This Greek work for singular “sin” in John’s gospel, which I transliterate as “anomia”, contains the root word “nomos”, standing for “law”.

The word could be translated as “lawless”, “denying the law”, or “violating the law”, except for the historical twist: The connection to “law” faded over time.  I depict this fading by the empty slot “—“.  Anomia became “—less”, “denying the —“, and “violating the —“, where “—“ concerned “order itself”.

A related word, with slightly different spelling, took on an eschatological (end times) character.  This word labeled the “iniquity” and “wickedness” of those who went against God’s will, that is, the “truth”.

I summarize the text (pages 2-6).

For the New Testament vocabulary on “sin”, consider the Lord’s Prayer: Forgive us our … sins, debts, transgressions.

These plurals differ from the singular “sin” that is eternal, important, and translated using a particular Greek word, transliterated anomia.

Schoonenberg explored this singular “sin” that comes to the fore in the New Testament.  Christ saves us from “sin”.  This “sin” points to Ecclesiastes (27:10) where “sin” is personified as “someone lying in wait, ready to ambush”.  The same goes for what God said to Cain in Genesis.

Paul wrote that we are “sold into sin” and “slaves of sin”.  Also, “sin dwells in the flesh”.  “Sin” entered the world with Adam, at the beginning.

The Gospel of John describes the singular “sin” in the same fashion: The Lamb of God takes away the sin of the world.

This singular “sin” is both in us and bigger than us.

Here is a drawing of the previous blog.

Comments on text are in square brackets.

[How would these words fit into the intersecting nested forms that were developed while reviewing Menninger’s book?

I have started using subscripts to denote thirdness, secondness and firstness.  This should help clarify

The Hebrew word “anon” (twisted situation, something amiss, a burden that should be taken away) sounds, to me, like “law^essential₃(missing the mark₂(_₁))”.  That is, “twistedness” contextualizing “missing the mark”.

The Hebrew word “pesa” (hostility, rebelliousness, resistance, among men and with God, rebellion and offense against God) seems, to me, like “(missing the mark₂(disposition₁))”.  That is, “sin” situating a “disposition”.

Thus, “anon₃₍₂₍₎₎” and “pesa₂₍₁₎” capture the transition from one category to another on the natural philosophical axis.

The Hebrew word “ka’as” (challenging, provoking, embittering, hurting the feelings of Yahweh) call to mind, to me, “think^divine₃(missing the mark₂(_₁))”.

The Hebrew word “na’as” (scorn, revile, disdain, spurn, revile) sounds, to me, like “missing the mark₂(conscience^lacking₁)”.

Thus, “ka’as₃₍₂₍₎₎” and “na’as₂₍₁₎” capture the transition from one category to another on the moral religious axis.]

Chapter 1 is titled “The Essence of Sin”.  This chapter is divided into seven sections.  The first section is “The Vocabulary of Scripture”.

I summarize the text (pages 1-3).

The Hebrew word for “sinning” literally means “to miss” as in “to miss the mark”.  Who sets the mark?  Answer:  Not you, nor your friends, family, tribe, nation … only God does.

“Missing the mark” implies rebellion or offense against Yahweh (on the outside) and inner injustice or guilt (on the inside).

The words, “anon” and “pesa”, flesh out these implications.  “Anon” points to “something amiss or twisted”, like guilt or iniquity, that ought to be carried away and expiated.  “Pesa” indicates an attitude of rebellion against God.

These words were used in Exodus to describe the obstinacy, infidelity, and apostasy of the tribes of Israel.  The prophets also used the word “pesa” to describe unfaithfulness and rebellion.

Later writers mixed in the Hebrew words “ka’as” and “na’as”. “Ka’as” describes Yahweh’s jealous and provoked wrath.  “Na’as” is translated as “scorn”, “revile”, “disdain”, “spurn” and “embitter”.  “Na’as” was translated into Latin as “offendere”.

