Romans 5:12-21 - Original Sin Proof Text Exposed

Romans 5:12-21

Original Sin Proof Text Exposed

Ever since Augustine introduced Platonic philosophical thought into theology, the church had been plagued with various brands of determinism.  Today Calvinism and Universalism are the two main deterministic trends of this branch of thinking.  Neo-Calvinism can be considered the core theology of fundamentalist Christianity in the U.S. and many Christians today question the validity of free will.  It is not at all surprising that the idea of determinism has such strength considering American secular thought in education, art and the media teach it's own brand of determinism; naturalistic determinism.  The only difference between naturalistic determinism and the Christian brands is the replacement of "nature" with some concept of "god" as the primary determiner.  Christian determinism is rooted in several key concepts, one of which is the idea of Original Sin in which all men are made sinners because of Adam's sin.  The loss of relationship between God and mankind is due to the supposed choice of one man.  Thus all men are born sinners and are not ever capable of making any good choices.  Man is totally depraved and has no free will.  Faith and salvation are gifts of God given to those whom He has chosen, at his own discretion.  The difference between Calvinism and Universalism lies only in the idea that Universalism states all mankind are or will eventually be given faith and salvation.

Many of the key proof texts for Original Sin are found in Paul's letter to the Romans.  The choice of English words loaded with deterministic nuances to translate the original Greek by biased determinism believing translators muddle a true understanding of the text but even with the current English translations, one need not succumb to a Calvinistic nor a Universalistic conclusion that Paul in the letter to the Romans supports Original Sin in any way.  The main error of those who claim the passages clearly support determinism is found in the cut and paste method of exegesis where three or four verses that appear to support their belief are taken out of context and interpreted by themselves.

The Importance of Contextualization

In this writing I would like to take a close look at the Romans 5:12-21 text, but before that I want to take a little aside to demonstrate the importance of sound hermeneutics in the area of contextualization.  Consider the following story.

(Paragraph 2) Before he went to his friend's house to play, John asked his mother if it was all right if he got a chocolate bar on his way home and his mother said "OK" and give him some money.  John played with his friends all afternoon and come 4:30 p.m. he thought it was time to go home.  He left his friend's house and dropped into the convenience store on his way home.  After he got home, he ate dinner, watched TV and went to bed.  The next morning John's brother Mark got up went downstairs and thanked his mother for the chocolate bar he ate the day before.  His mother smiled, said "You're welcome." and went on about her business.

Now I don't know about you but I have some problems with the way Mark's mother reacted.  Shouldn't she have been surprised at Mark's statement?  Shouldn't she have asked him where he got the chocolate bar?  Or if she thought John was involved, wouldn't she have asked, "Oh did John share his chocolate bar with you?"  And if John shared his chocolate bar wouldn't Mark have thanked John instead of his mother?

The fact is, there is no mention of Mark asking for money for a chocolate bar or receiving any in the paragraph.  There is no mention of him buying a chocolate bar,though we can infer that John did.  There is no mention of Mark at all until he came downstairs the next day.  Was Mark with John playing at his friends house?  Did he receive money for a chocolate bar too?  Could that be the reason why his mother reacted the way she did?  But the paragraphs doesn't say so does it?  This is the problem we run into when we look at only part of the context of a story.  Had we read the paragraph before paragraph 2 we could have understood the story better.

(Paragraph 1) John and Mark are brothers.  John is 10 and his brother is 7.  They are very close and often play together.  In fact Mark follows John around all day long and does pretty much everything John does.  One day their mother took them to play with their friends down the block.  She was a good mother and she told John he was to look after his brother and come home in time for dinner.  John promised he would.

Wow, all of a sudden we understand what happened.  John and Mark both went to their friends house to play.  Mark was there when John asked for the money for the chocolate bar.  Their mother gave money to both of them.  She's a good mother.  Both of them went into the convenience store, bought chocolate bars and ate them.  Both of them ate dinner, watched TV together and in the morning Mark thanked his mother.  We understand this because of the extra information of paragraph 1.  Paragraph 1 is a part of the context of paragraph 2.  Now let me rewrite paragraph 2 in light of what we know from paragraph one.  I could write it in the following way:

