Millard J. Erickson gives five conceptions of the origin of sin. The first conception is that it derives from an animal nature. This idea arose in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. One influence was the critical view of the Pentateuch by scholars such as Wellhausen. The view called the documentary hypothesis considered the Pentateuch as compiled from several other independent accounts. Another important influence was that of evolution. Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, which resulted in the Genesis account of creation being considered “untenable.”[1] Scholars such as Tennant account for sin through viewing it as a result of mankind’s developing consciousness through the process of evolution. This view rejects Scriptural accounts of the origin of sin by viewing them as pre-scientific ways of understanding human nature. Tennant states further that the Augustinian belief in original sin cannot be maintained in lieu of scientific data.[2]
At this point three historical views should be briefly presented. The Augustinian Theory says that Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity due to the organic unity of mankind. Man possesses the corrupted nature of Adam, which is unable to do anything to save itself: mankind is essentially dead through sin without divine intervention.[3] The Pelagian Theory says Adam’s sin affected only himself. Mankind had a bad example in which to learn from, so man is basically well spiritually and morally if not for this predisposition. The Semi-Pelagian Theory says Adam’s sin affected only himself, but at the dawn of an individual’s consciousness they are given the Holy Spirit who is able to make them righteous if they submit to his will.
The second conception present by Erickson is the anxiety of finiteness. Reinhold Niebuhr viewed sin as a condition of finiteness. Once an insecurity or threatening problem is faced, an individual will seek to overcome through either “asserting the will in an effort to gain such power as oversteps” one’s own limits or by “attempting to deny the limited character of human knowledge and perspectives.”[4] Both attempts disturb the harmony of creation, in Niebuhr’s view, and are fundamental components of sin. Like Adam (Gen 3:5), the account of Lucifer’s fall (Isa14:12-15) resulted from venturing outside of the bounds of proper position. Humans are incapable of knowing everything and doing everything; thus, are threatened with finiteness because they also view the possibility of knowing and doing everything.[5] Erickson says Niebuhr’s view depends on Kierkegaard’s concept of dread, which is the recognition that we are free and yet bound to the consequences of either being or not-being. Niebuhr presents these situations as occasions for sin.
The third conception is existential estrangement. Existentialism says that reality goes beyond intellectual concepts, that the individual is most important, humans are completely free to choose and decide, and truth is bound to the effect of an idea of the knowing subject.[6] Paul Tillich’s idea of existential estrangement is that “estrangement is the state of not being what one essentially is and ought to be.”[7]God is all that is rather than an actual being. Since mankind is one part of all that is, man’s existence is estrangement. “If estrangement is the state of not being what one essentially is and ought to be, sin is the act of becoming estranged, the conscious step into estrangement,” is what Tillich says Christianity traditionally calls sin.[8]
The fourth conception of the origin of sin is as an economic struggle. This view resembles more of the condition evidenced in Exodus than it does the creation account in Genesis. The bondage of the Hebrews in Egypt was great and was an economic struggle. Erickson quotes James Cone as saying, “Sin is not primarily a religious impurity, but rather it is the social, political, and economic oppression of the poor.”[9] This view looks at sin as oppression from economic exploitation (Amo 5:11-12).
The fifth conception is individualism and competitiveness. Like many others, Harrison Sacket Elliot desired to return to “the theme of goodness and perfectibility,” after having these other views introduced.[10]However, he did not approach human sinfulness through theological interpretation but instead rejected that human beings are sinful. He admitted that humans do wrong, but that this is not found as an innate depravity. When someone sins, it is because of self-absorption. Sin is not the act of the individual will over other authority, but rather a result of the individual’s struggle against other human beings. Instead of cooperation, sin is the result of self-promotion. Elliot rejected one definition for what sin is since he saw it as a complexity of different acts. He regarded the idea of a sinful human condition as psychologically harmful.[11]It gives the idea that actions cannot be altered or modified. Elliot believes, however, that human behavior has been shown to be malleable. Sin is not something innate, but rather something learned in the process of human survival or competitiveness.
Biblical Teaching
Each of the accounts described lack many components the Scriptures have attributed to mankind’s fallen condition. Each of these conceptions presented very little Scriptural analysis or reflection, and relied heavily on philosophical or psychological ideas. The Scriptural account gives a different perspective. Other ancient peoples also have accounts of a fall such as Eridu Genesis, Atra-khasis, and especially Enki and Ninhursag.[12] Scripture gives more than the account found in Gen 3 (Rom 5:12-19, 1Ti 2:14, Gen 6:5, 8:21, Psa 14, Rom 3:10-23). Perhaps sin was already here, evidenced by the chaos of the earth, but eventually was found in the human race (Gen 6:5).
