I’m reading through Romans right now, on target for finishing my through-the-NIV-Bible-in-a-year goal. This morning I arrived again at that head-scratching passage at the end of Romans 5. So much ink has been spilled over this passage that a few more bytes shouldn’t hurt. So here I go again, thinking aloud over this passage. (See a previous post here.) Please test my thoughts and respond below if you wish.
Here’s my initial dilemma: I’m not satisfied with the typical Reformed approach to this passage. For one thing, it often imports foreign language about a “sinful nature.” (See that previous post.) Whether the idea of a sinful nature is accurate or not, I’d rather attempt to understand this passage with the language and imagery that it actually uses.
For another, I’m not quite convinced by the interpretation that says that we sinned in Adam and that we are guilty (eternally damned) because of that act of sin. For example, here are some typical Reformed statements that leave me dissatisfied:
First, from Warren W. Wiersbe:
“For that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12) means “all have sinned in Adam’s sin.” – [amazon text=Be Right (Romans)&asin=1434768473], pg. 64
[amazon template=thumbnail11&asin=0310494001]Second, from Douglas Moo. “At the risk of a gross simplification,” he summarizes the interpretive options about “the relationship between the first or original sin of Adam and the sin and death of all other people” into three categories. The first two, imitation and infection, he rejects as not fully explaining the evidence of Romans 5.1 The third, inclusion, is his preference:
The relationship between the sin of Adam and the sin of all people is closer [than merely infection]. How can Paul say in the same passage that all die because all sin (v. 12) and all die because Adam sinned (v. 18)? Because Adam’s sin is, at the same time, the sin of everyone else as well. I think Paul does infer this idea of inclusion here in Romans 5:12-21. I lean this way for three basic reasons: (a) the repeated emphasis on the determinative significance of the “one” act of the “one” man Adam (vv. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19); (b) the corporate background of Paul’s thinking as sketched above; and (c) the more natural parallel it creates between Christ and Adam. – [amazon text=Romans (NIV Application Commentary)&asin=0310494001], pg. 190
Third, this understanding is most concisely expressed in an ABC poem from an old New England Primer:
In Adam’s fall
We sinned all.
This passage is hugely complex and I don’t have time to discuss all the evidence in favor of the Reformed position. I respect Moo’s scholarship deeply and he deserves much more than the following few lines. But let me proceed by responding briefly to Moo’s three reasons for leaning toward the inclusion interpretation:
- I think the emphasis on the “one” act of the “one” man Adam fits just as well with the idea that Adam’s sin opened the floodgates, admitting sin into the world, so that humans subsequently were born under the “reign” of sin and death (see Rom. 5:14, 17, 21; 6:12). (We could call this view the imperialism view, to continue Moo’s tidy alliteration.) The “one man” language points to the singularity of the cause, not the precise manner of the cause.
- The idea of corporate solidarity is powerful. Some version of it is undeniably biblical. As Moo notes, it is expressed clearly in the story of Achan, where the Lord says, “Israel has sinned” (Josh. 7:11, emphasis added). I don’t have a ready response to this point, except to note that this Romans passage does not explicitly mention this idea.2 If it is present, it is assumed, not stated. The language of sin and death “reigning,” in contrast, is explicitly and repeatedly emphasized.
- The inclusion view certainly does create a natural parallel between Christ and Adam. The language of being “in Christ” permeates Paul’s thinking, and he uses similar language about being “in Adam” in 1 Corinthians 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” This verse clearly is similar to Romans 5; both speak of death coming through Adam and life coming through Christ. However, there are also differences. Romans 6 does speak of our being “in Christ” (see Rom. 6:3, 11, 23; cf. Rom. 8:1, 39). But Romans 5 itself never uses this language.3 And nowhere in Romans does Paul use the language of being “in Adam.” (In fact, 1 Corinthians 15 is the only place where that exact language is used in all of Scripture.) Additionally, I think the imperialism view, explicit in this passage, creates an equally natural parallel between Christ and Adam: Just as Adam introduced the kingdom of sin and death into the world, so Christ introduced the kingdom of God into the world.
It is this concept of a parallel between Christ and Adam that first triggered this meandering post today. The comparison and contrast between Christ and Adam is central to Paul’s thought in this passage. But how, exactly, are the two alike? And how are they different? Paul is concerned both to compare and to contrast the two. Errors will abound if we think they are similar on a point where they are actually different, or if we think they are different on a point where they are actually similar.
