Hello and welcome. In this article, we'll analyze Romans 5 as it pertains to the fall and its consequences for humanity. More precisely, whether or not Romans 5 demonstrates that one of the consequences of the fall is that from conception all humans receive the guilt of Adam's personal sin that he committed in the garden. This potential consequence is one of the distinctions of the original sin perspective of the fall. If there's any passage of scripture that is most central to the doctrine of original sin, it's certainly Romans 5. Our aim here is to provide an in-depth analysis of the chapter and critique the original sin interpretation of the passage.
WHAT ARE THE POINTS OF CONTENTION?
THE TEXT OF CONCERN IN ROMANS 5
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
Rom 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
ROMANS 5:12 & THE AORIST ARGUMENT
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
“As a matter of fact, the Bible is so specific as to say you sinned when he sinned--"...because all sinned" (Romans 5:12). The tense (Aorist) indicates that it happened at one point in time, that is, when Adam sinned you were there and participated in it” - Richard L. Strauss, Whose Team Are You On?
“That it is the simple meaning of the words. It has already been remarked, that the aorist does not mean are sinful, or have sinned, but simply sinned. All sinned when Adam sinned. They sinned in him. But the only possible way in which all men can be said to have sinned in Adam, is putatively. His act, for some good and proper reason, was regarded as their act, just as the act of an agent is regarded as the act of his principal, or the act of a representative as that of his constituents. The act of the one legally binds the others. It is, in the eye of law and justice, their act.” - Charles Hodge, Commentary on Romans 5:12-21
“When the Greek text says “because all sinned”, it uses a verb tense called the aorist. This tense is used when the verb was performed and completed at a singular point in time in the past. By using the aorist tense, Paul is saying that all men sinned at one point in time and death was the result.” - Clay Garrison, Federal Headship: A Brief Exposition of Romans 5:12-19
“but then he adds that thing at the end of verse 12, "For all have sinned." Now what are you saying? When did we do that? It's an aorist, a simple aorist, all have sinned. In one point, in time past, all have sinned. You say, "When did we all do that?" In the loins of Adam; we were duly constituted there in the loins of Adam. We were bound up in the loins of Adam. We sinned in Adam for he was the race. And that's why babies die, not because they commit deeds of sin but because they already sinned in Adam and they can be punished justly.” - John MacArthur, Adam and the reign of death
“Died is in the Greek Aorist tense, which refers to a past event that took place at a particular point in time, not a repeating event that continued in the past. Paul is saying that we died at a particular historical point. It is done. Finished. A fact.” - Ralph Wilson, United to Christ, the second Adam
“The word translated “sinned” in Greek grammar is in the aorist tense, which means that at one point in time all men sinned. That one point in time was the time that Adam first sinned by disobeying God’s command. His sin became all mankind’s sin, because we all, all of the human race was in his loins, we are his descendants.” - McCleary Community Church, The Reign of Death
“This verb is in the simple historical (aorist) tense, indicating momentary action at a particular time. “And when was that? Doubtless at the fall. All men sinned in Adam's sin. All fell in his fall.” - Ruin and Redemption, the classical view of imputed sin
“The phrase” All sinned, is what we call an aorist indicative verb in the Greek grammar. And it basically indicates completed past action, very simple. It is completed past action. Paul is saying here that something happened and it was completed in the past. What is it that happened? What is it that was completed in the past? All men sinned. All men sinned. We sinned in Adam.” - David Harrell, the deadly invasion of sin
"The aorist tense of the verb hamartano is speaking of a particular point of time in the past, which the context indicates is Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden...Therefore, the aorist tense of the verb hamartano along with the distributive use of the adjective pas and Paul’s statements in Romans 5:15b, 16a, 17a, 18a and 19a indicate clearly that the entire human race was condemned by God the moment Adam sinned." - Bill Wenstrom, Salvation: The Entire Human Race is Under the Headship of Adam
"In these verses, we see deep theological truths. When Paul says in verse 12 “because all sinned,” he is using what is called the aorist indicative in Greek. This means that it is an action that is completed in the past." - Matt Slick, CARM, Federal Headship
“The constant characteristic of the aorist tense in all its moods, including the participle, is that it represents the action denoted by it indefinitely; i.e., simply as an event, neither on the one hand picturing it in progress, nor on the other affirming the existence of its result. The name indefinite as thus understood is therefore applicable to the tense in all its uses.” - Ernest DeWitt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in the New Testament Greek, p. 16
“The aorist tense has often been the target of such abuse, due largely to the exegete’s misunderstanding of the grammarians’ terms such as “punctiliar” or “point action.” What is meant by such verbiage is not that the aorist describes the action as occurring at a point (a notion that gave rise to the “once and for all” aorist), but that the aorist’s mode of presentation is punctiliar. In other words, the aorist takes something of a snapshot of the action. The action itself may be iterative, durative, progressive, etc., but the aorist refrains from describing such intricacies.” - Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, p. 44
“The student should disabuse his mind at once of the notion that the primary idea of tense in the Greek verb is time. The fundamental idea is the kind of action stated. Action may be regarded as in progress, going on. The common term for this sort of action is linear or durative action. Action may be regarded as simple, undefined (aoristic, ‘I do not define’ action.” - William Douglas Chamberlain, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 67
“If one gets it into his head that the root idea of tense is time, he may never get it out and he will therefore never understand the beauty of the Greek tense, the most wonderful development in the history of language.” - William Hersey Davis, Beginner’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament, viii
“The aorist is the aspect normally used for expressing an activity simply as an act or event, as action pure and otherwise undefined, in its totality. It may refer to a single momentary action, to either a prolonged activity or a series of actions simply recorded as a complete event, or to the beginning or end of a prolonged activity (at the points of change or critical action).” - Mckay, A New syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, p. 30
“The action referred to by the aorist may be single and punctiliar or it may be repeated, or spread continuously over a long period of time, but it is regarded as a complete entity, nothing more or less.” - Mckay, Syntax in Exegesis, Tyndale Bulletin, p. 46
“But "aorist" is a term happily suited to the primitive form which it labels. It is "a-oristic," i.e., undetermined or undefined. The aorist draws no boundaries. It tells nothing about the nature of the action under consideration. It is "punctiliar" only in the sense that the action is viewed without reference to duration, interruption, completion, or anything else. What is "aoristic" belongs to semantics and not necessarily to the semantic situation. The aorist can properly be used to cover any kind of action: single or multiple, momentary or extended, broken or unbroken, completed or open-ended. The aorist simply refrains from describing.” - Frank Stagg, The Abused Aorist, Journal of Biblical Literature, p. 223
“The aorist, as will be shown, is not the only way of expressing indefinite ( undefined ) action , but it is the normal method of doing so . The Greek in truth is " an aorist- loving language " ( Broadus ) . In the Koine A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of historical research the aorist is even more frequent than in the classic Greek ( Thumb , Handb . , p . 120 ) , especially is this true of the N. T.” - A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of historical research, p. 831
“The aorist stem presents action in its simplest form ( ǎ - opιotos , ' undefined ‘)” - A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of historical research, p. 824
“[The aorist] states the fact of the action or event without regard to its duration.” - Dana and Mantey, A manual grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 193
"Sometimes the change of tense is prompted by no other motive than avoidance of monotony.” - Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, p. 66
