First, a little logic. If God is a Good Judge, a Righteous Judge, then to punish people based on what they were born with would be unrighteous. They were born this way and some may never hear. The fact is, we are judged on what we DO and not who we are or what we believe. (Romans 2:6-10; 1 Peter 1:17; Matt 12:36-37; 16:27; 19:17; James 2:12; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 2:23; 20:11-12; 22:12-14; Eccl 12:13-14; Jer 17:10; Job 15:5-6; Prov 21:27; Heb 4:12)
MOST of Scripture is a Comparison between good and evil, right and wrong. All throughout the Psalms and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and elsewhere, the vivid CONTRAST between righteousness and wickedness is set before us and accompanied by the warning to CHOOSE LIFE! Obedience unto righteousness or sin unto death! But the American church tells themselves that they can’t make a right choice or even obey God unless He does it for them. The best you can hope for is to live out your ‘wretched life hoping Christ has you covered while you sit in the Churches wondering why no one is motivated to be an example to others.
The end result is a lack in moral compass to point at wrongdoing in the church. Instead, church and culture emulate one another in new levels of re-probation. The Preachers are more interested in ‘effectiveness’ than in Righteousness. While the message of the Bible is Righteousness, Self-control, and the Judgment to come, their message is ‘you can sin and not die’
Our present generation is perishing because of bad teachings coming out of the pulpits; it lacks both substance and clarity in the application of truth on the minds of men. How will people understand the importance of duty toward God when the preachers keep giving them an alternative to obedience? Personal responsibility is preempted by inbred moral depravity (a corrupted nature). Who will be motivated to make the right choice when they are told it's already been made for them by ‘receiving‘ Jesus!
This becomes the core foundation of the belief in a once saved always saved theology. If it's in us then we can't stop and we are covered thus once we are covered then we are saved for eternity.
Yet, in looking in Scripture and what it says about man and sin we read these words:
“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” Romans 5:12
The sin of Adam brought sin into the world, not into man. Death spreads to all men because all sinned not because all have sin within them. Didn't Paul say, "all have sin within them"?
Sin is passed from generation to generation and this is the meaning of Exodus 20:5, 34:7, Deuteronomy 5:9, and Jeremiah 32:16-19. This is not talking about being born with sin in them but rather the acts they do.The word “iniquity” comes from the Hebrew ‘âôn which is the act of sinning not sin within us.
“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” Romans 3:23
It does not say “for all have sin in them”. The point is, sin is something we do.
“Everyone who sins breaks the law” 1 John 3:4
It’s an act.
“Who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them” Romans 1:32
This is that good judgement of God, it's all who practice sin.
“Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”” Genesis 4:6
Cain’s problem was not sin in him, yet. Sin was crouching at the door and its “desire is to have you”. “Desire” comes from the Hebrew ṯešûqâ which is a desire to control and is why we see this same word in Genesis 3:16.
“Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.” Romans 7:20
Once we sin that sin is within us. The one who did drugs had no problem until they did them. The one who deals with sexual immorality did not struggle until they did the sin. Once sin has been practiced it is now within us, a struggle in that sin that we have to move from and avoid.
“When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.” James 1:13-15
Desire unites the will and the result is sin. During this entire process, freedom of choice is at play. Sin becomes transgression of the law (1John 3:4) when you indulge the desires of the flesh. Sin is not inevitable to nature by being something lurking in you. You’re natural desires given over to self-indulgence is by choice a sin and that makes you a slave to sin (Romans 6:16)
Saying we have no sin (1 John 1:8-10) is not saying sin is not within us but rather saying we don’t sin. This is why we are told to confess them, they are what we are doing. There’s no need to confess that which we are because we are God’s design. This is why John bookended our confession with “if we claim we have not sinned” (1:10).
Therefore, when we come to Messiah, we do not continue to sin (1 John 1:8) and that’s the crux of salvation. We are saved FROM our sin and not IN our sin.
Another point of logic is that we are told over and over to sin not (1 John 2:1; 2:15-16; 5:18; Acts 3:26; Titus 2:14; Romans 6:3-6; 6:12-13; John 3:36; Hebrews 5:9; 1 Corinthians 15:34). The command is not "try not to sin" but rather "sin not", stop sinning. If sin was within us then this would be impossible. In the way sin is viewed by the American church today, wouldn't this command be like telling your child to not eat. There is an innate desire and need to eat and to say not to eat would be impossible to accomplish as it's against the desire. If sin was within us, a part of us, the command to sin not would be just as unjustified and what kind of picture does that paint of God?
Did David not say he was brought forth in “iniquity” and “In sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5)? When there is an obscure passage that is in contrast to the rest of Scripture we must always believe we are misunderstanding something or missing some information. The Bible is not all inclusive. With so much evidence that sin is not within us but something we do, we need to look at some historical writings on the subject of David and this comment he made. The interesting thing is how Hebrew history supports the rest of Scripture.
Not taught by the church, because it’s not in the Bible, but known by the Hebrews, it’s a tradition that David was a bastard son. This is why his family despised him (Psalm 69:8).
Remember the Hebrew meaning of the translation of “iniquity” means an act of sin; which is what David clarifies in his very next statement. The Hebrew word which “stranger” is translated from is the root meaning “bastard”. This is why he said the was brought forth in an act of sin (iniquity) and through that he was conceived. He was not making an excuse for his sin with Bathsheba but rather making a connection with the result and his own birth. There’s also parallels with Messiah’s birth as well.
