Behold, I was brought forth in guilt. And in sin my mother conceived me.
Paul spoke of our
human/fleshly nature, and of the fact that we indulge these desires of the
flesh far too frequently, thus being "by nature children of
wrath" (Ephesians 2:3). Indeed, all men are under the power of this sinful
nature, and "there is none righteous, not even one ...
there is none who does good, not even one" (Romans 3:10, 12), "for
ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). When
Paul took a good look at himself, he confessed "nothing good dwells in me,
that is, in my flesh" (Romans 7:18). He longs to do what is right in God's
sight; he longs to be more holy and righteous in thought and deed; yet he failed
time and again prior to receiving the empowering Spirit of God he said: 24 Wretched
man that I am! Who will set me free from this body of death? [Romans 7:24]
After his being empowered by God’s Spirit Paul
says: Thanks be to God through Jesus the Messiah our lord! So then, on the one
hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my
flesh the law of sin. [Romans 7:25]
Paul, like King David,
mourned the inherent corruptness and sinfulness of his fleshly nature, just as
they each were grieved by the power this nature held over their attitudes and
actions. It is easy to see, then, why sincere believers, who likewise struggle
with their fleshly nature, find some solace in the teaching that this is all
congenital, hereditary, and due to Adam choice not to obey His God and Father
Yehovah. Because of Adam’s rebellion the sinful nature of the flesh has been passed
on to all of humanity. So we excuse ourselves by saying, it's his fault;
"I was born that way" ... "it's on him, not
me!" We can shift the blame ... or so we think. Paul hints at this in
Romans 7:20-21: "If I am doing the very thing I do not wish, then I am no
longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle
that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good." "I'm a
prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members" (vs. 23). Yes, we all
(you and I) have a problem: there is a life-and-death struggle going on in each
of us. Our human nature, which is an integral part of our very being, which when
we were formed in the womb from the time of conception on, is a nature that is
prone to episodes of fallenness with respect to the
expectations of our God and Father. "The proneness to sin with its guilt
and its corruption is propagated from parents to their children" [Keil
& Delitzsch, p. 137]. The apostle Paul deals with this extensively in
Romans 5, not only discussing our fallen human nature, but also the consequence of
sin: death ["through one man ... death spread to all
men" - verse 12]. "By the one man's offense death reigned through the
one" (verse 17). "By one man's disobedience many were made
sinners" (verse 19). It is not that all men are personally guilty of
the same sin Adam committed, but that by virtue of that same nature, which is
prone to self-will and self-gratifying acts, we too disobey our Father’s will
and thus sin (regardless of the nature of that sin). "Death reigned ...even
over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of
Adam" (verse 14).
Well, that is indeed one
major teaching as to the meaning of King David's statement in Psalm 51:5, and
there is much both in and outside of the Scriptures that seems to give this view
validation. It has been embraced and proclaimed by some very respected
theologians down through the ages, and those understandings shouldn't be
dismissed lightly. On the other hand, verse 5, in Psalm 51 can be
legitimately translated a completely different way, and there are many versions
of the Bible that do so. Consider the following:
- "I was shaped in iniquity;
and in sin did my mother conceive me" - King James Version
- "I was brought forth in
iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" - American
Standard Version
- "I was brought forth in
iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" - English
Standard Version
- "I was brought forth in
guilt, and in sin my mother conceived me" - New American
Standard Bible
- "I was conceived in
wickedness; and my mother conceived me in sins" - The
Wycliffe Bible
- "In iniquity I have been
brought forth, and in sin doth my mother conceive me" - Young's
Literal Translation
- "With error I was brought
forth with birth pains, and in sin my mother conceived me" - New
World Translation
- "I was brought forth in
iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" - Revised
Standard Version
- "I was conceived in
iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me" - The
Septuagint
- "I was born in iniquity.
My mother conceived me in sin" - World English Bible
Those who embrace this
understanding of the statement in Psalm 51:5, believe that the sin was not
attributed to the baby in the womb, but rather to the mother who conceived and
gave birth to it. Thus, nothing is being declared, they say, regarding
"original sin" or the "sinful nature" of a fetus from the
moment of conception. Rather, the focus is on the act of conceiving itself,
which is a fleshly act motivated by a strong fleshly desire. The product of
that act (the baby), if the act itself was motivated by lust or committed
during an illicit union, could be said to be "conceived in sin" and
"born in sin," yet through no fault of its own. Drs. Keil and
Delitzsch point out that "the choice of the verb" in the text, which
is somewhat debated by scholars, "decides the question whether" by
this word "is meant the guilt and sin of the child or of the parents. The
term means 'to burn with desire,' and has reference to that, in coitus, which
partakes of the animal" nature [Commentary on the Old Testament,
vol. 5, pt. 2, p. 137]. "The later rabbis, combining this verse with the
mystery hanging over the origin and name of David's mother, represent him as
born in adultery. The word rendered 'conceived' is certainly one generally used
of animal desire" [Dr. Charles Elliott, Commentary on the
Whole Bible, vol. 4, p. 161]. There is no evidence, however, that David's
mother conceived him through an act of sexual immorality or adultery; nor is
there any evidence that she conceived him during her menstrual cycle, which the
Jews of that time found abhorrent, and which was contrary to the Law of Moses
(Leviticus 20:18).