“This tense has an excellent name which means undefined action. It is presented as punctiliar (point action) whether it is actually linear or a state of completion. It is the normal tense to use in Greek unless there is some special reason to use another. If one desires to emphasize the notion of linear action on the one hand or the state of completion on the other, it is not the tense to use. There is no element of past time in the aorist tense.” - Davis and Robertson, A new short grammar of the Greek Testament, p. 295
“The aorist aspect gets its name from the Greeks' own assessment of it as undefined…It is virtually a residual aspect, used when the speaker or writer had no special reason to use any other.” - Mckay, Syntax in Exegesis, Tyndale Bulletin, p.46
“To begin with, it is sometimes far from apparent why the writer switches his tenses” - Frank Stagg, The Abused Aorist, Journal of Biblical Literature, p. 226
"According to this approach, the aorist is a viewpoint aspect (see section 1.2.1), in that it reflects the speaker's or writer's focus or perspective on the occurrence and not the actional character of the occurrence itself (duration-momentariness, process-event, etc.). Nor does it give the speaker's portrayal of the actional character (i.e. 'viewed as an event', 'viewed as momentary'). Instead the aorist presents an occurrence in summary, viewed as a whole from the outside, without regard for the internal make-up of the occurrence" - Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, 2.1.5
To summarize the grammarians on the aorist tense: The aorist is used when a writer wants to express an action without emphasizing the tense. It's inherently an "undefined action" and imprecise as far as the duration, type, or timing of said action. Any interpretation that heavily or almost exclusively relies upon a particular interpretation of the aorist is inherently in a weak position because it relies on something that the writer chose to de-emphasize by his use of the aorist tense. So our interlocutors have an interpretation that's completely opposite of what the aorist tense inherently means. Understanding the aorist tense is highly dependent on contextual clues within the given passage. We aren't of the persuasion that our interlocutors can build a solid case for their interpretation based on context and themes within the Pauline corpus. Next, let's look at scriptural examples of the aorist tense and observe the wide range of its use and meaning. These examples indicate that the aorist doesn't necessarily or inherently indicate a completed action, a past time, an action that itself is a punctiliar event, or a once-for-all action as the original sin interpretation asserts as the default meaning.
Scriptures that utilize the aorist tense:
Mar 1:11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
In this verse, "I am well pleased" is in the aorist tense and indicative mood. This appears to be a continual action/event/state in its connotation and implication.
Joh 13:31 Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
In this verse, "glorified" is in the aorist tense and indicative mood. This appears to be a continual action/event/state in its connotation and implication.
Joh 15:8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.
In this verse, "glorified" is in the aorist tense and indicative mood. This appears to be a continual action/event/state in its connotation and implication.
1Pe 1:24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
In this verse, "falleth away" is in the aorist tense and indicative mood. This appears to be a continual action/event/state in its connotation and implication.
Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
In this verse, the reigned in "death reigned" is in the aorist tense and indicative mood. This appears to be an action/event/state that is not yet finished/completed in its connotation and implication.
1Jn 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.
In this verse, "keep" is in the aorist tense and imperative mood. This appears to be an action/event/state that is not yet finished/completed in its connotation and implication.
Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
In this verse, "he might shew" is in the aorist tense and subjunctive mood. This appears to be an action/event/state that is not yet finished/completed in its connotation and implication.
Php 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
In this verse, "obeyed" is in the aorist tense and indicative mood. This appears to be an action that shouldn't be viewed as a singular punctiliar event in its connotation and implication.
Mat 6:26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
In this verse, "Behold" is in the aorist tense and imperative mood. This appears to be an action that shouldn't be viewed as a singular punctiliar event in its connotation and implication.
Mat 6:31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
In this verse, "take no thought" and "shall we eat?" are in the aorist tense and subjunctive mood. This appears to be an action that shouldn't be viewed as a singular punctiliar event in its connotation and implication.
Mat 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
In this verse, "ye forgive" is in the aorist tense and subjunctive mood. This appears to be an action that shouldn't be viewed as a singular punctiliar event in its connotation and implication.
Mat 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
In this verse, "enter" and "pray" are in the aorist tense and imperative mood. This appears to be an action that shouldn't be viewed as a singular punctiliar event in its connotation and implication.
Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
In this verse, "sit" is in the aorist tense and indicative mood. This appears to be an action that shouldn't be viewed as a singular punctiliar event in its connotation and implication.
Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
In this verse, "they loved" is in the aorist tense and indicative mood. This doesn't seem to be a "once for all" type of action in its connotation and implication.
Luk 19:13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
In this verse, "Occupy" is in the aorist tense and imperative mood. This doesn't seem to be a "once for all" type of action in its connotation and implication.
Act 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
In this verse, "went about" is in the aorist tense and indicative mood. This doesn't seem to be a "once for all" type of action in its connotation and implication.
2Co 11:25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;
In this verse, "was I beaten with rods" and "I suffered shipwreck" are in the aorist tense and indicative mood. These don't seem to be "once for all" types of action in their connotation and implication.
Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
In this verse, "they lived" and "reigned" are in the aorist tense and indicative mood. These don't seem to be "once for all" types of action in their connotation and implication.
Mat 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
In this verse, "was called" is in the aorist tense and indicative mood. This doesn't seem to be a "once for all" type of action in its connotation and implication.
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
In this verse, "have sinned" is in the aorist tense and indicative mood. This doesn't seem to be a "once for all" type of action in its connotation and implication.
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
In this verse, "died" is in the aorist tense and indicative mood. This seems to be actions/events of many individuals over many years in its connotation and implication.
In this verse, "in building" is in the aorist tense and indicative mood. This seems to be a continuous action over many years.Jhn 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
In this verse, "ye walked" is in the aorist tense and indicative mood. This seems to be a continuous past action in its connotation and implication.
Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
In this verse, "ye salute" is in the aorist tense and subjunctive mood. This seems to be a conditional action in its connotation and implication.
Rev 3:3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.
In this verse, "watch" is in the aorist tense and subjunctive mood. This seems to be a conditional action in its connotation and implication.
We've now looked at twenty-five verses containing the aorist tense in various moods that clearly contradict the notion that the aorist tense inherently indicates a completed action, a past time, an action that itself is a punctiliar event, or a once-for-all action. Our interlocutors are in error when they assume this meaning in their analysis of Romans 5:12. There are many uses of the aorist including the constantive, the ingressive, the culminative, the futuristic, the perfective, the gnomic, and more. Not all of these uses inherently yield themselves to the original sin interpretation. It's an error to assume a specific use of the aorist like many scholars and pastors do. While they are in error for assuming this meaning, that doesn't inherently mean their interpretation is false. We must examine the Pauline corpus, the context, and all the uses of the aorist in the immediate context. We've now undercut the affirmative argument for the original sin interpretation of Romans 5:12. We will now make arguments in the negative for why the interpretation is incorrect.
