Exit Wound
At the entrance, sin lies in wait. Talmud, B. Sanhedrin 91b.
In wait – Commenting on Genesis 4:7, the rabbis note that sin takes opportunity to entice us from the moment of entrance into the world. “To be born is to leave the simplicity, the ‘sincerity,’ of life-with-mother and to cross a threshold into a world ruled by ‘appearance, art, illusion, optics, necessity of perspective and error.’”[1] The exit wound of birth is the entrance into a world saturated by choice. It is to confront daily the yetzer ha’ra.
We should notice the significant difference between this Jewish view of Man and the Augustinian-Lutheran view of the Man. Luther, following Augustine and other influential Hellenistic thinkers, adopted Plato’s view of the nature of Man. This led to the doctrine of inherited sin, a doctrine that ascribes sin to a human being at conception, not at birth. The child in the womb becomes guilty through association with the Federal head of the race, Adam. Under the influence of Plato, Christian thought proclaimed that Man was born a sinner (technically, Man is conceived a sinner) and this sinful nature causes Man to subsequently perform sinful actions. Man can no more avoid sinful behavior than he can alter his blood type. He is born with it.
The rabbis did not adopt Plato as their prophet. Consequently, they view the life of the fetus as the example of perfect human being. Totally dependent, free of the influence of this world of choice, perfectly attendant to the purposes of God, the unborn child lives in a heavenly state of fetal protection. The unborn child does exactly what God desires and intends – to grow, to become, to enter into the world. Only at exit is the child subjected to a world gone mad. Only at entrance does madness become possible. In the rabbis’ view, every life in vitro is an example of unmitigated grace.
The rabbinic difference has enormous consequences for our concept of human being. In Luther’s view, Man is destined for eternal punishment because he is born. Man exercises no choice in this. In the rabbinic view, Man comes into the world unsullied. He comes into the world responsible and culpable for his own choices. He comes into the world, as the prophets say, judged for his own sin. In Plato’s view, Man achieves full humanity when he leaves this corrupt world behind. In the rabbinic view, Man achieves full humanity when he displays God’s character in the midst of a rebellious world. Plato, Augustine and Luther seek escape. The rabbis seek involvement.
The Genesis passage cited in the Talmud suggests that sin is waiting to entice because Adam opened the door to allow its presence into the world God created. The passage does not imply that we bring sin with us at birth. If sin lies in wait, then we can actually do something about its presence and power. Once aware, we can choose otherwise. We can domesticate the yetzer ha’ra to the will of the yetzer ha’tov. We can act like God, redeeming the world. With Luther, Man can do nothing but wait, hoping for the act of God to remove his in-born stain. With the rabbis, Man does everything but wait. It is sin that waits, not Man. To act as God acts is to defeat the enemy and fulfill God’s will. You decide which direction offers hope, which aligns with your experience, which makes sense of the biblical picture of God. Your view of who you are and how you behave depends upon your theological ancestry – Luther or Akiva.
Topical Index: sin, sinful nature, B. Sanhedrin 91b., Genesis 4:7
Today’s Word has expressed what I have thought and felt for a long time. It solves the issue, for me as a Chaplain at a local hospital, when a family ask for a baptism of a newborn not expected to live. I have to be careful with my response because there is so much emotionalism running. but in my head I am thinking, baptism for what. There is no sin to deal with. The child is innocent. Itis a serious problem for the mother, and father if one is present and for family members who have been trained in the Greek way of thinking. I hope with gentleness, love I can help them see a better world.
If children are innocent, why do they die?
Once again you have introduced the critical question. Speculation to follow, I hope.
I can see how the doctrine of original sin can be justified via Ps. 51:5 – ‘Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.’ (NIV)
So what does this verse mean? Was my mother the sinful one at conception? I guess so. 🙂
What about David’s Psalm 51 where he says “and in sin did my mother conceive me”?
GO read my comment on this verse.
“We can domesticate the yetzer ha’ra to the will of the yetzer ha’tov.”
“sin, sinful nature, B. Sanhedrin 91b., Genesis 4:7”
Hmmm
It all strikes me as very funny at this moment, “domesticate the yetzer ha’ra”
The first time I saw the phrase “domesticate the yetzer ha’ra”
I was working at VeriSign, reading Today’s Word (not working 🙂
I had always thought of that concept in terms of “sublimating the id” in Freud (make sublime)
And before I went to college, I associated “sublimating the id” with Moses and Monotheism
And could not believe the Jews actually worshiped false gods in orgies, sacrificing babies
Regarding “domesticate the yetzer ha’ra”
D for door, OM for Old Man and ShalOM (shhh for peace and quiet 🙂
At home, my Mom and Dad were known as Barbara and Alan (O’Hara)
Unlike most parents in my neighborhood, they never went to church
But they loved Paul Newman and movies like Cool Hand Luke
Luke was a leader of men who, in a corrupt society, finds his own way
To the Old Man
If each one of us is born pure,– no sinful nature, — how can we account for sin being a universal fact?