Piet Schoonenberg’s book, De Macht der Zonde (1962), was translated into English in 1965 (University of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame, Indiana).  Man and Sin: A Theological View is divided into 4 chapters plus an epilogue.

This is a book on theology.  Its pages are free of banter.  Its lines of thought are evocative and sometimes tangled.  In some spots, one paragraph will occupy many blogs.

This type of theological text reminds me of what someone said about a biochemistry text: Every sentence sums up a doctoral thesis.  Perhaps, theology is even worse, since each sentence sums a centuries long controversy.

Nevertheless, I have several tools at my disposal for commenting on this text.

From An Archaeology of the Fall, I have a foundational perspective: Our world is a world of symbolic orders and social constructions.  Social constructions situate symbolic orders.  Our judgments about our social constructions are constrained by the very words we use.

Chapters 9 and 10 of Menninger’s book should be read with the last few blogs in mind.  Menninger could “hear” that “something was wrong”, yet he could not correctly identify “what that ‘something’ was”.  He could not because he could not see into the future.

40 years later, the reader cannot help seeing that Menninger was swimming in the waters of Progressivism and looking towards the ark of Christendom.  Now, we are deeper in the waters.  We are further from the boat.

The “morality gap” that Menninger announced on pages 192 and 226 only makes sense in regards to a changing of public symbolic orders from Christianity to Progressivism.  Menninger struggled to put it into perspective, but he could not.  He presented his interpretation, but – like all interpretations in psychoanalysis – his interpretation must be regarded as provisional.

In trying to understand how Menninger’s interpretation “missed the mark”, we have constructed a new – semiotic – tool.

The crossing of two nested forms, one horizontal and one vertical, is the hard-won gift bestowed by Whatever Happened to Sin?

The intersecting nested forms visualize what Menninger was trying to convey: On the vertical axis, there is a choice.

How does the Progressive think^correct (and projected think^incorrect) fit into the Christian vertical nested form?

Progressive think^correct (and the projected think^incorrect) constitute a think^group.

One of the characteristics of think^group is a shift from personal to collective responsibility.  Progressives who accuse others of political incorrectness demonstrate their “moral superiority”.  At the same time, the are not held personally responsible for the consequences of their actions. This conscience^lacking is dramatically portrayed (with well researched stories) by Ann Coulter in her many books.

The Public Cult of Progressivism has popularized the concept that the individual person is not responsible for her situation.  On one hand, they are correct when “responsibility” means “conditions of development”.  After all, no one is responsible for the situation of her birth.  On the other hand, they are wrong when “responsibility” means “I will take charge of my own situation”.

The “meaning” of the word “responsibility” has changed.

Menninger’s “interpretation” confounded Christian and Progressive symbolic orders.

First, let us consider the nested form on the vertical axis.

In the Christian sphere: think^divine(virtue(conscience^free)) and think^group(sin(conscience^lacking)) are exclusive nested forms that always interpellate one one another.

In the Progressive sphere: think^correct(political correctness(conscience^correct) is exclusive and superior to think^incorrect(political incorrectness(conscience^incorrect)). Think^incorrect and conscience^incorrect exist as deductions (that is: they must exist in the accused) from the structure of the vertical nested form.

The cryptotheological superiority of think^Progressive mandates the application of sovereign power.

Think^correct corresponds to the “super-ego” of the Public Cult of Progressivism.  Words are true by way of tautology.

For example, the term “medicare” is, precisely, “medical care provided by the Public Cult”.  Political debate must conform to this tautology.

Anyone who disagrees with any feature of this central government program may be labeled as “a person who wants to take medical care away from those provided”.

That person is “politically incorrect” and therefore exhibits both think^incorrect and conscience^incorrect.  She is a bad person.

The catch-all character of the word “political incorrectness” inadequately captures the dramatic unfolding of each perceived act.  I say “perceived act” because many accusations of political incorrectness are not necessarily founded in fact, but perception.