HOMO INCURVATUS IN SE

An Essay on the Human Condition

Saint Augustine coined a term to describe fallen humanity: Homo incurvatus in se. It literally means humans turned in on themselves, and this Latin phrase invokes the image of human beings curled into a fetal position, focused entirely on themselves. Throughout the centuries this phrase has been embraced by a vast number of theologians (not least Martin Luther) to depict the current state of sinful, fallen humanity outside Christ. In this essay I am investigating what the Bible says in regards to the human condition, and Ill do this through a selective exegesis. These exegeses are selective because the three texts Im choosing arent the entire biblical testimony on the human condition but, rather, infamous sections; and these exegeses are further selective because within the exegeses Ill be focusing primarily on the subject of sin and the human predicament. A full exegesis of each chosen text, focusing on every theme and angle, would take far too many pages; I wish only to highlight that which is pertinent for this essay. These illuminating texts Romans 1-3, Romans 7, and Genesis 3-11 reveal much about the human condition, a condition far exceeding and much more severe than the evangelical sinners are those who sin paradigm. These texts show that Augustine, Luther, and the countless theologians throughout the centuries have made no mistake in defining humanity as curved inwards on itself.

THE HUMAN PREDICAMENT IN ROMANS 1.18-3.19

In Romans 1.18-3.19, Paul shows, with a good amount of ingenuity, how both Jews and Gentiles are in the same position before God, consumed by the same problem, both categories of humanity in the dock in regards to their status before their Creator: guilty due to sins committed and thus deserving of Gods righteous judgment. The first part of Pauls argument, in 1.18-32, has been traditionally read as The Gentile Predicament. Paul utilizes classic Jewish motifs, phrases, and convictions regarding the pagan Gentiles to describe fallen humanity. While never stating forthright that the people whom hes writing about are pagans, anyone with any background in Jewish thought wouldve understood such people to be the object of Pauls writing. This is a subtle tactic, because Paul knows what Jewish readers/hearers would think; and directly following the end of Romans 1, Paul makes the point that hes not writing about pagans specifically but about humanity as a whole. All those Jews who gloated and gloried in themselves by virtue of their ethnic identity are in the same position as the pagans who not once acknowledged God! The Jews did the same things and were partial in their judgment, condemning pagans for such things but excusing themselves of guilt. At the end of the section, Paul leaps into a collection of texts from the Old Testament to hone in on the human condition. Romans 1.18-3.19 begins with Paul writing that Gods wrath is thrust against those who persist in sinful (i.e. evil) manners of living. Gods wrath (His ange r exhibited in punishment, drawn from a Greek word used in common speech to refer to punishments inflicted by

government officials) stands poised against all ungodliness (the Greek word here is asebia, lack of reverence before God) and unrighteousness (Greek adikia, wickedness in heart and deed). Paul makes the point that the issue isnt that these people cannot know God but that they dont even want to know Him. Paul employs pagan and Jewish statements regarding the attributes of God revealed in creation to show that those whom hes writing about havent just dropped head-first into these dire straits but that they willingly chose this state, tossing out the truth of God and, in the place of such truth, embracing the created order as if it were God: For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Rom 1.21-23) Paul harks back to the initial choice of mankind: the willful choice of the person to not revere God as God, but to turn instead to revering the created order, epitomized in idols, specifically idols resembling birds, animals, and reptiles (i.e. creeping things). These things werent worshipped in the Greco-Roman world, and Paul has probably adopted this portion of his letter from synagogue sermons from Egypt, where such idols were worshipped. Perhaps Paul echoes Egyptian idolatry to signify that such living is itself indicative of a form of Egyptian bondage from which deliverance is needed. The result of mankinds rebellion against God, by virtue of refusing to acknowledge Him and instead worshipping the creation, is that God gave them up, a phrase Paul uses three times between verses 18 and 32 (1.24, 26, and 28). This is a Jewish phrase referring to the manifestation of Gods wrath as He lets people damn themselves as they twist the very essence of that which makes them human. Its an image of God stepping back and saying, Fine, have it your way. This is a picture of God refusing to intervene, refusing to prevent the natural consequence of that rebellion, that idolatry; its his refusal to stop evil from infecting the entire person, His refusal to put a stop to mankinds self-dehumanization. This divine decision to let rebellious humanity have it their way allows evil to infect them to the core and to twist, deface, and distort their humanity. This distortion (or dehumanization) manifests itself in humanitys choice of taking one of the greatest aspects of being humanbonding to another human being through sex in a way that the rest of the animal kingdom can only echo in softer tunesand turning it into something quite contrary to Gods desires for human sexuality. Sexual perversions are a telltale sign of dehumanization; the argument that such sexual practices are okay because they may be seen in nature is only to reinforce the reality of dehumanization, since human beings arent supposed to reflect nature but have loving dominion over it. The defacing of the human being spreads into every aspect of human existence: And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. (1.28-32) They were filled, Paul says, with all sorts of dehumanizing dispositions and behaviors. This vice list (a common rhetorical technique in antiquity) highlights the snowball effect of sin: do it once, do it more and more! Every aspect of the human person is affected: the body (v. 24), the mind (v. 21, 28), and the heart (v. 24). People become suffocated by their sin, unable to

