Original Sin and Original Death: Romans 5:12–19

Whether Scripture teaches what is traditionally called “original sin” depends significantly on the exegesis of Romans 5:12–19. Since the days of Augustine, the interpretation of this text functions as the basis for denying or affirming original sin.¹ I will argue in this chapter that the most plausible reading of Romans 5:12–19, both exegetically and theologically, supports the doctrine of original sin and original death. Romans 5:12–19 forms part of Paul’s larger argument in chapters 5–8, where the central theme is hope for those who are justified by faith. These particular verses contribute to this theme by emphasizing the astonishing grace of Jesus Christ, for life and righteousness now reign through him in contrast to the death and condemnation inflicted on the world through Adam.² Since grace has triumphed over Adam’s sin, believers should be full of hope, for if the sin and death inducted into the world through Adam have been defeated, nothing can separate believers from the love of Christ.

Romans 5:12–14

5:12ab

The interpretation of 5:12 plunges us into a thicket of difficulties, but the first part of the verse is clear, setting the stage for all that follows. Paul begins by asserting that “through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.”³ The one man is Adam, and hence Paul reflects on Genesis 3 where Adam and Eve transgressed the Lord’s command not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam’s sin, just as the Lord threatened, had death as its consequence (Gen. 2:17).⁴ The universal consequences of Adam’s sin are emphasized, for his sin did not just affect himself; it introduced both sin and death into the world.⁵ Death must not be restricted to physical death here, for both physical and spiritual death are intended.⁶ The narrator in Genesis doesn’t explicitly say that all human beings shared in Adam’s sin, but the narrative supports such a reading, for paradise has certainly been left far behind beginning with chapter 4, which relays the murder of Abel. And death (notwithstanding the story of Enoch) punctuates the roll call in chapter 5. Paul reflects on Genesis in concluding that sin and death invaded the world through one man. The sin and death of Adam were not confined to him. All human beings since Adam have entered the world as sinners and are spiritually dead.

The grammar here is quite interesting. Most scholars maintain that Paul breaks off his comparison in midsentence and doesn’t complete it until 5:18, since Paul uses the phrase καὶ οὕτως instead of οὕτωs καί.⁷ It is more likely, however, that the order of the words in the phrase should not be pressed, so that the comparison is completed in 5:12cd.⁸ We could paraphrase the verse this way: “since sin and death entered the world through one man, so also death spread to all people since all sinned.” The logic of the verse is that all people sin and die because Adam introduced sin and death into the world. Sin and death as evil powers, as twin towers, rule over all people by virtue of Adam’s sin.

5:12cd–14

What Paul says in 5:12cd is fiercely contested and difficult to understand. Indeed, I have changed my mind on what 5:12cd means since writing my Romans commentary, though the change does not affect the truth that Adam is the covenant head of all human beings, so that all enter the world condemned and dead because of Adam’s sin.

Perhaps it is best to begin with the interpretation I argued for in my Romans commentary. I argued there the words ἐφ᾽ ᾧ should be translated as a result clause or be rendered “on the basis of which.”⁹ Joseph Fitzmyer has demonstrated in an important article that ἐφ᾽ ᾧ often introduces a result clause.¹⁰ Taking up Fitzmyer’s reading, I suggested that 5:12cd should be translated, “and so death spread to all people, and on the basis of this death all sinned.”¹¹ According to this reading all people sin individually because they enter the world spiritually dead on the basis of their union with Adam. Since all human beings, as a result of Adam’s sin, are spiritually dead, they express their spiritual death by their sin.

I still believe this interpretation fits theologically with what Romans 5:12–19 teaches and is a possible reading of the text. For reasons that will be explained in due course, my theological reading of the text has not changed. Still, this particular reading of 5:12cd seems less likely to me for two reasons. First and most important, though it is theologically true that spiritual death leads to sin (see Eph. 2:1–3), in Romans 5 and 6 Paul emphasizes that sin leads to death.¹² That sin leads to death is the specific point in 5:12ab, and it is reiterated in verses 13–14, 15, and 17, and is confirmed in 6:23, “for the wages of sin is death.” It is possible, of course, that Paul teaches both truths in these verses, that is, sin leads to death and spiritual death leads to sin. But the latter notion is not articulated clearly elsewhere in chapters 5–6, whereas Paul repeatedly affirms that death is the result of sin. Hence, it seems more plausible to think that 5:12cd teaches that death spread to all because all sinned.

