Duck and Cover

“…For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations of those who hate me.” (Ex. 20:5)    

While we find echoes concerning the doctrine of “original sin” in the preceding verse, note that the object of the sentence is directed to “those who hate me,” not those who love me. An important point, as it suggests that free-will has been and will continuesto be a primary factor concerning an individual’s relationship with God. And from that perspective it challenges elements of Christian tradition, not only the doctrine of “original sin” itself but “the atonement,” as in popular Christian polity they are invariably interlinked. Begging the question, are we missing something here, or has the church read something into the the biblical narrative that is clearly inconsistent with the Hebrew Bible? To provide clarity and for the sake of consistency we must first acknowledge the Old Testament’s foundational credentials regarding “the word of the Lord.” Not only is it fundamental for a closer reading of the New Testament, but remains the primary source and therefore essential for sound Biblical theology: “Think not that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets; I have come to fulfill it.” (Matt. 5:17)

And standing upon that “Rock of Salvation,” the words of Jesus himself, I would offer this. The phrase remission of sins pertains to a debt past due and not what might be accrued, post-salvation. As the apostle said: “…who God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith, in the shed blood of Jesus, to declare his righteousness, for the remission sins (past debt) and through the forbearance of God.” (Rom. 3:25) The crux of the problem is that sin remain’s a hurtle for most, a bar too high, if you will, regardless of the cost paid or unmerited favor vouchsafed to believers. Obviously, and in most cases, despite assistance from the Holy Spirit, sin remains a problem which can only be remedied by a willful turning away; as Jesus said: “…go and sin no more!” It may be worth asking then, has anything changed that would alter the fundamental sin equation? Yes, one might say, everything has changed since the advent and resurrection. Will true, we cant sidestep the essential contradiction; if the sacrificial the Lamb rendered the corporate debt of accrued sins null and void, while providing believers with a clean sheet, so-to-speak, why does the stain of sin remain? And, in consideration of the fact that the New Testament Epistles abjure believers from turning back to sin after having once been saved, the common understanding of “once saved, always saved” becomes nothing more than an oxymoron for repeat offenders.

Are we tracking? “For if by one man’s disobedience many became sinners, so also by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” (Rom. 5:19) Note the emphasis on many, and will be made righteous, indicating that salvation from sin is a process, one through which believers will be made righteous. As the apostle said: “…we are being saved.” (1 Cor. 1:18) Again, “… brothers and sisters, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and is brought back by another, …whosoever brings a sinner back from wandering will save that sinners soul from death, and in so doing, cover a multitude of sins.” (James 5:19-20) While this verse may seem to suggest that salvation can be lost, and even restored, it remains obvious that salvation is something that must be actively pursued by avoiding sin.

In the same token, but on a completely different track, we read from the scriptures: “…As Jesus was passing by, he saw a man who had been blind since birth. His disciples then asked him, who did sin, this man, or his parents that he was born blind? And Jesus answered. Neither did this man sin, nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”( Jn. 9:1-3) Interestingly, the Lord’s response to the disciples’ inquiry brings into question once again the doctrine of “original sin.” To parse this out, let us turn once again to the Hebrew Bible, and the specific passage wherein the Lord God of Israel is arguing that very point with the prophet Ezekiel, saying: “Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father, you say?” “Simply because the son has done what is lawful and right in My eyes, keeping all of my statutes and observing them–he shall surely live. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. But if a wicked man turns from all his sins and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live and not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him because he has turned to righteousness and therefore shall live.” “Do I take any pleasure in the fact that the wicked should die and not turn from their evil ways and live saith the Lord?” “Yet, if a righteousness man turns away from righteousness…shall he live? All of the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered because of his unfaithfulness and iniquity which he has committed, because of them he shall surely die.” (Ez. 18:19-24) There is a lot to unpack here, so let us focus on one particular question. How is it then that “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself,” if not by works, right thinking and a through a contrite heart?

Quite interestingly, the preceding dialogue between the Lord and Ezekiel seems to infer that there was no need for a priestly intermediary, or even a substitutional sacrifice as a propitiation for personal sin. Not to say that the Levitical priesthood was a human fabrication. On the contrary, it was instituted by God as a means of corporate restitution, as the nation of Israel was not yet conformed to the precepts of the Law. IE. It was a work in process, as we can see for example in “The Binding of Isaac.” (Genesis: 22) The knife of obedience was already at Isaac’s neck before the Angel of the Lord stayed Abraham’s hand. The fact that God intervened serves to illustrate that his ultimate intention was not for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, which would have only served to validate the need for a substitutionary blood sacrifice for a remission of sins. Instead the Lord used the ordeal to demonstrate Abraham’s unwavering faith and obedience to God. In addition, the event also served as a signatory for the future in which animal and human sacrifices would no longer be acceptable to God. And regarding that particular point, what He was really driving at was a willful transformation of the human heart, resulting in, not only voluntary conformance to the dictates of the Law, but the spirit of the Law.

From that perspective then, Christians should be able to draw a parallel between the previous event and the following passage: “Although he was a son, it was meet for him that he learn obedience through those things which he suffered, and being made perfect, became the author of eternal salvation for all those that believe and obey. (Heb. 5:8-9) Even so, this passage is typically misconstrued by insisting that Issac was but a type and shadow of the sacrifice to come. — “Behold the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.” (Jn. 1:29) Although Christ suffered, and by doing so demonstrated obedience, much like Abraham, but a king that could overcome even death itself, while at the same time founding a priesthood of believers that would follow in his footsteps, even unto the cross itself. In any event, there is nothing in either the scenario of Abraham and Issac or the willful suffering of Jesus that might suggest a “scapegoat” theology. Rather “the buck stopped there!” In turn, placing the weight where it rightfully belongs, on the shoulders of the individual believer. Yet, in truth, it is no longer a solitary endeavor, as Emmanuel is with us: “Behold, I am with you always, even until the end of the age.” (Mk. 16:1-8)

While the scriptural continuity between the Old and New Testament is a given, the Christian doctrine of original sin and the atonement have become substitutionary for a requisite personal accountability that in turn produces fruit after righteousness, earning for New Testament. As for those who take issue with the fact, scripture is quick to remind us. — “The Lord remains the same yesterday, today and forever.” (Mal. 3:6, Heb. 13:8) That said, don’t think that Christians are the only ones who have the goods on salvation, as Jesus said: “Salvation is of the Jews!” (John. 4:22) In other words, while God may have revealed himself to the world through His creation and to Israel through His miraculous interventions and revelation through Moses, God’s standard remains as it has always been, a stretch for the casual adherent. Likewise, putting Jesus in the archetypal position as a “fitting sacrifice” for Christian and Jewish indiscretions is not going to cut it. Unfortunately, it seems that humanity itself continues to be something of an exercise in futility. As Jesus said: “If you believe not in me, at least believe in the miracles you’ve seen, which in themselves testify to the fact that the Father is in me and I in Him.” (Jn. 10:38)