(Paragraph 2, rewritten.) Before he (John) want to his friends house to play (with his brother Mark, because they often play together and Mark follows John around all day long and does pretty much everything John does and because his mother took both of them there), John asked his mother if it was all right if he got a chocolate bar on his way home (and his brother Mark whom he often plays together and follows John around all day and does pretty much everything John does and was with him because his mother took him with John to their friend's house watched on expectantly) and his mother (who was a good mother) said "OK" and give him (that is John, and his brother who often play together with John and follows John around all day long and does pretty much everything John does) some money.  John played with his friends all afternoon (along with his brother because they often play together and Mark follows John around all day long and does pretty much everything John does and because his mother took both of them there) and come 4:30 p.m. he (John) thought it was time to go home (with his brother whom his mother told him to look after, because they often play together and Mark follows John around all day long and does pretty much everything John does).  He left his friend's house and on the way home dropped into the convenience store (with his brother whom his mother told him to look after, because they often play together and Mark follows John around all day long and does pretty much everything John does) on his way home. (The two boys bought chocolate bars and ate them.) After he (John) got home, he ate dinner (with his brother....ah forget it, you get the point),watched TV (with his brother....) and went to bed.  The next morning John's brother Mark got up went downstairs and thanked his mother for the chocolate bar he ate the day before.  His mother smiled, said "You're welcome." (because she was a good mother) and went on about her business.

Now of course this revision of the second paragraph is a lot more understandable than the original because there is no need to make any inferences or add back any of the "understood" information, but it would be extremely boring because of all the redundancy.  Nobody writes like that, but anyone who has studied Noam Chomsky's generative grammar knows that all of the inferences and extra understood information that I have put in parentheses (and much more) is actually understood in the minds of both the writer and the reader.  Understanding language is a combination of both bottom up and top down strategies.  Contextualization and infrencing are absolutely necessary in understanding any linguistic information, spoken or written whether it be in English or in Greek. 

Therefore to understand one verse, Romans 5:18 for instance, one must understand what was written before and after the verse.  Information in chapter 1 to 4 may be just as vital to the understanding of what is in 5:18 as verse 18 itself.

The Contextualization of Romans 5:12-21

Now let us take a look at the passage.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned —  13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.  14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!  16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.  17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 

Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.  19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 

Romans 5:20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,  21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If verse 18 is taken alone it would appear that Paul is making a case for Original Sin and Universal Salvation.  "Condemnation" for "all men" was the result of the "one trespass" by Adam and "justification" for "all men" was the result of the "one act of righteousness" by Jesus Christ.  And if verse 18 was all the information we had then it stands to reason that both Original Sin and Universal Salvation were valid.  But as I stated before, we must look at the context and find what is already "understood" by the writer and should be understood by the reader; the redundant information that Paul chose not to repeat.

The key to understanding Paul's teaching about Original Sin is found six verses earlier in verse 12.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.

Paul does not say death came to all men because Adam sinned; he says death came to all men because all sinned.  In other words Paul believes all men are held accountable for their lifestyle just like Adam and Eve and Cain and Able were.  And because all men sin, they all receive the exact same punishment for sin; they are separated from God in relational death.  In verses 13 to 14, Paul states that this accountability is not influenced by the absence of the written law.  Humanly speaking there is no guilt if no law was broken.  That's why societies make laws about everything.  Men are not held accountable (at least not to the same measure) for sin unless they know what they are doing is wrong.  Hence we say to our children, "Well next time you do this you are going to get a spanking."  We make allowance for ignorance.  But from God's perspective, a person is a sinner if he doesn't "do what is right" (Genesis 4:7), regardless of whether he has received a specific law against a specific sin or not.  Thus Paul says, "death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command."

What Paul is doing in Romans 5, is eliminating any discussion about whether the Gentiles can be let off for their sinful behavior on account of not having the written law, like the Jews had.  Paul's contention is that everyone is judged by how he or she lived, regardless of whether they had specific laws against sinful behavior.  All are sinners because all sin and all are saved through faith in Jesus Christ.

Now understanding verse 15 to 21 is a little bit trickier than verses 12 to 14.  In verses 12 to 14 Paul added the qualifier "because all sinned"; "death came to all men, because all sinned".  In verse 15 to 21 he doesn't add the qualifier because it's understood.  In leaving out the qualifier verse 18 is left open for interpreters to believe Paul is making a case for Original Sin. But that's not the only qualifier Paul leaves out.  In speaking about salvation from sin, he leaves out the qualifier, "for those who believe in Jesus Christ." thus opening the door for some interpreters to make a case for Universalism, that people are saved by Christ's death and resurrection regardless of whether they have faith or not.

Let's take a look at the qualifiers for faith in Christ.

Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.  There is no difference,  23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,  24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Notice the two uses of the word "all" here!  Firstly, "all" who "believe" receive righteousness which comes "through faith".  Secondly, "all" have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Romans 4:23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone,  24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness — for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.  25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. 

There is no way from these two verses that Paul believes in Universalism.  Salvation and righteousness comes by faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

Now lets look at verses 15 to 21 and add the qualifiers, the understood information back into the text.

Romans 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man (because like him all sinned), how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many (who believe in him)!

When we add back the qualifiers that Paul previously gave then his meaning becomes clear.  Everyone, everywhere, whether Jew or Gentile is a sinner because we sin like Adam our ancestor.  And everyone, everywhere, whether Jew or Gentile are saved through faith in Jesus Christ.  There is no difference between Jew or Gentile, in Christ we are one people, one church, one holy nation.  That's what Paul's been arguing for since verse 1 of chapter 1, and will be what he argues for until the end of the letter.

Now lets read verses 16 to 20 again, adding back the qualifiers.

Romans 5:16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation (because all sin), but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification (for all those who believe).  17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (because all sin), how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men (because all sin), so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men (who believe in Christ).  19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners (because all sin), so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous (who believe in Christ). 20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,  21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. 

The reason Paul chooses to contrast Adam and Christ here in chapter 5 is because both Jews and Gentiles are descendants of Adam.  Earlier in chapter 4 he dealt with Abraham, but Gentiles cannot relate to Abraham, but they can relate to Adam. But in no way does Romans 5 teach Original Sin. Paul states several times, including verse 12, and 3:23 that separation from God in relational death occurs in mankind because everyone sins.  Neither sin nor the penalty for Adam's sin is inherited.  The only thing that can be said to be "inherited" or passed down is the accountability for sin.  All men are held accountable for their actions just as Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel were.  Adam "died" because of his one sin.  We die because of our sins.

Romans 5 also does not teach universalism.  Paul states several times including verse 17, 3:22 and 4:23 that God's grace and gift of eternal life is only for those who receive it in faith.  All who have faith in Christ receive the gift that brings justification.  Those that have no faith are left in their sins.

The reason Paul leaves out the qualifiers is for brevity.  He doesn't want to be redundant.  We need to be careful not to take scripture out of context and make it say the opposite of what it does.  Romans 5 cannot be used in support of determinism in any form.

Thoughts on Prayer

I for one believe that what we experience in real life is important. The 5 senses are to be trusted and if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it must be a duck. Here are some of my experiences with prayer.

I was 21 when my father died of colon cancer. He was 71 and in charge of finding land and building a Christian camp grounds in Nagano prefecture. He had to leave that work unfinished. When they discovered the cancer and operated it had progressed to level 4 and had gone to his liver and other parts of his body. He couldn't continue chemotherapy as it was wiping out his white blood cells. The elders came twice, anointed him with oil and prayed for him to be healed. I prayed every day for him as did thousands of other people and he still died.

My wife is Japanese and she is the only Christian in her family. When I was 29 her uncle who was 55 had a heart attack in the hospital during a routine check up. My wife's mother came and asked me to pray to my God for him. If he lived it would have been a strong witness to the power of God and I prayed for hours, but he didn't survive. My wife's mother never believed in Christ, nor has any of her family.

10 years ago a fellow missionary who had been away from the field came back to Japan. He was looking for a place to serve. One of our churches in Hiroshima who was in need of a minister had him come and invited him to minister to them. He accepted, and it looked like a perfect match, but only a couple of months later he was diagnosed with cancer and was sent back to the United States. Everyone prayed for him including many Christians in America and Japan. He died two months later of melanoma. He was 50 years old. I asked another missionary friend of mine, "What the hell is God doing?" And he replied "I haven't the slightest idea."

About 5 years ago, another Japanese minister/teacher friend and coworker of mine was also diagnosed with cancer. All the Christians within our churches prayed for him and he also died. He was 55 years old. He is greatly missed.

An acquaintance of mine in America had a son with leukemia that went into remission. He claimed God had healed his son. I asked how could he be sure? Was he not under the care of doctors? Perhaps it wasn't God at all. Talk about reaping the whirlwind. He chewed me out something fierce about my lack of faith and the clear fact that God had healed his son. Some years later I was back in America at the same church and asked about him and was told that he had left the church. I asked about his son and they said his leukemia had returned. I don't know if he survived or not, but one thing was true, God hadn't healed him.

I've run into many people in my ministry who prayed genuine prayers for a great many things, including escape from physical and mental abuse in their homes when they were children, and God never rescued them. They are so resentful to ever believe he exists.

A few years ago another missionary related a story about a children's meeting he had and that they had prayed it wouldn't rain on that day. It didn't rain and they had a good meeting so he declared God had done a miracle for them. I challenged him, that it was mere coincidence. Several other missionaries took his side and they all started shouting at me to "Give God the credit! Give God the credit." They never talked to me again after that.

Another missionary related a story about needing $200.00 in school expenses and went to his grandmother's house to ask her for help. Before he was able to ask her she offered to give him $200.00, the exact amount he was going to ask her for. He claims it was God's miracle. I can't help thinking that if it was a genuine miracle then God certainly wasted one because the missionary was going to ask for the money and would have gotten it anyway.

Now I ask, why would God control the weather and cause this man's grandmother to give $200.00, which there was no need for, and not answer the prayers for the lives of his workers who were greatly needed on the mission field?

The classic answers are, "You didn't have enough faith." (But it only takes the faith of a mustard seed to move mountains right?) "You weren't sincere enough." "God has a better thing planned for you." "We can't know God's bigger plan." "When God closes a door, he opens a window." "God moves in mysterious ways." "God will answer in his own time." "God wants you to learn patience."

Oh come on now! If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck. We need to stop making excuses and admit that God hasn't answered prayer, period.

Well, that leaves me with a dilemma. Did God lie? Does he answer prayer arbitrarily? If so, does he answer our prayers for forgiveness arbitrarily too? What exactly did he promise to answer? What promises were made to the apostles?  Were those promises for them only? What promises were made for every Christian? Do we have prayer all wrong? Perhaps these things we are praying for aren't promised, that's why they aren't answered!

This is the way I have resolved the issue. I believe, New Covenant promises are strictly spiritual. No physical promises are promised. The Old Covenant promises were physical, but the New Covenant ones are spiritual only. God answers prayer for spiritual things. He will not answer prayers for physical things, he is not obligated to do so. (Thus there should be no surprise that they aren't answered in real life, which is my experience. Prayer that people claim is answered is of a kind that is easily explained as coincidental.)

I thing God is saying, "I'll take care of the spiritual things, and I'll let nature take care of the physical things. If I interfere with nature it will be for special cases only. Cases that involve fulfillment of a promise I have made or the establishment of the New Covenant."

I'm a cessationist when it comes to the gifts of the Spirit. I believe they were meant for the "times of the end" of the Old Covenant till A.D. 70. But I would extend that cessationism to include prayer for physical things as well.

Answered prayer for spiritual things I have experienced often. Prayer for the power to forgive others, even deep resentment has been answered. Prayer for courage, for patience, for peace of mind, to stop worrying, for faith, for acceptance, for forgiveness (promised to be given if we believe it's already happened). These things God has answered EVERY TIME I pray them. I have real life confirmation and experiential evidence for answered prayer for spiritual things, but for physical things real life confirmation and experiential evidence point the other way. They are rarely if ever answered.

Many people believe that in my reaction I have swung the pendulum too far but I have never claimed God doesn't answer prayer, just prayer for things not promised within the New Covenant. He answers prayer everyday for many people but only for the "good" things, the things within his will, the things that really matter.

I stopped praying for physical things about 15 years ago and I have not noticed any change in my physical well being one way or the other. When I was praying for physical things and I lost income I had a lot of anxiety until the situation was resolved, but after I stopped praying for physical things, even when I lost income, I had total peace of mind and things resolved themselves anyway. It allowed me to focus my attention on "the kingdom of God and it's righteousness" rather than on "God, heal this person and heal that person, bless this person and bless that person. Give me this and give me that." Does that make any sense to you? Not a single prayer for physical things in 15 years and my faith is stronger because of it. The spiritual blessings have been abundant. What need do I have of physical things? They are the things pagans seek.

When I preach here in Japan I often have them notice what can be found in their own temples and shrines. They all sell talismans. One for safety on the highway. One for good health. One for success in school. One for success in business. One for success in marriage. They are all for physical things; health, wealth and happiness from physical things. None of the temples sell talismans for loving one's enemy, for a pure heart, for righteousness, for patience or any spiritual thing. I ask the Japanese, "What do you truly desire? If it's physical things you desire then you don't need Christ, just go to their shrines and buy up all the talismans. But if you want something that can change the heart and can really make a difference in their lifestyle then come follow Christ. He can give you what really counts."

Christ did signs and wonders but never prayed for physical things for himself. He resisted temptation for physical things when tested in the desert. He didn't pray for his own safety in Gethsemane. In all those cases he prayed not for his own will but God's will and God's will is for us is to develop good spiritual lives. Why would Christ ever answer prayers for health, wealth and physical happiness when he himself never pursued them?

Jesus said, "the truth will set you free". When I stopped praying for physical things, they ceased to matter and I WAS SET FREE from them. Truth is, I haven't gotten many people to agree with me. Physical things are just so important to them. Maybe you people are different.