The doctrine of Original Sin holds that Adam and Eve’s transgression in the Garden of Eden left humanity with permanent guilt. This belief suggests that humans inherit a fundamentally flawed or “totally depraved” nature from birth, thus rendering them guilty from the outset. This belief posits that because of Original Sin, all of humanity is, by default, condemned to hellfire.
John Calvin wrote:
For our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific in all kinds of evil, that it can never be idle.
John Calvin
This teaching became fundamental in reformed, fundamental, and evangelical theology:
Because of Adam’s sin, we’re all guilty and deserve God’s eternal punishment.
The Gospel Coalition
All men are in total rebellion. Everything they do is the product of rebellion and cannot be an honor to God but only part of their sinful rebellion…Man’s inability to submit to God and do good is total.
Got Questions website
Natural (soulish) unregenerate men cannot comprehend the things of God. They are the unborn dead (spiritually) who know only darkness. They are totally depraved, wholly incapable of thinking, perceiving, or doing anything pleasing to God.
Duane Edward Spencer
Original Sin was first articulated by Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD). Emerging from Catholicism, the doctrine was embraced by the Protestant reformers. Presently, the doctrine of Original Sin is predominantly upheld by the Roman Catholic church and most conservative Protestant denominations. This chapter critically examines this doctrine’s ethical and theological implications in relation to the development of hellfire.
Augustine’s Interpretation and Its Ethical Implications
Augustine, trying to justify the baptism of infants, suggested that the guilt of Adam is transferred to all humans. According to Dr. Ken Wilson:
Because infants have no personal sin, Augustine deduced their baptisms for forgiveness of sin must be based upon their inherited guilt (reatus) from Adam’s first sin.
Ken Wilson
Augustine’s interpretation of Romans 5:12 was influenced by an early faulty Latin translation, which rendered the phrase “because all sinned” as “in whom all sinned,” implying that all humanity sinned in Adam. This misinterpretation led Augustine to develop the idea of inherited guilt, which became a cornerstone of Catholic and Protestant theology.
Augustine’s doctrine has profound ethical implications. It posits that every human being is born guilty and deserving of eternal punishment due to Adam’s sin. This view raises several ethical concerns—I will briefly explore three:
1. Collective Punishment
The unfairness of collective punishment: Condemning all of humanity for the sin of one individual is fundamentally unjust. It violates the principle of individual responsibility central to moral and legal systems. The Old Testament consistently emphasizes personal responsibility for sin. For instance, Ezekiel 18:20 states, “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son.“
Original sin implies that every human being, regardless of their actions, is born deserving of eternal punishment. This view raises difficult questions about the fate of those who cannot consciously sin, such as infants, the unborn, and individuals with severe mental impairments. Including them in the blanket condemnation contradicts the notion of a just and merciful God.
2. Adding on Top of God’s Punishment
Another concern is the injustice of adding the punishment of eternal conscious torment, exacerbating the unfairness. The Genesis text points only to earthly consequences (Genesis 3:16-19), such as physical death due to the Tree of Life becoming no longer available (Genesis 3:22) and physical suffering, such as pains in childbearing, not eternal torture. Augustine’s interpretation introduces a new layer—an extreme and morally problematic form of punishment not explicitly supported by the biblical narrative.
3. Disproportional Punishment
Another concern is that this unfairness is intensified when considering the fact that human beings—in contrast with their Creator—are inherently limited in their mental and emotional abilities, including limited in wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and capacity for moral decision-making. These limitations contribute to our propensity to sin. Unlike God, who is omniscient and perfect, humans often struggle with discernment. They are susceptible to various influences, both external and internal, such as misinformation, emotional stress, and physical tiredness, that lead to wrong conclusions, bad decisions, and sin.
For instance, naivety and emotionality make us vulnerable to manipulation and temptation, as seen in the case of Genesis 3. Likewise, physical limitations, such as fatigue and illness, affect our brains, behavior, and decision-making. Using this example, if we were created perfectly like God—never tired and containing all possible information in advance— then judging humanity according to perfect standards would be justified. These factors should serve as a recognition not of condemnation from birth but of our need for grace from God and each other.
