Sin and Heredity
“For I, YHWH your Elohim, am a jealous God, visiting the guilt of wicked fathers upon their rebellious children . . . if the children continue to sin like their fathers.” Exodus 20:5 in the Babylonian Targum
Rebellious – Obviously, you won’t find the translation above in any English Bible. In fact, you won’t find it in the standard Hebrew text either, but you will find it in the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew text known as the Targum. Why should we pay any attention to this variation? Because the Targum helps us understand what the rabbis thought the original text meant, and as you can see, they thought the original text meant that God visited wrath upon rebellious children who continued to sin. Why did they think this? Because they believed that God was just and it wasn’t just to punish the innocent for the guilty. They would have reminded readers of Jeremiah’s passage where God says that every man is held accountable for his own sin. Therefore, they reasoned that this passage in Exodus (and the parallel in Deuteronomy) cannot mean that God simply takes vengeance on any child of wicked parents. The ambiguity found in the original text is spelled out by restricting God’s reprisals to only those offspring who continue to sin. They deserve what they get.
Behind the thinking of the rabbis is a deeper theological position. Judaism has no place for a doctrine of inherited sin. Judaism does not embrace the Augustinian-Lutheran concept of sinful nature. Innocent children are innocent, not guilty by birth. Justice is not served by visiting wrath upon those who made no disobedient choices. Judaism rejects the idea of the “federal headship of Adam” and its implication that all men are born sinful. Judaism finds the imputation of sin unconscionable. So do most people with compassionate hearts. In Hebraic thinking, we get what we deserve, not what we inherit. The implications for our understanding of the nature of Man and the nature of sin that result from this shift are powerful. You can see just a glimpse of these implications in the Targum translation. In Hebrew thought, people make choices between the yetzer ha’ra and the yetzer ha’tov and the consequences in their lives are the direct result of these choices. Even the son of Manasseh can decide to act righteously and please God.
This stance does not suggest a “works righteousness” as is commonly assumed. The entire sacrificial system is an acknowledgment that everyone needs grace because, as rabbi Sha’ul notes, “all have sinned.” But the need for grace comes about because of our choices, not because of our parent’s sexual activity. When Christian theology reads passages as if they support the idea of inherited sinful nature, a constitutional element of being human that actually causes me to sin, it does so by ignoring and reinterpreting thousands of years of Jewish exegesis. It’s worth asking why this is the case. The short answer is that this doctrine of Christian thinking comes to us from Plato through Augustine. It is the accommodation of the text to a preconceived view of the world as essentially evil and corrupt. It is the direct result of a false dualism that sees material existence as inherently sinful and spiritual existence as inherently good. That idea doesn’t come from Scripture. It comes from Plato’s Republic. And it makes a mockery of any expectation that God requires us to abide by His standard, since obviously, if I am born corrupt and incapable of acting in any way except sinfully (because I am embodied in the material world), then it is God, not me, who is ultimately responsible for my depraved condition. I can rightfully blame Him for my despicable state and call Him unjust because He truly does visit the iniquity of the fathers (Adam) on all the children.
No, this is a doctrine that we will have to reject (as painful as that might be to our heritage). God is just. God is merciful. God loves His creation. God expects us to be able to live according to His instructions. And God treats no man unfairly.
Topical Index: sinful nature, Exodus 20:5, Babylonian Targum
I disagre with your thinking on this one.
You do not have to teach a child to sin, it comes naturally, you do have to teach them to make good choices. “If all have sinned”, then exactly when did we start sinning. This is inherited from ADAM. I do agree that a child can break the “chain” with choices, he does not have to continue in the sinful nature of his father.
Freeman
ps. does yetser ha’va and yetser ha’tov mean “man” and “woman”?
“Judaism rejects the idea of the “federal headship of Adam” and its implication that all men are born sinful. Judaism finds the imputation of sin unconscionable. So do most people with compassionate hearts. ”
Judaism not only rejects the federal headship of Adam, it also rejects the federal headship of the Messiah, because it rejects the New Testament. That’s why many of us call ourselves followers of Christ, not followers of Judaism. Which writing of Plato do you think contains the following idea of Rabbi Sha’ul?
Rom 5: 17 For if, because of the offence of one man, death ruled through that one man; how much more will those receiving the overflowing grace, that is, the gift of being considered righteous, rule in life through the one man Yeshua the Messiah! 18 In other words, just as it was through one offence that all people came under condemnation, so also it is through one righteous act that all people come to be considered righteous. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man, many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the other man, many will be made righteous.
This was my first question also Ian. Yeshua rejected and corrected the Judaism of his day. How then do we interpret the Romans passage Skip?
Your statement and conclusion are too broad. Yeshua did not reject and correct the Judaism of his day. He had a intramural fight with some factions of certain schools within Judaism, but to suggest that he rejected Judaism is an error. Everything he did upheld Torah, endorsed Torah and proclaimed Torah. Would you call that “rejecting Judaism”? I suspect that what you have in mind is contemporary Judaism, not the Judaism of the orthodox Pharisees in the first century (or actually the orthodoxy of those prior to the Hellenization of the third century BC). Christian exegesis commonly lumps all Jewish believers into a single category, the category of those Yeshua opposed, and supposes all Jews thought the same. This is, of course, not even historically accurate and it certainly doesn’t account of the following he had even during his lifetime.
Once again, if we are going to understand the passage as the original audience understood it, we must place it in context. The context is a mixed multitude of the followers of YHWH who have experienced a miraculous exodus, whose language thought patterns have been shaped by 200+ years of Egyptian captivity, whose acquaintance with YHWH has been severely damaged but who maintain certain ritual actions that have a very old tradition, whose leader is a prophet, and whose frame of reference is the ancient near-Eastern view of the fickle nature of the gods.
