I have a question about the following words:

  • רשע (rasha`), generally translated as "wicked" or "ungodly". 263 occurences in the OT.
  • חטא (chatta'), generally translated as "sinner". 256 occurences in the OT.

For example, both these words appear in Ps 1:1

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked (rasha`, רשע), nor stands in the way of sinners (chatta', חטא), nor sits in the seat of scoffers [ESV];

In this and other contexts, both these words appear to include strong moral condemnation (guilt) as part of their meaning. My question is: for which of these two words is this the strongest ? In other words, when the goal is to express moral condemnation in the strongest possible terms, which of the two words is going to be used in the OT ?

My perplexity regarding this issue comes from the fact that chatta' litterally means "missing the mark" (like with a bow or sling) and therefore seems to connote failure rather than evil. Yet, in many cases, like in Ps 1:1 where there is apparently a progression from bad to worse, according to a number of exegetes, it seems that the word chatta' connotes even stronger condemnation than rasha`.

  • 1
    Probably the least controversial way to do this here would be to ask whether there is indeed a progression from bad to worse in Psalm 1:1. That should get at (and you could even specify that an answer must get at) the relationship between these ideas. Even setting aside this site’s uneasiness with questions not focused on a specific text, this question asks for a lexical study of two of the most common and theologically loaded terms in the Hebrew bible. Understanding both of them in all of their contexts well enough to formulate a comparison might just be too much for an answer here.
    – Susan
    Oct 22, 2015 at 12:28
  • @Susan. Hi. Thanks for the answer. I did not know these words were theologically loaded, sorry about that. Why is that so ? Also, what do you mean exactly by "a specific text" ? Do you mean just a passage or a whole book of the OT ?
    – fi11222
    Oct 22, 2015 at 12:52
  • I don’t mean “loaded” in a way that should cause you to apologize :-) - only that they are both used to represent ideas that are important in the theology of the OT. “A specific text” - here I meant just that verse, which of course should be interpreted in answers in context of the Psalm. I don’t find that 'progression of evil’ obvious, and I think it’s an interesting question as to whether it should be interpreted that way. If nothing else, it would give you a feel for how that type of Q&A can work. You can always ask additional questions if you don’t get the whole answer you want that way.
    – Susan
    Oct 22, 2015 at 13:25
  • 1
    Also (in addition to “theologically loaded”) the meaning of each of those terms varies considerably based on context. I’m not even sure a general answer comparing them sans context is possible, though I may be wrong about that.
    – Susan
    Oct 22, 2015 at 13:31
  • @Susan. Thanks a lot for the helpful comment. I may have misinterpreted the "word-study" tag but is it not supposed to designate questions about word meanings across several texts ? Also, regarding the two words in question here, do you know some good references which would deal with their comparison, even if it is from within a certain tradition of interpretation ?
    – fi11222
    Oct 22, 2015 at 13:49

2 Answers 2


I agree, based off a broad study of the Hebrew Bible, that רשע (rasha`) is stronger than חטא (chatta'), that wickedness is stronger than sinner, where the former is a more active pursuit of doing wrong, the latter doing wrong, perhaps by accident or perhaps with purpose, but "missing the mark" either way. So I am not going to dispute the evidence on that account.

But notice that the progression in Psalm 1:1 is not based on those words, it is based on the words associated with them:

  • walks
  • stands
  • sits

The blessed one does not go down a path that leads to settling into wrong ways.

The reason rasha` is noted first in Psalm 1:1 is because it is those who are actively being wicked who "counsel" others to do so, and so are the recruiters of people to "walk" in their ways. Once recruited to do wrong, one begins to stand still in that "way" of doing things, missing the mark of where they should be (by choice). Then one settles down and sits in the place of those that scorn the way of righteousness (v.6), becoming themselves promoters of the way of the ungodly—new counselors of wickedness to follow the ungodly way.

  • Hi. Thanks for the answer. One think still puzzles me though. If rasha` is stronger than chatta', how is it that, in the subsequent Judeo-Christian tradition, it is the work corresponding to chatta' ("sin") that became symbolic of man's misbehavior? It seems as if people thought that "sin" was not so bad after all ... But if so why did it become something which leads to Hell? Some change in the original meaning must have happened along the way, don't you think?
    – fi11222
    Oct 23, 2015 at 16:44
  • 3
    In my theology, mankind was created to be like God, including fully righteous. Sin misses that mark by any failure to be righteous, and leads to God's displeasure. But wickedness is more active than just failing to be righteous, it is purposefully against righteousness. So sin is bad, wickedness is more purposefully bad as a way of life. All rasha' is chatta', but not conversely. A person may commit an act of man-slaughter (chatta') or be a serial killer (rasha') or kill no one, but encourage others to commit murders (also rasha'). That's my rough theological distinction.
    – ScottS
    Oct 23, 2015 at 17:10

Interesting question. I included the excerpt below to show, as OP stated, that some commentaries say there is a progression from least-to-worst (rasha (wickedness)/chatta (sin)/latz (scorn).

Thus far, I haven't found a convincing explanation as to why wickedness is less grievous than sinfulness. Am wondering, however, if there could be a spiritual differentiation.

What if:

Wickedness refers to the heathens/Gentiles (OT) - those with false light (making them less accountable, tho not less punished.)

Sinners - refer to the Israelites who have benefit of the Light, but who then choose evil. (Israelites are often admonished not to hang out with non-Israelites.)

Scoffers- are the Israelites who fully abandon their Light and ridicule those who follow Yahweh.


Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

...Of the scornful - לצים lētsiym This word properly means those who mock, deride, scoff; those who treat virtue and religion with contempt and scorn. Proverbs 1:22; Proverbs 3:34; Proverbs 9:7-8; Proverbs 13:1; Proverbs 15:12, et saepe. It denotes a higher and more determined grade of wickedness than either of the other words employed, and refers to the consummation of a depraved character, the last stage of wickedness, when God and sacred things are treated with contempt and derision. There is hope of a man as long as he will treat virtue and religion with some degree of respect; there is little or none when he has reached the point in his own character in which virtue and piety are regarded only as fit subjects for ridicule and scorn.

We have here, then, a beautiful double gradation or climax, in the nouns and verbs of this verse, indicating successive stages of character. There is, first, casual walking with the wicked, or accidentally falling into their company; there is then a more deliberate inclination for their society, indicated by a voluntary putting of oneself in places where they usually congregate, and standing to wait for them; and then there is a deliberate and settled purpose of associating with them, or of becoming permanently one of them, by regularly sitting among them.

So also it is in regard to the persons with whom they associate. They are, first, irreligious men in general; then, those who have so far advanced in depravity as to disregard known duty, and to violate known obligations; and then, those who become confirmed in infidelity, and who openly mock at virtue, and scoff at the claims of religion. It is unnecessary to say that, in both these respects, this is an accurate description of what actually occurs in the world. He who casually and accidentally walks with the wicked, listening to their counsel, will soon learn to place himself in their way, and to wait for them, desiring their society, and will ultimately be likely to be feared identified with open scoffers; and he who indulges in one form of depravity, or in the neglect of religion in any way, will, unless restrained and converted, be likely to run through every grade of wickedness, until he becomes a confirmed scoffer at all religion. The sentiment in this verse is, that the man who is truly blessed is a man who does none of these things. His associations and preferences are found elsewhere, as is stated in the next verse.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.