There
are difficulties with both views:
The
first view has generated heated debate for centuries, for it suggests that all
men, from the very moment of conception are "totally depraved" and
thus "eternally damned" by virtue of sharing in the guilt of Adam's
"original sin." Thus, even while in the womb, a fetus is burdened
with the guilt of the sin committed by Adam.
Yet, there are passages
that clearly state a contrary truth. "Fathers shall not be put to death
for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a
person shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16).
"The soul – man/woman who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt
of the father, nor the father the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the
righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon
himself" (Ezekiel 18:20).
Although all men possess
a fallen nature, and thus share in that reality, no person bears the
guilt of another man simply by virtue of heredity. A baby isn't
born guilty of the sin of any person who lived before him/her.
We do share a common fleshly nature, and the consequences of giving in to that
nature, which is physical death, but guilt is the result
of our own surrender to that fallen nature, NOT as a result
of another's surrender to that nature.
The
second view has the difficulty of suggesting David seeks to place the blame for
his own sin upon his mother and/or upon a hereditary total depravity acquired
at his conception.
Both
David and Paul accepted the reality of a fallen nature with which they
struggled daily, yet each of these men placed the guilt for their
sins wholly upon themselves, and themselves alone! Yes, flesh is born of flesh;
ALL of us struggle with our fleshly nature; but sin, and the guilt and
consequences that come from sin, are our own. "Each one is
tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has
conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth
death" (James 1:14-15).
Our
human nature is indeed hereditary; we are all prone to sin as a result. Yet,
sin is a personal choice. We can rise above that fallen nature
(though at best we do so imperfectively), or we can give in to it. Like both
David and Paul (Romans 7), we fall victim to the power of this fallen nature
daily, and it is distressing for those who truly seek to comply with God's
will. We see ourselves doing the very things we hate, and then doing them over and
over! This is our struggle, and it is one common to us all.
This is one of the areas
where Arminianism and Calvinism part company:
"Calvinists hold
that Adam's sin was immediately imputed to the whole race, with the result that
not only is the entire human family totally depraved, but it is also guilty of
Adam's sin.
The Arminian view,
however, declares that the primary effect of Adam's sin on humanity was to give
man a proneness to sin without implying guilt" [Wycliffe
Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 2, p. 1594].
I concur largely with
the Arminian view, as did many of the key founders of the Stone-Campbell
Movement. "The views of Barton Stone, Thomas and Alexander Campbell,
Walter Scott, and their associates reflected a profound philosophical debt to
the British Empiricist John Locke and to Scottish Common-Sense Realism. The
early standard-bearers of the Stone-Campbell Movement presupposed the
Enlightenment doctrine of the autonomous and self-reflecting transcendental
self. In their thinking, the human self might well be influenced by the
environmental legacy of sin, but it was hardly 'totally depraved' ...Thomas
Campbell retained the term 'depravity,' but hot total depravity, while
Alexander Campbell spoke of a 'sin of nature,' but not original sin.
Robert Milligan spoke of 'total depravity,' but only in terms of personal
(actual) sin, not an inherited Adamic guilt. ...Sin itself was
existential, realized in actions, not an infection in human nature" [The
Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, p. 29-30].
I
think the English theologian John Wesley (1703-1791) was right when he summed
up King David's intent in Psalm 51:5 this way: "Upon a review of my heart,
I find that this heinous crime was the proper fruit of my own vile nature,
which, ever was, and still is, ready to commit ten thousand sins, as occasion
offers".
Yes,
we are prone to sin because of our fleshly nature, but as free-will agents our
sin is by choice. The blame for our sin falls at our feet,
not at Adam's. "People are born with a propensity to sin, but this fact
does not excuse us" [Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible,
e-Sword].
As
previously noted, these competing theories have been debated for centuries:
"What then is the answer to the dilemma?
A possible answer is the
fact that the Jewish mind had no problem in admitting two mutually exclusive
ideas into the same system of thought. Any idea that humanity inherits a sinful
nature must be coupled with the corollary that every person is indeed
responsible for his/her choice of sin" [Holman Bible Dictionary, p.
1281].
I
agree with this completely. I am prone to sin by nature, but it is
when I surrender to that fallen nature that, whether by weakness or by
willfulness, sin occurs. I struggle daily with self; I daily
"miss the mark" of our Father's expectations for me; and my
fallenness and wretchedness is ever before me! Like the publican in the Lord's
parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18:9-14), I realize only too
well who and what I am, and thus the depth of my need:
"But
the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up
his eyes to heaven,
but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner'"
(vs. 13). God's grace is seen in action when Jesus said, "I tell
you, this man went to his house justified" (vs. 14).