escape. What we find, then, is that there is (1) the initial rebellion against God, the act of idolatry, the decision to serve the created order rather than to serve God; this is followedd by (2) experiencing the wrath of God by His not intervening, allowing the person to be rebellious and to become so overwhelmed by, and even enslaved to, sin that (3) the person experiences ever-increasing dehumanization: he fails to be truly human, fails to live as if fitting for a human being, and every faculty of the human person and personality becomes stained, corrupted, and marred by evil. The person becomes filled with all sorts of evil and is but a shadow of that which God desires him to be. In 2.1-16, Paul shows how the portrait of fallen humanity painted in Romans 1 isnt a portrait of pagans only but of Jews as well. He condemns those Jews who put their pride and hope in their ethnic heritage while continuing to live in sin. After making the point that the Jews have no place to boast over the pagans, Paul acknowledges Gods impartiality in judgment: [God] will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience and in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. (2.6-11) This text is a chiasm, a type of three-pronged literary device, focusing on three key aspects: (1) God is impartial, (2) those who do good will reap rewards, and (3) those who do evil will reap punishment. Pauls point isnt to say that some people, by virtue of good deeds, will find Gods favor; rather, his point is that everyone will stand before God in judgment and be judged for his or her works, and in light of the preceding verses, no one will be found worthy of glory and honor and immortality. Jews will be judged for the lives they lived just as the pagans will be judged for the lives they lived; that which condemns a pagan will also condemn a Jew; and as Paul reveals throughout Romans 2, both Jews and Gentiles do the same things and are thus together in condemnation before God. The rest of Chapter 2, I believe, condemns a specific sort of Jew, the sort who takes pride in his heritage and badges of merit within Judaism, and then Paul sums up the human condition in 3.9-20. In these verses Paul follows a court-scene paradigm: he gives the charge in 3.9, the evidence of the charge in 3.10-18, and the verdict in 3.19-20. The charge is that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin. The phrase under sin is an idiomatic expression to being under the rule of sin, and some English translations render this part of 3.9 as under the power [or dominion] of sin. These dynamic English translations get to the heart of what Paul is saying: the charge is that sin has become humanitys slave master. The biggest problem human beings face before God isnt an accumulation of individual sins (though those are certainly a death -bringing issue) but that human beings are enslaved to a power that is so real and controlling that Paul can give it a singular name: Sin. Sin grips the idolater like a drug, enslaving him and turning him into a hopeless addict. The addiction is so overpowering, so overwhelming, that no amount of personal effort, hard work, rehab, or 12-step programs can break the addiction. The evidence of this charge, that human beings are under the dominion of sin, is given in a series of Old Testament quotations from Ecclesiastes, the Psalms, Isaiah, and Proverbs: As it is written, None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes. (3.10-18)

This conglomeration of quotes is called a gazerah shavah, a rabbinic literary device of stringing together texts based upon key words. The key words Paul uses are body parts (e.g. throat, tongue, lips, mouth, feet, eyes). He includes body parts in the divine indictment because he understands that the evil impulse rules all parts of the body (248 parts, to be exact, according to one Jewish tradition!). The indwelling power of sin permeates the entire person and takes control of its members. The accumulated evidence shows that mankind, both Jews and Gentiles, fail to seek and fear God, fail to treat others humanely, fail to live as God intends His image bearers to live. The cause of this is bondage to sin, which began at the initial act of rebellion, when mankind turned its focus and devotion upon the created order rather than the Creator. The result is a falling from the glory of God (Rom 3.23), which is a way of saying that mankind has failed to live as is proper for Gods image -bearing creatures and has thus become dehumanized and subhuman. Having established the charge against humanity in 3.9, and showing evidence to support that charge in 3.10-18, Paul gives the verdict in 3.19-20: everyone is accountable before God, and (as a word of warning to Jews who pride themselves on their ethnic heritage and observance of Judaisms cultural badges of identity) by works of the law no human being will be justified in [Gods] sight. The result, then, is that justification isnt available by being Jewish, and certain ly not (and this goes without saying) by being pagan. Thus Jews and pagans are both unable to partake in justification as they stand; that is to say, they all stand guilty before Gods cosmic law court and will thus be condemned for their sin. This moros e outlook, void of hope, is countered throughout the rest of chapter 3: God has dealt with this problem in Jesus Christ. Within this text, there are four points to be made regarding the human condition: 1) Classic evangelicalism has often read this indictment of humanity solely through the lens of guilt acquired by individual acts of sinning. Theres plenty of that in this text, and plenty more throughout the rest of the New Testament; but this text isnt focusing so much on the acquired guilt due to sin but on the human condition as a result of initial rebellion and subsequent enslavement to sin. The problem isnt simply about what human beings do but also, and even more importantly, about who human beings are: under the power of sin, dehumanized to the point of becoming subhuman, no longer reflecting the image of their Creator but, rather, reflecting the image of their dehumanized, inwardly-curved selves. 2) The initial act of rebellion, echoing Genesis 3, is idolatry. Human beings turn to worship the created order rather than the creation. The serving of idols which Paul gives as an example is symptomatic of a greater idolatry: the worship and love of the self. Ultimately, idolatry is making the self God rather than revering, in ones devotion, the Creator as God. Whenever one serves idols, of course, the person is in actuality serving himself; whether it be idols of stone and straw, fashioned after the images of mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things, or whether it be the contemporary idols of Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud (money, power, and sex), ultimately the idolater is worshipping his idols of choice to better serve himself. Idolatry, no matter what form it takes, is at the heart a displacement of God as God and placing ones own self in His stead. Thisworshipping the self, serving the self, loving the self, and being devoted to the selfis what it means to be an idolater, and all other idolatries are sub-idolatries of

this greatest idolatry that echoes the serpents temptation of Eve in the Garden: Eat the fruit, and become like God! 3) The result of this rebellion, making ones self the center of the universe, this fashioning of the self into a god who is to be worshipped, served, revered, and obeyed, is that sin invades the human person and overpowers its members, faculties, and personality. The person becomes enslaved to sin. The problem isnt just that the person does sinful things but that the person has become saturated with sin, permeated with sin, and indwelt with sin to the point that he can be identified by that sin . The choice of a person to turn from God to self results in evil entering into the person and spreading through that person in the same way that gangrene spreads through a wound. 4) The enslaving power of sin has the undeniable result of turning the person into something the person isnt supposed to be. In Genesis 1-2 we find God creating human beings in His image. Mankind is to be Gods image-bearers, the ones who advance His rule (His kingdom) throughout all creation. But in rebellion, in the enslavement of sin, mankind fails to be what hes created to be. Instead of advancing Gods kingdom, man advances his own kingdom; instead of bearing Gods image, mankind bears his own image. Mankind falls from the glory of God: he fails to be what he is designed to be, and this failure is seen in every aspect of his personhood. Humankind has thus selfdestructed, has atrophied and continues to atrophy. All the vice lists in the New Testament are indicting portraits of what it looks like to fail to be truly human, to fail to reflect Gods image; they are testaments to what an idolatrous, inwardly -focused life looks like in thought, behavior, and disposition. The result of the rebellion and subsequent indwelling of sin is a dehumanization, a downward spiral of becoming less and less human.

THE ENSLAVING NATURE OF SIN IN ROMANS 7.7-25

This portion of scripture stands as one of the most hotly debated passages in the New Testament, and there has been no consensus since the days of St. Augustine regarding what, exactly, Paul is saying. Several perspectives on Pauls meaning have emerged ov er the centuries, and the debate usually focuses on the identity of the persona, the I of the text. It would seem apparent that Paul is writing autobiographically, but in the ancient world, orators would often use I to depict characters other than themselves. Paul indeed inserts himself autobiographically into his letters at times (such as in Galatians 1 and Philippians 3), but he also uses I rhetorically, such as in 1 Corinthians 13. Identifying the persona of I in Romans 7.7-25 demands paying attention to the context, to what the I is saying and doing. The text itself is divided into two segments (7.7-13 and 7.14-25), and the first segment is often interpreted as Paul relating his own experience of learning the Law. However, a better interpretation of the persona would be that of Adam and his experience in the Garden of Eden, receiving the command to not eat the forbidden fruit and then (in accordance with typical human behavior) doing the exact opposite.

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, You shall not covet. But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. (Rom 7.7-13) Echoes from the Garden of Eden can be heard; Pauls recapitulating the fall of Adam in the Garden from Genesis 3. When God placed Adam in the Garden, Adam was without sin. He had life, and he bathed in the glory of God. But when the commandment came, when God told him he wasnt to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, a burning desire to break the commandment filled Adams heart. He coveted the fruit of the tree; or, rather, he coveted what the fruit promised: the knowledge of good and evil, which in turn leads to becoming like God. This covetousness felt like a burning, insatiable desire, a craving directed at that which was forbidden. The commandment illuminated what sin was, and sin (personified in the Genesis 3 account as the slithering serpent) deceived Adam and brought him into its clutches. Death came as a result; the Greek word Paul uses for death i s apethanon, which can mean to become mortal. The result of Adams rebellion, his idolatry, his determination to elevate himself to being like his Creator, resulted in his becoming mortal. Paul is thus describing the First Act of human idolatry, the eating of the forbidden fruit, and the subsequent result: mankind becomes mortal, subject to death and decay like the rest of the creation. Death, which may have been a harmless feature of Gods good world, restricted to the plant and animal kingdom, spread out to the one creature preserved from its grasp: human beings. And thus death became not an intrinsic part of the circle of life but an executioner. Death isnt the only result of Adams rebellion. Theres another result, which Paul wrote about in Romans 1-3: the enslaving nature of sin, so that people become under sin (Paul will use elements of that phrase, which refers to being under the dominion and power of sin, throughout 7.14-25). The persona of I continues in 7.14-25, but instead of focusing solely on Adam with all the Garden of Eden imagery, Paul draws the scope out farther and embraces a telescopic view of all humanity to illuminate the state of humankind (both Jews and Gentiles) in the wake of Adams rebellion. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. (7.14-20) Though this text has traditionally been read as Pauls personal, private, and existential struggling as a Christian, a closer looks reveals that this may not be the case. The person here is under the power of sin (3.19), of the flesh (7.5), and a slave to sin (6.6, 16, 20); all of these phrases depict one who is still in bondage to sin and who has not escaped the dilemma. Those who are in Christ, unlike the persona of 7.14-25, are redeemed from sin and dead to sin, alive unto God as His slaves rather than as slaves to sin (3.24; 6.6, 11, 18, 22). Do the members of Christ struggle, and struggle often, to live as is fitting for redeemed human beings?