12. Rightly N. T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary, and Re- flections,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 10 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 527; John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2002), 91n37.

That brings us to the second and subordinate reason, though it is related to the first argument, for rejecting the interpretation noted above. Fitzmyer has clearly shown that ἐφ᾽ ᾧ can designate result. Indeed, it is apparent from several biblical texts (the Septuagint and the New Testament) that the phrase is not invariably causal (Gen. 38:30; Josh. 5:15; 2 Kings 19:10; Prov. 21:22; Isa. 25:9; 37:10; 62:8; Jer. 7:14; Acts 7:33). But we need to be careful, for Pauline usage elsewhere demonstrates that the phrase may have a causal sense.¹³ Indeed, a causal reading seems preferable for the meaning of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ on the three other occasions in which Paul uses the phrase (2 Cor. 5:4; Phil. 3:12; 4:10). There- fore, whether ἐφ᾽ ᾧ denotes result or cause must be discerned from context. And that brings us to what was argued above. Since Paul regularly argues in Romans 5 and 6 that sin begets death, context supports the interpretation, “and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (5:12).

13. Cf. here C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 50; Murray J. Harris, “Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament,” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. C. Brown, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975–1985), 3:1194–95; Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, Teilband 1: Röm 1–5, Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (Zürich: Neukirchener, 1978), 316; Hofius, “The Adam-Christ Antithesis and the Law,” 172n27; Hultgren, Romans, 222; Erickson, “The Damned and the Justified,” 291n12. Contra Vickers, Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness, 124–27.

I set aside, then, the interpretation which reads ἐφ᾽ ᾧ as a result clause. Let’s consider several interpretations where ἐφ᾽ ᾧ designates the cause. The text could be construed to say that death spread to all because all without exception sinned individually. Such a reading fits well with a Pelagian reading of the text where death is only the result of individual sin. I will argue shortly that Paul indeed teaches here that individuals die because of personal sin, but such an interpretation should not be used, given the whole context, to buttress a Pelagian perspective.¹⁴ Indeed, the Pelagian reading fails on exegetical grounds, for 5:12 begins with sin and death invading the world through the one man, Adam. The death and sin of individuals in the latter part of 5:12 cannot be neatly sundered from the devastation Adam inflicted on the world, that is, on human beings.¹⁵ Furthermore, Paul emphasizes five times in verses 15–19 that death and condemnation are the portion of all human beings because of Adam’s one sin. It simply won’t work exegetically to limit death to personal and individual sin, when Paul communicates repeatedly and forcefully that human beings experience death and judgment because of Adam’s sin.

According to Charles Cranfield, the text means that human beings sin because they inherited a corrupt nature from Adam.¹⁶ But the word “sinned” (ἥμαρτον) does not mean “became corrupted” in one’s nature. It refers to the act of sinning, and hence Cranfield strays from the wording of the text.¹⁷ Henri Blocher, who is in the Augustinian camp, has written an incisive defense of original sin,¹⁸ where he attempts to defend a variation of the federal headship view. Blocher doesn’t simply repristinate the federal view, for he maintains that Adam’s guilt is not imputed to all. Still, he attempts to explain why we are condemned both for Adam’s sin and for our own.¹⁹ The sin of Adam, says Blocher, is the fountainhead for the condemnation of all human beings.²⁰ God views all human beings in Adam, and thus their personal and individual sin is “grafted on to Adam’s sin in Eden.”²¹ According to Blocher, the sin of each human being is linked to the sin of Adam since he is the covenant head. The “community” is “stricken” through Adam’s sin, and yet Adam’s guilt is not imputed to them.²² Adam’s headship makes “possible the imputation, the judicial treatment, of human sins.”²³ Human beings are guilty because Adam’s paradigmatic sin is repristinated or recommitted, so to speak, when individuals sin. At the same time Blocher insists that the sin of human beings is not separable from Adamic headship.²⁴

Blocher is more sympathetic toward a federal over a realist view of imputation.²⁵ Still, he finds tensions in the federal view. He doesn’t think it squares with God’s justice for God to impute alien guilt to human beings.²⁶ He maintains, therefore, that Adam is our federal head, but the guilt of Adam is not imputed to the account of human beings.²⁷ Human beings are “deprived and depraved” because of Adam’s sin and their union with him, but are not counted as guilty on the basis of Adam’s sin.²⁸ Entering the world as sinners is not a “penalty” but “a fact for human beings since Adam.”²⁹ Blocher thinks his view explains God’s justice in a more satisfactory way than alien guilt being imputed to all. Skeptics will wonder why we enter the world depraved and deprived because of Adam’s sin. Blocher’s answer is rather simple. Adam is our head.³⁰ That is just the way the world is, for the human race is in solidarity with Adam.

