What is a (hu)-man

In a world of gender dysphoria, the Christian world is not unharmed from it's own form of spiritual dysphoria. Sin is the catalyst that has fostered in many different systems with attempts to lure humanity away from God's design. Yet for many, we speak of our new found freedom in christ, but begrudgingly stumble through the mess of relationships living lives devoted to Jesus. Could it be that even as born again Christians, sin has had too much of a damaging effect to see real change or have we settled for a lesser gospel? The focus of this article is to gain a clearer understanding according to scripture of the nature of a human being, what has sin done to humanity, and how the church today should view ourselves and one another accordingly.

Understanding what it means to be human requires engaging both Scripture’s foundational teachings and the theological traditions that have developed in response to those teachings.[1]

Genesis provides the primary biblical framework, introducing creation and fall narratives that establish several core truths about human nature. Humans are created beings who owe their existence and allegiance to God the Creator. We exist as social creatures—male and female—interdependent, called to procreate and steward creation. Yet despite our creaturely status, we bear God’s image in a way that sets us apart. At the same time, we are fallen—tempted toward sin and capable of willfully choosing forbidden desires.[1]

The doctrine of the imago Dei (image of God) remains central to Christian anthropology. Early theologians like Irenaeus distinguished between the “image” (imago) we cannot lose without ceasing to be human and the “likeness” (similitudo) into which we grow.[2] Calvin later grappled with the paradox that while humanity mirrors God’s glory in a broader sense, sin so thoroughly perverts the imago Dei that saving knowledge of God requires Christ’s grace.[2]

Modern Christian theology recognizes Jesus Christ as the perfect image of God and understands human development as conformity to Christ. Ultimately, humanity’s story unfolds as a relationship with God: created for communion with him, severed through sin, and restored through Christ’s redemptive work.[4]

The phrase total depravity is often used to describe the nature of man or what’s in a man’s heart. ("man"-human) Understandably so, this term is derived by scriptural passages such as Romans 3:10 “There is none righteous, no not one”, Romans 3:23 “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”, Psalm 51:5 “Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me”,  Psalm 58:3 “The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.” 

One layer of faithful textual interpretation is context. Out of the aforementioned passages Romans 3:23 stands alone as not having more context other than what we read. Romans 3:10 is a reference from Psalm 14, a lamentation about the depravity a mankind. Scholars speculate David's audience if any in the Psalm, but we can see in verse one, David is depicting a state of thinking that had developed rather than existed from conception. To have "done abominable works" is derived from the Hebraic word taab (תַּעָב) meaning to detest or to completely negate. David is describing the state of mind humanity had chosen, to live a life completely ignoring even the existence of God, not necessarily the state of brokenness that humanity is born into. To taab, or completely abhore God, is what is described in Psalm 58:3, also eluding to the reality that their minds and hearts had evolved to this state of denial. The pharaoh who enslaved Egypt found himself in this same way of thinking and lost everything because of it.

Psalm 51:5 is David's cry to the Lord for his affair with Bethsheba and the murder of her husband. David claims to be sinful from the moment of conception. Psalm 51:5 carry's similar overtones of David's own depravity similar to Psalm 14. In verse 5 he sates "surely I was sinful at birth, from the time my mother conceived me." In stark contrast, Psalm 139: 13-14 David writes "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well." Is David fearfully and wonderfully made, was he sinful at birth, is it both?

The discovery of God's truth is part of the joy of knowing him, but knowing him also comes with honoring him with responsible study. Although the Bible is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), it's dangerous to isolate specific passages and interpret them as they were directly from God himself without taking into factor the genre of writing, audience, language, culture, and any themes or patterns in the overall narrative of the Bible.

---

In Eden, God's wisdom and character were questioned. The validity of his word was discredited and the choice to disobey and eat of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, still today impacts the whole of creation.  Plainly, the choice to choose God’s wisdom or knowledge of life and existence apart from the divine has disharmonized God’s good order. 

