2

According to an entry for "sin" on blueletterbible.org, Larry Pierce provides an outline for biblical usage of the word "sin". Looking at the fine print he derived this from Strong's and Thayer's, which I've told can be unreliable when trying understand the full meaning of text. Here is the link that has the example I'm talk about: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g264/nkjv/tr/0-1/

I'm most curious of the first usage which says "to be without a share in". I have access to BDAG and others but I'm a novice to using those resources as I transition from using things like BLB to Logos.

JamesRLamar
  • 143
  • 5
  • 2
    BDAG provides a much more detailed and nuanced analysis of the word's meaning, based on a MUCH larger survey of both Biblical and non-Biblical usage. In Scriptural use, I see no real instances of the word meaning, "to be without a share in". Sometimes, theologians, especially preachers stretch the meaning to make a rhetorical point. It is difficult to judge his point without any quoted evidence. – Dottard Mar 29 '24 at 20:32
  • 2
    When it comes to understanding the word "sin" and its various uses in the Bible, consulting more authoritative lexicons like BDAG can indeed provide a more comprehensive and accurate understanding. The BDAG is widely regarded as one of the most authoritative lexicons for New Testament Greek, offering detailed definitions, usage examples, and scholarly analysis, so I would recommend learning how to use it. (This is not to say that Blue Letter Bible, Strong's and Thayer's lexicon are not helpful! They are very helpful, but have more limitations.) – Jason_ Mar 29 '24 at 21:18
  • 2
    I have chosen to put forward an answer to your question about "to be without a share in" as I can hermeneutically analyze it with scripture, but your question about the overall accuracy of Larry Pierce's Outline of Biblical Usage is difficult to quantify and is likely opinion-based. – Jason_ Mar 29 '24 at 21:32
  • 1
    I’m voting to close this question because it is better addressed on C.se – Dan Fefferman Mar 29 '24 at 21:59
  • @DanFefferman, I'm not sure what C.se is, but I made my question more pointed. Tell me if that helps make the question more relevant. – JamesRLamar Mar 30 '24 at 04:49
  • @DanFefferman C.se christianity stack exchange? – JamesRLamar Mar 30 '24 at 04:58
  • 1
    @JamesRLamar what Dan is referring to is Christianity Stack Exchange which has a different focus than Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange does, but it is still Christian Q&A. See the links to grasp the differences. I think you're narrowed question fits much better now. – Jason_ Mar 30 '24 at 06:03
  • Martus = witness or testimony. Amartus (the negative) 'not' testimony. Another word (anamartetos) means 'without testimony'. Therefore amartus is 'contrary to testimony'. Add the breathing and inflection : hamartia. Sin is the contradiction of a testimony, as in the garden of Eden in the beginning when sin entered into the world. – Nigel J Mar 30 '24 at 12:57

1 Answers1

1

I'm most curious of the usage which says "to be without a share in".

This is not a direct meaning of sin as presented in the Old or New Testament. However, this meaning may come from כָּרַת (karath) which means "cut off".

Leviticus 7:20-21 NKJV

20 But the person who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace offering that belongs to the Lord, while he is unclean, that person shall be cut off from his people. 21 Moreover the person who touches any unclean thing, such as human uncleanness, an unclean animal, or any abominable unclean thing, and who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace offering that belongs to the Lord, that person shall be cut off from his people.’ ”

So, "to be without a share in" is a consequence of sin. This concept of being "cut off" is a significant consequence of sin throughout the Old Testament. It brings with it being excluded from the blessings, privileges, and fellowship enjoyed by God's people. In this sense, "to be without a share in" can be understood as experiencing the deprivation of participation in the fellowship and blessings that come from being in covenant relationship with God and His people.

One additional note to make is that sin is often associated with separation from God. To be separated from God could be likened to "to be without a share in." Still, I would render this a consequence.

Jason_
  • 3,944
  • 8
  • 31
  • 1
    I concur with what you're saying about this being more of a consequence of sin than a definition for sin. Perhaps that's why it is listed as a usage of the word rather than purely a definition. I'm not sure I understand that difference correctly.

    When read "to be without share in" I thought of the story of the Prodigal Son, which I think still highlights all the points you made.

     – JamesRLamar Mar 30 '24 at 04:53