Assuming the doctrine of original sin is true, how exactly is original sin passed down to the rest of mankind? Was the nature of man changed? If so, what exempted Christ from sin but allowed him to remain 100% man?

Is there a genetic inheritance of some strand of sin DNA?

What does the Bible say about this? What does Church history have to say?

  • 6
    It's like Cooties! Apr 30, 2012 at 23:39
  • 2
    @DoubtingThomas I think he means "only girls have it"... /flinch
    – Jas 3.1
    Jun 29, 2012 at 3:47
  • 1
    What an interesting question! A pity to close it. I don't think at all is primarily opinion-based. The person ask for references!
    – Quidam
    May 20, 2017 at 11:56
  • 1
    This is not a "primarily opinion-based" question. Theologians have studied it in great depth. I've voted to re-open.
    – Geremia
    Jul 18, 2017 at 17:40
  • 2
    @Geremia Although theologians from different ecclesial communities might have different answers? Jul 20, 2017 at 17:31

7 Answers 7


I think that the best answer here is that the Scriptures are not entirely clear on how original sin is transmitted. One thing that we do know (or believe the scriptures to teach) is:

The sin nature is passed on to us from our fathers and not our mothers

  • Sin entered the world through Adam - Romans 5:12 - not Eve who sinned first.
  • More directly taught in Heb 7:9-10
  • Christ Who did not have an earthly father did not have original sin passed to Him.

That is about all that we know (and even this view is heavily disputed.)

Other good questions: Is it genetic (I doubt it) or spiritual (much more likely)? What would happen if we used two women's DNA to clone a new person, if the new creation had a soul would it be sinless?

  • And yet in Hebrew thought (and in the OT) one's status was secured by the mother. (I'll try to find a source for that.) Perhaps, then, Christ keeps with that tradition: being born of a woman, he keeps his humanity, but since his father is God, he doesn't inherit the sinfulness of man. May 1, 2012 at 0:28
  • I know that this is common in Judaism after Christ to think this way, but I know of no place in scripture that teaches this. Men are consistently seen as the head of their families in Scripture. May 1, 2012 at 0:30
  • 1
    Head of the family, yes. But, for example, one only had to have a Jewish mother to be considered a part of the Hebrew community. I completely agree with you though and while other answers might give interesting theories this is definitely the most biblically accurate. May 1, 2012 at 0:32
  • That is what I was going for (biblically accurate) :-) Glad you see that. The idea of one parent bringing a child into the covenant community continues into the NT with Paul's statement in 1 Cor 7:14. May 1, 2012 at 0:46
  • Sorry to dig up an old post (3yrs later). So would this mean that either (A) God put sin in Eve or (B) Adam and Eve both inherited sin from the Apple in some way? Or Eve obtained Sin in some other way. (assuming sin is passed from males) Mar 12, 2015 at 17:18

One can hold that there is indeed Original Sin without assuming the nature of man changed. One might say instead, that the image of God was marred in man, like a coin covered in dross and scored with cuts. But the image remained. The nature - how man was made - did not differ, but his mode - as the Fathers say (I'm leaning heavily on Maximus the Confessor here) changed with the fall. So he operated as a beast though he was a man.

It follows therefore that reproduction - and not only physical reproduction but also parentage through fallen adoptive parents - transmits not merely the effects of previous sins on the bodies and souls of the children and parents, but also re-imprints the patterns and habits which foster the disease.

It then therefore follows, that God had to raise up righteous seed - those who were free from habitual sin and receptive to God's help - and that these, and in particular the Mother of God - could and would be able to accept the Son of God as a child and raise him.

This except gives an idea of the Orthodox position vis a vis 'sinful nature':

...Every created nature is made to live in communion with God. Human nature itself lives in communion with God. Our fall does not consist in becoming something other than human – we have yet to become truly human. Thus St. Paul says: “Man is the glory of God” (1 Cor. 11:7). And St. Irenaeus says, “The glory of God is man fully alive” (Adv. Her. 4.34.5-7). Our becoming truly human would mean the restoration of our true integrity – we would live in accordance with our nature and praise the Lord without ceasing. The natures of all creation ceaselessly praise God by their very existence. Our struggle is to rejoin the song of creation with the whole of our being.


So it is not the nature that changes, but whether those hypostases - concrete individuals - live in accordance to how they were made. Original sin constitutes a departure from this way of being at the very outset of human existence that affects the lives of every descendent of Adam and Eve.