Let me present another dilemma: If we deny that our experience of sin and death comes through our participation in Adam’s trespass (inclusion view), then how can we claim that our experience of righteousness and life comes through our participation in Christ’s act of righteousness ? After all, consider Romans 5:18:
Therefore, as one trespass [or perhaps “the trespass of one”] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness [or perhaps “the act of righteousness of one”] leads to justification and life for all men.
Doesn’t a denial of the inclusion view undermine our inclusion in Christ? How can we be sure of our salvation in Christ if we deny that we were damned because of our participation in Adam’s sin? (I’m sure I’ve seen this presented as an argument in favor of the Reformed inclusion view, although I can’t think at the moment where I’ve read it.) I’d like to suggest several responses.
First, it is important to note that our participation in Christ’s death and resurrection is an undisputable fact. It is taught repeatedly and abundantly throughout the New Testament. This teaching will stand undisturbed even if we do not find it taught in Romans 5.
Second, it is possible to be “in Adam” in some sense without saying that we were “in Adam” as participants in his sin. There are various ways we could be said to be “in Adam.” As I noted, the only place this language is explicitly used is in 1 Corinthians 15:22. What does Paul mean by this phrase in that chapter? Whom is he describing with this phrase? I suggest that Paul is using this phrase to refer to all human beings who have lived after Adam. Notice that the described effect of being “in Adam” is physical death: “in Adam all die.” This death is experienced by all, believer and unbeliever alike. In this sense, all alike are “in Adam,” but some are also “in Christ.” Notice also the scarcity of “sin” language in 1 Corinthians 15. The focus of the whole chapter is on physical death and its reversal in the coming resurrection, not on achieving victory from sin. Romans 5, in contrast, focuses on sin as much as on death. But in neither passage is “in Adam” language used to describe our participation in Adam’s sin.
Third–and this has been my usual answer to my question above–perhaps Paul is not drawing comparisons between the way in which Adam and Christ affect us, but only between the extent and certainty of their effect upon us. In other words, the exact manner or “mechanism” by which Adam’s sin leads to our sin and death might be different from the manner in which Christ’s death and resurrection leads to our salvation. Reformed authors seem to get hung up on the mechanism; if we are not linked to Christ in exactly the same manner in which we were linked to Adam, then, they say, we cannot be certain of obtaining Christ’s benefits. But Paul does not assume identical mechanisms in this passage. Yes, he says both death and life come through “one man.” Yet, just as he contrasts the effects of Adam and Christ, so he also notes some differences in the mechanisms of their actions: one was a trespass, the other an act of righteousness; and one occurred as the first trespass, the other following many trespasses (5:18, 16). So Paul is emphasizing that the effect of Christ’s obedience is even greater than the effect of Adam’s sin. But I’m not sure he is saying that the effects are achieved in the same way.
In fact, a little reflection shows that we are not linked to Christ in the same way we were linked to Adam. We are linked to Christ, Paul insists, by a faith that produces a new birth. But no faith or new birth are needed to live under the effects of Adam’s sin.
Fourth–and finally I’m getting to the point that triggered my thoughts this morning–I think a mistaken, punctiliar model of salvation leads some people to assume a similar, punctiliar model of how Adam’s sin affects us. (Punctiliar means “of or relating to a point of time.“) A punctiliar model of salvation says that we are saved all at once, at one point in time. This is the stereotypical Baptist model, where a saint begins her testimony by saying, “Back on June 6, 1983, at 9:45 p.m., when I got saved…” A parallel view of Adam’s sin says that at the moment that Adam ate of the fruit, then I, too, sinned and died. Both events happen in an instant–instantaneous death, or instantaneous life.
But what if salvation is not punctiliar? Again, this is a big subject. But let’s stick to the immediate context of Romans 5. In this context, salvation is clearly not punctiliar. Paul has already shown in chapters 3 and 4 how a person can be justified. At the beginning of chapter 5 he says that “we have been justified by faith”–it is a completed act.4 But then Paul writes, “Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” (Rom. 5:9-10). Therefore, in the context of Romans 5, salvation is an ongoing and future event. This process nature of salvation is the reason why Romans 5-8 was written: to ensure believers that God intends to complete the work he has begun, and to teach them how to cooperate with God in that work, producing the fruit of righteousness that will lead to the gift of eternal life.