To choose human knowledge over adhering to God’s divine wisdom fosters selfishness and greed, taking away from the motives that bring forth new life, order, and harmony.

The disharmonizing of creation created by sin that began in Genesis 3 was simultaneously met by God’s good pleasure and divine wisdom (Ephesians 1:7-10 ) that set in motion a plan of redemption for not just humans, but for humans to also participate in the restoration and redemption of creation. Eve, although led astray by the deceiver in the garden, is now by Adam given the name “mother of all living” (Gen 3:20).  Up until this point in the Bible, Eve was referred to as isshah, the Hebraic definition of a female man or human.  Divine purpose moves beyond caring for creation, but also the participation in the redemption of creation.  She would begin the lineage that would lead to the birth of the one who would crush the head of the serpent, the evil spiritual forces that sought autonomy from God seeking to lure and distort God’s creation into utter chaos.  

Christ’s atoning work on the cross, resurrection and ascension dismantled these powers of evil, purifying the damaging effects of sin, and set in motion the divine empowerment of the ecclesia to carry forth the mandate of harmonizing creation. To breathe, give, and produce life in the land, and to assist the spirits work in reconciling the lost. 

Many of Paul's letters echo the David's confessions of the depravity that can rest within a human heart and the Bible addresses in depth the consequences of sin. The question to wrestle with is what does the Bible say using faithful interpretation methods? You may dig in and decide you are firm in your beliefs, or the Lord could possibly give you insight and revelation of a new understanding of him and specific passages. Interestingly, the Bible gives more insight and wisdom on how to walk in harmony with God and creation, to walk free from sin, than it does focusing on sin itself and humans being a product of depravity. 

---

What we can agree on is that the spirit of God seeks to tabernacle in the hearts of all of humanity, to be at one with his creation, to harmonize once again his creation to the fulfillment of eternal indwelling as one family. 

Beginning with Eve, God set forth the ministry of reconciliation and sent Jesus as a living example of a spirit empowered life that fulfills humanities design of covenant faithfulness to the Father.  Covenant faithfulness that led to the cross, but only to the end of eternal life for all who choose to follow him. 

Jesus's enthronement exposed the deceiver as a mirage of lies, but even today, those lies we've believed and lived out deeply impact our lives.  Although there may be tension between our flesh and sin, arguably more tension lies within our faith. Do we believe that we were forgiven before we even knew we had betrayed God.  (Rom 5:8) Do we believe that Christ’s blood truly made a way for his spirit to dwell with us, that we can truly in harmony once again?  Do we believe that he is compassionate and slow to anger?

Do we believe that we have a sin nature or divine blood?

The scriptures are clear that we are called to sin no more.  The invalid at Bethesda, the woman at the well, the woman drug into the courtyard by the religious elite for extra marital affairs, all were commanded to “sin no more”, all by Jesus, all before the cross.  Abraham, Noah, Zacharias all called righteous by the Lord for following his decrees, trusting in his ways, before the cross.

We, those who have chosen the life of a faithful remnant to Yahweh, …do we focus on human failure rather than proclaiming and living the possibility of renewed life in Christ?  Do we preach a final verdict that consigns people to moral impotence, or do we embody and announce a gospel that recognizes real human brokenness while calling, enabling, and expecting genuine transformation? The answer shapes everything — our theology, our worship, our pastoral care, and the church’s mission. So consider this: do you continue to sit under the weight of a verdict that says change is impossible, or will you live as if God’s grace, through Christ and the Spirit, can and does break the power of sin and summon people into faithful, covenantal life?

The heart tends to track with what one loves most, and the mind moves in a willful direction toward a particular agenda—its trajectory shaped by the state of the whole heart, whether polluted or sanctified.[5]. The mouth speaks what the heart is full of.  (Luke 6:45) Where your heart is, there your treasures are also.  (Matthew 6:21)

We can choose to be led by the love that has torn through hell to get heaven back into us or we can choose to be distracted by the disbelief that got us into hell in the first place. 

