ἁμαρτία in 1 John 1
In a cursory examination of most Greek lexicons (or similar tools), one will
steadily see ἁμαρτία defined as ‘missing the mark’ in one form or another. The
Enhanced Strong's Lexicon gives the definition as “1A to be without a share in. 1B to miss
the mark. 1C to err, be mistaken. 1D to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and
honour, to do or go wrong. 1E to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
(Strong, #G264). This common thinking of ‘missing the mark’ is also reflected in J.
Vernon McGee’s Thru the Bible Commentary when he says:
“In verses 2 and 3 it is the Hebrew word chattath, meaning “sin offering.” In
verse 4 it is chata, translated in the Septuagint by the Greek word hamartia,
meaning “to miss the mark.” That’s all—just miss the mark. We don’t come up to
God’s standard, and it is in that sense that all of us today are sinners. None of us
come up to the standard of God. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory
of God” (McGee 762).
Vine, too, primarily defines this as “From Verb, ‘ἁμαρτάνω,’ lit., ‘to miss the mark’”
(p. 577). Fortunately, however, Vine takes the time to remind us that though “ἁμαρτία
is, lit., ‘a missing of the mark…’ this etymological meaning is largely lost sight of in the
NT. It is the most comprehensive term for moral obliquity [deviation]” (Vine 576). So
while, yes, etymologically, the word, ἁμαρτία, means ‘to miss the mark,’ we see many
other meanings here and we see – thanks to Vine – that sin is not only limited to a simple
missing of the mark. More on this in a moment.
The history of the usage of the word is what was of particular interest to me.
Generally, in order to arrive at a common agreement of the meaning of a word, many
devices are used; one of the most common is the study of the word’s etymology, or
‘origins.’ While this is often times a good and useful means of arriving at a proper
understanding of the word’s meaning, with this particular word, ἁμαρτία, the word’s
etymology has created actually a rift in doctrinal and theological understanding; it has
divided rather than unified people under a commonly accepted meaning.
I would be willing to bet that we have all heard it taught from one place or another that
sin means, ‘missing the mark.’ And indeed, the original use of the word, ἁμαρτία, did
have this connotation in mind. In their excellent Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell and
Scott reach back into antiquity to examine this word and its usage in ancient literature.
They primarily define this word as “to miss, miss the mark, esp. of a spear thrown,” and
cite Plutarch as using this word to mean to “miss the road” (Liddell & Scott 77). They
also cite Aeschylus as using this word to mean, “a failure, fault, sin, freq. in Att. From
Aesch. downwards… a fault committed by one, Aesch. Ag. 1198” (Liddel & Scott 77).
This line that they refer to (1198) is translated, “I know the iniquity of this ancient house”
(Aeschylus 64), yet three lines before this, the word, ἥμαρτον (the aor. ind. act. of
ἁμαρτάνω), is literally translated “Went that shaft [arrow] wide?” (ibid) or “Have I
missed the mark?” (Smyth “Aeschylus”).
‘Αμαρτία was also used and further developed by Aristotle in his work, Poetics,
and in relation to the Greek tragedy plays. In Poetics, he saw ἁμαρτία as the ‘tragic
flaw’ of the hero of the play (Brutus’ love of Rome, vs. his love for Julius Ceasar for
example). Aristotle relayed this idea as “the character… of a man who is not eminently
good and just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by
some error [ἁμαρτία] or frailty” (Aristotle, Poetics, 23). Aristotle developed this idea
further in his work, Nicomachean Ethics, where he says, “Thus there are three kinds of
injury in transactions between man and man; those done in ignorance are mistakes
[ἁμαρτία]…” (Aristotle, NE, 126). Thus, with Aristotle, ἁμαρτία might be something
as simple as an unintentional injury to another person; the word, ‘error’ is commonly
used to relay Aristotle’s intention. This, you could see as being similar to Aeschylus’ and
Plutarch’s usage of a possible unintentional failure or trespass.
Having now examined this use of the word by three giants of antiquity, we should
note the era in which each of them lived. First was Aeschylus (circa 500 BC) followed by
Aristotle (384-322 BC). It was Aristotle, remember, that was employing his study and use
of ἁμαρτία in an examination of the Greek tragedies; a few of which Aeschylus was the
author. Having then followed Aeschylus and his using ἁμαρτία to mean ‘missing the
mark,’ we can see Aristotle lean a similar direction for his use of this same word.
“Aristotle's verb for ‘missing the mark’ (hamartanein) is cognate [having the same root]
with the noun hamartia, which plays a significant role in his analysis of tragic error in the
Poetics (1453a7-17)… ‘Missing the mark’ sometimes stems directly from the defects of
those who are prone to them.” (Gallop 112). We also see Plutarch (being a contemporary
of Paul of Tarsus, living from around 46-120 AD) follow this same vein of usage in
‘missing the road’ (ἁμαρτία τὴς ὁδοῦ). Again, an unintentional failure.
It is no short step, then, to understand how Paul used this word in Romans 3:23 to
speak of our missing the mark of God’s perfection. Paul clearly says that “all have
sinned” and then proceeds to link this with “fallen short of the glory of God.” The
imagery of missing a mark leaps off the pages with this; and then doubly so when you
see that the form of ἁμαρτία that Paul uses is the exact form as that of Aeschylus’ use to
portray the missing of the mark or arrow (πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς
δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ). From this etymology and consistent use, it is easy to see why so many
lexicons and very good Bible teachers turn to this use of ‘missing the mark’ for the
primary definition of sin.
