The doctrine of original sin is grounded in the teaching:
"For since death came by man, the resurrection of the dead also came by man. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:21–22, WEBBE)
Paul states that death came through one man, referring to Adam. God warned Adam:
"Yahweh God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but you shall not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.’" (Genesis 2:16–17, WEBBE)
Nevertheless, in Genesis 3, Adam and Eve were deceived by the serpent and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This act introduced sin into humanity, and consequently death to all people — hence the term “original sin”.
This is further affirmed by verses such as:
"For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23, WEBBE)
implying that all have sinned and can only be saved through Christ Jesus.
Even those unfamiliar with the Bible have likely heard the term “original sin”—a widely recognised doctrine. However, different denominations, theologians, and traditions interpret it in varying ways, and it can be difficult to accept, regardless of explanation.
Original sin includes the concept that Adam and Eve’s sin, or its consequences, are passed down to us, which can feel unjust—as though we are held responsible for a sin we did not commit. For this reason, many avoid discussing original sin, or dismiss enquiries with phrases like “you’ll understand if you just believe”. It’s a challenging doctrine to explain, as even those who use such phrases often do not fully understand it themselves.
Indeed, properly understanding original sin is truly difficult. Why else would there be so many divergent theological interpretations? Yet we should not relinquish our efforts to understand it. By carefully examining the account of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit, we may reach a logically coherent understanding, even if a full and perfect explanation eludes us. By grasping original sin in this way, you will come to see how it provides a basis for addressing many issues that have previously caused difficulties.
Let us begin by considering God's initial command. In Genesis 2:16–17 (quoted above), God forbade eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. People often mistakenly think the tree of life was also forbidden, but initially only the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was prohibited. The meaning of this tree is precisely as stated: “knowledge of good and evil”.
This “knowledge of good and evil” is central to understanding original sin. Until they ate the forbidden fruit, humans were without sin — that is, they hadn’t sinned in God’s eyes, and as noted, God’s standard is the ultimate measure of sin. This implies that before the fall, they lived according to God’s standard. As Genesis 2:19 shows, where Adam names the animals, humans exercised free will in making judgments and actions, so we infer that such activities were judged by God’s standard.
Then the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appears. Though its purpose is unclear, we may assume eating its fruit would indeed grant the knowledge of good and evil — God said so, and even the serpent suggested that eating would make them like God, knowing good and evil. The Bible’s intention appears clear.
What does this mean? Though humans exercised free will in judgment, they were previously sinless because their judgments aligned with God’s standard. By eating the forbidden fruit, sin entered them. In other words, humans abandoned God’s standard and began judging good and evil by their own standards, thereby bringing sin into existence.
This is clearly shown by their behaviour after eating the fruit:
"Their eyes were opened, and they both knew that they were naked. They sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." (Genesis 3:7, WEBBE)
God did not judge their nakedness as sin, but they judged it as shameful.
Their second judgement was similar:
"They heard Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Yahweh God among the trees of the garden. Yahweh God called to the man, and said to him, ‘Where are you?’ He said, ‘I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; so I hid myself.’" (Genesis 3:8–10, WEBBE)
Those who had never hidden from God now judged by their own standard and feared Him, to the extent that God had to call out for them.
Thus, original sin refers to humankind's departure from judging by God’s standard and adopting their own, inevitably leading to sin. If this is the essence or outcome of original sin, who among us can claim exemption? Everyone judges by their own standards. Those familiar with Scripture may attempt to live according to God’s standard, but God has not revealed His standard for everything. Even the Law was adjusted because God knew human limitations (see Matthew 19:8, WEBBE). Thus, living by the law does not guarantee living without sin in God’s eyes (see Matthew 5:27–28, WEBBE). As Jesus fulfilled the law and introduced a new commandment, that standard may change — more precisely, God’s standard did not change, but He chose to be more inclusive. In any case, God’s definitive standard remains unknown to us.
Therefore, all our judgments and actions are inherently subject to the possibility of sin. Hence, we live under the influence of original sin—judging apart from God’s standard—meaning we inherit not just the possibility of sin but original sin itself.
If we focus not on the act of eating forbidden fruit, but on the abandonment of God’s standard in judging good and evil, such an interpretation becomes plausible.
Of course, this does not render judgement by one’s own standard inherently wicked. People’s judgments and actions can be good or evil. However, since God judges good and evil, ultimately no one escapes condemnation. One sin is enough to make a person a sinner; who then can claim to be free of original sin?
Consider Genesis 6:
"Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Yahweh was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him in his heart." (Genesis 6:5–6, WEBBE)
Unless we regain God’s standard, no one escapes sin.
* * *
Reflecting on original sin raises a question about Eve’s judgement before eating the fruit:
"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 gave some to her husband with her; and he ate." (Genesis 3:6, WEBBE)
She made an incorrect judgement before the act. People were without sin because they judged by God’s standard. But here she errs. This can be explained by whose perspective she’s now judging.
"The serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not surely die, for God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’" (Genesis 3:4–5, WEBBE)
She judged not by God’s standard but by the serpent’s, leading to a false judgement.
Does it seem strange she could judge wrongly despite knowing God’s standard? Consider ourselves: we learn right and wrong, then someone challenges that with, “You’re wrong, think this way instead.” We may accept or reject that. It’s about choice, not standards.
She knew God’s standard but had free will. Until then, she only knew God’s standard, so she could not sin. Now she knew the serpent’s standard too, and freely chose between them. Though previously living by God’s standard, this was possible because she was not God.
Her words before hearing the serpent’s standard may be read differently:
"We may eat fruit from the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’" (Genesis 3:2–3, WEBBE)
These words subtly differ from God’s original command, which might suggest a flaw in her, but it may not be incorrect. Acting on those words would not lead to sin. If we consider her at fault for imperfectly relaying God's words, then we too would be flawed by that standard.
God created her and saw that she was good (Genesis 1:31, WEBBE). God did not create another perfect being but humans who can become perfect with Him, not another god.
Jesus said at the Last Supper:
"I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Counsellor, that he may be with you forever—the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive; for it does not see him, neither knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you." (John 14:16–17, WEBBE)
"In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you." (John 14:20, WEBBE)
"Jesus answered him, ‘If anyone loves me, he will keep my word. My Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our home with him.’" (John 14:23, WEBBE)
We are not perfect beings, but through time with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit residing in us, we gradually draw closer to perfection — as was the case when walking with God in Eden.
* * *
Finally, some contentious issues concerning original sin: Jesus was born without original sin, being sinless. However, if original sin is understood as a hereditary sinful nature, it suggests the Virgin Mary must also have been without original sin to bear Jesus without it. This logic extends to Mary’s parents and their ancestors, creating an intractable problem. Catholics normally hold that only Mary was without original sin, whereas Protestants reject this entirely. This disagreement stems from differing understandings of original sin.
Reconsidering from the perspective given here: I have explained original sin as people judging good and evil by their own standards. Jesus, one of the Trinity, is essentially equal with God. Therefore, His standard is God’s standard. If Jesus judges something a sin, it is sin; if not, it is not. Thus, even if His human nature is affected by original sin, this is irrelevant to Him. So long as He adheres to God’s standard, no sin can ever touch Him.
Jesus said:
"I can do nothing of myself; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is righteous, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me." (John 5:30, WEBBE)
"You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. But even if I do judge, my judgment is true; because I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent me." (John 8:15–16, WEBBE)
From this, it matters not whether the Virgin Mary had original sin. Original sin is not about inherited evil, but about the standard by which each person judges. There is no need to make another person holy for Jesus to be holy.
