 |
|
|
And I did not really know what the Lord would show me, but as time went on, I began to get the picture much clearer. January 3rd, the year 2000, we break ground for that Healing Centre in Dallas Texas. [Ground-breaking has yet to take place.] It's going to have Healing Gardens with Healing Statues of Biblical Healing saints from the Old Testament. It's going to have a Healing Fountain an Eternal Healing Fire...
-- Benny Hinn, "This Is Your Day," August 24, 1999
|
|
| |
Are Men Born Sinners?
Posted on Monday, February 07 @ 13:13:48 PST by Kyle Peterson |
|
From: Wm. P. Murray, Jr
A commonly abused "proof text" is Psalm 51:5. Although I cannot claim the following as a result of my own scholarship or research, the information is a culimination from many sources over the years, and, I feel, the best explanation of this particular text that I have come across.
Psalm 51:5 - "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." KJV This is a Hebrew poetic parallelism, with the second line of the verse saying the same thing as the first line in a slightly different way.
The first verb, of which David is the subject, is in the Pulal tense (as is "made" in # Job 15:7 ), which is an idiom used to refer to creation or origins, and is the `passive' form of Polel ("formed": # Ps 90:2 Pro 26:10 ). TWOT, #623, 1:270.
The subject of this verse is NOT the state or constitution of David's nature as a sinner at, or before, his birth. The subject is, as the verse clearly states, the `circumstances' of his conception- the sexual union which produced him was an act of sin, and addresses the unrighteousness of his mother's act, not anything (such as a sin nature) inherent within himself.
The NIV's version of this verse is an INTERPRETATION, not a translation: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
David had two half-sisters (Zeruiah, Abigail).....:
1CHR 2:13-16 13 - And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, 14 Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: 16 Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. 17 And Abigail bare Amasa: and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmeelite.
....and the father of David's half-sisters was not Jesse, but Nahash: 2Sam 17:25 - And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.
Nahash, the father of Zeruiah and Abigal, David's half-sisters, was an Ammonite king.
1Sam 11:1 - Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabeshgilead: and all the men of Jabesh said unto Nahash, Make a covenant with us, and we will serve thee.
1Sam 12:12 - And when ye saw that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto me, Nay; but a king shall reign over us: when the LORD your God was your king.
David's father was Jesse, not Nahash. Zeruiah and Abigal were David's half-sisters through his mother's previous marriage to Nahash. This would also help explain why Nahash showed kindness to David, perhaps out of respect for David's mother, Nahash’s former wife and the mother of two of Nahash's children.
2Sam 10:2 - Then said David, I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And David's servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.
David's mother was most likely the second wife of Jesse, the first wife being the mother of David's half-brothers. Jesse’s first wife's standing before the `righteousness of the law', (her not having been married to, or the concubine of, a heathen king, as was David’s mother), would have been superior to that of David's mother, and explains why David's half-brothers, Jesse's other sons, would have felt they were superior to David, and why he would be accused of being prideful, for thinking he was as good as them....
1Sam 17:28-30 - 28 And Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spake unto the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why camest thou down hither? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle. 29 And David said, What have I now done? Is there not a cause? 30 And he turned from him toward another, and spake after the same manner: and the people answered him again after the former manner.
...and why David was not considered, by his father Jesse, as `true' a son as his half-brothers. Samuel had called Jesse and his sons, and thus expected `all' his sons, to the sacrifice (1Sam 16:5,11). Jesse, having been told to bring `his sons' by a prophet of the Lord everyone feared (1Sam 16:4), was confident he had obeyed the prophet, even knowing he did not bring David....
1Sam 16:11 - And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.
....which would be consistent with God's sometimes choosing that which men esteemed as worthless (the `least') to be the greatest: (Gideon- Jud 6:15; King Saul- 1Sam 9:21; Jesus- Mt 2:6, Lk 9:48)
David's mother was apparently a Jewish woman, because `no Ammonite shall enter the congregation of the Lord to the 10th generation’ (Deu 23:3), and yet in PS 86:16 and PS 116:16, David refers to himself as "the son of thy handmaid", which would seem to testify to his mother's relationship with the Lord. David's mother was, in the eyes of Jewish law, considered `defiled' by her previous relationship to an Ammonite.
Nu 25:1,2; De 7:3,4; 1Ki 11:2-4, Ezr 9:2; Ne 13:23,25; 2Co 6:14-17
Wm. P. Murray, Jr
wmjr@jersey.net
http://www.firesofrevival.com/ps51.htm
|
| |
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: Are Men Born Sinners? (Score: 1)
 by Virgil on Monday, February 07 @ 13:51:32 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | The Midrash also confirms the idea that David was the result of an adulterous relationship - Psalm 51 does not teach that newborn babies have sin, or that Adam's sin is inherited through natural birth. It rather deals with David's personal demons and feelings of guilt. Jews generally believed that children born out of sinful relationships are more rebelious than other children - David saw this being manifested in himself.