As for the Romans passage, try to create the same sitz-in-leben. Sha’ul is an orthodox Pharisee, a student of the Torah, a Jew, a Messianic believer, a follower of both the oral and written Torah. His audience is a mixed ethnic group within a synagogue, debating the position of Torah for Gentile converts, following synagogue protocol, believers in the Jewish Messiah, understanding the meanings of the words from a Hebrew, rather than Greek, perspective.
Irregardless of the ‘source’, let us just say- ‘sin happens.’ Did I inherit, through my genes, the desire to do wrong? For to do wrong is sin. Also, to not do right is sin. Sins of omission, (not doing the right thing- obeying G-d) sins of commission- doing things that are outside of the will of G-d, adultery, fornication, etc..- this also is sin.
Now, concerning inherited sin and the human race (Adam). We are either “in the first Adam” or “in Christ,” the second Adam (and only Perfect Man who ever lived). There are the two types of people in this world,- not Hebrew or Greek or male or female. We are either “in Christ” or we are not. “in Christ” (location, location,location) we are saved and set free. Outside of Christ, – those who do not belong to Him- regardless of race or gender are lost.
Do we need to teach a child to do wrong? To be selfish and “self-centered?” Anything that centers on “self” is eccentric or off-center and out of balance, for Christ is the center. Dead center. He is the Bulls-eye of righteousness or right-relatedness.
One of the first words our children ever learn (is sin a learned behavior?) besides “McDonald’s” is “MINE”. Little Johnny- share your toys with Suzy. NO- I don’t want to!!. Did someone just “disobey” the directive of their parental unit? Was this disobedience sin? A “spark” of rebelliousness? Where did this behavior come from? Maybe little Johnny, little Suzy, needs an “attitude adjustment?” (train up a child)
We all need an “attitude adjustment” for all have sinned. Friends and neighbors- the law has firmly established our need for a Savior. He has said, (are we listening?) and will we “shema?”- “without me (outside of Me) you (Carl, Johnny, Suzy..) can do nothing.” Do I need a Savior? – most assuredly- I do.
O wretched man that I am!! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Who said this? One of the most religious, ‘degreed’ (as in educated) man who ever walked this planet- Rabbi Sha’ul. He was born a royal blue-blood as far as Judaism is concerned. He was of the tribe of Benjamin and a Pharisee of the Pharisees. What a pedigree this man had. Yet what did He say, according to his own words? He gave this testimony- this witness: – “all these things (what things?- His status, his standing in this world, his position, his power, his pedigree- “all these things” I count as refuse/garbage/dung save for the revelation of Christ, my Savior. Did Paul have a moment where he did not remember the Name of the LORD is Yeshua? (Salvation!). Who shall deliver me? – Well Paul..- whose very Name is “Salvation?” Jesus (Yeshua) Saves (Delivers!) pardon me- but (lol!)
Each of us contain the potential for great good or for great evil. “There, but for the grace of G-d go I” is far more than just a saying or an easy quip. This,friends is an actual fact. It was Love that rescued me and brought me out of the miry clay and set my feet upon a Rock. – Who is the Rock and what is His name? Michael do you know? Jan? Skip? David?- Do we now, today, now that we are “grown” men and women, now that we are mature and are able to make decisions and choices- do we now gladly, freely, fully “choose Him” to be our Sovereign Savior and LORD? Our Boss, Master, Commander? Have we given our lives in total absolute surrender to Him? And does His Spirit (His Breath) now bear witness with our spirit (our breathings) that we belong to Him? – I am one of His. I belong to the Good Samaritan and the Good Shepherd, and I can testify, willingly, openly, gladly- G-d is good, all the time, and to everyone. Love lifted me.
We (all) need a good washing. A good scrubbing behind the ears. Ever our ears need to be “de-toxed.” Our minds have become polluted from the filth we fill them with. Our eyes have seen things we do not need to be looking at. Our minds are thinking thoughts that are not pleasing to our Elohim and Father. Does He know this? (Do I need to ask?) He does. And has He, through the blood of His cross made abundant provision for us to be (once again) clean in His sight?- He has. His Name? (in Hebrew, of course!)- “G-d Provides.”
G-d Provides, and G-d Protects. That’s what good fathers do. And (brothers and sisters) is G-d (our Father) good? (What a question!!) G-d is SO good. G-d also pardons. Forgiveness is found (plenteous forgiveness,plenteous righteousness,plenteous mercy) in Him. “For you, LORD, are good, and ready to forgive; abundant in loving kindness to all those who call on You.” – What do the scriptures say?- For whosoever (does this include the Greek?) shall call upon the Name of the LORD (Yeshua, thou Son of David have mercy upon me) shall be saved. Simply, sweetly, sublimely stated AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED. (Acts 2.21)
Is this too simple? Apparently, – it is. But, nevertheless- there it is. One of the thieves who was crucified next to Yeshua is today (in Paradise) very glad it is so simple.
Carl, all well said/typed & my question/comment is this: “Is this too simple? Apparently, – it is. But, nevertheless- there it is. *One of the thieves who was crucified next to Yeshua is today (in Paradise) very glad it is so simple.* AND THE OTHER THAT HAD THE VERY SAME CHOICE, AT THE SAME TIME, AT THE SAME MOMENT, AT THE SAME LOCATION MADE A VERY VERY DIFFERENT CHOICE WHICH DETERMINED HIS LOCATION OTHER THAN BEING IN PARADISE (WITH YESHUA HOPEFULLY)…
OUR CHOICES FROM MOMENT TO MOMENT ARE SO IMPORTANT – WE CHOOSE LIFE OR WE CHOOSE DEATH & OUR CHOICES MOMENT BY MOMENT MATTER – THEY WILL DETERMINE WHERE WE END UP IN THE END… ♥ jan
btw – when are our hearts are rending in two for the pain of choices we see our Beloveds making what do we do – how do we conquer the grief that makes us travail past our humanness into another realm??? sometimes it takes more than a day or two to breakthrough… but it does happen… ♥/
I agree that everybody must take responsibility for his own choices/deeds. However, those deeds have consequences for our innocent offspring. Pregnant mothers are advised to stop smoking drinking, taking drugs, etc. to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome and other birth defects.
