Bible Dictionaries
Guilt (2)

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

Search for…

Enter query below:

or

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Prev Entry
Guilt

Next Entry
Gulf

Resource Toolbox

Print Article

GUILT is the state of the sinner before God, whereby, becoming the object of God’s wrath, he incurs the debt and punishment of death. So closely are Sin, Guilt, and Death connected, both in the OT and NT, that the terms are almost interchangeable, and can be adequately discussed only in relation to one another (see art. Sin). It will suffice in the present article to show that the removal of guilt was the object of Christ’s death, and that the recognition of sin as guilt is in consequence a prominent, if not the primary feature of the teaching of the NT concerning sin.

1. The gospel, as first preached by the Baptist (Matthew 3:2) and Jesus Himself (Mark 1:16, Matthew 4:23; Matthew 10:7), was the Kingdom of God. Even the Fourth Evangelist, who usually presents it as Eternal Life, witnesses to this fact (John 3:3; John 3:5). The message, therefore, as coupled with the summons to repentance, involves a restoration of personal relations, God reigning in the midst of a reconciled people. Baptism, though the symbolism of cleansing is employed, is ‘unto remission’ (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3) rather than to the washing away of sins; remission being not a vital act by which sinners are made just, but a personal favour (Matthew 6:12, cf. 1 John 1:9) by which they are accounted righteous. The risen Lord expressly carries on this view of His atoning work into the proclamation of the completed Christian gospel. Remission of sins was to be preached in His name among all the nations (Luke 24:47, cf. Matthew 28:19). To this message the primitive preaching shows an exact fidelity (Acts 2:38; Acts 5:31; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:38; Acts 26:18). The expression ‘blotted out’ in Acts 3:19 emphasizes forgiveness as the cancelling of an account. And the statement of St. Paul in Acts 17:30 (cf. Romans 3:25), that God had ‘overlooked’ the times of ignorance, again gives prominence to the personal relation.

It is the guilt rather than the infection of sin which appears in the teaching of Jesus. The analogy between disease and sin, which the miracles of healing suggest, might appear to show the contrary. But it is doubtful whether the transition from the sickness of the body to that of the soul would have presented itself to the Hebrew in this form, and not rather through the conception of suffering as the punishment of sin. It is this, for example, that makes the problem of the ‘marred visage’ of Jehovah’s Servant (Isaiah 52:13-15; Isaiah 53). And the interpretation given by our Lord Himself in the case of the paralytic seems to be decisive. His power to cure the body is the evidence, not of His power to heal the soul, but of His authority (ἐξουσία) to forgive sins (Mark 2:10). It is the ‘debts’ which remain as the permanent result of past ‘trespasses,’ for which we ask forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:12, Luke 11:4); and when we crave deliverance, it is not from the sick will, but from the ‘Evil One’ (Matthew 6:13), the personal enemy of God who has received a guilty allegiance. The importance of this aspect of sin is further marked by the requirement of human forgiveness as the condition because the pattern of Divine remission (Matthew 6:14; Matthew 6:16; Matthew 18:21-35). What, therefore, is removed is not, in the first instance, the subjective consequences, but an objective result of sin. If it be urged that Christ discharges the latter only in virtue of the fact that He destroys the former, as expressed in the words ‘it is he that shall save his people from their sins’ (Matthew 1:21, but cf. Romans 5:9), the reply is that Jesus is here represented as Saviour in the sense in which Messiah was to save, and that this is determined by the meaning of ‘salvation’ as developed in the theology of the OT. The root idea of the Messianic salvation is liberation not remedy (Exodus 14:13; Exodus 15:2, Isaiah 45:17; Isaiah 46:13; Isaiah 52:10, Luke 1:69; Luke 1:71; Luke 1:77).