Ultimately God using David, a bastard child, born of sin, and make him the King of Israel, and part of the lineage of Christ, speaks volumes of God's grace and love for us.
Those who interpret Psalm 51:1 as teaching "sin nature" are missing the whole point of the Psalm, and are minimizing the extent of God's grace and love to ALL willing mankind. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by davecollins on Tuesday, February 08 @ 22:39:00 PST
- by armothe on Wednesday, February 09 @ 06:25:51 PST
- by davecollins on Wednesday, February 09 @ 20:40:28 PST
Re: Are Men Born Sinners? (Score: 1)
 by JeffE on Monday, February 07 @ 13:56:02 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | | If Christ was the second Adam, how can there be Original Sin today? |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Are Men Born Sinners? (Score: 1)
 by leslie on Monday, February 07 @ 14:01:56 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | | Christ took away the Sins of the world. But there are still the evil hearts of All men. Thank-you God for Grace |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by coderguy on Monday, February 07 @ 18:14:01 PST
- by Virgil on Monday, February 07 @ 19:42:21 PST
- by Sam on Tuesday, February 08 @ 04:41:40 PST
- by Virgil on Tuesday, February 08 @ 08:05:41 PST
- by vento on Tuesday, February 08 @ 13:10:21 PST
- by Virgil on Tuesday, February 08 @ 13:21:35 PST
- by Sam on Tuesday, February 08 @ 18:25:38 PST
- by Virgil on Tuesday, February 08 @ 19:18:39 PST
- by vento on Tuesday, February 08 @ 20:40:37 PST
- by MichaelB on Thursday, February 10 @ 08:23:37 PST
- by armothe on Tuesday, February 08 @ 10:23:37 PST
- by Virgil on Monday, February 07 @ 19:39:58 PST
- by leslie on Tuesday, February 08 @ 07:58:47 PST
- by Virgil on Tuesday, February 08 @ 08:31:23 PST
- by leslie on Tuesday, February 08 @ 08:52:06 PST
- by Virgil on Tuesday, February 08 @ 09:46:32 PST
- by leslie on Tuesday, February 08 @ 11:17:04 PST
- by armothe on Tuesday, February 08 @ 09:59:27 PST
- by Seeker on Tuesday, February 08 @ 11:14:53 PST
- by leslie on Tuesday, February 08 @ 11:24:04 PST
- by artmel on Tuesday, February 08 @ 12:17:29 PST
- by leslie on Tuesday, February 08 @ 12:36:05 PST
- by leslie on Tuesday, February 08 @ 12:42:50 PST
Concerned Father ... (Score: 1)
by EWMI on Monday, February 07 @ 19:22:51 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | This topic gives rise to many interesting questions. One lesson I did not have to teach my children was how to sin. Their tendency to rebel and disobey was evident from the cradle. So, what about the Baby Jesus? Did He choose to test the resolve of His earthly parents in the same way my children tested mine? At which point did the rebellion that seemed to be natural in my children (And me too...) become sin? Is there a moment when we, like Nebuchanessar of old look up from our animalistic stupor and realise that there is a God and that we have contravened His moral code? Did Jesus have that same moment as a child yet instead of seeing His sin He saw His righteousness?
Has sin and its punishment changed post Parousia? Do some Preterists say that sin no longer exists because of the passing of the Law? Does the possibility that there is no original sin let those who have never heard "off the hook"?
questions questions questions .... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Are Men Born Sinners? (Score: 1)
by armothe (armothe@yahoo.com) on Tuesday, February 08 @ 06:21:32 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | | This seems to jive with the fact that Jesse left David behind when Samuel called up his sons in order to annoint one of them. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Are Men Born Sinners? (Score: 1)
by MichaelB on Tuesday, February 08 @ 12:04:33 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | If men were not "born sinners" then why does the scripture say that NEVERTHELESS DEATH REINED FROM ADAM TO MOSES? Was it because they were "IN ADAM" ??? Yes.
Mike Bennett |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Virgil on Tuesday, February 08 @ 12:53:39 PST
- by Parker on Tuesday, February 08 @ 20:35:02 PST
Re: Are Men Born Sinners? A question of imputation and not actuality (Score: 1)
by DougShuffield on Tuesday, February 08 @ 14:22:31 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | The question is not one of all men being born *actually* sinning. I agree that infants cannot choose to sin in the sense of knowing the difference between right and wrong and consciously choosing the wrong. The question is if Adam's sin is *imputed* to all men. Look at Romans 5:12-21:
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
12. We can all agree this verse states that sin and death entered the world because of one man, namely Adam. We can also ascertain that death spread to all men. But why? The question now is how to interpret "because all sinned". Does this mean "because all sinned personally" or does it mean "because all sinned in Adam" (equation of "because all sinned" and "through one man sinned entered the world")? At this point, it could mean either. Let's see if Paul clarifies...
