Post Series
1. Introduction
2. Pagitt and Pelagius On Human Nature
3. Pagitt and Pelagius On Sin
4. Interlude on Sin
5. Pagitt and Pelagius On Salvation
6. Pagitt and Pelagius On Discipleship and Judgment
7. Conclusion
8. (Final Thoughts)

In between the posts on Sin and Salvation I thought I would post something short in answer to a question that has popped up in the comments. The question relates to the Jewish perspectives on original sin. While there is not a Jewish Scriptural tradition of “the fall” per se, there is certainly a concept of universal sinfulness and a solid case for a “fall” and “original sin” perspective within post-biblical (intertestamental) Jewish literature around the time of Paul. In other words, while the ancient Jewish tradition did not have a “fall” tradition per se, 1st century Judaism did, which Paul would almost certainly have heard of and influenced him.

First, though, within the Jewish Scriptural tradition itself, there are a few passages that speak to the sinful condition of humanity: The Psalmists writes in 51:4, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me;” Qohelet of Ecclesiastes 7:20 writes, “Indeed there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins;” Jeremiah in 17:9 exclaims, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” While the Psalmist comes closest to explaining the extent to which we have ruptured—from birth we have sinned; sinful even from the time of conception—the Hebrew Scriptures certainly affirm the reality that ethically we are morally polluted and rebellious, that we are sinful.

Also remember the obvious: Jesus and Paul themselves were Jewish! I know that’s sort of a basic, knucklehead assertion, but the idea that some how both of their perspectives on sin would have been innovative and divorced from the Judaism of their day is nonsense. Especially when we come to Paul—who was for all practical purposes himself a Jewish theologian—we cannot simply assume he is constructing a new theology of human nature and sin in a vacuum. In Romans particularly, he is reunderstanding the Jewish story in light of the Story’s climax in Christ, while also sitting in Jewish understanding of his time. As Jewett makes clear in regarding Romans 5:12, for instance:

Sin and Death appear to function as cosmic forces under which all humans are in bondage. The language of “personification” does not do justice to the apocalyptic worldview within which Paul is operating. To speak of sin as “entering” the world and death “reaching” all persons clearly implies that neither was present prior to Adam’s act. However on explains the background of this thoughts, it remains clear that Paul depicts Adam’s act as decisively determining the behavior of his descendants. A social theory of sin appears to be implied here in which the actions of forebears determine those of their descendants. ((Jewett, Romans, 374-375))

Paul, then, is operating within a worldview of the time, a worldview that could be culled from his own material, but which is also clarified when one looks at the the Jewish writing of the postbiblical period.

Of great importance within the intertestamental Jewish literary tradition is the Wisdom of Solomon, of which Paul certainly knew and even echos in his writings. Of relevance is Wis. 2:23-24:

For God created humankind for incorruption, and made him/her this image of his own eternity;
But through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who are of his party experience it.

By the time of Paul, Adam’s disobedience had become a major factor in explaining the human condition.

The most striking examples, however, come to us from two classic Jewish apocalypses, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, that emerged during the period following the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. 4 Ezra makes clear that Adam’s sin is attributed to his “evil heart:”

The first adam, burdened with an evil heart, transgressed and was overcome, as were also all who were descendents from him. Thus the disease became permanent; the law was in the hearts of the people along with evil root; but what was good departed, and evil remained…The inhabitants of the city [Jerusalem] transgressed, in everything doing just as Adam and all his descendants had done, for they also had the evil heart.

Furthermore in 4 Ezra 3:7, after Adam rebelled against God and his commandment, “immediately you [God] appointed death for him and his descendent.”

2 Baruch extends these notions of Adam’s fault for Humanity’s death and fallenness, specifically for the disaster of AD 70: Adam was guilty of deliberate transgression (4.3); “The darkness of Adam” (18.2) brough brevity of life and death for those who were born from him (17.3); “Death was decreed against those who trespassed” from the first day (19.8), “against those who were to be born” (23.4); “When he [Adam] transgressed, untimely death came into being” (56.6); and regarding the question of responsibility Baruch is explicit: “O Adam, what did you do to all who were born after you? What will be said of the first Eve who obeyed the serpent, so that this whole multitude is going to corruption? (48:42-43).

Even more significant is the view that individuals are repaid their own transgressions in 54;14, 19:

For, although Adam sinned first and has brought death upon all who were not of his own time, yet each of them who has been born from him has prepared for himself the coming torement…Adam is, therefore, not the cause, except only for himself, but each of us has become our own Adam.”

Interestingly, the phrase from Romans 5 that is of interest “through one man” is the first time it appears in biblical literature. In classical literature, this idea that someone suffers something because of another (for instance, “I have suffered injustices by a single wicked person…”)((Dinarchus In Demosthenem, 49:4; see also Hippocrates Epistulae)) does appear, but Paul now uses it in accordance with Adam. ((Jewett, Romans, 373)) Like much of these intertestamental examples, Paul believes that death came as a result of Adam’s sin and now our nature is affected in the way Adam was.

Clearly during the time of Paul, there are signs influential Jewish literature and the 1st century Jewish tradition viewed Adam as a “head” of humanity and that humanity participates in the sin of Adam, enduring the same consequences: death. Paul’s notions in Romans 5:18 that Adam’s trespass results in the condemnation for all people and in v. 19 that all are made sinners through his disobedience are not entirely unique and mirror the same Jewish perspective of his day.

Regardless, though, our Christian understanding of human nature and sin flows from Jesus Christ’s and Paul’s teachings. The historical background must only enhance our understanding of the two without dictating it. Romans 5:18, 19 in particular make clear that “in Adam” we are condemned (vs. “in Christ” we receive justification and life); “in Adam” we are made sinners (vs. “in Christ” we are made righteous). Particularly, in direct contrast to Pagitt and Pelagius, we are sinners not for violating particular codes or following bad examples, but because we are descendants of Adam.

Ethically we are morally rebellious because of the ethical violation of Adam: disobeying God; ontologically we receive the consequences for Adam’s disobedience and our sinful nature: condemnation and death. Theologically this cashes out as “original sin,” though the “total depravity” variation is not completely necessary. You can hold a lighter view of depravity (i.e. semi-Augustinian or even semi-Pelagian) and still hold to the orthodox view of original sin. You cannot deny original sin, however, and still be orthodox. That doesn’t make sense with Paul and that’s simply not Christian.