If salvation is not a punctiliar event in Romans 5, then what about damnation? Was that punctiliar? Or is the outworking of Adam’s sin a process, just as the outworking of Christ’s obedience is? I suggest that, just as the results of Christ’s work involve both punctiliar and ongoing elements, so do the results of Adam’s sin. The curse started unfolding immediately. Sin and death entered the world immediately and began to reign. Thorns began to grow. Adam and Eve were immediately expelled from the Garden and the sweetness of God’s presence. But thorns take time to grow. Eve didn’t experience the added pain in childbirth until at least 9 months later. And Adam didn’t die physically until he had lived 930 years. During those years, Adam had many opportunities to choose spiritual life or death. I hope to meet him in glory when Christ returns.
Similarly, the effects of Adam’s sin upon us include both immediate and unfolding elements. The reign of sin and death is felt by each of us from our earliest days–or at least as soon as we experience the trauma of birth. From before we are born we are “damned” to die physically. We are also “damned” to be born into a world where sin reigns, dominating us until–apart from God’s intervention–we will certainly sin. But, as I understand the doctrines of predestination and election, humans are not all damned to eternal death before we are ever born. Rather, those who respond to Christ’s offer are called to make a choice: Will we offer ourselves as slaves to sin, or as servants of righteousness? “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). Our actions, our choice of masters, Paul indicates, effects the outcome: salvation or damnation.
So, when did we die? It depends. We were doomed from the moment of Adam’s sin to be born into a world ruled by sin and death. We began to die physically the moment we are born. We progressively died spiritually as our hearts grew harder through our childhood and youth, prior to our regeneration. We will die physically sometime soon. And, apart from Christ, all will die eternally.
Is it right to say that, because of Adam’s sin, humans are morally evil by nature? Were you evil from the moment of conception? Were you under eternal damnation from that moment? Or did the damnation come later? I am not arguing that we should look around us and conclude that the humans we see are morally good by nature. Everyone I see, if I look long enough (usually not long at all), shows signs of sin within. And these signs of moral badness begin at a very early age. But why are we bad? Is it because of something inner, a spiritual “genetic deficiency”? Or are we corrupted from without, with sin dominating us and increasingly taking up residence within us? I don’t have answers for all my questions, and I’m not satisfied with all the answers I hear.
Why does any of this matter? More specifically, what difference does it make what we believe about how Adam’s sin affects us? Let me answer by quoting Moo once again, this time at length.
First, here is his summary of the inclusive view against which I have been arguing:
While theologians who hold the inclusive view argue about just what our relationship to Adam might be, they all insist that it is a genuine relationship and that, in a way we cannot understand, we really did sin when Adam did. We do not die for a sin someone else commits; we die for a sin we committed. – Ibid., pg. 190.
Now, what difference does this make? Here is an answer from Moo:
The inclusive interpretation has potentially great importance for one of the most difficult of all theological and pastoral issues: the fate of infants and other people without the mental capacity ever to commit a sin or to respond to the gospel. While there is a lot of debate over the details, theologians who think that Adam has infected us all with sin but that we each ultimately die only when we sin personally usually teach that deceased infants go to heaven. After all, they have never committed a personal act of sin. [My understanding would be similar with the imperialism view I suggested above.]
But if one holds the inclusive view, the situation is quite different. Since all people have sinned in Adam, all people, including children of any age, have already been condemned. Does this mean that any child who is not old enough to understand and respond to the gospel is automatically lost? No. Theologians who hold the inclusive view take three different positions. Some think that God, in an act of grace, accepts into heaven all those who never had a chance to commit a sin in their own persons. Others think that the children of believing parents will be saved. Still others think that God’s election will determine the matter: Infants chosen by God for salvation from eternity past will be saved, while those [who have] not been chosen will not be.
I have personally wrestled with this emotive question especially since my niece was born with such severe handicaps that she is not expected to live long. What am I to say to her parents when she dies? What do I respond when they ask me, the “family theologian,” where their daughter will spend eternity? All that is within me wants to be able to assure them that their daughter is in heaven. But I am not yet convinced Scripture gives me the right to do so. And I don’t want to be a purveyor of “cheap comfort,” giving hope based on my emotions rather than on Scripture.
I do not yet have an answer I am comfortable with. But two things I can say. (a) God is just and loving; we can leave such questions in his hands. (b) Whatever position we take will be decisively influenced by our theology of sin and salvation. This, after all, is the ultimate purpose of theology. We put together what God says on issues to come to a conclusion about truths that we can use to comfort, rebuke, and exhort ourselves and others. All theology is finally pastoral theology. – Ibid., pgs. 190-91.
I can say “Amen” to much of what Moo wrote here. I certainly agree that our theological conclusions on such matters must be guided by Scripture and not merely based on our own emotions. And I certainly agree that we can ultimately rest such things in the just and loving hands of God. But I also agree, with Moo, that such questions are worth wrestling with. The answers we find will enable us to comfort and instruct each other better in real-life situations.
And so… I want to ponder this more. I have more thoughts, but this post is long enough. For now, I’m suggesting that Romans 5 portrays an imperialism model of the influence of Adam’s sin more than any of the other common models: imitation, infection, or inclusion.
What do you think? I invite you to respond below.
- Imitation says Adam set a bad example. This, Moo says, was Pelagius’s view. Infection is basically the sinful nature view. “Adam’s sin introduced a stain… on human nature that inevitably leads people to turn away from God.” Moo says this is a “basic truth” taught throughout Scripture, but “it is not explicitly taught in Romans 5:12-21.” (Romans, NIV Application Commentary, pg. 189) ↩
- Notice that Moo excludes the infection view for this same reason. See footnote 1. ↩
- The most similar language it uses is “through Christ”; see 5:1, 2, 11, 17, 21. But this portrays a different relationship than “in Christ.” ↩
- In other biblical contexts justification is described as something that is yet to be completed. But that is another topic! ↩
8 thoughts on ““In Adam’s Fall We…?” Inclusion or Imperialism in Romans 5”
There was one thought that came to me as I was reading this, we think of Adam’s sin, but what about the actual act which resulted in Adam, or humanity, obtaining the knowledge of good and evil, how significant is that? It was forbidden by God, evidently. Is this a detail that needs to be included in the mix in order to understand what happened to Adam and mankind?
Incidentally, speaking of Romans, I’m approximately 1400 pages into Donald Gray Barnhouse’s Exposition on Romans. Just started on Romans 6. As time allows I want to go back into Romans 5 to refresh myself on what he said about your subject. Not that I’m suggesting by any means that he is the ultimate authority.
“what about the actual act which resulted in Adam, or humanity, obtaining the knowledge of good and evil, how significant is that?” I’m sure that is significant. This topic is so complex that I quickly feel in over my head. So I tried to stay exegetically rooted to one passage for the most part in this post, without intending to deny that other angles are important.
Happy reading! Feel free to update us on Barnhouse’s perspective. Can you pin him to one of Moo’s three positions?
Thought-provoking stuff. “Pastoral theology” will influence whether or not one believes there is an age of accountability for children. Is there a point at which they will then be called to account for their sin, or have they committed sin at birth since htey are from Adam? believe that children are born with the propensity to sin because of Adam, and it takes very little time for them to sin, even in the rebellious twists and fights of infants. But I also believe that God extends his mercy to children until they are of an age where they can understand and articulate the need for repentance, and the need for forgiveness of sins. I should consider how Romans 5 could further inform my beliefs on this matter.
“[I] believe that children are born with the propensity to sin because of Adam, and it takes very little time for them to sin, even in the rebellious twists and fights of infants.” I agree, and I think this is true whether one attributes this propensity to “infection,” “imperialism,” or some mix of the two. So choosing one over the other won’t make a difference on this point; either way, if we don’t think infants are doomed to damnation because of their childhood sins, then we are relying on the grace of God to pass over their sins. I think this fits well with the idea (which I described in my post on “sinful nature”) that everyone starts off with their names written in the Book of Life, only to be removed later if/when God chooses as their hearts harden against him.
The “inclusion” view is a bit more problematic regarding this question of infant sins, I think. If, as this view states, we really did participate in Adam’s sin and we really are damned because of it, how could infants not be damned from the moment of conception, or even before? (Infant baptism wouldn’t help those in the womb, of course.) With this view, how can we say that (a) God’s grace covers this guilt on behalf of infants, yet (b) this guilt suddenly “kicks in” at some later date. For by this later time everyone will have committed their own sins worthy of damnation, apart from any participation in Adam’s sin. So by that point being damned for participation in Adam’s sin would seem kind of redundant–an idea not needed to explain the theological data. I suppose it could be true even if not “needed,” but it seems those who believe it point to our participation as being the real reason for our damnation. I might be missing something.
All this talk of damnation makes me very thankful to be a recipient of God’s grace. Thanks for the comment, Rich.
I’m aware that you would like to keep a relatively narrow focus on the Romans 5 passage, and I want to respect that, but there are a few more considerations I’d like to plague you with, if I may.
1) Paul evidently had some direct revelation about some things, this may have been one of them, and he is not telling us all he knows.
2) Paul may (or may not) be using metaphorical language here, I believe he does that in some places, his use of ‘baptized’ in Romans 6:3&4 and in 1Corinthians 10:2 may be examples. Certainly it is something worth considering in difficult passages of his. Sin and death being joined at the hip, as it were, this may be such a place.
3) From what you have written here and as I have read the passages you referred to, I am not convinced that the actuality has to be either/or imperialism or inclusion or any other one thing necessarily, but that it may very well be a blend of both or several. Again, we possibly see other truths in Scripture which may seem to be opposites by man’s thinking, but in God’s reality can both be true.
Case in point might be the old debate about God’s sovereignty and man’s ‘free will’.
4) Which brings me where I wanted to go in the first place. I am not comfortable with the idea of man having ‘free will’ for various reasons, one of them being what Paul said in Romans 6:16 for instance, and also in light of his ‘struggles’ in Romans 7.
Rather than saying man has free will, I would prefer to say man has responsibility of choice. Adam exercised that choice wrongly, which brought death from sin into the world. Each person born into this world since Adam has that responsibility of choice. The only choice that brings life is to choose to die to ‘self'(?) and to be raised up to new life in Christ. How does all this relate to your subject? Well I’m not completely sure, maybe I’m just muddying the water.
5) As for children, I’m not sure that Jesus ever speaks of them in a way that would suggest they are automatically under condemnation when they are born, especially referring to ‘paidion’.
I realize we can not argue from silence but passages like Matthew 19:13-15 for instance, come to mind. My opinion is that knowledge of good and evil and responsibility of choice is a factor as well. Certainly children are slaves to the ‘flesh’, but ‘paidion’ have probably not made a rational choice to do that.
So, feel free to shoot this all full of holes, I’m not sure if any of this is credible, or if it is all the musings of my extremely twisted mind.
Incidentally, re: Barnhouse on Romans, I’m having so much ‘fun’ in Romans 6 that I haven’t gone back to Romans 5.
Wayne, thanks for your comment. That’s quite a load of ideas there, so I won’t try to respond to it all.
I’ll just mention this: I’m not convinced by the view that says Romans 7 is Paul describing his own experience. To be clearer, I’m quite certain he is not describing his experience as a Christian. Rather than describing any specific person, I think Paul is describing the Law. The Law is the subject of the chapter. Paul, I believe, is describing how it operates in a person who is living by the flesh and not by the Spirit. Paul’s own Christian experience is described in chapter 8.
That said, I’m not attempting a defense of free will. We’d have to define our terms first, and I don’t feel equipped to do that.
Recently I noticed a few more references to consider when pondering the spiritual state of children: Deuteronomy 1:39; 1 Kings 3:7-9; Isaiah 7:14-16; Jeremiah 4:22; Hebrews 5:14. A couple of those references aren’t directly about children, but I’ve included them because I think they’re useful for comparison.
Happy Barnhouse reading!
Comparing ‘for all have sinned’ in Romans 3:23 in context, with ‘because all sinned’ in Romans 5:12 in context, do you think that the Romans 3 passage is talking about the personal or individual experience/occurrence, and the Romans 5 passage is talking about the corporate/’because of Adam’ experience/occurrence?
Or am I flogging a dead horse, so to speak?
Good question, and a complex one. I agree that the context of Rom. 3:23 makes it pretty certain that personal sins are what the phrase “all have sinned” refers to. The context of 5:12 is much more ambiguous. The mention of Adam and his sin in that passage opens the door to the possibility that corporate or “in Adam” sins are what the phrase “all sinned” refers to. But the contextual and linguistic clues are vague enough that interpreters go both ways. For English readers, a lot depends on which translation you happen to be reading. The ESV, at least to my ears at the moment, might lean slightly in favor of the “personal sins” interpretation,with its mention of how death “spread” to all men “because all sinned.” That sounds, at least to my ears right now, as if the transfer of death occurred not instantly but over time, which would suggest that the sin which caused this spreading of death also occurred not instantly but over time. But that’s just me reading one English translation. The NIV (“in this way death came to all people”) and the KJV (“and so death passed upon all men”) suggest less of this passage of time to my ears. I haven’t studied this verse in detail.