The traditional Hebrew story is this…
David’s father, Jesse, was the son of Obed, who was the son of Boaz, who married Ruth, the Moabite woman. Traditionally, Jewish law explicitly forbade Hebrew women from marrying Moabite men because of how the Moabites treated the Israelites when they were wandering in the desert after fleeing Egypt. Yet, the law was not clear about whether or not a Hebrew man could marry a Moabite woman. Boaz believed that the law allowed such a marriage, which is why he married Ruth.
However, according to Jewish tradition, Boaz died on the night that he and Ruth were married (Midrash, Zuta, Ruth 4). Many believed that his death proved that God had condemned Boaz’ marriage to Ruth, and had punished him accordingly.
However, even though Boaz and Ruth had only been intimate for that one night, she conceived and gave birth to Obed.
Obed was then viewed as illegitimately born, as was his own son, Jesse. Nevertheless, both of these men labored hard in learning the Torah and loving God and so the conduct of their lives helped convince the surrounding communities that though Boaz had sinned, they themselves were accepted by God as part of the covenant community. Jesse married a Jewish girl named Nizbeth (Babylonian Talmud, Baba Batra 91a).
After Jesse had been married for many years, had fathered seven sons with Nizbeth. He began to have doubts about whether or not his line and seed were permanently polluted by his Moabite blood. It was at this point that he stopped all sexual relations with Nizbeth. He did this out of love for her, because she, as a pure Israelite, would be sinning to be married to someone who was of impure Moabite ancestry.
Jesse began to doubt the legitimacy of his seven sons also. If he was impure, then his children were illegitimate and impure as well.
So Jesse, wanting a legitimate heir, came up with a plan to have a son in the same way that his forefather Abraham had done: through relations with his wife’s Canaanite maidservant. Whether Jesse was viewed by God as a true Israelite or just as a Moabite convert to Judaism, the law allowed him to marry a female convert to Judaism. If he obtained a son from this union, this son would be recognized by all as a legitimate heir, thus securing Jesse’s family line.
When the Canaanite woman was told of this plan, she did not want to participate, for she loved Nizbeth, and had seen the pain that she had gone through by being separated from her husband for so many years. So she told Nizbeth about Jesse’s plan, and the two of them decided to do what Laban had done so many years earlier with Leah and Rachel. So on the night that Jesse was to have relations with the Canaanite maidservant, she switched places with her Nizbeth. On that night, Nizbeth conceived, and Jesse remained ignorant of what had taken place.
But several months later, Nizbeth began to show that she was with child, and her seven sons, as well as her husband, all believed that she had committed adultery. The sons wanted to kill their adulterous mother by stoning (as the law called for) and her illegitimate baby with her, but out of love for his wife, Jesse intervened. Nizbeth did not reveal to her husband that the child was his, for she did not want to embarrass him by revealing the truth of what had happened. Instead, she chose to bear the shame of their son, much as her ancestress Tamar was prepared to be burned rather than bring public shame upon Judah, her father-in-law and the father of her child (Genesis 38:24-25).
As a result, David grew up in a family in which he was despised, rejected, shunned, and outcast as described in Psalm 69. He was treated with scorn and derision. The community followed the example of the family, and assumed that David was full of sin and guilt. It was said that all the great qualities of Boaz were to be found in Jesse and his seven sons, while all the despicable traits of Ruth the Moabite were concentrated in David. The tradition is that this is also why David’s family forced David to be the shepherd in the fields by himself … they were hoping a bear or lion might kill him; and thus the point that was made in 1 Samuel 17:34-36.
This may also help explain why later in life, when David was fleeing from a murderous Saul, David asked the King of Moab to harbor his mother and father (1 Samuel 22:3-4, according to tradition, one of his brothers was also protected there). Of course, a couple of years later when David becomes king of Israel, he slaughters two-thirds of the Moabite army. Why? Well again, according to Jewish tradition, this was because after David left his three family members under the protection of the King of Moab, the King killed David’s father and mother, but left his brother alive (The Pulpit Commentary, 2 Samuel 8:2). So when David becomes king, he retaliates by killing two-thirds of all the soldiers of Moab.
Finally, this may also explain why David, when he was confessing his own adulterous relationship with Bathsheba, he says “In sin my mother conceived me…” (Psalm 51:5). He was relating the birth of Nathan with his own birth.
The interesting thing about the birth of David is the numerous parallels it has the birth of Jesus. He too, was viewed as one born of sin (John 8:41). Mary, his mother, conceived while she was betrothed to Joseph. And though people urged Joseph to stone her, he decided to marry her instead, thus taking her shame upon himself. But undoubtedly, there were always whispers, raised eyebrows, and sideways glances whenever Jesus and Mary walked by. Like Nizbeth protecting and defending David, Mary would have been the number one protector and defender of Jesus. Also, Jesus was not really accepted by his family until much later in life.
(To research this further, see Yalkut Makiri Tehillim 118,28; Sefer HaTodaah, Sivan and Shavuot; Pinter, Don’t Give Up; Weisberg, Tending the Garden, 187f; Book 2 of Our Jewish Heritage. See also Nitzevet – the Mother of David)