Why did David’s adultery with Batsheba cause the death of the baby (II Sam. 12:13,14)? Fortunately, God’s mercy exceeds His wrath and Solomon is born. But then, when Solomon sinned the kingdom was torn when his son was king (I Kng. 11:4-12), similarly, with king Hezekiah (I Kng. 20). Is it because their sons were wicked?
Why are we commanded to confess the sins of our fathers (Lev. 26:40, Neh. 9:2)? Daniel realized that they were taken into captivity due to the accumulated sins of the people over the generations (Dan. 9:4-20).
God is just but what we see or experience doesn’t seem fair to us.
There’s another way of looking at this as well. It’s called learned behavior.
There’s a myriad of issues, ie; how we see people, handle problems, view relationships, etc.., that we handle a certain way because we learned them from our parents, who learned it from thier parents…….and on down the line it goes. We often don’t realise that how we handle those particular issues are out of alignment with what God requires us to do, we just “copy” what our parents did. That doesn’t relieve us of the natural, resultant consequences of those activities. God doesn’t say that He PLACES the iniquity on the children, but He VISITS it on the children.
God’s design reigns supreme in the earth. Whether you are a jew and know better or whether a gentile operating on heritage, if you go outside of the designed order you pay a price. Does this mean that they have inherited the “sin” of their fathers? Yes and no, not by nature (as an inherited nature) but it is the “portion” or legacy that was left to them. SIN entered the world through Adams activities, not the sin nature. It (sin) bears it effects on all men, because it was “let in the door”. If a lion is let in the room, it doen’t endanger only the man who let it in, everybody is at risk.
But, there’s an active here on God’s part. Why does He not only allow this (visiting sins), but actively promotes it! Kinda goes back to that great evangelical question, “how’s that workin’ out for ya”. Do you have peace, did your fathers have peace? What’s that definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting a different result!! God says, try it my way, the ancient way, the upright way, return and have Life and living.
Think about this one. Picture a long line of criminals that you approach, and one by one we ask each of them this question. Why do you do the things you do? They all reply the same, “well, actually I can’t help it, I guess I was made this way”. We would certainly be appalled, and if we responded that God doesn’t “make” people that way, do you suppose that they could say, “why not, He allowed you to have a sinful nature, what’s the difference?”
Do we want to join in with the blasphemies of the wicked!!? I don’t, I have before, but I didn’t know. I did damage to the name of the God who redeemed me. I don’t want to do that any more. The sin is removed by the blood of Yeshua, the consequences are another matter (they’re certainly not as bad as they could be!!) I have to recant to those I agreed with before, and share with them why the change. As God gives opportunity I do and with and in His grace, I will continue.
“and (vav, He nailed it) showing mercy to thousands, who love me” Mercy, what a big word. What a big God!!
Robert Lafoy,
I really enjoyed and appreciated your well written comments above.
Especially this, ” Does this mean that they have inherited the “sin” of their fathers? Yes and no, not by nature (as an inherited nature) but it is the “portion” or legacy that was left to them. SIN entered the world through Adams activities, not the sin nature. It (sin) bears it effects on all men, because it was “let in the door”. If a lion is let in the room, it doen’t endanger only the man who let it in, everybody is at risk.”
Well said! You have a firm grasp of the significance of our CHOICES/ACTIONS and their consequences. Thanks again for sharing.
rl, i like what you wrote/typed but the whole time i was reading it i was hearing TORAH TORAH TORAH…
generational curses handed down through families can be broken by TORAH & the HOLY SPIRIT (which JESUS PROVIDED WHEN HE WENT AWAY/LEFT US) – the tools in our tool belts that help us build sure foundations to live/love in/on – pillars of truth that hold up the building we build upon…
ALSO: “Do we want to join in with the blasphemies of the wicked!!? I don’t, I have before, but I didn’t know.” IS THE WORD *KNOW* SUPPOSED TO BE “NOW?”
LEARNED BEHAVIOR SUCKS 4 SURE – WE HAVE ALL BEEN THERE ALSO – AND IF WE ARE NOT IN TORAH & HAVE THE HELP OF THE HOLY SPIRIT WE WILL DO THE VERY THINGS WE SAW OUR PARENTS DO/DID – VOWING THAT WE WOULD NEVER EVER DO THEM BECAUSE THE CAUSED SO MUCH PAIN TO US. YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I LEARNED ABOUT THAT VOW MADE BECAUSE OF PAIN CAUSED BY PARENTS – IS THAT IF WE DON’T FORGIVE THEM WE BECOME JUST LIKE THEM – THE VERY THING WE HATED WE BECOME… USUALLY THAT IS WHEN WE ARE NOT EATING THE BREAD OF LIFE DAILY TO SUSTAIN US – THESE ARE ALL HARD LESSONS TO LEARN…
i am not sure what you mean by this “But, there’s an active here on God’s part. Why does He not only allow this (visiting sins), but actively promotes it!” HOW DOES HE ACTIVELY PROMOTE IT??? I HAVE NEVER KNOWN GOD TO ACTIVELY PROMOTE SIN UNLESS HE HAS HARDENED A FEW HEARTS FOR HIS OWN PURPOSE IN ORDER TO LET HIS PEOPLE GO/GET OUT OF EGYPT… PERHAPS IT IS PERCEPTION & THE WAY YOU SEE IT/PERCEIVE IT???
