The Power of Choice

Among religions that embrace the Bible as God’s word, there are two approaches that attempt to explain the nature of man. Christians for the most part embrace Original Sin and this belief is backed by the current understanding which comes from the writings of the New Testament. Jews however do not embrace this theory, as the belief put forth in the Old Testament or Tanakh does not support it. We call what came upon humanity after eating of the tree in the Garden, the Evil Inclination. In this paper, I want to open discussion of these two beliefs and their effects on humanity.

So first off, what is Original Sin, and when was this doctrine formalized in Christianity?

The following quotes cite what is generally believed to be timing for the development and the definition of Original Sin:

“While the Genesis story lays the foundation for the concept of the Fall, St. Augustine was the first to use the term “original sin” and articulate its transmission through human reproduction. The Roman Catholic Church later formalized the doctrine at the Council of Trent, while figures like Martin Luther and John Calvin contributed to its development and spread, especially during the Protestant Reformation.” (See Reference here).

“The doctrine of original sin was developed by Saint Augustine in the 4th and 5th centuries and gained official acceptance in the Western Church at the Council of Carthage in 418 CE, leading to its incorporation into Roman Catholic doctrine. The doctrine was then formalized further by the Councils of Trent in the 16th century.” (Web Reference here).

“Original sin is an Augustine Christian doctrine that says that everyone is born sinful. This means that they are born with a built-in urge to do bad things and to disobey God. It is an important doctrine within the Roman Catholic Church. The concept of Original Sin was explained in depth by St Augustine and formalized as part of Roman Catholic doctrine by the Councils of Trent in the 16th Century. Original sin is not just this inherited spiritual disease or defect in human nature; it’s also the ‘condemnation’ that goes with that fault.” (Reference)

But is this an acceptable approach in the process of salvation?

I would guess that the majority of Christians accept the doctrine of Original Sin as undeniable truth.  I am uncomfortable with it.
The belief that Adam and Eve, by choosing to eat of the forbidden tree, now had no alternative but to receive a fallen nature– inherently sinful for their descendants from birth. It continues that all of humanity has carried this curse from that moment in the garden until this day. This obviously demands interference from Heaven in providing a substitute who cleans up the record of whomever will accept it. However, if we think through this theory and what it actually reveals, we will see things that do not fit the picture.

Sins that pass down:

There is the verse given in Exodus 20 in the command to abstain from idol worship which claims that the sins of the fathers pass down.

Exo 20: “5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I YHVH, thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;” Note that these are passed down from those who hate God.

So how do we fit that into our views? We know that an alcoholic or drug addict often passes down tendencies toward addictions to his or her children. We see it all the time. And a mother or father who justifies lying in their own life will see the same trend in the lives of their children. Is this a genetic weakness? Or is it learned behavior? If it is not genetic, then why do children who are adopted out as infants to different home often have the same traits? It is almost like hereditary weaknesses to disease. But regardless of our parents weaknesses and actual sins, we are challenged to overcome these things, no matter how difficult.

There is the question of why the Eternal would even place that tree in the garden and allow Eve to be seduced and lied to in her status of innocence. This creates a picture of a cruel and unjust God who purposely created mankind to fail. It also leads to a need for another substitute god who understands mankind by taking on human flesh and is able to present them to this angry God and justify them by his own blood.  But I cannot accept this theory because of what it does to distort the character of the God of the Universe!

If my last two articles are correct (See Here and Here), when the Creator said, Let US make man in Our image, after Our likeness, He was speaking to the man who would play a part by his own choice of which nature would dominate him. It also indicates that mankind, though created by the hand of God, was still made from the dust of the earth, which meant that he was created to be human and not in the image of the angels. His choices would decide if he would reflect the divine image, or if he would merely be as the beasts that perish. 

Those who strive for the divine image struggle with difficulties placed upon their nature by the choices their first parents made at the forbidden tree. Is this struggle all bad? It surely would have been easier for humans to live here on earth in luxury, not having to work, having everything they want bestowed upon them without a struggle on their part, but was that the divine plan?

So what actually happened at the tree? Is it possible that rather than God being harsh and exacting, He was planning through the cooperation of mankind after the fall to become the strongest race of beings that were ever created? Was the Yetzer Hara (Evil Inclination) really a condemnation of doom to the human race, or was it actually a test and process for the creation of man in the image of God? A program for the creation of people who would be trusted to rule the world and maybe even part of the universe?

A case was made by the serpent to doubt God’s word and His very character. Eve chose to offer the same temptation to Adam, who might have resisted but for her insistence, joined her in disobedience. At this point they opted for the right to choose for themselves against the instructions of the Creator. Was it right to choose for themselves at this point in their time on earth? I can’t answer that. The choice they made was clearly based on doubt towards their Creator and desire for something new and exciting. Isn’t this what is behind nearly every bad choice that humans make?  If we think of the sins that usually tempt us, most of them are irrational based on good judgment. Sins of lust, exploitation, self gratification, murder, thievery, abuse of drugs and every other temptation.

Judaism claims that the Yetzer Hara came into being when the couple chose to eat of the fruit. But how is the Evil Inclination different from Original Sin? 

So what is the difference in the two views?

Original sin is a burden mankind cannot deal with unless he has a substitute. He is born with a sinful nature and cannot be righteous by his own choices nor by suppression of his evil nature, nor of locking oneself in monasteries where self chastisement is practiced. 
The Evil Inclination, is an inherited tendency to obey one’s passions and lusts, that is, like Original Sin passed down from generation to generation, but contrary to the view of the helpless condition of mankind under Original Sin, the evil inclination can be suppressed by obedience to the Torah and humbly seeking help from the Almighty. So the Yetzer Hara can actually be a testing agent to prepare us for greater things. We think of kings who sent their young sons to learn sword fighting in past ages. They had to become strong and clever to be able to fight the wars that they must win when they became king themselves.

