Interesting Thoughts on Original Sin

Very thought-provoking article by Dr. Peter Enns. Here's an excerpt:

Nowhere in the Old Testament do we read that humanity is under God’s condemnation simply by being born and therefore helpless to do anything about it, and thus no actions are truly pleasing to God...Yes indeed, God is terribly mad about sinful acts, especially when his people, the Israelites, do them. But—and I can’t stress this enough—implicit in all of God’s acts of wrath and punishment is the idea that the Israelites were most certainly capable of not sinning. That’s the whole point of the law: follow it and be blessed, disobey and be cursed. The choice is clear and attainable, so do the right thing.
https://peteenns.com/5-old-testament-reasons-original-sin-doesnt-work/​

 

Has Peter Enns (the originator of so many ideas in tension with classical orthodoxy) ever read the Psalms?

Psalm 51:5
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me."

Or Genesis 8:21
". . . the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth."

In the narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah, God pleads to be shown even 100 righteous men; or barring that even 10 righteous men; or barring that, even one righteous man. And of course because even that fails, they are destroyed.

Similarly in the narrative of the Noah's flood; the entirety of mankind is forfeit in God's eyes, because without grace they will tend to wickedness because of a flaw in their nature.

Job 15, 14-16:
"What is man, that he should be pure, or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
Behold, He puts no trust in His holy ones, And the heavens are not pure in His sight;
How much less one who is detestable and corrupt, Man, who drinks iniquity like water!"

Jeremiah 17:9
"the heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?"

Ecclesiastes 9:3
". . . the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil, and insanity is in their hearts through their lives."


I'm sorry, there's far more teaching of this strange flaw in human nature in the Old Testament, than anything in the New.

 

Enoch and Elijah were taken up by God without dying a human death (Gen. 5:24, Gen. 2 Kings 2:1-11). They would be the only two arguments against the existence of original sin in human beings according to Scripture. Everyone else died a human death, which is the penalty for Adam and Eve's sin.

But you cannot attribute Enoch and Elijah's ascendance to complete righteousness -- for one thing, at least in Enoch's case, he was taken up before God even gave Israel the Law, so he couldn't have been saved by following it. And while Elijah was a faithful servant of God, he was not sinless (he did doubt God when Jezebel was pursuing him in 1 Kings 19). So his ascendance cannot be attributed to complete righteousness either.

Looking through the lens of the New Testament (which we should always do as Christians), we should not attribute their ascendance to sinlessness but rather as part of the plan of God (perhaps they are the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation 11). Apart from Enoch and Elijah, we have nothing to disprove the concept of Original Sin in the Old Testament -- as the Bible tells us in Gen. 6:5: "The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

Later in the New Testament Paul talks about the purpose of the Jewish Law (Rom. 9). God imposed the Law knowing that the Israelites could not follow it; it was meant to show them that even when they know what evil acts are, they still commit those acts regardless. The Law was meant as a spotlight or magnifying glass for sin, and Israel's complete failure in following the Law shows us that God knew from the beginning that they would fail. This strongly refutes the notion that the the Israelites were "most certainly capable of not sinning". They were never righteous as a people, not to the very last. They even rejected their own Messiah, who was a completely sinless man.

This is why Christian doctrine teaches original sin: there is no possibility that we can be saved on our own merit, because we have none. Absolutely nothing in human history indicates that we have the capability to be truly righteous. If the theory that sinlessness is at least possible for fallen mankind has never actually happened in practice, then what truth is there in the principle itself? The Bible certainly doesn't teach it.

"None is righteous, no, note one; no one understands; no one seeks for God." Rom. 3:10-11; Psalm 14

 

I think one of the central points Dr. Enns is making is that the OT/Tanakh does not teach that human beings are incapable of following the moral law, or that their following it will not be pleasing to God. Understood broadly, the moral law itself includes the remedy for failing to follow it: repentance.

“But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness which he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?
Ezekiel 18:21-23 RSV​

 

It has progressively seemed obvious to me that God expected everyone committed to God's rescue scheme, (i.e. for God to enable the salvation of mankind), to ritually bear the sign and seal of that commitment to participation in God's whole plan, laid even before the foundations of the world had been laid.

Thus we have the command to Abraham to circumcise himself and all his children as an act of commitment. Scripture tells us that the New Testament equivalent of this ceremonial act of commitment is baptism. The ceremonial act must always be followed up in the individual by actual commitment to God's plan of salvation and everything it entails concerning the life of the individual. The sign and seal is evidential in both cases to ownership by and an allegience to Jesus Christ as Prophet, Priest and King. This applies to both infant and Adult baptism when the person enters a Covenant with God through Christ.

Jesus Christ clearly said "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

There is nothing impossible about successfully taking up the yoke of Covenant keeping with God. I think the assumption of Christ is, that everyone is capable to doing it and there will be no 'original sin' preventing us from doing so.
.

 

Original sin can't be the cause of all deaths though. It might just be sin committed by the individual by choice.

Jesus Christ being in human form, died and had no sin, original or otherwise, and he was the epitomy of humanity as the Second Adam, just as the first Adam was the prototype.

Death may just be a natural human event.
.

 

True, but Jesus is a category of one. He died not because of any defect in himself, but to atone for the defects he took on from us. He had to suffer all the penalties of sin, which includes a human death, in order to properly atone for the sin on our behalf. And because he was the perfect sacrifice, the old Hebrew system of blood sacrifice was no longer necessary, because no animal sacrifice could possibly match Christ's blood sacrfice upon the cross. We live now under the covenant of Grace; we are saved not by any merit of our own, or by the old Law of sacrifice; but through the undeserved grace of God, by faith. The righteousness of Jesus Christ has been imputed to us; we do not contain it in ourselves.

 

Atonement does not depend on blood sacrifice, but repentance.

 

We're speaking of the Old Testament law, where blood had to be shed to cover sins. Animal sacrifice was the method instituted by God (the sacrificec of the "spotless lamb" that was perfected in the sacrifice of Christ). The OT spiritual economy under the Law revolved around animal sacrifice. Spiritual repentance was much desired, of course, but did not suffice on its own. And "repentance" under Hebrew Law was usually performative, not necessarily spiritual: rending of the garments, weeping, wailing, prostration, etc.

This was an aspect of OT worship that the prophet Joel inveighed against: "Rend your hearts and not your garments" (Joel 2:13). His point being that performative repentance was often not repentance at all, but simply a task to be performed under the Law, and thus useless as a path to true reconciliation with God.

Atonement in the New Testament is spiritual, because no blood sacrifice can match the sacrifice of Jesus Christ himself. When we repent as Christians, we repent spiritually, not performatively (except the RC church with penances, but that's a topic for another post). We rend our hearts, not our garments.

 

Blood atonement is not necessary for forgiveness of sins in the OT/Tanakh. I’ve already cited the Ezekiel passage above. There is also the book of Jonah, and numerous statements scattered throughout the Psalms. Sin offerings could be made of flour; they did not require the killing of an animal. The means of making atonement for sin is and always has been repentance.

 

Then why was it necessary to sacrifice Christ on the cross to atone for our sins? Couldn't we just have laid out some sheaves of grain or bags of flour and called it good? If not, why not?

The Mosaic Law prescribed several sacrifices (really, "gifts") to god. The grain offering was usually a thanksgiving gift. Sin or purification or guilt offerings were always blood sacrifices.

EDIT:

Christ, as a Jewish Rabbi, knew the mechanics of the sacrificial system very well.

 

It wasn't. The purpose of the crucifixion wasn't to fulfill pagan superstitions of blood magic but to motivate repentance:

Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Luke 24:45-47 RSV​

 

I posted an edit to my post quoting from Matt. 26:27-28. What's your take on that, in light of what you wrote above?

 

Since he was actually referring to wine in that passage, and given that the OT/Tanakh prohibits human sacrifice, I take it to be metaphorical.

 

But Christ was not sacrificed, he was ecclesiastically, regally and politically murdered by mankind who became corporally guilty of his murder. It was the fact that Christ ALLOWED it to happen that made it a sacrifice. It was Christ who sacrificed himself to man's sinful nature in the belief that ALL people would be drawn to him in repentance of what our rebellion against God has caused the human race to attempt to do. To even try to Kill God.
.

 

Of course it's metaphorical, but it's a metaphor in the context of Jewish ritual blood sacrifice. If not for that, the metaphor would have no meaning to the Jews to whom Christ was preaching and teaching. Christ is recapitulating the Jewish sin offering: bread represents his body which is broken on the cross; wine is his blood which is shed for forgiveness of sin. And as the animal of the blood offering was usually given to the priests and believers to be eaten afterward (except for burnt offerings), so too Jesus establishes the Lord's Supper where we are given his Body and Blood as sustenance.

The parallel Christ is drawing here is not subtle, and it speaks directly to the Jewish experience with the sacrificial system of atonement. Absent that, it makes no sense at all.

 

What makes no sense though is to present Christ's death as a demand by HIS own Heavenly Father for human sacrifice. To suggest the Father demanded such of Christ is tantamount to blasphemy against the character of God as displayed in the life and teaching of Jesus Christ himself.

Furthermore it casts Religion, in the form of the High Priest, Regal power, in the form of Herod and Political power in the form of Pilate, as PRIESTS of God killing and presenting the 'Sacrifice' instead of the godless GOD murderers that they actually were.

The crucifixion was actually the culmination of human wickedness and the ultimate display of the extent of the forgiveness of God.
.

 

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. No one is disputing that animal sacrifice was part of the ritual practice of ancient Judaism. What is contested is the notion that such rituals were necessary for atonement. It seems clear from the examples of unbloody sin offerings, statements against sacrifices in the Psalms, and the teachings on repentance in Ezekiel and Jonah, that they were not. This is only controversial in some segments of Western Christianity. It is not controversial in Judaism.

 

Fine, but you're not engaging with the Lord's own description of the process I quoted earlier in the thread. Christ specifically ties the shedding of blood with the forgiveness of sin. Absent the Jewish sacrificial system, what meaning would his words have (especially to his Apostles, who were to a man practicing Jews)?

The Lord Jesus Christ clearly implies it in Matt. 26:27-38 which I quoted above. Otherwise, what's the purpose of his metaphor? Again, Christ was a Jewish Rabbi who was preaching and teaching mainly to other religiously-observant Jews.

Consider Lev. 17:11:

There is controversy in modern Judaism as to the purpose of the sacrificial system, but you can't really compare any aspect of modern Judaism to Second Temple Judaism. It's a completely different religious practice, particularly when you look at Reform or Liberal Judaism. Even Orthodox Judaism is very different. Ancient Jewish practice revolved around the sacrificial system and the Temple, as established in the book of Leviticus. When the Temple was destroyed in 70AD by the Romans, the Jewish faith as they knew it was destroyed along with it. (Though there is a remnant even today of ritual blood sacrifice in those Jews who keep Kosher, in that the animal must be killed by a specially-trained Kosher butcher according to Jewish dietary laws, or kashrut.)

 

The purpose of the metaphor was perhaps to make it clear to the disciples that they would share in the responsibility for his death.

You’re ignoring the instances I cited where blood sacrifice is not necessary for atonement. There only needs to be one exception for the principle to fail, and I’ve given several.