This is not a theological exhaustive composition of sin and its effect on humanity, but rather an attempt to allow the Bible to clarity it’s understanding of the fabric of a human being according to God’s design and how we today as the ecclesia best shepherd one another according to God’s design and purpose of the church.

-Our world needs you, but more importantly, it needs the full measure of Christ in you...

There are many teachings and understandings of this topic.  Listed below are different views of original sin / human condition, the mechanism of transmission or culpability, their primary emphasis (forensic / therapeutic / corporate / personal) and how these views are held in comparison to ancient near eastern spirituality.  These are given to show the wide array of understandings coming from the same source.  It’s each of our responsibility to study faithfully, discern through God’s spirit, and allow the Bible to speak on its own terms.  Tradition is a beautiful practice, but tradition is not always a faithful hermeneutic.    

-Ancient Near East-

View of original sin/human nature-

Ancient Near Eastern beliefs understand humans as embedded in cosmic/ritual order; misfortune often tied to divine anger, ritual impurity, or social/ancestral offense rather than inherited moral guilt.

Mechanism-

(6)Misfortune/blessing tied to ritual status, covenant/kingly fidelity, and ancestor-deeds; no abstract doctrine of inherited guilt (7)

Primary Emphasis-

Corporate & ritual—focus on restoring order (ritual/propitiation), social harmony  

ANE sees gods, cosmic forces, and cultic purity as primary causes; moral-personal categories are less juridical and more relational/ritual  (8)

-Biblical Jewish (Hebrew Bible)-

View of original sin/human nature-

 No single system labeled “original sin”; texts speak of human propensity to evil (Genesis 6:5; 8:21; Psalm 51) and also stress individual responsibility (Ezekiel 18)

Mechanism-

Mixture: consequences of ancestor acts, covenant curses/blessings, personal sin; communal guilt in corporate contexts.

Primary Emphasis-

 Corporate covenantal and individual moral responsibility; ritual and ethical remedies

Hebrew thought blends ANE ritual-covenant motifs with prophetic ethical critique—less deterministic than some later doctrines  (9)

-Early Church — Eastern Fathers (e.g., Athanasius) 

View of original sin/human nature-

Fall introduced death and corruption (ancestral consequence); emphasis on death/weakness rather than forensic guilt  

Mechanism-

Transmission as ancestral consequence (corruption, mortality); therapeutic healing in Christ 

Primary Emphasis-

Therapeutic/healing and cosmic restoration (Christ as new Adam)

Resonates with ANE focus on cosmic disorder and restoration, but reinterprets through incarnation and salvation history  (10)

-Early Church — Western (Augustine)

View of original sin/human nature-

Strong doctrine: transmitted guilt and corruption from Adam; infants bear original sin and guilt

Mechanism-

Realistic/representational transmission (Augustine: transmission via concupiscence and will)

Primary Emphasis-

Forensic and ontological—guilt + corrupted nature needing grace

Moves beyond ANE ritual focus to a juridical-personal account of guilt and grace; less ritual, more legal-theological | (11)

-Medieval Catholic (Scholastic: Aquinas)

View of original sin/human nature-

Original sin = privation of original justice; inherited concupiscence; guilt remitted by baptism but disposition remains 

Mechanism-

Transmission via human descent (privation/concupiscence); sacramental remedy (baptism)

Primary Emphasis-

Infused righteousness, sacramental/ontological transformation

Synthesizes biblical and Augustinean themes, retaining communal cultic elements but emphasizing sacramental mediation (different from ANE rituals)

-Reformation — Reformed & Lutheran

View of original sin/human nature-

Original sin = total corruption/alienation; Adam as federal head; guilt/condemnation imputed; justification by imputed Christ-righteousness

Mechanism-

Federal imputation (Adam’s guilt to all; Christ’s righteousness to believers) |

Primary Emphasis-

Forensic/legal emphasis (justification by faith; penal substitution tendencies)

Retains corporate/headship resonance (similar to ANE corporate responsibility) but reframes causality juridically rather than ritual-legal/purity terms

-Wesleyan / Arminian 

View of original sin/human nature-

Original sin = corruption and inherited propensity; prevenient grace restores ability to respond; personal guilt for personal sins.