Blocher certainly deserves credit for creativity and for being willing to rethink the text exegetically and theologically. Still, his solution must be assessed as unconvincing for several reasons. Remarkably, he scarcely comments on Romans 5:15–19, attending mainly to verses 12–14. The omission is significant and damaging to his case, for five times in verses 15–19 judgment and death are attributed to Adam’s one sin.³¹ There is no conception here in verses 15–19 that the sins of individuals somehow mirror Adam’s sin. Instead, human beings enter into the world condemned and spiritually dead because of Adam’s one sin. As I will argue below, verses 15–19 clearly teach that Adam’s guilt is imputed to all human beings.

31. I will explain this text further below.

Blocher’s case depends on his reading of verse 12, but his interpretation seems strained, for to say that all sinned individually relative to the prohibition given to Adam flies in the face of the most natural reading of the text. Blocher links the personal sin of individuals to the sin of Adam, but Paul severs that link. They did not sin “in the likeness of Adam’s transgression” (v. 14). Their “sin” was “not reckoned” (οὐκ ἐλλογεῖται) against them (v. 13). Blocher thinks all people “sinned” (v. 12) by violating, in a sense, the Adamic prohibition. But Paul says precisely the opposite. Adam’s sin was unique and paradigmatic in contrast to the sins of those who followed him. Furthermore, Adam transgressed a command that was revealed specifically, and those who lived in the time between Adam and Moses did not violate an articulated command. Blocher’s interpretation, then, should be rejected, for it supplies a notion to the text (human sin repristinates Adam’s sin) that Paul does not state and amounts to a denial of what Paul actually says (the sin of human beings must be distinguished from Adam’s sin).

Blocher acknowledges that Romans 2:12 could be adduced against his view, but he understands it along the same lines as 5:12.³² Violating the law written on the heart describes in a complementary way the transgression of the covenant made with Adam. Blocher’s explanation here, though possible, does not constitute a likely reading of 2:12, for the text emphasizes sinning without the law and does not naturally point to the relationship of sinners to Adam.

32. Blocher, Original Sin, 80–81.

Blocher’s position is difficult to untangle because he wants to uphold a federal view, but his explanation, historically, seems to fit with a mediate imputation view, even though he rejects the latter view as unsatisfactory.³³ He inclines to a federal view, but its federalism is called seriously into question by his rejection of imputed guilt, for what he emphasizes is the depraved nature that human beings inherited through Adam. It seems that they are counted as guilty when they act on that depraved nature, imitating, so to speak, Adam’s sin. Blocher rejects the imputation of Adam’s guilt to his descendants on the basis of God’s justice. But how does his solution really solve the problem? Human beings in solidarity with Adam have a depraved nature that will inevitably lead to sin and death. It is difficult to see how anyone who struggles with God’s justice in the matter of Adamic headship will find Blocher’s solution much of an improvement over the theory of an imputed guilt.

33. Ibid., 66–67.

John Murray, in his book The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, proposes an interpretation that fits with a Reformed and Augustinian reading of the text.³⁴ Augustine, working from the Latin, understood the text to say that all people sinned in Adam (in quo in Latin). Few scholars today think that the antecedent of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ is Adam. Murray argues that the words ἐφ᾽ ᾧ should be rendered “because,” supporting the Augustinian case on different grounds grammatically and exegetically. Taking ἐφ᾽ ᾧ as causal, he understands Paul to say that “death spread to all because all sinned” (5:12cd). The words “all sinned,” however, should not be understood to say that all sinned personally and individually. When Paul says “all sinned,” he means that all sinned in Adam. Death spread to all people without exception because everyone sinned in Adam. Adam’s sin was their sin, and Adam is their covenantal and federal head.³⁵