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. But Christians are nevertheless no longer enslaved to sin (a point Paul makes quite clear in 6.6-7), as is not the case with the persona in 7.14-25. The person Paul describes here is of the flesh (7.14) and indwelt by sin (7.17), and the result is that the person is divided and confused, seeking to do good but being unable to do so (7.15). Verses 15-20 tackle and illuminate the titanic problem of one having his or her hands tied when it comes to doing good. In 7.17, the blame is shifted from the person to the sin within the person; Paul isnt excusing from blame the person in the flesh, making sin the scapegoat. In Romans 3 Paul made it clear that no one has any excuse before God, and all humankind stands equally condemned before their Creator. In 7.15-20, Pauls identifying the reason the person is in this dilemma of wanting to do good but being unable to do so. The reason is, quite simply, the indwelling power of sin. The person in the flesh finds himself overpowered by sin, and sin exerts authority and control over him. In 8.9, Paul will write that the person in Christ is indwelled not by the power of sin but by the Holy Spirit. Thus the indwelling power of the person in the flesh is a direct antithesis to the Person (i.e. the Holy Spirit) who indwells the Christian. Ultimately, we see that those in the flesh are indwelled by sin, and this sin compels them to do evil even if theyd rather do good. In this way sin enslaves: a slave is commanded by his master and has no choice to obey, and likewise with sin and the person in the flesh. Paul continues in 7.21-23, So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Paul defines the experience of the person in the flesh who desires and seeks to do good: while the desire may indeed be there, the person cannot follow through on his desire because sin thwarts every effort. Paul concludes that the person in the flesh is truly held captive by sin. The Greek word he uses for captive is a word that was used in contemporary speech to describe Roman prisoners of war being led in a humiliated fashion away from the battlefield; as such, the imagery is striking: the person in the flesh is being directed and guided by the whips and swords of sin. The battle has been lost, bitter defeat has been tasted, and there is no escape from the humiliation and shame and the coming judgment in the gladiatorial arenas. Human beings are enslaved to sin, completely overpowered and powerless, in need of a rescuer who will break the chains of their enslavement and deliver them from their captivity and their certain destruction on down the road. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! (7.24-25a) The next chapter of Romans stands as a supreme answer to the human dilemma spelled out in Romans 7: in Christ there is not only rescue from certain destruction but deliverance from the domineering power of sin, so that the person who formerly desired to do good but could not do it is enabled to both desire good and to do it! There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (8.1-4) As with the last brief exegesis, so with this one: a few points should be made. 1) As in Romans 1-3, here Paul emphasizes rebellion and idolatry. While not explicitly coming forth and tackling the issue head-on, his echo of the Garden of Eden in 7.7-13

carries the point across. The entire text of 7.7-25 can be read as a recapitulation of the human condition: first comes rebellion and idolatry, which results in death (literally becoming mortal) for the human creature. Physical death, however, is not the end of the story; along with physical death comes what some might call spiritual death, and though there are varying assumptions regarding what this means within evangelicalism (being cut off from God, having a sinful nature, etc.), I think the best meaning of the term would be mankind no longer being what God intended him to be. Spiritual death is a plummet from the glory of God, a fall that, in turn, becomes a downward spiral: mankind becomes more and more evil, more and more lost, the subsequent dehumanization following the initial rebellion and idolatry resulting not in a single leap into dehumanization but a frantic process of becoming, in a sense, less and less human. The enslavement to sin which results following the initial act of rebellion, which follows the initial idolatry in the heart, is a catalyst for the process, and more than that: its a noose that tightens around humanitys neck, a noose that cannot be, for all mans efforts, broken; and a noose that suffocates Gods image out of man in an ever increasing manner. 2) The problem facing mankind is that, despite any of his desires to please the Creator, he simply cannot! It isnt a matter of the will, nor even a matter of the heart. Its a matter of the nature of the person enslaved to sin. The one who is enslaved may not want to be enslaved, but that doesnt change the fact that the person is enslaved. Mankind no longer reflects the glory of God, no longer enjoys the status of being what God intended (and intends) mankind to be. Any understanding of sin that focuses merely on the acquired guilt of sinning without taking into account the enslavement of sin spoken of throughout Romans is a short-sighted understanding at best. While the idea of being enslaved to sin may seem foreign to some, the fact of the matter is that Paul isnt coming up with some original idea: the Wisdom of Solomon, a popular Jewish text in Pauls day, spoke of enslavement to sin, and Jesus himself spoke of it in Jo hn 8.31-38 (making the point that those who align themselves with him will experience freedom from said enslavement). Although the doctrine of enslavement to sin may not be in vogue in the modern evangelical church, its nonetheless an integral part of the understanding of sin found in Jesus, the Apostles, and in contemporary Jewish thought. 3) A note should be made regarding the phrase in the flesh. Because of western cultures predisposition to view things in the dichotomy of physical and spiritual (t hanks to Gnosticism and Platonic philosophy compounded by the Enlightenment), the phrase in the flesh depicts, to many, something of the physical, material world. Thus in Romans 7.7-25, the phrase in the flesh depicts the person who is on earth in a physical body; this understanding of the phrase undergirds the interpretation that this is Pauls existential plight as a Christian, his lament of still being part of the physical world while simultaneously being part of the spiritual world. This dichotomy was unknown to the ancient Israelites and to the early Christians (until, of course, Gnosticism spread through the churchs veins like a virulent poison and Platonism received a thumbs -up from Gentile converts). Putting all that aside, in the flesh when f ound in the New Testament can mean three different things. First, it can refer to the physical, ethnic heritage of someone (such as in Romans 1.3, where Paul says Jesus is a descendant of David, of [or according to] the flesh; the emphasis is upon the ethnic heritage of Jesus).

