CHRISTIANITY AND "ORIGINAL SIN"
CHRISTIANITY AND "ORIGINAL SIN"
In this year of 5771, as we approach the reading of Bereshit (Genesis), I want to reprint my article related to Genesis 3.
Christianity and “Original Sin”
Moreh Yossi J. T. Sroufe, DPhil
(The purpose of this article is to help Jews avoid Christian missionaries and the so-called American “Messianic Movement.” Verses quoted are from the New American Standard version of the Bible unless otherwise noted.)
Christianity’s spiritual premise rests upon the message of John 3:16. Each individual will perish in eternal destruction if each person does not “accept” Jesus Christ as the one way to eternal life. This powerfully motivating statement depends upon fear and several false assumptions.
The first false assumption is identified in Romans 3:23, a verse attributed to the Apostle Paul who supposedly was once a Jew. He states that all people have sinned and fallen short of the perfection of God. Thus, Christianity builds its first premise on this logic: all humans have a sin nature that separates each person from God.
This New Testament (NT) verse is a clear contradiction of two verses in the Gospel of Luke. In Luke chapter one, verses 5-6, Zacharias and Elizabeth are described as “righteous in the sight of God.” This fascinating declaration is made before there was a “savior” who died within the theosophical system of Christianity. If all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, how can the NT claim that there are people in right standing with God?
Luke was a gentile. He apparently let slip through his writing the Jewish understanding of how one is declared righteous before God. Luke states that Zacharias and Elizabeth were “walking blamelessly in all of the commandments and requirements of the Lord.” This is his definition for how they were seen as righteous in the sight of God. Maybe even Luke knew what was recorded in Micah.
“He has told you, O man, what is good;And what does the Lord require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?” - Micah 6:8
The Gospel of Luke appears to contradict Romans 3:23. To make up for this error, Christian writers say the verse describes their lives and the way they lived. Thus, it is a mere expression for righteous living. It in no way implies that they were in a “saving” relationship with God.
Logic asks one question. What does the phrase “righteous in the sight of God” really mean prior to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christianity’s proclaimed messiah? If once concludes there are dispensations of “grace” then dispensationalism becomes an escape to this faulty spiritual morass. This theory simple states that God deals one way with those who lived prior to the resurrection of Jesus as compared to those who lived after his supposed resurrection. This is a convenient way of introducing a substitution in which Christians replace Jews as the chosen people of God. This is known as “replacement theology” and is rampant in many evangelical denominations.
If Zacharias and Elizabeth could be righteous before God as stated in Luke, then there clearly is a way to be righteous in the sight of God apart from the death of a man.
Is it possible that the Gospel of Luke shows a bias on the part of a Greek writer who has assimilated the Greek ideas of gods becoming men? Is there even a remote possibility that in establishing the need for a “redeemer” the Greek view tainted the story?
Let’s look at Romans 3:23. Could Paul be making a reference to Psalm 14:1? David says that there is no one who does good. What one does (actions) is greatly different from what one is (nature). David refers to man’s wrong actions while Paul makes a statement that the very nature of mankind is corrupt. Psalm 14 is speaking of human actions, but Christianity went further and developed the concept of a “sin nature” and declared that each person upon her/his birth is born sinful. Thus man is hopeless to redeem (save) himself. Thus Christianity proposes that someone outside of one’s self must rescue one from her/his condition. If not, then each one is doomed to eternal destruction. What is their answer for this eternal dilemma? Human sacrifice. (Genesis 22 exists, in part, to teach us that human sacrifice is not what God demands.)
Christianity now has its foundation. Someone must come to “save” mankind. (Romans 5:12; Romans 7:19; Romans 3:10; Romans 8:3; Romans 7:24-25) Someone must do what one individual supposedly could not do - be in right standing with God. John 3:16 states the only “Christian” solution.
So, where did the concept of “original sin” come from in church history? The concept of “original sin” was created by the Latin theologian, Augustine. While others before him wrestled with the concept, it was Augustine who made it formal.
Defending his views in 418 CE, he wrote his discourse, “Of the Grace of Christ and of original sin.” Augustine formulated that in Adam’s organic being (body), the entire human race existed. When Adam rebelled against God, the very nature of mankind was corrupted once and for all time by Adam’s sin.
Thus a Latin theologian declared it so approximately 1,500 years ago. Protestant theologians did not differ with their Roman Catholic counterparts, man is now declared to be born with a depraved and corrupt nature. This fallen nature is such that there is no hope without someone coming to rescue such a one.
Please note that this is the same Augustine that at one time believed that all physical matter was evil and that Jesus was never incarnate, did not die, and did not resurrect. He believed that Jesus was a mere man. Jesus was just a Jew. How is it that this same Augustine now has the right doctrinal statement for “original sin”?
According to Augustine, when does “original sin” pass on to you and me? He had this conveniently figured out for all of us. When our parents had sexual union and we were conceived, at that very second, sin became our nature. Ever since, sex has had a bum reputation within Christianity.
Take the argument for “original sin” to its logical conclusion and one could argue that all unbaptized infants are damned to eternity in hell forever separated from God. It is interesting to note that Eastern Orthodoxy did not recognize the doctrine of original sin while virtually all of the Western church accepted it to its fullest extent. Look at what Martin Luther and John Calvin did with this doctrine!