How does Murray defend the idea that Paul refers to sinning in Adam rather than personal sin in 5:12? The parenthetical explanation in verses 13–14 is crucial to Murray’s case. According to verse 13, sin was not reckoned to anyone’s account in the interval between Adam and Moses since there was no law. Nevertheless, we find in verse 14 that those who lived in this time period still died, even though they did not violate a law that was specifically revealed as Adam did. Here Murray proposes a brilliant solution. Why did they die if their sins were not reckoned to them? They died, says Murray, because of Adam’s sin, not their own. If their sin was not counted against them, then their death cannot be based on their own sin. They had to die for another reason. And the reason that is given is Adam’s sin. The parenthesis in verses 13–14, then, unpacks the meaning of “all sinned” at the end of verse 12, clarifying that the sin that led to death was Adam’s. It cannot be the sin of Adam’s descendants since Paul says their sin was not counted against them. The genius of this solution is that it matches remarkably well with the fivefold description of the impact of Adam’s sin in verses 15–19. Human beings enter the world condemned and spiritually dead because they sinned in Adam.

Murray’s reading of the text is profound and theologically rich. Indeed, I will explain in due course why I think he is right in seeing Adam as our covenant head, with the result that all human beings are condemned before God because of Adam’s one sin. But we must distinguish between Murray’s theological judgment about the text as a whole and his interpretation of verses 12–14. I think the former is on target, but the latter veers away from Paul’s argument in these particular verses. It should be said that Murray’s reading of these verses is a possible interpretation, which he defends with great skill. His argument makes sense of the flow of the argument in verses 12–14, but it should be rejected because it does not square as easily with what we find in the Old Testament and what Paul teaches elsewhere.

The fundamental weakness of Murray’s interpretation of verses 12–14 needs to be unpacked. His interpretation rests on the premise that the sins of those who lived between Adam and Moses were not counted against them (v. 13). They died because of Adam’s sin, not their own. Such a reading does not fit, however, the narrative in Genesis (6–9). The prime example is the generation of the flood. Clearly, the flood generation existed in the interval of time between Adam and Moses. The entire generation, apart from Noah and his family, perished in the flood that inundated the world. Those destroyed by the flood were judged, condemned, and died for their own sin. We have no indication that the sin assessed against them was Adam’s sin.³⁶ Apparently, their sin, which led to the destructive deluge, was reckoned against them, even though they did not violate commands revealed to them by God. The same point could be made about the judgment at Babel (Gen. 11:1–9). Those constructing (what was probably) a ziggurat were judged by God for their arrogance and refusal to honor God’s name. Such a judgment was inflicted on them, even though they lived before the era of the law and thus did not violate laws or commands published by God. Those judged and condemned at Babel were held accountable for their sin, even though they lived in the interval between Adam and Moses and did not live under the law. It should also be noted that the framework of Adam to Moses indicates that any reference to infants, which are commonly brought up in the Reformed tradition,³⁷ are not within Paul’s purview.³⁸

I am not suggesting that Paul misread the Old Testament here. Rather, the judgment at the flood and at Babel indicates that Murray’s interpretation of Romans 5:12–14 is flawed.³⁹ Those who lived in the era between Adam and Moses were accountable for their sin, so that they were condemned because they violated God’s moral norms. Their sin was counted against them and thus they were judged. Paul himself teaches the same truth in 2:12, when he claims that “all those who sinned without the law will also perish without the law.” The word “perish” (ἀπολοῦνται) denotes, as is typically the case in Paul, final judgment and destruction. Gentiles who did not know or possess the Mosaic law were judged for violating the law inscribed on their hearts (2:14–15). What Paul claims here fits with the judgments inflicted on the flood generation and at Babel. Gentiles did not have the Mosaic law, but they were judged for violating the unwritten law—the law inscribed on their hearts. Romans 2:12 is of paramount importance, for it prevents us from adopting a mistaken view of 5:12–14. Paul does not mean, when he says that sin is not counted against those who have no law (v. 13), that those who do not have the law are only judged on the basis of Adam’s sin. For he clearly says in 2:12 that those without the law perish because they violate the law written on their hearts. Paul does not argue in chapter 2 that Adam’s sin is the basis for their judgment.⁴⁰ They perished because they contravened God’s moral norms.

To sum up, Murray’s interpretation of Romans 5:12–14 does not cohere with what Paul says elsewhere (2:12) or with the judgments poured out during the time between Adam and Moses (the flood, Babel, Cain’s judgment, etc.). Against Murray, sin was counted against those who did not possess the law, and human beings without the law were judged and condemned for violating moral norms.

