Original Sin: Part 4, Reconsidering Paul on Original Sin

I have been arguing for a reevaluation of the concept known as Original Sin. Basically, I've argued that Original Sin is more extrinsic, situational, and circumstantial than intrinsic, dispositional, and innate. My arguments to this point have been inspired by the social sciences: Economics, psychology, sociology. In this post I want to support my argument with the biblical witness.

To do this I'm going to borrow the analysis of Tom Holland in his book Contours of Pauline Theology. Given that most of the texts used to support the doctrine of Original Sin come from Paul we should, obviously, take this issue right to the source.

The question I'd like to ask is simply this: Did Paul really teach the doctrine of Original Sin?

To start, note that Holland's work isn't about Original Sin, but his fresh reading of Paul does have implications for the doctrine. What I'd like to do in this post is summarize the parts of Holland's work that I think have implications for the doctrine of Original Sin.

The main thrust of Holland's reading of Paul is to suggest that Paul was a New Exodus theologian. The original Exodus involved God liberating his people from bondage, leading them through the waters and wilderness, back to the Promised Land. But after the fall of the Davidic dynasty and subsequent exile the Old Testament prophets, namely Isaiah, began to hope for a New Exodus. Critical features of this New Exodus would mirror the former Exodus from Egypt. It would be led by a descendent of David who was anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11.1-2). This descendent of David would lead God's people through the wilderness to a new Eden (Isaiah 51.3). A New Covenant would be established between God and his people (Isaiah 9.6-7). Hearts would be circumcised (Jeremiah 31.31-34). A New Temple would be built (Ezekiel 44-45) where all the nations will gather to worship (Isaiah 2.1-5). And God will be married to his people and a great banquet will be thrown in celebration (Isaiah 54.1-8). (Contours, pp. 20-21)

It is Holland's argument that the New Exodus imagery of the Old Testament prophets framed the way the early church saw the Christ Event. There are many overt New Exodus passages in the New Testament (e.g., Acts 26.17-18; Galatians 1.3; Colossians 1.12-13; Revelation 1.5-6; Luke 1-2) but Holland goes further to suggest that the New Exodus imagery is the central motif of the New Testament, particularly the writings of Paul.

Holland argues that Paul, as a New Exodus theologian, builds his soteriology upon the paradigmatic salvation event in Jewish history: The Exodus, with a particular focus on the Passover. Thus, all of the categories that we find in Paul--sin, faith, justification, atonement, baptism, law, grace--should be read in light of the Exodus. Since most modern readers of Paul have failed to do this (particularly the Reformers) we've tended to get skewed readings of Paul. Holland concludes his book with these words:

"The conclusion of this study is that two major lenses have been missing from virtually all New Testament exegesis and that their absence has had a detrimental effect on properly appreciating the message of Paul. The first is the lens of the Passover and the second is the lens of a corporate reading of texts." (Contours, p. 291)

Unpacking this quote, Holland's argument is that by neglecting the Passover imagery Reformed theologians built their views of atonement and justification around legal metaphors. That is, the metaphor of salvation became about crime and punishment rather than rescue and deliverance. The second problem was that the Reformers read the passages concerning sin, faith, justification and baptism as dealing with individuals. You were a sinner who, as an individual before God, had to receive the gift of grace. But the Exodus was a corporate, collective event. A people were delivered from slavery. True, nations contain individuals, but the salvation experienced in the Exodus was a collective event.

If we follow Holland and read Paul through New Exodus lenses then suddenly Paul reads quite differently.

Here is one implication of this reading. According to Paul, "salvation" isn't about dealing with personal sin or guilt. It is, rather, God lifting a group of people out of bondage and creating a New Covenant with them (often symbolized as a marriage). As Holland writes:

"Paul sees that behind the conflict and alienation that man experiences is a whole universal order of rebellion. Man is at the centre of this struggle as a result of being made in God's image. Satan, the one who has sought the establishment of a different kingdom from that which God rules, has taken man, and all that he was made responsible for through creation, into bondage in the kingdom of darkness. The redemption of Christ is about the deliverance of man and 'nature' from this alienation and death." (Contours, p. 110)

All well and good, but it is critical to insist that this deliverance from bondage didn't happen in the privacy of our own hearts and prayers. Like the Exodus, the New Exodus is a corporate and historical event:

"The concept is not individualistic, as it is so often held, but is corporate, speaking of the state of unredeemed humanity in its relationship to Satan (Sin)." (Contours, p. 108)

"Thus, in Christ's death, there is not only a dealing with the guilt of sin and its consequences, but also the severing of the relationship with sin, in which unregenerate mankind is involved. It is an experience that encompasses the individual, but it is much more than solitary salvation. It is the deliverance of the community by the covenantal annulling effect of death...Having been delivered from membership of 'the body of Sin', the church has been brought into union with a new head and made to be members of a new body, 'the body of Christ'. (Contours, p. 110)

How might this new reading affect Pauline texts that seem to support the notion of Original Sin? Well, to take the case noted in the quote above, we can consider Paul's use of the phrase "the body of sin."

