bvman2
THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF MAN
The choice of a false god leads to bondage, the bondage of sin. Idolatry results in the bondage of sin in two senses.
1. Since idolatry is the basic sin, it leads to other sins. Because a person’s god, being his ultimate criterion of all his decisions, ultimately controls the direction and character of his decisions, the wrong choice of a false god will lead to other wrong choices, sins. A person committed to a false god does not necessarily always have to commit sins. Happily, he is often inconsistent in following his false god. But since his god furnishes him with an entire set of values and motives for his choices, the sin of idolatry will usually invariably result in other sins. This invariableness of sin is one aspect of the bondage of sin. As Jesus said, “…every one who commits sin is a slave of sin.” (John 8:34)
2. The second sense in which idolatry results in the bondage of sin is that idolatry reduces and ultimately will destroy one’s freedom of choice. A false god, having become the repository of a man’s trust and allegiance, proceeds immediately to reduce and ultimately to destroy his freedom. It becomes a straightjacket and a limitation on his freedom. Thus it reduces his freedom of choice by limiting his options as well as his reasons for his choice. Some false gods totally eliminate some areas of life from its followers consideration. Thus a false god circumscribes and restricts the freedom of choice of the person who chooses it as his god; it acts as a frustrating limitation, a ball and chain upon the exercise of the freedom of its worshipper. But a false god also destroys the freedom of its worshipper by denying his freedom. Since a false god is a being that has limited or no freedom or power of choice (it is determined and not self-determining) such a god by implication denies the reality of follower’s freedom of choice. Thus having used his freedom to give this god his ultimate allegiance, the worshipper finds his freedom denied to the point of extinction and himself bound in a miserable slavery. As long as the false god remains his ultimate criterion of decision, he will not have the grounds for rejecting that god, since that god has not allowed him to have freedom of choice to do so. His power of choice having been effectively taken away from him, he is unable to reject the false god and free himself from its bondage. This is the bondage of sin (John 8:34; Prov. 5:22). Man becomes a slave of sin when he gives his ultimate allegiance and devotion to a false god. In fact, the false god is sin personified as a slavemaster (Rom. 6:16).
The true God, on the other hand, preserves and fulfills the freedom of the one who chooses and worships Him. Since the true God is a living God (Jer. 10:5-15; I Thess. 1:9), that is, a being that has the power of self-determination, with unlimited freedom, He can and does affirm His worshipper’s freedom. He gave them such a freedom of choice when he made them. When this Being who has such freedom is made the ultimate criterion of one’s decisions, one’s freedom of choice may be exercised without frustrating limitation. His freedom is not denied or taken away from him. But more importantly, the true God not only affirms the freedom of the one who chooses and worships Him but also fulfills the freedom of the one who commits and devotes himself to Him. This He does by loving him, that is, by acting toward him for his highest good. Now man’s highest good is the true God; because He alone does not deny but affirms the freedom of the one who chooses Him. For when a man chooses the true God as his God, he has found his highest good and obtained true happiness (Prov. 16:20; Psa. 40:4; 84:12; 144:15; Jer. 17:7, etc.). Since the true God is love (I John 4:8, 16), He acts toward man in such a way as to bring man to the choice of man’s highest good, that is, to the true God, and hence the fulfillment of his freedom. He sets him free from the bondage of sin, the slavery to a false god, and brings him to the freedom of righteousness, the righteousness of faith. Just as the basic sin is trusting in a false god, the basic righteousness is trusting in the true God. Righteousness is not a quality that we possess, neither merit that we have earned or have imputed to our account, but it is a right relationship to God; faith in the true God relates us rightly to Him (Rom. 4:3-5). In this right relationship to the true God, man’s freedom is fulfilled and man is truly free. “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.” (John 8:36)
The universal extent of sin is clearly taught in the Scriptures. In the days of Noah, the Scriptures say that
“The Lord saw that the wickedness of men was great in the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Gen. 6:5; compare Gen. 8:21)
David the psalmist says
“1 The fool says in his heart ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good.
2 The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God.
3 They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt, there is none that goes good, no, not one. (Psa. 14:1-3; see also Psa. 143:2)
Solomon in his wisdom makes a similar observation.
“Many a man proclaims his own loyalty, but a faithful man, who can find?” (Prov. 20:6)
“Who can say, ‘I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin’?” (Prov. 20:9)
Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins. (Eccl. 7:20)
“Behold, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many devices.” (Eccl. 7:29; see also I Kings 8:46; II Chron. 6:36.)
The prophet Isaiah repeats the same judgment except more personally.
“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way.” (Isa. 53:6)
The Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans reaches the same conclusion.