Remember, the interpretation of our interlocutors is that the Greek aorist tense indicates a completed action, a past time, an action that itself is a punctiliar event, or a once-for-all all action. Concerning "all have sinned", this is believed to be a singular and completed past action that happened in the garden when Adam sinned. When Adam first sinned the rest of humanity sinned with him in some way. This interpretation is carried through the rest of what Romans 5 says about the detriments that come from Adam. In our opinion, this interpretation is assumed and taken as granted rather than being derived from contextual analysis. There are multiple reasons why this interpretation of "all have sinned" is incorrect. We will touch on aspects about some of the reasons later.
1. In Romans 5:14, Paul indicates that not everyone has sinned in the same way that Adam sinned. This conflicts with the idea that in some way every human sinned with Adam in the garden. This is a clue that Paul probably didn't have an original sin interpretation of "all have sinned" two verses earlier. We will touch on this verse in more depth later once we complete our analysis of Romans 5:12
2. In Romans 5:15, we also see the aorist tense and indicative mood when Paul says God's grace and the gift by grace "hath abounded". According to how our interlocutors interpret the aorist tense and indicative mood in verse 12, when applied to verse 15 it would mean that God's grace and the gift by grace is a singular, completed, once for all past event and therefore isn't presently abounding. Clearly this isn't the case and therefore the aorist interpretation of our interlocutors doesn't work here.
3. In Romans 5:17, we also see the aorist tense and indicative mood when Paul says that death "reigned" by one. According to how our interlocutors interpret the aorist tense and indicative mood in verse 12, when applied to verse 17 it would mean that death reigning is a singular, completed, once for all past event and therefore death isn't presently reigning. But we know Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:26 that death hasn't been destroyed yet. Paul also indicates in Romans 5:17 that life reigning is future tense when he says "righteousness shall reign in life". Therefore, it seems that death is still a reality and its still reigning. It hasn't been defeated and swallowed up yet by Jesus. In this case, the aorist interpretation of our interlocutors doesn't work here.
4. In Romans 5:20, we also see the aorist tense and indicative mood when Paul says God's grace "did much more abound". According to how our interlocutors interpret the aorist tense and indicative mood in verse 12, when applied to verse 20 it would mean that God's grace abounding is a singular, completed, once for all past event and therefore isn't presently abounding. Clearly this isn't the case and therefore the aorist interpretation of our interlocutors doesn't work here.
5. In Romans 5:21, we also see the aorist tense and indicative mood when Paul says that sin "hath reigned" unto death. But we also see the aorist tense in the subjunctive mood when Paul says even so might grace "reign" through righteousness unto eternal life. Surely, all Christians would acknowlede that a "reign" of grace wouldn't be a singular completed past action. Rather it would be a continual state and habitual truth. It would also seem that the first part of the verse about sin that "hath reigned" unto death is also likely speaking of a continual state and habitual truth. Otherwise, if we took the default aorist interpretation of our interlocutors, it would mean that sin unto death is a single, completed, and punctiliar past action or event. Which is obviously not true. It's also interesting that the aorist "hath reigned" is past tense, but the aorist in "might grace reign" conveys future tense. This further proves that the aorist is not inherently a single, completed, and punctiliar past action or event.
6. The only time the phrase "in Adam" occurs in the Bible is in the Pauline corpus. 1 Corinthians 15:22 does refer to death in Adam. However, Paul sets this death in present tense as something that is continually going on. "All die" in Adam. This conflicts with a once for all, completed, singular past event understanding of what happened to humanity "in Adam."
7. There's multiple other verses in the Pauline corpus that utilize the aorist tense and indicative mood. Some of them clearly don't align with the original sin interpretation of the aorist. Examples of these verses are Ephesians 2:2, Romans 3:23, 2 Corinthians 11:25, and Philippians 2:12.
8. In his corpus, Paul emphazises that judgement and wrath is correlated and based on personal sin See Rom 1:18, Rom 2:5-6, Rom 4:15, Rom 13:4, Rom 14:11-12, 1 Co 3:8, 1 Co 6:9-10, 2 Co 5:10, Gal 6:5, Gal 6:7-8, Eph 5:6, and Col 3:6-8. There's no indication in Paul that God's wrath is upon those who haven't yet transgressed themselves. It seems that wrath begins and is conditioned upon actions of transgression. Absent from Paul is the idea that anyone will have to give an account of the sin another person committed. We will touch more on this point later.
9. In his corpus, Paul emphasizes that the benefits which come from Christ are not wholly unconditionally and unilaterally applied. There are intermediary means of appropriation involved. See Rom 1:16-17, Rom 3:21-22, Rom 3:26-28, Rom 4:1-5, Rom 4:13, Rom 5:1-2, Rom 9:30, Rom 10:5-6, Gal 3:6-8, Gal 3:24, Php 3:9, and 1 Ti 1:16. Additionally, we know that the beneifts which come from Christ weren't immediately applied to all mankind when he finished his earthly ministry. This is incongruent with the original sin position which says concerning the parallels of Adam beginning in Romans 5:12 that they are unconditionally and unilaterally applied to all mankind when Adam first sinned. We will touch more on this point later.
These nine reasons provide cumulative evidence that affirmers of original sin are incorrect about their analysis of Romans 5:12. When the whole of the aorist tense is examined and we observe what the Pauline corpus has to say, we don't believe a strong case can be made defending "all have sinned" as a completed action, a past time, an action that itself is a punctiliar event, or a once for all action in the garden which makes all humans spiritually dead and condemned from conception. In light of this, we believe the entire framework for interpreting the following typology of Romans 5:15-21 in favor of original sin likely fails.
