Beacon dictionary of theology

SHAME. This may be objective or subjective, or both. If objective, it is a situation in which one is bearing disgrace and reproach. Shame is the loss of the public image of respectability and good character. The shame or disgrace may be deserved or it may be undeserved; if undeserved, no actual sin is involved, but rumor, misunderstanding, or slander.

If the shame is subjective, it is an emotion of acute embarrassment and humiliation. It may be a superficial issue, yet socially painful (Luke 14:9). Unfortunately, the perversity of the sinful heart is such that people frequently are ashamed of things of which they ought to be proud, and proud of those things of which they ought to be ashamed (Phil. 3:19).

Jesus was put to an open shame (Heb. 6:6) by the ignominious death on the Cross; this was shame in the objective sense. But He refused to


482

SHEKINAH—SHEOL

allow the shame to become subjective; He despised it (12:2).

Inability to blush is not a mark of maturity but decadence. Christians should have a capacity for shame in the presence of evil. They should be ashamed to expose themselves indecently (Jer. 13:26). They should be ashamed of doing less than their best in the Lord's service (2 Tim. 2:15). They should avoid embarrassing their brethren or the poor (Ps. 14:6; 1 Cor. 11:22).

Shame is at the very heart of true repentance. This is not an embarrassment for having been caught, or regret because of consequences (called the "sorrow of the world" [2 Cor. 7:10]), but a painful and profound grief for having done the wrong.

A sense of shame is generally associated with a low self-image. If the self-depreciation is over superficial matters, such as worry about good looks or talents, it may accompany the usual insecurity of immaturity; or it may be a sign of neurotic pride and self-preoccupation. In either case efforts to remove the false shame are legitimate. But in many instances a low self-image is caused by a secret awareness of real guilt. People do not like themselves because they know themselves. Only a bungler will try to trump up a better self-image in such cases. Let the person face that which causes shame, and make it right both with God and man, and he will stand tall without psychological hocus-pocus.

It will come as a surprise to many to learn that there are far more frequent references in the Bible to shame than to guilt. Fear of being shamed is seen as a powerful incentive to good behavior.

See REPENTANCE, GUILT, SELF-IMAGE, REALITY THERAPY.

For Further Reading: Noble, "Shame Versus Guilt,"
WTJ, Spring, 1971. RICHARD S. TAYLOR

SHEKINAH. This is a term for the visible manifestation of the presence of God, as in the pillar of cloud and fire which led Israel through the wilderness (Exod. 13:21). Though in our Bible the word does not occur, it was used in Jewish paraphrases as a synonym for God or for His glory. In the OT the Shekinah pointed forward to Christ, the brightness of God's glory (Heb. 1:3).

The Shekinah was seen as a fire enfolded in a cloud. Usually only the cloud was visible, but at times the fire appeared, as on Mount Sinai when the law was given (Exod. 19:18). The Shekinah of the Lord dwelt among His people, especially in the Tabernacle, where God spoke to Moses face-to-face (33:11). Christ is the Word made flesh, who tabernacled among us (John 1:14, nasb marg.).

Identified by some with the Holy Spirit, the Shekinah (meaning "to dwell") suggests the companionship, purity, and radiance of the Comforter abiding in the sanctified heart.

See HOLY OF HOLIES, GLORY, PRESENCE (DIVINE). For Further Reading: NBD, 1174; ZPBD, 782.

Louis A. Bouck

SHEOL The location and nature of Sheol (Heb. sheol) are described in a number of OT passages. Synonyms for Sheol in the OT are: pit, region dark and deep, Abaddon, land of forgetfulness (Ps. 88:12), place of no return (Job 3:13-19; Isa. 14:9-23), hell, death (Prov. 5:5), sleep (Nah. 3:18).

Man goes down to Sheol (Gen. 37:35, rsv). His body returns to the dust from which it was quickened (2:7); his spirit (breath) returns to God who gave it (Eccles. 12:7); and a "shade" of the self goes to Sheol. Darkness 0ob 10:21-22), slumber (Nah. 3:18), weakness (Isa. 14:10), and forgetfulness (Ps. 88:12)—such symbols of death are the opposites of life, light, and activity. Job 3:13-19 states that silence reigns in Sheol, while Isa. 26:14 says that the inhabitants of Sheol are unremembered.