13. We can agree this verse says that people committed personal sin before the Law. We can also glean from "sin is not imputed when there is no law" that those sins were not counted against them. Verse 14 will clarify even further.
14. Even though their personal sin was not imputed before Moses and the Law, death nevertheless reigned, even over people that had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, or in other words, people sinning apart from knowing a law or knowing that they are transgressing a law. People died even though their own individual sins against the Mosaic law were not the reason for dying; they weren't counted. Instead, the reason all died is because all sinned in Adam. Adam's sin was imputed to them. Adam is a type of Christ in the sense that both are Federal Heads. Adam failed in his disobedience thus death was passed to all men, Christ succeeded in His obedience so that life can be passed to all men.
So vs. 13 & 14 clarify vs. 12 like this:
At the end of verse 12 the words, "death spread to all men, because all sinned" means that "death spread to all because all sinned in Adam." Death does not come from our own individual sinning, but because of what happened in Adam.
Verses 15-18 now emphasize the point of the "one sin" and its consequences:
15. "by the transgression of the one the many died"
16. "the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation"
17. "by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one". By the way, the phrase "those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness" I think precludes the idea of "universalism". It is "those who receive" that are in view, not all of mankind.
<
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by leslie on Tuesday, February 08 @ 14:38:01 PST
- by Virgil on Tuesday, February 08 @ 14:55:58 PST
- by Writerx on Tuesday, February 08 @ 15:26:46 PST
- by Virgil on Tuesday, February 08 @ 15:48:56 PST
- by DougShuffield on Tuesday, February 08 @ 15:27:58 PST
- by Virgil on Tuesday, February 08 @ 15:43:10 PST
- by DougShuffield on Wednesday, February 09 @ 06:15:26 PST
- by Virgil on Wednesday, February 09 @ 06:41:04 PST
- by armothe on Tuesday, February 08 @ 15:25:08 PST
- by artmel on Tuesday, February 08 @ 18:20:33 PST
- by Virgil on Tuesday, February 08 @ 18:28:29 PST
- by DougShuffield on Wednesday, February 09 @ 06:19:06 PST
- by artmel on Wednesday, February 09 @ 10:58:03 PST
- by Virgil on Wednesday, February 09 @ 11:49:04 PST
- by DougShuffield on Wednesday, February 09 @ 15:16:00 PST
- by Virgil on Wednesday, February 09 @ 15:46:39 PST
- by artmel on Wednesday, February 09 @ 17:55:30 PST
- by Virgil on Wednesday, February 09 @ 18:06:24 PST
Re: Are Men Born Sinners? (Score: 1)
 by davo on Tuesday, February 08 @ 19:39:40 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) |
DougShuffield: 17. "by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one". By the way, the phrase "those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness" I think precludes the idea of "universalism". It is "those who receive" that are in view, not all of mankind.
Doug, I think you are trying to mix oil with water here. Virgil has pointed out previously [as have I] that there is a biblical distinction between "salvation" and "reconciliation-redemption". The "those who receive the abundance…" are indeed NOT all of mankind, but those who in faith respond to Christ – these have salvation i.e., they "reign in life" aka eternal life, as the rest of verse 17 makes clear:
Rom 5:17 For if by the transgression of the one, [the] death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
This however in no way diminishes the universal scope of the reconciliation-redemption that is also made clear in verse 18 that follows. This distinction between salvation and reconciliation is seen in verse 10.
Rom 5:10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Humanity, being lost in an alienated state WAS reconciled by His death. Those of faith have a standing in Christ, being saved by His Resurrection.
The "those who receive…" [lambanontes] is in the active tense – meaning they are the one's that "grasp" this grace in fulness of faith – it is this that works salvation. We find the same elsewhere:
Act 10:43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."
The action of believing is what "grasps" or receives [labein – active tense] the reality of the remission of sins. This is NOT God administering forgiveness individually because of an act of faith, but rather individuals by faith grasping the reality that forgiveness is theirs already; forgiveness being previously established for all i.e., the reconciliation.
davo – pantelism.com –
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Virgil on Tuesday, February 08 @ 19:52:35 PST
- by Paige on Wednesday, February 09 @ 08:04:13 PST
- by Virgil on Wednesday, February 09 @ 10:17:15 PST
- by armothe on Wednesday, February 09 @ 13:10:05 PST
- by DougShuffield on Wednesday, February 09 @ 15:12:03 PST
- by davo on Thursday, February 10 @ 23:01:15 PST
- by Paige on Friday, February 11 @ 08:51:09 PST
- by Paige on Friday, February 11 @ 10:16:08 PST
- by davo on Friday, February 11 @ 17:01:48 PST
| 
|
