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.