Sin

a city of Egypt, mentioned only by Ezekiel. (Ezekiel 30:15,16) The name is Hebrew, or at least Semitic, perhaps signifying clay . It is identified in the Vulgate with Pelusium, “the clayey or muddy” town. Its antiquity may perhaps be inferred from the mention of “the wilderness of Sin” in the journeys of the Israelites. (Exodus 16:1; Numbers 33:11) Ezekiel speaks of Sin as “Sin the strongholds of Egypt.” (Ezekiel 30:15) This place was held by Egypt from that time until the period of the Romans. Herodotus relates that Sennacherib advanced against Pelusium, and that near Pelusium Cambyses defeated Psammenitus. In like manner the decisive battle in which Ochus defeated the last native king, Nectanebes, was fought near this city.

The sin offering among the Jews was the sacrifice in which the ideas of propitiation and of atonement for sin were most distinctly marked. The ceremonial of the sin offering is described in Levi 4 and 6. The trespass offering is closely connected with the sin offering in Leviticus, but at the same time clearly distinguished from it, being in some cases offered with it as a distinct part of the same sacrifice; as, for example, in the cleansing of the leper. Levi 14. The distinction of ceremonial clearly indicates a difference in the idea of the two sacrifices. The nature of that difference is still a subject of great controversy. We find that the sin offerings were—

• Regular . (a) For the whole people, at the New Moon, Passover, Pentecost, Feast of Trumpets and Feast of Tabernacles, (Numbers 28:15-29; 38:1) ... besides the solemn offering of the two goats on the Great Day of Atonement. Levi 16 (B) For the priests and Levites at their consecration, (Exodus 29:10-14,36) besides the yearly sin offering (a, bullock) for the high priest on the Great Day of Atonement. (Leviticus 16:2) Special . For any sin of “ignorance” and the like recorded in Levi 4 and 5. It is seen that in the law most of the sins which are not purely ceremonial are called sins of “ignorance,” see (Hebrews 9:7) and in Numb 15:30 It is expressly said that while such sins call be atoned for by offerings, “the soul that doeth aught presumptuously ” (Heb. with a high hand) “shall be cut off from among his people.” “His iniquity shall he upon him.” Comp. (Hebrews 10:20) But here are sufficient indications that the sins here called “of ignorance” are more strictly those of “negligence” or “frailty” repented of by the unpunished offender, as opposed to those of deliberate and unrepentant sin. It is clear that two classes of sacrifices, although distinct, touch closely upon each other. It is also evident that the sin offering was the only regular and general recognition of sin in the abstract and accordingly was for more solemn and symbolical in it’s ceremonial; the trespass offering was confined to special cases, most of which related to the doing of some material damage, either to the holy things or to man. Josephus declares that the sin offering is presented by those “who fall into sin in ignorance.” and the trespass offering by “one who has sinned and is conscious of his sin. But has no one to convict him thereof.” Without attempting to decide so difficult and so controverted a question, we may draw the following conclusions. First, that the sin offering was for the more solemn and comprehensive of the two sacrifices. Secondly, that the sin offering looked more to the guilt of the sin done, irrespective of its consequences, while the trespass offering looked to the evil consequences of sin, either against the service of God or against man, and to the duty of atonement, as far as atonement was possible. Thirdly, that in the sin offering especially we find symbolized the acknowledgment of sinfulness as inherent in man, and of the need of expiation by sacrifice to renew the broken covenant between man and God. In considering this subject, it must he remembered that the sacrifices of the law had a temporal as well as a spiritual significance and effect. They restored sin offender to his place in the commonwealth of Israel; they were therefore an atonement to the King of Israel for the infringement of his low.

a tract of the wilderness which the Israelites reached after leaving the encampment by the Red Sea. (Numbers 33:11,23) Their next halting-place, (Exodus 16:1; 17:1) was Rephidim, probably the Wady Feiran [Rephidim]; on which supposition it would follow that Sin must lie between that way and the coast of the Gulf of Suez, and of course west of Sinai. In the wilderness of Sin the manna was first gathered, and those who adopt the supposition that this was merely the natural product of the tarfa bush find from the abundance of that shrub in Wady es-Sheikh, southeast of Wady Ghurundel, a proof of local identity.

Is “any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God” (1 John 3:4; Rom. 4:15), in the inward state and habit of the soul, as well as in the outward conduct of the life, whether by omission or commission (Rom. 6:12-17; 7:5-24). It is “not a mere violation of the law of our constitution, nor of the system of things, but an offence against a personal lawgiver and moral governor who vindicates his law with penalties. The soul that sins is always conscious that his sin is (1) intrinsically vile and polluting, and (2) that it justly deserves punishment, and calls down the righteous wrath of God. Hence sin carries with it two inalienable characters, (1) ill-desert, guilt (reatus); and (2) pollution (macula).”, Hodge’s Outlines.

The moral character of a man’s actions is determined by the moral state of his heart. The disposition to sin, or the habit of the soul that leads to the sinful act, is itself also sin (Rom. 6:12-17; Gal. 5:17; James 1:14, 15).

The origin of sin is a mystery, and must for ever remain such to us. It is plain that for some reason God has permitted sin to enter this world, and that is all we know. His permitting it, however, in no way makes God the author of sin.

