A Comparative Theological Perspective
The first account in Genesis describes an ordered creation in which the human being, made “in the image of God,” receives a unique dignity: partner of the divinity, called to govern the world with wisdom. The blessing to multiply and the Sabbath rest affirm existence as a divine gift, without conditions. Everything is “very good.”
The Eden story changes the tone: Adam and Eve break the divine command, and the consequences – pain in childbirth, toil, death – seem to annul the blessing, throwing humanity into a state of guilt. The tension is clear: if the human being has the right to exist by creation, what role does the curse in Eden play?
How did humanity continue to live if its right was “lost”?
Judaism answers simply: Eden explains suffering, but does not change the foundation laid in Genesis 1. People exist because of the original divine blessing, regardless of religion or origin. The covenant with Abraham and Israel gives the Jews a specific identity – promises of land and descendants – without denying the universal right of every human being to existence.
Paul, however, sees Eden as a deep rupture: Adam’s fall corrupts human nature, bringing sin and death upon all. For him, the right to exist is lost and can be restored only through Jesus, the “second Adam,” via the sacrifice of the cross.
The question remains: if humanity continued to exist, is this existence grounded in the blessing of Genesis 1, or in a promised cosmic “repair,” as Paul suggests?
Existence, Responsibility, and Repentance in Judaism
In Judaism, repentance – called teshuvah (“return”) – is a simple process, tied to individual actions.
Texts such as Ezekiel 18:20 state clearly: “The soul who sins shall die.” There is no inherited sin, only personal deeds. Teshuvah means acknowledging the wrong, regretting it, confessing it, and committing not to repeat it. The process is accessible at any time, especially on holy days such as Yom Kippur, without requiring a cosmic mediator.
The Law (Torah) guides the human being to live in harmony with the “image of God” – the capacity to choose good and to be responsible. The human being is not “ruined” from birth; everyone can correct their path through deeds, without depending on an external salvation.
Repentance is clear and practical: you do wrong, you return to the right path through concrete actions. There is no existential guilt requiring prior repair. The human being, bearing the divine image, is legitimized to exist and to act ethically, with full responsibility.
Pauline Christianity: A Double Repentance
Paul, a former Pharisee educated in the tradition of the Law, proposes a complex theology that redefines the very notion of repentance.
Unlike John the Baptist, Jesus, or the other apostles – who simply called, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3:2; 4:17), focusing on personal responsibility (acknowledging sins, regret, and change of behavior) – Paul introduces a cosmological layer absent from his predecessors.
After his dramatic conversion (Acts 9), he claims to have received direct revelations (Galatians 1:11–12), which transform repentance into a double process. For him, Eden is not just a story but a reality that changes human nature: through Adam, all people inherit a sinful state, guilty from birth, regardless of their deeds (Romans 5:12–19). No one before him had demanded faith in a cosmology of “inherited sin” or in a “second Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45) for salvation; the message had been direct: be responsible, do good, repent of evil deeds.
Thus, Paul creates a “double repentance.”
The first, existential, involves accepting the cross of Jesus as the only way to erase inherited sin, restoring the right to exist.
The second, practical, calls for a continuous change of life, lived according to the new identity “in Christ.” Without the first, the second is useless, because the Law, says Paul, cannot solve the problem of sinful nature.
The redefinition of repentance as a cosmological process, tied to a universal guilt, is Paul’s innovation, which contrasts with the simplicity of the message of Jesus and John the Baptist, centered on individual deeds.
The Double Structure and Greek Influence
The double structure is influenced by the Greek thought of the time.
Paul, a Greek speaker and Roman citizen, lives in a world marked by Platonism, which separated soul from body, and by Stoicism, which emphasized inner ethics. His theology “conquers” through universality: it offers salvation to non-Jews without requiring observance of the Jewish Law.
But the complexity comes at a price. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for hypocrisy:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel over sea and land to make a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.” (Matthew 23:15)
Paul’s theology, with its ontological layer, falls exactly into this trap: by putting the emphasis on a cosmic guilt, it dilutes personal responsibility, making converts more concerned with theological speculations than with concrete actions.
Repentance in Other Religions: A Common Call to Responsibility
When we look at other major religions, we see a clear pattern: in all of them, repentance is a single process, based on individual actions, similar to Judaism.
In Islam, tawbah means giving up sin, sincere regret, and the commitment not to repeat it, sometimes with restitution. There is no inherited sin; each person answers only for their own deeds, and the relationship with Allah is direct.
In Hinduism, prāyaścitta involves regret for wrongs and rituals – fasting, charity – to reduce negative karma, all based on personal actions, not on universal guilt.
Buddhism goes further: repentance is reflection on actions driven by greed or delusion, with a commitment to an ethical life, without gods or cosmic sins.
Sikhism, Jainism, and Zoroastrianism follow the same logic: responsibility is individual, whether in choosing good over evil or in purifying the soul through non-violence and good deeds.
Even secular philosophies such as humanism or existentialism turn “repentance” into ethical self-reflection: you recognize a mistake, regret it, change your behavior, without mythologies or external saviors. Jean-Paul Sartre said that the human being is “condemned to be free,” meaning totally responsible for his choices.
