Time to get back to Romans 5:12. My first complaint about the misuse of this passage concerned how creationists (of the literal, 24 hr. day variety) use this verse to argue against the possibility of ANY death before the Fall. This in turn is used to argue against the fossil record / any view of creation that argues for a very ancient earth.
In this installment, we start into the heart of some serious theological issues. Let’s get started with Millard Erickson:
All of us, apparently without exception, are sinners. By this we mean not merely that all of us sin, but that we all have a depraved or corrupted nature which so inclines us toward sin that it is virtually inevitable. How can this be? What is the basis of this amazing fact? Must not some common factor be at work in all of us? It is as if some antecedent or a priori factor in life leads to universal sinning and universal depravity. But what is this common factor that is often referred to as original sin? Whence is it derived, and how is it transmitted or communicated?
We find the answer in Romans 5: “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-” (v. 12). This thought is repeated in several different ways in the succeeding verses: “For if the many died by the trespass of the one man” (v. 15); “The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation” (v. 16); “For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man” (v. 17); “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men” (v. 18); “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners” (v. 19). Paul sees some sort of causal connection between what Adam did and the sinfulness of all people throughout all time. But just what is the nature of this influence exerted by Adam upon all humans, and by what means does it operate? (Erickson, Christian Theology, 648).
And elsewhere:
The approach that sees Adam’s connection with us in terms of a federal headship is generally related to the creationist view of the origin of the soul. This is the view that humans receive their physical nature by inheritance from their parents, but that the soul is specially created by God for each individual and united with the body at birth (or some other suitable moment). Thus, we were not present psychologically or spiritually in any of our ancestors, including Adam. Adam, however, was our representative. God ordained that Adam should act not only on his own behalf, but also on our behalf, so that the consequences of his actions have been passed on to his descendants as well. Adam was on probation for all of us as it were; and because Adam sinned, all of us are treated as guilty and corrupted . . . The other major approach sees Adam’s connection with us in terms of a natural (or realistic) headship. This approach is related to the traducianist view of the origin of the soul, according to which we receive our souls by transmission from our parents, just as we do our physical natures. So we were present in germinal or seminal form in our ancestors; in a very real sense, we were there in Adam. His action was not merely that of one isolated individual, but of the entire human race. Although we were not there individually, we were nonetheless there. The human race sinned as a whole. Thus, there is nothing unfair or improper about our receiving a corrupted nature and guilt from Adam, for we are receiving the just results of our sin. This is the view of Augustine. (Erickson, Christian Theology, 651-652).
My question, to start the ball rolling, is simple: If ALL humans since Adam inherited Adam’s guilt (however that happens), then why does Jesus get off the hook? He is 100% human in biblical theology. His genealogy goes straight back to Adam (see Luke 3:23-38; esp. v. 38). Now, I know what the standard answers are. “Oh, Jesus was God, so he didn’t have original sin.” This avoids the question; it doesn’t answer it: he’s was also 100% human. To deny that is deny the incarnation It wouldn’t be a real or actual incarnation then). How about “He was virgin born, and we all know that sin is transmitted through the male-after all, Jesus is compared to Adam in Romans 5, not Eve.” Also evasive and poorly thought-through. I would hope it’s clear that all women are also sinners and have original sin. Mary was a woman, and she was the mother of Jesus. There is also no verse in the Bible that says sin is transmitted through only males. Another problem – so, if we cloned a woman and implanted that clone in another woman, would it be sinless since there was no male father? Of course not – to be human is to be under the curse of Adam. But this is a modern illustration of the same logic as theologians use to get Jesus off the hook (i.e., to stiff arm Romans 5:12 when it comes to Jesus). The problem is straightforward: we either assume the full humanity of Jesus or we don’t. The full humanity of Jesus–laid out so clearly and repeatedly in the New Testament–isn’t what’s causing the original sin problem with him; it’s the way we understand original sin and misuse Romans 5:12.