Mechanism-

Corruption transmitted; grace precedes and enables choice; justification involves imputed + infused aspects (varies)

Primary Emphasis-

Pastoral/therapeutic with emphasis on free will and sanctification

Emphasizes moral responsibility and restoration (less like ANE ritualism; more ethical-relational)

-Eastern Orthodox (later patristic continuity)

View of original sin/human nature-

“Ancestral sin”: mortality and propensity to death/corruption inherited; less focus on inherited legal guilt.

Mechanism-

Transmission of death/ancestral consequences (not forensic imputation of guilt); salvation as healing/deification (theosis)

Primary Emphasis-

Therapeutic and ontological (healing, deification) | Closest affinity to ANE themes of cosmic disorder and ritual/communal restoration, but Christ-centered transformative theology |

-Modern Liberal / Mainline

View of original sin/human nature-

Often minimizes original sin as inherited guilt; focuses on social sin, structural evil, and moral failings; ethical reform stressed

Mechanism-

Emphasis on sociocultural causes and personal responsibility; less juridical imputation

Primary Emphasis-

Ethical/social critique and reform; psychological readings

Aligns with ANE communal-awareness but shifts focus to socio-historical roots rather than ritual/divine wrath

-Contemporary Evangelical / Pentecostal (American) 

View of original sin/human nature-

Varied but many hold Reformation-style original sin and imputation of Christ’s righteousness; experiential emphasis on conversion, Spirit, and holiness

Mechanism-

Often federal imputation + emphasis on personal repentance and Spirit-led sanctification | Forensic in justification; practical/experiential in sanctification

Primary Emphasis-

Keeps corporate/headship idea but centers on personal conversion and Spirit

Differs from ANE ritual mechanisms though shares concern for divine favor and blessing

“Original sin” as a technical term is post-biblical; biblical texts combine themes of inherited consequence, personal culpability, and corporate covenantly. 

ANE religion prioritized ritual purity, cosmic order, and propitiation; Israelite religion transformed those categories toward covenant ethics and prophetic justice, which later theological traditions reframed juridically or therapeutically. 

[1] David N. Entwistle, Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity: An Introduction to Worldview Issues, Philosophical Foundations, and Models of Integration (Cascade, 2015), 156.

[2] T. A. Noble, “Anthropology,” in New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic, ed. Martin Davie et al. (London; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press; InterVarsity Press, 2016), 40–41.

[3] Jack O. Balswick, Pamela Ebstyne King, and Kevin S. Reimer, The Reciprocating Self: Human Development in Theological Perspective, Christian Association for Psychological Studies (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016), 34.

[4] Mathias Nygaard, “Humanity, Theology of,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

[5] A. Craig Troxel, With All Your Heart: Orienting Your Mind, Desires, and Will toward Christ (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 32–34.

[6]]: Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) cultures understood human fate in relation to divine favor or displeasure, often through rituals and communal social order rather than inherited guilt.  

[7]: No systematic doctrine of original sin; societal and ritual behaviors influenced blessings or curses. 

[8]: Ritual purity, ancestor worship, and cosmic balance shaped spiritual life; moral laws functioned relationally, not strictly juridically. 

[9]: Biblical texts contain social and ritual aspects of sin; prophetic literature emphasizes individual moral accountability and ethical conduct. 

[10]: The Eastern Fathers emphasized the healing of human nature through Christ, countering the focus on guilt with restoration. 

[11]: Augustine's framework shifted the focus to forensic guilt, establishing a legal paradigm for understanding sin and its consequences in contrast to ancient rituals.