OUR VIEW OF ROMANS 5:12
With our critique of the Romans 5:12 interpretation from original sin out of the way. We must now turn to our own interpretation of Romans 5:12. Rather than assuming an interpretation of the Greek aorist in verse 12 and carrying it throughout the passage, we seek to consider the Pauline corpus and evidence within Romans 5 to help us arrive at the essence of what Paul was meaning to convey.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
"The Gnomic Aorist A generally accepted fact or truth may be regarded as so fixed in its certainty or axiomatic in its character that it is described by the aorist;, just as though it were an actual occurrence. For this idiom we commonly employ the general present in English." - Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 197
"Aorist tense-forms can depict gnomic actions, which are universal and timeless. A gnomic action type is created through the combination of perfective aspect and a context in which generic statements are made. These may involve any type of lexeme. Gnomic aorists are not just found in timeless contexts — they are often best translated as present in temporal reference. As such, the gnomic aorist provides a perfective aspect option for the presentation of events that are present in temporal reference in contrast to the (imperfective) present tense-form." - Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek, p. 88
“The Greek gnomic aorist is a perfective past tense that is used to represent a generic fact, habitual truth, or habitual action.” - Brill, Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics
"Gnomic Aorist (γνώμη maxim, proverb).—The aorist may express a general truth. The aorist simply states a past occurrence and leaves the reader to draw the inference from a concrete case that what has occurred once is typical of what often occurs:" - Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges, 1931
"In this use the aorist expresses a general or proverbial truth, a maxim about occurrences which take place not only in the past but in the present and future as well. It is difficult to decide what motivates this use, although several theories have been advanced. The most plausible is the rationale advanced by Gildersleeve (and others), who explains that the gnomic aorist is like the generic article: a single specific instance is taken as typical of all such occurrences and thus gives expression to the general truth." - Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, 4.3.4
“Several grammarians recognize what they call a timeless use of the Aorist in the gnomic Aorist. Robertson (836) asserts that the "real 'gnomic' aorist is a universal or timeless aorist and probably represents the original timelessness of the aorist indicative.”” - Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, p. 220
Brill most succinctly encapsulates the gnomic aorist. We take "all have sinned" in verse 12 to mean that it's a general fact, habitual truth, and habitual action that as a consequence of the fall all people sin. Romans 5:12 simply grounds this fact, truth, and action in the "one man" Adam. Is there any prior precedent in Romans for this interpretation or are we simply assuming an interpretation to fit our doctrine in the same way that the original sin interpretation assumes with the aorist?
Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 1-3 as a unit repeatedly point out the universality of personal sin. Romans 3:19 frames the transgressing of the law as what makes the world guilty. There's no reason to assume that Paul has a cosmic and perpetually inherited sin in mind which makes the world guilty. Given this prior theme in Romans, it would not be out of place for Paul to use similar language about the universality of sin in a gnomic sense with Adam as the ultimate grounding and reference point for how this general fact, habitual truth, and habitual action of all people sinning began.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
Rom 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
We touched on this earlier, but perhaps the biggest reason why our interpretation of the aorist in Romans 5:12 is likely correct is that it fits with Paul's usage of the aorist indicative later in the chapter. We've listed four verses above to demonstrate this.
In Romans 5:15, the gift by grace which "hath abounded" is in the aorist indicative. Clearly, Paul doesn't mean that the gift by grace has abounded in a way that's singular, completed, and in the past. God's grace is certainly currently abounding. Therefore, this is probably best understood as gnomic. Meaning that Paul is referring to the generic fact, habitual truth, or habitual action of God's gift by grace abounding.
In Romans 5:17, the death by one man's offence that "reigned" is in the aorist indicative. Clearly, Paul doesn't mean that death's reign is a singular once-for-all event that is completed in the past. The reign of death is probably best understood as gnomic. Meaning that Paul is referring to the generic fact or habitual truth that death has reigned.
In Romans 5:20, grace which "did much more abound" is in the aorist indicative. Clearly, Paul doesn't mean that this grace has abounded in a way that's singular, completed, and in the past. Therefore, this is probably best understood as gnomic. Meaning that Paul is referring to the generic fact, habitual truth, or habitual action of God's grace abounding.
In Romans 5:21, sin unto death that "hath reigned" is in the aorist indicative. Clearly, Paul doesn't mean that this reign of sin is a singular once-for-all event that was completed in the past. The reign of sin is probably best understood as gnomic. Meaning that Paul is referring to the generic fact or habitual truth that sin reigned.
If the original sin perspective was consistent with their insistence on what the aorist tense means in Romans 5:12 and applied it in these verses, they would be led to bizarre conclusions such as God's grace and gifts being singular, once-for-all, and completed past events. However, these ideas run entirely contrary to various Pauline themes. Therefore, this is certainly not what Paul meant by his usage of the aorist. Instead, Paul means by the aorist tense that these truths are so fixed in their certainty, habituality, and inevitability.
WHAT TYPE OF DEATH DOES PAUL HAVE IN MIND IN ROMANS 5:12?
Rom 5:12-14 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
We understand "for that" to be causal. Because we understand contextually "all have sinned" to be personal sins, the "for that" means that there's a death caused by each person's own sins. Just as Adam brought death into the world by his sin, his descendants brought death upon themselves by their own sins. Paul said back in Romans 4:15 that "where no law is, there is no transgression." In Chapter 5, he further explains that death is not only the legal punishment for transgressions of the law but also the natural consequence of all sins. Since Adam, it has always been the case that his descendants bring death upon themselves through their own sins.
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Paul references Adam's sin and death as a result. So what type of death did he experience when he sinned? God said to Adam that he would surely die "in the day" that he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Yet, if one takes the biblical genealogies seriously, it's apparent that Adam lived for multiple centuries after the fall. We argue that the death Adam experienced upon sinning is spiritual/legal/moral in nature. He became a guilty sinner in God's sight.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Rom 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
Rom 7:7-11 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Eph 2:1-5 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
In other passages, some of which are immediately after Romans 5, Paul also speaks of what seems to be a type of non-physical death brought about by personal sins. In Romans 7, he was "alive" before personal sin but he "died" by sin and it "slew" him. Likewise, in Ephesians 2, Paul indicates that his audience in the past was dead in their own sins but were now "quickened" and made alive. In Colossians 2, Paul speaks again of a spiritual/legal/moral deadness that's connected to personal sins. But his audience at this point had been quickened and made alive from this deadness. This is clearly not a physical death being spoken of. Lastly, even in Romans 5:15, there is an indication of a spiritual/legal/moral deadness due to the comparison made between Adam and Christ. The benefit mentioned of Christ "hath abounded unto many." It has already been taking place. This is paralleled with death through Adam's transgression. Yet we know that physical immortality hasn't been abounding unto many. Christians are still physically mortal. It would seem in this verse that spiritual life is in view. If this is the case, it would seem consistent to say that spiritual/legal/moral death is the subject of the Adamic parallels Paul draws.
With these points in view, we think in Romans 5:12 and this unit of verses Paul has in mind the concept that just as Adam brought spiritual/legal/moral condemnation upon himself when he first sinned, all of his descendants follow after him, and bring condemnation upon themselves when they first sin.
But doesn't Paul refer to physical death before verse 12?
Rom 5:8-10 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Paul does indeed talk about Jesus' death twice in verses 8-10 before we arrive at the unit of verses 12-21. However, Paul also talks about legal life in these verses when he says "being now justified by his blood". Paul frequently grounds spiritual/legal/moral life in the physical death of Jesus.
Rom 3:24-25 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Col 1:13-14 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Col 1:20-22 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
We see this theme of spiritual/legal/moral life in each of the two chapters preceding Romans 5. Spiritual/moral/legal benefits of justification, forgiveness of sins, reconciliation, and more are often mentioned in the same breath with language that clearly denotes physical death or life. In light of this, it would not be out of place for Paul to start a passage talking about physical death and then move on to the spiritual/legal/moral benefits that this brings.