Adam’s sin (Gen. 3:1-6) consisted in his yielding to the assaults of temptation and eating the forbidden fruit. It involved in it, (1) the sin of unbelief, virtually making God a liar; and (2) the guilt of disobedience to a positive command. By this sin he became an apostate from God, a rebel in arms against his Creator. He lost the favour of God and communion with him; his whole nature became depraved, and he incurred the penalty involved in the covenant of works.

Original sin. “Our first parents being the root of all mankind, the guilt of their sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature were conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation.” Adam was constituted by God the federal head and representative of all his posterity, as he was also their natural head, and therefore when he fell they fell with him (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22-45). His probation was their probation, and his fall their fall. Because of Adam’s first sin all his posterity came into the world in a state of sin and condemnation, i.e., (1) a state of moral corruption, and (2) of guilt, as having judicially imputed to them the guilt of Adam’s first sin.

“Original sin” is frequently and properly used to denote only the moral corruption of their whole nature inherited by all men from Adam. This inherited moral corruption consists in, (1) the loss of original righteousness; and (2) the presence of a constant proneness to evil, which is the root and origin of all actual sin. It is called “sin” (Rom. 6:12, 14, 17; 7:5-17), the “flesh” (Gal. 5:17, 24), “lust” (James 1:14, 15), the “body of sin” (Rom. 6:6), “ignorance,” “blindness of heart,” “alienation from the life of God” (Eph. 4:18, 19). It influences and depraves the whole man, and its tendency is still downward to deeper and deeper corruption, there remaining no recuperative element in the soul. It is a total depravity, and it is also universally inherited by all the natural descendants of Adam (Rom. 3:10-23; 5:12-21; 8:7). Pelagians deny original sin, and regard man as by nature morally and spiritually well; semi-Pelagians regard him as morally sick; Augustinians, or, as they are also called, Calvinists, regard man as described above, spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1; 1 John 3:14).

The doctrine of original sin is proved, (1.) From the fact of the universal sinfulness of men. “There is no man that sinneth not” (1 Kings 8:46; Isa. 53:6; Ps. 130:3; Rom. 3:19, 22, 23; Gal. 3:22). (2.) From the total depravity of man. All men are declared to be destitute of any principle of spiritual life; man’s apostasy from God is total and complete (Job 15:14-16; Gen. 6:5, 6). (3.) From its early manifestation (Ps. 58:3; Prov. 22:15). (4.) It is proved also from the necessity, absolutely and universally, of regeneration (John 3:3; 2 Cor. 5:17). (5.) From the universality of death (Rom. 5:12-20).

Various kinds of sin are mentioned, (1.) “Presumptuous sins,” or as literally rendered, “sins with an uplifted hand”, i.e., defiant acts of sin, in contrast with “errors” or “inadvertencies” (Ps. 19:13). (2.) “Secret”, i.e., hidden sins (19:12); sins which escape the notice of the soul. (3.) “Sin against the Holy Ghost” (q.v.), or a “sin unto death” (Matt. 12:31, 32; 1 John 5:16), which amounts to a wilful rejection of grace.

Sin, a city in Egypt, called by the Greeks Pelusium, which means, as does also the Hebrew name, “clayey” or “muddy,” so called from the abundance of clay found there. It is called by Ezekel (Ezek. 30:15) “the strength of Egypt, “thus denoting its importance as a fortified city. It has been identified with the modern Tineh, “a miry place,” where its ruins are to be found. Of its boasted magnificence only four red granite columns remain, and some few fragments of others.

(Heb. hattath), the law of, is given in detail in Lev. 4-6:13; 9:7-11, 22-24; 12:6-8; 15:2, 14, 25-30; 14:19, 31; Num. 6:10-14. On the day of Atonement it was made with special solemnity (Lev. 16:5, 11, 15). The blood was then carried into the holy of holies and sprinkled on the mercy-seat. Sin-offerings were also presented at the five annual festivals (Num. 28, 29), and on the occasion of the consecration of the priests (Ex. 29:10-14, 36). As each individual, even the most private member of the congregation, as well as the congregation at large, and the high priest, was obliged, on being convicted by his conscience of any particular sin, to come with a sin-offering, we see thus impressively disclosed the need in which every sinner stands of the salvation of Christ, and the necessity of making application to it as often as the guilt of sin renews itself upon his conscience. This resort of faith to the perfect sacrifice of Christ is the one way that lies open for the sinner’s attainment of pardon and restoration to peace. And then in the sacrifice itself there is the reality of that incomparable worth and preciousness which were so significantly represented in the sin-offering by the sacredness of its blood and the hallowed destination of its flesh. With reference to this the blood of Christ is called emphatically “the precious blood,” and the blood that “cleanseth from all sin” (1 John 1:7).

Lying between Elim and sinai (Ex. 16:1; comp. Num. 33:11, 12). This was probably the narrow plain of el-Markha, which stretches along the eastern shore of the Red Sea for several miles toward the promontory of Ras Mohammed, the southern extremity of the Sinitic Peninsula. While the Israelites rested here for some days they began to murmur on account of the want of nourishment, as they had by this time consumed all the corn they had brought with them out of Egypt. God heard their murmurings, and gave them “manna” and then quails in abundance.