Similarly, it would be preferable to study the usage of the harmartia word group in the NT and in the Septuagint in order to arrive at an accurate definition of “sin” than to study the history of its meaning. This is not to say that “failing to meet the standard” is a poor definition of the word “sin,” but rather that we cannot assume that this definition is accurate or complete simply because of its apparent connection to an older meaning used in archery contexts.

I am with you guys on the sentiment whatever the words mean.

Suppose somebody asked you if you were “gay.” They explain that “gay” just means “happy.” Are you happy? Yes? OK, then you’re “gay.” You shrug your shoulders and go off telling everyone that you’re “gay.” One day, to your horror, you’re going to find out that “gay” doesn’t just say something about your cheerful condition.

In the same way, you ask someone if he is a “sinner.” You explain that “sin” just means “miss the mark.” Does he miss the mark? Yes? OK, then he’s a “sinner.” He shrugs his shoulders and goes off confessing that he’s a “sinner.” One day, to his horror, he is going to find out that “sin” doesn’t just say something about his ineptitude.

In the first case, a graphic description of what “gay” means would probably keep you from using that word to describe yourself. In the second, a graphic description of “sin” would either A) repel someone from using that word because he’s “not that bad,” or B) resonate with the convicting work of the Spirit in his life. Option “B” is what we’re after in evangelism.

For example, Rom. 3:23 (“all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”) uses the Greek word hamartano, which is defined as “1. To be without a share in; 2. To miss the mark; 3. To err, be mistaken; 4. to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong; 5. to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin.”

So I don’t think the dictionary definition is what’s in play here… it’s more a matter of connotation and the way it sounds in the ears of our neighbors. “Fallacy” might be too strong of a word for this.

I don’t think I would explain sin in terms of what the law is but who is offended. I would explain that all sin is the de-godding of God or idolatry. It is worshiping creation in some form and not creator, in that I think Newman got it right.

Further, it is not what the sin is that is so offensive but who is sinned against. It is not the breadth of the sin that make it so grievous but it’s the height. I have been working on this analogy. If you were to hit one of my dogs, it would run away. If you were to hit me, I would hit you back. If you were to hit a lion, you would be picking your head off the ground. The sin is the same, but the power of who is sinned against is different(Luke 12:4-5.)

Newman’s criticism of the archery illustration stems from the fact that it is frequently used to make the idea of sin more palatable. It’s greasing the tracks for people to admit that they’re “sinners.” But that sense of the word “sinner” is likely to be very dilute: nobody really associates a swing-and-a-miss with cosmic treason. The point I’m after is that cosmic treason is the essence of sin — no matter how small.

Another problem with it is the archery analogy lets people appeal to the idea that “they tried their best,” which just doesn’t hold water biblically (Rom. 3:11, “no one seeks for God,” etc.) The biblical picture is that we don’t even want to do the right thing. We’re taking careful aim at the wrong targets in direct, willful defiance of God’s commands.

In the ears of the lost, handing out death sentences for missing the target of a bulls-eye sounds inappropriate and extreme. My point in joining Newman in advising against the use of the archery analogy is that it makes God seem petty; we need to help people see the facts of the matter when it comes to our sinfulness and God’s holiness. Sin is not simply a faux pas on par with setting a table with a dirty fork (though that still counts as sin). Rather, the contours of sin have not come into focus until we recognize it as a grotesque, rebellious lust for self-satisfaction and a defiance of the perfect standard that God has made plain in the creation and the Bible. Only then does our self-serving verdict about God’s “pettiness” give way to the knee-buckling awe that Isaiah felt when he announced that he was “undone.”

I don’t know about the Greek word for sin, but in Hebrew, where the concept of transgressing God’s Law originates, the fact is that the word translated as miss in Judges 20:16 is the word sin. To sin is to miss the mark. The point in understanding this concept is not to capture the consequence of sin. The point is to capture the breadth of sin. We don’t only sin when we break one of the big 10 (murder, adultery, etc.). We sin any time we miss God perfect standard. So, while “sin is no small matter,” the slightest deviation from God’s standard, even small ones, is sin (see James 2:10).

The consequence of “missing the mark” is another matter entirely. Here it depends on the standard violated. Missing the target in archery practice is one thing. Transgressing the commands of an almighty God is quite another.

To say that “two concepts couldn’t be further apart” is simply not true. The author only sees it this way because he has conflated the concept of transgressing or missing with what is being transgressed or missed. Maybe this point is too subtle for many people and they get it wrong, but that doesn’t make the underlying concepts unhelpful.