ALSO: “the consequences are another matter (they’re certainly not as bad as they could be!!) WELL THANK GOD FOR HIS MERCY THEN & DON’T BE SO FRIVOLOUS WITH IT… I have to recant to those I agreed with before, and share with them why the change. As God gives opportunity I do and with and in His grace, I will continue.” THANK YOU JESUS FOR A CHANGED HEART & HOLY SPIRIT & TORAH TO DRIVE THE TRUTH INWARD WHERE IT BELONGS & CAN MANIFEST TO OTHERS & FOR ETERNITY… ♥ jan
ALL FOR YOUR GLORY LORD JESUS… ♥/
Hi Jan, thx for your comments. I don’t want to cause confusion by what I’ve typed here, so I’ll see if I can clarify.
Firstly, when I stated that I didn’t KNOW, I meant that I didn’t know any better or know what was right (by YHWH’s standard) concerning His nature. I just took it for granted thhat the “doctrine” of INHERITED sin was correct. After all why else does a baby (or a lot of others) kick and scream when they don’t get their way? I wasn’t asking myself a lot of the right questions. Now that I DO know, I’m responsible for acting accordingly.
Concerning your second question, let’s start with the quote from God’s word. “For I YHWH ELOHINU am a jealous God, VISITING THE INIQUITIES (guilt) of the fathers upon the children…”
I understand that this is an uncomfortable verse for some, but it’s hard to get aroud the fact that it’s God Himself that is VISITING the sins upon the children. God isn’t PROMOTING sin, He’s allowing the repercussions of it to travel into the next generation. This is, as stated by God, HIS activity, not mans. That’s what I was refering to when I said that He promotes the VISITING of the sins. He makes sure it happens, that’s who He is.
Let’s go back to the garden, When God cursed THE GROUND, why did He do that? It tells us. “FOR YOUR SAKE”. The curse was put in the ground to “benefit” adam. Think of it this way. If your living in sin and all is going well, why change? To us that seems good, but God knows it will lead to our destruction. So He cursed the ground so that a man had to toil in trouble, with weeds, and sweat from his labors. How’s that goin’ for ya now adam? havin a little trouble there. Where’s your peace adam? (well it’s a bit hard to have peace with all these scratches and bug bites on me!) Turn around and look at me (says God to the man) and you’ll find peace in the midst. Yes, God IS active in these things. He promotes them and they’re by His own design. And they’re for our benefit, so we won’t have to die, but rather live.
Your right, it is TORAH, TORAH, TORAH. The guide for living. for man lives by EVERY WORD of God.
Sorry, I read the word Elohinu wrong. Elohonu is (our) God, it ends in a nun for activity. This form ends in a Kaf which is (YOUR) God. The God who COVERS, or allows (Kaf) you.
Skip, you wrote: ” …it does so by ignoring and reinterpreting thousands of years of Jewish exegesis.” Yes, and I will deny millions of years of Jewish exegesis IF they are not based on Torah, but upon tradition, the scholarly opinions of the sages of the Talmud or, least of all, a slight of hand translation of the Hebrew text in the Targum. Can’t the Rabbis in their writings be just as influenced by their religious preconceptions and misconceptions as Christian theologians?(and by extension-us) Both groups are fallible and malleable and need the Spirit of TRUTH to properly interpret the Scriptures. Spiritual Truth is always the product of spiritual revelation, not the byproduct of intellectual pursuit alone.
While I usually appreciate the Hebraic point of view and the nuisances of the language I am not, on this teaching alone, willing to throw my ‘Protestant’ baby out with the bath water, nor am I willing to add another (rabbinic) baby to the already dirty bath water of my theology!
Thank you Michael Stanley for taking this stand because in the Spirit of Truth – i think you are right…
jan
I acknowledge your point, but I would respond that the first principle of exegesis is to understand what the sentences would mean to the original audience. Since that audience was not Lutheran, Protestant, Catholic or any other version of Christian, we are obliged to ask what this would mean to a Jewish audience or at least to a combination of Gentile converts and Jewish believers. The first step in that analysis is to seek historical settings – and the rabbis are much closer to the audience than we are. So, as a matter of scholarly research, we need to incorporate what they said about the text and its concepts. Of course, there are Hellenistic influences in rabbinic thought, and these will have to be teased out, but even so rabbinic thinking establishes a CONTEXT that we need to understand. Yes, both rabbis and ministers may be wrong, but then ALL exegesis is ultimately human, isn’t it? Our task is to find as much of the roots and background as we can.
Skip, You say “Since the audience was not . . . or any other version of Christian . . .” Which audience are you referring to? The audience of your text, Ex. 20:5? Or do you have some other text in mind? It seems to me your description “combination of Gentile converts and Jewish believers” is referring to Gentiles and Jews who accepted Christ and that makes them followers of the Messiah (Christ) so it is not out of place to call them Messianic or Christian — unless we just wish to refuse to use the word “Christ”
The “federal headship of Adam” only makes sense when juxtaposed with “federal headship of Christ.” Why would those who reject Christ be a more reliable guide to the Romans text than those who accept and follow Christ?
Oops. Sorry. The audience of the Exodus passage would be a mixed multitude, as I mentioned in another comment. The audience of the Romans passage would be Gentile converts and Jews – all Messianic believers.
My mistake. I am trying to answer these comments from Mexico with limited access to the original Today’s Word. Just got mixed up. Sorry.
