The author continually refers to HE is responsible rather then THEY or HE & She - My opinion is that HE/ SHE or They should be used in ALL cases where HE is mentioned, but I am citing direct quotations so I will not INSERT SHE - would you please consider doing it??  - That is all that  I can ask of you!!

This page will be mainly based on HOW Messianic Jews see sin. I chose to do it this way as Jews who saw the Glory of YHWH rejected Him, so I decided to look at it from their point of view. Most of not all notes are taken from JNT Commentary BY David H. Stern ISBN # 965-359-011-1 - Published by Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc.

I will cite JNT exclusively - but I do recommend strongly that you compare to your own bible as you will find the comparisons quite educational.

This passage starts on page 358 On Romans 5: 12 - 21:

"This is one of the great theological passages in the Bible; but because upon it Christians have erected the doctrine of  "Original Sin,"  it is for Jewish people on of the most problematic. Pivotal in Chapters 1 to 8 of Romans, it looks backward to Romans 3: 21 to 5: 11, where God's means of considering people righteous {forts mentioned in Rom. 1: 16 - 17 which reads like this in JNT:  'For I am not ashamed of Good News, since it is God's powerful means of bringing salvation TO EVERYONE who keeps on trusting, to the Jew especially, but EQUALLY to the gentiles. 17 For in it is revealed how God makes people righteous in his sight; & from beginning to end it is through trust - as the Tanakh puts it, "But the person who is righteous will live his life by trust." {Emphasis is mine except for last phrase} through Yeshua {Jesus} is proclaimed & forward to 6: 1 - 8: 39, where Sha'ul {Paul} elaborates the consequences for the individual believer of what Yeshua has accomplished.

The purpose of these ten verses in their context is not to teach about origin of  human sin but to give assurance that the Messiah  HAS TRULY  REDEEMED US HUMAN BEINGS FROM BONDAGE TO SIN by paying its full penalty on our behalf."

Please note that Jesus has paid FULL Penalty FOR ALL & NOT just for few who are predestined to service - see my article on Predestination to see why I mention this here.

"Sha'ul makes his case by developing the parallel between the effects of mankind of Adam & of Yeshua {vv 12, 14, 18 - 19, 21} which read like this in JNT: 12 "or, to put it another way, so that by my being with you, we might, through the faith we share, encourage one another, 14 I owe a debt to both civilized Greeks and uncivilized people, to both the educated and the ignorant; 15 therefore I am eager to proclaim the Good News {Gospel} to you whop live in  Rome. 18 What is revealed is God's anger from heaven against all the godliness and wickedness of people who in their wickedness keep surpassing the truth; 19 because what is known about God is plain to them, since God HAS MADE IT PLAIN to them 20 Forever since the creation of the universe his invisible qualities  - both his eternal power & divine nature - have been clearly seen, because they can be understood from what he has made. Therefore, THEY HAVE NO EXCUSE; 21 because, although they know who God is, they do not glorify him as God or thank him. On the contrary, they have become futile in their thinking; and THEIR UNDERSCORING HEARTS have become darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they have become fools."

"While stressing that what Adam wreaked by his disobedience { vv 15 - 17 & simultaneously dispelling any suspicion that focusing on these 2 men minimizes the importance of the Torah { 13 - 14a, 20}.

Please note the underlined passage - Jesus' INVISIBLE QUALITIES & His Eternal & Divine {God} nature have been seen.
 

Sin ENTERED the world through one individual, Adam, who DISOBEYED God's command in the Garden of Eden not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good & evil {Gen. 2: 17, 3: 6}: and through sin, death, because God decreed certain death as a punishment for sin {Gen. 2: 17, 3: 19, 5: 5}. While death  may have been possible before Adam sinned, had he chosen not to eat from the tree of life {Gen. 2: 9, 3: 22}, it apparently was not a necessary consequence of being human. And thus death passed through to the whole human race, inasmuch as {or "because"} everyone sinned. It can hardly be questioned that this says, on the one hand, that Adam's transgression caused death to come to everyone & also, on the other, that each person deserved death because each person sinned - that is, each person dies for his own sin, as Ezekiel 8: 4 says, "the soul that sins, it shall die."

But how these facts are related to each other and applied to understanding the existential condition of mankind forms the kernel of my inquiry in this note. Sha'ul himself is less concerned to explain the precise mechanism of how death passed through than to defend the justice of death's coming to those who did not consequently violate a God - given command {vv - 14a, based on the argument of 4: 15. "For what law brings is punishment. But where there is NO Law, there is NO violation."

In this, in having direct contact with God, being directly responsible to him and having the consequence of his acts pass through to others in the future, Adam prefigured the one who was to come, Yeshua {v. 14b}. {Entire 5: 14 reads like this: Nevertheless death ruled from Adam until Moshe {Moses}, even over those whose sinning was not exactly like Adam's violation of a direct command. In this, Adam prefigured the one who was to come. 15 BUT the FREE GIFT is not like the offence. For if, because of one man's offence, many died, then HOW MUCH MORE HAS GOD'S GRACE, that is, the Gracious Gift OF ONE MAN, YESHUA the Messiah, overflowed to many! 16 No, the FREE GIFT is not like what resulted from one man's sinning; for from one sinner came judgement that brought condemnation; but the Free Gift came after many offences & brought acquittal. 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." {I have included other verses to save me writing them below :-)) }

But there are very significant differences between these 2 men {vv 15 - 17 above} which are brought out through kal v'chomer { light & heavy, argument  from a weighty premise to a less weighty one.}  arguments {see vv. 9 - 10N which reads like this: "By means of his bloody sacrificial death, literally, "by his blood", see 3: 25N {not going there as we would be here for ever}. The truths of 4: 25 are restated in these 2 verses in a kal v'chomer arguments {see Mt. 6: 30N again not going there}. If Yeshua death accomplished so much, how much more his life accomplishes! the same kind or argument is  used in Romans at 4 other places vv, 15, 17; 11: 12, 24 & see 3: 19N} In other words: vv 18 - 19 {see above} repeat and elaborate the point of vv 12, 14b. Will be made righteous (v.19): while being declared righteous before God is still in view, the use of the future tense suggests the ongoing extension of that declared righteousness into actual righteousness (sanctification; see Gal. 2:16aN will cover this later on). The future tense could refer to the fact that many people in years to come will be declared righteous as they come to faith, but it can also imply that the future total sanctification of the saved. The Torah came into picture so that the offence would proliferate. (v:20 see above) - see 3:20, 4:15 and 7:7 -25 on this function of Torah, which non-Messianic Judaism tends to minimize. Where sin proliferated, grace proliferated even more - see 6:1ff, 4. for erophylaxis against missing this idea to justify sin. Verse 21 (see above)  sums up not only this passage but all that has been said since 3:21.