Second, it can mean that which is subject to decay and death (such as in 1 Corinthians 15.50, where flesh doesnt mean that which is physical but that which is subject to death and decay and is thus perishable). Third, it can mean that which is in rebellion against God or those whose disposition towards God is hostile at best (see Romans 8.67, where Paul contrasts those of the flesh with those of the Spirit). What we find here in Romans 7.7-25 isnt Paul talking about the dilemma of the person whos trapped in a physical body, albeit spiritual in the sense of being reconciled to God; rather, he is speaking of those who are in rebellion against God and disposed, in their hearts and minds, in hostility towards God. Examining these two texts of Paul (one from Romans 1-3 and the other from Romans 7) we find what has been called by some theologians The Double-Edged Sword of the human condition, or the Double Trouble in which human beings find themselves. The first edge of the swo rd is the acquired guilt of sins committed. These sins are a problem, because sin separates mankind from God; in other words, the lifeline between genuine humanness, the status of being Gods fully-flourishing image-bearers, is severed as mankind plunges into the abyss of dehumanization. Thus mankind is under Gods wrath. Gods disposition towards rebellious mankind is characterized by condemnation; God must deal appropriately with those who rebel against Him, just as a good king must deal appropriately with his loyal subjects who have become turncoats (noting that the kings love for the subjects may become a sort of living hell for him; because the good king is just, he must act justly and punish the evildoers, though he loves his rebellious subjects very much). The second edge of the sword, or the second half of the double trouble, is enslavement to sin, which Ive written about extensively above. The solution to this double conundrum is that, in Christ Jesus, God deals with the problem. In Christ we have propitiation/expiation for the guilt acquired by sins committed, and we have redemption, freedom from sins enslavement. The one who puts his or her faith in Jesus and partakes of Jesus achievement on the cross experiences the forgiveness of sins, l iberation from the enslaving power of sin, and the indwelling of Gods own Spirit. Now the question is raised: Having seen the human dilemma, and having seen how Jesus deals with the human dilemma, what can we say about the origins of the human dilemma? To tackle that question, we must go all the way back to the first book of the Bible.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE HUMAN DILEMMA IN GENESIS 3-11

These early Genesis texts have come under a wide variety of interpretations, each with its own pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses. Here I wish to focus on what these texts tell us about two specific questions: What happened in Genesis 3? and What does Genesis 4 -11 tell us about the aftershocks of what happened in the Garden on that distant day? I thus lea ves all other debates, questions, and controversies aside. We begin in the Garden. Genesis 3 is where, one might say, all hell broke loose. The chapter is prefaced by the creation accounts. The two creation accounts differ from each other in various ways, but the crux of the matter remains intact: God created a good world, and He created mankind in His image to