From Sefaria (a Jewish Reference website), the Way of God by the RaMCHal:
“Man is the creature created for the purpose of being drawn close to God. He is placed between perfection and deficiency, with the power to earn perfection. Man must earn this perfection, however, through his own free will…Man’s inclinations are therefore balanced between good [Yetzer Hatov] and evil [Yetzer Hara], and he is not compelled toward either of them. He has the power of choice and is able to choose either side knowingly and willingly...” Reference

There is a proof text for the idea that sin can be overcome before the evil inclination is acted upon in Genesis, where God interrupted Cain before he slew his brother:

Gen 4:”5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. 6 Then the YHVH said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

So before Cain acted on his anger, he was told that he could and must rule over it. This does not sound like Original Sin, of which it is claimed that humanly we can do nothing about it and that is the reason for the need of a substitute to overcome for us.

Very early on in the history of the world, God Himself tells Cain that he can “do what is right”: and if he does, he will “be accepted”. Note that he is not condemned for his anger. This is that evil inclination that he received from his parents genetically. But Elohim continued:”you must rule over it.” Can we as humans rule over our passions? Christianity says we cannot without a substitute. The Bible says we can do it with God’s help and our own determination. This is how righteous men and women of old were formed–man rising above the dust of the earth to reflect in himself the divine image!

Before the flood, there were two distinct classes of people. The righteous Sons of God who exercised control over their passions and submitted to God’s leading, and the wicked rabble –those who chose to follow their passions. The world came to an end at that time for all but eight people. 

Are there other examples?  Does God offer strength to overcome?

So how do we explain Psalms 51:5?

“5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.” 

This verse is used to support the doctrine of Original Sin, yet, the Evil Inclination, (the desire to do evil) is also passed down from generation to generation. So what is David saying? That the temptation was overwhelming and he blew it. That it was natural for him to be tempted and though he does not excuse it, he reminds the Creator of this as if reminding Him of his human weakness, but David goes on to express his gratitude for God’s mercy. In a way, he blames his parentage for passing this temptation down to him. But in the words that follow, he takes the entire blame. 

Psa 51:”3 For I know my transgressions; And my sin is ever before me.  … 7 Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.  8 Make me to hear joy and gladness, That the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.  9 Hide thy face from my sins, And blot out all mine iniquities.  10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; And renew a right spirit within me.  11 Cast me not away from thy presence; And take not thy Holy Spirit from me.  12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; And uphold me with a willing spirit. “14 Deliver me from the guilt of bloodshed, O God, you who are God my Savior, and my tongue will sing of your righteousness. 15 Open my lips, Lord, and my mouth will declare your praise. 16 For you do not delight in sacrifice; else would I give it: Thou hast no pleasure in burnt-offering. “

It is interesting that while David pleads with God to forgive him and to restore to him a clean heart, he shows it has nothing to do with a blood sacrifice. This shows the trusting human response to God when after we have sinned. And the truly righteous God we serve who needs no middle man to stand for us as an advocate. Our Creator Himself is our Savior and the only one who can forgive sin. 

Mic 7: “18 Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. 19 You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.”

Nineveh: In the story of Jonah, the people of Nineveh put on sackcloth and repented from their sins after Jonah told them of the forthcoming destruction of their city. Then God repented of the wrath that he had towards them and forgave them, though it angered Jonah:

Jon 3: “6 When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. 7 This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh: “By the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. 8 But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.” 10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.”

Jon 4:”1 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry. 2 And he prayed unto YHVH, and said, I pray thee, O YHVH, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.”

Are babies born sinners?

This belief, one of the most damning of them all, places sin in the genetics which cannot be overcome. It takes sin out of the realm of acting and places it in our flesh. In the case of Cain, above, when Elohim spoke to him, he was already angry and ready to kill his brother. But that thought and attitude was not sin, he was reminded to overcome the tendency to do evil. When we blame ourselves or others for what we or they think, then we are missing the entire picture. Sin is what happens after the temptation. 

How to stop smoking! Just do it? 

One desires to stop smoking (I am not referring to smoking here as sin). 

The urge is extreme. “Just let me have that next cigarette.” But you resist it this time. The urge gets stronger, You stop for two weeks, then someone lights up and offers you a rolled cigarette. This time you light up and enjoy it, but then you feel ashamed, but you don’t give up. You try again. Two months later the same thing happens, and you hate yourself for your weakness, but you determine to try again. Two years later the urge is a little less though still desirable, and you have learned to stay away from people at work who are taking a smoke break. Avoidance.

Ten years later, the smell of tobacco still affects you, but you have learned to resist and to avoid it. And now you are no longer a smoker. So good for you! Some people never muster up the courage to quit, and some don’t want to quit. But this is about choices and change. You can do anything, almost, that you set your mind to do!

What about words? What about an angry temper and cussing? If words unjustly hurt people, are they classified as sin? If cussing makes us look weak and evil, with no self-control, then maybe start a cuss jar. Put money into it each time. When it adds up, give it to charity. Turn something bad into something good, and if it hurts enough, maybe you will see a change. 

So, I believe that the evil inclination–the temptation to do things that are wrong, is not sin. It is what you do with it. And as to Original Sin, no baby is destined to hellfire without sprinkling. We die for our sins, not for our tendencies! 

May your path to the Divine Image be successful,

Ariella Golani