April 15, 2026
How did the Jews in Christ’s time view mankind? Did they believe all of us are born with a sinful nature, only capable of evil and not capable of good, as many Christians today believe?
This article continues my articles on Titus, Original Sin, and How Free Is Our Will? Answering the opening question can help us in our search for the truth.
It is my understanding that the Second Temple Jews understood that all of us are born with an inclination toward both evil and good, unlike most Christians since Augustine.
Yetzer Ha-Ra = inclination toward evil
Yetzer Ha-Tov = inclination toward good
Let us look at these Jewish terms more closely to understand their views and see if we can take anything away from that analysis. I asked ChatGPT for an overview. It follows.
1. Yetzer HaRa (יֵצֶר הָרַע)
Meaning: “the evil inclination.”
- Refers to the inner human tendency toward selfishness, sin, or disobedience.
- It is not identical to “sin nature” in the later Augustinian sense, but more like an inclination or impulse that can be resisted, according to ChatGPT.
In Augustinian Calvinism and most of evangelicalism, it is more than a resistible inclination or impulse toward evil; it is irresistible. Humanity can’t avoid sin; we are born sinners. And we can’t do well or any good in the more extreme views. Many, perhaps most, Christians think that even Spirit-filled believers continue to sin all of their lives, more or less. Doesn’t that sound more like a sinful nature than a simple inclination or impulse to sin? ChatGPT says it can be resisted but admits it isn’t. Why is that?
- ChatGPT continues, ‘Rooted in passages like Genesis 6:5 and 8:21 (“the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth”).
2. Yetzer HaTov (יֵצֶר הַטּוֹב)
Meaning: “the good inclination.”
- The inner tendency toward righteousness, obedience, and honoring God.
- In Jewish thought, both inclinations coexist in a person, according to ChatGPT.
This differs greatly from what most Christians today are taught and believe. For Jews, neither inclination is irresistible, and one doesn’t overpower the other. Early Jewish thought says we choose one or the other. Since Jesus was a Jew, do you think he held a different view? If so, why didn’t he tell us?
How These Work Together in Jewish Thought
In classical Jewish teaching (especially later Rabbinic literature like the Talmud):
- Every person has both yetzer ha-ra and yetzer ha-tov.
- Moral life is a struggle between these two inclinations.
- The evil inclination is not purely bad—it can drive ambition, work, and even family life if properly directed.
- The good inclination matures over time.
Age of Accountability Connection
- A child is not considered fully morally responsible until:
- Bar mitzvah (age 13 for boys)
- Bat mitzvah (age 12 for girls)
See Part 2 for a review of how evangelicals and Calvinists handle the age of accountability.
- Some rabbinic traditions suggest:
- The yetzer ha-ra is present from youth (even infancy)
- The yetzer ha-tov becomes fully active later (around adolescence)
So rather than “original guilt,” the framework is: You are born with impulses, but responsibility develops with maturity.
What About the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)?
The exact terms yetzer ha-ra and yetzer ha-tov don’t appear explicitly as a pair in the Torah, but the concept of “yetzer” (inclination) does:
- Genesis 6:5 — “every inclination (yetzer) of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
- Genesis 8:21 — “the inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”
So:
- The Bible affirms a bent toward evil and good
- But does not systematize it into a dual-inclination psychology the way later Judaism does, and as did the early Christians before Augustine
Early Jewish (Second Temple) Perspective
Texts like:
- Book of Sirach
- Dead Sea Scrolls
show a similar tension:
- Humans are pulled between righteousness and sin
- But still capable of choosing obedience, according to ChatGPT
This is unlike Augustinian Calvinism and much of evangelicalism. They may say that we receive the ability to obey God when we are born again, but they do not actually believe it, for they claim that no one born of God actually stops sinning in this life.
- Strong emphasis on free will and responsibility
And that is like the early church fathers.
Early Christian Thought
Early Christians inherited this Jewish framework but developed it in different ways.
Before Augustine of Hippo
Writers like:
- Justin Martyr
- Irenaeus of Lyons
- Origen
They generally taught:
- Humans have free will
- Sin arises from the misuse of the will
- There is a real internal struggle, similar to the yetzer idea
- But no inherited guilt in the later Augustinian sense
- And no total depravity and inability
For example:
- Origen explicitly speaks of opposing impulses within the soul
- Irenaeus of Lyons emphasizes human moral development (like growing into responsibility)
After Augustine
- Augustine of Hippo shifts the framework toward:
- Original sin
- Inherited corruption – total depravity and inability
- Inherited guilt
- A will that is not just conflicted, but totally enslaved and unable to obey God.