rule over the good creation as His prized image-bearers. The Creator entrusted human beings to carry His rule out of the Garden and into the wider world. Before man even left the cheery confines of the Garden, however, things went horribly awry. Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, Did God actually say, You shall not eat of any tree in the garden? And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither of you shall touch it, lest you die. But the serpent said to the woman, You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. (Gen 3.1-7) At the heart of the serpents temptation is the desire to become like God. Eating the forbidden fruit would lead, as the serpent said, to the knowledge of Good and Evil, which, in turn, is the catalyst and means by which one was to become like God. The idolatrous desire s een in both Adam and Eve isnt the desire for knowledge or wisdom but the desire to become like God, and the eclipse of Genesis 3-11 is the Tower of Babel, where the desire to become like God manifests itself to the highest degree (but more on that in a moment). In Genesis 3 we find Adam and Eve being tempted to become like God, and in their desire to become like God, they rebel against their Creator. The heart of the rebellion is idolatry, mankind bending down to worship and serve the creature (themselves) rather than the Creator. In a sense, Adam and Eve are seeking to usurp God and take His throne. The result of this rebellion is that Adam and Eves eyes are opened, they realize they are naked, and they construct clothing for themselves; this is a strange continuation of that initial rebellion, as they seek to take control of their own lives, seeking to hide themselves from one another and from the Creator. In 3.8-13, God goes searching for His image-bearing creatures, but theyre hiding from Him. He sniffs them out and then, when cornered, they confess to Him what has happened. They admit their rebellion, but they couch their rebellion in terms of not being fully at fault. Adam points to Eve, and Eve points to the serpent. Neither of them are willing to take responsibility for their actions. In 3.14-19, the curses befalling those involved in the rebellion are spelled out. The serpent is confined to slithering along the ground for the rest of his life and gets to look forward to having his head bruised by the womans offspring (he may get to bruise the heel of the womans offspring, but the head is a much more vital organ; he gets the short end of the stick). The woman gets the pleasure of having the pain of childbirth increased; her desire will be for her husband, and hell rule over her with a tyrannical bent. Adam gets the roughest deal of them all (though those participating in un-medicated childbirth would probably disagree): not only does he lose the joy and gladness of the work God created for him to do, but now he will be at enmity with the creation, wrestling with it and fighting with it just to feed himself and his family, and his wife (whom he is supposed to lead) will seek to usurp his authority. His future looks bleak, especially with the final cursedeath itselfhanging over his head. And thus because of his idolatry and rebellion, Adam is now faced with the promise of eventual death. A few points to be made regarding this text: 1) The question is begged, Where does the curse of death upon mankind originate? The first option is that God directly cursed mankind with death. He had told them they

would surely die, and after the rebellion, He enacts His own version of capital punishment (a sentence no one can annul). This seems like an arbitrary, perhaps even mean, thing for God to do. Yet once we realize what that rebellion entailed and what it produced, then not only does the curse make sense, but its desired! Adams rebellion isnt confined to just one act, in that it opened the floodgates, so -to-speak, for evil to invade the person and all humanity. Gods curse of death upon sinful humankind can be viewed as an act of mercy on behalf of the wider creation: mans evil isnt limitless. It has a cap. Mankind is kept from becoming too evil by the promise of death. Death serves as a sort of safeguard protecting Gods beautiful, albeit marred, creation, from the likes of immortal evil human beings. If it werent for the inevitability of death, what would become of the awful tyrants like Adolf Hitler, the architect of the Nazi deathcamps, and Josef Stalin, who directly and indirectly murdered around 50 million people? Death, in this sense, keeps the poison of evil from spreading too far, from being fully unleashed. It keeps all of us from reaching the point of being a Hitler or a Stalin for left to our own devices, and without any end in sight, that is precisely what we would become. 2) Another answer to the riddle of the curse of death is that God didnt, by His own volition, enact the death sentence. Rather, the result of death is the natural consequence to the rebellion. The rebellion can be viewed as the image-bearers cutting their lifeline. They were created to reflect Gods image, and by choosing in rebellion to reflect their own image, they disengaged themselves from their true identity, and the natural consequence is that humankind becomes just a step above the animals. This is a strange idea, to be sure, but we must acknowledge that (1) God warns the imagebearers that if they rebel, they will surely die without specifically saying He will be the cause of death, and (2) that the curses themselves do not necessarily reflect being of divine-origin; they can be read either as coming directly from Gods hand or indirectly, in the sense that He doesnt intervene in the natural state-of-things. The text in Romans 8 speaking of God subjecting the creation to futility can be read either as a subjection of purpose or a subjection of allowance. Mankind tries to become like God and instead becomes like the animals, subject to death and decay. By deciding to become like God, to seek life where it is not to be found, mankind courted its own death, decay, and destruction. In the same way that God gives people up in Romans 1, so, too, these curses may be Him giving up humanity, not intervening in what will naturally take place because of Adams rebellion. Regardless what perspective one takes on this matter of inquiry, this fact remains certain: death has been defeated in Jesus resurrection, and those who are in Christ have been freed from the sting of death, because they will be resurrected to wonderful new bodies that far supersede the current ones trademarked by death and decay. 3) It has been tradition to read these texts in the spirit of an angry God. Because many of us have been conditioned to see God as eternally angry, pointing out all our flaws and trying His best to restrain Himself from punishing us, we read these texts as if God has found the rebels and is condemning them with fire in His nostrils and rage in His breath. The story, however, conveys a deep sadness felt by the Creator. He is walking in the Garden, searching for His beloved image-bearers. He is lonely without them. He finds them and discovers what theyve been up to. Hed already warned them that death would result if they rebelled, and now the death sentence has been passed. One

