What Is Sin? Is Your Definition Missing the Mark?

Sin is a fundamental concept in Christianity. In English-language Bibles, words for sin appear over a thousand times. Salvation is frequently explained as the forgiveness of sins. Whether certain activities are sinful and how to avoid sin are common questions among Christians. Understanding sin is, therefore, a necessary part of understanding Christianity itself.

So what is sin?

How should we define sin?

A very common definition of sin is “to miss the mark.” This comes from one proposed lexical definition of the Hebrew word חטא.

This definition is catchy, but it is partial and can give a misleading impression. After all, the Bible does not use just one or two words to refer to sin. Commentators have actually located around twenty different terms in the Old and New Testaments.¹ Each of these terms may have somewhat different lexical domains, and their particular individual meanings must be determined by their context.

For most of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, the authors assume that their readers already know what sin is. Finding a single comprehensive definition for sin requires more than focusing on the words themselves. It must instead come from the use of the term and the larger concept that emerges across the whole of the Scriptures.

One important way to define sin is what might be called a metaphysical perspective. This approach is common in the early church and in the Middle Ages. It explains that sin is not a “thing” at all, but a privation. Sin is the moving away from God’s ethical standard and, ultimately, moving away from God himself.

This was important for early Christian apologetics, as the claims of monotheism necessarily excluded any other being from the category of Creator. How then did evil things come to be? The privation theory provides the answer. Evil was not created but rather introduced by the creation’s own movement away from God.

Another outlook on sin is the ethical or legal perspective. Perhaps the most explicit biblical statement describing what sin is comes from 1 John 3:4: “sin is lawlessness” (ESV). Sin is a violation of God’s law. This verse provides the basis for the Westminster Shorter Catechism’s definition of sin: “Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God” (WSC 14). Sin is therefore a moral and legal concept.

Sin is the deprivation of God’s favorable presence which occurs when we violate his law.

Understood properly, the metaphysical and ethical understandings are not really alternatives. Instead, they imply and reinforce one another. The “movement” away from God to which the privation theory argues is a movement of the will. It is a corruption of an original good. This corruption is brought about by the creature rather than the Creator, and this fundamentally occurs when willing agents (whether angels or men) disobey God. This is necessarily ethical. Sin is the deprivation of God’s favorable presence which occurs when we violate his law.

Sin as privation of the good

To many modern Christians, the language of “privation” is unfamiliar. Describing evil or sin as a sort of absence or lack seems counterintuitive.

We would never want to minimize the existence of evil nor the seriousness of sin. In a fallen world, evil is a reality. When Christians from earlier times said things like “good is, while evil is not,”² this may sound rather strange to us today. By statements like these, they did not mean to say that evil does not exist. Rather, their point was that evil lacks a “substantive existence.”³ Evil is not a part of anything’s essence, “For everything created by God is good” (1 Tim 4:4).

The larger background for this way of thinking comes from the argument that there is only one God and that he created all things from nothing (ex nihilo). God has life in himself (John 5:26) by his very nature as God, and everything else—everything other than God—receives its life or existence from God (Acts 17:24–25). Every created existence is a contingent existence, that is, all things depend upon God for their continued existence.

Writing in the second century, Irenaeus put it this way, “all things that have been made have their beginning through being made, but they continue to exist as long as God wills them to do so.”⁴ He adds, “life is not from ourselves or from our nature, but it is given according to God’s grace.”⁵ In this sense, “things that exist” must come from God. Their continued existence is entirely dependent upon God’s sustaining will. Evil, therefore, is not an “existing thing”—at least, not in these terms. If it were, then it would be a gift from God, and this would imply that God is the author of evil, an intolerable conclusion (see Jas 1:12–18). Therefore, evil is not an “existence.”

Augustine of Hippo shares this same basic understanding. Since there is only one eternal, “God is existence in a supreme degree—he supremely is.”⁶ Every other existing thing owes its existence to God. “He gave existence to the creatures he made out of nothing.”⁷ This means that there are no other contrary existences, not on the level of true and proper existence. “No nature is contrary to God”;⁸ “The only contrary nature is the non-existent.”⁹ Augustine is here presenting a powerful argument against Manicheanism, the heretical school which he had followed for nearly a decade before his conversion. Manicheanism asserted that there were two ultimate powers: good and evil. Christianity teaches there is only good: the Good, God. If that is the case, then evil and sin cannot be existences or natures. They are not gifts from the one Good God. (If they were, he would not be the supreme Good.) Instead, they must be defective goodnesses.