Biblical man never prayed to go to Sheol, neither did he fear going to Sheol. What he didn't want was to enter Sheol before he had enjoyed the fullness of life. A number of prayers in the Psalms were to insure long life, not to avoid Sheol.

Isa. 14:15; Ezek. 32:23, 25, 28-30 appear to some to suggest that the Pit is a special place in Sheol for special enemies. Ezek. 32:17-32 seems to indicate some separation in Sheol. The circumcised are separated from the uncircumcised, those slain in battle from those who were properly buried, and some nations were separated from other nations.

The deliverance of Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11) from death and passages such as Isa. 26:19 and Dan. 12:2 indicate belief in life beyond the temporary abode of Sheol. Luke 16:23 suggests the partitioning of Sheol into Gehenna and Paradise. The resurrection of Jesus insures the final abolition of sin and death (Sheol).

See HADES, RESURRECTION OF THE BODY, IMMORTALITY, INTERMEDIATE STATE.

For Further Reading: Baillie, And the Life Everlasting
142-58; Pache, The Future Life, 279-325; Shaw, Life After
Death 10 ff. Fred E. Young


SIGN—SIN

483

SIGN. In the scope of scriptural usage, a sign can be a physical mark (Gen. 4:15), a warning (Num. 16:38), a monument (Josh. 4:6), an ensign (Ps. 74:4), a reminder (Deut. 6:8), a portent (Isa. 20:3), a signature (2 Thess. 3:17), or a miracle (John 4:54). Underlying all of these, however, is the idea that a sign is something visible which points beyond itself for its real meaning. In its predominant religious sense it indicates God's presence and activity which demand a human response of faith and obedience.

In respect to the past, signs are reminders of God's covenants (the rainbow [Gen. 9:12-13] and circumcision [17:11]), and His redemptive acts (the signs and wonders of the Exodus [Exod. 10:1-2]; the Passover festival [13:9]; and the 12 stones from the Jordan [Josh. 4:6]). In the present they signify His presence in healing (John 6:2), in revealing His Son (Acts 2:22), and in confirming the word of His servants (Rom. 15:18-19; Heb. 2:4). In references to the future they confirm the word of prophecy (1 Sam. 2:34; Isa. 7:11,14) and indicate the advent of eschatological events (Matt. 24:3).

Signs are not exclusive grounds for faith. Magicians can produce them (Exod. 7:11, 22; Acts 8:9-11) as well as false prophets working under satanic power (Mark 13:22; 2 Thess. 2:9; Rev. 13:13-14). Some in Jesus' day were characterized as sign-seekers (John 2:18; 6:30; 1 Cor. 1:22), but He refused to satisfy their demand for signs (Matt. 12:38-42). Notwithstanding this reserve, miracles did have evidential value, and they were recorded as a means to faith, at least for that generation (Heb. 2:3-4). John 20:30-31 reflects the apostolic outlook: These signs are "written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (rsv).

See MIRACLE, CREDENTIALS OF SCRIPTURE, FALSE CHRISTS.

For Further Reading: Richardson, ed., A Theological Word Book of the Bible, 152-55; Kittel, 4:200-269.

Luke L. Keefer, Jr.

SIMPLICITY OF MORAL ACTION. This term signifies a doctrine maintaining the impossibility of a divided heart in moral matters. The doctrine came into prominence and received precise definition in connection with the Oberlin theology of Charles G. Finney and Asa Mahan.

Following Kant and Cousin, the Oberlin men held that the moral character of actions is determined exclusively by the ultimate or controlling intention. An intention is a conscious choice of the will. A choice is "ultimate" when two conditions are fulfilled. First, it must control all other choices and be subordinate to none. Second, its exclusive basis must be the intrinsic character of its object. All states of mind or of feeling, as well as all outward actions, derive moral character only from one's ultimate intention. On this view, such incompatible elements as right and wrong, obedience and disobedience, or sin and holiness cannot coexist in a single moral act.

This doctrine affected Oberlin teaching concerning both conversion and entire sanctification. First, together with the biblical doctrine of repentance this concept made it possible to argue that there is a sense in which moral perfection, perfect love, and entire consecration are essential elements of the new birth. Second, Mahan and Finney both spoke of entire sanctification as vastly more mature, confirmed, and settled state of Christian experience, wrought by the Holy Spirit's renovation of the feelings. Finney referred especially to the relative permanence of this state.