OH!!! Thank you so much for your statement Michael Stanley
sigh !
We do not inherit our parents sins. We do inherit the consequences of our parents sins and propensities toward their sins. Biological sciences, the new field of epigenetics, psychology, etc. all validate this.
Robin, great comment. It helps understand the 70 years captivity — to make up for failure to keep sabbath year for the past 490 years.
My first reaction was, Sam 15:2-3, “2 Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”” Were these children and infants innocent, as you say, and yet God wanted them dead, unjustly ?
What of, (Romans 9:10-13) “And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” 13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.””
Just some thoughts.
Free Will and Fallen Humanity – tough one to solve in just one day. Because of the imprinting process that takes place in children – there is something that is passed on. Epigenetic research suggests that environmental factors and personal choices have an multi-generational effect. Yet we are all responsible.
Hhmmm? I’ve always thought of the ‘pagan’ as being shaped by their environment, but the Christian shapes his/her environment. Or is that just a Christian form of self-actualization?
Gabe, the Christian (loyal yokefellows) do shape his/her environment with TORAH & HOLY SPIRIT – THE VERY TWO THAT JESUS LEFT US WITH WHEN HE WENT AWAY (TO PREPARE A PLACE FOR ALL US LOYAL YOKEFELLOWS)… jan
btw: imprinting – is that the very beginning for brain mapping???
What DOES the original text actually say? Isn’t that what should be studied and NOT “rabbis thought the original text meant?” Skip, you’ve said before that people are prone to making God fit into our human way of thinking. I am just uncomfortable with any commentary being added to scripture, whether the Jews did it or the Christians. What am I missing here?
Glory, does not the Word(s)/Scripture tell us not to take away or add too them??? but as i thought about it – a commentary is just that a comment on the original text (a comment on the TRUTH of the matter)…
jan
Gotta give us what we are hungry for: the word(s) of G-d. “What do the scriptures say?” should always be our standard. The word(s) of G-d are pure and are the plumb line of Amos. Does what this rabbi or that preacher “line up” with what G-d has to say? If so, then all is well. If not, it is destined for the rubbish heap. “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word(s) of G-d.”
We don’t need to “spin” this (one way or the other) we all (both Jew and Gentile) need to “stand” on this- “it is written” – “thus saith the LORD.”
Carl, it will always be “IT IS WRITTEN” for the scriptures – you know that – we are always supposed to “test the spirits” more often than we do up against scripture – if we tested the spirits we would not expose ourselves to so much uncleanness & defilement.
you know i get so tired of people that are ignorant of Jesus & His works on this earth – that he ran around with sinners & he ate with prostitutes & tax gathers – HE just like that whole rowdy bunch & so should we & there is nothing wrong with us hanging with all these unholy people – well i disagree; Jesus came to the sinners, the prostitutes, the tax gathers BUT HE DID NOT HANG OUT WITH THEM – HE OFFERED THEM LIFE, GAVE THEM DELIVERANCE IF THEY WANTED IT (AND SOME DIDN’T), HEALED THEM IF THEY WERE OBEDIENT TO WHAT HE TOLD THEM TO DO OR IF THEY HAD FAITH THAT HE COULD SENSE OR SEE IN THEM & THEN TOLD THEM TO GO & SIN NO MORE – HE DID NOT HANG OUT WITH THEM – THERE WAS PURPOSE IN HIS “MINGLING” NOT JUST HANGING OUT WITH CORRUPT PEOPLE – HE HAD TO GO AWAY & SHAKE ALL THAT PERVERSION OF SIN OFF OF HIM AT TIMES – TO BE ALONE TO BE FILLED AGAIN BY HIS FATHER – THIS WAS NO EASY JOB FOR JESUS (SWEATING DROPS OF BLOOD) DOING WHAT HE DID FOR US & WE TREAT HIS OBEDIENCE FAR TO LACKADAISICAL – ALMOST WITH CONTEMPT… jan
Thanks, Skip for this insight. Personnally, growing up learning Lutheran doctrine, this has given me “cause to pause” and consider how this upbringing has continued to have an effect on my perception of scripture; and contributed in part to my misunderstanding AND confusion on some things. Keeping the thought of REBELLIOUS CHILDREN WHO CONTINUE TO SIN; and understanding Hebraically in scripture SIN is TORAHLESSNESS, and REBELLIOUS pictographically is BITTER which leads one to disobey/go against, AND lastly keeping in mind yetzer ha’ra and yetzer ha’tov, all these together have helped me gain understanding and assurance that YHWH is “JUST/RIGHTEOUS” (tzadiq)meaning “straight” in his dealings with his people. I appreciate how ABBA is using you, via “Today’s Word”, to continue to help me grow in my relationship with him. Thank you for your faithfulness to him.
Yeshua would take different parts of combination passages and deliver it to his audience in a way that fit His kingdom agenda. Matthew for sure did not quote his text from the TaNaKh exactly either. Take a look at any of the Apostolic writers and you can see this pattern of taking passages from the TaNaKh and expressing it a certain way to communicate their particular purpose and aim.
We may not be comfortable with their way of using and applying the TaNaKh, but that is our problem….. or rather, our opportunity to appreciate their world of integrating the text into every aspect of their lives. Plus, this allowed the text to have an ongoing, revelant, and prophetic significance and impact to their daily walk.
This is not about twisting the TaNaKh to fit their agenda, but about living their lives out faithfully before God.
Yes, there were those who made void the commands of God by their tradition and fences… and those need to be addressed! Yet what Skip addressed above from this Aramaic Targum, needs to be appreciated and apprehended as much as possible, from a world of a particular Jewish understanding of the text. By applying wisdom to this undertaking, it will be hopefully leading us to a deeper understanding, and a greater witness to the Jewish world.