I have argued that Murray’s interpretation does not fit with what Paul teaches elsewhere or with what we find in the Old Testament. I propose that Paul speaks of individual sin here, without buying into a Pelagian interpretation. To paraphrase: “death spread to all people because all sinned individually.” Paul does not deny in this text that the sin of individuals lead to death. What he affirms, however, contra the Pelagian reading, is that individuals come into the world condemned and spiritually dead because of Adam’s sin. The latter part of 5:12 must not be separated from the first part of the verse. Sin and death entered into the world through Adam, and hence people sin and die both because of Adam’s sin and their own sin, though the sin of Adam is fundamental and foundational.

What role do verses 13–14 play in the argument if verse 12cd says that death extended to the entire world because of individual sin? Paul explains in verses 13–14 that the sins of those who lived between the time of Adam and Moses must be distinguished from Adam’s sin. Adam transgressed a specifically revealed commandment (v. 14) so that sin and death entered the world through him (v. 12). As the first human being he occupies a typological role in the same way as Jesus Christ (v. 14). The subsequent verses (vv. 15–19) clarify that one is either in Adam or in Christ. Hence, the sins of those who lived in the era between Adam and Moses cannot be assigned the same import or function as Adam’s sin. It was Adam’s first sin that brought havoc into the world, so that all human beings are under the reign of both sin and death.⁴¹

41. Jewett rightly says that ruling is a key theme in the text. Romans, 370.

The unique role of Adam does not mean that sin did not exist in the interval in which there was no law. As 5:13 says, “sin was in the world” during this time, which is evident to anyone who has read the stories about Cain, Lamech, the flood generation, and Babel. But then how can Paul say that “sin is not reckoned [οὐκ ἐλλογεῖται] when there is no law” (v. 13)? That seems patently false on first glance since the flood generation and those at Babel were judged and condemned for their sin, even if they did not violate a specifically revealed command.

Paul’s point in 5:13–14 must be discerned by attending to what he says in verse 14. Those who sinned without violating a specifically revealed command, as Adam did, still died. Death reigned and ruled over them. As N. T. Wright says, Paul’s “explanation is simple; sin must be there (5:13a) because death was there ruling like a king (5:14a).”⁴² So, when Paul says that their sins were not reckoned or counted against them, he is not teaching that their sins were not counted against them in any sense. They were punished for their sins, for they experienced the reign of death because of their sins. Paul’s point is that their sins, though still punishable by death, were not technically counted against them in the same way as sin was counted against Adam.⁴³ Yes, they died because of their personal and individual sin. But their sin did not have the same typological and fundamental role as Adam’s sin, for Adam’s sin was of such a nature that sin and death encompassed the whole world because of his transgression of God’s revealed command.⁴⁴ Therefore, Paul considers in 5:12–14 both the sin of Adam and the sin of those who lived between the time of Adam and Moses. In both cases, sin led to death, but Adam played a fundamental and typological role that those who followed him did not play, and hence Adam’s sin and death are the fountainhead for the sin and death that ensued. As Arland Hultgren says, Adam is “positioned as the head of humanity.”⁴⁵ Adam and Christ are the typological heads, and their fundamental role is explicated in the following verses.

Romans 5:15–19

Five times in 5:15–19 Paul contrasts Adam and Christ. A person belongs to either Adam or Christ, but the impact of these two is remarkably different, for Adam brought death and judgment into the world, whereas Jesus Christ brought grace and life and righteousness. Since Paul reiterates the same truth, it is exceedingly important for his argument, and hence it is quite remarkable that many focus on verses 12–14 and say little about verses 15–19. I will proceed verse by verse in summarizing the contrasts between Adam and Christ and then reflect on the text theologically, particularly insofar as it relates to Adam’s sin.

5:15

Paul begins by contrasting Adam and Christ, asserting that “the gift is not like the trespass.”⁴⁶ There is continuity between the two in that history has been shaped by Adam and Christ, but there is discontinuity in that Adam brought devastation to the world and Christ brought grace. What has Adam wrought? Paul answers, “By the trespass of the one the many died.” The trespass, of course, was Adam’s violation in Genesis 3 of the prohibition against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17). Since Paul reflects on Genesis, we might expect him to say that Adam died when he sinned, but Paul reaches far beyond that, claiming that “many died” through Adam’s trespass. The word “many” (πολλοί) here certainly means “all,” as subsequent verses attest. No room is allowed for exceptions. All of humanity, apart from the Christ, died because Adam sinned.