James H. Fairchild, however, argued that entire sanctification as an experience distinct from conversion belongs only to a theology maintaining mixed moral action. This Finney implicitly conceded in his self-correcting lectures on entire sanctification delivered at Oberlin in late 1838 and printed in the Oberlin Evangelist, and only recently made currently available by Timothy L. Smith.

See SIN, MOTIVES, INTENTION, HEART PURITY, HOLINESS, BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT.

For Further Reading: The Asbury Seminarian, October, 1977, 20-35; WTJ, Spring, 1978, 51-64; Finney, lectures on Systematic Theology, 95-114; The Promise of the Spirit, comp. and ed. Smith, 117-216, 262.

James E. Hamilton

SIN. That branch of theology which deals with the doctrine of sin is called hamartiology. It claims a very large share of careful attention, since sin is man's basic problem. It is sin which necessitates salvation, indeed, the entire plan of redemption, including the Incarnation, the death and resurrection of Christ, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The peril of eternal damnation is due solely to sin. In addition, the earthly dislocations and conflicts of humanity are either expressions of sin or traceable to it. One's doctrine of sin reveals his concept of God, of the nature of man, of the Atonement, and of the principles and possibilities of grace.

There are many Hebrew and Greek words that are rendered "sin" in English translations of the Bible. The words appearing most frequently are

the Hebrew word chattath and the Greek word hamartia. The idea expressed by these words is "missing the mark" or "failing." However, they have several shades of meaning. Hamartia is used as the basic generic term for sin in the NT.

In respect to the etymological sense of a marksman missing a target, interpreters commonly assume that the target is missed because of fallen man's inability to attain the perfect standard which God demands and for which man strives. But man, in his fallen condition, misses the mark primarily because of a wrong aim (aiming at the wrong target). The picture is not that of the sinner desiring to be holy and falling short. Sinful man, until awakened by the Holy Spirit, does not want to be holy. He wants fulfilment, but he misses it because he seeks it through selfish pursuits rather than through submitting to the will of God where it is found. He is in rebellion against God (Rom. 8:7). Because he shoots at the wrong target, he misses the fulfilment which he desires.

Other Hebrew and Greek words which are translated "sin" reveal its varied nature. The main Hebrew nouns are resha, "wickedness, confusion"; avon, "iniquity, perversion, guilt"; pesha, "transgression, rebellion"; avert, "wrongness, trouble, vanity"; sheqer, "lying, deceit"; ra, "evil, " usually in its judicial or natural effects; maal, "trespass, breach of trust"; asham, "error, negligence, guilt"; and awel, "injustice." Hebrew verbs for "sin" include sarar, "to disobey"; and abar, "to transgress."

Greek words for sin besides hamartia include adikia, "unrighteousness"; anomia, "lawlessness"; asebeia, "impiety"; parabasis, "transgression"; paraptdma, "a fall" from a right relationship with God; poneria, "depravity"; epithumia, "desire, lust"; and apeitheia, meaning "disobedience." In one sense, "Sin is the want of conformity to the divine law or standard of excellence" (Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:187). In another sense, it is the wilful transgression of a known law of God (cf. Romans 6—8; 1 John 3). This was John Wesley's definition of sin "properly so-called."

There are two general kinds of sin. Sin is that quality of man's fallen nature which inclines him to commit acts of sin. On the other hand, sin is a specific event of rebellion, transgression, or omission, in thought or practice.

Every individual inherits the sinful nature from Adam (Gen. 5:3; Rom. 5:12, 18). The Church has called this nature by such terms as "inbred sin," "inherited sin," "moral depravity," "the carnal mind," "the old man," and most commonly, "original sin." That the sinful nature leads to acts of sin is stated by the apostle Paul in Rom. 7:7-9. There Paul testifies that he was spiritually alive as an innocent child, but when the years of accountability arrived, his sinful nature impelled him to transgress. This brought guilt and death.

Acts of sin must be confessed, forsaken, and forgiven (Isa. 55:7; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 17:30; 1 John 1:9). The sinful nature must be confessed, deplored, and cleansed. Cleansing happened to the first Christian disciples, to the Samaritan believers, and to the house of Cornelius when they were filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:8-9). In many ways the Thessalonian Christians were exemplary when Paul wrote his first Epistle to them (1 Thess. 1:5-10). Yet he desired that they have complete cleansing from sin (5:23). Peter shows that holiness must extend to every activity of the believer's life (1 Pet. 1:14-16).