I could add that, isn’t it curious how NOWHERE ELSE in the Old Testament do we see any writer looking back to Genesis 3 as an explanation for the transmission of sin to all humankind? Kind of curious, to say the least. And there’s yet another problem. How is it that we get hard nosed about ALL humans being infected by the sin of the first Adam, but we want to qualify the effect of the sacrifice of the second Adam? You know why – we want to avoid universalism (see this article for a recent treatment of this – not my view, but there is some overlap; and he lays out the universalism problem nicely). But then what do we do with Romans 5:18
18 Therefore, as one trespass? led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness? leads to justification and life for ?all men.
And to compound the problem, does Paul contradict himself in the very next verse:
19 For as by the one man’s ?disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s ?obedience the many will be made righteous. (Many? I thought ALL were made sinners by the one man, Adam – huh?)
You may not have reflected on it before, but these problems stem from the traditional view of Romans 5:12 articulated by Erickson (and countless others). My view is that it’s a transmitted tradition, mostly due to the influence of Catholicism (taken up by Protestantism) and people have not thought about it for centuries, being content with “answers” to the problems that really aren’t answers.
I have a solution to this issue (not original to me, but I’ve nuanced it a bit), but it involves a completely different take (one that is distinctly ancient Near Eastern in approach – there I go again, contextualizing the Old Testament!).
But before I get into that, I’d like to see what you’re thinking about this post first. (And there are still more problems to cover).
Mike,
I have also had issue with the classic notion of original sin as being largely extrabiblical, so I’m tracking with you on this argument. One element of the whole Romans 5 fight that I’ve never heard anyone (in this camp) properly address is the end of verse 12:
“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to all men because all sinned. . .” (ESV, emphasis mine)
Sounds to me like it’s our own sin that condemns us, not Adam’s.
But the real rub comes in your excellent point about Jesus, which I had not thought of before. If Jesus is fully human, you are right that the sin of Adam should inure to him too.
I can think of several ways to explain this away–none of them satisfactory. ;{) On one hand, we could suggest that Jesus inherited, not Adam’s sin, but rather Adam’s susceptibility to death. But if that’s what we inherit, the anti-universalism argument loses steam, since all are not guilty due to Adam’s guilt, merely mortal.
On the other hand we could say as Rom. 5:12 implies, that none of us actually inherits either sin or mortality, but we become mortal because we all sin. This, of course, is countered both by Jesus’ mortality, and that of infants who haven’t had the chance to sin.
Or we could come closer to my own belief, which is that the rebellion of small-a adam (I understand it’s close to the Hebrew word for “man”) has brought both sin and mortality into the corrupted cosmos, in which we all participate and partake–and into which Jesus voluntarily incarnated in order to defeat sin and death, and to effect reconciliation. Then we must take Paul’s “one man” language as analogy that Paul himself never intended to be taken literally.
I’m intrigued to see where you go with this. . .
You’re right, these aren’t answers, then, are they? But didn’t Jesus say that He came from above? I mean, doesn’t that make his humanity same-but-different from ours? No one else has ever come from above; maybe this means his body is a 100% human but his soul/spirit did not come from the same place as ours (hence not being tied to the curse of man)? What you’re saying implies Jesus wasn’t sinless or at the very least was sinless but somehow just as under the curse of sin as we were (or*gasp* 3rd option HAD the sinful nature, was under the curse, yet never gave in to it).I realize I’m grasping at straws here, but this is a tough one…(thanks, Dr. Heiser now I’m gonna have a headache lol).
Well in this case, what do you make of Psalms 51:5 ? I understand that Jesus was 100% human, but he was also 100% God which could not be true if he was not conceived by the Holy Spirit (since he really comes from the Father, from eternity). Being 100% human does not necessarily make him sinful in the sense portrayed in the Psalm above. Mary’s womb was sanctified in this sense. Although the Genealogy of Matthew passes through a slight different genealogy than Luke, the latter demonstrates his human origins and the former his messianic and Israelite lineage, but there’s also the third genealogy in the gospels, John 1:1-14.
Now, to me, you will most likely come up in your next post with something new to my knowledge from an ANE perspective. Let’s see the interesting material you will share, contextualizing the OT.