Thanks, Brian, for adding clarification. I have a lecture I deliver to my hermeneutics students that demonstrates at least 28 occasions in Matthew where the text is modified to fit Matthew’s agenda and, AT THE SAME TIME, Matthew claims the text to be “as it is written.” Of course, all the New Testament authors do the same thing, even Yeshua. The problem is our problem, as you point out. Under the influence of a “one right answer” Greek view, we think that any citation which is not EXACTLY what was previously written must be a forgery, but this is NOT the Jewish, first century view. No author of the NT doubted the authenticity of the Tanakh, but every author used the text to fit their own agendas, modifying it whenever necessary.
What this means is that if we are going to understand the text AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD by those who first heard it, we will have to loosen up our historico-traditico model (thank you, German higher criticism) and realize that the authors were much more fluid in the way they treated Scripture. They communicated MEANING, not information per se. So we have to enter into their worldview if we want to hear what it said to them. Only then can we move forward to ask what it means to us.
Romans 5:14, Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, EVEN OVER (emphasis mine) those whose sinning was not like the transgreession of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. Romans 5:14
Traditional Christian doctrine has frequently understood Adam’s sin to be generic (or genetic) and to “infect” all future generations with sinfulness: human beings sin because they are descended from Adam, and are genetically “sinful” in that his sinful nature was passed on also to them. This clause is the closest support in the text for this doctrine of “original sin,” since here Paul directly addreses the issue of those whose sins differ in nature from Adam’s. Since the passage remains within the sphere of a digression still, however, its “doctrinal” status should be very cautiously established.
This second paragraph is taken from chapter 5, page 206 and note 36 of “A Commentary On The Jewish Roots of Romans,” by Joseph Shulam with Hillary Lecornu.
Here’s the real issue. Do we want to understand this text (and others) as they would be understood by the original audience, or so we want to understand the text as the Church has understood it. These are NOT the same. The late Brevard Childs argued that the meaning of the text is canonical, that is, the text means what the Church says the text means. This is the position of those who claim the text reflects a doctrine of sinful nature. The idea of sinful nature does not exist in exegetical history prior to the Hellenized early church fathers. Since Judaism had the text of the Tanakh for centuries before Origen, Augustine and others, it is reasonable to ask, “If sinful nature is in fact an implicit doctrine of Scripture, why isn’t it found in any Jewish teaching?” The answer is simply. Sinful nature is a product of the Church, not Scripture.
Now, before you go crazy and claim that this can’t be true, try to answer the question about the lack of this doctrine in Judaism. If the Jews don’t have this view, then where did it come from? If you answer, “Paul,” then I would ask, “If Paul is an orthodox, Torah scholar and he based his theology on Torah, then how did he come up with such a doctrine when no other Pharisee of his time did?” Paul claims to be a Pharisee, observant and traditional. How can he then espouse a position that no one from his branch of Judaism even considered?
Hola Skip,
You wrote above, “Now, before you go crazy,” been there and done that and got the t-shirt, and I did not blame Adam. 🙂 I blamed my parents.
I know that you are very busy and I appreciate your comments. The comments above from this particular commentary starts out by saying, “Traditional Christian doctrine” and ends by, ‘Since the passage remains within the sphere of a digression still, however, its “doctrinal” status should be very cautiously established.’
I was trying to bring some balance to the conversation for those who were using this particular passage in Romans to make their defence on the doctrine of inherited sin. It seems to me if this is the only passage to give credence to this doctrine, then it is a good indication that we are reading it from a very slant Protestant perspective.
I should have written some comments of my own after this note of this commentary on Romans. Sorry for not being a little more clear on my intentions.
Your comment was very much appreciated. The issue is HISTORY. When we search the historical record for the origins of such a doctrine, we run right into two influences – Greek philosophy and Greek Hellenism in Jewish thinking between 200 and 100 BC. The dualism of Plato is at the root of this doctrine, elaborated, expanded and canonized by Augustine in the 4th Century CE. That’s why you don’t find it in rabbinic thought. The rabbinic movement was an attempt to rid Judaism of this Hellenistic influence, but the Gentile church on the 2nd and 3rd century CE never made any effort to do that. Consequently, the church embraced a spiritualized version of Hellenism and brought this dualism into its fold.
–“If Paul is an orthodox, Torah scholar and he based his theology on Torah, then how did he come up with such a doctrine when no other Pharisee of his time did?” Paul claims to be a Pharisee, observant and traditional. How can he then espouse a position that no one from his branch of Judaism even considered?”—
I will glady answer this question with this- Saul met Christ. He was zealously persecuting these new ‘believers’ and doing his duty as a good citizen to purge this earth of these dissenters and rebels, these followers of this rabble-rouser Christ. He (Christ) came unto His own -His own people- the Jews,- (yes, Yeshua was (and is) a Jew) and His own received Him not. Was Christ despised and rejected and turned over to the Roman authorities for execution? Was this the cry of the crowd (back during the day, of course..)- “His blood be upon us and upon our children”. The Jewish high priest of that day did not realize and recognize the High Priest that was before Him- G-d incarnated into human flesh.
Is Christ today still “despised and rejected by men?” Yes, He is. One man’s treasure is another man’s trash, and one man’s “trash” is another’s Treasure. Do you “treasure” Christ? What does Yeshua mean to you? Who is Christ? Is He- Who He claimed to be? Liar, Lunatic or LORD? (are there any more options out there?)
Please understand, I am not about to play “the blame game” here. I have no one to blame but my “self.” It was my sin that held Him there- until it was accomplished. Oh..- but dear brothers- “it has been accomplished”- “it is finished” might just be my three favorite words in any language.