46. The first clause of 5:15 (so also 5:16) is not to be rendered as a question. Contra Chrys C. Caragounis, “Romans 5:15–16 in the Context of 5:12–21: Contrast or Comparison?,” New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 144–45; Stanley E. Porter, “The Pauline Concept of Original Sin, in Light of Rabbinic Background,” Tyndale Bulletin 41 (1990): 27–28; Don B. Garlington, Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance: Aspects of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 79 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 98. Rightly Hultgren, Romans, 218.

Does Paul refer to physical death or spiritual death? It would be a mistake to drive a wedge between these two conceptions, for the one is inextricably tied to the other. Physical death is the consequence of spiritual death, so that the former serves as the emblem and concrete instantiation of the latter. We saw in 5:12 that human beings die because of individual sin, but here Paul returns to the thought of verse 12ab and expands on it. There is something prior to individual sin, something that undergirds and explains it, that is, human beings enter the world spiritually dead (and physical death will follow in due course) because of Adam’s sin. Human beings do not enter into the world in a neutral state. They are “dead upon arrival” because of Adam’s sin!

Conversely, Paul marvels over the grace of Christ, piling up terms to communicate its richness and extent. Paul is moved to astonishment when he considers the freedom and extent of his grace. He does not wonder why human beings are held accountable for Adam’s sin. He marvels that God’s grace in Christ liberates those worthy of death.

5:16

The contrast between Adam and Christ is again pursued: “the gift is not like the one man’s sin.” The sin affected all as did the gift, but the effects were profoundly different. “For the judgment from the one sin resulted in condemnation, but the gift after many trespasses resulted in justification.” The one sin here is clearly Adam’s. Because of his sin, he was judged and condemned in the garden, which is apparent on reading Genesis 3. What is striking and perhaps even shocking is that the condemnation (κατάκριμα) here is not limited to Adam. The surrounding context (vv. 15–19) demonstrates that the condemnation extends to all people because of Adam’s one sin.⁴⁷ The scandal of original sin stands out in all its starkness. The text does not say that human beings are condemned because of their own sin, though such a thought is clearly true. But something different, something deeper and more profound about the origin of human sin, is communicated here. All human beings enter the world condemned before God because of Adam’s sin. Paul does not defend or apologize for such a notion. He simply asserts it. Nor does Paul explain here how or why human beings are condemned because of Adam’s one sin, though I will return to this issue at the close of the chapter. Paul is struck by the astonishing generosity of the gift granted to human beings, confirming that forgiveness of sins is undeserved, that the condemnation meted out because of Adam’s one sin is right and just. The depth and breadth of God’s grace is featured, for he covered “many transgressions.” The one sin of Adam unleashed a torrent of transgressions into the world, but the river of sin finds its source in Adam’s one sin in the garden. Sin, though it seems small in the beginning, wreaks untold devastation in the world in that one sin leads to an unending cascade of sin. Jesus did not only forgive the multitude of transgressions and give people a clean slate. Wright says, “Christ has not only restored that which Adam lost, but has gone far beyond. . . . God’s action in the Messiah did not start where Adam’s started, and, as it were, merely get it right this time. God’s action in the Messiah began at the point where Adam’s ended—with many sins and many sinners.”⁴⁸ Those who belong to Christ are also justified. They are not merely forgiven but also stand in the right before God.

5:17

Death reigns as a power over those who are in Adam, for death is not merely an event that occurs but a state in which human beings live as a result of Adam’s sin. As noted above, death can’t be limited to spiritual or physical death, for both realities are designated by the word “death.” Interpreters who focus on one reality apart from the other miss the intention of the text here, for physical death stands as the culmination point for the spiritual death that dominated human beings during their earthly lives.

Death reigns (ἐβασίλευσεν) over all through the one (ἑνὸς) transgression of the one (ἑνὸς) man. Human beings certainly die because of their own sin (5:12cd), but here Paul considers the origin of sin and death in the world. He reaches further back, contemplating why it is that all people sin. Death has invaded their lives because of the one transgression of the one man, Adam. Paul assumes here that the human race is a unity, rejecting any notion that people are separate from Adam. They enter the world spiritually dead and destined for physical death because of Adam’s one sin. Clearly, Adam is the fountainhead for sin and death in the world (see v. 12ab). Incidentally, some object that the unity of the human race with Adam means that all of Adam’s sins must be imputed to his descendants, but note that Paul limits death to Adam’s one sin. The infection, so to speak, has spread through the body at the first incidence of the disease. Hence, Adam’s subsequent sins are irrelevant to the argument made here.