I will outline Galatians 2:16aN passage now.
Declared righteous by God, Greek dikaioo "make righteous, justify." In order for a person to have fellowship with God, he must be righteous; because God is righteous, holy, without sin, and cannot tolerate sin in His presence.

Theology distinguishes two kinds of righteousness: (1.) Behavioural righteousness actually doing what is right, (2.) "Forensic righteousness," being regarded as righteous in the senses (a) that God has cleared him of guilt for passed sins, and (b) that God has given him a new human nature to obey God rather than rebel against Him as before.

Yeshua the Messiah has made forensic righteousness available to every one by paying on everyone's behalf the penalty for sins which God's justice demands, death (see Romans 5:12-21 and notes above and below).

Forensic righteous is appropriated by an individual for himself the moment he unreservedly puts his trust in God, which at this point in history entails also trusting in Yeshua the Messiah upon learning of Him and understanding what He has done (1 John 2:23 -  which reads "everyone who denies the Son is also without the Father, but the person who acknowledges the Son has the Father as well.)

The task of becoming behaviourally righteous begins with appropriating forensic righteous by trusting in Yeshua and it occupies the rest of the believer's life, being completed only at his own death, when he goes to be with Yeshua (Pp 1:23 Philippians) which reads "I am caught in a dilemma: my desire is to go off and be with the Messiah - that is better by far."

The important thing is to distinguish between forensic and behavioural righteousness by looking at the context of the passage. Best way is going back to the original Greek text if 'dikaioo' - it relates to forensic and if it is 'dikaiosune' - relates to behavioural righteousness.

Before assessing the doctrine of original sin, we must say what it actually says. Otherwise we will find ourselves dealing with oversimplified abstractions - "Judaism says man is a sinner because he sins, Christianity -  that man sins because he is a sinner,"
"Judaism is less concerned with where sin comes from than struggling against it," "Christianity alone regards sin as fatal: Judaism takes it for a minor illness." Slogan substitute both for thinking and for dealing.

The analysis commences with a summary of the content of one version of the doctrine of original sin - I say one version because there are at least six; see A.H. Strong. Systematic Theology, on which I am relying for much of this portion of my note. Augustine {354 - 430} was instrumental in developing this version; a  modified modern form of it would make these points {objections to them can be found is section C of this note}:

(1) Terminology. Original Sin involves 2 components : ORIGINAL POLLUTION, which is the sinful state & condition into which people are born, in consequence of which they have a sinful nature that makes it impossible for them to do what God will regard as spiritual good:  and ORIGINAL GUILT, which makes everyone worthy of condemnation & death from the moment he comes into existence. These are "ORIGINAL" because they (a) are derived from original root of human race, Adam; (b) and not merely the result of imitation; and (c) are the origin, the inward root, of all the sinful inclinations & sinful deeds that defile a person. However, they are not original in the sense of having been present when God created man in his image & pronounced him good (Genesis 1: 26 - 31}.

(2) Locus of responsibility for sin in the universe. Although God created the universe & everything in it, even evil {Isaiah 45: 7}, HE IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED THE AUTHOR OF SIN & is not held responsible for it. Sin originated in angelic world, with Satan {The adversary, represented in the garden of Eden by the serpent}; and in man it originated with Adam. {Please note that this author agrees with my understanding also, Even though Eve ate the fruit first - IT IS ADAM who takes the blame for DISOBEYING GOD as it was Adam who was given the instruction directly by God - therefor he is the responsible one & not the second person - In other words - the one who is First to receive the instruction is the responsible to make sure that all other instructions are in accordance with the original instruction}.

(3) What was "the original sin? Although in formal sense Adam's sin was eating the forbidden fruit, the essence of it was his apostatizing from God, OPPOSING HIM,  rebelling against him personally, substituting his own will for God's will. This he did out of pride, unbelief, desire to be like God {self exaltation} and unholy satisfaction in doing what had been prohibited. It is this apostasy which is "THE" original sin that has been passed on from Adam to us & for which we are held accountable, not the act of eating forbidding fruit.

I, personally have held to this view for a long time but had not backing until I started to study this concept from all different angles & this is why I am using scholars who see it as it originally happened. You are free to come to your own conclusion - but that is what happened - Adam Started to blame God for giving him women as a partner who made him eat the forbidden fruit - talk about NOT taking responsibility for ones actions. See Gen. 3: 12

(4) Original pollution. the word "SIN" means not only actual sinful deeds but also sinful inclinations and having a sinful nature.

Having a sinful nature  means that one's very nature is corrupted & polluted, so that one is bound to develop sinful inclinations & desires that will lead  one to commit actual sinful deeds as soon as  one reaches the age of moral responsibility.  It means that one is in a condition of "Total depravity" - which is not to say that the sinner has no innate knowledge of God's will, no ability in his conscience to discriminate between good & evil, no admiration for virtue, no capability to act for others' good, no capacity to do deeds that may produce some external good, or that his every deed is bad as it can possibly be; rather, what total depravity means is that the corruption extends to all of man's nature, so that nothing the sinner does will be credited to his account by God as good, because it is not & can not be motivated by true, unadulterated love of God and desire do his will.

(5) Transmission of original pollution. original pollution is transmitted from Adam to his descendants by propagation. At the risk of introducing anachronistic imagery, I will compare Adam's  sin with a cosmic ray that penetrates the genetic material of one person & brings about a fatal mutation which is completely dominant, so that all hos descendants receive the "defective gene" that " causes sinful nature" & eventually die of this " congenital disease."