Hi Carl,
Yes, no doubt Sha’ul had a change in view when he met the risen Messiah, but years later he still claims to be Torah observant, a follower of the traditions and a Pharisee. Since the doctrine of essential choice (yetzer ha’ra and yetzer ha’tov) is well embedded in Pharisee thought, and there is no indication of “sinful nature” as a constituent of the position of Man after the Fall in Pharisee thought, then it would not be accurate for Paul to claim that he continued to be a Pharisee. I think we must look to other historical influences to find the origin of the doctrine of sinful nature. I would suggest beginning with Martin Hengel, Hellenism and Judaism (although it is not for the weak, since it is 300+pages of scholarship and 300+ pages of footnotes). I will be writing about some of his finding in the near future. I will also be teaching about this (with Rabbi Gorelik) in Jerusalem next year.
Skip,
you asked this question: “If you answer, “Paul,” then I would ask, “If Paul is an orthodox, Torah scholar and he based his theology on Torah, then how did he come up with such a doctrine when no other Pharisee of his time did?” Paul claims to be a Pharisee, observant and traditional. How can he then espouse a position that no one from his branch of Judaism even considered?”
and the only thing that came to my mind would be the Holy Spirit revealed it to him/Paul… ???
just what i heard in my spirit & in my mind… jan
But Paul gives no indication whatsoever that this was “revealed” only to him. Why is it so difficult to simply place Paul in his own culture? Are we so absolutely convinced that our hindsight theology is so accurate that Paul MUST have believed as we believe? Why is it so hard to accept that fact that the Church fathers introduced this doctrine? We would say the same about the Trinity, right? You don’t find ANY definite texts about the Trinity as a doctrine in Scripture, yet we accept it completely as it was articulated by the early church. Why do we have so much trouble accepting the introduction of “sinful nature” by those same early church fathers? Do we NEED Scripture to say it plainly in order that we might feel certain of it?
Skip, i know for you it is very frustrating since you are the one digging into these issues/truths & you are right – it is hard for us to believe the way we do & the only reason we believe the way we do is because we don’t know any thing/way better like you do & like you have learned by doing the research that you present to us. i am in no way disputing your word or what you have learned & what you share with us but it has taken you some time – maybe even years of reading all this other material that most of us have not read. it really is different when you have filled your head with a lot more knowledge than other people because you understand & perceive things differently than those of us who have not researched nor read what you have & have seen truths that we have not – we are only going on what we have downloaded in our brains – but i do read what you write share with us here & i have never thought once that you were being heretical or teaching us error – no way. all i meant by what i typed is what i said, perhaps only by the Holy Spirit did he know & i have no basis for that except what i heard in my spirit – there is no way to prove what i heard or anything to back it up – i just simply expressed what i heard in my spirit & that is all. i appreciate all you share & teach us here & i share it with others all the time.
please don’t think i don’t believe what you are saying/typing, sharing or teaching because without coming here daily i would not know what i know today… ♥
so thank you for being patient with us & answering our questions – God will reward you 4 sure…
jan
Actually, it’s OK if you disagree. that’s one of the virtues of this blog. I don’t expect people to walk in lock-step. Disagreement is ESSENTIAL to understanding. I just get concerned when I hear the “Spirit revealed to me” card because it is played so often by those who are clearly outside conformity with Scripture. I don’t mean that you are doing this! Many of my former students try this tactic once – after which they are sufficiently chastised 🙂 – before they realize that inspiration of the Spirit is legitimate but does not replace serious scholarship and hard work (unless God chooses so). Anyway, there is a lot of hard work and scholarship to do here before we get to the Spirit inspiration piece.
And on that front, since we believe that God inspired Paul, then why don’t we find CLEAR and unambiguous statements on sinful nature and why would Sha’ul have such a revelation and NOT clarify his position vis-a-vis the Pharisees he still wished to be identified with.
Dr. Moen,
“…Why did they think this? Because they believed that God was just and it wasn’t just to punish the innocent for the guilty… ”
When King David had sinned the innocent baby had died, a child that was not rebbelious. Tamar was disgraces…
Adam had sinned and his good, God -obedient son was murdered…
King Saul had broken the covenant with Gibeonites -> seven of his children are murdered.
The list of punishment visited upon the children because father had sinned is endless through the Bible, how do we understand it then?
Thank you so much for the answer,
Humbly,
Elena Trukhan
Hi Elena,
David’s son is an issue. Adam’s son is not. The text about Cain and Abel is not about innocence. The text says nothing about Abel’s innocence. It only speaks about the obedience of Abel, and the biblical theme of suffering for obedience is clear throughout Scripture.
Saul’s seven children fit the same condition. Does the text say that these seven were “innocent”? Does the text says that sinful behavior by the father will not have ANY repercussions? Does God automatically protect everyone from other’s choices? Of course not. You have to stretch the text to read these occasions as “punishment.”
But there are some real problem cases, aren’t there? David’s son is one of these. There is does seem as if the innocent die for the guilty. But that is exactly what Yeshua did. The innocent do die for the guilty in God’s world. The question is not HOW this occurs but WHY. I am suggesting that it is NOT about punishment. It isn’t about punishment in Yeshua’s case, is it? Is God punishing Yeshua? No! Is God punishing David’s baby? I don’t think so. I think what we see is the typology of the innocent suffering for the guilty.
Skip, i for sure agree with the innocent suffering for the guilty – especially when we see babies & toddlers sold & used in sex slavery or beaten to death by their own parents. an innocent baby dies at the hands of a pervert for sexual pleasure or their own parents in anger – possibly that pervert or parent may get help & may meet the Lord Jesus Christ in their trials – but the baby goes back to Jesus as innocent & pure even though defiled at the hands of perversion in whatever form….
sounds sick but in a way compassionate… 🙁
jan
I have never yet seen God remove the CONSEQUENCES of a man’s sin. But I have never yet seen Him refuse to remove the guilt of those who repent. We MUST distinguish the two.
Elena, seems pretty plain & simple in the scriptures doesn’t it – but people these days discount Who God was & what God did in the old covenant because it seems to harsh for their sinful deeds – they/we only want to believe the grace of Jesus without the God of fury… 🙁
AGAIN – 2 HALVES MAKE A WHOLE… BELIEVE THE OLD COVENANT AS WELL AS THE NEW BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH TRUE & EFFECTIVE TODAY…
jan
I also forget to mention (please forgive me) “all” the contributing writers to our Bible, “both” O.T and N.T. were inspired by the Ruach HaKodesh. The words they both spoke and wrote were not of their own fertile imaginings but (again) according to the scriptures- “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from G-d as they were carried along by the Ruach HaKodesh.” (2 Peter 1.21)
Our Bible, G-d’s Word, is just that. In this Book of blessing (a book like unto no other- I hope we would agree..) are all the instructions we need pertaining unto life (both here and ‘there!’) and godliness (both here and there!). In this book, written by man and inspired (G-d breathed) by G-d is found the ways of G-d, the Way to G-d, the will of G-d and the ways of G-d. Also included are instructions for worshiping G-d both individually and corporately -in the assembling of ourselves together. We see a G-d who has created tremendous diversity, yet longing (yes, longing) to restore the relationship of intimacy once known by Adam and Eve in the garden to “whosoever will.”
There is a simplicity to be found “in Christ.” It is found no where else. Not in the universities, not in the seminaries, not in the church or even in Paradise. This simplicity has a Source. It is G-d, who is “both” our Savior and LORD. For has given unto all of us and to each of us a Savior, who is Christ the LORD.
Is God punishing Yeshua? No!
I respectfully disagree with this brother Skip! Yeshua was punished and punished fearfully.
We are chastised, Yeshua was punished. He died the (substitutionary) death of a criminal. That criminal was me. Was it for crimes that I have done- He groaned upon the Tree? Yes. It was.
Carl, i agree with you but just thought of something – God is not punishing Jesus because He did nothing to be punished for but He/Jesus is being punished because within Him at the Cross is all of our iniquity – yes, He was punished horribly but for the joy set before Him & His own innocence He sweat drops of blood before the ordeal knowing it was not going to be easy but that He could do & do it well for us.
with people that die/suffer or lay down their lives for another to receive their healing & deliverance is exactly what Jesus taught us to do – it is exactly what He did… kinda like when we hear “their death was not in vain…” because out of it came healing, deliverance, salvation – something better/gooder than if the sorrow had not taken place – the one who did not die in vain but suffered that others may live from Jesus to the youngest baby whose life is given by HIM for another – it is mind boggling for sure… jan
Please – atonement and punishment are NOT the same.
Skip, are you referring to what Carl typed or what i typed or what both of us typed??? i know atonement & punishment are no the same when you label them such – but did i say something above that led you to believe that i think that atonement & punishment are the same – i am getting really confused here with who you are responding to Carl or me or both of us???
i am only expressing my thought process & perhaps my thought process is not as learned as yours – i think someone once said/typed on here – maybe you & Robin in a conversation (comments & responses) stated – you can’t give what you don’t have – i am sure at this point i may not have what you have to give or understand???? 🙁
jan
Actually, I was just responding to whatever came next in the blog, not to you or to Carl in particular. Just trying to make sure that we aren’t confusing these crucial terms when we start discussing them in relation to the cross of Yeshua
I think you are confusing punishment which is due those who sin and atonement which is the removal of guilt – sometimes by substitution
I THINK/FEEL THE LION WALKED IN TO THE ROOM & EVERYONE GOT ATE… 🙂
JAN
Good robust comments. This is how we grow!! Steel sharpening steel. Thank you YHWH, in Yeshua’s Name!!
How can Paul say that God imputes the sin of Adam if just a few chapters before this he says in Romans 2:6 “Who will render to every man according to his deeds:”
Scripture is clear on this:
Deuteronomy 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. [See also 2 Kings 14:6]
2 Chronicles 6:23 Then hear thou from heaven, and do, and judge thy servants, by requiting the wicked, by recompensing his way upon his own head; and by justifying the righteous, by giving him according to his righteousness.
Jeremiah 31:30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
If we look at the story of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, only the children of the last two are punished with them. Not Korah’s children. Psalm 106: 17 The earth opened and swallowed up Dathan, and covered the company of Abiram. 18 And a fire was kindled in their company; the flame burned up the wicked.
Korah’s children must not have agreed with their father. The children of Dathan and Abiram must have.
Christ’s righteousness is accepted by us by faith. We can only compare Adam to Christ in Romans 5 if that is in the same vein. We agree with Adam and that is our sin. Adam’s sin doesn’t become ours, neither does our sin becomes Christ’s. He only atoned for it. So there is no immediate imputation. [i.e. without means] But I believe that God will show you that if you would have been in Adam’s place you would have done the same thing and that we hate Him for His sovereignty until He bows our being before Him and we see that there is no unrighteousness in Him.
There is no one that does good, no not one, until God turns you around. That is why children follow in the paths of the parents until there is true repentance.
By the way, I agree with Skip on the punishment versus atonement issue. I think the following text will help in that regard:
Numbers 18:1 ¶ And the LORD said unto Aaron, Thou and thy sons and thy father’s house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary: and thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood.
Aaron and his sons were not punished but bore the iniquity. There is a difference.