What about Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 58:3? These surely are clear verses for a totally depraved humanity. Don’t they indicate that all humans are born with a sin nature?
In Psalm 51 David is lamenting his wrong actions before God after being confronted by Nathan. David found forgiveness directly from God when he repented (even before he repented). Psalm 58:3 describes the actions of a wicked person. A truly wicked person does such actions from birth? This is a metaphor for a life filled with years of wrong choices. Infants fresh from the womb can hardly commit sinful deeds.
Chapters 51 and 58 provide symbolism of the depth of iniquity - wrong actions. Neither passage describes a “sin nature,” but rather a choice to sin. An infant obviously does not make such choices. So, if from conception these sins are present, the child must have a sin nature. This thinking is illogical and unsupported by the context of these passages.
As a human, I have the ability to make conscious choices. These choices, in part, make me distinctly human. The ability to make moral choices separates me from all other life on the planet. I understand that life has meaning and the moral choices I make have consequences. What is within me from birth is the ability to make right or wrong choices. Free will allows me to make choices, right or wrong. Hence, if I am wicked, perhaps I have made such choices from my youngest moments (youth) and if I am a righteous person, I have learned to make right choices from my youngest moments (youth). Psalm 51 and 58 refer to actions and not nature. My actions are the results of my choices. Otherwise, if these passages were not metaphor, infants would be speaking lies right after birth instead of crying!
In Psalm 119:176, the writer paints the picture that we go astray like a lost sheep. Psalm 119:76 tells us the remedy for going astray is to return to keeping God’s commandments (Psalm 119:11). A simple study of the word “youth” in the Tanach shows that the Hebrew concept is that we each go astray in our youth. We make wrong choices and become the products of our actions.
Judaism teaches us that from birth each person is a “living soul.” A child possesses the ability to make good choices (good inclinations - yetzer hatov) and the ability to make wrong choices (evil inclinations - yetzer hara). This is the picture we see in Genesis. Free will allows each person to make choices out of these inclinations. Which will we do? Which did Adam and Eve do?
It is about choices and not about nature. Our nature is to make choices. We can make wrong choices as Adam and Eve did, or we can make right choices as Zacharias and Elizabeth did.
When we sin, we repent (teshuvah) and return to God, amending our ways. We ask forgiveness of others and make restitution with those we have offended. We ask God for forgiveness for the sins we have committed against His will or those things we have not done as we should. We return again to walking with God and keeping His commandments. (This will be explained in the follow-up lesson, “The Three Pillars of Judaism.”)
It all started in the beginning! In Genesis 3:14-15, God pronounces the consequences for the serpent. In Genesis 3:16, Eve gets her pronouncement. Finally, Adam gets his judgment in verses 17-19. Where is a single verse stating that his descendants will have a sin nature? Yes, death comes, but there is no pronouncement of a rearrangement of the human machine. Each person is responsible for her or his own sin. Sins are not passed on as a new type of human nature. No verse in Genesis 3 supports this supposition.
After Cain’s anger and change of emotion, Adonai confronts him. God’s direct word to him is summed up as “if you do the right thing, you will feel the right way.” (Genesis 4:6-7) Cain is directly told to “master” sin. (Genesis 4:7)
If he possessed a fallen sin nature, then how could he conquer his nature apart from a rescuer? Surely someone outside of himself would be needed to “save” a totally depraved and sinful person such as Cain. God never acted as if he was helpless against sin, the serpent, nor his own choices. God directly implied that Cain, and Cain alone, was responsible for his actions. In fact, Eve and Adam were also responsible for their individual choices. It was now a direct command from Hashem that Cain was to master his actions. How could this be true if he was now a part of a fallen humanity?
In Genesis 6, we see God grieving over the sinful state of human life. The wickedness of mankind was great and the hearts of mankind were continually filled with evil. Is this the “sin nature” proof many look for in the scriptures? No, because God found one to whom His favor was given. When it looks like the whole world is totally lost, the Tanach indicates that there is someone God can use. Thank God that there are those who have not bowed their knee to idols and totally abandoned the commandments of Hashem.
Throughout the following accounts in the Torah, God worked to establish a people who would choose to walk with Him and keep all His commandments always. This is the story of humanity. This is the story of Judaism. Humans are sinful yet their hope is in the covenant God made with the Jewish people - a covenant that is available to all who will receive it. He would be their God and they would be His people, even with all of their faults and stubbornness. (Exodus 6:7; Leviticus 26:12; Jeremiah 7:23; Jeremiah 11:4; Jeremiah 30:22) This is the message of the Torah to all the nations: there is a covenant that God has made and we are invited to enter into this covenant with Him. There is no other plan - there is no plan “B.” There is no other redeemer. Hashem is the One True God. May we seek Him with all of our hearts.
Will you choose to accept the words of Augustine or the Torah? Will you choose to accept the living covenant God made with His people, or will you choose human sacrifice? The choice is yours.
Moreh Yossi J. T. Sroufe is a post-denominational Jew living in Spring,Texas. He writes for the Adat Achim Synagogue newletter and leads a Torah discussion group where he lives.