“9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; For I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, 10 as it is written; ‘None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands, no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one.'” (Romans 3:9-12; Paul’s quotation is from Psa. 14)
In Romans 3:23 Paul succinctly expresses the teaching of the Scriptures that the extent of sin is universal. “For all have sinned and are in want of the glory of God.” (ERS) [1] This universality of sin is presupposed through all Scripture but particularly in the teachings of Jesus: “…if you, then, who are evil…” (Matt. 7:11). And the universality of sin is not just a universal statement about man but is a fact known by all men about themselves as shown in the incident when the Pharisees brought an adulterous woman (“caught in the very act”) to Jesus and he met their question with the very revealing answer: “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7). Their actions show their own participation in the universal fact of sin. [2]
“But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him” (John 8:9).
The knowledge of the universal extent of the sin of man is not the conclusion to an investigation concerning sin as a fact of human experience, but rather it is the revelation from God concerning the human race. The Scriptures make only one exception to this universality of sin. Of our Lord Jesus alone is it said that he “knew no sin” (II Cor. 5:21) and “no guile was found on his lips” (I Pet. 2:22; compare John 8:46). He as our high priest is “holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners” (Heb. 7:26). He alone is the lamb “without blemish or spot” (I Pet. 1:19) [3]
ENDNOTES FOR “THE EXTENT OF SIN”
Why do men sin? What is the origin of sin? The Biblical answer is twofold:
(a) sin had its historical origin in the act of Adam which is called the fall, and
(b) sin has its immediate, contemporary and personal origin in the spiritual death which along with physical death spread upon the whole race because of Adam’s act of sin.
The classical passage of Scripture that sets forth this twofold origin of sin is Romans 5:12.
“Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed unto all men, because of which all sinned:–” (ERS)
The historical origin of sin set forth in the phrase, “through one man sin entered into the world.” This is a direct reference to the first man, Adam, and his act of sin, the Fall of Man.
The consequence of Adam’s act of sin is expressed in the second clause of Romans 5:12: “and death through sin.” God had given Adam an explicit command, a prohibition, the transgression of which would result in death.
“16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.'” (Gen. 2:16-17 NAS)
Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command and died. But in what sense did they die? Obviously they did not immediately die physically. But since God promised that they would die in the day that they ate of the tree and since God cannot lie (Num. 23:19; I Sam. 15:29; Psa. 89:35; Heb. 6:18), they must have died that day in some other sense than physical death. The death that they experienced that day has been called spiritual death. Even though the distinction between spiritual and physical death is not made explicitly anywhere in the Scriptures, the distinction is implied by (Gen. 3:8) and assumed by the Scriptures (I Tim. 5:6). Jesus recognized this distinction between spiritual death and physical death when he said, “Let the dead bury their dead” (Matt. 8:22 KJV; Luke 9:60), that is, “Let the spiritual dead bury their physical dead.” [1] That Adam and Eve died spiritually is clearly seen in that they hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God (Gen. 3:8) and later were driven out of the garden, away from the tree of life (Gen. 3:22-24).
“22 Then the Lord God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’ — 23 therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned in every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.”
Just as physical death is separation of man’s spirit (the person or self) from the body and not extinction, annihilation or merely the dissolution of the living organism, so spiritual death is the separation, alienation of man from God — not the death or annihilation of the spirit (Eph 4:18; Col. 1:21; James 2:26). It is the opposite of spiritual life which is to know God personally and have fellowship and communion with Him (John 17:3; 5:24; Eph. 2:1; Gal. 4:8-9; I Cor. 1:9; I John 1:3,5-8). Spiritual death is a negative or no personal relationship between man and God. It is like a barrier or “iron curtain” between them. It is separation from God or, more accurately, death separates man from God. Death is a power. It is personified in the Scriptures as a king who reigns over the whole human race. Paul says, “by the offense of one, death reigned through one” (Rom. 5:17; see also Rom. 5:14). Death as a kingly power separates man from God (spiritual death) and brings about eventually the separation of man’s spirit from his body (physical death). Physical death is the outward expression and necessary accompaniment of spiritual death (Psa. 88:3-5; Isa. 38:10-11, 18; Psa. 6:5; 30:9; 115:17; Eccl. 9:18). Even though we may distinguish between them, they are never separated from each other. From the Biblical point of view spiritual and physical death are inseparable, and in the Scriptures death always seems to include both. This may be the reason that Jesus (John 11:11-14) and other early Christians (Acts 7:60-8:1; I Cor. 15:18, 20; I Thess. 4:13-15) spoke of physical death as “fallen asleep” in Christ. Since believers in Christ had been saved “from death to life” in Christ, they had not really died when they died physically but had just “fallen asleep” in Christ.