My computer tells me the current world population is 6,767,797,804. If all these people are born with no corruption to their nature, we would reasonably expect that at least some of them would refrain from falling. . . . but none do. The Bible makes it clear that all have sinned and fallen short.
God created mankind originally good and without a sin nature: Created in God’s image, male and female, they were indeed sinless.
However, with the fall, sin entered into the two previously sinless people God had made. And when they had children, their sin nature was passed along to their offspring. Adam’s children were then in Adam’s image after that. The sin nature immediately manifested itself in the very first person born with Adam’s genes and that man became a murderer. Pretty stiff inditement of the human race!
“The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies go astray from birth” (Ps. 58:3). Where would the ability/thought/idea come from unless it was already in the blood stream?
Solomon wrote: “Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins” (Ecc. 7:20). This is in my Bible. It could not be true if even one little baby boy anywhere on the planet was sinless.
Paul affirms an inherited sin nature when he says, “Therefore, just as through ONE MAN sin entered into THE WORLD, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). And the Apostle John says this to his readers: If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).
Suppose there is one innocent person born who never sins. Then that person would never die. But, in Adam, all die.
Why wouldn’t God just fix/repair hearts if they weren’t desperately wicked? God must not be able to even fix our desperately wicked hearts, or deems them not worthy of repair. He gives us a new one when we are born again. Being born again is necessary to enter the Holy place where He lives.
Imagine shoes so muddy they can’t be cleaned before you come into the house. The owner of the house just throws them away and gives you a brand new pair. How deep was that mud anyway? Into the very fiber, lining, and atoms in the leather of them, else they could have been washed off.
My husband fixes lots of stuff. Sometimes something is not worth fixing and that indeed is a sad day since he is rather talented and creative. Tossing an item he deems unworthy in the trash and going to get a brand new one, always makes me remember this! (and, of course, rejoice in Jesus!)
Since I have written a great deal about the “sinful nature” concept already, I won’t reiterate it all here. I will only point out that the argument that sin is transmitted from parent to child (how exactly is a problem) is a very ancient, Catholic doctrine, endorsed by Calvin and Luther and now a part of the Federal Headship theory about Adam. It has some significant holes in it. In addition, it creates all kinds of theological gyrations, like Purgatory, infant baptism and the Immaculate Conception. It also makes a logical mockery of the idea of free will. Nevertheless, it is a DOCTRINE and therefore a sacred cow of some branches of Christianity. Not all Christian theology subscribes to this idea, by the way. In this regard, proof texts are rarely helpful. What is needed is an understanding of the paradigms and assumptions involved. Judaism believes in the absolute authority of Torah and in the creation of Man in God’s image, but it does not embrace the doctrine of sinful nature. We might usefully ask why this is the case and how it is possible to read the same texts that you cite without a commitment to this Augustinian doctrine.
I do not embrace infant baptism or purgatory, or Mary being free of sin.
Flesh of itself can’t be sinful or Jesus wouldn’t have created a body of flesh for Himself.
I don’t know where sin is in humans. Do you?
Yes, I do. Sin is in the choices. It is not, as Augustine believed, a physical reality. It is a volitional reality and does not exist before it occurs. The idea that sinful nature CAUSES sinful action is the real problem. This kind of thinking implies that if I have a sinful nature, I must inevitably and consequently produce sinful actions. The Lutheran doctrine is based on this view, a view which I do not find in Judaism in spite of the fact that Jews share the same Scripture.
Choices, yes, thank you. (palm to my face)
Why do infants make selfish choices, like claiming everything is “mine” as has been discussed today on here.
There has to be a propensity.
I know Yeshua was not like that as a toddler and He had to grow like other children. Only of two people in the Bible record does it say “he increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man…”
Yeshua would have never disobeyed His parents even in shadow of a thought. No one else alive does that. What is the great difference? Choice yes, but how did he know as a small child that was sin so that a choice could be made?
Its ok to point me to a TW where you have covered this.
Last post today. (with help)
Every one is spiritually dead and cut off from God, but the degrees of sinfulness carried out in each person will vary. Paul spoke of his own struggle when he said,
“. . . I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. . . . But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me” (Rom. 7: 15, 20).
The struggle in a believer is evident to a person who has been born again, but a battle will not occur in a person who has not become a believer in Christ. They remain spiritually dead, and a dead man is not sensitive to sin as a Christian is.
In Eph. 2: 1, Paul (describing his readers’ previous state prior to being born again) says: “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins”
Everyone is born spiritually dead — devoid of any spiritual life or desire for the things of God. In fact, man is hostile toward God before being born again.
“For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so” (Rom. 8: 6,7). Said the same thing in his first letter to the Corinthian church: “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (2: 14).
Yeshua’s sacrifice supplies spiritual life for any person who calls on the name of the Lord for salvation. Paul says, “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life” (Rom. 5: 10). Paul writes, “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Cor. 5: 17).
The Spirit of God lives in each person who is born again and supplies the power to not only defeat the effects of the sin nature, but to supply strength to defeat the old sinful nature’s pull to do wrong in God’s sight. Paul says it like this: “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh” (Gal. 5: 16, 17).
