit, not merely physical characteristics like those of their common father, and also their common sinful mother, but also personality traits, including the inclination toward sin.—Compare 1 Corinthians 15:22, 48, 49.

Paul’s words also point to this conclusion when he says that “just as through the disobedience of the one man [Adam] many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one person [Christ Jesus] many will be constituted righteous.” (Rom. 5:19) The full number of those to be “constituted righteous” by Christ’s obedience were not immediately so constituted at the moment of his presenting his ransom sacrifice to God but progressively come under the benefits of that sacrifice as they come to exercise faith in that provision and become reconciled to God. (John 3:36; Acts 3:19) So, too, progressive generations of Adam’s descendants have been constituted sinners as they have been conceived by their innately sinful parents in Adam’s line.

Sin’s power and wages

“The wages sin pays is death” (Rom. 6:23) and by being born in Adam’s line all men have come under the “law of sin and of death.” (Rom. 8:2; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22) Sin, with death, has “ruled as king” over mankind, enslaving them, this slavery being one into which they were sold by Adam. (Rom. 5:17, 21; 6:6, 17; 7:14; John 8:34) These statements show that sin is viewed not only as the actual commission (or omission) of certain acts but also as a law or governing principle or force operating in them, namely, the inborn inclination toward wrongdoing that they inherit from Adam. Their Adamic inheritance has therefore produced ‘weakness of the flesh,’ imperfection. (Rom. 6:19) Sin’s “law” continually works in their fleshly members, in effect trying to control their course, make them subject to its aim, which is never the right goal of harmony with God.—Rom. 7:15, 17, 18, 20-23; Eph. 2:1-3.

“King” sin may give its ‘orders’ in different ways to different persons and at different times. Thus, God, noting the anger of Adam’s first son Cain against his brother Abel, warned Cain that if he did not turn to doing good, “there is sin crouching at the entrance, and for you is its craving; and will you, for your part, get the mastery over it?” Cain, however, let the sin of envy and hatred master him, leading him to murder.—Gen. 4:3-8; compare 1 Samuel 15:23.

Sickness, pain and aging

Since death in humans is generally accompanied by disease or the aging process, it follows that these are concomitants of sin. Under the Mosaic Law covenant with Israel, the laws governing sacrifices for sin included atonement for those who had suffered from the plague of leprosy. (Lev. 14:2, 19) Those touching a human corpse or entering the tent where a person had died became unclean and required ceremonial purification. (Num. 19:11-19; compare Numbers 31:19, 20.) Jesus, too, associated illness with sin (Matt. 9:2-7; John 5:5-15), although showing that specific afflictions are not necessarily the result of any specific sinful acts. (John 9:2, 3) Other texts show the beneficial effects of righteousness (a course opposite from sinning) on one’s health (Prov. 3:7, 8; 4:20-22; 14:30) and, during Christ’s reign, the elimination of death, which rules with sin (Rom. 5:21), is accompanied by the end of pain.—1 Cor. 15:25, 26; Rev. 21:4.

SIN AND LAW

The apostle John writes that “everyone who practices sin is also practicing lawlessness, and so sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4); also that “all unrighteousness is sin.” (1 John 5:17) The apostle Paul, on the other hand, speaks of “those who sinned without law.” He further states that “until the Law [given through Moses] sin was in the world, but sin is not charged against anyone when there is no law. Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression by Adam.” (Rom. 2:12; 5:13, 14) Paul’s words are to be understood in context; his earlier statements in this letter to the Romans show that he was comparing those under the Law covenant with those outside that covenant (hence not under its law code), while he demonstrated that both classes were sinful.—Rom. 3:9.

During the more than 2,500 years between Adam’s deflection and the giving of the Law covenant (in 1513 B.C.E.), God had not given mankind any comprehensive code or systematically arranged law that specifically defined sin in all its ramifications and forms. True, he had given certain decrees, as those given to Noah following the global flood (Gen. 9:1-7), and the covenant of circumcision given to Abraham and his household (including his foreign slaves). (Gen. 17:9-14) But concerning Israel the psalmist could say that God “is telling his word to Jacob, his regulations and his judicial decisions to Israel. He has not done that way to any other nation; and as for his judicial decisions, they have not known them.” (Ps. 147:19, 20; compare Exodus 19:5, 6; Deuteronomy 4:8; 7:6, 11.) Of the Law covenant given Israel it could be said, “the man that has done the righteousness of the Law will live by it,” for perfect adherence to and compliance with that Law could be accomplished only by a sinless man, as was the case with Christ Jesus. (Rom. 10:5; Matt. 5:17; John 8:46; Heb. 4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet. 2:22) This was true of no other law given between Adam and the giving of the Law covenant.