  • interesting. I'd say man's nature has changed, and since my question was partially based on this assumption, this doesn't completely answer my question, but this is an interesting alternative perspective. +1 May 1, 2012 at 2:40
  • The orthodox do hold to original sin, but do not hold that it means man's nature changed. That would indicate that man is essentially different, which itself would make the Mother of God or Christ not human as we are human.
    – user304
    May 1, 2012 at 2:44
  • Not necessarily. Adam was a human both before and after the fall, and Christ is the second Adam. So Christ could still be human but without the changed, sinful nature of men after Adam. May 1, 2012 at 3:12
  • 3
    It is a problem of the perennially incorrect and sloppy usage of the word 'nature' by Western thinkers. If the nature of something changes, it ceases to be what it was before. This is what the nature is. A nature may be capable of operating in different modes - nearly every created thing is adaptable in some way - but this adaptation does not constitute a change in nature. It is also possible that you'd have to argue that fallen men have two natures, the human nature and the fallen nature. This is convolution.
    – user304
    May 2, 2012 at 14:30
  • You've just sparked an idea for another question (both here and for my theology friends) May 2, 2012 at 14:32

St. Thomas Aquinas explains it thus (Summa Theologica I-II q. 81 a. 1 c.):

According to the Catholic Faith we are bound to hold that the first sin of the first man is transmitted to his descendants, by way of origin. For this reason children are taken to be baptized soon after their birth, to show that they have to be washed from some uncleanness. The contrary is part of the Pelagian heresy, as is clear from Augustine in many of his books [*For instance, Retract. i, 9; De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. ix; Contra Julian. iii, 1; De Dono Persev. xi, xii.]

In endeavoring to explain how the sin of our first parent could be transmitted by way of origin to his descendants, various writers have gone about it in various ways. For some, considering that the subject of sin is the rational soul, maintained that the rational soul is transmitted with the semen, so that thus an infected soul would seem to produce other infected souls. Others, rejecting this as erroneous, endeavored to show how the guilt of the parent's soul can be transmitted to the children, even though the soul be not transmitted, from the fact that defects of the body are transmitted from parent to child—thus a leper may beget a leper, or a gouty man may be the father of a gouty son, on account of some seminal corruption, although this corruption is not leprosy or gout. Now since the body is proportionate to the soul, and since the soul's defects redound into the body, and vice versa, in like manner, say they, a culpable defect of the soul is passed on to the child, through the transmission of the semen, albeit the semen itself is not the subject of the guilt.

But all these explanations are insufficient. Because, granted that some bodily defects are transmitted by way of origin from parent to child, and granted that even some defects of the soul are transmitted in consequence, on account of a defect in the bodily habit, as in the case of idiots begetting idiots; nevertheless the fact of having a defect by the way of origin seems to exclude the notion of guilt, which is essentially something voluntary. Wherefore granted that the rational soul were transmitted, from the very fact that the stain on the child's soul is not in its will, it would cease to be a guilty stain binding its subject to punishment; for, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 5), "no one reproaches a man born blind; one rather takes pity on him."

Therefore we must explain the matter otherwise by saying that all men born of Adam may be considered as one man, inasmuch as they have one common nature, which they receive from their first parents; even as in civil matters, all who are members of one community are reputed as one body, and the whole community as one man. Indeed Porphyry says (Praedic., De Specie) that "by sharing the same species, many men are one man." Accordingly the multitude of men born of Adam, are as so many members of one body. Now the action of one member of the body, of the hand for instance, is voluntary not by the will of that hand, but by the will of the soul, the first mover of the members. Wherefore a murder which the hand commits would not be imputed as a sin to the hand, considered by itself as apart from the body, but is imputed to it as something belonging to man and moved by man's first moving principle. In this way, then, the disorder which is in this man born of Adam, is voluntary, not by his will, but by the will of his first parent, who, by the movement of generation, moves all who originate from him, even as the soul's will moves all the members to their actions. Hence the sin which is thus transmitted by the first parent to his descendants is called "original," just as the sin which flows from the soul into the bodily members is called "actual." And just as the actual sin that is committed by a member of the body, is not the sin of that member, except inasmuch as that member is a part of the man, for which reason it is called a "human sin"; so original sin is not the sin of this person, except inasmuch as this person receives his nature from his first parent, for which reason it is called the "sin of nature," according to Eph. 2:3: "We . . . were by nature children of wrath."