Evil being a flaw or deficiency means that evil is dependent upon good. Without some good, there could be no evil, for there would be no thing to deprive. “There is nothing of what we call evil, if there be nothing good.”¹⁰ Good, however, is not dependent upon evil, for “a good which is wholly without evil is a perfect good.”¹¹ Augustine concludes, “every being … in so far as it is a being is good, and in so far as it is defective is evil.”¹²

Athanasius of Alexandria even describes the entrance of sin into the world as something like a reversal of creation from nothing:

For the transgression of the commandment returned them to the natural state, so that, just as they, not being, came to be, so also they might rightly endure in time the corruption unto non-being. For if, having a nature that did not once exist, they were called into existence by the Word’s advent and love for human beings, it followed that when human beings were bereft of the knowledge of God and had turned to things which exist not—evil is non-being the good is being, since it has come into being from the existing God—then they were bereft also of eternal being.¹³

In this passage, terms like “natural” and “being” are defined directly in relation to God. Human nature considered entirely on its own, without God, cannot exist. It came from nothing and would revert to nothing without God. Things only have being (or existence) because they receive that existence “from the existing God.” The God who is self-existent, the only self-existent, created them. All other things can only continue to have existence if they continually receive it from God. If people move away from God, and Athanasius directly connects this to their transgressing God’s commandment, then they will return to what they were before God created them: nothing. This sort of “nothingness” is something of a hypothetical, because Athanasius does not believe that anyone will wholly cease to be. He affirms an eternal judgment for the wicked.¹⁴ But the non-being that evil brings is its movement away from the one true Being, God.

Athanasius repeats that this movement is ethical. It comes from deviating from God’s laws. He quotes from the book of Wisdom, “Attention to the laws is the confirmation of incorruptibility” (Wis 6:18).

The role of choice is very important for the concept of evil as privation. In a perfect world, there is no evil. Mere privations, such as darkness being a privation of light, are not evil. A privation becomes evil when a rational agent declines from a good thing to something inferior. Athanasius explains:

Instead of beholding the Creation, she [the soul] turns the eye to lusts … thinking that by the mere fact of moving she is maintaining her own dignity, and is doing no sin in doing as she pleases; not knowing that she is made not merely to move, but to move in the right direction.¹⁵

Accordingly, the cause of sin must be explained as “the rejection of better things.”¹⁶

Augustine agrees. He states, “sin, or unrighteousness, is not the striving after evil nature but the desertion of better.”¹⁷ In the beginning, there would not have been an evil nature. There was simply the supremely good God and his “very good” creation (Gen 1:31). The only explanation can be the will of the creature. Augustine adds, “sins, Holy Scripture in many ways testifies, are from the will of those sinning.”¹⁸ Elsewhere he repeats this emphasis on the will, “The origin of sin is in the will.”¹⁹

Sin, then, is a privation of good but an active privation. Sin is when a creature chooses to think, will, or act in a way contrary to God and what God has commanded, thus resulting in further separation from God and, ultimately, the absence of life itself.

Sin as violation of God’s law

The understanding of privation as “active” connects the metaphysical perspective of sin to the moral perspective. Summarizing the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century reception of this same doctrine, Richard Muller explains that theological privation “is not, however, mere privation (mere privatio) but, as sin, is an active opposition to God and to the good.”²⁰ This means that privation is, as Athanasius had alluded, an opposition to God’s laws. Sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4).

This moral or ethical explanation of sin is likely the more intuitive for modern readers. This may be due to its practical character. Rather than contemplating more abstract concepts like being, nature, and existence, this perspective places more focus on God’s direct special revelation. Sin is a deviation from God’s eternal law, and it is concretely seen in the violation of God’s moral law.

The expression “want of conformity,” in the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism (14), indicates the failure to perform a duty. Theologians call this a sin of omission. A “transgression of the law” would be actively doing that which is forbidden. This is called a sin of commission. This classification has even made its way into devotional and liturgical literature, such as the General Confession of Sin found in the historic versions of the Book of Common Prayer: “We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done.”²¹ Sin is doing what you should not do and not doing what you should.

Sin is doing what you should not do and not doing what you should.