But spiritual death not only affects the relationship of man to God, it also affects the relationship of man with his fellowman. This is apparent from the fact that Adam and Eve were ashamed before each other of their nakeness and sought to make themselves clothes for covering (Gen. 3:7). Men cannot bear the thought of letting other people see their true selves. They hide themselves behind masks and often pretend to be something other than they really are. This is because the fellowhip with their fellow man is broken. They are separated and alienated from each other as well as from God (I John 3:14). Spiritual death is spiritual isolation from man and from God. But spiritual death also affects the relationship of man to himself. Man’s body is no longer under the complete control of man’s will. Just as man has lost his dominion over the physical and biological world as a result of Adam’s sin, he has also lost his dominion over his own body. He can no longer completely control his desires and impulses. It too lies under the curse (Gen. 3:17-19). We groan inwardly because of the effects of the curse on our physical bodies (Rom. 8:22-23; II Cor. 5:2-4). Our bodies are not only physically dying, subject to physical death, mortal, but they are spiritually dead also — out of fellowship with our spirits. “Your bodies are dead because of sin” (Rom. 8:10), because of the sin of Adam (Rom. 5:12). As the result, physical and spiritual death are at work in us (II Cor. 4:12a).
“For the flesh sets its desires against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you wish” (Gal. 5:17 ERS).
This is not to say that the body is sinful or that we have a sinful nature. This only means that our bodies are spiritually dead, not under the complete control of our spirits (Matt. 26:41; Mark 14:38). Spiritual death has affected the relationship of man to himself as well as to God and his fellow man. And this is the result of Adam’s act of sin. Man has fallen from the image of God in which he was created. When Adam and Eve sinned, they lost both the dominion over creation (Gen. 3:17-19) and fellowship with each other (Gen. 3:7, 11-12). However, the presupposition of these — the freedom of choice — was not lost; the possibility of restoration to the image of God is still there in man.
Adam’s sin did not just affect himself and his wife alone, but all his descendants. This is expressed in the third clause of Romans 5:12: “and so death passed unto all men.” Adam’s descendants are not born in the image of God but in the image of Adam. For when Adam became the father of a son, Seth, he begat him in his own likeness, after his own image (Gen. 5:3). Adam’s descendants now bear the image of the man of dust (I Cor. 15:47-49), the old man (Col. 3:9; Eph. 4:22). They are each subject to death, physical and spiritual. According to Romans 5:14 and 17 death reigns as a king over the human race. Men today, Adam’s descendants, are different from Adam himself. As Adam was originally created, he was physically and spiritually alive, walking in fellowship with God (Gen. 3:8). There was no barrier between him and God. But this is not true of Adam’s descendants. They are born spiritually dead and in the process of dying physically. From birth they are in a state of alienation from God. This is not because of anything they have done but because of what Adam had done. Paul makes this important point by the digression in Romans 5:13-14:
“13 For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression of Adam.” (ERS)
In the period between Adam and Moses, before the Mosaic law was given, there was no law. And since there was no law, there could be no transgression of it (Rom. 4:15b) and death was not the result of sin. Those between Adam and Moses did not have a divine commandment like Adam or a divine law like the children of Israel after Moses that makes death the result of sin. They did not sin like Adam; their sin was not a transgression of a commandment or law which made death the result of sin. But yet death reigned between Adam and Moses. They died not because of their own sins but because of the sin of Adam. And this is true not only of those descendants of Adam between Adam and Moses but of all Adam’s descendants: they are all born spiritually dead and in the process of dying physically not because of their own sins but because of Adam’s sin.
Man is not responsible for this condition of spiritual and physical death inherited from Adam. The descendants of Adam are neither held accountable for the sin of Adam nor for the spiritual or physical death resulting from it (Rom. 5:13-14). They are only responsible for their own personal rejection of the true God and their ultimate commitment to and trust in a false god. Even though man is born into the world spiritually dead, alienated from God, not knowing God personally, he is not thereby exempt from responsibility for the choice of a false god. As Paul says in Romans 1:20,
“…since the creation of the world the invisible things of Him, both His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, so that they are without excuse.” (ERS)
This knowledge of the true God leaves man without an excuse for his idolatry. This knowledge does not save him because it is a knowledge about God and not a personal knowledge of God. But even though it does not save him, it is sufficient to leave man without excuse for his idolatry. He knows that his impersonal and/or powerless god is a false god and is not the personal, all powerful true God (Isa. 46:5-11; Jer. 10:10-15). Man is thus responsible for his personal rejection of the true God and his trust in a false god. And man is also responsible for remaining in the state of spiritual death when deliverance from it is offered to him in the person of Jesus Christ. If he refuses the gift of eternal and spiritual life in Christ Jesus (I John 5:12), he must reap the harvest and receive the wages of his decision, eternal death. “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). If a man refuses the gift of spiritual and eternal life in Jesus Christ and continues to put his trust in a false god and to remain in spiritual death, then after he dies physically, at the judgment (Heb. 9:27) he will receive the wages of his decision, eternal death. Eternal death is the continuation of spiritual death, after physical death and the last judgment, into eternity without the possibility of change. This is hell, eternal separation from God, the second death (Rev. 20:14; 21:6-8). No one sends a man to hell; he chooses it himself and the last judgment confirms that decision for eternity. Thus there are three kinds of death: physical, spiritual and eternal death. Man is not responsible for the physical or spiritual death, which he has received from Adam, but only for the eternal death.
The relationship between the death, spiritual and physical, that was passed unto all men, and the sin of all men is given in the last clause of Romans 5:12: eph ho pantes hamarton which is usually translated “because all sinned.”
The interpretation of this clause hangs on the meaning of the Greek prepositional phrase at its beginning, eph ho. This phrase is made up of a preposition epi and a relative pronoun ho. The preposition epi has several different meanings depending upon the immediate context and the case of the noun or pronoun with which it occurs. It primary meaning is superposition, on, upon. Since the relative pronoun ho is in the dative case, the metaphorical meaning of ground, or reason, seems best here for the preposition epi. Thus it should be translated on the ground of, by reason of, on the condition of, because of. [2] The meaning of the relative pronoun depends upon its antecedent. In the Greek language the relative pronoun agrees with the antecedent in number and gender. [3] Here the relative pronoun is singular in number but it may be either masculine or neuter in gender. Accordingly the following interpretations have been given to the phrase.
1. Some take the relative pronoun as masculine with the words henos anthropou [one man] in the first clause as its antecedent. Augustine, following the Latine Vulgate translation of the whole clause, in quo omnes peccaverunt [in whom all sinned], took the relative pronoun as masculine and at the same time gave the prepositional phrase the meaning in lumbis Adami [in the loins of Adam]. [4]
However this interpretation must be rejected. For
(a) the Greek preposition epi does not have the meaning of “in” and
(b) while the Greek relative pronoun ho may be taken as masculine, it is too far remove from its supposed antecedent, anthropou [man], being separated from it by so many intervening clauses. [5]
Most modern interpreters agree in rejecting Augustine’s grammatical analysis of the phrase. [6]
2. Others take the relative pronoun as neuter with the words that follow pantes hamarton [all sinned] as the antecedent. Thus the prepositional phrase eph ho would be equivalent to epi touto oti [because of this, that]. Accordingly, the translators of our English versions have rendered it either as “for that” (KJV) or “because” (RSV, NAS, NIV). And the clause would be interpreted to mean that death passed unto all men because all men sinned, that is, men die because of their own sins. But if this meaning is given to this last clause, Paul would appear to be retracting what he had just been affirming in the first three clauses of this verse, that all men die because of Adam’s sin. Paul would seem to be teaching that all men die not only because of Adam’s sin but also because of their own personal sins. This obscures the meaning of the verse and appears to make Paul contradict what he teaches clearly in the following verses and elsewhere that all men die because of Adam’s sin and not their own.
“13 For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of him who was to come.” (Rom. 5:13-14 ERS)
“…For if by the offense of one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.” (Rom. 5:15 ERS)
“For if by the offense of the one, death reigned through the one, much more shall those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ.” (Rom. 5:17 ERS)
“21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come the resurrection of the dead . 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (I Cor. 15:21-22)
Thus by giving the prepositional phrase eph ho the meaning “because,” the meaning of the verse is obscured and Paul is made to appear to contradict himself. This interpretation of the clause has lead one famous German New Testament scholar, Rudolf Bultman, to conclude that Paul is obscure in this passage. He says,
“For the context, it would have been sufficient to mention only Adam’s sin; there was no need to speak of the sin of the rest of man, for whether they were sinners or not, through Adam they had simply been doomed to death — an idea that was expressed not only in Judaism but also by Paul himself (v. 14). However, Paul gets into obscurity here because he also wants to have the death of men after Adam regarded as the punishment or consequence of their own sin: ‘and so death spread to all men — because all men sinned’ (v.12)!” [7]
It is not Paul who is obscure here but his interpreters and their interpretation of this phrase has caused the obscurity and makes Paul to appear to contradict himself. Thus this interpretation must be rejected. Furthermore, this interpretation of the clause destroys the parallel which Paul draws between Adam and Christ in this passage, Romans 5:12, and in I Cor. 15. If Paul had meant that all men became subject to death because of the sins that they themselves committed, then it would have to follow, if there is a parallelism between Adam and Christ, that all men enter into life because of the righteousness that they themselves have achieved. This is certainly the opposite of what Paul says. Life is a gift which each man may receive by faith (Rom. 5:17, 15; etc.) and not something they earn by their righteousness. There are differences between Adam and Christ (Rom. 5:15-17) but this is certainly not one of them. This interpretation of the clause, then, destroys the parallelism between Adam and Christ and thus must also be rejected.