Hi Dorothy, just a thought.
If the sinful nature is passed from parent to child, how is it that Yeshua was without sin? Do you se the complication? The only way one can get around it is by way of “theolgical gymnastics.”
However it gets worse if one considers that scripture can’t be broken, (out of Yeshua’s own mouth) because if Yeshua was not made like us in every way, He would not be a “suitable” sacrifice. (new testament) and…….
Deu 24:16 “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”
That creates a problem for the doctrine of the “inherited” sinful nature, either God’s wrong (and contrary to Himself) or the doctrine of the sinful nature and how christianity (at least the denominations I’ve been subjected too) interprets it is wrong and contrary to God. You can’t have it both ways.
I’m not fishing for an answer or even expecting one, all I ask is that you consider (reconsider) your paradigm of the earlier verses you quoted in light of these scriptures. God’s revealed word is self correcting, “hear 0 Israel, YHWH Elohinu, YHWH Echad” (echad is a multiple singular) again, scripture CANNOT be broken.
YHWH bless you and keep you………
Good morning, Robert. The LORD bless you, too!
The sin nature is passed thru man, thru Adam. “Therefore, just as through ONE MAN sin entered into THE WORLD, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12).
Woman is affected, too, as is all of creation and we all groan for release.
A virgin birth had to be God’s way, for He did it. That is a fact, nothing is impossible to God.
Jesus was unique among men, and at the same time, just like us, yes, –but who of us are both fully God and fully man? None but Him.
Jesus had the sin nature, but didn’t sin. He sorta had more “help” than we do, seeing Jesus is God, but make no mistake in thinking I’m saying Jesus COULD NOT sin. If He could not sin, what would have been the point of the temptations? So He was able to, but did not. He was victorious over sin, hunger, exhaustion, death, diseases, the world, the devil, –you name it.
And He WAS the sinless sacrifice.
After we are born again, The Holy Spirit comes to live in our hearts. (now we have that “more help”). We can still sin, but we can also choose to not sin. We can let Jesus answer the door as Carl often says. If we do let sin in again, (and we do) He gives us the remedy. 1 John 2: 1
P. S. side note: The age of accountability seems to be 20. (Num.14: 29)
Hi again Dorothy, I didn’t see a place to initiaye a response under your last post, so I’ll try it here.
I would ask that you read that verse a bit more carefully, it says, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, BECAUSE all sinned” (Romans 5:12). The reason I capitalised “because” is that it’s the “reason” that men die. Not because Adam sinned and has passed that nature to us. Nowhere can I find that God says that we inherited a sinful nature because of Adams sin. It’s true that he “opened” the door, ie; “through one man sin entered”…and the results of that is that “through” sin death entered. Death now spreads to us BECAUSE we (all) sin, not because we inherited a sinful nature from our father Adam. The statement that we inherited a sinful nature is, at best, speculation, at worst, ??????……
P.S. That accountability starts at 20 is what I gather from scripture as well, whether that applies in every situation, I’m quite unsure of. I am assured that it applied to the Israelites that YHWH brought out of Egypt.
YHWH bless you and keep you…..
Yea!! it worked. although I should be a bit more careful with my puctuation and spelling, sometimes! 🙂
Everything makes sense, there is just one example that blows it away a little for me 🙂 Before an infant can make a choice wittingly, they exhibit a sense of selfishness. I have never seen a child being considerate, sharing their toys, and lovingly accept a reprimand. They have to be TRAINED to make the right choices. If everything was innocent from the start, why do we have to train them? Am I missing something?
“Before an infant can make a choice wittingly, they exhibit a sense of selfishness”
Hi Ida,
I like to think of it this way; psychologically speaking, as an “adult,” we are three things
– Adult
– Parent
– Child
An infant is just a Child, a “cauldron of desire” that doesn’t know right from wrong
In a sense, just Self, unaware of the Other (rules of the Law)
We need to be taught, before we can be responsible
As we grow up and incorporate our Parent, we repress those desires that are forbidden (try)
The Adult state is a balancing act, in which we must integrate our childlike desires
With the rules of the Father/Mother (Parent)
I’m OK, You’re OK is the ideal IMO
Acceptance of Self and Other
HI Michael, I agree if it was random then. But the choice is always the selfish one. That seems slanted.
“But the choice is always the selfish one.”
Hi Ida,
I’m not sure if I understand exactly, but desire is almost by definition selfish
As humans we have basic needs that need to be satisfied (physical and emotional)
If these needs are not satisfied in childhood, the adult often acts like a neurotic child
In Judaism, a child is not considered immoral until he reaches a level of maturity
To reach that level of maturity, parents need to act like adults and teach kids to share
In my view, even when I do something “good” it can be considered “selfish”
Because at times I tend to do it, or say it, even when others would prefer that I didn’t
Michael, I did not try to make it very complicated. My remark was just that it seems like an anomaly if we are born with sweet natures, that children continuously throw temper tantrums when they cannot get what they want. If the opposite was true, you’d get at least one child who will say, ‘Sure Mommy, I’d love to share my toy” or “I’d love to eat all my peas because you told me to.” Their nature seems to slant to the disobedient rather than the obedient. That is why we have to train them to be obedient.