When Paul speaks of "the body of Sin" it sure seems like he's teaching Original Sin. But Holland argues that this conclusion only comes about if we read the phrase "the body" individualistically. That is, we are tempted to think that Paul is referring to your body and my body. But Holland argues that "body of Sin" is best read corporately. That is, we are a part of a larger body, a group of people, who are captive to sin. Paul's teaching here isn't that your particular human body is inherently sinful. No, "body of Sin" is a term of membership, designating which group you belong to. To quote Holland:

"...Paul sees the relationship between Satan and the members of his community, the body of Sin, as a parallel to that existing between Christ and his people. This ought not to be too difficult to accept in that the New Testament is constantly making comparisons between the members of these two communities that show corresponding relationships. Believers are citizens of the kingdom of light, unbelievers of the kingdom of darkness. Believers are the children of God, unbelievers are the children of the devil. Believers are the servants of God, unbelievers are the servants of the devil. These parallels ought to suggest that Paul would not find any difficulty in taking these comparisons to their ultimate conclusion. Believers are members of the body of Christ, unbelievers are members of the body of Sin." (Contours, p. 100)

If sin is about membership with a group rather than about some innate taint, then our reading of Paul completely overturns the notion that Paul taught anything like the doctrine of Original Sin. Holland is clear on this point (Contours, p. 110):

"It follows that the body is not in some way the bearer of sin nor is sin a deformation that is biologically inherited as some have suggested...[Sin] is relational rather than legal...Whether a man or a woman is righteous or a sinner in the biblical pattern of thinking depends upon the community to which they belong."

"Appreciating that the body is not the seat of sin as the traditional interpretation of the 'body of sin' suggests, allows us to realize that our humanity is God-given, even in its fallen condition. There ought not to be any shame in being human, nor in what such a reality implies. It should help us recognize that there are many natural emotions and desires that in themselves are not sinful and need no repentance; it is only their misuse that requires such a response."

In short, Paul didn't teach Original Sin at all.

Okay, then, how does this reading of Paul square with my Malthusian view of sin? Holland notes that in the New Exodus thinking the concepts of Death, Sin, and Satan get conflated. Paul often links sin and death (Romans 7.2-3; 8.1) in describing the satanic powers that enslave us. In other places sin and death are considered to be the Last Enemy to be defeated (1 Corinthians 15.45-55). These all appear to be echos that go back to the Exodus where the Angel of Death "passed over" the nation of Israel. As seen in the quotes above, Holland tends to lead with "Sin" and "Satan" but I think it is just as acceptable to lead with Death as the controlling power. Interestingly, this focus on death is supported by Holland's New Exodus reading. Specifically, consider Isaiah 28.16:

So this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation;
the one who trusts will never be dismayed.

In the New Testament this "cornerstone" passage is the most frequently cited Old Testament passage to describe the New Covenant in Christ. But in the verses preceding this passage (verses 12-15) a description is given of the Old Covenant from which the New Exodus will provide rescue (emphases added):

...to whom he said,
"This is the resting place, let the weary rest";
and, "This is the place of repose"—
but they would not listen.

So then, the word of the LORD to them will become:
Do and do, do and do,
rule on rule, rule on rule;
a little here, a little there—
so that they will go and fall backward,
be injured and snared and captured.

Therefore hear the word of the LORD, you scoffers
who rule this people in Jerusalem.

You boast, "We have entered into a covenant with death,
with the grave we have made an agreement.
When an overwhelming scourge sweeps by,
it cannot touch us,
for we have made a lie our refuge
and falsehood our hiding place."

I don't think a better description of our Malthusian plight could found than "We have entered into a covenant with death, with the grave we have made an agreement." And, interestingly, this Malthusian-inspired "pact with death" is the New Exodus description of what we call "Sin" or "Satan" in the New Testament.

In sum, I think Holland's New Exodus framework can be easily adopted to fit the model I'm building around a Malthusian notion of sin. Specifically, the "law of sin and death" is the how the Malthusian forces enslave the human mind. Death here, as I've argued, is read very literally. The specter of death drives human sinfulness. Again, we are not inherently evil. But we are in bondage, members of the body of Sin. And our bondage is biological rather than spiritual. (Or, rather, the biological infects and pushes around the spiritual.) That is, our biology tethers us to a survival instinct that is enslaved to Malthusian forces. If we submit to those Malthusian pressures, to the law of sin and death, then we are in Sin. We are submitting, as servants, to the Power of this World. You can call that power Satan if you like.

Salvation, as Holland has shown us, is being set free from the bondage of Sin. Again, saved not in a private, individualized way where the sin "inside" me is removed. Rather, salvation depends, to use Holland's words, "upon the community to which you belong." If you are a member of the Malthusian world you play/live by those rules, the rules of sin and death. The Malthusian rules of survival of the fittest. But Christ has created a New Community, the body of Christ, the church, that has been set free from the "law of sin and death." Those in the body of Christ do not live according to the self-interested impulses forced upon them by the Malthusian world. Death can't push around the body of Christ. Freed from the Angel of Death, who passes over due to the blood of the Lamb, the body of Christ can live sacrificially and lovingly. A feat impossible when in bondage to Satan. Or Sin. Or Death. Or Malthus. Or whatever you want to call it.

Next Post: Part 5