Again, attention must be paid to the prominence given to judgment, especially the Day of Judgment, in the Synoptic narrative (Matthew 5:21-22; Matthew 7:1-2; Matthew 10:15; Matthew 11:20-24; Matthew 12:36-37; Matthew 12:41-42; Matthew 16:27-28; Matthew 19:28; Matthew 19:24 ^passim Matthew 19:25 ^passim Matthew 26:64, Luke 12:58-59). The unquenchable fire is not merely the automatic result of sin bringing forth death, but punishment inflicted by judicial sentence (Mark 9:43; Mark 9:48, Matthew 25:41). The wicked are workers of iniquity giving account for idle words and deeds (Matthew 12:36; Matthew 16:27). Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, however it be interpreted, incurs condemnation as the unpardonable sin (Mark 3:28-29, Matthew 12:31-32). It is the personal relation, and therefore the guilt of sin, which appears in the parables of the Lost Sheep, etc. (Luke 15). The joy of the angels is represented as arising out of the reconciliation between the Father and the penitent (Luke 15:10). The expiatory character of the Cross is not so fully evident. But Jesus gives His life a ransom (Mark 10:45 ||); the Agony was a cup given by His Father (Mark 14:36 ||); the sorrow of death was the forsaking by God (Mark 15:34 ||); the peace of Calvary the self-committal to the Father (Luke 23:46).

2. The Gospel of St. John, dwelling, as it does, upon the gift of God as life, truth, and light, might seem on a superficial reading to obscure, if not to ignore, the view of sin as guilt. But even the Prologue couples grace, or God’s free favour, with truth as that which came by Jesus Christ, and that in antithesis to the Law given by Moses (John 1:17). The witness of the Baptist is to the Lamb of God (John 1:29; John 1:36), a sacrificial term involving expiation (John 19:36; cf. Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, 1 Corinthians 5:7, John 6:52 with Westcott’s note). To believe on the name of the Son of God is to escape judgment (John 3:18; John 5:24). It is ‘accusation to the Father’ which the Jews have to fear (John 5:45). Through Christ we come to the Father (John 14:6). The commission of the risen Christ to His disciples is to forgive and retain sins (John 20:23; cf. Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18). It is the confession and forgiveness of sins which the First Epistle represents as effecting the cleansing from sin and unrighteousness through the sacrificial blood and heavenly intercession of our Advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1-2). The use of ἁνομία, ‘lawlessness,’ as a synonym for ἀμαρτία, ‘sin,’ implies the guilt of a broken law (1 John 3:4). The condemnation or acquittal of the heart reflects the judgment of God (1 John 3:20). In the Apocalypse, sin is set in relation to Him that sitteth on the throne (Revelation 4:2), incurring His wrath (Revelation 6:16), noted in His books (Revelation 20:12), and receiving His plagues (Revelation 15:1).

3. It is difficult to set forth St. Paul’s theory of guilt without entering upon the whole question of his view of sin. But a few considerations will make it clear that he looks at sin, in the first instance, as incurring guilt. It is represented as an act committed against God (Romans 1:21). All its essential features are recapitulated in each individual sin or transgression. It is only through the Law that it can appear as what it is (Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7). It can only be separated from its actual manifestations by being represented, not as a predisposing cause of these, but as itself an act of disobedience on the part of Adam (Romans 5:19). Death is not so much its consequence as its punishment or wages (Romans 5:12, Romans 6:23), not following automatically, but inflicted by the sentence of an offended God (Romans 1:18, Ephesians 5:6, Colossians 3:6). It involves responsibility (Romans 1:20), desert (Romans 1:32), condemnation (Romans 5:16; Romans 5:18). The work of Christ is primarily an act of righteous obedience (Romans 5:18-19, Philippians 2:8), undoing the act of disobedience in which all sin is included; an offering for sin condemning sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3), and wiping off the score of trespasses (Colossians 2:14). Its effect in the broadest view is a reversal of the sentence of condemnation (Romans 8:1) and reconciliation with God (Romans 5:10, 2 Corinthians 5:18-20). St. Paul’s view of the function of law must here be remembered. The analogy of a therapeutic drug, administered in order that the disease may declare itself, is apt to mislead. This is not in the Apostle’s thought. For trespasses or transgressions are themselves sin, not merely its symptoms (Ephesians 2:1; Ephesians 2:5). It is the removal of these, not of a cause distinguishable from them, which is the purpose of the Cross (Romans 4:25; cf. Romans 5:8; Romans 8:32). Death, which passed upon all men in consequence of transgression (Romans 5:12), reigned from Adam to Moses (Romans 5:14). The figure is that of a ruler to whose sway all men have as a penalty been judicially consigned, and from whose custody the free favour of God in Christ releases them. ‘All have sinned’ (Romans 5:12), whether with or without an explicit publication of law. St. Paul would not have allowed that through an involuntary taint of heredity men had at any time suffered without personal guilt. The Gentiles have the Law, being enlightened by conscience (Romans 2:14-15; cf. Matthew 25:31-46). Though the Law is not explicitly revealed, they are in effect transgressors. If in Romans 4:15 St. Paul declares that ‘the law worketh wrath,’ because ‘where there is no law, neither is there transgression,’ in Galatians 3:19 he says rather that the Law was added (προσετέθη), came in between the promise and its fulfilment, because of transgressions; i.e. to bring home unmistakably to those who were already guilty the conviction of their offences.