(6) Original guilt. Adam's original sin of apostasy from God resulted  not only in our having his pollution {sinful nature} transmitted to us, but also in our having his guilt imputed to us, so that we are born guilty & worthy of death as the penalty for our own sin. We are guilty on 3 accounts. First, we are guilty of Adam's sin of apostasy itself, even though we did not exercise individual moral choice in the matter. Second, we are guilty of having a sinful nature, even though we were born with it & did not choose it; because this is a nature inherently in a state of apostasy from God, and such apostasy is condemn able. And Third, of course, we are guilty of all the actual sinful deeds we commit as individuals.

OK guys - Pleas put your hands up if you don't like the last 2 points!!  Mine are all ready up :-)) Pleas read on - you will find the next point very interesting especially if you are American :-))!!

(7) Imputation of original guilt. Original guilt is not transmitted by propagation but justly to us on the ground that we are originally one with Adam. That is,  even though we did not exercise individual moral choice when he sinned, we were present "in him" {compare MJ 7: 9-10, Hebrews :-)) - where L'vi "in Avraham {Abraham} paid tithes to Malki - Tzedek {Melchizedek) . Responsibility for someone else's sin conflicts with the individualistic philosophy of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau & the American founding fathers; but in biblical times the notion that one individual's guilt could involve his whole family or even his entire people was more current; for example, Achan's sin  {Joshua 7}.

Even today Americans travelling abroad find themselves held accountable for decisions made by their leaders, they may actually  have voted against; {"have you heard this before?} "YANKEE, GO HOME!" proclaims the perceived "ORGANIC UNITY" of the American people, of which most Americans are part NOT BY CHOICE but by birth.

So it is with us, Our Oneness with Adam, our natural head and first father, means that his punishment is justly ours.

This applies to any person who travels abroad where that particular nation has a big dislike for your race or culture that you were born into!
So please do not blame God for doing what is Just - when we humans partake in big hatred towards fellow brothers & sisters. My Opinion & I stick to it.

(8) Death is the penalty for sin. The penalty for sin is death: death is not merely the  natural end of human life, but a punishment. This death is threefold: physical, spiritual & eternal. Physical death comes at the end of the physical life span. Spiritual death means lack of communion with God, separation from him - as Isaiah 59: 2 puts it, "Your sins have made a separation between you & your God." Finally, If one remains in spiritual death through one's physical life span, this condition is, upon physical death, confirmed by God & becomes eternal death in Gey - Hinnom {hell} that s, eternal & irremediable separation from God & all goodness.

(9) The remedy for original sin. there is ONLY ONE REMEDY for pollution & guilt of original sin, & that is to TRUST IN GOD, TO TURN AWAY FROM SIN & SElf - pleasing to God & his will, To Accept that the sacrificial death of Yeshua, who never sinned  but paid by his death the penalty we owe for our sin, reconciles us with God & removes the separation. No Amount of kind of striving in our own strength, apart  from trusting God through Yeshua, can remove original sin.

I have taken it upon myself to HIGHLIGHT the last point in it's entirety as I consider it the MOST IMPORTANT!!  Pleas repent & accept Jesus as Your saviour LOCK STOCK & BARREL so that the  he removes the Origin sin from your shoulders. I can not ask for any more then that - REST IS UP TO YOU!!!

We can gain some insight into the "competition" with the Augustinian version of  the doctrine of original sin by seeing how it & other five versions listed by Strong interpret the seminal statement of v. 12 "Death passed to the whole human race, inasmuch as everyone sinned."

(1) Augustinian, which says we are born with both original pollution {for which we are guilty} & original guilt connected with Adam's sin of apostasy: "Death physical, spiritual, & eternal passed through the whole human race, because all sinned in Adam their natural head.

(2) Mediate Imputations, {Placeus {1596 - 1665}}, which says that the original pollution we are born with is a ground for our guilt, but that we are not guilty of Adam's sinful act of apostasy: 'Death physical, spiritual & eternal passed through to the whole human race, because all sinned by possessing a depraved nature."

(3) Federal { Cocceius {1603 - 1669}}, which says that opposite of the above, namely, that the original pollution we are born with in not a ground for guilt, but that Adam's apostasy is imputed to us because he was our "representative: in Eden, our " federal head": "Death physical, spiritual & eternal through to the whole human race, because all were regarded & treated as sinners."

(4) Uncondemnable vitiosity {the "New School," 18th - century New England}, which says that we are not guilty of Adam's act of apostasy, but become guilty only when we commit sinful acts, and that physical death is a natural phenomenon: 'Spiritual & eternal death passed to all, because all have actually & personally sinned."

(5) Arminian - Methodist {Arminius {1560 - 1609) & John Wesley {1703 - 1791}), which says that although man is born physical and intellectually depraved, his will can cooperate with the Holy Spirit, so that he becomes guilty only when he "ratifies" his sinful nature by committing sinful acts: "Physical & spiritual death is inflicted upon all, not as the penalty of common sin in Adam, but because, by divine decree, all suffer the consequences of that sin, & because all personally consent to their inborn sinfulness by acts of transgression."

(6) Pelagian (Pelagius, c 410), which says man is born innocent and able to obey God but sins by following the bad examples around him: "All incurred spiritual and eternal death by sinning after Adam's example."

But before turning to closer examination of the positive assertions about sin found in Jewish materials, I wish to look at some of the objections made to the Augustian version, the most "extreme" version, of the doctrine of original sin; and it will be clear from ever the above minimal presentation of the alternatives the many Christians as well as Jews find aspects of it unpalatable.  The list of objections, with possible answers, is organized according to the nine paragraphs summarizing the doctrine itself in Section A above.

(1) Objections to terminology. In this brief summary I present none. However,  Judaism, following Biblical and Middle Eastern thought patterns, prefers to build inductively from particular examples to more general principles; whereas Christian theology, heavily influenced by Greek ways of thinking, tends to start with general principles and work deductively to implications for particular situations. For this reason, Jewish thinkers find themselves uncomfortable not so much with particular terminology as with the whole theologizing enterprise.

(2) Objections to doctrine that Adam originated human  sin;

(a) God originated human sin; if He made man able to sin, God is the ultimate origin.