3. Some have attempted to escape these objections, while retaining the meaning of “because” for the prepositional phrase, by interpreting the whole clause to have the following meaning: “Because all sinned in Adam.” They do this by taking the aorist tense of the verb hamarton [sinned] as a constative aorist; that is, the action is regarded as a whole, in its entirety. Bengel has given this interpretation classic expression: omnes peccaverunt, Adamo peccante [all sinned when Adam sinned]. All sinned implicitly in the sin of Adam; that is, his sin was their sin. But if this what Paul intended to say, why did he leave the all important words “in Adam” to be understood? As Sanday and Headlam says, “If St. Paul had meant this, why did he not say so?
The insertion of en Adam [in Adam] would have removed all ambiguity.” [8] This interpretation has all the appearances of being read into the passage (eisegesis) rather than out of it (exegesis). Furthermore, the phrase pantes hamarton [all sinner] normally refers to the personal sins of all men as it does in Romans 3:23. The aorist tense of the verb hamarton [sinned] signifies nothing as to the completeness of the action. A constative aorist may refer “to a momentary action (Acts 5:5), a fact or action extended over a period of time (Eph. 2:4), or a succession of acts or events (II Cor. 11:25).” [9] Again it appears to contradict what Paul says in verse 14:
“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression of Adam.” (ERS)
It appears that this interpretation of the clause must also be rejected.
4. One other interpretation of the clause is possible if the relative pronoun ho is taken as masculine and the words ho thanatos [the death] in the preceding clause, which are singular and masculine, are taken as its antecedent. [10] Then the prepositional phrase eph ho would be equivalent to epi thanato [because of death]. [11] In that case the phrase should be translated “because of which” or “upon which condition.” With this meaning given to the prepositional phrase, the whole clause may be translated “because of which all sinned” and interpreted to mean that all men sinned because of death that has been transmitted to them from Adam. In other words, the transmitted death from Adam provides the grounds or condition upon which all men sin.
Note: This is the view of Theodor Zahn (1838-1933). Lenski says concerning his interpretation of this phrase:
“Another turn is given the phrase so as to have it means: ‘under which condition.’ letting Paul say that in Adam’s case it was first sin then death but in the case of all men it was death first and then life of sinning (Zahn’s view).” [12]
Also Berkouwer says concerning Zahn’s view:
“Along with the two explanations referred to here there is still a third, namely that of Zahn. This holds that the issue at stake is not an ‘inclusiveness’ in Adam, since this thought is untenable (‘unvollziehbar‘) for anyone who does not believe in the pre-existence of souls in Adam (Zahn, Komm., p. 265); moreover, the concept of ‘all men in Adam’ imperils the image of ‘through one man.’ Therefore Zahn translates: ‘and on the basis of this (or, under these circumstances) all have sinned’ (267). Through the sin of the one man death come upon all, and in such circumstances, all have now sinned. Death was the foundation ‘on which the sinning of all the children of Adam has sprung forth.'” [13]
The only reasons that are given for rejecting this interpretation are not grammatical but theological. Godet’s objections to this interpretation are clearly theological as are those of Sanday and Headlam. This interpretation clearly does not fit into the legalistic theological framework of Roman Catholic and Protestant scholasticism which sees death only as the penalty of sin.
How is it possible for all men to sin because of death? This may be explained in the following way. Since man is born into this world spiritually dead, not knowing the true God personally, and since man by the structure of his freedom must choose a god, then he will obviously choose a false god because he does not personally know the true God. Since the true God is not a living reality to him, and since he must have a god, man will choose some part or aspect of reality as his god, deifying it.
“…they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator …” (Rom. 1:25).
Paul, writing to the Galatians, described this relationship of death to sin when he reminded them of their condition before they became Christians.
“Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods” (Gal. 4:8).
Not to “know God” personally as a living reality is to be spiritually dead. And a man is in “in bondage to beings that are no gods” when he chooses them as his gods. He is in bondage to them because he does not personally know the only true God, that is, because he is spiritually dead. Thus man sins (idolatry basically) because he is spiritually dead. This relationship between death and sin is what Paul is describing in the last clause of Romans 5:12. Because of death all men sinned. Spiritual death in the case of Adam’s descendants leads to sin; not the other way around.
