Original Sin in the Old Testament
Is there any suggestion in the Old Testament of what was later called "Original Sin"?
This question was submitted by DACThis is a bit of a complicated subject because of the complicated nature of the topic. That means that this post is going to be a bit longer and more nuanced than most. Also, outside of direct biblical quotes and quotes from the Book of Common Prayer, this is written from my memory and knowledge of the subject and I very well may have missed something.
What is Original Sin?
Original Sin is not doing something naughty that no one else has done. No one is that original. 😛
This doctrine is mostly known in Western Christianity by the system formulated by St. Augustine. The basic premise of this system is that when Adam sinned by eating the fruit, the stain of Sin entered humanity. During Augustine's time it was believed, because of Galen (the father of Western medicine) that all traits were passed down through the male line. Therefore, the stain of sin was passed down the male lines from Adam to every subsequent human.
There are a couple of things to note in this system. First, Sin is not sin. Sin, (upper case) as a broad concept is the separation of God from humanity. Usually when we use the word, we think of the word, we think of (lower case) sin. This would be the bad things that we do that offend God as a result of Sin. When we talk about Original Sin, we are talking about the separation, not our naughty acts.
The second thing to note in St. Augustine's system is how Jesus falls into the mix. Since Jesus is born of a Virgin, the stain of Sin does not get passed to him through the male line, because there is no male line to pass the stain to him. This is why Jesus is "without Sin", and without Sin, Jesus did not sin.
This gets a bit more complicated, when in the 19th century, the Roman Catholic Church began to struggle with issues around Mary having the stain of Sin and being able to bear God Incarnate. In response, Pope Pius IX declared that Mary must have been conceived immaculately - that is that her mother, St. Anne, conceived Mary without the aid of her traditional father Joachim. I point this out, only because people frequently confuse the Immaculate Conception, which has to do with Mary's earthly origin, and the Virgin Birth, which is the doctrine that has to do with Jesus' earthly origin. This is all a bit aside, but it adds to the complications around the Doctrine of Original Sin, and it helps to clarify all these different concepts that often get conflated.
Alternative Systems
Some of the challenges around the Doctrine of Original Sin are that St. Augustine was primarily known in the Christian West. However the Christian East never really refers to St. Augustine's work. This affects Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Churches' theology in ways that may be unfamiliar to the West. The system of Original Sin known in the West basically doesn't exist in the East, because St. Augustine's work never influenced that half of Christianity.
It is my understanding that if an Eastern Christian were to define Original Sin, it would be something to the effect that Sin is a force in the world and humans are too weak to resist it. Basically, the Orthodox believe: "The Devil made me do it." Jesus, of course, being God, is not too weak and therefore can resist Sin just fine.
As a slight aside, Anglicanism hasn't made many comments on the doctrine in over 200 years. In the "Historical Documents" section of The Book of Common Prayer, the "39 Articles of Religion" from 1801, there is a note about Original Sin. Article 9 states:
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, Φρόνημα σαρκός, (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.
(BCP 869)
So, at least as of a couple centuries ago, the Episcopal Church decided that 1. Pelagianism (The ancient heresy that says people sin because they choose to and you can only get to heaven if you resist sinning enough) is not cool. 2. Augustine may have been onto something, but we're not committing to that or give him credit. And 3. Clearly, we're going to make Sin all about sex.
Did I mention the 39 Articles are in the Historical Documents for a reason? These articles can be helpful, but they're not really official teaching. My hunch is that most Anglicans who know enough about this doctrine will bounce somewhere between Western and Eastern teachings on it, depending on who they are and their outlook.
My Hot Take
I have to fully admit that I am a bit skeptical of St. Augustine's system. First off, it is based on the figure of Adam. I am not a biblical literalist, but I like my systems to work well. Few serious scholars will read the story of Genesis 3 as a historical document, but rather a story that explains how humanity is fallen through imagery and narrative. This is a myth, not in the sense that it's a fake story, but that it is a story that exists to tell a deeper truth. That all said, I struggle to base a hard doctrine on a historically dubious event in a story that likely was not written to teach that doctrine in the first place.
Secondly, I struggle with the whole idea that Sin is inherited genetically - to use today's terms. Now we know enough about biology to know that DNA is passed to us by both the male and female line. Galen's medicine was what St. Augustine had. We have a system of modern medicine that tells us scores more than anything that could have been known in the Roman world. The idea that our biological mothers contribute to our beings less than our biological fathers is scientifically untrue as well as it makes me theologically uncomfortable. Even if Mary were immaculately conceived, she still could not avoid Sin, because she contained Anne's humanity. No matter how we try and slice it, there are too many issues with the idea of Sin being inherited for my comfort.
Thirdy, I struggle with how St. Augustine formulated this doctrine in the first place. Augustine needed to challenge the ongoing controversy around Pellagianism. This heresy was definitely wrong. I have no issue there. The idea that we can work our way into heaven is fraught with problems. Like how good is good enough? Christianity has never really gotten over this heresy either. We see it in all expressions of the Christian faith this idea that people can attain some holiness on their own merit. It puts too much onus on our fragile humanity and calls into question the need for Jesus' saving grace. So, yes, St. Augustine was correct in challenging this notion, but I would argue that by creating the system he did, he went a bit too far.
On top of all that, Augustine unnecessarily conflated the stain of Sin with lust itself. This is why Article 9 says what it does, because the formulators of the 39 Articles read Calvin who read Augustine. So, now if Sin is inherited from fathers and sex is used to procreate, clearly sex is the vehicle of Original Sin. Well... now we know why religion has so many hangups around sex.
So, before someone starts calling the Inquisitors and saying I'm a heretic for being dubious. I will point out that this view of Original Sin is Western. There are a whole bunch of Christians in the East who roll their eyes at St. Augustine's system. I am one who happily says every word of the Nicene Creed without crossing any fingers. The Incarnation, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, etc. are all in my worldview of faith. And yes, I do believe that Sin is a real thing. I will even grant that Sin is built into our broken human nature and we are too weak to avoid it. I suppose I just lean a bit more East than West on this matter... or if nothing else, maybe Augustine raises a lot more questions in my mind than he gives answers. But, then again... there are a lot of smarter people than me. So, I could be wrong.
Scriptural Precedents
Now, I managed to write all of that without even answering the question. So, since I've now gone down about three rabbit holes, I suppose I ought to address the original prompt for this post. Where is the suggestion of Original Sin in the Old Testament.
Well, this is a tough one, because inevitably one ends up reading it into the Hebrew Scriptures rather than reading it out of them. In other words, we have the doctrine in mind and then go and search for something. This is a basic problem of scriptural interpretation, called "eisegesis". In the Canonical Bible (excluding Deuterocanonical Books) the primary source comes from two places, both in the New Testament.
I Corinthians 15:21-22: "For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ."
Neither of these really lay out St. Augustine's system. At best they say that Sin entered the world with the Fall of Humanity and Jesus undoes the Fall.
If I were going to look for where to find Original Sin in the canonical Old Testament, I suppose, first I would refer to Genesis 2 and 3, the story of the first sin and the Fall. The only place that it really gives us any nuggets (or apples?) on this quest to find Original Sin is Genesis 2:16-17: "And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’" Similar to Romans and I Corinthians, this gives us an account of Sin leading to death, but does not really say much about how it is passed down generationally.
Frequently, Psalm 51:5 is referenced: "Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me." This is probably the one line that tells us that our very nature is Sinful and broken. I suppose one could infer that it was passed on genetically, but it is not terribly clear.
The best I can do from Hebrew texts comes from the Deuterocanonical book of 2 Esdras. I should point out that this is considered full canon by Roman Catholics, so its canonical status is not in conflict with Roman Catholic teaching on Original Sin. For Anglicans, we see Deuterocanonical books as useful and inspired, but we stop just short of putting them on equal status with other Old Testament books, so it's complicated. Here's what what text gives us:
2 Esdras 3:21-22: "For the first Adam, burdened with an evil heart, transgressed and was overcome, as were also all who were descended from him. Thus the disease became permanent; the law was in the hearts of the people along with the evil root; but what was good departed, and the evil remained."
So, is there any suggestion in the Old Testament of Original Sin? Yes and no. It depends on what one considers the "Old Testament" and what one considers a "suggestion". It is certainly not explicit in the canonical books, although you could read it into a few places. It is somewhat more strongly implied in one place in a deuterocanonical book. If one needs consolation that it might be in the Hebrew Bible, there is probably enough there to give that consolation. If one needs it to be explicitly laid out as St. Augustine's system would lay it out, one might be hard-pressed to do so.
The Roman Catholic understanding of the Immaculate Conception does not deny in any way Mary's human father's role as her father. The miracle is that she (Mary) was, from her perfectly natural conception, preserved from the stain/burden/problem of 'original sin' in exactly the same way as Eve or Adam had been. This is important to Catholics because it reminds us that 'Sin' is not at all a part of human nature - the human nature that Jesus, Mary, and all the rest of us share - but an unnatural state that, if left unresolved, prevents us from fulfilling our (individual) ultimate purpose.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the exegesis, etc., but I just wanted to clean up the misunderstanding about the role of Joachim. And yes, it is tiresome when folks confuse the I.C. (on Dec. 8 for RCs) with the Annunciation....
Someone else pointed that out to me as well. It's something that I wasn't terribly clear on in my mind. Kind of makes one wonder why God just didn't do that with the conception of Cain and Seth and just take care of it from the beginning. It would have made things a lot easier... but then again, who truly understands the mind of God?
DeleteBut yes, the two concepts of Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth are often conflated.
And it's kind of aside the point anyway as it is still a theological knot that one gets tied into with Augustine's system.
DeletePete Enns lists five considerations to take into account in determining whether the Old Testament contains what was later called the doctrine of “original sin.”) https://peteenns.com/5-old-testament-reasons-original-sin-doesnt-work/)
DeleteFirst, he indicates that inherited or ancestral sinfulness was not among the curses placed on Adam. I am not altogether satisfied with this argument. The curses provide a good deal of room for uncertainty. Adam was told that this very day he would die, yet he lived on for hundreds of years. Moreover, one would expect the talking snake to have been more appropriately cursed; namely, it should have lost the very power of speech with which he outwitted Eve, rather than have its little legs disappear. Finally, Adam is told that he would have to live by the sweat of his brow, yet there are all sorts of men in the OT who earned their living doing what we would now call white-collar work. Joseph is Egypt comes to mind. No one in the OT thought white-collar work impious, although there have been those who, well into the 20th century, regarded painless childbirth as counter to the divine plan for Adam’s female descendants.
Second, and I believe this is the really important consideration, throughout the OT pleasing God through obedience is expected, commanded, and doable. There is never a suggestion of noetic or volitional corruption that would necessarily impede the fulfillment of this obedience. The mind and the will are perfectly capable of meeting the challenge of responding positively to God’s demand.
Third, with the exception of 1 Chron 1:1, Adam completely disappears from the OT after Genesis 5. There is no further mention of him in the OT.
Fourth, Adam is not blamed for Cain’s having murdered Abel. Adam’s disobedience is not even remotely suggested as contributing to Cain’s action.
Fifth, Adam is not blamed for the flood. Again, Adam’s disobedience is not even remotely suggested as contributing to the flood.
These are some thoughtful points as well. I suspect we back-read a lot of our presumptions into the Eden Narrative. The challenge is to not confuse obedience to God with a Pellagian understanding. Where the Eden Narrative is useful is giving us an allegory to explain that there is Sin in the world and that Sin leads to death. I'm just not comfortable with the mechanics of how Augustine laid it all out. I think my biggest argument for why none of it makes sense is why Eve's lineage isn't as broken as Adam's.
DeleteNow again, that doesn't mean Sin isn't a real thing. All the stories cited are stories talking about our weak humanity and inability to avoid Sin. However that works, it does seem to be apparent, not just in Scripture, but in real life.
One pre-NT text that seems to provide some support for there being a doctrine of “original sin” in the OT is from a deuterocanonical source. The text in question is 2 Esdras 21-22: "For the first Adam bearing a wicked heart transgressed, and was overcome; and so be all they that are born of him. Thus infirmity was made permanent; and the law (also in the heart of the people with the malignity of the root; so that the good departed away, and the evil abode still. "
ReplyDeleteOver and above the question of the canonicity of 2 Esdras, there are also questions of its date of authorship as well as the religious affiliation of the author. Some scholars place it as late as the third century CE, and suggest that its author was in fact a Christian. The mention of “the first Adam” would seem to suggest that the author was familiar with the Epistles of St. Paul. All which would seem to weaken the case for this passage being a support for the view that there is a doctrine of original sin even implicit in OT writings. In any event, it is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether the doctrine of original sin may be found in the Jewish Tanakh.
That's interesting. I didn't know that 2 Esdras was possibly a Christian era writing
DeleteA second pre-NT text is Psalm 51:5: “Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me.” Yet it seems that this text does not require belief in an inherited or ancestral corruption of human nature.
ReplyDeleteJulian of Eclanum, against whom St. Augustine wrote, took the position that human sinfulness is owing not to the sin of Adam and the resulting inheritance of a sinful and corrupt human nature, but to the sheer fact that, as creatures made from nothing, we bear the mark of the nothingness from which we came, which mark is our innate capacity for sin. Julian might well read Psalm 51:5 and find nothing to disagree with. So, at least to me, it seems that this text does not provide much in the way of evidence for the presence of “original sin” in the OT.
It is interesting that the East did not have St. Augustine available in Greek translation until the 14th century. The East had Paul’s letters for well over a thousand years, but did not derive from either Romans 5 or 1 Cor. 15 a doctrine of original sin comparable to that developed by St. Augustine. With so much riding on what St. Paul and St. Augustine (and later St. Anselm, in Cur Deus Homo, Bk II) had to say, one wonders to what extent the doctrine of original sin is to be found in the Four Gospels.
When Jesus addresses Pilate in John 18:38, he says: “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.” He says nothing about substitutionary atonement or propitiation in reparation for the sin of Adam and its consequent ancestral or inherited corruption of human nature.
Well, yes. This goes back to my point that Augustine was being reactionary with his writing.
Delete