Answer: The logic may seem reasonable, but we are dealing with what Judaism, Christianity and secular philosophy acknowledged as a paradox or antimony. Scripture is clear that God does not do wickedness, is perfectly holy, has no unrighteousness in Him, cannot be tempted by evil and tempts no one to do evil, created man good, hates sin, and provided (in the Messiah) for the deliverance from sin (Deuteronomy 25:16, 32:4; Isaiah 6:3; Zechariah 8:17; Psalm 5:4, 11:5, 92:16; Job 34:10; Luke 16:15; Ya (James) 1:13). Furthermore, our consciences witness that we are responsible for sin not God.

(b) Satan originated human sin; he is responsible, the ultimate origin.

Answer: Christianity does not except this either as a means of removing responsibility from man or as a setting - up of an independent creator in the universe. Christianity has been accused of being dualistic, of setting up two gods, one (God) being holy and the other (Satan) being evil. But Christianity accepts the clear teaching of Job 1:2 that Satan's activities are thoroughly under God's control, and that Satan has already been defeated by Yeshua.

(c) Man is not responsible for sin because sin is only creatively limitation.

Answer: No; Adam could have chosen not to sin, but he willed otherwise. We too chose to sin, and we are responsible for our choice.

(3) Objection that turns on a wrong understanding of what "the" original sin was:

Adam's sin was minor; thus death is a disproportionate punishment.

Answer: Had Adam's sin merely eating some fruit, itself a morally naturally act, this objection would hold. But, as explained Adam's sin was disobeying God's single expressed command and thus rejecting God's authority, his will, his very person, apostatizing from God and rebelling against him, wilfully creating the very separation that is death.

(4) Objections to the notions of the original pollution and total depravity:

(a) There is no such thing as original pollution, because sin is not a state or a collection of inclinations but actual sinful deeds.

Answer: Both experience and  Scripture contradict this limited notion of what sin is. Our conscience convicts us, so that we feel guilty when we contemplate our sinful desires and our great distance from the holiness of God; and Scripture speaks of God's looking at mankind in the days before the Flood and seeing not only "that the  wickedness of mankind was great in the earth," but also "that all the inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all day long" ( Genesis 6:5).

(b) There is no such thing as original pollution, because there can be no sin prior to conscious intent. Therefore Adam's act of apostasy, which surely was not his conscious intent, is not condemnable; and also our own having a sinful nature and sinful inclinations, also not consciously intended is not condemnable.

Answer:  Common sense and conscience tell us that violating a command implies rebellion against the one that commanded. Furthermore, we feel guilty for things we have done even unintentionally - and Scripture provides for sacrifices in such cases ( Leviticus 5:17). Also Psalm indicates that people properly feel remorse for unintended sins - "Who can discern errors? Cleanse me from secret faults," contrasted with the following verse, "Also keep your servant back from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me" {Psalm 19:13-14(12-13); also Psalm 51:8 (6)}. The objection rests on the false premise that the law must be published or recognized; but if law is identical with the constituent principles of existence and binds human nature to conformity with God's nature (since man is created in his image), then right violations are demanded not arbitrarily but properly as manifestations of a right state of being. Verses 13 - 14a {Romans 5 i.e.} confirm this understanding

(c) There is original pollution, but it is not total: it affects only man's mind, emotions & body, but not his will, so that he can conquer his sinful inclinations by himself. {This is the Arminian position: see Section B(5) above.}

Answer: Man is not compartmentalized; the rot affects all of him. Though he can do some things of moral value, in the sense of things which prove beneficial in some measure to some, these have no spiritual value for him & do not constitute spiritual goo to be credited to his account.

(d)  A more specifically Jewish form of the previous objection: there is indeed an evil inclination {yetzer ra'} in man, but it can be conquered and even turned to  good use by following the Torah.

Answer: Apart from God man can do nothing; he cannot even obey the Torah properly, although he may be able to perform certain specific commands, because  apart from God he cannot Love God. Following the Torah today implies accepting Yeshua as Messiah & as the kapparah {Covering, atonement, expiation; See Romans 3: 35aN} for one's sin.

(e) The doctrine of original pollution & total depravity leads to unacceptable consequences, including these:

(1) It denies free will - if one has a sinful nature that compels one to sin, one is no longer free to choose not to sin.

Answer: Even the sinner remains free to choose better rather than worse course of action; Further, & more importantly, he is free to turn to God in repentance from sin & accept God's remedy for his condition - "Everyone who calls on the name of the Adonai will be saved" {Rom. 10: 33 & Acts 2: 21}, quoting Joel 3: 5 {2: 32}}.

(2) IT neutralizes appeals to conscience, making ethical conduct unimportant.

Answer: Ethical conduct is critically important for saved people, as Chapters 12-15 make clear. But for the individual himself, salvation is more important than ethical behaviour because it makes communion with God possible and enables him to will God's will. Moreover, salvation is not in conflict with ethical behaviour - it is not as if a person could help others by sacrificing his own salvation (see 9:2 -4a & N). Quite the contrary, it is only God's grace that makes the deeds of an unsaved person of value to anyone; God deserves all the credit, the rebellious unsaved person none.

(3) It makes a blasphemous charade of God's command to "turn from evil and do good" {Psalm 34:15(14), quoted at 1 Ke 3:11(1 Peter)}.

Answer: It is true that God commands sinners, who can do no good, to do good. But this means that they should turn from evil to God in repentance and acknowledge that God considers them righteous only because of what Yeshua had done for them. Only then, believing God, they will be able to do the good he has commanded them to do.

(4) It makes God's grace more important than man's conduct.

Answer: In a sense it is true that God's grace is above man's conduct - nothing man can do apart from God can force God to consider man righteous; in fact, the very idea is a contradiction. And apart from the great grace he has shown through Yeshua he never considers anyone righteous. Thus God's grace is indeed more important than man's conduct. Nevertheless, the conduct man should display is that of first turning to God and trusting him and his son Yeshua, and then doing what he has commanded. God's grace and man's conduct are not alternatives or opposites; the proper relationship between them is this: man's conduct should emerge from gratitude to God for his grace. (see Ep 2:8- 10).

(5) It is static and depressing, encouraging lethargy and discouraging struggle against sin.