EXAMINING A CHRISTOCENTRIC PARALLEL TO ROMANS 5:12
To help drive home our points and argument regarding Romans 5:12, let's look at a Christocentric parallel to the verse.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Christocentric Parallel Wherefore, as by one man righteousness entered into the world, and life by righteousness; and so life passed upon all men, for that all have righteousness:
Remember, the original sin interpretation of "for that all have sinned" is that this is a singular event when Adam sinned and there is no personal appropriation or action involved. Rather, when Adam sinned all mankind unconditionally and unilaterally sinned with him. But, when we look at a Christocentric parallel of the verse (and of course, there's room for different wording here) all Christians would acknowledge the statement "for that all have righteousness" does not mean there is no personal appropriation involved before having righteousness. Furthermore, all Christians would acknowledge that everyone having righteousness isn't a singular past event that's unconditionally and unilaterally applied. We would all acknowledge that faith precedes having righteousness and that this is continually going on.
This point further displays why we shouldn't read "for that all have sinned" in Romans 5:12 as a singular and completed past event that is speaking unconditionally and unilaterally of all mankind.
HAVE ALL HUMANS SINNED IN/WITH ADAM IN THE GARDEN?
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
1. If this truly was Paul's point, it would seem fitting for him to say the exact opposite of what he says in verse 14. If the whole point is that all mankind sinned in/with Adam in some way when he transgressed and as a result his sin is our sin, it would seem proper to say that all mankind actually has sinned in a resemblance and similitude of Adam's transgression because we all participated with him somehow. But this isn't what Paul says. Instead of making a unity of a single sin in this verse, Paul creates disunity. Paul's point is unity in death not unity in possessing the guilt of a particular sin. Disunity in mankind posessing the guilt of a particular sin disconfirms the idea of inherited/imputed Adamic guilt.
2. If our interlocutors interpret this verse to be about mortality and physical death; and if they try to derive guilt of Adam's sin from this; we argue that this completely misses the mark as mortality does not equal or necessarily convey guilt. To see a comprehensive coverage of this point, read our article here.
3. If our interlocutors interpret this verse to be about spiritual/legal/moral death and condemnation as a result of all mankind possessing Adam's guilt; we argue that this idea is contrary to the totality of the Pauline corpus and what Paul attributes to non-physical death, guilt, and condemnation. Therefore, we should not take this interpretation seriously as a plausible view. (cf. Rom 3:19-20, 7:9, 7:11, Eph 2:1-2, 2:5, 4:18, Col 2:13)
We see then that not only is the original sin assumption of the aorist meaning in Romans 5:12 incorrect and inconsistent on multiple points, but Paul further weakens this assumption two verses later in 5:14.
TYPOLOGY IN ROMANS 5
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
1Co 15:21-22 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:45-47 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
THE TWO FRAMEWORKS
FRAMING THE TYPOLOGY WITH OTHER STATEMENTS FROM PAUL
Rom 2:5-6 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Rom 3:19-20 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Rom 14:11-12 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
1Co 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
1Co 6:9-10 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Gal 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
Gal 6:7-8 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
There is a theme in the Pauline corpus of personal responsibility for sin in God's sight. God interacts and delivers judgment and gifts unique to each person according to their own ways. The deeds of others, the unrighteousness of others, the things others have done in their bodies, the burden of others, and the sowing of others are not involved in the criteria for how God views and judges each individual person. This is most relevant from an eschatological perspective of how each person is judged and raises problems for the original sin perspective. If there's no indication that God will determine anyone guilty of the sins of others in the end, what basis is there for asserting that God has determined that all humans are guilty of Adam's sin from conception? And if it were true that all humans are guilty of Adam's sin from conception, the guilt would have to dissipate and go away at some point for all humans before the final judgment. So what scripture tells us anything about that and when it happens?
One passage that stands out among these is Romans 3:19-20. In light of those verses, if the whole world is guilty before God by being imputed with Adam’s guilt, why would Paul say that through the law the whole world may become guilty before God? It would seem that the whole world isn’t inherently guilty before God; but through the law and the deeds thereof, we fall short ourselves and all sin ourselves. As a result, the whole world becomes justly guilty before God. This statement from Paul is contrary to the notion that all mankind became guilty when Adam sinned.
Absent from Paul is the idea that anyone will have to give an account of the sin another person committed. Absent from Paul is the idea that we will receive things done in the bodies of other people. Absent from Paul is the idea that God will render to people according to the deeds of sinners who aren't themselves. A framework that includes all humans from conception being guilty of the first sin of Adam conflicts with these cumulative statements from Paul.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
Col 3:6-8 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
In Paul's writing, we see a consistent theme that wrath from God is upon actions that are ungodly, unrighteous, and disobedient. God sets his wrath on humans who commit these aforementioned actions. There's no indication in Paul that God's wrath is upon those who haven't yet transgressed. It seems that wrath begins and is conditioned upon actions of transgression.
Rom 7:7-13 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Paul says that we know sin through the law and God's commands. Paul conveys that humans are alive in some sense before having this knowledge. However, once the commandment comes and we know right from wrong, we are deceived by sin and die by it due to giving into the sinful inclinations of our flesh. I think it's clear that in this context when Paul talks about being alive and then dead, this isn't a reference to mortality and physical death. We'd argue that being "dead" in this context is about being spiritually/legally/morally condemned, guilty, and under God's wrath. Remember that God's wrath is connected to transgression. If this is the case, this would also mean that before this personal transgression, nobody is "dead" in the sense of having wrath and guilt upon them. This all points toward an ancestral sin view rather than that of original sin. Additionally, sin being dead without the law conveys that Adam’s sin is not perpetually inherited by all humans from conception thus making us all guilty. If it were inherited, you would not need the law to make sin alive because it would already be alive, actively transmitted/imputing, and condemning all mankind through this inherited guilt.
Eph 2:1-5 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
We believe Paul elaborates on this idea further in Ephesians. As a result, sinners who were "dead in sins" and were "children of wrath" had been quickened and saved by God.
Eph 4:17-18 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
We also see this idea touched on in other places by Paul. This reinforces two ideas. First, God's wrath begins and is conditioned upon actions of transgression. Second, being "dead" in this context relates to something other than physical mortality. It seems to us that Paul is again referring to spiritual condemnation and guilt which follows after personal sin and transgression. It's important to keep all of this in mind as we consider Romans 5 and make sure we don't create contradictions and conflict within Paul's writings.
1. The free gift by grace. (see Rom 5:15)
2. The free gift of many offences unto justification. (see Rom 5:16)
3. The gift of righteousness. (see Rom 5:17)
4. Justification of life. (see Rom 5:18)
5. Made righteous. (see Rom 5:19)
6. Righteousness unto eternal life. (see Rom 5:21)
Rom 5:1-2 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Rom 1:16-17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
We see indications in these verses that benefits three, five, and six are conditioned upon personal faith.
Rom 3:21-22 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
We see indications in these verses that benefits three, five, and six are conditioned upon personal faith.
Rom 3:26-28 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
We see indications in these verses that benefits two and four are conditioned upon personal faith.
Rom 4:1-5 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
We see indications in these verses that benefits two, three, four, five, and six are conditioned upon personal faith.