‘Doing by nature the things of the law’

This did not mean that men during that period between Adam and Moses were free from sin, due to there being no comprehensive law code against which to measure their conduct. At Romans 2:14, 15, Paul states: “For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused.” Having been originally made in God’s image and likeness, man has a moral nature, which produces the faculty of conscience. Even imperfect, sinful men retain a measure of this, as Paul’s words indicate. (See CONSCIENCE.) Since law is basically a ‘rule of conduct,’ this moral nature operates in their hearts as a law. However, set over against this law of their moral nature is another inherited law, the ‘law of sin,’ which wars against righteous tendencies, making slaves of those who do not resist its dominance.—Rom. 6:12; 7:22, 23.

This moral nature and associated conscience can be seen even in Cain’s case, for, although God had given no law regarding homicide, Cain showed that his conscience condemned him after he murdered Abel, by the evasive way he responded to God’s inquiry. (Gen. 4:8, 9) Joseph the Hebrew showed God’s ‘law in his heart’ when he responded to the seductive request of Potiphar’s wife, saying: “How could I commit this great badness and actually sin against God?” Though God had not specifically condemned adultery, yet Joseph recognized it as wrong, violating God’s will for humans as expressed in Eden.—Gen. 39:7-9; compare Genesis 2:24.

Thus, during the patriarchal period from Abraham through the twelve sons of Jacob the Scriptures show men of many races and nations speaking of “sin” (hhat·taʼthʹ), such as sins against an employer (Gen. 31:36), against the ruler to whom one is subject (Gen. 40:1; 41:9), a relative (Gen. 42:22; 43:9; 50:17) or simply a fellow human. (Gen. 20:9) In any case, the one using the term acknowledged thereby a certain relationship with the person against whom the sin was (or might be) committed and an accompany-ing responsibility to respect and not go contrary to that one’s interests (or his will and authority, as in the case of a ruler). They thereby showed evidence of moral nature. With the passing of time, nonetheless, sin’s mastery over those not serving God grew, so that Paul could speak of the people of the nations as walking in “darkness mentally, and alienated from the life that belongs to God . . . past all moral sense.”—Eph. 4:17-19.

How the Law made sin “abound”

While man’s measure of conscience gave him a certain natural sense of right and wrong, God, by making the Law covenant with Israel, now specifically identified sin in its multiple aspects. The mouth of any person descended from God’s friends Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that might voice the claim of being innocent from sin was thereby “stopped and all the world [became] liable to God for punishment.” This was so because the imperfect flesh they inherited from Adam made it impossible for them to be declared righteous before God by works of law, “for by law is the accurate knowledge of sin.” (Rom. 3:19, 20; Gal. 3:16) The Law spelled out clearly what the full range and scope of sin was, so that, in effect, it caused trespassing and sin to “abound,” in that so many acts and even attitudes were now identified as sinful. (Rom. 5:20; 7:7, 8; Gal. 3:19; compare Psalm 40:12.) Its sacrifices continually served to remind those under the Law of their sinful state. (Heb. 10:1-4, 11) The Law by these means acted as a tutor to lead them to Christ, that they “might be declared righteous due to faith.”—Gal. 3:22-25.

Sin receives “inducement through the commandment”

As already seen, the apostle personifies sin, representing it as a “king” who wars to exercise mastery over persons and make them its slaves, as well as slaves of death, also personified as a “king.” This doubtless is the key to understanding Paul’s statements at Romans 7:5, 8-11. He refers to the “sinful passions that were excited by the Law [which] were at work in our members that we should bring forth fruit to death.” Then, using himself as an example, he speaks of sin’s “receiving an inducement through the commandment [specifically, the commandment against coveting],” and working out in Paul every sort of covetousness, thereby seducing him and killing him through that commandment.

The apostle evidently is here saying that, by the way the Law identified and exposed sinful acts, “King Sin” could now point to Paul’s covetous thoughts or acts and legally label them as the “king’s” own works or fruitage, legal evidence of the mastery of “King Sin” over Paul; thereby “King Sin” could lay legal claim to Paul (or any other person similarly under the Law) as his slave, under his “law” (Rom. 7:23), subject to his ‘pay’ (Rom. 6:23), and thereupon turn him over to the rule of “King Death,” sin’s inseparable associate. (Compare Romans 6:16.) Paul then says (according to The Jerusalem Bible translation): “The Law is sacred, and what it commands is sacred, just and good. Does that mean that something good killed me? Of course not. But sin, to show itself in its true colours, used that good thing to kill me; and thus sin, thanks to the commandment, was able to exercise all its sinful power.”—Rom. 7:12, 13; compare 1 Corinthians 15:56.

The answer to the question, “Is the Law sin?” is therefore definitely “No!” (Rom. 7:7) The Law did not ‘miss the mark’ by failing the purpose for which God gave it, but, rather, scored a ‘bull’s-eye,’ not only in being good and beneficial as a protective guide, but also in legally establishing that all persons, the Israelites not excepted, were sinners in need of redemption by God, pointing the Israelites to Christ as the needed Redeemer.

ERRORS, TRANSGRESSIONS, TRESPASSES

The Scriptures frequently link “error” (Heb., ʽa·wonʹ [“iniquity,” AV, RS]), “transgression” (Heb., peʹshaʽ; Gr., pa·raʹba·sis), “trespass” (Gr., pa·raʹpto·ma), and other such terms, with “sin” (Heb., hhat·taʼthʹ; Gr., ha·mar·tiʹa). All such related terms present specific aspects of sin, forms that it takes.

Errors, mistakes and foolishness

Thus, ʽa·wonʹ basically relates to erring, acting crookedly or wrongly. It is committing “iniquity” in the sense this English word has of ‘that which is unequal (inequity), hence unbalanced or uneven as to what is just and proper.’ The Hebrew term refers to a moral error or wrong, a distortion of what is right. (Job 10:6, 14, 15) Those not submitting to God’s will obviously are not guided by his perfect wisdom and justice, hence are bound to err. (Compare Isaiah 59:1-3; Jeremiah 14:10; Philippians 2:15.) Doubtless because sin causes man thus to be ‘off balance,’ ‘off center,’ bringing perversion of what is upright (Job 33:27; Hab. 1:4), ʽa·wonʹ is the Hebrew term most frequently linked with or used in parallel with hhat·taʼthʹ (“sin,” “missing the mark”). (Ex. 34:9; Deut. 19:15; Neh. 4:5; Ps. 32:5; 85:2; Isa. 27:9) This imbalance produces confusion and disharmony within man and difficulties in his dealings with God and with the rest of God’s creation.

The “error” (ʽa·wonʹ) may be intentional or unintentional, either a conscious deviation from what is right or an unknowing act, a “mistake” (sh^egha·ghahʹ), which, nevertheless, brings the person into error and guilt before God. (Lev. 4:13-35; 5:1-6, 14-19; Num. 15:22-29; Ps. 19:12, 13) If intentional, then, of course, the error was of far graver consequence than if by mistake. (Num. 15:30, 31; compare Lamentations 4:6, 13, 22.) Error is contrary to truth, and those willfully sinning pervert the truth, a course which only brings forth grosser sin. (Compare Isaiah 5:18-23.) The writer to the Hebrews speaks of the “deceptive power of sin,” which has a hardening effect on human hearts. (Heb. 3:13-15; compare Exodus 9:27, 34, 35.) The same writer, in quoting from Jeremiah 31:34 (where the Hebrew original spoke of Israel’s “error” and “sin”), wrote ha·mar·tiʹa (“sin”) and a·di·kiʹa (“unrighteousness”) at Hebrews 8:12, and ha·mar·ti’a and a·no·miʹa (“lawlessness”) at Hebrews 10:17.

Proverbs 24:9 states that “the loose conduct of foolishness is sin,” and Hebrew terms conveying the idea of foolishness are often used in connection with sinning, the sinner at times repentantly acknowledging, “I have acted foolishly.” (1 Sam. 26:21; 2 Sam. 24:10, 17) Undisciplined by God, the sinner gets tangled up in his errors and foolishly goes astray.—Prov. 5:22, 23; compare 19:3.

Transgression, an “overstepping”

Sin may take the form of a “transgression.” The Greek pa·raʹba·sis (“transgression”) refers basically to an “overstepping,” that is, going beyond certain limits or boundaries, especially as in breaking a law. Matthew uses the verb form (pa·ra·baiʹno) in recounting the question of the Pharisees and scribes as to why Jesus’ disciples ‘overstepped the tradition of men of former times,’ and Jesus’ counterquestion as to why these opposers ‘overstepped the commandment of God because of their tradition,’ by which they made God’s word invalid. (Matt. 15:1-6) It also can mean a ‘stepping aside,’ as in Judas’ ‘deviating’ from his ministry and apostleship. (Acts 1:25) In some Greek texts the same verb is used when referring to one who “goes beyond, and does not abide in the doctrine of the Anointed one.”—2 John 9, ED.

In the Hebrew Scriptures there are similar references to sinning by persons who “overstepped,” ‘sidestepped,’ ‘bypassed,’ or ‘passed beyond’ (Heb., ʽa·varʹ) God’s covenant or specific orders.—Num. 14:41; Deut. 17:2, 3; Josh. 7:11, 15; 1 Sam. 15:24; Isa. 24:5; Jer. 34:18.

The apostle Paul shows the special connection of pa·raʹba·sis with violation of established law in saying that “where there is no law, neither is there any transgression.” (Rom. 4:15) Hence, in the absence of law the sinner would not be called a “transgressor.” Consistently, Paul and the other Christian writers use pa·raʹba·sis (and pa·ra·baʹtes, “transgressor”) in the context of law. (Compare Romans 2:23-27; Galatians 2:16, 18; 3:19; James 2:9, 11.) Adam, having received a direct command from God, was therefore guilty of “transgression” of stated law. (His wife, though deceived, was also guilty of transgression of that law [1 Tim. 2:14].) The Law covenant spoken to Moses by angels was added to the Abrahamic covenant “to make transgressions manifest,” that ‘all things together might be delivered up to the custody of sin,’ legally convicting all of Adam’s