So we are brought to the evidence of the doctrine of justification. Without pressing the forensic metaphor to a point inconsistent with St. Paul’s thought, which would relegate the whole theology of guilt to a region of formal conceptions unchecked by experience, we are bound to remember that the Apostle is concerned with the probation of guilt assumed to exist, which is necessary before the sinner can throw himself upon the offer of free salvation secured to him through the gospel. Justification is not in itself a change of character, a transformation of life, but an alteration of status (Romans 5:1-2, Ephesians 2:13), a reversal of relations whereby the ‘servants of sin’ (Romans 6:17), ‘the children of wrath’ (Ephesians 2:3) become ‘children of grace,’ ‘sons of God’ (Galatians 3:26). It is the antithesis of trespasses (Romans 4:25), no more to be confused with sanctification, which is its fruit (Romans 6:22), than is transgression with uncleanness, which is its issue (Romans 1:24). To be justified from sin is to have escaped—either by paying the penalty of death (Romans 6:7) or by believing in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:24-25)—from what in a figure is regarded as its claim or dominion over the life (Romans 6:12-14), involving an obedience or yielding of the members. This is entirely in harmony with the conception of sin, from which St. Paul starts, as a voluntary withdrawal of allegiance admitting of no excuse.

We shall be saved from confusion with regard to the Pauline view of guilt, and the necessity of conforming the whole doctrine of sin to this primary idea, by considering what he means by ‘adoption’ and ‘grace.’ There is no clear instance in any Epistle of the use of the word χάρις in its later ecclesiastical sense of an infusion of spiritual strength (see Sanday-Headlam, Romans, note on Romans 1:5 χἁρις). In some passages, apart from other considerations, the term admits of this interpretation (e.g. Ephesians 4:7). But the root idea is the free favour of God through Christ (Romans 4:4; Romans 5:13). It is not, therefore, an imparted gift, but an attitude of the Divine Mind. Again, the conception of sonship, as applied to the relation of the believer to God, while not excluding community of nature, gives prominence rather to the elective purpose of the Father (Ephesians 1:5). It is not reached as a deduction from membership in Christ, as though the highest action of Divine grace were nothing more than the operation of a natural law. Modern theology, with its leading idea of solidarity, has tended to obscure the personal action of the Father in admitting mankind to fellowship. St. Paul’s thought, on the other hand, is guided by the Hebraic conception of the son and heir, with its notion of privilege rather than primogeniture (Exodus 4:22, Jeremiah 31:9, Psalms 89:27, Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 12:23; cf. Job 18:13, Isaiah 14:30). Thus the Christian attains his rank in the family of God by ‘adoption’ (Galatians 4:5, Ephesians 1:5; cf. Galatians 3:28, where sonship is presented as a privilege granted δια τη̈ς τίστεως). The Spirit which makes him a member of Christ is the ‘Spirit of adoption’ (Romans 8:15), freely given by God to those whom He takes for His children (Galatians 4:8, Romans 5:5; Romans 8:9-11, 1 Corinthians 12:13). Membership in Christ is thus rather the result than the cause of the filial relation. The Christian life depends, not upon the eradication of evil, but upon the forgiveness of sins (Ephesians 1:7), the clearing of the guilty on the part of a personal God in consequence of the personal satisfaction offered by Christ (Romans 3:21; Romans 3:28; Romans 5:8, cf. Exodus 34:6-7). This view of sonship, as involving God’s elective purpose and mans free response, frequently underlies St. Paul’s argument. Isaac is the child of promise (Galatians 3:18; Galatians 4:23; Galatians 4:28, Romans 4:20; Romans 9:8-9), Abraham the father of the faithful (Galatians 3:7, Romans 4:12). The redemption of the body is itself an ‘adoption’ (Romans 8:23).