However, despite this, we noted that there are many different directions that one
can take with this word. The problem with this ambiguity arises when one seeks to define
sin – any and all sin – as simply ‘missing the mark’ of God’s perfection. That is included
in the connotation, to be sure, but much light is shed on this from an examination of sin in
the Old Testament alongside a study of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old
Testament undertaken from c. 300-100 BC).
In the beginning, we mentioned J. Vernon McGee’s definition of ἁμαρτία as being,
“‘to miss the mark.’ That’s all—just miss the mark” (McGee 762). However, in the
context of his discussion, he was making an important point to which we will now return.
The bit that I quoted of McGee was taken from his commentary not on a New Testament
passage, but from Ps. 51:3. Of this, he says:
“David, first of all, called his sins transgressions. To transgress is to step over the
boundaries of God. God has put up certain boundaries in this life. He has certain
physical laws. He has certain moral laws. He has certain spiritual laws. Any time man
attempts to step over any of them, he’ll have to suffer the consequences. To do this is
always called transgression.
“Also David called his sin iniquity. And iniquity means that which is altogether
wrong. You can’t excuse it; you can’t offer some sort of an apology for it; you can’t
in any way condone it. That’s iniquity. Then there are two words translated with the
English word sin. In verses 2 and 3 it is the Hebrew word chattath, meaning “sin
offering.” In verse 4 it is chata, translated in the Septuagint by the Greek word
hamartia, meaning “to miss the mark.” That’s all—just miss the mark. We don’t
come up to God’s standard, and it is in that sense that all of us today are sinners.
None of us come up to the standard of God. “For all have sinned, and come short of
the glory of God” (McGee 762).
Note here that McGee is not content to sit back and call ἁμαρτία an innocent,
unconscious failure to achieve perfection. When linking this word with the Old
Testament usage, McGee says that “And iniquity means that which is altogether wrong.
You can’t excuse it.” In Themes in Old Testament Theology, William Dyrness takes us on
a journey of investigating the various Hebrew words for sin, honing in on three concepts:
Deviation (hatta’t and ‘awon), Guilt (rasa‘ and ’asam), and Rebellion (pesa‘). After
examining these in depth, he offers to us a broad definition of sin as reflected in Old
Testament theology. He says, “Sin is not misfortune or chance suffering, those these may
result from sin and be included in its condition. Rather it is a personal and voluntary
deviation from a norm, ultimately directed against God” (107). Note the purposefulness
and hostility that is drawn out here. Kittel gives an excellent examination of this concept
in his Theological Dictionary of the New Testament in which he points out that variants
of this word are used to express “flagrant misdeeds” “rebellion against God” (289), and
“those who live a flagrantly immoral life” (327). So while the common rendering of
ἁμαρτία tends to put the meaning in the passive sense, in the Old Testament
understanding and in the in the Septuagint, “arrogance is regarded as the sin par
excellence” (Cooke 329).
Now to turn to a practical application of this study. Does this word study that we
have completed above relate to our understanding of this passage? Much and in every
way! Here in the first chapter, John is laying the groundwork for a continued discussion
on sin and the believer’s relationship with it. So being placed at the inception of this
epistle, knowing the full semantic range of an important word is essential to properly
understanding the rest of the epistle. We see this word used four times in the first chapter
of John’s first epistle (vv. 7, 8, and twice in 9) and so we know that it is an important
concept that he will no doubt return to. And looking beyond our text to chapters three and
five, we can see how important it is to understand that John is using ‘ἁμαρτία’ to speak
of willful disobedience. Thus, we must embark on this reading of 1 John with this proper
understanding of sin: it is willful disobedience and yes, a willful missing of the mark. We
miss the mark because we are simply not trying to hit it at all.
With this understanding that ἁμαρτία most adequately explains a willful
deviation from the mark that was set, we may now properly understand how we have
been set free from this willful disobedience and its consequences. John says that “the
blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin” and that “if we confess our sins, He is faithful
and righteous to forgive us our sins” (vv 7, 9 NASB). John Wesley is emphatic: “it is
evident that the Apostle here speaks of a deliverance wrought in this world: for he saith
not, The blood of Christ will cleanse… but it ‘cleanseth,’ at the time present, us living
Christians ‘from all sin’” (Wesley 27). Hence, the usage of ἁμαρτία in this passage
cannot refer to mere innocuous ignorance that deviates from the true perfection that God
is, for we will no doubt commit that again at some point. But if we are cleansed from our
sin by a past action (on His part) resulting in a present state of justification, then John
must be speaking of that willful rebellion against God for “we know that no one who is
born of God sins” (1 Jn. 5:18).
Works Cited:
Aeschylus. Agamemnon, in Hutchins, Robert (ed.), Great Books of the Western World.
Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. 1952.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 1998.
Aristotle, Poetics. New York, NY: Cosimo Books. 2008.
Cooke, George A. “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel” in
The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. 1936.
Dyrness, William. Themes in Old Testament Theology. Downer’s Grove, IL: Intervarsity
Press. 1977.
Gallop, David. “Jane Austen and the Aristotelian Ethic.” Philosophy and Literature 23.1
(1999): 96, 96-109. ProQuest Religion. Web. 6 Oct. 2011.
Kittel, Gerhard (ed.). The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol I. Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1977.
McGee, J. Vernon. Thru the Bible Commentary, Vol II. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
1981.
Powers, Dan. “Lecture #4, Word Studies”
Smyth, Herbert W. “Aeschylus, Agamemnon, line 1178.” Perseus Digital Library. Web.
06 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0003:card=1178>.
Strong, J. Enhanced Strong's Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship: Ontario. 1996
Vine, W. E. Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words,
Vol. II. Nashville, TN: T. Nelson. 1996.
Wesley, John. A Plain Account of Christian Perfection. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill
Press. 1966.