can almost feel the sorrow in His words, the pain in His voice, the tears in His eyes: This is what will happen to you! That there is sorrow over what has happened is seen throughout the rest of the Genesis 3-11 narrative, and this sorrow is underscored by Gods determination to set things right. It isnt His rage or anger that brings Him to deluge the world with a Flood; it was His sadness couched in love. When things after the Flood dont get any better, God doesnt decide to purge the earth with fire from heaven. Instead He decides to work within and among His fallen image-bearers to set things right. His compassion, love, and determination for justice is what brings Him to unravel what has been called Gods Plan of Salvation (not a formulaic plan, but a plan that unwinds throughout history and culminates in the death and resurrection of Jesus). The Genesis narrative continues: in verses 20-24, God shows that He still has compassion them, for He clothes them. Their shame at their nakedness is salved by God fashioning them clothes to wear. Even in mankinds obstinate and will -full rebellion, in the midst of his consistent efforts to bypass the guilt of that rebellion, Gods love for His image-bearers gets the best of Him. He wont, however, let mankind stay in the Garden. God muses to Himself that Hed better kick them out of the Garden, because if they reach the Tree of Life and eat of it, they will live forever. God doesnt fear the security of His throne (one is reminded of Psalm 82, where those who have exalted themselves as gods are mockingly condemned by God to die like men); rather, His concern, I think, is that these rebellious creatures, infected as it were by evil, would do nothing good if not snuffed out by death. Were mankind to become immortal by eating from the Tree of Life, Gods good creation would become filled with a realm of monsters, so dehumanized to the point of being beyond hope and beyond pity. Genesis 4 opens with the immediate descendants of Adam and Eve. Cains own self -serving disposition, his desire to advance his own kingdom over against Gods, draws him to kill his brother Abel. The first murder is followed closely by a fellow named Lamech, who takes two wives (rather than one, as God intended) and then, following in Cains footsteps, kills a young man himself. Yet there remains a glimmer of hope: at the end of the chapter, we find that some human beings (certainly not all, and unquestionably a minority) still call upon the name of their Creator. A lengthy genealogy in Genesis 5 is followed by the story of the Sons of God in the beginning of Genesis 6. The Sons of God (a vague term that doesnt imply direct descent from God Himself) make the habit of taking for themselves any women they want, with or without their consent, and they use woman as an outlet for their lust, degenerating them from human persons to sex toys. The scent of rape hangs over this entire text; this is where the prominent goddess of Sex finds its birth, though the echoes were heard in Lamechs polygamy. All of this culminates in Genesis 6.5-6: The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him in his heart. The first murder leads to rape and the subjection of women to the lusts of men, and God beholds all of this and is deeply grieved. He sees His prized creation, His beloved image-bearers, consumed by evil and becoming less and less human with each passing year. Mankind has gone wrong, and God decides to deal with it. This is, of course, the story of the Flood, a story that begins in Genesis 6 and travels all the way through Genesis 9. The Flood is intended to be a sort of reboot of gods plans for the world, not least for humanity. Hes going to wipe the hard -drive, so-to-speak, and begin anew,

reinstalling with Noah a hopefully decent new operating system. There are some computer viruses that just wont die, and the virus of sin and death, the virus of rebellion in the hearts of men and the escalation of evil within them and their societies, isnt remedied. All the cataclysmic hope of Genesis 6 through the middle of Genesis 9 reaches an anti-climax with Noah getting drunk and passing out naked. Things arent really looking that great, and it just gets worse. Another lengthy genealogy is followed by the climax of Genesis 3-11, the story of the Tower of Babel. Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth. And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. And the LORD said, Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down there and confuse their language, so that they may not understand one anothers speech. So the LORD dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth. And from there the LORD dispersed them over the face of all the earth. (Gen 11.1-9) Mankind gathers together and joins forces. Theyre going to build a city, and in the middle of this city will be a tower that reaches into the heavens. The purpose of this tower is so that they can make a name for themselves; theyre craving the advancement of their fame and glory, the advancement of their own kingdoms. Their heart is settled on themselves alone. In a sense, this is mankinds second attempt to truly become God. Why build a tower that reaches all the way into heaven (into the realm of God) if not for the purpose of supplanting God from His throne and taking it for themselves? Mankind desires Gods place; he has already made himself God in his heart, and now he wants the glory, the majesty, the power and authority that comes from being Master of All. God sees this and thwarts their efforts; He sees the wickedness in their hearts, conjoined for a moment upon a single goal. God sees that this perpetual union of evil will have no boundaries whatsoever if let loose, and thus He confuses their languages and makes it impossible for them to work together. He takes their solidarity and smashes it, and the result is that theyre scattered. Tribes and civilizations develop, and these nations war against one another. That which is true at the national level is true at the individual level: there is murder, rape, dishonesty, cheating, strife, backbiting, and slandering. Unable to focus their evil energies upon a single goal, they become even more wrapped up in themselves. Instead of one Babel there are plethora, thousands if not millions of babels, individual and national kingdoms of evil waging war against one another. Pain and suffering flood the world due to mankinds ever-increasing evil. And what is God to do about it? Flooding the earth didnt take care of the problem; and besides, He had made a covenant with Noah to never do that again, so even if He wanted to, His hands were tied. So God takes a different route: He will step down, He will get his hands dirty, and He will deal with the problem and defeat evil on its own turf. He will launch a rescue operation through a Mesopotamian pagan named Abram, who will later become known as Abraham.

The New Testament texts presented at the beginning of this essay show the human predicament, that of hearts in rebellion against God and entire persons enslaved by sin. The Genesis 3-11 narrative shows us the origins of this dilemma in Adams initial rebellion in the Garden of Eden, as well as how that rebellion continues infecting the human race. The de facto idolatry, that of self-worship and self-devotion, manifests itself in plethora of sins, and the temptation of the GardenEat, and become like God!and the efforts of BabelLets take Gods throne!reveal the depths of that idolatry. Yet the unfolding story seen in Gods calling of Abram and the inauguration of a rescue operation designed to set humanity free from its enslavement to sin and to restore the fellowship that was broken in the Garden reveals that Gods greatest disposition towards His fledgling and sin -rotten human creatures isnt indignant wrath but an unquenchable love.