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
We see an indication in this verse that benefits three, five, and six are conditioned upon personal faith.
Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
We see an indication in this verse that benefits three, five, and six are conditioned upon personal faith.
Rom 10:5-6 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
We see indications in these verses that benefits three, five, and six are conditioned upon personal faith.
Gal 3:6-8 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
We see indications in these verses that benefits two, three, four, five, and six are conditioned upon personal faith.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
We see an indication in this verse that benefits two and four are conditioned upon personal faith.
Php 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
We see an indication in this verse that benefits three, five, and six are conditioned upon personal faith.
1Ti 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
We see an indication in this verse that benefit six is conditioned upon personal faith.
Repeatedly in the Pauline corpus, we see over ten times that the benefits had in Christ are not unconditional. Rather, they're conditioned on and appropriated by personal faith. What does this mean for the detriments had in Adam?
HOW DO THE DETRIMENTS HAD IN ADAM COME ABOUT?
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
We know that the free gift, justification, and life don't unconditionally and unilaterally come upon all men. As we just went over, Paul is clear in his writings that these are all conditioned on personal faith. Because Paul is so clear on this point, what's the justification for saying that what's mentioned as coming from Adam in the same verses is unconditional and wholly true from the first birth? It seems inconsistent and out of step with the typology that Paul puts forth. Arguing that humans are unconditionally guilty and spiritually condemned from birth without their own personal sin in the first half of these verses would by comparison lead to humans receiving justification and righteousness without faith. This is the opposite of what Paul says.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
The same is true with this verse. If it were true that Adam's disobedience made all future humans sinners directly and unconditionally, what would that mean for the comparison Paul makes about Christ's obedience? It would seem to logically follow that Christ's obedience unconditionally, unilaterally, and directly makes people righteous. In such a scenario, people would be righteous and justified before believing the gospel. This is again completely at odds with Paul's view of personal faith preceding receiving Christ's righteousness.
A key point for the original sin interpretation of Romans 5 is that our inheritance of guilt “in Adam” is a direct, unconditional, and unilateral inheritance from conception rather than an indirect and conditional inheritance (guilty because of each person’s sins). Being “in Adam” doesn’t necessarily entail an immediate, direct, and unconditional inheritance of guilt. It’s completely reasonable to understand being made a sinner and condemned in Adam as indirectly referring to the normative conclusion and state of affairs one eventually ends up in as a result of being from Adam. Because all humans have sinful inclinations in our flesh and live in a sinful fallen world, we all inevitably sins and are spiritually condemned.
If someone said:
In the restaurant, many are made full. Or, through the cooking of one chef, many bellies were filled; would you interpret this to mean that upon entering the restaurant you’re directly, immediately, and unconditionally made full by the chef? No, of course not. Eating food and becoming full is just the natural state one eventually ends up in after entering a restaurant. Being made full is still conditioned upon you eating the food.
If someone said:
Through the treatments prescribed by one doctor, many were made well; would you interpret this to mean that upon the doctor's prescribed treatments, the people are directly, immediately, and unconditionally made better from their ailments? No, of course not. The patients have to apply or take the prescribed remedy. This just means that the natural state one eventually ends up in as a result of seeing the doctor and applying their treatments is that you’re healed of your ailments. The doctor telling you what your problem is and what's needed to fix it doesn't heal you in and of itself. Yet, this conclusion logically follows when an unconditional interpretation of Adam's detriments is assumed.
Both of these initial statements are true. However, that doesn't mean no conditions or personal appropriation are involved. Being made a sinner through Adam's disobedience is indirect and appropriated/brought about by our own sins that come about through the sinful inclinations that we receive from Adam. This perfectly parallels what we know is true about the benefits of Jesus in Paul's writings. Not all of the benefits of Christ are present and realized at the beginning of our second birth. Additionally, these benefits aren't unconditionally received.
HOW DO WE INTERPRET ROMANS 5:15-21?
When it comes to Romans 5:15-21, we will begin by laying out several points. We've already gone over some of these. We will then dig into the verses in question one by one. These points summarize what we call the S.A.R. Hypothesis for Romans 5. S.A.R. is short for spiritual appropriated realities.
Point 1. It’s generally true that more consistent interpretations of passages that harmonize with the rest of what an author said are more likely to be correct.
Point 2. Paul does not speak exhaustively about Adam. But he does speak exhaustively about Jesus Christ. Therefore, we should place interpretive priority on that which pertains to Jesus Christ.
Point 3. There is a repeating Pauline theme that there is personal responsibility in eschatological judgement. Sinners won't have to answer for the sins of other sinners. Each sinner's judgement won't include the sins of other sinners.
Point 4. There is a repeating Pauline theme of God's wrath being conditioned on personal sins.
Point 5. There is a repeating Pauline theme of a non-physical "death" connected to personal sins.
Point 6. If Paul is clear that there is personal responsibility in eschatological judgement, that wrath is conditioned on personal sins, and that there is a non-physical "death" connected to personal sins, in what meaningful way could it be said that all humans are guilty of Adam's sin from conception?
Point 7. When it comes to the benefits that Paul says originate in Christ, we know appropriation is involved prior to a sinner receiving said benefits. They aren't unconditionally and unilaterally applied to a sinner prior to appropriation. They are applied and received by faith.
Point 8. Additionally, we know the benefits that Paul says originate in Christ weren't unilaterally and unconditionally applied to mankind immediately upon the completion of Christ's earthly ministry, death, burial, and resurrection.
Point 9. In the typological comparison that Paul makes in Romans 5:15-21 between Adam and Christ, we should interpret the Adamic side of the verses in alignment, agreement, and harmony with points 1-8.
Point 10. Therefore, if the Christ side of the typology entails intermediary appropriation before receiving the benefits that Paul says originate in Christ, the Adamic side of the typology also likely entails appropriation given that Paul structures both side the same and Paul doesn't explicitly say otherwise regarding Adam.
Point 11. The benefits that Paul says originate in Christ in Romans 5 seem to be spiritual benefits and realities that Christians have been receiving in time past up through the present and future.
Point 12. No human has to appropriate or do anything themselves in order to be physically mortal and thus inevitably die physically. Physical mortality is present from the beginning of a human's existence.
Point 13. Therefore, whatever Paul is referring to on the Adamic side of the typological comparison are most likely non-physical spiritual realities that are appropriated by sin in the same way that on the Christ side of the typology there are spiritual benefits and realities that are appropriated by faith.
Point 14. This conclusion about spiritual realities is supported by various contextual clues. Two of which are that Romans 4 ends with talking about justification, imputation, and righteousness while Romans 5 begins with talking about justication which is appropriated by faith.