Paul continues to marvel at the grace of God in Jesus Christ. Adam’s transgression introduced death as the king of human beings, but the grace of God brooks no rivals, conquering both sin and death. Hence, the recipients of God’s grace now enjoy “the gift of righteousness” (τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης).⁴⁹ Their righteousness is not in themselves but in the second Adam, Jesus Christ. They are counted as righteous in Christ. Through the one man (διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς), Jesus Christ, they now reign in life (ἐν ζωῇ βασιλεύσουσιν). History hangs on the work of two men. Either a person is in Adam where sin and death reign, or a person is in Christ where one reigns in life and enjoys the gift of righteousness. The future tense of βασιλεύσουσιν is not just a logical future but refers to the eschaton. Still, the eschaton has penetrated the present evil age through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Believers enjoy even now the life of the age to come; they have begun to reign, but their reign will come into full flower when Jesus Christ returns.⁵⁰

5:18

Verse 18 draws an inference from 5:15–17, as is indicated by the words “therefore then” (Ἄρα οὖν). “Just as condemnation came to all people through the trespass of the one, so also the justification that leads to life came to all people through the righteous act of the one.” It is instructive that “condemnation” (κατάκριμα) is contrasted with “justification” (δικαίωσιν). Justification means that one is declared to be right before God, and conversely “condemnation” refers to those upon whom a sentence of judgment has been passed. Paul unequivocally says here that all people without exception are condemned before God because of the one transgression of Adam. If they are condemned before God because of Adam’s sin, then they are guilty for Adam’s sin. They can hardly be condemned for Adam’s sin if they are not guilty for the sin he committed. Paul offers no apologetic here, nor does he defend the justice of what God has done. He asserts the facts of the case, claiming that Adam’s sin spells our condemnation.

On the other hand, Jesus’s “righteous act” (δικαιώματος) results in the justification that leads to life for all those who belong to him. The word “life” in the phrase “justification of life” (δικαίωσιν ζωῆς) should be understood as a genitive of result. The consequence of justification is eschatological life. The work of Christ does not merely return human beings to the state of Adam prior to his sin. Those in Christ now enjoy the righteousness of another, a righteousness that is not their own. By virtue of their union with Christ, they are reckoned to be righteous before God and enjoy the life of the age to come. When Paul speaks of the “righteous act of the one” (δι᾽ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος) as the means by which justification is given to all, the work of Christ on the cross is in view. Forgiveness and justification are secured through the sin-bearing and atoning work of Christ.

5:19

Paul wraps up his argument regarding Adam and Christ in 5:19. He provides the grounds for the argument in 5:18 here (supported by “for,” γάρ). The reason all are condemned in Adam and justified in Christ (v. 18) is that human beings are counted as sinners in Adam and righteous in Christ (v. 19). In verse 19 we read that “for just as the many were constituted as sinners through the disobedience of the one man, so also the many were constituted as righteous through the obedience of the one man.” The word “many” (οἱ πολλοί) refers to all people here, and should not be limited to some. Scholars particularly debate the meaning of the word “constituted” (two uses of καθίστημι). Is the term forensic, meaning that human beings are counted as sinners by virtue of Adam’s disobedience and counted righteous by virtue of Christ’s obedience?⁵¹ Or, is Paul saying that human beings are truly sinners (made sinners) because of Adam’s disobedience and truly righteous (made righteous) because of Christ’s obedience?⁵² Evidence can be adduced for both views (for the meaning “count” or “appoint,” see Matt. 24:45, 47; 25:21, 23; Luke 12:14; Acts 6:3; 7:10, 27, 35; Titus 1:5; Heb. 5:1; 7:28; 8:3; for the meaning “made,” see James 4:4; 2 Pet. 1:8). Given the emphasis on Adam and Christ in the surrounding context and the insistence that both death and life and condemnation and justification stem from them, it seems that the forensic meaning is more likely. Still, the forensic cannot be separated from what is actual. Those who are constituted as sinners in Adam become sinners in practice, and those who are counted righteous in Christ live righteously.

The main point is that all human beings are constituted as sinners by virtue of Adam’s disobedience. His sin is reckoned to them. Conversely, all those who belong to Christ are counted as righteous by virtue of his obedience.⁵³ Whether one is a sinner or righteous depends on whether one belongs to Adam or Christ. One’s relationship to Adam and Christ is the fundamental reality. Human beings certainly do not enter into the world in a neutral state. By virtue of Adam’s disobedience they commence life from its inception as sinners. Their sin is not merely individualistic, though they do sin individually, but their sin finds its root in Adam’s sin; and they are counted as sinners because of Adam’s disobedience. Still, their actually becoming sinners or righteous is the consequence or result of their being counted as sinners in Adam or as righteous in Christ.

53. The same debate crops up here: Is Jesus’s obedience limited to the cross? Once again, the focus is on the cross, but Jesus’s obedience on the cross cannot be separated from the sin- less life he lived.

Theological Reflection

Other chapters in this volume work out the theological ramifications of what Paul teaches here in more detail. Some brief comments must suffice at this juncture. Paul clearly teaches in Romans 5:12–19 that human beings die because of personal sin and Adam’s sin. An either-or is not posited here. Adam’s typological and foundational role, however, is emphasized. Sin and death came into the world through him, and personal and individual sin find their roots in Adam’s sin. All human beings are sinners, dead, and condemned before God because of Adam’s one sin.

Believers have attempted to sort through the theological significance of what Paul asserts here for all of Christian history. I have already argued that the Pelagian view does not do justice to the text, for human beings do not simply imitate Adam’s sin. They enter the world as sinners, spiritually dead, and condemned before God because of Adam’s one sin.

I have also devoted some attention to Blocher’s view since he offers, in a scintillating and learned way, a variation on the view that Adam functions as the head of the human race. Blocher rejects alien guilt, and ends up arguing that Adam as our head transmits a depraved and corrupt nature to human beings. Hence, the individual sin of human beings mirrors the sin of Adam. The upshot of Blocher’s view is that human beings become guilty when they sin personally since they are not charged with guilt because of Adam’s sin. I argued that Blocher’s argument fails at two levels. First, his claim that the sin of human beings mirrors Adam’s sin veers away from what Paul actually teaches in Romans 5:12–19, for Paul specifically and emphatically distinguishes the sin of those who live in the era between Adam and Moses from Adam’s sin. Second, the text does not share Blocher’s squeamishness about alien guilt, for it teaches that human beings are sinners and condemned (and hence guilty!) because of Adam’s one sin. Just as human beings are righteous because of what Christ has done, so too they are guilty because of what Adam has done.

Seeing Adam as our covenant head accords with what I have argued above in the interpretation of 5:12–19. Sin, death, and condemnation are the portion of all people because of Adam’s one sin. Human beings do not enter the world neutral or inclined toward what is good. They enter the world as sinners since they are sons and daughters of Adam. Paul explicitly teaches that human beings are condemned and dead because of Adam’s sin. Identifying Adam as our covenant head also makes sense of the other side of the equation as well. For Christ is the covenant head of those who belong to him (1 Cor. 15:23), that is, of those who receive the gift of righteousness (Rom. 5:17). We receive alien guilt in Adam but alien righteousness in Christ.

It must be added immediately that the Scriptures do not treat the matter of Adam’s headship abstractly, for as sons and daughters of Adam we also sin personally and are destined for death (5:12cd). Paul does not contemplate the sin of Adam apart from our sin. Hence, there is no discussion of infants or those who lack the mental capacities to make choices. What Paul focuses on is the fact that all enter the world as the descendants of Adam and therefore as sinners, spiritually dead, and condemned. Human beings die because of Adam’s sin and their own sin, but Adam’s sin and death have a fundamental and typological role.

Original sin and original death are taught in the Scriptures and are evident from human experience. The Scriptures do not attempt to give a complete rationale for the doctrine. I argued above that it makes sense for the human race to function as an organic whole. The doctrine of original sin is not irrational, but it is an offense to human reason. It is fitting that the final words belong to Blaise Pascal, who reflected deeply on original sin:

Without doubt nothing is more shocking to our reason than to say that the sin of the first man has implicated in its guilt [men and women] so far from the original sin that they seem incapable of sharing it. This flow of guilt does not seem merely impossible to us, but indeed most unjust. Certainly nothing jolts us more rudely than this doctrine, and yet, but for this mystery, the most incomprehensible of all, we remain incomprehensible to ourselves.⁵⁴

54. Blaise Pascal, Pensées, trans. A. J. Krailsheimer (New York: Penguin, 1966), 65.