@dwmtractor: some good stuff in this reply! Your observation about DEATH being what is “spread” (imputed) is very important. And it is indeed our own sin that condemns us.
Your sentence here captures my view: “On one hand, we could suggest that Jesus inherited, not Adams sin, but rather Adams susceptibility to death. But if thats what we inherit, the anti-universalism argument loses steam, since all are not guilty due to Adams guilt, merely mortal.”
That’s right on, but I’m hoping to unpack it to show its coherence with the rest of Scripture AND that it does not result in a Pelagian view.
Your second comment, I think, is the reverse (we sin because we are mortal – we are imperfect and “cannot not sin”, as Augustine would say – though I say it for different reasons). I’ll be unpacking this.
@Jonnathan Molina: Jesus was 100% human, but he wasn’t ONLY human! Stay tuned (and take some aspirin). It’ll be annoyingly clear when we’re done.
@blop2008: Psalm 51:5 is correct, but it should not be read for what it doesn’t say. It doesn’t say that Adam’s guilt was transmitted to all human beings. It says that all humans, born as they are from human mothers, are, from birth, destined to sin (if given the chance – i.e., if not aborted, or dying at birth or in the womb, etc.). We know that the sex act isn’t sinful, so that isn’t the point of the verse. Like Gen 1:26 (you’ve heard me go off on this many times if you follow what I’ve written in the past), the phrase “in sin my mother conceived me” really is better translated as a beth essentiae: “as a sinner my mother conceived me.” This is far more coherent and doesn’t entrap us like the traditional view of Romans 5:12. But you say, “well, then doesn’t that mean that Jesus was created with the inevitable potential to sin?” The answer is “yes”, but it’s a meaningless question, since Jesus was MORE (not less) than human — his deity nature kept him from sinning; it overruled the humanity. But this is different than having Jesus INHERIT GUILT FROM ADAM as the traditional view forces upon us (unless we cheat like most have done down through the ages). Jesus WAS NEVER GUILTY before God, even though he is a full son of Adam.
Couldn’t the meaning of “in sin my mother conceived me” just be talking about David’s conception and not all humans?… so perhaps… his mother had touched something unclean and did not tell David’s father or something… and that was considered sin…
There’s no indication Psalm 51 is about all human conceptions. The other things you list are only speculative, having no touchpoint from the text. I think it simplest to say that the comment means David knew he was inherently a sinner — that he could not avoid sinning. It says nothing about him inheriting anyone else’s guilt.
“Nature” as used here by Erickson [and he has too much company] is as undefinable as indefensible – a use of term to describe something ill-defined [certinaly not conclusively-defined] in scripture. I take super-objection to the reach made by New testament translators in using “sinful nature” as a sub for “flesh”. If that is not a case of theo-adjusted-translating I’ll eat my hat. I see no warrant for such a leap of faith – we no more can define “nature” of the invisible inner-man than we can precisely divine soul/spirit. Scripture should be left to say what it says. Humankind has an issue rooted in his Flesh that embraces the rewards of sin-decisions. It is not ONLY the christian [the new creation] that has an inner war of flesh vs. spirit.
We simply do not have enough information given in scripture to surgically parse the forensic change to Adam’s inner core at the FALL, and whether a now-mutant metaphysical DNA was passed by Adam to the entire race I rather think that Mankind as he is defined by scripture has the nature given to him by YHWH at the outset. The fact that Adam sinned, and that his offspring did likewise, doesn’t define a mutation of mankind’s ‘nature’.
That said, I look with fascination upon John 20:22. Is this not the ‘last Adam’ [not 2nd, MSH] breathing the new ‘nephesh’ into His several “Adams” there assembled? I mean it forensically. Was this a replacement of the “mutant” with the “new” – a new race, a new creature, a new ‘man’. As N.T. Wright elegantly illustrates, the resurrected Jesus was not merely resuscitated but recreated – a form of being, if you will, that had not previously existed.
Michael is it not possible that the universalist argument does address only one-half of the ‘undoing of the Adamic mutation’ ? : to wit, that all of mankind is indeed “declared righteous”, which is the first step in legally enabling the impartation of this ‘new nephesh’, but action is required to roundup the strays and effect in them a willingness to receive the spirit that is being offered? Put another way, was it not necessary FIRST that the immediate disciples of Jesus “become righteous” in order to prep them for the impartation of the new spirit? [can an unrighteous person receive this spirit? I think not]
Augustine I think had several motives in developing his argument of universal sinfulness – an ‘original sin’ mutation passed to all members of the descendants of Adam, of whom Jesus certainly is one, as you point out. But this is only half the argument – the flipside is the corruption that we latecomers know as ‘hyper-Calvinism’ – pre-destination in its more extreme manifestations.
[for everyone’s sake I will avoid the abortion dilemna]
As to the broader universalism issue, I think it cannot be quarantined in a discussion on the given topic, and I think the more interesting passages to refer are Acts 10:34-35 [which is radioactive to the predestination-nazi] and Titus 2:11.
I do think the “nature of Jesus” is a whole other course that still needs a lot of work. Phillipians 2, the sermons of Paul, the opening of Romans [1:4], the perspective of the writer of the letter to the Hebrews – all need a fresh an unbiased look if such a thing is possible.
“to wit, that all of mankind is indeed declared righteous, which is the first step in legally enabling the impartation”
Even though I would not phrase it like this (especially the “impartation” part)… this is how I view it … that indeed what Jesus did (in dying) was spread to all men… but what he did in the resurrection, perhaps comes to only those who believe… therefore the two parts both needed to be “saved”…
I heard it once like this, that man is sick and dead… but you can’t take care of one problem and not the other… otherwise you have a sick person… or a dead well person..
I can’t recall where this quote comes from or precisely what its context was.
Ok, Dr. Heiser, I’ve taken my Bayer and I can’t wait to see where you go with this. I also read the article and just wanted to know what exactly you disagree with (since you said it wasn’t your view when you linked it). I thought the point of reading the text as “all men without ethnic distinction” as opposed to “all men without exception” was pretty good and consistent with Paul’s theme throughout the epistle.
Hello Mike,
I don’t have a response as such but I do have a couple of questions –
Was Adam truly human before the fall?
Was Jesus the 2nd Adam in Adam’s pre-fall state?
Just interested..
Thanks,
Lesly.
@Lesly: on Adam: Yes; I believe Adam had “contingent immortality” (he’d keep living as long as three things held true: (1) he ate from the tree of life; (2) he didn’t do anything stupid to kill himself; (3) he didn’t sin and get expelled from the garden).
On Jesus: Jesus was the second Adam in the way Paul describes in Romans 5.
@Cognus: you’ll find which items I resonate with in your reply this evening. I should be able to return to Romans 5:12 tonight.
@Jonnathan Molina: I’ll be returning to this tonight, so stay tuned.
I have seen an interpretation that goes something like this for verses 18 and 19 . That verse 19 is specific to those who are saved or to the reader who is saved . So while verse 18 is more general statement verse 19 is specific to “the many” .
Hello,
According to modern nazarene / messianic theology Jesus got “off the hook” because he fulfilled the Torah, that is he kept it perfectly, therefore being understood as the “living Torah”. Could this thought be helpful?
this view still presumes Jesus needed to get off the hook (i.e., if he failed at the law he’d be a sinner); I don’t. That view would end up saying that perfect works would cancel out the “sin nature” (other than having problems with that as a concept, I also have problems with this perfectibility approach).
Years late and maybe a dollar short 🙂
Who said Jesus got any of his humanity from Mary? Since God obviously supplied the sperm side of the equation, why couldn’t he just as easily supplied the egg as well? Thus Jesus could be 100% human, but without receiving anything from Mary. Mary merely supplied the womb and the genealogical context.
Just a thought.
Then we’d have a human who cannot identify with our humanity, since he wouldn’t be part of our humanity, but some “supernatural humanity.”
These sorts of interpretive oddities are precisely why the traditional view of Romans 5:12 is a problem. They make such speculation necessary. If we just take Romans 5:12 for what it says, choosing not to insert the transmission of guilt, there is no such need for theological bungee jumping. 🙂
I realize I’m late in the conversation but anyways thanks for your insights and I just wanted to add that although you dismiss the argument that Jesus being born without human father meant he did not inherit sin, I will say it is signifigant that he wasn’t born only without at father but with the Holy Spirit as a father.
The verses which come to mind are the “uniting” verses, among them :
1. Coll 1:21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him,”
2. Eph 1:10 (the revealed mystery of the Father’s will) 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
Now I take these to mean at least 2 things: Jesus in His flesh united Israel and the gentiles through Ruth the Moabite, and Jesus as the Holy Spirit’s seed united things in Heaven and things on earth, God and man, elohim and adam.
I don’t want to belabor the point, but just to say I think there is some significance to Jesus as the creator of a new race(new Adam) being born “not under the curse.” Also, the promise was to Eve that the seed would come.
Thanks again
he’s still human and a descendant of Adam; that’s the issue, regardless of the Spirit. The Spirit’s role didn’t make him non-human.
Look at the word “because”. I think its eph ho in Greek. 2 words not one word. Translated as “on which”. Death then becomes the reason all sin. Death or mortality becomes astumbling block on which all eventually “miss the mark” or sin. Death did not spread to babies because babies sinned before they were born.
Your last line contradicted your thesis.
Hi,
I think all of these questions hinge on 2 things…. what Adam did to lose ” immortality” for the entire human race and…… is this death merely the physical death or does it include the spiritual.
Firstly, Jesus did die a human death so as a man his body experienced death so in that sense he was also subjected to Adam’s death
But, spiritually, he didn’t die and this because he was without sin.
Clearly, whatever process happened to Adam when he “ate the apple” was a physical one which applied to the human Jesus as much as to any other human.
But the spiritual death had no effect on him and in fact gave him the essence to overcome the physical death
So my real question is what did Adam do? In my search for this answer, I have come to believe that Adam by “eating the apple” chose knowledge of good and EVIL and the knowledge was an experiential knowledge in which was included the experience of physical death (the evil). And this choice involved a means whereby his physical DNA and that of Eves was encoded with eventual physical death which since it is written into the human genetic code would be passed on to every single human born after that. God never told Adam that He would kill him if adam ate the apple but rather that Adam would die as a result of eating the apple.
Would God have expelled Adam from the garden for simply “eating the apple”…. I don’t believe so. I believe that after they “ate the apple” Adam and Eve chose expulsion by hiding from God which in essence is what spiritual death is (absence from God’s presence). As CS Lewis puts it, “they decided to set up on their own” without God and this is why they were expelled from the garden.
The first mention of sin in the bible isn’t here either……
It is in Genesis 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And to thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
It is saying if you don’t do well that sin is at your door…. it doesn’t say if you commit evil, but even if you just don’t do well which I think in the original is referring to simply being unhappy…… What it seems to be saying is that sin is not something we do, but a consequence of our thoughts which have moved from a focus on God to a focus on ourselves and our situation. And this shift is inevitable now that we no longer “walk in the garden with God”. It is what Adam and Eve did in the garden when they hid from God.. .
I’m not sure I see the point of the inquiry. It seems that the text is clear (?): Adam sinned, was expelled from the garden, cutting him off from the tree of life, and so was put on the path to a physical death. The point of course is that sin separates us from God’s presence; God is the life-giver (in every sense), and humans need to be brought to right relationship with him to share in God’s life — eternal life in his presence.
I am not convinced that they were allowed to eat from the tree of life before the “fall”…. so if they weren’t, then what caused death….. and since Jesus died a physical death (he did actually die and was physically dead for 2 days) and was without sin, this inferrs that sinlessness isn’t a prevention for physical death…..
When A and E were expelled it was to prevent them from eating from the tree of life which would have made them immortal. The question is were they physically immortal before or spiritually immortal or both. Is the “death” that entered the world a physical one, a spiritual one or both? It doesn’t say anywhere in the text that they were physically immortal prior to the fall….. I think that is an assumption that has been read into the text.
I don’t think its as simple as saying that not being able to continue eating from the tree of life is what caused physical death in humans. There is something in a human body that is built into us that causes death otherwise Jesus, the man without sin, would not have died a physical death. I understand that the argument can be made that he took our sins upon him and this caused his physical death, but then after he paid for our sins, if it was for our physical resurrection, then shouldn’t it follow that we too no longer die a physical death since our sins have been paid for and us redeemed?
The point I am trying to make is that I don’t think the death that entered the world had anything to do with physical bodies at all…. The only humans that never died were those who literally walked with God and only because they were taken up to heaven before their bodies died. It is possible that after walking with God and never sinning, adam might not have died, but been taken up to heaven and there taken on the spiritual body that is now imparted to us through Jesus in the resurrection.
As I said, I am not convinced that they ate from the tree of life ever and am wondering what kind of immortality the tree of life would impart…. I am leaning towards spiritual immortality because having “yada” without being subject to God and immortality “like gods” was the reason for expulsion from Eden. It seems to me that Adam and Eve after eating from the tree of life would have become spiritually immortal which could not be undone by sin, else why would it be such an issue if they ate from the tree of life, were immortal, sinned and then weren’t immortal anymore). It seems that they would have become like the “angels” and there are “angels” that are against God and have been almost forever. That state of being is what God wanted to prevent by preventing them from ever eating from the tree of life.
I think their apparent (in the sense that they might live thousands of years but not forever) physical immortality was due to their “nakedness” which is what they lost after eating the fruit. Or put another way, clearly they weren’t physically blind and clearly they could see each other, but something “opened their eyes” and the result of that was seeing they were “naked” and the result of that was hiding from God…. which is spiritual death.
What was the tree of knowledge of good and evil doing there in the first place?
How about looking at it this way? Man (adam) chose to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which opened his eyes to see that he was ‘naked’ – self-awareness, followed by self-sufficiency and all that goes with ‘self.’ He lost his innocence, and rather than having only the knowledge of God and the Life he could have had, it reduced him to a creature of mortal flesh – the ‘death’ God had spoken of.
This brings us to the reason Jesus died….to give life. It’s more about life and death than about sin, but Satan prefers that we become side-tracked with the ‘sin’ issue so he can keep us focused on our flesh, doing ‘good’ and avoiding ‘evil’ because of our inherent knowledge of good and evil. None of which can give Life.
Let me put it this way: Through disobedience, man partook of the forbidden fruit of one of two trees mentioned in the Garden of Eden; he became as God to know good and evil. (Genesis 3:22) He usurped the knowledge that rightfully belonged solely to his Creator, and subsequently died, becoming a mere creature of mortal flesh.
From that day on, every person comes into the world a mortal soul with the need to be born anew in order to receive the Life that was forfeited, once for all, by the first man (Adam/Eve). This Life has been made available through Jesus Christ, Gods Son, when He offered up His flesh, once for all, as the final Sacrifice of shed blood and death to flesh.
Jesus told Nicodemus, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.'” (John 3:6-7 EMTV)
Paul said that Jesus “came in the likeness of sinful flesh.” (Romans 8:3) It’s all about death and Life. And in the end, the Book of Life will be opened. It doesn’t say the “book of forgiven sins”. Those who have the Life of Christ indwelling them will have their names in the Lamb’s Book of Life.
I could go on and on, but this is a sampling of what the Lord has taught me in answer to my prayer to be shown the meaning of the Cross. That was 30 years ago, and the answer has been ongoing.
Do you have any work that you have done that you can point me to about the “kingdom of heaven?”
nope; haven’t done anything there specifically. What is the question about the phrase?
I’m late on this, and new, but I love your work MR.Heiser.
I think Jesus was 100% human and God. And had the same challenges as other humans.(Why else would he be tempted) The difference to me is that He choose not to be disobedient, which separated him spiritually from others.
So glad to see your post. I read Erickson’s comments years ago and wrote out a response for myself thought for thought, though not word for word. You put it better than I. Yay!