The relationship of death to sin now after the fall is different from the relationship between them at the fall. At the fall death was the result of sin (“through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin.” Rom. 5:12 ERS). This was established by the divine decree implicit in the command God gave to Adam (“for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Gen. 2:17 NAS). Adam’s sin was unique since it was the act of the head of the race; Adam’s position in the human race is unique, as Paul teaches clearly in Romans 5:12-21 and I Cor. 15:21-22, 44-49. His sin affected the human race in a way that the sin of no other man after him has; it involved the whole race in death, spiritual and physical. Adam’s descendants do not have to sin to die, spirituallly and physically. They are born into the world over which death reigns and are involved from birth in spiritual and physical death (“Let the dead bury their dead” Matt. 8:22 KJV; Luke 9:60). Now since the fall, sin is the result of death. Since the fall, man does not have to sin to die but sins because he is already dead. Since the fall, this is the basic relationship between death and sin. Later, “the law came in besides” (Rom. 5:20 ERS) and superimposed upon this basic relationship of sin because of death (spiritual) the relationship of death because of sin. “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:4, 20: see also Deut. 24:16; Isa. 59:2). The law clarifies not only the nature of sin (Rom. 3:20) as basically idolatry (Ex. 20:3) but also man’s responsibility for his sins (see the whole of chapter 18 of Ezekiel). But the coming of the law did not change the basic relationship: man sins because he is spiritually dead.
Paul expresses this basic relationship between death and sin in other words elsewhere in his letters. For example, in Romans 5:21, he expresses it in the following way: “…sin reigned in death.” Sin reigns as a king in the sphere of death. That is, death is the sphere in which sin reigns as a king over all men. Death reigns as king over his kingdom of death; “…by the offense of one, death reigned through one…” (Rom. 5:17; see also Rom. 5:14). Death reigns over all men and sin reigns as a king within the sphere and kingdom of death. Sin reigns in the sphere of death because death is the ground or condition upon which all men sin. Another example is I Cor. 15:55-56:
“55 O Death, where is thy victory? O Death, where is thy sting? 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.”
Paul here expresses the relationship of death to sin by calling sin the sting of death and not death the sting of sin. Augustine tries to overturn this relationship by trying in this passage to make the genitive “of death” into an objective genitive rather than a possessive genitive. He says:
“For all die in the sin; they do not sin in the death; for when sin precedes, death follows — not when death precedes, sin follows. Because sin is the sting of death — that is, the sting by whose stroke death occurs, not the sting with which death strikes. Just as poison, if it is drunk, is called the cup of death, because by that cup death is caused, not because the cup is caused by the death.” [14]
Augustine’s argument is beside the point. The distinction between objective and subjective genitive is irrelevant; the genitive is a possessive genitive. The cup of death is not a parallel case. Whose sting is it? Is it the sting of sin or the sting of death? “O Death, where is thy sting?” It is death’s sting by which death hurts all men. And since death causes sin, death can hurt man. For if death could not cause sin, then there would be no fear of death; death would have lost its sting. Sin gives death its sting. Some have argued that the death Paul is talking about in I Cor. 15 is physical death since he is discussing there the resurrection of the dead. It is true that physical death is in the foreground in this passage of Scripture, but, as was pointed out earlier, from the Biblical point of view physical and spiritual death are inseparable and the Biblical concept of death always includes both. Thus spiritual death is not totally absent from Paul’s thoughts as are not other concepts which seem to be irrelevant in the context — “the strength of sin is the law.” (I Cor. 15:56) And as a careful study of Romans 7 will show, the concepts of spiritual death, sin and the law form an interlocking complex in Paul’s thinking (Rom. 7:23-24; 8:2).
Even though man is born into the world spiritually dead, alienated from God, not knowing God personally, he has not lost his freedom of choice. He does not have a sinful nature which causes him to sin. Spiritual death has not done anything to man’s ability to choose. He neither lacks the alternatives to choose between nor the ability to choose. Then why does man sin, that is, why does he choose a false god? He chooses a false god because the true God is not a living reality to him. He knows about the true God (Rom. 1:19-20) but he does not know him personally as a living reality. And lacking this personal knowledge, man does not have an adequate reason for choosing the true God. The true God Himself is the only adequate reason for choosing Him. He cannot be chosen for any other reason than Himself. For then He would not be God to that person but that reason for which he is chosen would be God. Only a living encounter with living and true God can produce the situation in which God Himself may be chosen. God Himself is the only adequate condition for the choice of Himself. Thus apart from the personal revelation of God Himself man will usually choose as his god that which seems like god to him from the creation around him or from among the creations of his own hands and mind. Man does not necessarily have to sin, but he usually does. And spiritual death (in the absence of this personal revelation of the true God) is not the necessary cause but the ground or condition of his choice of a false god. The Greek preposition epi translated “because” in the last clause of Rom. 5:12 means “on the basis of” or “on the condition of.” It does not imply any necessary causal connection between death and sin. Man sins by choice, not by necessity. Therefore, since all men are under the reign of death, all have sinned. “For all have sinned and are in want of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23 ERS). The glory of God is the manifest presence of God, and all men do not have this; they are all in want of or in need of it (husterountai). [15] In other words, they are all spiritually dead, separated from God’s presence. Therefore, all have sinned.