“it seems like an anomaly if we are born with sweet natures”
Hi Ida,
I understand, my point was that IMO we are most definitely not “born with sweet natures”
In psychoanalytic theory, the term Oedipus complex denotes the emotions and ideas that the mind keeps in the unconscious, via dynamic repression, that concentrate upon a child’s desire to sexually possess his/her mother, and kill his/her father.
At the link below there is a good explanation of the Oedipal complex and a great painting by Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres
Oedipus describes the riddle of the Sphinx, by Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres, (ca. 1805).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex
One of the first words a child learns (besides “McDonald’s”) is “mine.” Selfish little Suzie and selfish little Stevie, both desiring what someone else might have and craving it all for self. When we are young and immature- it’s all about “me.” Then slowly, surely, (hopefully), we learn ths world, the world God made has other’s just like us living in it. But we still want what “they” have, a bigger house, a nicer yard, a prettier wife, a job which might pay more so I can buy more at the Buy More store, so I can have more because after all “he who dies with the most toys wins”- (yeah, I’ve seen the bumper sticker..)
So we live our (seemingly) futile lives always wanting, always craving, always seeking “more.” I have absolutely no problem with this! But listen to what I am saying.. (one question..) – “More what?” Something might be missing here, and that “something” is SomeOne, the LORD Jesus who is the Christ- everything else.. (everything) is premature “junk.” Moth and rust will corrupt, (even the Lambo parked in my four car garage)- having this car makes me a better Christian- right? If Yeshua were here with us (in the flesh) today- He would be driving one of these “hot” cars..- right? (or wrong). We (now) have the mind of Christ- we should know..
We (who are His) have been given a gift far superior to anything “this world” has to offer. We are not trying to see where we fit it- it is impossible for a twice-born person to feel at home in a once-born deaf, dumb and blind world- the world that exists for “self” and “self” only. Their “mantra”- “it’s all about me..” (some have never outgrown this!). Ours? – It’s all about Him and all for the glory of God! Friends, “to God be the glory- great things He has done!”
Are you (I’m askin’) a “self-made” man? And what do you have that has not been given unto you? Be careful how you answer..- remember one Nebuchadnezzar who spent seven years eating grass in the fields..- He found out the hard way- “It is He who has made us and not we ourselves”.. Hmm.. seems I’ve read this in a Book somewhere.. ~ it is He who has made us and NOT we ourselves.. – shouldn’t we give credit to Whom credit is due? Have we failed (epically and universally) to “give unto our LORD the glory due His Name?” This is one of those sins of “omission” we hear so much about.. We do not thank Him near enough..
There is no doubt we enter into this corrupt world, a world that once was perfect, as newborn innocent babes, but that was then- and this is now. Is sin inherent or learned? Either way this fact remains: “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Only one Man is exempt and this “all” includes Moses, David, Abraham, Peter, Paul and Mary and certainly Carl. This world is fallen and needs redemption- and will be completely renewed and restored when He comes again. The earth will be purified (this time by fire) and a New Jerusalem will be established forever on this green planet by Heaven’s King. We are in this world, but we are not of it, and we who are His are on the very same mission as our Master: “to seek and to save that which was lost.”
I have a serious craving for more.. but more what? No. More Who?
More about Jesus would I know,
More of His grace to others show;
More of His saving fulness see,
More of His love who died for me.
More, more about Jesus,
More, more about Jesus;
More of His saving fulness see,
More of His love who died for me.
More about Jesus let me learn,
More of His holy will discern;
Spirit of God my Teacher be,
Showing the things of Christ to me.
More about Jesus; in His Word,
Holding communion with my LORD;
Hearing His voice in every line,
Making each faithful saying mine.
More about Jesus; on His throne,
Riches in glory all His own;
More of His kingdom’s sure increase;
More of His coming, Prince of Peace.
More, more about Jesus,
More, more about Jesus;
More of His saving fulness see,
More of His love who died for me.
When we realize sin is knocking, ask Him.. “Jesus, would you answer the door for me?” His protection is part of His Providence..
A consideration,
It would seem that there’s a common tendency to regard the concept of the yetzer ha’ra as “inherently” evil, as opposed to the view of the yetzer ha’tov as “good” (not evil). I would like to offer the consideration that even this is a “greek” tendency of thought.
