PIEDMONT BAPTIST COLLEGE AND GRADUATE SCHOOL

THE DOCTRINE OF IMPUTED SIN: AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF ROMANS 5:12-21 AND ITS CHRISTOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

RESEARCH METHODS AND WRITING RES501 DR. TYLER AND DR. ASHBURN GRADUATE DIVISION

BY TIMOTHY L. DECKER NOVEMBER 6, 2006

CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Background Information to Romans Reviewed in Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Immediate Context of Imputed Sin Addressed in Verses 1-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The Doctrine of Imputed Sin Unfolded in Verses 13-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The Doctrine of Imputed Sin Elaborated in Verse 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The Debated Phrase of Verse 12 Examined in Detail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 The Objections to the Doctrine Responded by Grudem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 The Impeccability of Christ Defended in Spite of Imputed Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Works Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

ii

Introduction Why do babies die? Romans 6:23 says that the penalty of sin is death. If a baby dies, does that mean that the baby really committed a sin? Of course not! But how can human beings who are not old enough to tell a lie, hit their neighbor, or even covet be given the penalty of sin? The answer to this problem is the Biblical doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s original sin. The basic teaching of the doctrine, which has its Biblical basis in Romans 5:12-21, is that Adam’s original sin was imputed to the accounts of all mankind from all time, and mankind receives the punishment of that sin – physical death. This is not to be confused with the inherited sin nature and personal sin committed by each human which causes spiritual death. This historic doctrine was taught by St. Augustine in the 4th and 5th centuries, but it has recently been met with opposition to its validity.1 A proper, in depth exegesis of Romans 5:12-21 (verse 12 in particular) confirms and explains the Biblical doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s original sin and clarifies the Christological significance of that doctrine as it pertains to Christ’s full impeccability. “The scope of the doctrine of imputation controversy centers upon the one most theological context in the Bible – Romans 5:12-21.” L. S. Chafer goes on to say concerning the passage that “the worthy student of theology will spend much time on this portion of the Scriptures. It will not do to accept merely the findings of the best of men, but painstaking exegetical effort must be bestowed.”2 The doctrine of imputed sin has a great amount of

1

Some opposition to the orthodox position would be as follows: “Adam and Eve's journey: An Original Look at Original Sin,” Christian Century 119, no. 7 (March 27-April 3, 2002): 8-9; Herbert Haag, Is Original Sin in Scripture?, trans. Dorothy Thompson (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1969); Edward T. Oakes, “Original Sin: A Disputation,” First Things, no. 87 (November 1998): 16-24; W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. 2, Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by James Denney (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956); Mark Rapinchuk, “Universal Sin and Salvation in Romans 5:12-21,” Journal of the Evangelical Society 42 (Spring 1999): 427-41. 2

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947), 297.

1

2 agreement among most conservative theologians. With a few different angles on the doctrine, the majority of scholars largely agree on the main issue. But there are some who would suggest that the idea of God imputing Adam’s sin to mankind is unjust and unholy. If this is logically true, then it would also be logical to say that this passage does not in fact deal with such a doctrine as imputed sin since God is not unjust or unholy. This dilemma is why Chafer refers to this passage and doctrine as a “controversy.” Before the issue can rightly be settled, it is necessary to understand this doctrine. Wuest offers a summarization when he states that “the reason why death affects all, Paul says, is that all sinned. Here Adam is looked upon as the federal head of the race, and that when he sinned, all of humanity sinned in him. It is Adam’s initial sin that constituted him a sinner in which all human beings participated, and which brings death upon all. In other words, we are sinners, not because we have committed acts of sin, but because Adam sinned.”3 This statement is a representation of the federal, headship, or representative view. Another explanation is that “when Adam sinned, the race sinned because the race was in him. To put it boldy [sic], Adam was the race. What he did, his descendants, who were still in him, did also. This principle is utilized in Hebrews 7:9, 10, ‘One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.’”4 This is an example of the natural or seminal view. These two explanations of the doctrine are very close in similarity. However, my goal here is not to determine which view is the correct view. It is my intent to focus on the exposition of the doctrine of imputed sin and its Christological significance. Thiessen suggests that “both the realistic and the federal theory of 3

Kenneth S. Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company,

1955), 84. 4

Franke E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 10, Romans, by Everett F. Harrison (Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 62.

3 the imputation of sin have seemingly insurmountable problems associated with them; yet they also solve certain problems. Perhaps there is a mediating position which contains both the representative concept and the natural relationship to Adam.”5 The Background Information to Romans Reviewed in Brief To fully understand the passage in question, the background to the book of Romans must be studied to gain the correct understanding of the doctrine. A proper interpretation is reached when one consults the historical aspect of the text. According to Romans 1:1, Paul was the author of this epistle. This fact is not disputed in conservative circles. D. Edmond Hiebert goes so far as to say that “the Pauline authorship of the epistle (of Romans) is beyond any doubt.”6 Throughout the book, one can see the Jew and Gentile audience in the epistle. Paul states in Romans 11:13 that he is directly addressing Gentiles in this immediate context, whereas in other passages, such as Romans 4, Paul refers to Abraham as a forefather in reference to the Jewish audience. There are also many references to Old Testament customs, the Law, and even quotations from the Old Testament supporting the idea that part of the Church at Rome consisted of Jews as well as Gentile believers. Paul had not yet visited Rome in his first imprisonment based on the statement found in Romans 1:10. He was probably in Corinth on his third missionary journey when this letter was written. Hiebert states concerning this: “A collection has been raised in the churches of Macedonia and Achaia for the saints in Judea, and he is now going to Jerusalem to deliver it (Rom. 15:25-26). Considerable is said about this collection in the Corinthian epistles (1 Cor. 16:1-4, 2 Cor. 8, & 9). The incidental reference to this offering by Paul in his speech before 5

Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, rev. ed., (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 189. 6

D. Edmond Hiebert, An Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, The Pauline Epistles (Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH Books, 1977), 170.

4 Felix (Acts 24:17) makes it certain that it was raised on the third missionary journey.” This and 7

other factors support a date of writing of the epistle to around 58 A.D. The founder of the Church at Rome is unknown. Paul had never before visited the Church at Rome as was noted earlier, so it could not be Paul. Some speculate that the church might have been started by some of the converts at Pentecost in Acts 2:10. Whatever the case, Paul had planned on visiting the Church on his way to Spain (Rom. 1:11 & 15:24). Receiving financial support from the Church at Rome would greatly help his ministry to Spain.8 He also felt it necessary to minister to the church before he arrived there and possibly address some dissension between the factions of the Jews and the Gentiles within the church (which may very well be the topic in Romans 14:1-15:13). A brief outline of the epistle will help to serve as a guide to lead up to and around the passage in question. The bulk of the epistle is doctrinal in nature. As is customary with most Pauline literature, the letter begins with greetings, followed by a doctrinal section or sections in the case of Romans, then a practical section of living, and ending with farewells and conclusions. Romans 1:1-17 is the greeting, 1:18-3:20 is the problem of sin, 3:21-5:21 is the provision of salvation, 6:1-8:39 is the principles of sanctification, 9:1-11:36 is the faithfulness of God seen in the Dispensational format, and the rest of the book is the practical section. The Immediate Context of Imputed Sin Addressed in Verses 1-11 To understand Paul’s logical progression concerning the doctrine of imputed sin, the immediate context of verses 1-11 must also be consulted. The theme in that passage is reconciliation – “And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

7

8

Hiebert, Introduction to the New Testament, 175.

Clinton E. Arnold, gen. ed., Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary, vol. 3, Romans, by Douglas J. Moo (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2002), 5-6.

5 9

through whom we have now received the reconciliation.” Verse 12 begins with “Therefore” which means Paul’s train of thought continues from his discussion of reconciliation. Paul uses the idiom dia touto10 which can be translated “for this reason.” Looking at the immediate context of the passage, the dia touto begins a new idea while staying with the same thought of reconciliation in mind. Paul moves from the idea of reconciliation to Adam’s original sin, which gives the need for reconciliation. The Doctrine of Imputed Sin Unfolded in Verses 13-21 Before an examination of verse 12 can be made, one must not just assume that it deals with the doctrine of imputed sin. Since verse 12 is the center of controversy, it is a logical fallacy to begin with a presupposed interpretation of the verse. Concerning verses 13-21, Chaffer writes, “This context is, in the main, an elucidation of the primary declaration set forth in verse 12. It therefore follows that any interpretation of verse 12 which is not harmoniously unfolded in verses 13 to 21 is proved by so much to be wrong.”11 Therefore, to come to a correct interpretation of verse 12, verses 13-21 must be consulted first to gain the correct understanding of what seems to be at first glance an ambiguous verse 12. There are three strong arguments outside of verse 12 that show Paul’s intent was to explain that Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden was imputed to the account of all mankind and thus all suffered the consequence. First of all, verses 13 and 14 make it clear that the idea of imputation is present in verse 12. Verse 13 explicitly states that sin was present in the world even before the Law. The next phrase in verse 13 states that sin cannot be imputed when there is no law. The NASB translates

9

All Bible passages quoted will be from the NASB unless otherwise noted.

10

Though no major variants are found in the Greek texts, the Greek New Testament of the UBS fourth revised edition will be used as a textual basis for this passage. 11

Chaffer, Systematic Theology, 2:297.

6 the first nomou as “Law” indicating the Mosaic Law. The second time in verse 13 the NASB translates nomou as “law.” There does seem to be a shift in thought in Paul’s use of the word “law.” He was not saying that there was no imputation of Adam’s sin until the Mosaic Law came about. His argument is that even before the Law of Moses, there was death due to the fact that there was an unwritten law and thus sin can justly be imputed. Romans 2:14-15 states “For when the Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.” The Mosaic Law was not needed for the knowledge of sin. The Law was made for various reasons but one of them being to increase sin. Paul states in Romans 5:20, “The Law came in so that the transgression would increase.” Paul is saying that there is a law written on every man’s heart. That is how imputation is justified from Adam to Moses. Before there was a formal, written law there was an informal, unwritten law of the conscience. So, Paul’s last statement in verse 13 is true, “sin is not imputed when there is no law.” But indeed there was a law. “Major premise: Death prerequires sin (5:12, cf. 6:23), and sin prerequires law (5:13, cf. 4:15; 7:8: 1 Cor. 15:56). Minor premise: Death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses. Conclusion: The people living between Adam were under law just as surely as the Jews now are. That is, if ‘sin is not counted when there is no law’ and if death is the evidence that sin is counted, then wherever there is death there must be law. 5:13-14 is not a feeble attempt to shore up an ad hoc taxonomy of sins and transgressions, but a reminder of the law’s universal scope as Paul had delineated it in chs. 1-2.”12 Exell uses similar logic in his commentary when he writes, “1. Sin supposes law. 2. But sin was in the world before the

12

1996) 352.

John C. Poirier, “Romans 5:13-14 and the Universality of Law,” Novum Testamentum 38 (Octorber

7 law. 3. Hence there is a law in the conscience to which all men are amenable.”

13

Paul is

correctly assuming that the readers at Rome would understand what he stated in verse 13 of chapter 5 on the basis that they would remember what was previously stated in chapter 2:14-15. Paul uses the word ajlla14 at the beginning of verse 14 to emphasize the logic in his thought. If there is no imputation without a law, yet the consequence of the imputed sin is in effect, then there must have been an unwritten law that has made this imputation possible. Therefore, there was death from Adam until Moses. There was the imputation of Adam’s sin all the way up to Moses. Thus Paul must be dealing with the imputation of sin in verse 12. The second argument is found in verses 15-19. At the end of verse 14, Paul moves to illustrate the doctrine of imputed sin with comparing Adam to Christ. Verses 15-19 play out the comparison. In verses 15 and 16, Paul compares the deeds between Adam and Christ. In verses 17-19, Paul compares the two men along with their deeds. Verse 17 begins with the phrase, “For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one.” The idea of imputation is subtly present. Paul begins in verse 17 to build to a climax in verse 19. There is a definite article present with “death” that is referring back to the same death which was the consequence of Adam’s original sin.15 Here in verse 17, the death reigns. Without saying it, Paul suggests that the death reigned throughout all mankind. If Paul had intended the death only to reign over Adam, that would not be much of a reign. The verse could read, “For if by the transgression of the one, the death reigned over all mankind through the one.” One may object to such an interpretation because the dia tied to “the one” is in the genitive and may suggest that the death

13

Joseph S. Exell, The Biblical Illustration, vol. 16, Romans Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,

n.d.), 411. 14

The NASB translates the alla as “nevertheless” but its normal translation is a strengthened “but.”

15

The use of the definite article with “death” will be discussed when dealing with verse 12.

8 reigned through the one in the sense that it only reigned on Adam. Even though the dia is followed by a genitive, its emphasis can still be on the source or the agent of the verb and not in a spatial sense. In this case, Paul is not emphasizing the spatial aspect of dia but rather the source of the death, and it could be translated “the death reigned over all mankind by/because of the one.” This places the blame of the consequence of death on Adam. This would be consistent with Paul’s comparison in these verses where Christ is said to be the source of the gift of righteousness and not the recipient. Paul again uses dia with the aspect of source or agency and not a spatial aspect. Verse 18 builds on from verse 17 with less subtlety. This is seen in the beginning of verse 18 with the word oujn. Paul uses this as a way for the readers to follow his argument. What he says in verse 18 is based on what was said previously in verse 17 – “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men” (italics mine). Paul clearly states that through one wrongdoing, one transgression, one sin, the result was condemnation unto all mankind. Paul is more open in this statement than the last, but in verse 19 he reaches the pinnacle of finger-pointing. Paul’s progression of argument makes his intent very clear that he was teaching on the doctrine of Adam’s sin imputed on the human race. The third argument is Paul’s usage of words in verse 19, which is the climax in verses 1719. “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.” Paul makes it very clear that imputation is in fact the subject of discussion in this passage of Scripture. What makes verse 19 the climax of verses 17-19 is his choice of words. Verse 19 states that “through one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners.” At first glance this may not seem to refer to imputed

9 sin but rather the inherited sin nature. This is because the English translations use the word “made” which has the idea of something that is inherited from our parents. Ryrie states concerning the difference between imputed sin and inherited sin that “imputed sin is transmitted directly from Adam to each individual in every generation. Since I was in Adam, Adam’s sin was imputed to me directly, not through my parents and their parents. Imputed sin is an immediate imputation (that is, directly, not through mediators between Adam and me). This contrasts with how the inherited sin nature is transmitted. It comes to me from my parents, and theirs from their parents, and so on back to Adam. Inherited sin is a mediate transmission since it comes through all the mediators of generations between Adam and me.”16 Ryrie then gives an illustration with lines and arrows extending from Adam and going through each person to represent inherited sin and another illustration with separate lines and arrows extending from Adam and going directly to each person representing imputed sin.

INHERITED SIN

IMPUTED SIN

ADAM

ADAM

SETH

CAIN

ENOCH

ENOSH

IRAD

KENAN

CAIN

SETH

ENOCH

ENOSH

IRAD

ME

KENAN ME

Figure 1. A recreation of Ryrie’s “A Comparison of How Inherited Sin and Imputed Sin Are Transmitted.”17

16

Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 259.

17

Ryrie, Basic Theology, 259.

10 If inherited sin was the intent of Paul here, then it might be hard to explain verse 12 as Paul’s argument for the imputation of sin. But at a closer examination of the Greek text, Paul does not say that many were made sinners. Paul uses the word katestaqhsan which is the aorist passive indicative form of the word kaqisthmi in reference to what happened to “the many.” He uses this word only one other time in Titus 1:518 – “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you” (italics mine). Clearly, Paul does not use this word with the idea of creating or making an elder, but rather he uses the word to emphasize the meaning “to appoint to an office or position.”19 In the case of Romans 5:19, the emphasis is the same. Hodges writes that “kaqisthmi never, in the New Testament, means to make, in the sense of effecting, or causing a person or thing, to be in its character or nature other than it was before.” It “does not mean to make one sinful, but to set him down as such, to regard or appoint him to be of that class. Thus, when Christ is said to have been ‘constituted the Son of God,’ he was not made Son, but declared to be such.”20 Paul says that all were appointed as a sinner through imputation; not that all were made a sinner through inheritance. Adam’s sin, as well as the penalty of that sin, was appointed to all mankind. Paul clearly says he is referring to imputation in verses 13-14, he subtlety alludes to imputation in verses 17-19, and in the climax of verses 17-19 he uses specific wording in verse 19 to help clearly express the doctrine of Adam’s sin which was imputed to all mankind.

18

John R. Kohlenberger, III, Edward W. Goodrick, and James A. Swanson, The Exhaustive Concordance to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 488. 19

Marvin R. Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, vol. 3 (Peabody, Mas.: Hendrickson Publishers, n.d.), 64. 20

Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), 173.

11 The Doctrine of Imputed Sin Elaborated in Verse 12

21

Verse 12 is the focal point of the issue. It explains the doctrine in detail while still has an ambiguous nature to it. Misinterpretation is unavoidable if verses 13-21 are not consulted. After examining Paul’s teachings in verses 13-21, the only conclusion one could logically come to is that the entire context of verses 12-21 is dealing with the doctrine of imputed sin. Immediately following the dia touto at the beginning of verse 12, Paul uses wJsper which gives the idea of a compare/contrast statement. “Therefore (for this reason), just as through one man…” has the idea of comparison. The apodosis is present but the protasis is not close behind. Verses 13-14 act as a parenthetical explanation to verse 12. Paul picks up his comparison of Adam’s sin and the gift of salvation provided by Christ in verse 15. Paul’s subtle nuances of shifting from one preposition to another play a pretty large significance to verse 12. Paul switches back and forth by using the words dia and eijV to explain the idea of imputation. The first instance of the word dia following a genitive explains that through one man, namely Adam, sin entered the world. “Just as through one man sin entered into the world…” It was through one man that the human race suffers death. It was through one man that all men are in need of a Savior. Paul places sole responsibility on Adam. That is not to say that it would have been different if someone else were present instead of Adam. Paul is just taking the readers back to the beginning of creation where one can find the account of the first man sinning against God. Thus Paul is also confirming the historicity of Adam. He never doubts the existence of Adam nor that he was the first man created by God. Paul assumes this to be true.

21

Verse 12 in the Greek text is as follows: Dia touto wJsper di j eJnoV ajnqrwpou hJ aJmartia eijV ton kosmon eijshlqen kai dia thV aJmartiaV oJ qanatoV, kai ouJtwV eijV pantaV ajnqrwpouV oJ qanatoV dihlqen, ejf j w|/ panteV hJmarton.

12 Paul uses the definite article when referring to the actual sin of Adam (hJ aJmartia). Literally it would be translated “through one man the sin entered…” This just emphasizes the historical fact of Adam and his actual act of sin which was committed in the Garden of Eden. This also places the emphasis not on the sin nature but on an actual sin – Adam’s first sin. Had Paul meant to refer to the sin nature, he would probably have left out the definite article as John does in 1 John 1:8.22 John’s anarthrous use of the word “sin” indicates in 1 John 1:8 the sin nature which cannot be denied. Here, Paul is referring to an actual event, instance, act, or incident. There is not question that Adam’s original sin is in Paul’s mind here. One may argue that the style of Paul is vastly different than that of John, and thus Paul still might be emphasizing the sin nature. To reconcile this, one must remember that tradition holds the apostle John serving in the city of Ephesus after he left Jerusalem. Paul’s protégé, Timothy, was also left in Ephesus to serve. John’s usage of words may be indicative of the teaching of Timothy (which came directly from Paul) concerning the doctrine of sin. One can only speculate here, but it does leave a rather interesting notion that the wording of both Paul and John would be similar when referring to the sin nature or just an act of sin. The next phrase, eijV ton kosmon eijshlqen, is where Paul switches to the other preposition. Actually he uses it twice here. The first instance is in the prepositional phrase eijV ton kosmon, and the second is within the verb eijshlqen. This compound verb comes from the words eijV + ercomai. The word is generally translated as “enter” and is in the aorist tense here. Paul is using a simple aorist to emphasize the point that it happened in the past at one point in time. The verb also renders the idea that the subject (in this case “the sin”) entered from an outside source. This would teach the idea that Adam had a nature not tainted with the sin nature.

22

A literal translation of 1 John 1:8 would read as follows: “If we say that we do not have sin…”

13 As it is commonly referred to as the unconfirmed holiness of Adam, this verb supports the idea that Adam was without sin and yet had the capability to sin. The phrase eijV ton kosmon translated “into the world” also gives the idea that “the sin” came from an outside source and was not a part of the original design of God. Following Paul’s chain of dia’s, one can see that it all starts with one man. And through that one man comes that sin. And through that one’s sin comes a penalty – death. “Just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin…” The verb eiJshlqen is understood in the next phrase kai dia thV aJmartiaV oj qanatoV. The literal translation would be “and through the sin (entered) the death.” Paul’s logic is that through one man came sin, and now through one sin came death. Notice, first of all, that the definite article is still present with the word “sin” reading thV aJmartiaV. Paul is using the definite article as a previous reference to the first instance of “the sin.” So initially, Paul is saying that through that actual event of Adam’s original sin, death entered the world. Also, the definite article is present with the word death reading oj qanatoV. Paul is emphasizing the actuality of the physical death as a punishment of Adam’s actual, historical sin. Paul also will use the word “death” four other times in this passage and once in verse 10. The definite article is present all four other times denoting previous reference to this instance of “death”. The next crucial word that must be taken into consideration is Paul’s use of the ouJtwV – “So death spread to all men…” The normal meaning of ouJtwV is to explain the manner of something. It is best illustrated in John 3:16. God loved the world. He demonstrates His love to the world in this manner: that He gave His Son. But in the case of Romans 5:12, Paul goes even further than a basic use. Paul uses ouJtwV in connection with wJsper at the beginning of the

14 23

sentence. It is in this case a correlative adverb emphasizing the connection between the wJsper clause “just as through one man…” and the ouJtwV clause “and thus death spread…” Paul uses the ouJtwV to show the result of Adam’s sin on the entire world. Since the ouJtwV clause is a statement of result, it will help to determine the actual meaning behind the clause it is connected to. Here again the two prepositions are used, but this time they are both used in the same clause. The dia + ercomai has a great significance to the meaning of this passage and on the doctrine of original sin as it relates to humans. The aorist form dihlqen is translated “passed” in the King James Version.24 Many older translations hold to the “passed” translation of the word. The reasoning is likely that “passed” has the idea of imputation. But does dihlqen really have an imputation aspect to it? Most modern translations (including the NASB, ESV, & NKJV) translate it as “spread”. The literal meaning of diercomai is “to come through” or “to go through”. The idea is “to spread” which lends one to think of inheritance instead of imputation. Vincent says that this word “denotes spreading or propagation.”25 The fact that death can be propagated gives the impression of inheritance. This can be taken further with the fact that “the death” was spread into all mankind (eijV pantaV anqrwpouV). Paul uses eijV to emphasize that the spreading went directly into all of mankind. If the result of Adam’s sin is “spread into” all mankind, then there is inheritance involved and not imputation. All this is to say that the idea of death spreading to all mankind seems contradictory if the idea of imputation is in Paul’s mind in Romans 5:12.

23

Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 663. 24

Holy Bible, King James Version.

25

Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies, 3:62.

15 This conclusion might be valid were it not for the context of the rest of the passage. It is clear that Paul is writing about imputed sin here and not inherited sin. So why does Paul give the idea of inheritance with the verb dihlqen? It would seem logical that Paul would use eijshlqen. It is my opinion that Paul uses dihlqen with the inheritance idea as a qualification for imputed sin. In order for one to be eligible for the imputation of Adam’s sin, one must have a mother and father in which the punishment of the imputation can be transmitted. Adam’s sin still goes directly from Adam to the human, but there is a qualification that is needed. That qualification is the mother and father in which there can be an inheritance of the punishment. Thus, Paul does have inheritance in mind but only as a qualification for imputation. The sin of Adam is still imputed. The last phrase of verse 12 will shed some light on the imputation idea even more. The Debated Phrase of Verse 12 Examined in Detail The final phrase in verse 12, “because all sinned,” is the most crucial, subjective, and debated phrase in the entire verse. The final thought for imputed sin takes place right here. There are two things that must be addressed to gain the correct understanding of the final phrase ejf= w|/ panteV hJmarton. The first problem is the ejf= w|./ Is it to be taken as the preposition ejpi and a relative pronoun, or is it a conjunctive idiom to be translated “because?” Biblical scholars are divided over the interpretation of these two Greek words. C. F. Moule, in his book An Idiom Book of the New Testament Greek, says that “the ‘in quo’ interpretation of verse 12, closely connected with theories of original sin, is almost certainly wrong (ejf= w/ almost certainly means ‘inasmuch as’ see 2 Cor. 5:4)” (emphasis mine).26 However, N. A. Turner claims that “there is no doubt that ejf= w/ is not a conjunction meaning ‘because,’ but the wJ/ is a relative pronoun

26

C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of the New Testament Greek (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1908), 132.

16 referring the reader back to Adam, the ‘one man’ by whom sin entered the world (ground or occasion is conveyed by ejpi here, ‘because’).”27 The idea of imputation is present either way as will be pointed out, but it does give way to two different theological views concerning the doctrine which will be briefly addressed later. There is no objective grammatical proof for either interpretation. Depending on how one interprets ejf= w|/ will affect the interpretation of panteV hJmarton. Paul does use ejf= w|/ as a common conjunctive idiom on three other occasions (2 Cor. 5:4, Phil. 3:12, & 4:10).28 This might lead one to hold to a conjunctive idiom interpretation over a rough, literal translation of the preposition and relative pronoun. The likely-hood that the relative pronoun was Paul’s intent is less probable. If the phrase ejf= w|/ were translated as a preposition followed by a relative pronoun, it would read “on the basis to whom all sinned.” In essence, what Paul might be saying is that through one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and death (entered) through sin, and so death spread to all men, in whom (Adam) all sinned. This might fit the context very well relating the idea that the sin here is Adam’s original sin and not a personal act of sin committed by every human being. One objection to the interpretation that ejf= w|/ is a preposition and a relative pronoun is that Paul could have used a clearer and more direct preposition if he intended it to be taken as such.29 The preposition ejn is translated “in” and would cast the idea of “in whom all sinned” much stronger than ejpi. A reasonable response to this objection is that Paul might have avoided the word ejn to hinder the reader from taking it with the usage of means. This would render the idea that “by means of whom all sinned” or Adam caused each person to sin. This 27

N. A. Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1965), 116.

28

Kohlenberger, III, Goodrick, and Swanson, Exhaustive Concordance, 337.

29

Hodge, Commentary, 148.

17 usage of ejn would lend the idea to inherited sin and not imputed sin. Thus Paul would recognize the confusion that ejn might cast. The preposition ejpi consistently portrays the idea of “on,” “upon,” or “in” and would avoid the reader of any confusion on the issue of imputation or inheritance. Another objection to Romans 5:12 being a verse for Adam’s original sin being imputed to all mankind is that the verse ends with the aorist verb hJmarton.30 This could give the idea that all men personally committed an act of sin but not necessarily relating to Adam’s sin. But if the phrase ejf= w|/ were interpreted “in whom” referring to Adam, then it would be extremely hard to avoid the idea of imputation. The verb hJmarton is likely to be a constative aorist if ejf= w|/ were interpreted as a plain preposition and a relative pronoun. Dan Wallace explains the constative aorist as one that “views the actions as a whole, taking no interest in the internal working of the action. It describes the action in summary fashion, without focusing on the beginning or end of the action specifically.”31 Wallace further explains that “it places the stress on the fact of the occurrence, not its nature.”32 This seems to fit the context as a whole dealing with the imputation of sin as well as the theological implication of the passage. Robertson also claims that “hJmarton is a striking example of the constative use of the aorist (Romans 5:12).”33 If ejf= w|/ is to be taken as a conjunctive idiom, panteV hJmarton might have a different meaning. Paul’s thought would be that through one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and death (entered) through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned. This gives the

30

See Romans 3:23 for Jhmarton being used as a simple aorist for personal sin.

31

Wallace, Greek Grammar, 557.

32

Wallace, Greek Grammar, 557.

33

A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 833.

18 idea that the penalty or result of death being spread to all men is due to the fact that all sinned. This would lead to the idea that “all sinned” is referring to a personal action committed by each individual and have nothing to do with Adam’s original sin being imputed. “Verse 14 excludes the possibility of interpreting the last clause of verse 12 in such terms. Verse 12 tells us the reason why death passed on to all men. It is that ‘all sinned.’ But verse 14 tells us that death reigned over those who did not sin after the similitude of Adam’s transgression. The reign of death in verse 14 must have the same import as the passing on of death in verse 12. Hence Paul is saying that death passed on to and reigned over those who did not personally and voluntarily transgress as Adam did, and therefore the ‘all sinned’ of verse 12 cannot refer to individual personal transgression.”34 Since it is more likely that Paul was using ejf= w|/ as a conjunctive idiom (since it a common use for Pauline writings), then one must take a closer look at panteV hJmarton. Why was an aorist verb chosen for aJmartanw? If Paul’s emphasis was on every individual’s personal action and not Adam’s sin being imputed, it would seem more likely that a perfect tense would be more probable. 1 John 1:10 says that, “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His Word is not in us” (italics mine). John uses the perfect tense form hJmarthkamen to emphasize the actual act of sin. Paul would use the same grammatical logic if his intention was a definite physical action that every human has committed. The King James Version translates the aorist verb as a perfect saying “all have sinned.”35 This is a misleading translation in that it renders the idea of each person committing a personal sin as taught in 1 John 1:10. The translation “all sinned” is preferable and must be referring to the imputation of sin. It cannot be referring to actual acts of sin committed by all mankind since the context does not 34

John Murray. The Imputation of Adam’s Sin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1959), 21.

35

Holy Bible, King James Version.

19 refer to such a statement. “As far as form is concerned the expression itself could refer to the actual sins of men (cf. Romans 3:23)…The meaning, however, is not to be determined by grammatical possibility but by contextual considerations.”36 As we have already examined, verses 13 and 14 make it clear that Paul is dealing with imputation and not inheritance or personal acts of sin of the entire human race. Some other objections to holding the phrase panteV hJmarton as dealing with personal acts of sin committed by every person in the human race is that infants die every day without committing a personal act of sin. The only way to logically conclude the physical death of babies is to interpret this phrase to deal with the imputed sin of Adam. Also, Hodge makes a great point when he writes that “this interpretation destroys the analogy between Adam and Christ. It would make the apostle teach, that as all men die because they personally sin, so all men live because they are personally and inherently righteous. This is contrary not only to this whole passage, but to all Paul’s teaching, and to the whole gospel.”37 Paul probably uses this aorist as a gnomic aorist to sum up the idea of imputation. Paul is not saying that death spread to all mankind because all mankind has committed some acts of sin. Paul is using a proverbial truth that death spread to all mankind because all mankind sinned through Adam. Wallace explains that a “gnomic aorist is occasionally used to present a timeless, general fact. When it does so, it does not refer to a particular event that did happen, but to a generic event that does happen.”38 This definition of a gnomic aorist seems to describe exactly what would take place in the doctrine of imputed sin. One does not commit a sin in the Garden of Eden in an actual sense. Paul does not refer an event to all of mankind, but rather he refers all 36

Murray, Imputation, 9.

37

Hodge, Commentary, 149.

38

Wallace, Greek Grammar, 562.

20 of mankind to an event. Thus, when Paul says that all sinned, he means that “it does not refer to a particular event that did happen, but to a generic event that does happen” (italics mine).39 Dana and Mantey explain a gnomic aorist as “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.”40 In other words, Paul is stating a pithy truth by using a proverbial statement. It is a way to sum up the general idea of the imputation of sin. Adam’s sin was imputed to every person’s account and thus all sinned. Depending on how one takes the phrase ejf= w|/ panteV hJmarton will depend on how one interprets and applies the doctrine of original sin. “The ground of this imputation is the union between Adam and his posterity.”41 There are two main views for the basis of imputed sin – the Federal Headship view and the Seminal view. The Federal Headship view is a theory which describes Adam as the representative of the entire human race. When he fell into sin, the entire human race fell thus justifying the doctrine of imputed sin. “When Adam sinned he sinned as my representative. I became a wicked guilty sinner in the Garden of Eden. I was not there, but my representative was there, and what he did I did by the representative principle. This is the meaning of the words ‘all sinned’ in Romans 5:12.”42 One who would hold to this view would probably take the ejf= w|/ to be a plain preposition and relative pronoun. This does give the idea of a representative view although not exclusively. The w|/ would obviously refer back to Adam in

39

Wallace, Greek Grammar. 562.

40

H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1928), 197. 41

42

Hodge, Commentary., 179.

Oliver J. Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), 295.

21 whom all sinned which could still be taken with the Seminal view reference. This would also lead to the interpretation of hJmarton to be a constative aorist. Most Covenant theologians hold to this view because it fits into their theological framework the best. A general principle held by Covenant Theology is that God made a covenant of works with Adam before Adam fell into sin. As a part of this covenant of works, God assigned Adam as the federal head of the human race. This theory of representation is not contingent on the fact of such a covenant between God and Adam. One can be a Dispensationalist and still hold to the Federal Headship view.43 The Seminal view is the other major view concerning original sin and its imputation. The main objection to this view is the validity of a covenant of works being made between God and man where Adam was declared as the representative of the entire human race. Most proponents of the Seminal view are Dispensationalists. One can only conjecture but it may be possible that the Seminal view stemmed from a disdain of the idea of such a covenant of works between God and Adam. Thus, another view was needed to account for the imputation of sin. “Mankind was not merely represented by Adam but was actually organically joined to Adam…Thus Adam’s sin was imputed to each member of the human race because each member of the human race actually sinned in Adam when Adam sinned.”44 According to Henry C. Thiessen, “this view comes closer to the Biblical doctrine of imputation.”45 Those that hold to this view refer to Hebrews 7:9-10 by saying that Levi paid tithes through Abraham because Levi was in the loins of Abraham. The interpretation of ejf= w|/ would probably be taken as a conjunctive idiom and 43

Just a few Dispensationalists that hold to a federal view can be found in Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2004), 124 and Woodrow Kroll, The Book of Romans: Righteousness in Christ (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2002), 78. 44

Ryrie, Basic Theology, 258.

45

Thiessen, Lectures, 188.

22 give the idea that the cause of death is that all sinned in Adam because all are seminally tied to Adam. The hJmarton could be taken as a constative aorist or a gnomic aorist with this view and interpretation. As was stated previously, it is not my goal to decide on which view is the more preferable view. Dogmatically, it is impossible to come to a clear conclusion. One must carefully weigh this evidence as well as the rest of Scriptures and determine for themselves their view on this particular passage of Scripture. Thiessen makes a valid point when he says that “both the realistic (Seminal) view and the federal theory of the imputation of sin have seemingly insurmountable problems associated with them; yet they also solve certain problems. Perhaps there is a mediating position which contains both the representative concept and the natural relationship to Adam.”46 The Objections to the Doctrine Responded by Grudem The main reason that the doctrine of imputed sin is avoided and not taught is that it seems unjust and unfair for God to punish humans for Adam’s sin. Grudem offers three explanations which match most other theologians view on the matter. First, humans deserve death anyways due to their sin nature and actual acts of sin. Second, anyone in Adam’s place would have done the same thing. Grudem admits this is not a “conclusive argument” but still lists it nevertheless.47 Third, The most persuasive answer to the objection is to point out that if we think it is unfair for us to be represented by Adam, then we should also think it is unfair for us to be represented by Christ and to have his righteousness imputed to us by God. For the procedure that God used was just the same, and that is exactly Paul’s point in Romans 5:12-21…Adam, our first representative sinned – and God counted us guilty. But Christ, the representative of all who believe in him, obeyed God perfectly – and God counted us 46

47

Thiessen, Lectures, 189.

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 495.

23 righteous. That is simply the way in which God set up the human race to work. God regards the human race as an organic whole, a unity, represented by Adam as its head. And God also thinks of the new race of Christians, those who are redeemed by Christ, as an organic whole, a unity represented by Christ as head of his people.48 The Impeccability of Christ in Spite of Imputed Sin Christologically speaking, how does this apply to Christ? More specifically, how does Christ bypass Adam’s original sin being imputed to all mankind? Christ had no sin. Christ had no sin nature. Christ was not able to sin. But if Christ became a human, would not Adam’s sin be charged to His account as well? Christ has a genealogy which traces Him all the way back to Adam in Luke 3. The doctrine of the hypostatic union clearly states that Christ had two natures, one being fully God and the other being fully human. So if Christ was fully human, from the lineage of Adam, and able to die, would it not seem logical that Adam’s sin was imputed onto Christ as well? The answer that is commonly given to explain the cause for Christ’s full impeccability is through the virgin birth. But how does the virgin birth bypass the imputation of original sin? Logically, the virgin birth would only allow Christ not to receive the inherited sin nature. For one to receive the sin nature, one must have a human mother and a father! Christ had a human mother, but He did not have a human father. As was discussed previously, Romans 5:12 lays out very clearly that in order to have Adam’s sin imputed, there is a qualification. If death was “spread” to all men, then there is an indication that something is inherited from parents to children. The word dihlqen stresses the fact that there is an inheritance of something. What is inherited is the punishment for imputation. In order for humans to be eligible to receive the imputation of Adam’s sin, they must have a form of inheritance (which means a human father and mother) to receive the punishment. In other words, everyone has Adam’s sin imputed on them simply because they were eligible for it. 48

Grudem, Systematic Theology, 495-96.

24 Every person born from a father and mother has been given an inheritance of eligibility. Since Christ did not have a human father but was virgin born, He did not meet the qualifications of imputation. He was unable to qualify for the imputation of Adam’s sin because He could not inherit the punishment of imputed sin. Christ did not inherit the sin nature because He had no human father, nor did Christ receive the imputed sin because He had no human father. He was not eligible for the imputation of Adam’s original sin. If one holds to the Seminal view of imputation, then a good explanation of Christ’s ability to bypass the imputation of Adam’s sin is still by the virgin birth. Since He was not born of a human father, He would not be in the loins of Adam. Therefore, He was not under the imputation of sin although He accepted its consequences. Even though Christ died, He humbled Himself to the point of death. He died willingly and willfully. Christ gave up the ghost. He had the ability to give His life and take it up again. Just because Christ could die, it does not mean that He was under the penalty of imputed sin and thus had Adam’s sin imputed to His account. Conclusion It seems too simple to account for such a horrifying subject as the death of babies to be found in a passage from the Bible. The fact is, babies do die and it is because of the imputation of Adam’s sin. If Adam’s sin was imputed to all mankind, and thus the punishment for that sin is physical death, then everyone is plagued with the struggle of survival. Such a weighty and controversial doctrine is hard to grasp at times. The reality of its presence evokes emotions of confusion and perhaps even malice toward God. One must always remember that God is good. He is just in whatever He does because whatever He does is just. The remedy for such a problem of imputed sin is imputed righteousness. Because of Christ’s sinless life and His sacrifice on the cross, believers can have Christ’s righteousness imputed to them. Due to Christ’s sinless nature

25 and ineligibility of the imputation of Adam’s sin, He was an acceptable sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. When a proper exegesis of Romans 5:12-21 is applied, one can plainly see the Biblical doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s sin as well as the Christological significance as it pertains to the way in which Christ bypasses the imputation of Adam’s sin.

WORKS CITED

“Adam and Eve's journey: An Original Look at Original Sin.” Christian Century 119, no. 7 (March 27-April 3, 2002): 8-9. Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. The Greek New Testament, 4th ed., rev. Germany: United Bible Society, 2001. Arnold, Clinton E., gen. ed. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary. Vol. 3, Romans, by Douglas J. Moo. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2002. Buswell, James Oliver, Jr. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962. Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Vol. 2. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947. Dana, H. E., and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1927. Exell, Joseph S. The Biblical Illustrator. Vol. 16, Romans Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, n.d. Gaebelein, Frank E., ed. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 10, Romans, by Everett F. Harrison. Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library Zondervan Publishing House, 1976. Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology. Vol. 3. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2004. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994. Haag, Herbert. Is Original Sin in Scripture? Translated by Dorothy Thompson. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1969. Hiebert, D. Edmond. An Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. 2, The Pauline Epistles. Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH Books, 1977. Hodge, Charles. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950. 26

27 Holy Bible, New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update ed. La Habra, Calif.: The Lockman Foundation, 1995. Holy Bible, King James Version. Kohlenberger, John R., III, Edward W. Goodrick, and James A. Swanson. The Exhaustive Concordance to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995. Kroll, Woodrow. The Book of Romans: Righteousness in Christ. Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2002. Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2d ed. London: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Murray, John. The Imputation of Adam’s Sin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1959. Nicoll, W. Robertson, ed. The Expositor’s Greek Testament. Vol. 2, Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by James Denney. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956 Oakes, Edward T. “Original Sin: A Disputation.” First Things, no. 87 (November 1998): 16-24. Poirier, John C. “Romans 5:13-14 and the Universality of Law.” Novum Testamentum 38 (Octorber 1996): 344-58. Rapinchuk, Mark. “Universal Sin and Salvation in Romans 5:12-21.” Journal of the Evangelical Society 42 (Spring 1999): 427-41. Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament In Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934. Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999. Thiessen, Henry C. Lectures in Systematic Theology, rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979. Turner, N. A. Grammatical Insights into the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965. Vincent, Martin R. Word Studies in the New Testament. Vol. 3, The Epistles of Paul. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, n.d. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.

28 Wuest, Kenneth S. Romans in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955.