But what about the Bible—do the Scriptures teach Original Sin? Advocates of Original Sin point to three main passages: Psalm 51:5, Jeremiah 17:9, and Romans 5:12. Let’s examine these.
Psalm 51:5
In the January 2006 article titled “What Is the Biblical Evidence for Original Sin?” on John Piper’s website “desiringgod,” the article opens with the claim that “Psalm 51:5 states that we all come into the world as sinners.“
Psalm 51 is a penitential psalm expressing deep remorse and seeking forgiveness. King David wrote it after the prophet Nathan confronted him about his adultery with Bathsheba and his orchestration of the death of her husband, Uriah. The psalm is a heartfelt plea for mercy, cleansing, and renewal from God, emphasizing themes of confession, repentance, and the desire for spiritual restoration.
Poetry, Not Manual
Interpreting Psalm 51:5 as if speaking of Original Sin or Total Depravity is a classic example of Eisegesis. Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text in a way that introduces one’s own presuppositions, agendas, or biases. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text.
First, it is essential to recognize that this passage is Hebrew poetry rich with bold and imaginative figures of speech. Hebrew poetry often exhibits a freedom that deviates from standard forms of expression. Therefore, extracting statements from poetical literature and using them literally as a basis for doctrinal schemes is a significant error.
A bad translation of Psalm 51:5
When read in context, Psalm 51:5 suggests that David was born into a sinful environment, a statement open to various interpretations. In fact, you have to be reading a Calvinistic translation of the Bible even to consider Psalm 51:5 to be about Original Sin or Total Depravity.
For example, the distinction between the NIV (Calvinistic) and KJV (mostly neutral) translations of Psalm 51:5 reflects subtle yet significant differences in how the verse is understood and interpreted, particularly regarding the nature of sin and the human condition at birth.
NIV Translation:
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Psalm 51:5, NIV
This translation suggests that David was inherently sinful from birth/conception, suggesting a personal moral state of sinfulness. It reflects a theological perspective that aligns with notions of Original Sin, where every individual is born with a sinful nature. This,, of course, aligns with the Augustinian-Calvinist view.
KJV Translation:
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Psalm 51:5, KJV
The King James Version offers an entirely different interpretation, focusing on the environment or the circumstances of David’s conception and birth. This can be interpreted to mean that David’s birth occurred under sinful circumstances. The phrase “shapen in iniquity” suggests that David’s formation was influenced by sin, potentially pointing to the sinful acts or the morally corrupt context into which he was born.
The difference largely centers on whether “sinful” is perceived as an inherent quality of David (as suggested by the NIV) or as a descriptor of the environment or circumstances surrounding his conception and birth (as suggested by the KJV). Each translation brings its own interpretative layers to the text, which can influence readers’ theological conclusions.
As in the case of most Bible verses, and while the original Hebrew of Psalm 51:5 can be interpreted in several ways, it tends to align more closely with the KJV’s translation, emphasizing the circumstances of David’s conception and birth rather than inherent sinfulness from birth.
What Sinful Circumstances?
What situation, environment, or circumstances might Psalm 51:5 be referring to regarding David’s birth? I will now present the ancient Jewish interpretation of David’s birth circumstances, which is largely unknown to most Christians.
David, a rejected outcast
David’s strained familial relationships, particularly with his brothers (1 Samuel 17:28) and potentially his father and mother (Psalm 27:10), highlight a complex dynamic within his household. David was an outcast in his own family. His own parents rejected him: “Though my father and mother forsake me, the LORD will receive me” (Psalm 27:10).
As the story goes (1 Samuel 16), God sent the prophet Samuel: “Then he consecrated Jesse and his sons and invited them to the sacrifice.” To this significant event, Jesse invited all his sons except David, prompting Samuel to ask, “Are these all the sons you have?” (verse 11)
King David, a central biblical figure known for his spiritual depth and poetic psalms, has a birth story marked by family rejection and a controversial beginning. These early experiences shaped not only his path to kingship but also his character and spiritual life, emphasizing themes of redemption and divine favor. This helps us understand why David was notably absent from a significant family gathering—a sacrificial ceremony led by the prophet Samuel, who was to anoint one of Jesse’s (David’s father) sons as the future king. Despite the importance of the occasion, Jesse did not initially call David to attend. Only upon Samuel’s insistence did Jesse send for him. This incident underlines David’s peculiar position within his family, overlooked and underestimated even during pivotal moments. How humiliating this must have been for David—God sent a prophet to visit, and a ceremony was about to take place, but only he, David, wasn’t invited! But why? Why was David an outcast?
Conception in sin
In the New Testament, there are instances where the authors refer to sources, mostly Jewish, that are not part of the Hebrew Bible (or the Christian Old Testament). Three examples are Jude 1:14-15, where Jude refers to a prophecy within the Book of Enoch. Paul, when quoting Aratus’s poem “Phainomena” in Acts 17:28. And when Jesus quotes an unknown Jewish source or tradition in Matthew 5:43. Understanding the historical context surrounding biblical narratives is crucial for accurate interpretation. This context is often enriched by exploring sources outside the canonical texts, such as rabbinic literature, which provides additional insights not explicitly detailed in the Bible.
According to Jewish tradition, particularly a story in the Talmud, Jesse had a relationship that could be akin to that with a concubine, but it was with his own wife under a different guise. The Talmud recounts a complex story about Nitzevet: Jesse, her husband, doubted his lineage due to his descent from Ruth the Moabitess (Ruth 4:17). Consequently, Jesse had left Nitzevet after their seventh son and planned to father children with his Canaanite maidservant. Taking pity on Nitzevet, the maidservant proposed a plan: they would secretly switch places on the wedding night, allowing Nitzevet one more opportunity to be with Jesse. This plan succeeded, reminiscent of Leah and Rachel’s deception of Jacob, and Nitzevet became pregnant with David, her eighth son. Despite her apparent pregnancy, Nitzevet didn’t disclose the switch to Jesse. As a result, she was scorned as immoral, and her son David was ostracized within his own family.
The familial background and early life of David depict a more complex and nuanced backstory involving his family dynamics and conception, suggesting that Psalm 51:5 may speak more to personal and immediate circumstances rather than about some unrelated anachronistic doctrine that did not come into existence until about 1,400 years later. When considering all data and context, “Shapen in iniquity” and “In sin did my mother conceive me” most likely refer to the sinful way in which David’s parents conceived him, which also explains why he was a reject.
David’s early life and conception, which is marked by rejection and sin, paints a picture of a man who rose above his circumstances through divine favor. His journey from a shepherd boy overlooked by his own family to the revered king of Israel exemplifies a narrative of redemption and transformation, not of “total depravity” or “original sin.” These insights into David’s life offer not only a deeper understanding of his biblical portrayal but also serve as a reminder of the power of redemption.
Jeremiah 17:9
Back in the day, I used to serve at a fundamental baptistic-Calvinistic ministry in Israel. Once, I questioned a Calvinist co-worker and the theology professor at the ministry’s college, asking him about the self-sacrificial good deeds committed by Jewish non-Christians around us. He explained that, based on Jeremiah 17:9-10, these acts are fundamentally selfish and stem from wrong motives such as seeking attention and self-honor. I found the conversation rather strange, considering some of the examples I gave were people who sacrificed their own lives to protect those of others. While people can indeed do evil, it doesn’t mean they are inherently evil, as the image of God still very much exists within mankind and leads to many good and beautiful results.
Still, Jeremiah 17:9-10 states the following:
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.
Reformed fundamentalists, such as R.C. Sproul, interpret this verse to mean all of us are:
Born in sin, our hearts are “deceitful above all things, and desperately sick” (Jer. 17:9). We do not, apart from Christ, love the truth. We rationalize the irrational and defend the indefensible.
Likewise, John Piper adds:
All human beings — no exceptions — are born with this kind of fallen, diseased, deceived, self-exalting, God-opposing heart.
Jeremiah 17:9-10 from a Jewish perspective
The Hebrew Bible’s concept of “the heart” often signifies the seat of human will and intentions rather than an ontological statement about inherent evil. We can’t read this verse literally but metaphorically; otherwise, taken literally, “the heart is desperately sick” would mean heart disease. Instead, metaphorically, the heart can be influenced by evil motives. However, the heart can also be changed, as indicated in many other biblical passages that call for a “circumcised heart” (Deuteronomy 30:6). These verses, evidently, also speak metaphorically.
The original Hebrew word translated to “deceitful” is AQOB, meaning “cunning” or “can’t be trusted.” It originates from another Hebrew word, AQAB, meaning “heel,” which implies “following,” “tracing,” and “tailing.” This suggests that our hearts are often inclined to follow our emotions, which can be misguided or deceitful and, therefore, cannot be fully trusted.
While our actions might outwardly seem “good,” their underlying motives might not always be as pure. This doesn’t mean all actions are always evil; rather, it highlights the difficulty in discerning when a good deed is motivated by genuine goodwill and when it is not. However, God knows the heart’s motive for every action it takes: “The Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways.” (Jeremiah 17:10). The verse’s point isn’t to declare our heart as inherently evil but to emphasize its capacity for deception. Our actions, even when they appear good, can originate from impure hypocritical motives (Matthew 6:5). For instance, when money is given to the poor while filming the action for social media recognition. However, God always sees the true intentions of our hearts.
While the passage in Jeremiah underscores the propensity for human hearts to be deceitful, it does not make an unequivocal claim that all humans are inherently evil. Notice that the passage itself implies a degree of moral agency. God is said to “give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds,” which suggests that individuals are capable of good and are responsible for their actions and the conditions of their hearts; otherwise, why would the verse suggest giving blessings according to deeds?
Also, Jeremiah spoke in a specific context, at a particular time, and to a specific group. One could argue that Jeremiah was referring to a certain moral condition that the nation of Israel was experiencing at a distinct point in its history. This interpretation gains further credibility, especially when considering other verses where the people of Israel are said to have “a good heart” (1 Samuel 12:20, 2 Chronicles 19:9, or 1 Samuel 13:14). Furthermore, interpreting Jeremiah 17:9-10 not as an inclination of the human heart but as a generalizing statement that all humans are inherently evil ignores the broader scriptural context, which includes teachings on free will, repentance, transformation, and the existence of good, even in non-Christians (e.g., Acts 10:2).
To conclude, Jeremiah 17:9-10 speaks of the inclination of the human heart to do evil and why it can’t be fully trusted. In Jewish theology, this is called Yetzer Hara. A Hebrew term taken from the Flood story in Genesis 6:5, “for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth.” (Genesis 8:21).
The absence of Original Sin in Old Testament theology
In conclusion, other than the mentioned two verses, taken out of context, a thorough examination of the Old Testament reveals a conspicuous absence of the concept of Augustine’s Original Sin. This absence is telling. If Original Sin were such a foundational concept—or a concept at all—one would expect it to be clearly articulated throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, especially in the Law. However, in the Hebrew Bible, Adam is mentioned only twice outside of Genesis: In 1 Chronicles 1:1 as part of a genealogy and in Hosea 6:7, where his transgression is used as an analogy for Israel’s covenant violation. There is no mention of inherited guilt from Adam’s sin. The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 describes their disobedience and the subsequent consequences, especially the loss of access to the Tree of Life due to their expulsion from the Garden of Eden. However, this narrative does not suggest that Adam’s guilt is transmitted to all humanity, nor does it hint at the doctrine in question.
Romans 5:12
On John Piper’s website, “DesiringGod,” it is written:
“Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” (Romans 5:12). The first part describes what happened historically: through one man disobeying God, sin entered what had been a pristine world. The second part helps us see what was happening theologically: all of us sinned. Paul is not just saying that Adam kicked off a trend…No, Paul is saying something more profound and tragic: By the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners. (Romans 5:19). By Adam’s act, all of us are constituted sinners. His sin made us sinners…This is the doctrine of original sin, and it often gets bad press.
DesiringGod website
Firstly, it may not have been apparent that the website only quoted the first part of Romans 5:19 and omitted the second—more crucial—part.
Secondly, the implication of this verse is significant: if indeed the point of verse 19 is that humanity is condemned beforehand to eternal damnation due to Adam’s transgression, then the flipped side of that same coin is that through Christ’s obedience, humanity is now deemed righteous:
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
Romans 5:19
A closer examination of this verse and its context suggests that Paul’s intent may not align with the later Augustinian-Calvinist theological interpretations. Paul’s discussion of Adam in Romans 5 is part of a larger argument contrasting Adam and Christ. He presents Adam as a type of Christ, using the former’s disobedience and the latter’s obedience to illustrate the broader narrative of sin vs. redemption. Importantly, Paul does not explicitly state that Adam’s guilt is inherited by all humanity. Instead, he emphasizes that death spread to all because all have sinned.
Furthermore, the Greek text of Romans 5:12 can be interpreted in different ways. The phrase “because all sinned” (ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον) can be read as “because” or “in that,” suggesting either a causal or consequential relationship. This ambiguity has led to various interpretations, none of which unequivocally support the notion of inherited guilt. Peter Enns, a Professor of Biblical Studies, writes:
Let there be no mistake: the doctrine of the Fall, as it is understood by many (but not all) Christians, is absolutely dependent on this one passage filtered to us through Augustine’s understanding of Paul, and remains a view usually championed in the Reformed tradition and middle-of-the-road American Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism. Romans 5:12, translated properly (as in the NRSV and other translations), says: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned.“ The “one man” is, of course, Adam. And Paul seems to be saying, quite clearly in fact, that death spread because all have sinned. Now what that means exactly needs some clarification, but that isn’t the issue here. The issue is that Augustine, working from a poor Latin translation of Romans 5:12, has “in him” where the Greek has “because.” You can see the problem. Augustine’s reading is that death spread to all because all sinned in him [in Adam]. In other words, death spread to humanity because all humanity was somehow “present” in Adam’s act of disobedience. This bad reading of Romans 5:12, rooted in a bad Latin translation of the Greek, has led to the notion that all humans are culpable (guilty) with Adam for what Adam did—all humanity sinned in him. Augustine’s reading is what many Christians believe Paul actually said, and which is why Augustine’s notion of “original sin” is defended with such uncompromising vehemence as the “biblical” teaching. But neither Romans nor Genesis or the Old Testament supports the idea.
Peter Enns
Evidently, we are all part of a faulty world, and so we are also destined to be affected and add our own brokenness into the messy swamp of human sin. The reality of sin is proven by the fact that we live in a dying world and are slowly dying ourselves.
In commenting on Romans 5:12, Christian philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig explains:
It is in that sense that one man’s sin led to condemnation and death for all men: Adam was the floodgate through which sin came into the human race and then spread to all people…
William Lane Craig
A more nuanced reading of Romans 5:12 and related passages suggests that Paul’s intent was not to impose inherited guilt but to highlight the universality of sin and the need for global redemption through Christ. The verse emphasizes that death spread to all because all sinned, indicating a focus on the reality of human sinfulness rather than inherited guilt or the “original sin” tradition.
In other words, you are not guilty of Adam and Eve’s sins. You are guilty because you sin. Hypothetically, if the world were perfect, everyone in it was perfect, and you were born to perfect parents, there was the potential for you to be perfect. However, the imperfections of your parents and the world affect who you are and your decision-making. Therefore, you, too, are destined to be imperfect and sin, and so will your children and so forth. Like an incurable pandemic, sin entered the world long ago, contaminated anything good and pure, and spread to all people. In this context, our death is actually meant to serve a purpose, ensuring that we do not endure suffering indefinitely.
This article was a chapter from my new book: “HELL: A Jewish Perspective on a Christian Doctrine“