This differs from the Jewish yetzer model in a key way:
| Jewish Yetzer Model | Augustinian Model |
| Two inclinations | One fallen nature |
| Ongoing moral ability | Moral inability |
| No inherited guilt | Inherited guilt |
| Responsibility grows with age | Guilt from conception |
Key Takeaway
- Yetzer ha-ra is an inclination toward evil
- Yetzer ha-tov is an inclination toward good
Together they describe: “A dual-inclination anthropology where humans are morally responsible and capable of choosing obedience”, writes ChatGPT.
Humanity can also choose disobedience. That clarification is necessary because the determinism of Augustinian Calvinism forecloses the idea that humanity chooses to sin, since God determines all good and evil and decrees our choices and desires rather than leaving them to voluntary choice.
This framework strongly influenced early Christianity before Augustine, but was later reshaped and rewritten into doctrines like original sin and total depravity.
Next, we will consider the following:
- The Romans 7 passage (KJV) for context
- Explicit early church fathers’ quotes describing inner conflict/inclinations
- A short comparison showing how closely they parallel the yetzer idea
Romans 7 (Key Passage, KJV)
From the Epistle to the Romans, chapter 7:
“For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin…” (7:22-23)
“For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.” (7:19)
“O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (7:24)
This is the classic “two forces within” passage—very similar in structure to yetzer ha-tov vs. yetzer ha-ra.
That means that these passages from Romans 7 do not describe what most Christians think Romans 7 teaches, and that is, we are slaves of sin even as Christians. See my articles on Romans 7 on my website.
Early Church Fathers on Inner Inclinations to Good and Evil
Justin Martyr (2nd century)
From First Apology:
“We have learned from the prophets… that punishments and chastisements and good rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power.”
And more directly on moral struggle (Dialogue with Trypho): “Each man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions. For if it were fated that one man be good and another evil, neither would the former be worthy of praise nor the latter of blame.”
Implication:
- Moral conflict is real
- But choice is निर्णative, not a fixed, corrupt nature as Augustine and much of the Western branch of Christianity would eventually believe.
Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd century)
From Against Heresies: “Man is endowed with the faculty of distinguishing good and evil… and is possessed of free will… so that he can obey God voluntarily.” And very relevant to inner struggle: “The soul and the spirit are certainly a part of the man… but the complete man is a mixture and union of soul receiving the Spirit of the Father… and the flesh… capable of either.”
Implication:
- Human nature is capable of both directions
- Not locked into one dominating corruption, as most Christians today actually believe.
Origen (3rd century)
This is one of the clearest parallels to Romans 7.
From Homilies on Romans (commenting on Romans 7): “There are, as it were, two selves in one man… one which delights in the law of God, and another which is drawn toward sin.”
And elsewhere (On First Principles): “The soul… has movements in itself… some which draw it toward good, others toward evil.”
This is extremely close to:
- Romans 7 (“two laws”)
- Jewish yetzer language
Tertullian (late 2nd–early 3rd century)
From Against Marcion: “The soul is… free in its determinations… alternately inclined to good and to evil.” And: “We are not born good, but with the capacity for either.”
Clement of Alexandria (2nd–3rd century)
From Stromata: “There is in us a conflict… the flesh lusting against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh.” (He is echoing Paul, but treating it as a real internal dynamic.) And: “To obey or not is in our own power.”
My comment. Do you know any Christians who actually believe that? Almost all Christians believe that from Adam we inherit total depravity or total inability, more or less. Most Christians, it seems, readily accept the idea that we are born sinners and only inclined to sin – Yetzer Ha Ra – but they totally reject the idea that we are also born inclined to good.
3. Direct Comparison to Yetzer + Romans 7
Here’s where it comes together:
Shared Structure
| Concept | Jewish Thought | Romans 7 | Early Fathers |
| Inner conflict | Yetzer ha-tov vs ha-ra | Law of mind vs law in members | “Two selves,” opposing movements |
| Moral ability | האדם יכול לבחור (man can choose) | Implied struggle | Strongly affirmed |
| Source of sin | Inclination | “Sin in my members” | Misused will, competing impulses |
| Responsibility | Develops, real | Assumed | Strongly emphasized |
4. Key Insight
Before Augustine of Hippo, the dominant view was: Not that “you are a corrupt nature that can only sin.” But “You are a moral agent experiencing competing inner impulses.”
So, when they read Romans 7, they generally saw:
- Not total inability, as most Christians today believe
- But the lived experience of moral struggle between good and evil within
This aligns very naturally with the Jewish yetzer framework.