The pattern is obvious: in all religions and philosophies, repentance is a single process, based on deeds, emphasizing personal responsibility. Pauline Christianity is an exception, with its two layers, complicating an otherwise simple process.
But even Paul, after the theological “detour,” ends up in exactly the same place: each person answers for what they do, whether they live “in Christ” or follow the Law.
Greek Influence: How Christianity “Conquered” the World
Why is Paul’s theology so different?
The answer lies in the context. As a Pharisee but also a man of the Hellenistic world, Paul is influenced by Greek ideas that dominated the Roman Empire. Greek culture “conquered” the world not only by armies but by ideas: after Alexander the Great, Greek philosophy, art, and language spread everywhere, including Judea. The Romans, military conquerors, were “conquered” culturally by the Greeks – think of Cicero or Seneca, who borrowed Platonism and Stoicism.
Paul does something similar: he adapts the message of Jesus for a Greek audience, using familiar concepts such as body–soul dualism and cosmic order.
This “fusion” makes Pauline Christianity “conquering.”
By removing the requirements of the Jewish Law and offering universal salvation through faith, Paul opens the way for Christianity to spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond.
Under Constantine, in the 4th century, Christianity becomes a state religion, and Pauline theology shapes the Western world, influencing justice and human rights.
But this “greatness” comes with a cost. Ontological speculations – the idea that the human being is “ruined” from birth and needs a cosmic salvation – can lead to the very hypocrisy Jesus denounced in the Pharisees.
By focusing on universal guilt, personal responsibility risks being overshadowed by a complex theology that makes converts more concerned with abstract beliefs than with concrete deeds.
In 2025, the crisis of this model is visible: secularization is increasing in Europe and elsewhere, as people search for simplicity and authenticity. A theology that offers “easy salvation” through faith, without requiring practical responsibility, loses relevance.
Is “Double Repentance” Superior?
Let us evaluate directly: is Paul’s idea of “two repentances” superior to the single, deed-based repentance of most religions?
No. The single repentance – acknowledgment, regret, change – is simpler and more direct.
In Judaism, Islam, or Buddhism, the human being answers only for what they do, without the burden of cosmic guilt. Repentance aligns with human reality: we all err, we all can change, and responsibility is clear.
The Pauline model adds an unnecessary layer: inherited guilt, requiring a cosmic “repair” before deeds can matter. It can create confusion or cyclic guilt, especially when converts wonder why they still fail even after being “saved.”
Ethically, the single repentance is more effective: it focuses you on what you control – your actions.
Psychologically, it is healthier, avoiding the anxiety of a “sinful nature” that cannot be changed without divine intervention.
Historically, the Pauline model was “conquering”: it allowed Christianity to spread rapidly, offering a universal identity.
But expansion carries the risk Jesus pointed out: converts can become “twice as bad,” trapped in theological speculations that weaken practical responsibility.
What Do Religions Actually Achieve? Social Identity and Meaning
If all religions and philosophies end up at personal responsibility, what is the purpose of the theological “detours”?
They create communities and identities. Each religion offers a story about the world, the human being, and the divine, giving meaning to life and a sense of belonging.
Judaism creates identity through covenant, Islam through the ummah, Hinduism through dharma. Pauline Christianity offers the ecclesia, a universal community united by faith in the cross. Secular philosophies such as humanism unite thinkers through reason and ethics, without gods.
These frameworks are mere cultural “colors”: they provide diversity and cohesion but do not change human essence.
All of them emphasize personal responsibility, whether through ethical deeds, karma, or rational reflection.
Without them, life might seem too abstract or solitary, but they motivate people to live socially, offering purpose and community.
The “Image of God” as Universal Responsibility
What perfectly legitimizes personal responsibility is defining the human being as “made in the image of God.”
In all theistic religions, God is the supreme responsible Being – Allah judges justly, Brahman sustains cosmic order, Ahura Mazda fights for good.
The human being, created in this “image,” inherits the duty to be accountable for what they say and do. No religion or philosophy praises irresponsibility; all promote an ethical order based on individual choices.
Even in secular systems, responsibility becomes a “human image” – the capacity to build a good life through reason and ethics.
All religions converge on the same point: being responsible defines us as human.
Repentance, whether teshuvah, tawbah, or ethical reflection, is the practical expression of this “image.”
The Pauline model, with its “two repentances,” is an oddity – one that conquered the world, but unnecessarily complicates what other systems state simply: each person answers for what they do.
Conclusion
What do we learn from this journey through Genesis, Judaism, Pauline Christianity, and the religions of the world?
All of them, regardless of myths, cosmologies, or philosophies, return to a simple truth: the right to exist comes with personal responsibility.
Pauline Christianity, with its double repentance, is an exception, but not a superior one. Influenced by Greek ideas, it conquered the world through universality, but complicated ethics, risking the dilution of practical responsibility – precisely what Jesus criticized in the Pharisees.
In 2025, as secularization demands authenticity, the single, deed-based repentance is more relevant.
Simple, universal, aligned with the “image of God” as pure responsibility, it reflects exactly what unites us.
Every religion, every philosophy calls us to be responsible – perhaps the deepest expression of our humanity.
Whatever path we take, we arrive at the same place: the duty to live with dignity, care, and responsibility.