In his column “Why Religion May Be a Matter of Ideology, Not Theology,” Mr. Schenck claims that the Christian concept of sin originated in Old English etymology. But here’s a reality check: the Jewish religion had the idea of “sin” thousands of years before Christianity. About 4,000 years ago, Moses wrote the book of Genesis, which traces the lineage of Israel back to the first man, Adam, who committed the first sin.
So sin is a Jewish idea, not a European one. In the account of the Garden of Eden, Adam underwent a trial of obedience. He was a perfect man without sin, created with the free will to choose good or evil. When he chose evil, sin entered the world and caused all men to die.
Because of Adam’s sin, all his offspring inherited the legal guilt of his disobedience, causing all men to become sinful from conception. As King David wrote in Psalm 51, “In sin did my mother conceive me.” The Hebrew scriptures understood death as a divine punishment for sinful acts. So why do babies die when they have not even lived long enough to make a conscious choice of evil? Because they are incriminated by Adam’s guilt as well. And the sin and guilt that is transferred to them creates a fallen state of “original sin,” so that people are born into a sinful condition where they only desire to choose rebellion against God.
That is why the prophet Jeremiah describes the human heart as “desperately wicked.” In Psalm 14, the psalmist despairs, “The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who … seek after God. [But] they have all turned aside … there is none who does good, not even one.” All because Adam fell by his own free will.
Again, this is not a European idea, but a Jewish one — what theologians call “Federal Headship.” One man’s obedience or disobedience represents the entire race. The federal head either damns or saves all of his offspring, which is why God promised to Adam, as well as to Abraham, that a “seed” would come from their line who would save the race from death.
That seed was Jesus Christ, the second Adam. God Himself took on flesh. Conceived of a virgin by the Holy Spirit, He was born without original sin. He carried out Adam’s trial perfectly, never sinning once, but perfectly obeying the law of God. Then He submitted to death on a cross, where He was credited the sin of His chosen people. He paid for every sin they committed, and committed in Adam, in blood, canceling their guilt. And then He rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven to rule until the coming judgment.
Who represents you — Adam or Jesus Christ? Everyone who is represented by Adam will be judged as guilty, but everyone who is represented by Christ will be judged as perfect. So I urge you to believe in what Christ has done for you, for “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom 10:9).
Steven Begakis is a fourth-year political science and economics major.
Views expressed on the Opinion page do not necessarily reflect those of the Daily Nexus. We welcome all submissions; please include name & major and keep columns under 550 words.
Steven Begakis, you are an antisemite.
Stop projecting your ideology of sin onto others and shut the fuck up.
“When he chose evil, sin entered the world and caused all men to die.” By ‘he’ I believe you mean ‘she’. It was Eve who chose evil and she who persuaded Adam to eat the fruit. This is classic ‘gotcha’, fear based persuasion tactics, commonly employed by conservative bullies like Karl Rove. “Everyone who is represented by Adam will be judged as guilty, but everyone who is represented by Christ will be judged as perfect” Sounds like a serious case of inferiority complex. If some people don’t believe that a woman actually gave birth to a baby without having some… Read more »
“Follow me, or die.” That is the Christian message. God created us sick, and commands us to be well, on the threat of eternal torture. “Oh, but I love you so much! How can you not accept my gift of eternal life?” says the Tyrant. This is a shameful, disgusting, and totalitarian doctrine. Imagine a mobster, pointing a gun to your head, saying if YOU would only love ME, I’ll put down the gun, and you can come live with me forever and ever. Fuck that. Not only are all religions myths; they are all glimpses of the same inhuman… Read more »
Brian, Even though you hate God, He still mercifully bestows on you life and breath, extending even free pardon and salvation if you would believe. He gives you a sound mind to formulate clear sentences, even though He knows that in your rage you’ll turn it into slanders against His character. In the moments when your pen drips with the most hatred, His loving compassions surround you. Consider what, by Him, you already have in this life, and what more He would so freely give through all eternity, if through simple faith in Christ He were your Father and not… Read more »
LOL… this guy^^^ giving credit to an imaginary anthropomorphism. I assure you that Brian has a sound mind to formulate clear sentences because he’s read a lot and has honed his writing skills. Your god didn’t help here; evident in the fact that there are tons of people with lesser abilities who are god-fearing and have limited opportunities for upward mobility.
Interesting how you use MORAL judgement to condemn God and say that He is doing something morally wrong. LOL. WHERE are you getting your moral authority from? How do you KNOW this or anything is morally wrong or right…based on what?? You atheists want to reject God and morality, but you are the first to scream & cry like little babies when you think someone did something morally wrong to you. Get it??? Here’s the moral arguement that GOD is the only moral authority/lawgiver> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApVYpBwXWLk
Your ignorance of science and reason is unfortunate, Steven.
Steven, either you completely misunderstood my article, or you just chose to make a straw man out of it in order to spout your own ideology (as we’ve all seen you do in the past).
Have you ever had a conversation with a Catholic about the nature of sin? If you had, you would have realized that their conception is entirely different from the one you’ve espoused above.
This isn’t about who’s right or wrong, or about what did or didn’t happen historically. It’s about understanding our differences and the sources they’ve come from.