EXAMINING SOME KEY TERMS: EVIL, TRANSGRESSION, AND SIN

It would be beneficial to define some key terms that are often tossed around in evangelical circles absent much thought. There are dangers in trying to define Evil, dangers in trying to categorize it, and so definitions change with the seasons. Right now the most popular categorization of evil is that between Moral Evil and Natural Evil, the former referring to evil within human beings and human societies, and the latter referring to earthquakes, tsunamis, wildfires, etc. The former consists of actual evil, that which sets its teeth against God; the latter consists of those things that appear evil, but which in and of themselves are not evil. An earthquake is a natural event in a world of sliding (and colliding) tectonic plates; though theres nothing morally evil in an earthquake, the effect it has upon human beings subject to decay and death make it a much-feared and abhorred element of our natural world. Genuine evil is anything that is opposed to God, opposed to His world, and opposed to His image-bearing creatures. Thus the term evil can be attached to anything that is anti -God, anti-creation, and anti-human. Transgression literally means the breaking of a code or command. Its what happens when someone breaks a rule set down by a superior. When I run a stop sign, Im transgressing the law. In a religious sense, the term transgression is used in reference to breaking a command set down by God. When I murder someone (and I use the word I in the way Paul uses it in Romans 7), I transgress. When I commit adultery, I transgress. When I fail to honor my mother and father, I transgress. The result of transgression is punishment, both in the civil and religious senses. He who transgresses must be punished. Liking it again to running a stop sign, if we transgress (and get caught), the result is that we receive a ticket. We pay a fine or take it to court, but in the end we still lose money, we still have to pay for the crime. When we transgress Gods rules and regulations, theres no hiding (despite how mu ch we, like Adam and Eve in the Garden, try to hide our sin from Him), and the result is that we are guilty of that transgression and must pay the fine. Transgression, in the religious sense, is always sin; but sin is not always transgression. The Greek word for Sin literally means missing the mark. One summer I taught archery at a camp in northern Ohio. For the first four months I almost never hit a bulls -eye, perhaps due to using a compound bow twice my size (I used it because it made me feel like Robin Hood). I

continuously missed the mark. By the end of the summer, a third of the time I would hit the bulls-eye. This archery image is often used to teach us what sin means; but hardly ever are we told what mark were missing! Obviously we are missing the mark of the glory of God when we sin. The glory of God in this sense doesnt refer to the glory God poss es but the glory that God gives; it is the glory God has given His image-bearing, human creaturesand a glory from which we have fallen. To live in the glory of God is to live as genuine human beings. That is the mark, and missing the mark is failing to live as genuine human beings ought to live. Our decisions, our behaviors, our thoughts; all of these that miss the mark of living in rhythm with Gods desires for us can be called sin. All transgression is sin in the sense that when we fail to obey God, when we fail to be devoted to Him, we are failing to live as God desires His image-bearing creatures to live. Yet there are things that are s ins that arent stated, implied, or even inferred in the Bible. When we do (or think) anything that is anti-God, anticreation, and anti-human, even if we havent transgressed some written code, were still sinning. Were still missing the mark of genuine humanness. These patterns of behaviors, these sins, stem from the primal failure within all of us, which is idolatry, the failure to worship God and instead tossing out the truth of God for a lie, embracing that which caters to us. Idolatry leads to a manner of living that is incongruent with worshipping God, and the result is a lifestyle, in thought and deed and disposition, that is failing to hit the mark of genuine humanness. To To To To To say, say, say, say, say, We We We We We have sinned, is to say, We have failed to be genuinely human. struggle with sin, is to say, We struggle to live a genuine human life. are sinners, is to say, Were failures at being genuine human beings. love to sin, is to say, We love living in dehumanizing ways. seek to sin no more, is to say, We seek to live as genuine human beings.

All sins, whether theyre explicitly mentioned in the Bible or not, are subhuman behaviors that point to our failure to reflect Gods image. Sins of Commission (things we do that are sinful) are precisely things we do that are not in keeping with genuine human l iving; and sins of omission (things that we dont do that we should do) are the result of actively refusing to do and be what a genuine human being ought to do and be. All sins are manifestations of the power of sin that has dominion over us. In idolatry we become anti-God, anti-creation, and anti-human; we become, in other words, consumed with evil. Jesus command to Go and sin no more isnt a command to live by a certain code or even to abide by certain moral principles; it is a summons to embrace the life that God has designed human beings to live, an invitation to experience the God-centered life that is an abundant life, a stark contrast to the life draining self-centered mode of living embraced by all idolaters. We cannot embrace this sort of life by our own volition and willpower, due to the enslaving nature of sin, but to echo Paul yet againthanks be to Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, who rescues us from sin and enables us to live as if fitting as genuine human beings, so that we can fulfill the just requirement of the law!