Answer: The struggle against sin, apart from trusting God through Yeshua, is doomed to failure, because it is actually a struggle against God. The battle against sin will ultimately succeed, but only when it is carried out in God's way, with the resources he provides. Life apart from God is indeed static and depressing, and a  certain amount of self - motivated struggle ought to make one tired and lethargic after a while, since no amount or intensity of such struggle can lead to victory. But once one acknowledges God's remedy, the desire to do his will is more than sufficient motivation to lead to both enthusiasm and effectiveness in the struggle against sin.

(5) Objections to the transmission of original pollution by propagation:

(a) Genetic transmission of sin is too materialistic a notion.

Answer: Modern heredity theory explains transmission of physical traits and psychological dispositions from generation to generation, but the concept of propagation is broader than this. My example using scientific language was meant metaphorically, not literally.

(b) If  Adam's descendants inherit a sinful nature, then either the Messiah inherited from his mother Miryam (Mary) a sinful nature and is not sinless as claimed; or his  human nature was specially created, so that he is not truly one with us, and therefore his atonement is ineffective.

Answer: While not an objections that would be raised by Judaism, this is a serious objection to Christianity. It arises out of the assumption within the Augustinian version that human souls are not individually created by God for each person but are somehow passed on from the "original soul - stuff" God created at the beginning. The objection does not arise in connection with some of the other versions of the original sin doctrine.

(6-7) Objections to the notion of original guilt and its imputation to Adam's posterity:

(a) If God counts me guilty for a sin I did not commit, he is neither fair not just. ##

Answer: This is the immediate gut - reaction of most people who object to the doctrine of original sin in any of its forms except Pelagianism. The objection has several components which can be separated from each other; paragraphs (b) - (e) deal with some of them. Here I make these points:

(1) Could there have been a fairer test of the human nature we share with Adam than what is reported of him in the Garden of Eden? He was created sinless, was fully aware of God's single command, and was not subjected to a dependent childhood immersed in evil examples. Could we, with inborn depravity and examples of sin all around us, have done better?

(2) An alternative is to attribute the imputing of original guilt to God's sovereignty rather than his justice. But this pits his sovereignty against his justice.

(3) There is a spiritual union with the Messiah that assures our salvation, and this is considered just (Rom. 3:26); so, by analogy, the physical and natural union that causes our guilt is also just. ( See more on this in paragraph (b) and at the end of this Section C.)

Answer: This was the deal with in paragraph (7) of the presentation of the doctrine itself: here we add that sin has a self - isolating character which closes us off to the bonds uniting us with others. People feel united with their families, professional colleagues, nation or the unfortunate in proportion to the breadth of their sympathies; and if their sympathies are broad enough they feel united with all mankind - which would include Adam and  his apostasy. The self - isolated and self - contained see themselves as responsible only for their own personal acts, but those with broad sympathies identify with the human race. Most Jewish  prayers, for instance, are composed in the first - person plural; a notable example in the Tanakh is Daniel 9:1-19.

(c) A person should not be considered responsible for a sinful nature he did not personally originate.

Answer: Conscience and experience say we are responsible for what we are, even if we did not originate it. Being responsible for having a sinful nature is not like being told one is guilty of some external wrong done by someone else one never heard about; the sinful nature is  not external to us - it is our own inmost selves.

(d) Given that one cannot repent of someone else's sin, Adam's sin cannot be imputed to us, because we cannot repent of it.

Answer: This should be included with paragraph (3) above, because it misunderstands what Adam's sin was. True, we cannot repent of his eating forbidden fruit; BUT WE CAN REPENT OF APOSTASY FROM GOD, both as an act he committed & as a state that we are in. I fact, people who have turned to God in faith are continually finding themselves unsuspected evil pockets of apostasy & rebellion which call forth the deepest repentance.

(e) If we are held responsible for Adam's first sin, then we should be held responsible for all his latter sins - & for those of our immediate ancestors as well. But Bible clearly repudiates such a notion; "father shall not be put ot death for children, nor shall children be put to death for fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin" {Deuteronomy 24: 16; see also Ezekiel 18: 1- 4}.

Answer: The first sin of Adam, the apostasy, was unlike his latter sins or anyone else's sins. This first apostasy of human nature occurred but once, & for this we are responsible, because it is our apostasy. However, the passages from Deuteronomy & Ezekiel apply to all latter sins, since these are personal acts.

(a) Death is not a penalty but a natural phenomenon.

Answer: It can be debated whether death was a natural phenomenon for animals in Eden {where neither men nor animals were carnivores}; but genesis 3: 22 implies that Adam had the potential to be immortal, & Genesis  2: 17 states that God decreed death as the penalty for human sin. The fact that we find it hard to imagine life on earth if everyone lived forever does not mean that God would be unable to control overpopulation or rule other aspects of such an ecology.

(b) The death penalty is inappropriately large for Adam's sin.

Answer: If based on the idea that Adam's sin was minor, see my answer at (3) (a) & (7) (b); if on the idea that unconscious sins are uncondemnable, se my answer at (4) (b).

(9) Objections to accepting Yeshua's sacrificial death as the only remedy for original sin:

(a) The Torah specifies many different kinds of sin offerings, guilt offerings & other sacrifices for various kinds of sin, but none was ever commanded for original sin, original pollution or original guilt. therefore there is no need to atone for such sin or remedy it.

Answer: The whole sacrificial system itself can only hint at the seriousness with which God regards sin. by his mercy he did not require Adam's immediate physical death, but God did cause a death, the first sacrifice, that  of the animal with whose skin he clothed Adam & Chavah {Eve}, immediately following Adam's transgressions {Genesis 3: 21}. [This is so important to realize - it was NOT as soon as Eve ate that sin entered - BUT IT WAS AFTER ADAM Ate that sin entered or was completely completed as it took male & Female to become ONE UNIT in God's eyes & not just one partner} The unceasingness of the sacrifice is also suggestive {MJ 10: 1 - HEbrews which reads like this: "For the Torah has in it a shadow of the good things to come, but not the actual manifestation of the originals. Therefore, it can never, by means of the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, bring to the goal those who  approach the Holy Place to offer them." Please read next few verse also so to get a bigger picture.}  as are the stories of Avraham's offering Yitzchak {Gen. 22} & God's preferring Abel's animal sacrifice over Cain's offering of grain & / or vegetables {Genesis 4: 1-8}. To see only sins & be blind to sin is to miss the forest for the trees.

