The Mystery of Original Sin

The Mystery of Original Sin

We don’t know why God permitted the Fall,

but we know all too well the evil and sin that still plague us.

By Marguerite Shuster

e g e n d h a s i t t h a t G. K. Chesterton, asked by a newspaper reporter w hat was wrong w ith the world, skipped over all the expected answers. H e said nothing about corrupt politicians

or ancient rivalries betw een warring nations, or the greed o fth e rich an d the covetousness of the poor. He left aside street crime and unjust laws and inadequate education. Environmental degra-

dation and population growth overwhelming the earth’s carrying capacity w ere not on his radar. Neither were the structural evils that burgeoned as w ickedness becam e engrained in society and its institutions in ever more complex ways.

W hat’s wrong with the world? As the story goes, Chesterton responded w ith just two words: “I am.”

His answer is unlikely to be popular w ith a generation schooled to cultivate self-esteem, to pursue its passions and chase self-fulfillment first and foremost. After all, we say, there are reasons for our failures and foibles. I t’s not our fault that we didn’t w in the genetic lottery, or that our parents fell short in their parenting, or that our third-grade teacher m ade us so ashamed of our arithm etic errors that we gave up pursuing a career in science. Besides, we w eren’t any w orse than our friends, and


most honest part of us sees that we could have done differently in any particular case, but didn’t.

The Genesis narrative does not tell us why the Fall continues to affect us all. Nor do we learn why the serpent—that tempter identi- fied by the Christian tradition as Satan—turned away from God but was nonetheless allowed into the Garden of Eden. But it does give us profound insight into the nature of sin. Consider, for instance, the

seemingly inconsequential object of temptation. A piece of fruit? As the source of the ruin of the world? In Paradise Lost, John Milton has Satan describe the event as worthy of the fallen angels’ laughter. The corruption of humankind, so easily achieved!

But is it not ever thus? The pregnant teenager may have only

tried it once with her boyfriend, but her life will be forever altered. The AiDS-infected drug addic t may have fallen just once for the sales pitch, “Try it; you’ll like it!” But having tried it, it doesn’t matter whether or not he liked it—the act generates its own consequences. A wonderful old sculpture shows Eve cupping her ear to listen to the serpent while her hand reaches out behind her, beyond her own sight, to grasp the fateful fruit. Sometimes we are determinedly ignorant of what we are doing; we refuse even to recognize that we are doing wrong. It is the small wrong step that is so easy, the small deviation from the path that we cannot imagine will lead us ever farther from our goal.

Another reason we succumb to temptation is that we doubt God’s commands. We wonder, first, whether more is off limits than really is, which biases us against both the core of the command and the God who decreed it. Some Christians, rejecting empty legalisms that are no part of God’s purpose for his good law, end up neglectinghis actual commands. Eve herself is seduced into adding a prohibition against even touching the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which casts doubt upon the reasonableness of the original command not to eat of its fruit (Gen. 3:3). How often Christianity’s despisers depict it as an uptight, sour-faced religion of “thou shall nots,” keeping its followers from the innocent pleasures of a delightful world. God is presented as a cosmic spoilsport or, worse, a malevolent being dangling enjoyments in front of his creatures while simultaneously affixing them with the f o r b i d d e n label. In this way, “sinful” becomes code for something especially enticing, like the “sinful chocolate cake” on the dessert menu. Or, consider how Las Vegas flaunts its reputation as “Sin City.”

Having doubted the boundaries of God’s commands, we go on to doubt whether the threatened consequences of disobedience will really come to pass. On the surface, this doubt is understandable, as there seems to have been some truth in the serpent’s conten- tion that the primal couple would not die. Certainly they did not die right away, even if death had indeed entered in like a silent cancer. Unbelief hadn’t yet metastasized to soul-suffocating proportions. But a consequence delayed is not a consequence denied. We can abuse our bodies for a long time before we actually die of what our doctor says will prematurely kill us. We can abuse our spirits for a longtime, maybe even a lifetime, without seriously confronting the consequences of sin. But we will die in the end all the same, and meanwhile, unbelief leads us farther and farther away from God.

going along with the gang made life a lot more comfortable. We have lots of excuses for why things go wrong, and—as with any lie worth its salt—most of them contain some truth.

Still, by adulthood, most of us have an uneasy sense of self. What- ever we try to tell ourselves, something in us knows that we don’t measure up to our own standards, let alone anyone else’s. Even if we think we’ve done rather well, all things considered, there remains a looming conclusion to our lives we cannot escape. Death will bring an end to all achievements and all excuses. And who among us can face the reality of final judgment with the conviction that we are altogether blameless?

Maybe there is something to Chesterton’s answer after all. In fact, theologian Reinhold Niebuhr was fond of saying that original sin—the idea that every one of us is born a sinner and will manifest that sinfulness in his or her life—is the only Christian doctrine that can be empirically verified. Everyone, whether a criminal or a saint, sins. Insofar as that dismal verdict is true, it’s hardly surprising that there is a great deal wrong with the world.

W H Y DO W E S I N ?

But how could such a thing be? How could sin invade and pervade the world that God made good? To this great question, like the other great question of how it could be that Christ’s death saves us, the Bible gives no theoretical answer. Rather, it only narrates how it came about.