This moral perspective also means that sin brings about an ethical problem. Sin is wrong. Being wrong, sin deserves punishment. “The wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). This death is not merely the loss of existence, because the Scriptures join it to punitive curses: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’” (Gal 3:13). And to make amends for this curse, there is a penal requirement. “[W]ithout the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Heb 9:22). There is even a judgment that comes after death: “[I]t is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb 9:27). The moral definition of sin is therefore needed to complete the metaphysical definition.

We can also see that the metaphysical and moral understandings mutually imply and reinforce one another. The God who is, the God with true and exclusive self-existence, is also the good God and the just God. To move away from his being is also to move away from righteousness and goodness. And a good God and perfect being could not simply allow for unrighteousness to exist indefinitely within his own creation. Rather, he must take some action to maintain and perfect his creation. As Athanasius puts it, “this great work [of redemption] supremely befitted the goodness of God.”²²

Use Logos’s Study Assistant to research questions like, “What is sin?” Start a free trial.

How can we identify sin?

If sin is the violation of God’s law, then sin can be discovered by comparing it to God’s law.

The primary way that God’s law can be used for this purpose is by examining the Ten Commandments. Every human thought, word, and action should be evaluated by each of the commandments to discover what sin is.

Each commandment, in turn, includes a duty and a prohibition. Each brings a “Thou shalt” as well as a “Thou shalt not,” and this can be understood through rational inquiry. As the Westminster Larger Catechism explains, “where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded” (WLC 99).

We can see this in the Scriptures when the Apostle Paul says, “Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need” (Eph 4:28). It is not enough to simply stop stealing. An ethical person will work honestly and even give to others in need. The eighth commandment applies to both aspects.

Additionally, the fifth commandment does not only require children to obey their parents. It also gives a duty to parents. We can see this in Ephesians 6:1–4, where Paul cites the commandment, “Honor your father and mother,” and then applies it to both children’s duty to “obey” and the parents’ duty to “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”

While the New Testament does proclaim that Christ fulfills the law’s demands before God’s eternal judgment (Rom 6:14, 10:4; Gal 4:4–5), it also continues to appeal to the law as the Christian’s ongoing moral guide:

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Rom 13:8–10)

The practical way to “love your neighbor” is to follow the moral law toward them, both in its duties and in its prohibitions. The Commandments are a guide for holy living and a way to identify and guard against sin.

Are all sins the same?

Committing any sin at all brings God’s wrathful judgment upon you. “Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it” (Jas 2:10). And internal and invisible sins can be judged in God’s sight every bit as much as their external manifestations or enactments. “Everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt 5:28; cf. Matt 5:21–22). Even so, it is not correct to say that all sins are equal.

The unforgivable sin

The New Testament states that there is at least one sin that is unforgivable:

Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matt 12:31–32; see also Mark 3:22, 29; Luke 12:10)

Commentators and theologians have debated exactly what Jesus means here. In context, the sin in question is ascribing the works of the Holy Spirit to Satan.

It may be appropriate to extend this to any persistent rejection of the gospel itself. One cannot be forgiven if they deny the offer of forgiveness. At the same time, we should not be too rigid with this application. Surely the Apostle Paul did something like this very sin before his conversion: “formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief” (1 Tim 1:13).

Sins against knowledge

Paul’s qualification about ignorance also teaches us how some sins are worse than others. Sins committed after a person has greater knowledge are worse than sins done out of ignorance.

Jesus tells Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernum that “It will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you” (Matt 11:20–24). Why is this the case? It was because these were “the cities where most of his mighty works had been done,” but “they did not repent” (Matt 11:20). Greater knowledge of God and greater exposure to special revelation brings greater responsibility before God.

Similarly, the third commandment teaches us that “the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain” (Exod 20:7). The flagrant sins of those who should be nearer to God are worse than those who are far from him.

Sins against nature

Another class of sins that is more heinous than others are sins against the light of nature. Many of these are sins of sexual deviancy.

For instance, the Apostle Paul finds it incredible that a man would take his father’s wife. This “is not tolerated even among pagans”(1 Cor 5:1). There are sins which are “contrary to nature” (Rom 1:26). And giving approval to shameless acts is worse than merely practicing them (Rom 1:32).

Venial and mortal sins?

From the notion of a hierarchy of sins eventually developed the distinction between mortal and venial sins. In the early church, certain grave sins were given greater acts of penance before a person could be readmitted to the sacrament of Holy Communion. Eventually, this was formulated into a more specific system.

