First, let it be said that Jesus is not recorded in the gospels as saying anything that can be construed as particularly supportive of the doctrine of Original Sin. Jesus did talk about sin, to be sure (and n.b., dear readers, I am not disputing the reality of sin, just the doctrine of Original Sin). Probably the closest he came to tackling the idea of inherited sin is the pericope of Jesus healing a man born blind in John 9:1-12, which begins:
As usual with Jesus, his primary point seems to be subvert the conventional wisdom of the day. His interlocuters assume that the man's blindness is a direct result of either A) his own sin, or B) his parents' sin.As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.'
Having said this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's eyes. "Go," he told him, "wash in the Pool of Siloam" (this word means "Sent"). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing. (TNIV)
Option A indicates that Jesus' questioners did consider it possible that sin was present in an infant: this man was born blind, and they wonder if it was his own sin that caused his blindness; since we can assume that they did not mean that he volitionally sinned in utero, they are asking Jesus about some inherited sin passed down through the generations.
Option B indicates that the man's blindness is a direct result of his parents' sins, whatever they may be.
The ideas of inherited and generational sin were topics of debate among rabbis in Jesus' day, so it isn't that surprising that Jesus' disciples would want him to weigh in on the matter. The Hebrew Bible itself is ambivalent on this notion. In Exodus 34, just after Moses chiseled the commandments,
But, as usual, Jesus doesn't pick A or B, but instead replies, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him." A bit of an odd response, and one that has implications for questions about theodicy, but surely not one that supports the notion of inherited guilt (Augustine) or total depravity (Calvin).
In sum, Jesus speaks several times about the reality and consequences of sin, but he does not seem to support the doctrine of Original Sin as it developed in the Early Church and the Reformation.
So, what say you, dear readers? How does Jesus support or not support the doctrine of Original Sin?
Option B indicates that the man's blindness is a direct result of his parents' sins, whatever they may be.
The ideas of inherited and generational sin were topics of debate among rabbis in Jesus' day, so it isn't that surprising that Jesus' disciples would want him to weigh in on the matter. The Hebrew Bible itself is ambivalent on this notion. In Exodus 34, just after Moses chiseled the commandments,
And [the LORD] passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation."Yet in Ezekiel 18, the Lord repeatedly announces through the prophet that the sins of the parents are not imputed to the children,
"Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them."We can see why the disciples' want Jesus opinion on the matter.
But, as usual, Jesus doesn't pick A or B, but instead replies, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him." A bit of an odd response, and one that has implications for questions about theodicy, but surely not one that supports the notion of inherited guilt (Augustine) or total depravity (Calvin).
In sum, Jesus speaks several times about the reality and consequences of sin, but he does not seem to support the doctrine of Original Sin as it developed in the Early Church and the Reformation.
So, what say you, dear readers? How does Jesus support or not support the doctrine of Original Sin?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
why discuss this matter, why not believe what Jesus said, this man is to be used for the glory of God. Thats what its all about, God getting the glory...right ? Not only in that mans life, but also in our own lives...
Perhaps this post has something to do with something or other, but none of these passages, despite the best attempts of Mr. Jones, has anything remotely resembling the idea of original sin. Jesus doesn't say the man was born sinless, just that his sin had no bearing on his blindness. The question is about the effect of sin. This post represents a poor attempt at logic, if in fact that was the aim of the post.
This passage is about breaking down cultural barriers. Jesus was pointing out the error of preconceived notions and the power of random consequences. I interpret this passage to mean that unfortunate events happen to good individuals and we have to hope that circumstances will improve overtime.
One of Jesus' main objectives was to breakdown the cultural barriers of his age and to show people to think beyond themselves and family to the common suffering of humanity.
Jesus never spoke of original sin. By his actions, he did not believe in it, because he was always about lifting people up out of their present circumstances and giving them a second chance.
Please do not belittle the Hebrew Scriptures by calling it the "old" testament or call Jews "backsliding". Don't you think that is a little insensitive? Please do not forget we receive most of our modern values from the Hebrew Scriptures. When Peter discusses "scripture" in his letters, he is referring to the Hebrew Scriptures.
He doesn't have to say anything about it because his very existence substantiates it. He is the lamb slain from the foundations of the earth. Which in turn speaks to Gods foreknowledge of mans fall. This was a Christophony from creation in Genesis where the mist came up from the earth and watered the whole earth and thus God formed man from the dust of the earth that just happened to be wet. Which is the reason why he spit on the ground first. If we begin to understand that all scripture points to Jesus in some way or another then we don't have to trivialize everything. Blessings
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.