4. The Epistle to the Hebrews brings out the various elements in the conception of human guilt with conspicuous clearness. We have to do with the living God (Hebrews 3:12; Hebrews 4:12; Hebrews 10:31), who is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29), self existent and separate from creation (Hebrews 12:18-21), the supreme lawgiver and judge (Hebrews 10:30, Hebrews 12:23), whom to see, therefore, demands a purifying separation on the part of His suppliant worshipper (Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 10:22). What men need is boldness to approach His throne (Hebrews 4:16, Hebrews 10:19), and so to enter into His rest (Hebrews 4:1 ff.). But there is an obstacle, typified by propitiatory rites and attested by universal experience (Hebrews 9:6-10, Hebrews 10:3; Hebrews 10:11). The comers thereunto need a τελείωσις (Hebrews 2:10-11), the accomplishment of a preliminary act of satisfaction (Hebrews 2:17, Hebrews 5:9) which shall render them competent. The experience, which justifies the fulfilment of rites felt to be inadequate, is the fear of death (Hebrews 2:15), the spirit of bondage (ib.), the evil conscience (Hebrews 10:22). This is not the same thing as ignorance, error, or infirmity (Hebrews 5:2), all of which are recognized as present in human character and requiring to be dealt with. It is the consciousness that the offerer has a past which repentance cannot separate from him in respect of his relation to the Everliving (Hebrews 10:2-3; Hebrews 10:26-27), a record of offences for which none but One who Himself ‘ever liveth’ can atone by an abiding intercession (Hebrews 7:25, cf. Hebrews 10:12). The conscience must be purged from dead works (Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 10:22), which are to be distinguished from their present results in character. The ‘redemption of transgressions’ (Hebrews 9:15; cf. Acts 17:30, Romans 3:24-25), the removal of a burden (Romans 2:15 ἔνοχοι δουλείας, cf. James 2:10), is the method whereby consecration to God’s service and boldness of access are secured. Even sanctification itself in Hebrews (Hebrews 12:14, cf. Hebrews 2:9-11; Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 10:14; Hebrews 13:12) is, not indeed the formal consecration of the sinner, but the removal of the ‘weight’ of guilt (Hebrews 12:1), of which the fulness of faith (Hebrews 10:22) is the counterpart in spiritual experience.

5. That guilt is original, i.e. attaches to all mankind, and may be predicated of each individual before particular evidence of transgression, is implied in the facts of redemption (see art. Sin), and explicitly taught in the NT. In the famous passage Romans 5:12-21 nothing is said of a transmitted tendency to sin, though it has been often supposed that this is implied. But St. Paul does say that death ‘passed unto all men’ through Adam’s transgression. The context shows that death is here regarded as a punishment inflicted by God. And guilt is implied in the remarkable sentence ‘all have sinned,’ which interprets the statement that ‘through one man sin entered.’ How St. Paul reached this apparent paradox seems clear from a consideration of Jewish theology. The OT bears abundant witness to the belief that the sins (plural) of the fathers are ‘visited’ upon the children (Exodus 20:5; Exodus 34:7), while at the same time the teaching of Ezekiel balances it by an emphatic vindication of the separate responsibility of each soul (Ezekiel 18:4; Ezekiel 18:20). Apart from the narrative of the Fall, which indicates a penalty involving the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15-16), this is, perhaps, as far as the OT carries us. But the Book of Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon 2:24) represents death as entering the world through the envy of the devil, and Sirach (Sirach 25:24) declares that sin originated from a woman, and ‘because of her we all die.’ The teaching of the Rabbis, however, differentiating the actual transgression of Adam from the potentiality of sin involved in his creation, expressly asserts that death was decreed against the generations of Adam. Elsewhere death is spoken of as incurred by the personal guilt of each individual, and the statement of the Apocalypse of Baruch (54:15, 19), that ‘each of us is the Adam of his own soul,’ looks like an attempt to express a mystery which alone can reconcile these divergent views. According to Weber (Altsynag. Theol. p. 216), the nett result of Talmudic teaching appears to be that ‘by the Fall man came under a curse, is guilty of death, and his right relation to God is rendered difficult.’ It is probably only in the sense of transmitted taint that Edersheim (Life and Times, etc. i. p. 165 ff.) disallows original sin as part of the doctrine of the older Rabbis; for, in common with other writers, he acknowledges the frequent assertion of inherited guilt. That St. Paul was familiar with this prevalent view hardly admits of doubt, or that he availed himself of it to interpret the relation of Jesus the Messiah to the whole human race, as giving the victory over sin, the wages of which is death (Romans 6:23), and the power of which is the outraged law (1 Corinthians 15:56).

Literature.—See art. Sin.

J. G. Simpson.