(b) How can believing this or that fact about someone who died 2 thousand years ago change the inner core of a person's being?

Answer: It is not intellectual accepting facts which saves {Ya 2: 14 - 26 & NN - I will not cite James here - so pleas read the passage yourself -If I have time later on I may be able to add those notes below as there are so many pages to type} but putting one's complete trust in God & in His having solved man's basic  problem already. As Sha'ul puts it, what saves is being "immersed into the Messiah Yeshua" & "into his death" (Romans 6: 3}. Also, as he explains in Ch. 6  & 8, it is not that our sinful inner nature is changed but that  we receive as new nature that loves God & is able to do spiritual good.

(c) Trusting in Yeshua is unnecessary; it is enough to trust God.

Answer: "The God who is there"  {to us a book titled by Francis Sachaeffer}, the God who really exists, is the God who in fact sent Yeshua. trusting in God necessarily implies trusting in Yeshua his Son. to suppose that one can trust in God without trusting in Yeshua & his atoning death is to trust only in the god of one's imagination & not in the God of Avraham, Yitzchak & Ya'akov. "Everyone who denies the Son is also without the father, but the person who acknowledges the Son has the Father as well: [1 Yn 2: 23 & N {1 John}] I will add the notes here in green so to distinguish then from original text. from JNT Commentary page 772.
 

"This passage invites comparison with Yeshua's own statements - "If  you knew me you would also know my Father too" (Yn [John] 8: 19}, I an the Father are one" {Yn 10: 30", and "I am the Way - & the truth & the Life; no one comes to the Father except through me" {Yn 14: 6}. All these verses refute the Two - Covenant theory {[ee Yo 14: 6&N {No, I will not cite that passage here}], which says that Jews & Christians each have their own independent but equally valid covenants with God, so that Jews do not need to relate to NT or Yeshua {I personally do not know how this author comes to that conclusion as I have always been of the opening from my studies that ** ALL ** People from all nations are UNDER ONE Covenant ** THE NEW ONE **.}

Even though Yochanen is writing primarily to gentiles believers, he makes his statement universal: [just as I understand it]  Everyone, jew & gentile alike, who denies the Son - which in context {v. 22}, means denying Yeshua's Messiahship - is also without the Father. Thus does the NT directly contradict a central tenet of non - Messianic Judaism, that a Jew can have God as his Father while rejecting Yeshua. On the contrary, it is the person who acknowledges the Son who has the Father as well, as though in Yn 14: 6, cited above.  But Everyone who denies the Son is also without the Father. Nothing could be clearer. {Emphasis mine}

Ecumenical dialogue which attempts to overlook this basic contradiction between non - Messianic Judaism on the one hand, & Messianic Judaism & Christianity on the other, must ignore, distort or defuse this verse. Such dialogue will be built on a facile & super - facial bowdlerization of NT faith, and any agreement emerging from it will necessarily have side - stepped what the Bible presents as serious & true answer to the ultimate question of life. On the other hand, the dinim, {halakhic decision} of  Rabbi Moshe Feinstein [1895 - 1986], an American Orthodox Jewish community leader, prohibited Jews from engaging in religious dialogue with Christians at all. In a way, his rulings recognized the irreconcilability of the opposing claims, more honest than denaturing the claims themselves. But recognizing irreconcilability is not the same as recognizing truth & prohibiting discussion of a subject is not the way to arrive at the truth about it.

Some segments of the Orthodox Jewish community carry this approach even further by prohibiting the reading of NT itself. Obviously, persons who subject themselves to this din have less opportunity to learn whether the NT's claims are true;  although there are instances of Orthodox Jews who happened to come across a NT, read it secretly, & discover it to be not the hateful book of lives it was perpetrated to be, but the book of love & salvation which it is.

Just as a side issue I will cite what this author says about verse 27 on anointing & you have no need for anyone to teach you - I hope you like it also "YOU is Plural & refers to whole community as a whole.. You have received the Messiah's Anointing, literally, YOU HAVE AN ANOINTING; but, because of the context, this could be rendered, YOU HAVE BEEN "MESSIAH'ED." HaKadoshed {The Holy One} is understood here to mean God the Father {see Rev 3:7N} Because the Holy One has "Messiah-ed" you with the real Messiah, Yeshua, YOU KNOW ALL THIS, about the danger of anti - Messiahs {vv 18-19}.

Back to the Original text: Hope you didn't mind me providing you with the notes!

(d) We can conquer sin by obeying the Torah.

Answer: At this point in history, obeying the Torah implies trusting in Yeshua & his sacrificial death for us.  See Rom. 10:4&N & MJ 8: 6&N - I will not cite then now.} In Short - Torah's aim is to pint towards Messiah, who offers us Torah's righteousness, which is God's righteousness, TO EVERYONE WHO TRUSTS In YESHUA.

(e) We can conquer sin by doing good works / deeds.

Answer: Even though our acts can have external benefits to others & to our selves, God will NOT regard these as good in regard to our own spiritual well - being if they are not based on our trust in God through Yeshua.

(f) If Adam's sin is ours by propagation, then so can Yeshua's righteousness & faith be ours by propagation.

Answer: Propagation does not transmit personal guilt, only the guilt of the species. SInce GRACE, Righteousness & Faith are Personal, these are NOT Transmitted.

Finally, to the entire understanding of producing such a thing as the doctrine of original sin there is the objection that it gives beyond what Scriptures actually & clearly says into realms of vague, unnecessary & misleading speculations that causes sin that ought to be used in the struggle against it. Closely related is the question of why Christianity has devoted such effort to this matter, while traditional Judaism has not.