The account comes in Genesis 2 and 3, the second Creation narrative. In the first Creation narrative, Genesis 1, God celebrates what he has made and gives humankind a position of honor and responsibility. The second narrative (probably written earlier than the first) provides an important counterpoint, given the broken world we experience. In Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, Paul takes up this second narrative to point the direction to the doctrine of the Fall. What happened in Eden, Paul implies, didn’t stay in Eden. What went wrong in the beginning marks everything that follows. Adam’s sin not only brings the judgment of death upon all who come after him, but also makes them sinners. (True, Eve gets blamed in 1 Timothy 2 [see also 2 Cor. 11:3], but only Adam is named in Romans 5. Sin is an equal opportunity employer. In fact, the impulse to say, “I am not to blame, that other one is” flows from our primal disobedience.)

Paul doesn’t explain the cause of this universality of sin and death. He doesn’t blame inheritance or bad example. Indeed, he doesn’t say how it comes about at all. He only points to it, and comments later, in Romans 11:32 (h c s b ), that “God has imprisoned all in disobedience” (with the crucial caveat that he ultimately plans to extend mercy to all). Somehow, God’s own decision extends the consequences of Adam’s sin to us all.

Note, of course, that all people actually do disobey; it’s not as if we are counted sinners without actually being sinners (Rom. 5:12). Still, something within us is corrupt from the beginning, so that we do not love what is good with our whole hearts but are deeply inclined to evil. And once our excuses are stripped away, the reason we do evil remains as mysterious as the turning away of Adam and Eve. The

How could sin invade the world that God made good? To this

great question, theBible gives no theoretical answer. It only narrates how it came about

40 C H R I S T I A N I T Y T O D A Y | A p r i l 2 0 1 3

and evil, th e tree w ith the forbidden fruit, should be placed r ight in th e center of the Garden of Eden. The reason, he concludes, is that this is w here God belongs in our lives.

God is not a boundary a round th e edges o f our lives, a lim it to our abilities that we are always striving to surpass. Nor, w e m ight add, is he th e keeper of a boundary im posed by legalists w ho think w e can be changed through an

§ P $ ever m ore encom passing I se t o f rules. H e belongs : in the center. W ere God

m erely an outer boundary, s w e w ould be left w ith an

inner boundlessness, an I em ptiness a t th e hea rt of

th ings—left, th a t is, w ith- out any true organizing cen ter for our lives. I t is only w h en our rela- tionship o f glad obedience to God governs everything th a t w e will be truly free. T hen w e will find no need for a boundary at all. The more w e find ourselves needing to shore up boundaries, or feeling driven to escape them , the surer w e may be

that som ething is w rong at th e center. The tree at the center of Eden, then, is no t a malicious trap clev-

erly designed to snare the innocent and naive. I t tells us of the God w ho m ade us, w ho invites us to relate to him as who he is (and not on ou r ow n term s). I t tells o f th e God w ho defines good and evil according to his infinite wisdom, a wisdom m arked always by the grace and m ercy revealed in Jesus Christ. W e no longer have the freedom fully and freely to obey, to live in a w orld w ith nothing w rong w ith it, to be people w ith noth ing w rong w ith us. W e are corrupt, and creation suffers a curse on account of Adam and Eve’s lapse—and our own.

But if, in our unending failures, w e keep returning to the center, we will find One w ho will save us, and this capsizing world, from ourselves. As Romans 8 assures us, “T he creation w aits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, b u t by the will of the one w ho subjected it, in hope th a t the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.” W e await that day. β

What happened in Eden didn’t stay in Eden. What went wrong in the beginning marks

everything that follows.

T he other classic piece I of the temptation narrative I is its appeal to pride—its I stirring up of doubt as to I w hether there ought to be any lim its on hum an exploration. An old car- j toon gets the gist o f it: A Ϊ woman, fascinated by an | Apple computer in Eden, I hears the serpent declar- I ing, “Of course he told you I not to touch it. Then you’d I have all the knowledge he I does ” As the biblical ser- pent put it, “You’ll be like God.” Could God have a good motive for such a prohibition? Or only a petty, jealous one? Are there lines w e should not cross, even in our scientific I endeavors? Or is any such | thought entertained only by oppressors w ith wicked, self- interested motives?

In any case, we can presum e from the Genesis story that no such line will ever be made to hold. And if we w an t a cu rren t example of pride taken to its height, consider those who (to the dismay of many serious scientists) dub the Higgs boson the “God particle”: Knowledge, w e value to a high degree. Wisdom, not so much. W e w ant to decide for ourselves, and nothing can stop us. Another cartoon shows an angel, lightning bolt in hand, asking God if he should destroy the earth. God stops him, saying its inhabitants are doing a pretty good job of that on their own.

The world of Genesis 3 is the w orld w e live in. Seemingly insig- nificant choices, unbelief, and pride are key aspects o f the Genesis account, and of our ongoing struggle. They have a sort of universal character to them . Yet th e question remains: W hy did God allow such a state of affairs in the first place? W hy any serpent at all? Why, as theologian Karl Barth asked, place a d o n o t e n t e r sign over an open door? W hy not just close the door?

Barth answered his own question by saying that the open door with the attached prohibition represents the true state of affairs with respect to our relationship to God. W e are asked freely to orient ourselves to God’s will, freely to exercise the obedience that is our duty as creatures. W e are asked to believe, trust, and obey him even w hen there is not a reason to do so th a t w e can w rap our m inds around. W hy might that be?

GOD DELONGS IN T H E C E N TE R M arguerite Shuster is the Harold John Ockenga Professor o f Preaching

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in his profound book Creation and Fall, adds and Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary. She is the author of The Fall to th is picture. H e asks w hy the tree o f the know ledge of good and Sin: What We Have Become as Sinners (Eerdmans).

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

Comments are closed.