Sin is found as an outcome present from early human history. Charles Scobie calls this a “prehistory” that exists in all mankind since the creation and the fall are universal stories of “Everyman and Everywoman.”[13]After the account in Genesis 1-3 the Scripture authors seem to be amazed at this condition (Psa 8:4-6). Mankind was good, a crown achievement, that was spoiled through man’s sin. The idea that all have sinned is found to permeate the Old and the New Testaments in an honest disclosure of man’s sinfulness. Referrals to a person being righteous are through a life pleasing to God rather than demonstrating a life impervious to sin (Job 1:1). There is no one who does not sin (1Kgs 8:46). The nature of sin is said to be rebellion against God in the form of asserting autonomy over him (Gen 3). Sin is also shown to derive from disobedience (Sir 15:11-15). It is not an unfortunate deviation, but an “offence directed against YHWH himself.”[14]Sin is also folly or the opposite of wisdom (Pro 18:2).
William Smith presents the account of the fall as a test that “was to prove whether man would implicitly believe God’s word and do always what He said; or resort to his own reasoning powers to direct his course, and set the conclusions of his own mind over against the plain statements of God’s laws.”[15] The tool used to test this was Lucifer or Satan as presented in the form of the serpent in the garden. This perspective echoes that of the introduction to Job. God knew this would happen, but in his foreknowledge knew also that Christ would be victorious (Rev 13:8).
The Fall of Man occurred through a tempter as an agent. This tempter was once an angel of God (Job 1:6-12), fell from a high estate (Isa 14:12, Eze 28:12-15), and apparently drew other angels with him (1Ti 3:6, Rev 12:4).
The temptation of man was done by an intelligence and cunningness (Gen 3:1). There were three major components involved. The appeal to reason through how the tree was good for food and God did declare it very good (Gen 1:31). The woman’s mind was drawn away from God’s command who desired obedience not analytical conceptions.[16]There was an appeal to esthetic taste in that the tree was truly beautiful. The woman was drawn away through the appearance of the fitness of the tree. Finally, an appeal to vocational utility was an “opportunity to acquire just what they needed.”[17]Temptations are subtle and appear to be close to God’s purpose. The platform was tempting God-like servants to become gods themselves (Isa 14:14, Gen 3:5, 2 Ths 2:4, 1Jo 2:16).
Implications in Romans
The book of Romans indicates that our unrighteousness shows the righteousness of God and that all people are in the same unrighteous condition. In response to Elliot’s competiveness, Romans says that we cannot do evil that good may come (Rom 3:8). No person is better or worse off (Rom 3:9). The Scriptural account clearly indicates that al have turned aside from our nature (Rom 3:12). This is against the view of the animal nature because Scripture presents sin as something mankind has chosen through our actions. This shows the existential estrangement to be somewhat true from the perspective that because of sin we are acting outside of our nature. However, it is not an automatic condition of being human, in which we are estranged from God through simply existing, but through our decisions and choices to not be like God. Because of this, Scripture says that through the command to be like God no flesh can be justified (Rom 3:20). We are estranged but based both on action and disposition.
The book of Romans says that the law of God bears witness to the fact that we are apart from the righteousness of God. The Law and the Prophets bear witness (Rom 3:21). Mankind finds its justification and redemption only through the grace of God and his gift of redemption (Rom 3:24). We uphold the law of God communicated by the Scripture through the evidence that we are unable to keep it. It constantly bears witness to our condition throughout history. If we leave it there, it is psychological harmful as Elliot points out. However, unrealized by Elliot, that is not where it is left. Through the work of redemption through Christ Jesus we are no longer bound to the nasty effects of sin as we believe in the one who has eradicated its hold on the human race.
[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998), 600.
[2] Ibid., 601.
[3] William Evans and S. Maxwell Coder, The Great Doctrines of the Bible, Enl. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), 132.
[4] Erickson, 604.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., 46-47.
[7] Ibid., 606.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., 608.
[10] Ibid., 611.
[11] Ibid., 612.
[12] Bill T. Arnold and Bryan Beyer, Readings from the Ancient near East: Primary Sources for Old Testament Study, Encountering Biblical Studies (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 13-31.
[13] Charles H. H. Scobie, The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 2003), 659.
[14] Ibid., 663.
[15] William M. Smith, Bible Doctrines (Westfield: The Gospel Minister, 1946), 78.
[16] Ibid., 81.
[17] Ibid., 82.
« Back to Glossary Index