What is original sin?

"Original sin", in Catholic theology, refers to the natural state of deprivation of grace. So man, by nature, is deprived of the state of grace.

Because grace is no longer "natural", it can be obtained only through supernatural means - through God. So even though a man and woman may both be in the state of grace and give birth to a baby, that baby does not inherit their spiritual state, but only their nature.

Therefore, the baby, by nature, is deprived of grace. This is how original sin is transmitted.

Recommended reading: Catechism of Catholic Church on Original Sin

  • +1, very interesting angle on it. I would normally say "references references!" but I think the catechism and the fact that this is more of an alternative angle rather than a minority viewpoint both cover it. May 3, 2012 at 2:52

As to the question of "how exactly is original sin passed down to the rest of mankind", it seems believable that: 1) it is transmitted both through father and mother, because both became sinful. 2) it is transmitted both by spirit and body 3) no one knows the exact way of transmission. Why? Because the exact opposite way of restoring is also not known "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (Jn 3.8). We only can see the consequences, but not the process itself. The second question: "If so, what exempted Christ from sin but allowed him to remain 100% man". Fathers of Church, namely Cyrill of Alexsandria, say that from the moment of incarnation, Jesus' body became incorruptible through the power of Almighty God who wished to be a human. This is a large topic and there is lot of literature on this. If necessary, I can cite some of them.

  • Welcome to C.SE! This is a better first answer, although, if you can cite some of this literature, it would be great! Sep 19, 2013 at 16:37
  • You can look two "Letters to Succensus" by Cyrill of Alexsandria. amazon.com/St-Cyril-Alexandria-Letters-Fathers/dp/0813215137 , pp. 353 and forth. Here this topic is answered in clear and concise way.
    – Sargis
    Sep 19, 2013 at 16:57
  • @Sargis: You mean letter number 45 in your referenced book?
    – alvoutila
    Aug 16, 2015 at 19:59

If original sin is transmitted only through our fathers then the only answer I find is that it is through blood. We don't have the blood of our mothers and the ovum doesn't have that ability, it is through the sperm fertilising the egg that has the ability to produce blood.

Furthermore the blood of the mother and the blood no not mix although there are occasions that it will happen. So Jesus was sinless he didn't have a drop of Adams blood in his veins

  • Surely there is far more opportunity for the blood of the mother to mix with the unborn child's than that of the father. Are you able to adduce any references for this theory? Sep 18, 2013 at 14:50
  • 1
    Welcome to C.SE! When you get the chance, please check out our tour and specifically How we are different than other sites. As it stands, this is an interesting theory (and if you were to make explicit the idea that Jesus had no original sin, bc Joseph wasn't involved, it would help), but just as an FYI, typically what we are looking for is historically promulgated theories, not new ones. This is a good answer, but not a great one, for that reason only. Sep 18, 2013 at 14:58
  • Hi there Williams’ Practice of Obstetrics, Third Edition, page 133. Here I quote, "The fetal blood in the vessels of the chorionic villae AT NO TIME GAINS ACCESS TO THE MATERNAL BLOOD in the intervillous space, BEING SEPARATED FROM ONE ANOTHER by the double layer of chorionic epithelium." And from page 136 of the same recognized textbook I quote, "Normally there is no communication between the fetal blood and the maternal blood."
    – Linford
    Sep 18, 2013 at 15:47
  • How about mitochondrial DNA being transmitted mostly via the egg (which contains so much more genetic material than the other gamete, the sperm)? The mitochondria are the powerhouses of the cell which digest nutrients and provide energy in the form of ATP. But don't let science get in the way of a "good" theory :) Sep 18, 2013 at 19:41

Let me just quote the comments from the Moore College course (Doctrine 2):

We speak of 'original sin' in the sense that our sin arises from our origin in Adam. We are not saying that Adam was created sinful but that Adam represented all of us in his dealings with God. From his rebellion flowed death, misery, shame and suffering; from it also flowed the tendency of the human race towards evil. (p. 30)

Nathan Bunney has given the scripture references for the notion of original sin, the main one being Romans 5:12, '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'. We are identified with Adam because we have our human origin in him. If we identify with Christ in his death, we are then freed from this bondage.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .