Reconsidering Sin, Transmission, and Moral Agency
The doctrine of sin occupies a central position in Christian theology, yet it is often treated as a settled concept whose internal mechanics require no further examination. Sin is commonly understood as a universal human condition: all human beings are born in sin, all are subject to death, and all stand equally in need of redemption. While this framework is broadly accurate, it is also incomplete. It obscures important distinctions present in the biblical text—distinctions concerning origin, transmission, agency, and responsibility.
This work proceeds from the premise that sin is not merely an abstract moral condition but a phenomenon with structure, direction, and consequence. Scripture does not describe sin as entering humanity indiscriminately, nor does it assign responsibility without regard to role or function. Instead, it presents sin as something that is received, borne, and in a specific sense, propagated. These categories are not interchangeable, and failure to distinguish among them has led to theological flattening—particularly in discussions of gender, inheritance, and the meaning of original sin.
The central thesis of this book is that sin entered the human race through man and continues through man, and that while woman is implicated in sin as a recipient and bearer, she is not the agent through whom sin becomes generational. This claim is neither sociological nor moralistic. It does not assert that women are behaviorally sinless, nor that men are uniquely culpable in personal wrongdoing. Rather, it concerns the mechanism by which sin becomes a condition inherited by subsequent generations.
The biblical narrative of Genesis introduces this distinction immediately. Eve is deceived and sins first, yet Scripture consistently assigns responsibility for the entrance of sin into humanity to Adam. This assignment is not symbolic or rhetorical; it is causal. Adam’s transgression transforms sin from an isolated act into a transmissible condition. The consequence of this transformation is death—not merely as punishment, but as evidence that sin has become embedded in human existence.
The difference between deception and transgression
This distinction between deception and transgression, between reception and propagation, is foundational for understanding the subsequent development of sin in human history. It explains why Cain and Abel inherit sin despite being conceived through a woman, why genealogical descent is traced through male lineage, and why Scripture emphasizes “seed” rather than womb when accounting for inheritance. These emphases are not cultural artifacts; they are theological signals.
The significance of this framework becomes most apparent in the doctrine of the virgin birth. Mary, like all humanity, is born in sin. Yet Jesus Christ is born sinless. This fact demands explanation. If sin were transmitted equally through both parents, the sinlessness of Christ would require either the sinlessness of Mary or a suspension of the natural order. Scripture affirms neither. Instead, it presents a different solution: the absence of sinful human seed. The Holy Spirit supplies what Adam could not—a sinless origin—while Mary supplies what women have always supplied: life, without corruption.
This observation reframes the role of woman in salvation history. Rather than being the originator of humanity’s fall, woman emerges as the bearer through whom redemption becomes possible. Her involvement in sin does not negate her capacity to bear holiness. On the contrary, it reveals a unique theological function: woman can carry both fallen humanity and divine life without being the source of corruption.
The chapters that follow will examine sin systematically—its origin, its meaning, its transmission, and its interruption. Each stage of human generation will be considered not merely as narrative history, but as theological data. Hypothetical alternatives will be explored, not as speculative theology, but as logical tests that clarify responsibility and causality. The aim is not to revise doctrine, but to articulate more precisely what the doctrine already implies.
This introduction establishes the framework for that inquiry. The argument will proceed carefully, attending to language, sequence, and consequence. Agreement is not presupposed. Only attentiveness is required. The distinctions under examination are not imposed upon the text; they arise from it.
What remains is to follow them through to their conclusion.