Answer: The reason Christianity has developed the thought - structure of original sin may be found in the passage under discussion, Romans 5: 12 - 21, and also in 1 Cor 15: 21 - 22, 45 - 50 {please read those passage privately}; for in these places Sha'ul develops the parallel between the Messiah & Adam, thus elevating  Adam's role in human history above what was clear to writers who had only Torah to rely on. In answering the question, "How can Messiah's death save us?"  with "The same way Adam's sin Killed us," Sha'ul inevitably opened up the question. "How did Adam's sin kill us?" Christian theology's varied answers to this last question, gives limited information. And the answers are varied because even though the bets minds have wrestled with the problem there is left a remainder of uncertainty, since all of us still "see through a glass, darkly" {1 Cor. 13: 12, KJV}. To be sure, it is possible to misuse theology, just as one can misuse anything else; but the proper use of doctrine of original sin is to make one ever more aware of how filthy & unholy sin is & how vital it is to pursue the struggle against it, with the help of Holy Spirit given to us because we have trust in Yeshua.

BUt is it true that the notion of original sin "goes beyond Scripture"?  See what the Tanakh itself says, quiet apart from anything added by the New Testament.
 

Numbers 15: 28 speaks of sinning unwittingly which reads on page 233 {my copy is soft cover version}: "The priest shall make expiation before the Lord on behalf of the person who erred, for he sinned unwittingly, making such expiation for him that he may be forgiven.:

Leviticus 5: 5 - 6 talks of the sin offering for sins of omission {page 158}: "When he realizes his guilt in any of these matters, he shall confess that wherein he has sinned. 6 And he shall bring as his penalty to the Lord, for sin of which he is guilty, a female from flock, sheep or goat, as a sin offering; & the priest shall make expiation on his behalf for his sin."

Leviticus 4:14, 20, 31 of the sin offering for sins of ignorance [from page 156 - 157}: 14 -"When the sin through which they incurred guilt becomes known, the congregation shall offer a bull of the herd as a sin offering, and bring it before the Tent of Meeting.. 20 - He shall do with this bull just as is done with the [priest's] bull of sin offering;  he shall do the same with it. Thus the priest shall make expiation for them, & they shall be forgiven.. 31- He shall remove all its fat, just as the fat is removed from the sacrifice of well - being; & the priest shall turn it into smoke on the alter, for a pleasing odour ti the Lord. Thus the priest shall make expiation for him, and he shall be forgiven.:

Leviticus 1: 3 talks of the burnt offering for general sinfulness, "that he may be accepted before Adonai" - No Other Reason is Given.

In Psalm 19: 13 {12} the writer begs God, "Cleans me from secret faults," which not only shows that sin may be a state as well as an act {for faults are not acts}, but also suggests that sin is pollution, defilement, impurity, uncleanness. This is confirmed is Psalm 51: 4{2}, "Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity & cleanse me from my sin,"  & in Leviticus 16: 16, 19, where on Yom - Kippur[ Day of atonement] the cohen hagadol [priest } must make atonement for Holy Place & cleanse the alter because of "the uncleannesses of the children of Israel" - with the word "uncleannesses" being used together with the words "transgressions" & "sins." The idea of the defiling force of sin is brought out in A. Buechler's indispensable Studies in Sin & Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First century {New York: Ktav, 1967}.
 

Isaiah 1:5 proves that sin affects a person's entire being: "The whole head is sick & the whole heart faint."

Jeremiah 17: 9 makes the same point: " The heart is deceitful above all things & is exceedingly wicked; who can fathom it?"

In addition this verse suggests that sin has power beyond man's capacity to understand, let alone conquer, without God's help. Psalm 51: 7{5}, "Behold, I was shaped i iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me," together with Job 14: 4, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one,"  strongly suggests transmission of original pollution through the generations, so that each person is born with it. The verses quoted by Sha'ul at Roam 3: 10 - 18, together with 1 Kings 8: 46 & Ecclesiastes 7: 20 {both quoted in Rom. 3: 23N}, establish at the very least that sin is universal.

With such broad support in the Tanakh for the doctrine of the original sin, how has Judaism avoided  accepting it?

By giving greater weight to passages that stress human free will & the efficacy of ethical behaviour, such as Genesis 4: 6-7 {"And Adonai said to Kayin [Cain],, 'Why are you angry? Why your downcast face? If you do well, won't you be accepted? And if you don't do well, sin is crouching at the door; it lusts after you, but you can rule over it.'"} & Deuteronomy 30: 15, 19 {"See, I have today set before you life & good, death & evil. therefore choose life, so that you may live"}. But ruling over sin & choosing life began & ended with trusting in God & relying on his strength {1:17, quoting habakkuk 2: 4}; such victory is unattainable apart from God, which means apart from God & Yeshua.

Judaism, in its effort to avoid the conclusion that it is essential to rust in Yeshua's atoning sacrificial death, sometimes produces a picture of man as self - reliant to the point of caricature. For example, Trude Weiss - Rosmarin's Judaism & Christianity: The Differences, which frequently becomes a polemic against Christianity, says,
 

"The jew rejoices when he can prove his ethical mettle is the unaided battle against the temptation of sin .. The Jew is taught to regard himself always & ever stronger than sin & the power that draws him to it. he is bidden to glory in that strength." {page 50 - 51, all emphasis hers}

"There is no bridge that could span the gulf separating the Jewish doctrines of free will & freedom of ethical choice from the Christian dogmas of 'original sin' & 'grace'" {Page 52}

For I do not see an unspannable gulf between Jewish & Christian doctrine, but a difference in emphasis, encouraged & exaggerated by the prolonged conflict between the Synagogue & the Church. This becomes clearer if we turn to  Jewish writings outside the Tanakh, such as the Apocrypha:

"Do not say, 'It is through the Lord that I fell away,' for you are not to do the things he hates. Do not say, 'It was he who made me go astray,' for he has no need for sinful person. the Lord hates all abomination, & those who fear him do not love it either. He made mankind at the beginning & left him in the hand of his own decision. If you will, you can keep the commandments; & to act with faithfulness is a matter of intention. He has set before your hand to whichever one you want. Before man are life & death, & whichever he likes will be given to him... He has not commanded anyone to do wickedly, & he has not given anyone license to sin." {Sirach {Ecclesiasticus 15: 11 - 17, 20}

A Messianic Jews  can agree with all of this, provided it is understood that the "decision," "will" & "intention" which lead to "water" & "life" commences with TRUSTING in Yeshua the Messiah. So does every Christian!!
 