Thomas Aquinas provides one example. He defines a “venial sin” as a sort of “incomplete” and “qualified” sin (Sent. II, D.42.Q1.A3.SC2). These are sins that are easily forgivable and are due only temporal punishments rather than eternal ones (Sent. II, D.42.Q1.A4.C). He adds that sins are venial when they lack the consent of deliberate reason (Sent. II, D.42.Q1.A4.C.2). Venial sins, therefore, are evils but of a minor sort. They deserve temporal punishments, but they do not place one in danger of eternal judgment. Mortal sins, on the other hand, can place even the Christian in danger of hell. Thomas believes that mortal sins can become venial through the sacrament of penance. “What is mortal becomes venial through confession” (Sent. II, D.42.Q1.A4.C).

This distinction has continued to be a doctrine for the Roman Catholic Church. Their current catechism teaches that “mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man,” whereas “venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it” (CCC 454). Mortal sin requires “a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation” (CCC 455). Without this conversion, mortal sin brings about “the eternal death of hell” (CCC 456).

While there have been various popular lists of “deadly sins” throughout church history, the Roman Catholic Church does not have a set number of mortal sins. Instead, any number of sins can be mortal under the right conditions. For something to qualify as a mortal sin in the Roman Catholic Church today, it must involve a grave matter and be “committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent” (CCC 455).

The Protestant churches rejected this kind of essential distinction between mortal and venial sins. Richard Muller explains, “both the Lutheran and the Reformed deny the distinction, at least in the sense that venial sins must also be recognized as damnable and as worthy of eternal punishment if the sinner perseveres in them to the point of [final impenitence].”²³

This can be seen in Martin Luther’s Leipzig debate, where he asserts “to deny … that venial sin is pardonable, not according to its nature, but by the mercy of God … that is equivalent to crushing Paul and Christ under foot.”²⁴ Restating this without the double negative, Luther’s point is that venial sin is not pardonable because of its nature, because it fails to destroy charity. Rather, venial sin is only pardonable by the grace of God.

The English Bishop John Davenant puts it this way, “We … affirm of all sins, universally, that they are, by their own desert, deadly, and de facto lead to death, unless the deadly poison of them be expelled by the antidote of repentance and grace.”²⁵ Davenant is here referring to spiritual and eternal death, as he has just explicitly rejected the claim that venial sins might “deserve temporal punishment only.”²⁶

Still, the various Protestant churches and theologians did employ some distinctions between kinds of sins. Article 16 of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion refers to “deadly sin willingly committed after baptism.” This may have simply been a customary way of speaking of grave or serious sins. The intention of the article is not to explain the difference between “deadly” sins and lesser sins but instead to deny that deadly sins committed after baptism are sins against the Holy Ghost and therefore unforgivable. A seventeenth-century commentary on the Thirty-Nine Articles states, “Though every sin, in itself considered, deserveth damnation; yet is there a sin which shall be punished with many, and a sin which shall be punished with few stripes.”²⁷ From this understanding, even though all sins are damnable, some sins still warrant greater punishment than others.

Another example of a Protestant using a stipulated version of the distinction between mortal and venial sins is The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (1888). This work was created from the classroom notes of Ursinus’s students, and so they are not directly from Ursinus. Still, they reflect one school of thought within the seventeenth-century Reformed tradition. In that commentary, a distinction is made between “reigning sin” and “sin that does not reign.” Then we are told, “The common distinction of sin into mortal and venial may be referred to this division.”²⁸ In this understanding, “mortal sin” or “reigning sin” is a sin where “he who perseveres in it will at length be overtaken by destruction.”²⁹ This is “that form of sin to which the sinner makes no resistance through the grace of the Holy Spirit” or “every sin which is not deplored.”³⁰

These Protestant uses of “mortal” or “deadly” sin are still substantially different than the Roman Catholic meaning. They deny that the difference is in the nature of the sins themselves. Instead, they locate the difference in the attitude of the sinner toward those sins, whether they are fighting against them or giving approval to them.

What is the punishment for sin?

As a violation of law, sin requires punishment. The Bible teaches that the most basic punishment is death. “In the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die” (Gen 2:17). “The soul who sins shall die” (Ezek 18:1). This punishment is also described as a divine curse, “Cursed be anyone who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them” (Deut 27:26).