This view of death and sin affects our understanding of the need for salvation. As we have seen spiritual death like physical death is not the result of a man’s own personal sins. On the contrary, a man sins as a result of spiritual death. This is why a man needs to be saved. He is dead spiritually and dying physically. Man needs life — he needs to be made alive — to be raised from the dead. And if he receives life, if he is made alive to God, death which leads to sin is removed. And if death which leads to sin is removed, then man can be saved from sin. Thus man needs to be saved primarily from death and then secondarily from sin. If he is saved from death, then he can be saved from sin. Accordingly salvation must be understood to be primarily from death to life and then secondarily from sin to righteousness.
ENDNOTES
[1] This distinction between spiritual and physical death seems to have originated very early in Christian theology.
“Now there is a certain bond and fellowship in the sinful passions between soul and body, and a certain analogy between bodily and spiritual death. Just as we call the body’s separation from sentient life ‘death,’ so we give the same name to the soul’s separation from genuine life.”
Gregory of Nyssa, “Address on Religious Instruction,” 8, in
The Library of Christian Classics,
ed. Edward Rochie Hardy and Cyril C. Richardson, vol. 3.
(Philadelpha: Westminster Press, 1954), p. 284.
Earlier Irenaeus defined spiritual life and death.
“And to as many as continue in their love toward God, does He grant communion with Him. But communion with God is life and light, and the enjoyment of all the benefits which He has in store. But on as many as, according to their own choice, depart from God He inflicts that separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness; and separation for God consists in the loss of all the benefits which He has in store.”
Irenaeus Against Heresies bk. 5. ch. 27.2. in
The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed.
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1885 – no reprint date), p. 556.
See discussion of this passage in Gustaf Wingren,
Man and the Incarnation,
(Philadephia: Muhlenberg Press, 1959), p. 57-58.
[2] F. Godet, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1881), p. 350.
See also Abbott-Smith A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1948), pp. 166-167 and
William F. Arnt and F. Wilbur Gingrich,
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957), pp. 286-287.
[3] J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1957), p. 47.
H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey,
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(New York: The Macmillian Company, 1948), p. 125.
A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis,
A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament
(New York: Harper & Bros. Publishers, 1933), p. 269.
[4] Augustine, “Against Two Letters of the Pelagians,” bk. 4, chap. 7, in
Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Vol. 5
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), p. 419.
[5] William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam,
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
in The International Critical Commentary
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915), p. 133.
[6] John Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959), p. 9.
[7] Rudolf Bultman, Theology of the New Testament
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951), p. 252.
[8] Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 134.
[9] Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, p. 196.
[10] Godet, Epistle to the Romans, pp. 352-353.
Sanday and Headlam say,
“Some Greeks quoted by Photius also took the rel. as masc. with antecedent thanatos: ‘in which,’ i.e. ‘in death,’ which is even more impossible.” p. 133.
I have not been able to ascertain who are these Greeks that were quoted by Photius since Sanday and Headlam do not give any references. I have found that Theodore of Mopsuestia in his treatise “Against the Defenders of Original Sin” held to such an interpretation. Another contemporary of Augustine, Mark the Hermit, also held to a similar view. See the section in chapter 3 of my book From Death to Life titled, “Misunderstanding of the Origin of Sin.”
[11] “epi with its relative pronoun refers back to the preceding thanatos (eph ho = epi thanatos)…”
Ethelbert Stauffer, New Testament Theology, trans. John Marsh
(New York: The Macmillan Co., 1955), p. 270, note 176.
However, he goes on to give a different meaning to the preposition.
“[epi] does not mean as translations mostly suppose ‘on the basis of’ but ‘in the direction of’ (cf. Phil. 4:10; II Tim. 2:14)… Here epi is the reciprocal preposition to the dia of the first phrase. So we must accordingly paraphrase: ‘death to which they fell man by man through their sin.'”, p. 270.
This turns out to be the same interpretation as “because all sinned.”
[12] R. C. H. Lenski,
The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans
(Columbus, Ohio: Wartburg Press, 1960), p. 361.
[13] Berkouwer, Sin, p. 494, footnote 37.
[14] Augustine, “Against Two Letters of the Pelagians” in Philip Schaff,
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 5
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), p. 419.