These 14 points summarize how we go about interpreting this section of verses. Let's take a look at the verses in question.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
In this verse, we place interpretive priority on that which pertains to Christ. When it comes to Christ, we're told the grace and gift by grace have been abounding unto many already. This is referring to a gift that has already been received by many. What is the gift? Well, Romans 5:16 says the gift is of many offences unto justification. Romans 5:17 speaks of the gift of righteousness that people receive. Lastly, Romans 5:18 says the free gift is unto justification of life. Therefore, we understand "the gift by grace" in verse 15 to be referring to that which pertains to spiritual benefits and realities that begin at conversion and justification. We also know according to Paul that faith precedes these things. They aren't unconditionally and unilaterally applied.
So what does all this mean when it comes to the Adamic half of this verse? We don't believe Paul had a completely opposite understanding in mind in each half of the verse. Given what we know to be true about Christ in this verse, we interpret the Adamic half in the same way. Let's lay this out.
1A. The Christocentric half is referring to spiritual benefits and realities
1B. The Adamic half is referring to spiritual detriments and realties
2A. The Christocentric half includes appropriation
2B. The Adamic half includes appropriation
3A. The Christocentric half isn't unconditionally and unilaterally applied
3B. The Adamic half isn't unconditionally and unilaterally applied
So, in the same way, that through the one man Jesus Christ, the spiritual gift by grace abounds unto those who believe; we believe that through one man Adam's offence, the spiritual detriment of death abounds unto those who sin. In this way, there is typological congruence and harmony and we interpret this verse consistently from beginning to end. There is no warrant to switch from unconditional and unilateral application in the first half of the verse to personal appropriation being involved for application in the second half of the verse. Let's move on.
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
Our approach to verse 16 is the same as verse 15. We already know that justification is not unconditionally and unilaterally applied to people. Paul is clear in his corpus that faith precedes justification. Through the work of Jesus Christ, the free gift of justification is applied to those who believe. In the same way, through the sin of Adam and what he brought into the world, all are judged to condemnation. If we know Paul has in mind a justification that proceeds from personally appropriated faith, why should we interpret Paul as having in mind a judgment and condemnation that proceeds from nothing and is unconditionally applied to all mankind? We already know that justification isn't a singular past event in which all mankind was justified. Therefore, we interpret this judgment in the same way. There's no reason to assume a singular past judgment in which all mankind was condemned. In fact, Jesus connects personal unbelief to condemnation in John 3:18-19. We therefore understand the Adamic side of this verse to include personal appropriation in the same way that the Christocentric side includes personal appropriation.
Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Our approach to verse 17 is the same as verses 15-16. We already know that receiving an abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness aren't unconditionally and unilaterally applied to people. We know that there are intermediary means of appropriation involved. We also know that Jesus Christ's righteousness wasn't unconditionally and unilaterally applied to mankind directly upon the completion of his life, death, burial, and resurrection. However, it could obviously be said these things inaugurated the gift of righteousness. We interpret the Adamic half of this verse in the same way. In the same way that Christ inaugurated righteousness, life, justification, etc. that shall reign yet isn't unconditionally and unilaterally applied; so too is the fact that Adam inaugurated death, condemnation, etc. that has reigned yet also isn't unconditionally and unilaterally applied. Both sides include appropriation. One side by sin and the other side by faith.
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Our approach to verse 18 is the same as verses 15-17. Again, we already know that the free gift and justification of life don't come upon all men unilaterally and unconditionally according to Paul. There are intermediary mechanisms of appropriation before a person receives these things. It's also well understood by all Christians generally that "by the righteousness of one" doesn't mean upon the completion of Jesus' earthly ministry that all mankind became justified and given life. Yet, that's exactly how the original sin perspective interprets the Adamic half of this verse. They take "by the offence of one" to mean that upon Adam completing his offence, all mankind became condemned. This is incongruent and without warrant. We interpret the Adamic half of this verse in the same way as we interpret the other half concerning Jesus Christ. Just as we know justification of life includes personal appropriation yet isn't mentioned in the verse, condemnation also includes personal appropriation yet isn't mentioned in the verse. Remember that John 3:18-19 connects personal unbelief to condemnation.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Our approach to verse 19 is the same as verses 15-18. We again already know that "by the obedience of one" doesn't mean that Christ's obedience immediately, unconditionally, and unilaterally made many righteous. We know that this includes intermediary mechanisms of appropriation. We interpret the Adamic half in the same way concerning Adam's disobedience and many being made sinners. Christ inaugurated righteousness for many and Adam inaugurated being a sinner for many. However, both include personal appropriation.
Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
This is one of the least contested verses in the passage. However, we want to point out how it too supports our position. To understand this better we must recall what Paul said in Romans 3:19-20. There, it's said that by the sayings of the law, all the world may become guilty before God. It's also said that by the law is the knowledge of sin and no flesh can be justified by the deeds of the law. Our point is simply this: If Paul believed that all mankind was guilty of Adam's offence from conception and before personally sinning themselves, why would you need something to enter so that the offence might abound and make the world become guilty? It would clearly seem that the whole world is not guilty by default and from conception. Rather, through the law the world becomes guilty. This verse indicates that Paul has personal sins in mind when he says that "sin abounded". He does not have only Adam's transgression in mind.
Rom 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Our approach to verse 21 is the same as all the prior verses. We already know that righteousness and eternal life aren't unconditionally and unilaterally applied to humans. Paul is clear many times in his corpus that there's personal appropriation involved. We interpret the Adamic half in the same way concerning sin reigning unto death. There's no contextual reason to assume a shift in Paul's mind from unconditional and unilateral application in the first half of these verses to conditional and personally appropriated application in the second half.
What it really boils down to in this unit of verses are these questions:
1. How serious do you take typological congruity and harmony?
2. How serious do you take interpreting verses consistently from beginning to end?
3. How serious do you take prioritizing clear statements and themes of an author?
4. Must we insist that silence about intermediary appropriation in a particular verse means that none exists depsite evidence to the contrary in other places by the same author?
If you are serious about typological congruity and harmony; if you are serious about interpreting verses consistently from beginning to end; if you are serious about prioritizing clear statements and themes of an author; and if you don't insist that silence in a verse means non-existence; we believe the original sin interpretation of this passage becomes indefensible.
That particular interpretation doesn't have typological congruity and harmony. Instead, multiple points of disharmony conflict with overarching Pauline themes. That particular interpretation cannot interpret these verses consistently from beginning to end. They must switch from unconditional, unilateral, and singular past application in the first half of the verses to conditional and intermediary appropriated application in the second half of the verses. That particular interpretation does not prioritize themes of personal responsibility in eschatological judgment, wrath for personal sins, and spiritual/legal/moral non-physical deadness for personal sins. Furthermore, that particular interpretation insists that silence in the first half of these verses means non-existence but silence in the second half of these verses doesn't mean non-existence.
CAN THE TYPOLOGY BE TAKEN TOO FAR?