5. One More Especially Striking Parallel (Summary Statement)
If you put:
- Genesis 8:21 (inclination of the heart)
- Romans 7 (two laws within)
- Origen’s “two selves.”
Side by side, they form a continuous line of thought: Human beings experience genuine internal tension between good and evil yet remain responsible and capable of choosing obedience rather than disobedience.
So why do most Christians today believe something very different? They believe we are born sinners who can only sin until we are born again. But even after they are born again, they continue to sin all of their lives. That is what we will explore next.
Augustine reinterprets Scripture, especially Romans 7
Let us go one level deeper and show you how Augustine reinterprets Romans 7 differently—because that’s really where the major theological divide begins.
This is exactly the turning point in the history of interpretation. When Augustine of Hippo reads Romans 7, he does something quite different from both the Jewish yetzer framework and the earlier Greek-speaking fathers. The importance of this can’t be overstated.
1. The Key Question About Romans 7
In Romans 7, Paul says:
“The good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.” (7:19)
“I see another law in my members… bringing me into captivity…” (7:23)
The big interpretive question is this. Is Paul describing:
- (A) the normal human moral struggle between good and evil (yetzer-like), or
- (B) a will that is actually unable to do good? A will no longer free.
2. How the Earlier Tradition Read It (Briefly)
As we saw, writers like:
- Origen
- Irenaeus of Lyons
- Clement of Alexandria
Generally, they read Romans 7 as a description of inner conflict—but not total inability, as Augustine believed later in his life. And that is very similar to: yetzer ha-tov vs yetzer ha-ra.
Most of the early church, generally speaking, did not read Romans 7 as the normal, ongoing experience of a mature or real Christian, and most definitely not of the apostle Paul. Most Christians today have been taught that Romans 7 is the normative experience of a genuine Christian, thanks to Augustine’s false interpretation of Scripture, particularly in this passage. See my two articles on Romans 7 on my website (seekgodintruth.com)
3. Augustine’s Shift in Interpretation
A. Romans 7 describes the Regenerate Person, not the unregenerate Person
Augustine argues that Romans 7 is not just a generic human struggle, but the experience of a person who knows God’s law but is powerless with or without grace.
From his work Against Julian: “The apostle describes a man under grace… who indeed delights in the law of God, but is still overcome by the law of sin.”
This is already a shift:
- The struggle is not just moral tension
- It is bondage or slavery in sin with no moral tension at all
B. The Will Is Not Just Weak—It Is Enslaved and is not actually free at all to stop sinning
From Augustine of Hippo, On Nature and Grace: “Man’s will is not sufficient for righteousness unless it is freed by the grace of God.”
And more strongly: “Through the sin of the first man… the free will of man has been so enslaved that it cannot be freed except by grace.”
So, Romans 7 becomes: A description of inability, not just conflict
C. “The Good That I Would, I Do Not” is Moral Inability
Earlier fathers: “I struggle, but I can choose obedience.” I am able.
Augustine: “I cannot do the good I will—unless grace intervenes irresistibly.” I am not able.
From Confessions (reflecting his own experience in Romans 7 terms): “I was bound, not with another’s irons, but by my own iron will… the enemy held my will, and from it had made a chain.” I am not able.
This is crucial: According to Augustine, the problem is not just competing inclinations—it is a will in bondage to sin, totally unable to obey God, yet accountable and liable for not performing impossibilities. How twisted can it be?
D. Sin Is Inherited, Not Chosen. Augustine’s reversal of Jewish and early Christian teaching. And that makes me inquire, isn’t that a denial of the faith?
Here, Augustine diverges sharply from the yetzer model, writes ChatGPT.
From On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins: “All men were in that one man [Adam]… and all sinned in him,” writes Augustine.
So the “law of sin in my members” (Romans 7:23) becomes not just a tendency, but a transmitted condition. It becomes a sinful nature.
Closing Comments
Augustine changed the anthropology of Judaism and early Christianity. Is that a big deal? He changed not just how we view humanity but how we view God, grace, justice, salvation, and the gospel itself. It was not just a significant move; it was a catastrophic rewrite of the Word of God in the worst possible way. It echoes the serpent’s words in the Garden of Eden. God had told Adam and Eve not to eat of a particular tree, for if they did, they would die the very day they disobeyed Him. The serpent said to them, “Thou shalt not surely die.” The serpent knew that God had in fact said those words to them, so he lied about it.
Likewise, Augustine contradicted the testimony of the Jews, early Christians, and the Word of God, promising them liberation through the truth but instead offering them bondage with a lie and shackles, just as the serpent did in the Garden.
In part 2, we will examine the age of accountability and further develop this by considering various Christian traditions and interpretations.