Beyond physical or earthly death, the Scriptures also speak of an eternal judgment, usually invoking the image of fire: “their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (Isa 66:24). Jesus explains that this eternal fire refers to hell:

It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire … It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, “where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.” (Mark 9:47–48)

Hell, then, is the extension of the judgment of death into eternity. Hell is not non-existence or annihilation. Hell is a continued form of existence in which the person experiences God’s judgment against sin.

Jesus teaches that Satan and his angels will spend eternity in hell (Matt 25:41). He also teaches that those who are considered by him as being unrighteous “will go away into eternal punishment” (Matt 25:46). This sort of punishment is explained as being just, the righteous requirement of the law (Rom 1:32).

What is the solution for sin?

Knowing what sin is and the severity of its curse is important for the Christian religion. A mere knowledge of sin, however, leaves mankind accountable for sin but without any means of solving their problem. They would be without hope of salvation. The verdict of justice would indeed remedy the problem of sin, but it would not provide redemption for humans.

And so God offered another solution through the gospel of his son. “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim 1:15). “God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whosever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Perishing is contrasted with “eternal life,” which the Scriptures say is given to humans if they believe in the Son of God. “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life” (John 3:36).

This believing in the Son is further explained by the New Testament as trusting that Jesus Christ makes atonement for our sins. “If anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:1–2). The term translated as “propitiation” is usually defined as an appeasement.³¹ Another New Testament occurrence of the term comes with a fuller context:

all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Rom 3:23–26)

And so the ultimate solution for sin comes in the priestly work of Jesus Christ. Through his sacrificial death, an appeasement for sins was made. Because of the atonement of Christ, God’s justice is preserved and he can justify all who have faith in Jesus.

Resources for further study of sin

Related content

• “Is This Sinful?”: How to Know Whether Something Is a Sin
• What Is Evil—Biblically? What the Bible Says about Good & Evil
• From Genesis to Judgment: Original Sin Fully Explained
• Where Did Satan Come From? | Phillip Cary on Genesis 3
• Why Do Good People Do Bad Things? The Problem of Free Will

1. See Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3 (Baker Academic, 2003), 129.
2. Athanasius of Alexandria, Contra Gentes 1.4.4, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church IV, Second Series (T&T Clark, 1991).
3. Athanasius, Contra Gentiles 1.6.3.
4. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 2.34.3, ed. Alexander Roberts and Arthur Cleveland Coxe, The Ante-Nicene Fathers I (T&T Clark, 1996).
5. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.34.3.
6. Augustine of Hippo, City of God, trans. Henry Bettenson (Penguin, 2003), 473.
7. Augustine, City of God, 473.
8. Augustine, City of God, 474.
9. Augustine, City of God, 473.
10. Augustine of Hippo, Enchiridion 13, ed. Philip Schaff, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church III, First Series (T&T Clark, 1993).
11. Augustine, Enchiridion 13.
12. Augustine, Enchiridion 13.
13. Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation, trans. John Behr, Popular Patristics Series 44B (St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 2011), 53.
14. See Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 109.
15. Athanasius of Alexandria, Contra Gentes 1.4.5, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Archibald Robertson, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 4, Second Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892).
16. Athanasius, Contra Gentes 1.5.2.
17. Augustine of Hippo, Concerning the Nature of Good, Against the Manichæans 34, ed. ed. Schaff, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church IV, First Series (T&T Clark, 1989).
18. Augustine, Concerning the Nature of Good 28.
19. Augustine of Hippo, Reply to Faustus the Manichean 22.22, ed. Philip Schaff, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church IV, First Series (T&T Clark, 1989).
20. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, 2nd ed. (Baker Academic, 2017), 291.
21. “The General Confession of Sin at Morning and Evening Prayer,” 1662 Book of Common Prayer: International Edition (InterVarsity Academic, 2021), 3.
22. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 58.
23. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 256.
24. Martin Luther, The Leipzig Debate, in Luther’s Works, vol. 31: Career of the Reformer I, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann, trans. Hilton C. Oswald (Fortress, 1999), 317.
25. John Davenant, Determination 31, in A Treatise on Justification, vol. 2, trans. Josiah Allport (London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1846), 383.
26. Davenant, Determination 31.
27. Thomas Rogers, The Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1854), 136.
28. Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G. W. Williard (Cincinnati, OH: Elm Street, 1852), 44, 45.
29. Ursinus, Commentary, 45.
30. Ursinus, Commentary, 44.
31. William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, 2000), 474.