1. Even if this point of receiving Adam's guilt once we sin ourselves was affirmed, this would still run contrary to the original sin framework. Because the original sin framework says that all mankind sinned in/with Adam in the garden and all mankind is therefore condemned, guilty, spiritully dead, and under God's wrath from conception prior to personally sinning. Even this proposed view would arrive at practically the same conclusions that ancestral sin comes to. If this point was affirmed, not even then would you arrive at the original sin perspective and interpetation of Romans 5 because you'd still have guilt, wrath, spiritual deadness, etc. beginning with personal sin (which isn't compatible with the confessions or beliefs that most original sin affirmers hold to). It's just that in addition to this, receving Adam's guilt is tacked on as well once we personally sin.
2. Affirming this point for the mere sake of typological congruence actually creates its own typological incongruence which defeats the purpose of taking an affirmative stance. How? Well, all Christians would affirm that once we receive the righteousness of Christ, justification of life, etc. that this reception itself brings about distinguisable and meaningful changes to our state and standing in God's sight. On the contrary, if we say that in addition to receiving everything that comes from personally sinning we also receive Adam's guilt, what distinguisable and meaningful changes to our state and standing in God's sight would this bring? We'd already be spiritually dead, condemned, under God's wrath, and set to be judged for sin already by virtue of our own personal sin. So what meaningful change and distinction would being guilty of Adam's sin add to this? We would argue that there doesn't seem to be any siginficant or meaningful change and distinction that could be pointed to. Therefore, this point creates its own discongruence between Adam and Christ.
3. It's evident in the Pauline corpus that while we cannot attain to true righteousness through our own righteousness, we can attain true guilt through our own sins. Therefore, assuming that Adam's guilt must be applied when a person sins is unwarranted. We don't need Adam's own guilt applied to us to become guilty. We only need the consequences and detriments that his sin passed on to mankind which leads all mankind to inevitably become guilty themselves. With Christ, we do need his righteousness applied to us because in our fallen condition we cannot attain to true righteousness and keep God’s law perfectly. We cannot be tempted in all ways an entire lifetime and not sin like Jesus did. Guilt does not require breaking every command and doing every evil, it only requires one sin. In contrast, true righteousness requires abstaining from all sin and positively keeping God’s commands. Therefore, our need for an external righteousness is of a completely different and greater magnitude than our need for an external guilt.
4. With respect to this objection, we can show an obvious point in Romans 5 that's clearly not meant to be taken in a 1:1 ratio with respect to the typological comparison Paul makes. If the reason we need Christ's righteousness and justification is because we cannot attain this ourselves through our own merits, then to be absolutely congruent one should also affirm that the reason we need to be guilty of Adam's sin is because we cannot become guilty in God's sight through our own actions. This would essentially mean that humans aren't guilty for anything we do ourselves. But, all Christians would acknowledge that this isn't true. This idea contradicts Paul's own statements in many places about personal responsibility, deadness, and wrath that's connected to personal sin. Therefore, this clearly isn't a typological connection Paul is trying to make in Romans 5. This point shows us that typology shouldn't be taken as hyper-precise comparisons that include contradictory points to other statements and themes the same author has articualted. If we form a typological link that contains contradictions and tension with what the same author has said elsewhere, this link is probably not one the author intendend and not the link they wanted the reader to form upon their own reading.
5. This objection and idea would mean that we are responsible and answerable in the end for the sins that other fallen humans have committed; but this seems to run counter to what Paul says in his corpus concerning responsibility in judgement. Therefore, the validility of this objection seems implausible. We've touched on this previously (cf. Rom. 2:5-6, 3:19-20, 14:11-12, 1 Co. 3:8, 6:9-10, 2 Co. 5:10, Gal 6:5, 6:7-8)
For the sake of brevity, we will close out this section here. This objection ultimately misses our intentions and goals with how we go about understanding Romans 5:12-21. Our goal isn't to align every aspect of the Adamic side and Christocentric side of the typology so they match. On the contrary, our goal is to simply align the typology Paul makes with the themes and patterns he articulates in the totality of his writings. If Paul is clear about the appropriation, sequence, or some other detail of an action or event in his writings, we want to make sure our interpretation of his typological comparison does not create tension or contradiction with it. The inverse is also true. Simply stated, it's not our priority to force parallels into the typology for the sake of having as many parallels as possible. Rather, our priority is to give attention and focus to aspects that Paul gives attention and focus. Likewise, our priority is to be silent and not force parallels for the sake of parallels in places where Paul is either silent or consistently speaks against in his corpus. When we apply this to Romans 5, we don't believe the original sin perspective is highly plausible or defensible as the best understanding of the passage.
CHRISTUS VICTOR: THE CENTRAL THEME OF ROMANS 5
ARE WE ALONE IN OUR CRITICISMS OF ORIGINAL SIN IN ROMANS 5?
There are some on the other side of the aisle on this issue who might think we are alone in our criticisms of the original sin interpretation in Romans 5. It might be asserted that our views are novel and we are desperate to deny the truth of original sin in Romans 5 because we don't like the doctrine. However, this is incorrect. We have an article you can read here that goes through early Christian interpretations of Romans 5. Simply stated, we are not alone in not seeing the distinct points of original sin in this passage of scripture. In recent centuries, various theologians in the Baptist tradition have shared similar sentiments to ours on issues related to original sin in Romans 5. For the sake of brevity, we will cite just three figures.
E. Y. Mullins, 1860 AD - 1928 AD
“Paul does not give us an elaborate theory as to how Adam’s sin is imputed to mankind. There is no clear evidence that he held the view that Adam was the “official” head of the race and that we sinned through him because he represented us in a covenant relation. Nor does he assert that we sinned in Adam because we were actually present in him when he sinned. This theory is based on the supposition that since the race has come out of Adam, we may properly assert that the race as a whole was in Adam. These are speculations about Paul’s teaching rather than interpretations of it.” - Mullins, The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression, p. 293
W. T. Conner, 1877 AD - 1952 AD
“In other words, the fact of sin and death as a universal phenomenon in human life is traced back to Adam’s sin as the cause or source. The connection between Adam and his descendants is simply that of head of the race and members who spring from him. As to the imputation of Adam’s sin as an act of sin to the individual members of the race, no theory of such imputation is needed, for the simple reason that there was no such imputation. The idea that Adam’s sin as an act of sin is charged to his descendants and on that account they are guilty and hence condemned, is an idea too preposterous to be seriously entertained.” - Conner, The Gospel of Redemption, p. 29
Stanley Grenz, 1950 AD - 2005 AD
“We conclude, therefore, that Paul may not be declaring that Adam's offspring are guilty because of his sin. Rather, he may simply be describing what characterizes us in our sinful state of affairs, namely, that we are wrathful people. Whatever may be the final outcome of exegetical considerations of this verse, however, its exact meaning is sufficiently in doubt to render it a fragile foundation for a doctrine of inherited guilt.” - Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, p. 412-413
“We come under the power of death and condemnation through personal sin. We conclude, then, that Romans 5:12-21, like Ephesians 2:3, does not clearly and unequivocally declare that all persons inherit guilt directly because of Adam's sin. The biblical case for original guilt is not strong.” - Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, p. 415
CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY
Thanks for reading. That concludes this article on Romans 5.
No comments:
Post a Comment