These ideas also find expression in the Talmud:

"Everything is in the hands of God except the fear of God" {B'rakhot 33b}

"Whoever desires to defile himself will find all the gates open, & whoever wants to purify himself will be able to do so." {Shabbat 104a ; compare Rv. [Revelation] 22: 11}

And in the Rambam's Mishneh - Torah:

"Every human being can become as righteous as Moses or as wicked as Jeroboam." {On Repentance 5:2}

The Biblical basis for such an idea is genesis 6:5, "And Adonai saw that ALL INCLINATIONS {yetzer} of the THOUGHTS OF HIS HEART was only evil {ra'} all day long," & genesis 8: 21, "..for the inclination {yetzer} of man's heart is evil {ra'} from his youth."

But they did not consider the yetzer ra' to be an unmitigated woe. the Midrash Rabbah presents it as providing motivation for necessary life activities:

"Nacman said in the name of Rabbi Shmu'el: 'And behold it was very good' {Genesis 1: 31} refers to the yetzer ra'. But can yetzer ra' be very good? Amazingly enough, yes - were it not for yetzer ra' no man would build a house, take a wife & father children, or engage in business; as Solomon said 'I consider all labour & excellence in work & concluded that it comes from a man's rivalry with his neighbour' {Ecclesiastes 4: 4."  {Genesis Rabbah 9:7} Sounds familiar hey! Keeping up with the Jones's :-))

Turning to the role Judaism gives to Adam, one can find rabbinic materials passages that recognize role in bringing sin & death to humanity.

"Rabbi Yose said, 'If you want to know about the reward of the righteous in the world to come, consider Adam. he  was given ONE SINGLE Negative Command. he violated it, & see how many deaths have been decreed for him & for all his generations forever. Now which is greater, the attribute of reward [literally, of  goodness] or that of punishment? Surely the attribute of reward is greater. SO if the attribute of punishment, which is less, caused so many deaths, then think how much more who repents from sin & fasts on Yom - Kippur  {Day of Atonement} will cause z'khut [being declared innocent] to himself & to all his generations forever." {Sifra 27a}

If we move beyond rabbinic Judaism to the apocalyptic Judaism of the Pseudepigrapha, which was not expunged from the accepted tradition of Judaism until many decades after Sha'ul, we find ideas even closer to doctrine of original sin. Consider 2 Baruch 54: 14 14 - 15, 19 which says, in the context of Baruch's praying for the meaning of a vision.
 

"It is just that those who do not love your Torah perish; the torment of judgement awaits those who have not submitted themselves to your power. For although Adam first sinned and brought death upon all, yet of those born from him each as prepared future torment for his own soul; also each of them has chosen for himself future glories .. Adam is therefore not the cause, except for his own soul, but each of us has been Adam of his own soul."

"[You gave the] Torah to Jacob's seed & the Commandments to the generation of Israel. And yet you did not take away from them the evil heart, that  your Torah might bring forth fruit in them. FOr the Fists Adam,  clothing himself with the evil heart, transgressed & was overcome; and likewise also who were born of him. Thus the infirmity become inveterate the Torah indeed was in the heart of the people, but in conjunction with the evil seed; so what was good departed, and  the evil remained." {4 Ezra 3: 19 - 22}

"A grain of evil seed was sown in the heart of Adam from the beginning; how  much ungodly fruit has produced until now & will yet produce until the threshing - floor comes! Calculate it in your own mind: if a grain of evil has produced this much ungodly fruit, then when once the innumerable ears of good seed have been sown, how large a floor will they fill?" [4 Ezra 4: 30 - 32

"Who of those have come into  the world has not sinned? Or who among the earth - born has not transgressed your covenant? Now I see the coming age will bring delight to the few but torment to many. FOr evil heart has grown up in us which has estranged us from God, brought us to destruction, made known to us the ways of death, showed us the paths of prediction & removed us from life! And this is true of not merely a few, but of virtually all who have been created! {4 Ezra 7: 46 - 48}

"And I replied, 'This is my first and last word: It would have been better if the earth had not produced Adam, or, alternatively, having once produced him, for you to  have kept him from sinning. For how does it profit any of us that in the present age we must live in grief and after death look for punishment? Adam, what have you done! For although it was you who sinned, the fall was not yours alone but ours also who are your descendants! How does it profit us that we have been promised the eternal age, when we have done the works that bring death'" (4 Ezra 7:116-119)

The word "fall" here translates Latin casus, which may also be rendered "fate", destruction." In any case, of all Jewish writings, 4 Ezra comes closest to expressing the idea that the whole  human race shares in Adam's sin.
Finally, the Midrash on Psalm 51:

"Healing comes from you [God]. Because the wound is large, put a large poultice on it for me, as it is said, 'Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity' {Psalm 51:4 (2)}. From this you learn that everyone who commits a transgression is as unclean as though he had touched a dead body and must be purified hyssop. So too, David actually said, "Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean" {Psalm 51:9(7)}. Did David actually fall in uncleanness and thus require purging with hyssop? No, but into an iniquity whereby his soul was wounded unto death. Thus also in another Psalm, he said, 'My heart is wounded unto death within me' (Psalm 109:22)."

Contamination by a dead body is the severest form of ritual impurity; here sin is spoken of a equally defiling. Compare the passages from the Tanakh  on defilement quoted above.

E. Messianic Jewish Theology of Sin.

I do not propose to construct a Messianic Jewish theology of sin in this note. My purposes in the survey have been to show that there is not a single monolithic, fixed and settled Christian theology of sin; that Jewish objections to the doctrine of original sin have often been more against a slogan than against the content of the doctrine properly understood; and that there are many Jewish sources that dovetail well with the New Testament approaches to the subject, even if mainstream Judaism ignores them today. If Judaism stresses man's effort while Christianity focuses on God's grace, are these not two aspects of one truth? Man's effort apart from God's grace is ineffective, but the New Testament urges those who are saved by grace to continue struggling against sin by the power of the Holy Spirit and to do the good works God has prepared for  him to do. There is room for Messianic Jewish expression of the theology of sin that does justice to traditional Jewish emphases without departing from the truths of Scripture as set froth in both the Tanakh and the New Testament.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

to be continued from page 372 top