Christ came to save from acts of sin and to destroy the sinful disposition (Matt. 1:21; Rom. 6:6; 12:1-4). He died that His people might be sanctified (Eph. 5:25; Heb. 13:12). Holiness is necessary if any person would see the Lord (12:14). Those who truly desire to be filled with God's righteousness are assured of its complete availability (Matt. 5:6).

See LEGAL SIN (ETHICAL SIN), ORIGINAL SIN, FALL (THE), FAILURE, SINNING RELIGION, INIQUITY, LIABILITY TO SIN, INFIRMITY MISTAKES, SINLESS PERFECTION.

For Further Reading: Purkiser, ed., Exploring Our Christian Faith; Dubarle, The Biblical Doctrine of Original Sin; Taylor, A Right Conception of Sin; GMS, 268-302; Wiley, CT, 2:51-140; Metz, Studies in Biblical Holiness, 52-85; Geiger, The Word and the Doctrine, 47-136.

W. Ralph Thompson

SIN, ORIGIN OF. Our world, with all of its suffering, grief, and tragedy, is a very different world from the "very good" world described in Genesis 1—2. The further biblical records in chap. 3 and throughout the Bible accounts for this evil as the result of man's disobedience to a known and clearly understood command of God. Therefore, although God is the Creator and Sovereign Ruler of all things, He is not thereby the author of sin.

Genesis describes the divine-human relationship as unique, compared with the other forms of life. Into man was breathed the "breath of life," by which he became a creature in God's own image, able to have fellowship with God and to hold dominion over all other living creatures. While according to our best knowledge the animals obey God by instinct, a part of man's having the divine image was the gift of personality with all thereby connoted about free choice

SIN OFFERING—SINCERITY

485

and responsibility. Life at its highest is not instinctive or robotlike. It involves a free and loving relationship, maintained by active choice.

As personal creatures in a perfect world, it was the place and privilege of Adam and Eve to glorify the Creator by free and loving service. This would have been impossible without probation —some test by which they might demonstrate their love and glorification of God. Therefore the one forbidden tree stood in their midst, and the warning that in the day they ate of it, they would die.

It is often asked how holy beings such as Adam and Eve could have fallen into sin. This has been well spoken to as follows: "A will determined to do good with an omnipotent energy is not subject to change, but a will determined to do good with a finite and limited force is so subject" (Wiley, CT, 2:58). The finite will of a holy being can change or be induced to change, a profound and provocative fact for every entirely sanctified soul to consider.

The temptation and fall of man as described in Genesis 3 succinctly and adequately accounts for sin in human experience. Under the experience of deception and a solicitation to be more than the Creator had made them, the first pair allowed doubt to be stirred in their hearts, lingered in the presence of the tempter, and did that which was forbidden. Realizing something of their loss and guilt, they now dreaded to meet their glorious Creator.

In the reference to the serpent, it is necessary to realize the presence of the satanic. Without the person of Satan on the scene, deceiving the pair by an illusion and thus slandering the Creator, holy beings would never have fallen.

For the ultimate origin of sin, therefore, Christian theology is dependent upon what the Scriptures teach about the devil. A spiritual order of creation exists, angels from which order an un-revealed number did not keep their first estate, but fell (2 Pet. 2:4). Jesus declared, "I beheld. Satan as lightning fall from heaven" (Luke 10:18). It appears that Satan was the leader of the rebellion in heaven, and that within his personality as a holy and spirit creature of God, sin first originated. While Scripture speaks with great reserve on this subject, some see evidence that pride of his high rank in creation and the desire for greater glory was the cause of the original act of sin. From personality and freedom comes the power to glorify God forever or to rebel against Him and experience spiritual ruin.

See sin, fall (the), satan, probation, temptation.

For Further Reading: GMS, 79-83; Stevens, Doctrines of the Christian Religion, 154-55; Wiley, CT, 2:52-78.

Myron D. Goldsmith

SIN OFFERING. Among the several kinds of sacrifices referred to in the OT, there is one category for dealing specifically with sin. Peculiar to Israel in this category is the sin offering, related to the word for sin which means "to miss the mark or fall short." The ritual to be used at the time of this offering is found in Lev. 4:1—5:13.