If interpreted as a desire to attain for oneself (ha’ra) as opposed to attaining for others (ha’tov), it would seem quite natural to percieve a “slant” towards the ha’ra in young children. It would be a matter of neccecesity for a new born to “need” nourishment and comfort, so the “selfish” nature is not only neccesary, it’s dominant for survival, however if left unattended it will often (most often?) translate into other areas of the child’s life where we see it manifested in issues such as sharing with others and selfishness in general. I would also suggest that those “attitudes” are largely due to parental neglect instead of inherited “sinful nature.” It’s not so funny how I often refuse the evidence that’s right in front of me for my own skin’s sake.Instead of seeing my own shortcomings and faults in the raising of my children, I find it much easier to brush it off as the “ole sinful nature”, so I couldn’t really do much about it anyway. I’m OK, your not OK, but I’m OK with that!! 🙂 🙁 🙁
What that doesn’t mean is that the “good” nature doesn’t exist, it just hasn’t had the opportunity to develop as speedily at the earliest stages of life. I would suggest that they are BOTH in the “infant” stages of development and they BOTH need to be nurtured by the parents. (train up a child in the way…)
There’s a lot more to this issue than first meets the eye. We, as God’s representatives, need to seriously and with all diligence look into this doctrine of the inherited sinful nature and see where it’s out of alignment with God and what He wills to accomplish in our lives and communities. I personally can’t think of a single area in my relationships or life that I havn’t had to redirect my thinking and or attitudes in one way or another in regards to this issue.
YHWH bless you and keep you…..
Hi Robert,
I find the following explanation very illuminating, but I’ve always thought of perfectionism
As a kind of psychological problem that leads to non-acceptance of others
Unless it is some kind of mystical state of mind
In Judaism, yetzer hara (Hebrew: יצר הרע for the definite “the evil inclination”), or yetzer ra (Hebrew: יצר רע for the indefinite “an evil inclination”) refers to the inclination to do evil, by violating the will of God. The term is drawn from the phrase “the imagination of the heart of man [is] evil” (Hebrew: יֵצֶר לֵב הָאָדָם רַע,yetzer lev-ha-adam ra), which occurs twice in the Hebrew Bible, at Genesis 6:5 and 8:21.
The yetzer hara is not a demonic force, but rather man’s misuse of things the physical body needs to survive. Thus, the need for food becomes gluttony due to the yetzer hara. The need for procreation becomes sexual abuse, and so on. The idea that humans are born with a yetzer ra (physical needs that can become “evil”), but that humans don’t acquire a yetzer tov (“a good inclination”) until an age of maturity—12 for girls and 13 for boys—has its source in Chapter 16 of the Talmudic tractate Avot de-Rabbi Natan.
Traditionally, a person’s indulgence of either the good or evil impulse is seen as a matter of free choice. For example, Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, wrote in Derech Hashem (“The Way of God”) that “Man is the creature created for the purpose of being drawn close to God. He is placed between perfection and deficiency, with the power to earn perfection. Man must earn this perfection, however, through his own free will…Man’s inclinations are therefore balanced between good (Yetzer HaTov) and evil (Yetzer HaRa), and he is not compelled toward either of them. He has the power of choice and is able to choose either side knowingly and willingly…”[1]
Hi Michael,
I agree with your assesment of perfection somewhat, simply because the striving toward perfection tends to leave others out of the equation due to lack of control.
If you’ll note, the word “yetzer” has, as it’s main thrust, the connotation of “molding’ or “casting” of something. In other words, if we translate the word as “inclination” it would be that man (as noted in the verses above) had this inclination, not because of a natural state, but rather it was imposed by a pressure alien to the makeup of himself.
It’s an interesting observation by Paul that, “where there is no law there is no sin, yet death reigned from Adam to Moses.” Men die by many causes and they’re all related to sin. Does a child die because of his own sin, or because of the sin of those around it? If a man is entwined in the evil buisness of drugs and a “deal” goes bad, when his family is murdered, including his infant child, who’s sin caused that death?
Sorry, Michael, but when you get into the idea that “Man must earn this perfection…,” you are treading in dangerous waters. The belief that we have to earn our salvation is what drives Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses to our doors; that seems to be to be a pretty obvious theological error.
The whole idea of the pursuit of holiness (and the book by Jerry Bridges of that name is excellent)
is that holiness is at the same time something each of us must strive for and yet something only God can give us. This paradoxical thinking, which may seem illogical to some, is at the very heart of
the Jewish perception of the world.
And as a side note, I don’t believe the “I’m okay; you’re okay” paradigm is at all Biblically sound.
It is very clear in the Bible that there are some people, many people, who are not at all okay.
We are told to love the sinner and hate the sin, and this is right, but some people so wholeheartely embrace their sin that it seems they almost totally become it. Do I engage in hate behavior against these people? Of course not! But neither do I pretend that what they advocate or indulge in is okay; that would be getting close to walking with them. Sin is definitely not okay.
Hi Emily,
Please see my responses below
Emily: Sorry, Michael, but when you get into the idea that “Man must earn this perfection…,” you are treading in dangerous waters.
Michael: Nobody has accused me of walking on water lately, but thanks for the compliment 🙂
Michael: “Man must earn this perfection” is not how I tend to think about things, but I was drawn toward the notion that improving ourselves is a job (pain) and virtue (pay) is the reward
Emily: The belief that we have to earn our salvation is what drives Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses to our doors
Michael: I don’t think perfection and salvation are the same thing; we perfect ourselves (with help) but salvation comes from God
Emily: And as a side note, I don’t believe the “I’m okay; you’re okay” paradigm is at all Biblically sound.
Michael: “Okay” is a state of mind, not an action; and Jesus taught us to love our enemies, who presumably want to do bad things to us (acceptance of Self and Other)
Michael: Definitely sin is not okay, but Jesus did not teach us to sin or to terminate enemies 🙂
Emily Dickinson
The soul selects her own society,
Then shuts the door;
On her divine majority
Obtrude no more.
Unmoved, she notes the chariot’s pausing
At her low gate;
Unmoved, an emperor is kneeling
Upon her mat.
I’ve known her from an ample nation
Choose one;
Then close the valves of her attention
Like stone.
Hi Emily, I just read your comment to Michael and I hope it is ok that I insert a penny thought here. God gave us His holiness when He gave us His Word. His Word was first spoken to us, then etched in stone, then made to walk the earth in flesh. That powerful Word is first in our hearts through believing that He IS, then walked out in our deeds in obedience to what He has expressed is good; that’s kinda how I understand it these days. Additionally, that walking it out without understanding oftentimes changes our hearts. It is a double edged sword. Bless you on this Yom Kippur.
A serious word of warning, today (I have not read all comments, b.t.w.).
Skip, the fact you call the view of the rabbis the ‘Jewish’ view should waken you up. It is exactly that. By exepting this view as more or less the truth, it seems to me you forget that they are the blind, leading the blind (Matt.15:13,14). It is for that reason one should always be very carefull accepting their view as right. They are not right just because they are Jewish. They might be right, but on the other hand could very easily be wrong! I think that’s the case in this TW – correct me if I’m wrong.
The way sin enters human life is explained by Paul in Romans 5:12: “wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned”.
It is very, very clear that the way we become sinners is NOT by our acts AT ALL, nomatter when. It’s not before birth, at birth, at conception or whenever. We are sinners for only one single reason: because we are mortal, no more and no less. The English meaning of “for that” is not very clear to me, but the Greek is! It says: “eph hoi”, which means “on which”. This means theology has put eveything upside down, because death is not a result of sin in our lives (as it was for Adam), but sin is the result of death! It is BECAUSE we are mortal, we miss the mark. Because we are dying from the moment of conception, we cannot but lose Gods purpose, which is: LIFE. And because we miss His mark, we cannot but act sinfull.
Do not trust the rabbis because they are Jewish, only trust them when they think Hebrew, that is, according to Scriptures.
Not so fast, please. I would refer you to footnote 48 on page 230 of Leon Morris’ The Epistle to the Romans. Morris notes that epi ho is the center of much scholarly controversy. He provides SEVEN different translations of this odd phrase (all of which are legitimate). Your suggestion is only one of these seven, perhaps an obvious one to you, but you will have to show that BDF, Turner, Danker, Stauffer and others are not correct.
As for Jewish vs. Hebrew, it is true that many Jewish ideas these days show signs of Hellenism and other developments but that doesn’t make all Jewish thinking incorrect. Paul himself was a JEWISH rabbi, and I take it that we think his arguments are correct. I try to stick with those Jewish points that support Hebraic thought. BTW, we could certainly apply “the blind leading the blind” to quite a few Christian apologists too.
OK, you’re definitly the best thinker of us. But … choice is not the same as yetzer. That’s – at least as far as I can see – an inclination. And although there definitely is a choise in Eden, that does not imply the inclination to ha-ra was there already. Just as there is no sin without law, I can see no inclination towards evil being able to exist without at least the first experience of evil. Before the first sin, the only difference between good and evil for Adam was of hearsay: “You shall not eat…”
At his part there was neither good nor bad (experience). All that started with the eating of the forbidden fruit. So even if yetzer ha-ra did exist, it would have no meaning at all for Adam. As I understand it.
Oups, this belongs to your second reply!
Please review my comments on Maimonides distinction between “true” and “good” as it pertains to this issue. What God commands is true. What Adam understands is the difference between what is true and what is false. Without this, the commandment has no meaning. But what is present in the commandment is the prohibition concerning the EXPERIENCE of disobedience. Adam’s sin does not ADD evil to the equation. It simply makes Adam the arbiter of what is “good.” In other words, it places Adam between God and “good.” The possibility of choosing this experiential knowledge MUST exist prior to its execution. Otherwise the execution cannot come into being. This entails that Adam as created by God, prior to disobedience, has the potential to disobey. Therefore, the yetzer ha’ra is a constituent element of being human. But the yetzer ha’ra IS NOT EVIL. It is simply the potential to chose my way over God’s way. Evil is the RESULT of the choice, not the prior existence of some force of nature. The translation “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” disguises this distinction and leads to the unwarranted conclusion that evil is somehow generated in the tree, not the choice.
Where can I find your comments on Maimonides distinction?
I understand your point on this. OK, so the yetzer ha’ra did exist prior to the first sin. And I understand it’s not evil in itself. It helps me to remind myself it’s just an inclination.
But is there a real choice, if the experience is completely absent? How can God forbid what is yet unknown to Adam? The warning doesn’t help: You shall die – but what is that to one who has never experienced it? Either way I see God as fully responsible for all that happened in the Garden of Delight. And yet, in some strange way, we all know that it is us, who are guilty before Him, and there’s no way of escaping His judgment outside the way He shows us: through faith.
If you go back in the Today’s Word archives, you will find editions on all of these points, even on the idea of death before there is any death. Just search the web site for the appropriate verses or for Maimonides.
OH, one more thing. You might want to ask why God put that tree in the Garden if it is the source of evil. Doesn’t the text say that God made the Garden of delight? How can we explain God putting such a tree in the Garden of His delight if the tree IS EVIL?
No, I don’t believe the tree is evil. Man’s choice brings evil. And for God, well, who am I to judge His creation. With Job I say: I repent, put my hand before my mouth. It’s better to be silent than to be the judge of God, being just a silly small creature, a spick of dust….
I admit: there are many POSSIBLE translations. And yes, there are at least as many blind christian theologians as there are Jewish rabbis. I tried to express my concern about the last group. As you can read I admit they can be either right or wrong. I did not say they are always wrong. But I am absolutely certain they are not always right, just because they are Jewish.
As for the translations: the ‘hoi’ can only point back to the last part of the sentence as a whole or to thanatos as a male word. Either way it point back to death. As far as ‘eph’ is concerned, to me the meaning is quite clear, reading the sentences, the context. I don’t know what motivates all these different translations (theology?). I’d like to know their arguments, though!
Paul goes on to explain that even though his children did not sin the same way as Adam did (they could not even eat the forbidden fruit if they wanted to), they still are going to die. Isn’t it obvious that there is no escape? And that, since there’se no escape from death, there is also no escape from sinning? As far as I can see in this TW you let the Talmud teacher say that sin a choice for us. But for me it’s clear: we don’t have such a choice at all: we are sinners, even before we are born. Not because we inherit sin, but because we inherit death. My point is that I sin is not the same as sinful ACTS. Sin is a state, not an action – which it only (inevitably) becomes afterwards. Yes, we have a choice whenever we start acting. But no, I can see no choice when it comes to escaping sin as the result of death.
So I disagree with the christian thought of inherited sin, but also with the Jewish thought of sin waiting for us to be born and than jumping at us. I can die in the womb. That means: sin (death) is already there. See my point?
B.t.w.: I don’t agree that Paul was a Jewish RABBI. He might have been, but never makes mention of his ordination. That would make him stand in line with his teacher Gamli’el. No doubt he had the education and could teach us much of what is true in Talmud. But he chose the way of Yeshua – no, was chosen by Him – to be His apostle for the nations. That’s what he defends: that he is His apostle. That’s what he did not receive of any man. And that’s the reason I would never call him a Rabbi (sorry to disagree).
Please follow up with the footnote from Morris on the various Greek scholars’ views.
As for Paul as a rabbi, he makes the explicit claim that he is a Pharisee of the Pharisees. It’s hard to understand that claim without including the status of rabbi. Even Yeshua is called a rabbi.
Finally, your argument that death is the cause of sin is the equivalent of the claim that taxes are the cause of government. Seems entirely backwards to me.
I will. Thanks for your patience with me!
‘Finally, your argument that death is the cause of sin is the equivalent of the claim that taxes are the cause of government. Seems entirely backwards to me.’
No it’s not! Tell me, why is it possible for an unborn child to die in the womb? Did it sin? No. Where does it’s mortality come from?
It’s caused by Adams sin, yes. But Paul goes on to explain that this mortality is the cause for all next generations to sin, miss the mark. Do you agree that mankind was created to LIVE in communion with God? And isn’t that exactly what we miss? Again, we are sinners, NOT because we commit evil acts, but because we miss the mark entirely. So, the RESULT of mortality is that we sin.
It is because we are living apart from God, we are committing all evil there is in the world.
Tell me please, why does this seem backward to you? Because you never thought of it this way? Please consider it, before rejecting. The comparison isn’t the right one! Once there’s a government, it can’t live without taxes. So LOOKING BACK, yes, taxes are the cause of government. Where would it be without? That’s exactly what I’m saying: for Adam sin resulted in death. But his posterity never sinned like him, yet all had to die. As a result of which all sinned. Why is that difficult to accept? And because it is so simple, I’m not burdened with all kinds of theologies necessary to explain the existence of sin.
It is God who bound sin and death together. He removed the tree of life, so sin would never exist together with eternal life.
When sin is gone, the trees of life will return on earth, in the New Jerusalem. That’s what I’m looking forward to.
Kees, Hi I just gotta jump in.
“And isn’t that exactly what we miss? Again, we are sinners, NOT because we commit evil acts, but because we miss the mark entirely. So, the RESULT of mortality is that we sin.”
I’ve heard the argument for inherent sinful nature put thus: Adam sinned. He thereby became a sinner. And like the horse and the elephant bring forth after there kind, i.e. horses and elephants, Adam brought forth after his kind i.e. sinners. Makes a kind of sense.
But I understand what Skip is saying and for the first time I think I get it! “Therefore, just as through ONE MAN sin entered into THE WORLD, and death through sin”, and I think you do too, almost. “we are sinners, even before we are born (not). Not because we inherit sin, but because we inherit death.”
That is it in a nut shell! Adam sinned as a result he became mortal. That is how babies can die in the womb, sinless. While they have not inherited sin from Adam, they HAVE inherited mortality.
There is proof! 1st. Jesus died i.e. He was a lamb without spot or blemish. No inherited sinfulness here or He could not have qualified as the Passover sacrifice. 2nd. Since He was accepted as being without sin, and death comes by sin He could not have died…unless He like every human being inherited mortality. That makes so much sense I wonder that never thought of it before.
“Suppose there is one innocent person born who never sins. Then that person would never die. But, in Adam, all die.” Dorothy, all die because all are mortal having inherited it from Adam. All sin because sin lies at the door and they make the choice. At what age is that accounted as sin I don’t know. But if perfect sinless adults with full knowledge and fully functioning cognition could be seduced anybody could be, and all have been. That still makes sin a choice, and the only way we could be held accountable for it. If anyone had no choice then God would be a monster to condemn them for what they could not prevent.
I was once approached by a couple of men at a church I once attended who asked me a astounding question. “Did I really believe that Jesus was without Sin?” Meaning that they thought differently. When I disagreed, they, with a very superior attitude asked whether baby Jesus ever soiled His diaper? Equating a baby responding a biological imperative to sin. While I was struck dumb by such ignorance, they sauntered off confident that they had made their point, not realizing that they had just proven that they were among the greatest fools to walk the Earth. Most asses, if not silent, are mute, without speech. None are as stupid as those two men.
Does it take supernatural help to drive sin from the door? You bet it does! And forgiveness while we babes in Christ learn the skills of life, which sometimes means learning how to control messy basic urges. Thank God we have a Father who picks us up when we fall, and forgives us for repented mistakes that we hate, while we learn how to be the sons and daughters of God.
To add another thought: I think yetzer ha’ra is the result of our mortality. Did it exist in Gan Eden? Only from the moment the serpent did it’s venomous job. Before that there was no space for any other thought than Gods will, was there? That’s a question for the filosopher among us ….. 😉
I see no support for the argument that the yetzer ha’ra only came into existence AFTER the sin of Adam. Think about it. If Adam is incapable of exercising choice against the instructions of God before the serpent, then how is it that he sins? The logic doesn’t work. If it is not possible to sin prior to the serpent, then what sense does the commandment make?
Lots of food for thought, which is why I love this site. I suspected there would be a firestorm of comments after this post..
Just a note of caution, though; I don’t believe that we can understand what God is telling us through logic. That is not to say that God or the Bible is illogical, but that paradoxes are not usually understood through logical thought processes. Some always remain mysteries and must be accepted on faith. Others may be understood, at least partly, but I think the understanding in each of those cases comes from an epiphany – an insight out of the normal realm of thinking.
Should we first identify what sin is, in order to identify those who subsequently are sinners as a result? A result of what, i know is the cause for argument here, but If sin is described as the transgression of the Law, can we be safe in assuming there is an action required on the part of the individual that makes them a sinner? If God is the Giver of life and death, why would He whimsically condemn such innocence to die before being confronted with the “option” to sin? I once heard a “prophecy” teacher mention that as hard as it may be to fathom, babies who die before accepting Christ, go to hell. From what I can glean from my paltry study is that people are accountable for their actions only after they are aware of their options. Accountability. Otherwise, we pretty much give ourselves permission to commit sin through willful ignorance. My perpetual sin(which is not ok) is the result of my choice to love myself more than God or others. If I am born that way, then my excuse is “I couldn’t help myself”! Then I can blame God, or others for things not going right. Sort of an entitlement mentality we’ve created isn’t it! I wonder if that is why so much of today’s preaching is centered on sensationalism rather than teaching us how to Biblically worship our LORD and live righteously with one another.
Mary, you are certainly on the right track. Where there is no accountability for my individual choices, there is no sin. That’s pretty much the teaching of the prophets. Luther and Augustine introduced Platonic perfection into Christian thought, and as one result we have a doctrine that tell us God condemns us for simply BEING, not doing anything at all. That doesn’t sound like the God of Scripture to me.
I am encouraged to know that our Messiah told us that those that hunger and thirst after RIGHTEOUSNESS will be filled. THAT RIGHTEOUSNESS seems to be obedience to the Word that must be performed, worked out, if you will, in order to be nourished to maturity.
If only we could get a grip on the power of the Word to renew our minds, and as our hearts yield to obedience and we purposefully are conformed to the image of Christ (living the life), what a different scenario we would see around us. Our strongholds, our mindsets that are shaped by cultural standards and expectations seem to be bringing us down. Something seems to be missing I don’t see much power in the narrowly focused new covenant teachings that have left us so anemic, only a supernatural transfusion seems to be the answer. I think God is using you as a feeding tube, Skip. Thanks so much!