Sin and Its Remedy in Paul

Nijay K. Gupta, John K. Goodrich, Nijay K. Gupta, John K. Goodrich

• Publisher: Cascade Books
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781532689581
• Topic: Teología y religión
• Subtopic: Crítica e interpretación bíblicas

This collection of essays considers what light is shed on Pauline soteriology by giving focused attention to the apostle's language and conception of sin. Sometimes Paul appears to present sin and disobedience as transgression, while at other times sin is personified and treated as an enslaving power. Is there a model or perspective that can account forPaul's conceptual range in his discussion of sin? What does careful study of Paul's letters revealabout the christological and pneumatologicalremediesto the problem of sin as he conceives of them? These questions are explored with attention to individual Pauline letters towards a richer understanding of his attitude towards sin and its remedy.

1

Sin in Context: Ἁμαρτία in Greco-Roman and Jewish Literature

Nijay K. Gupta

This book focuses in large part on sin language in Paul’s letters with an interest in the apostle’s theology of sin, redemption, and salvation. But before engaging directly with the occurrences and usage of this language in Paul, it is helpful to take a step back and look more broadly at how the language of “sin,” in particular the Greek word ἁμαρτία+,1 was used in pagan and Jewish literature in the Greco-Roman world. This is a crucial preliminary study because modern readers of the Bible are tempted to think about the word “sin” only in relation to Christian religion. But the fact of the matter is that this terminology was widely employed in Jewish communities as well as in Greco-Roman literature, although New Testament writers, like Paul, certainly talked about “sin” in a very particular way (which we will discover and discuss in the other essays in this book).

We will commence with ἁμαρτία+ language in a variety of pagan Greek texts to understand how this terminology was used more widely in Greco-Roman society. Paul would have been fully aware of these uses, but also we can imagine that his (majority) gentile readers would have had certain assumptions about what this language means (from cultural usage) even while Paul was communicating his own conceptualization of “sin.” Then we will turn to give attention to sin language in Jewish literature with special interest in ἁμαρτία+ in the Hellenistic Jewish literature of the Second Temple period.

Ἁμαρτία in Greco-Roman Literature

In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics book 5, the famed philosopher addresses the question of what it means to be “just” in relation to lawfulness and fairness in society. Aristotle outlines three types of injury that befall someone and how one might become liable to fault. First, we have ἀτύχημα—an accidental injury (or harm to the other) that could not be reasonably avoided or foreseen. Then, Aristotle says, we have ἁμάρτημα (related to ἁμαρτία), an offense that was not intentional or malicious, but demonstrates negligence on the part of the perpetrator.2 And, thirdly, Aristotle refers to ἀδίκημα—a wrongdoing committed with harmful intent (Eth. nic. 1135b).

It does not appear to be the case that everyone in Hellenistic society followed Aristotle’s injustice taxonomy as a rule; rather, different writers had small variations on their use of ἁμαρτία+. But what is helpful to know at the outset of this discussion is that no one treated this as religious language at all. Rather, ἁμαρτία+ was used when a writer wished to discuss some error, mistake, or deviation from what is known to be right or proper. This might pertain to actual civil laws, but it was also employed for all manner of issues including social matters, accidents, and personal mistakes.3 Below we will examine six hellenophone writers (Herodotus, Aristotle, Polybius, Strabo, Plutarch, and Arrian) on their usage of ἁμαρτία+. But we must keep in mind that these writers by and large represent the language of elite society. So, we might just say a word here about what we learn from the Greek papyri, which tends to represent language use across all social and economic sectors in personal notes, business dealings, contracts, etc. In a certain personal correspondence (13/14 BCE), a freedman appeals to his patron that he should not be mistreated because he has not done anything wrong (ἡμάρτηκά) (BGU 4 1141). In another private letter, Antonius Longus begs forgiveness from his mother, confessing “I know that I have sinned [οἶδα ὅτι ἡμάρτηκά]” (BGU 3 846).

In Herodotus’s Histories, ἁμαρτία+ appears about nine times. Three times it relates to the sins or wrongdoings of a person (1.19.1, 6; 1.119.1). We learn that the Agyllaeans consult the oracle of Delphi in order to discern how they might lift a curse, such that they could heal (ἀκέομαι) an offense (ἁμαρτία) made by their mistreatment of the Phocaeans (Hist. 1.167.2). We see the same kind of language in book 7, where Herodotus addresses the concern King Xerxes had with one of his corrupt judges, Sandoces. As a punishment, Xerxes had Sandoces hung on a cross. But he changed his mind and spared the life of Sandoces, judging (λογιζόμενος) that his good deeds (ἀγαθά) outweighed his offenses (τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων, 7.194.3). Here we see how broad is the meaning of a word like ἁμάρτημα. While it can carry the general meaning of fault or error, in the case of Sandoces the problem is a bribe (amongst other bad behaviors), a moral failure that is clear and intentional.

Later, in a speech by Alexander (son of Amyntas), Herodotus recounts these words: “I forgive [μεθίημι] the Athenians all the offenses [ἁμαρτάς]4 which they committed against me” (8.140.1.1). It was actually Alexander who had stolen and destroyed the Athenians’ land, but here he makes an attempt to pacify them so they could make a treaty.

We already briefly mentioned Aristotle above. Here we can add his use of ἁμαρτία+ as it is found in his Politics. He can talk about fault committed in relationship to the mistakes of legislators (1269a.15–19), ...