The sin offering was first of all to atone for sins of ignorance, which might come to light later. This is clearly reflected in the words of the RSV translation of the ritual mentioned above, "If any one sins unwittingly." Some willful sins could also be atoned for, such as deception and stealing, provided that, in addition to the animal sacrifice, full restitution be made (Lev. 6:1-7). But in either case, animal sacrifices were typical and anticipatory of the blood of Christ (Heb. 10:4).

A second significant point concerning the sin offering in the OT relates to a feature in the ritual accompanying the offering. It was required that the worshipper lay his hands upon the sacrifice, thereby identifying himself with the sacrifice which becomes his substitute. In like fashion, Christ, our Sin Offering, completely identified himself with us and became our Substitute on the Cross. It is in this light that we are to understand the words of Paul in 2 Cor. 5:21, "God made him who had no sin to be sin [fn., a sin offering] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (NIV).

See atonement, sacrifice, offer (offering).

For Further Reading: Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament; Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament; Oesterley, Sacrifice in Ancient Israel. alvin S. lawhead

SINCERITY. The words "sincere" and "sincerity" are found in the KJV in the following NT passages: 1 Cor. 5:8; 2 Cor. 1:12; 2:17; 8:8; Eph. 6:24; Phil. 1:10, 16; Titus 2:7; and 1 Pet. 2:2. In these passages six different Greek words are being translated. The closest to our understanding of "sincerity" is gnesios, "true, genuine." Paul reminded the Corinthians that their promptness and faithfulness in fulfilling their previous pledge toward the offering for the poor in Jerusalem would prove the "sincerity" of their love. Love that is all promise and no performance is insincere. Thus sincerity is measured by action, by follow-through, by willingness to sacrifice.

In sincerity there is a correspondence between beliefs and faith, between words and feelings. To believe certain doctrines sincerely is to be com

486

SINLESS PERFECTION—SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST

mitted to them without secret equivocation. To love another sincerely is to love him or her exactly as one says he does (Rom. 12:9). To be sincere in one's commitment to Jesus Christ is to be obedient when it is costly.

Furthermore, sincerity is to be gauged by one's attitude toward the truth. To say that sincerity is all that matters is to demonstrate insincerity. Genuineness of commitment always attaches itself to the truth. The masses will be deceived by the Antichrist because they "did not receive the love of the truth" (2 Thess. 2:10, nasb)—which is to say, they were insincere in their professed interest in spiritual realities.

See TRUTH, CHARACTER. INTEGRITY, HONESTY

Richard S. Taylor

SINLESS PERFECTION. Wesleyanism has never taught "sinless perfection" in the form its critics have imputed to it. W. T. Purkiser observes that "one special whipping boy has been the phrase 'sinless perfection.' Few, if any, advocates of scriptural holiness use the term, but it is commonly used by opponents of the doctrine" (Sanctification and Its Synonyms, 69).

John Wesley said: "Absolute or infallible perfection I never contended for. Sinless perfection I do not contend for seeing it is not scriptural" (Works, 12:257). One reason is Wesleyanism's definition of perfection. It is the believer's heart that is made perfect in love; it is not a perfection of head or hand, and therefore not a perfection beyond the need of the atoning merits of Christ's blood.

A second reason for not using the term "sinless perfection" is Wesleyanism's definition of sin. Sin, "properly so-called"—a phrase popularized by John Wesley—is a voluntary transgression of a known law of God. Wesley refused to call involuntary transgressions sin, because he believed the intention or motivation of an act determined its moral quality. However, he knew that many Christians used the broader definition, and that, indeed, there was such a twofold use reflected in Scripture. The term "sinless perfection" is usually interpreted as implying sinlessness in the broader sense as well as the narrower.

A third liability in the term "sinless perfection" is that it seems to imply the impossibility of temptation. Wesleyans have never taught that any work or state of grace places the entirely sanctified beyond moral testing or trial. Temptation is not, however, sin.

Thomas Cook's comment is appropriate: "Some assert that the doctrine of entire extirpation of sin from the heart puts the soul beyond real temptation. 'There can be no real temptation,' they say, 'to a soul which has nothing in its nature responsive to solicitations to sin.' But such an assumption is much too broad. It renders angels in probation, Adam and Eve, and our Lord Himself, incapable of real temptation. But the fact that some angels fell, that Adam sinned, and that Jesus Christ 'was in all points tempted as we are,' should be sufficient proof that holy souls are capable of temptation" (New Testament Holiness, 16).

See CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. SIN, INFIRMITIES, TEMPTATION.