See also Augustine,
“On the Merits and Remission of Sins and On the Baptism of Infants”,
bk. 3. chap. 20. Schaff, pp. 76-77.
[15] Abbot-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon, p. 464.
C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans
(New York: Harpers & Row Publishers, 1957), p. 74.
God’s attitude toward sin is expressed in the Scriptures by the concept of the wrath of God. In both the Old and New Testaments God’s opposition to sin is expressed in terms also used in the description of human emotions of anger, indignation, and wrath. But the wrath of God should not be thought of as an unstable, capricious emotion. It is true that men’s anger is so often such an impulsive passion, usually involving a large element of fickleness together with a lack of self-control. But the wrath of God is not to be so conceived. Neither is it to be thought of as like the anger of the heathen anthropomorphic deities. The writers of the Bible have nothing to do with the pagan concepts of a “capricious and vindictive deity, inflicting arbitrary punishments on offending worshippers, who must then bribe him back to a good mood by the appropriate offerings.” [1]
The Biblical concept of the wrath of God should be thought of as the stern and settled personal reaction of God’s love against sin in man. God’s wrath must be understood in terms of God’s love. Love is that decision of a person loving to act for the good of the person loved. It is not just an emotion, an easy-going, good-natured sentimentalism or good feeling of attraction or fondness for someone. But rather it is a decision of the will. But since the will involves the emotions as well as the intellect, that is, the total person, love is a strong and intensive concern for the well being of the person loved. And it is because of this concern that love may be pictured as a purifying fire, blazing out in fiery wrath against everything evil that hinders the loved one from being the best (Psa. 119:74; Prov. 3:11-12; Heb, 12:5-10; Rev. 3:19). Because of this intense love which is jealous for the good of the loved one, God hates everything that is evil in man (Psa. 5:5; 11:5; Prov. 6:16-19; Jer. 44:4; Heb. 1:13; Zech. 8:16-17). Hence the wrath of God is not opposed to His love. But rather it is the reverse side of His love. God’s wrath is the direct personal opposition of His love to the sin that would destroy man whom He loves.
The wrath of God expresses itself in various ways. With regard to time the wrath of God has two aspects: a present aspect and a future aspect. In the present the wrath of God take various forms depending upon whether it is directed toward idolatrous nations and cultures (Psa. 2:1-6; Hab. 3:12) or idolatrous individuals (Deut. 29:20). With regard to idolatrous nations and cultures, the wrath of God may express itself in the form of famines (Deut. 32:24; Amos 4:10), pestilence (Ex. 9:15; Deut. 29:23; Jer. 9:11; 39:8; Amos 4:11), exile (Deut. 28:36,64; II Kings 17:23; Jer. 16:13; 39:9) and extinction (Deut. 28:48; 32:26).
God’s wrath is manifested in the physical world (Nahum 1:3-6) and will be turned against God’s enemies (Nahum 1:8-10) and their wicked cities like Nineveh (Nahum 3:6-7,15). With regard to idolatrous individuals, the wrath of God may take the form of moral decline (Rom. 1:24,26,28), misery (Deut. 28:20,66-67; Psa. 90:7-10; Rom. 2:9), hardness of heart (Psa. 81:12; Rom. 9:18) and finally physical death (Rom. 1:32). Moral decline is the effect of both idolatry and the wrath of God which is directed against the basic sin (Rom. 1:22-26). According to Rom. 1:18-31 the wrath of God is revealed (Rom. 1:18) in the act of God giving up (Rom. 1:24,26,28) those who worship and serve false gods (Rom. 1:25) to the moral consequences and implications of their false gods; that is, the basic sin of idolatry leads to other sins (Rom. 1:28-31). This negative act of God in withholding His grace, which would keep man from moral decline, demonstrates to man the true character of his false gods. It is intended to lead man to repentance and faith in the true God. In the future, the wrath of God will be climactically displayed on the day of wrath and righteous judgment of God against those who refuse to repent and who harden their hearts (Rom. 2:5). This will take place when Jesus Christ shall return again (II Thess. 1:7-9; Rev. 19:15; cf. Rev. 14:19). The wrath of God is directed against sin in any form (Jer. 21:12; Ezek. 8:17-18; 22:29,31; Rom. 1:18). But it is particularly directed against the sin of idolatry.
“14 You shall not go after other gods, the gods of peoples who are round about you; 15 for the Lord your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; lest the anger of the Lord your God be kindled against you, and he destroy you off the face of the earth.” (Deut. 6:14-15)
(See also Deut. 4:25-26; 29:25-28; Joshua 23:15-16; Isa. 66:15-17; Jer. 11:11-13; 19:3-4; 44:2-6; Ex. 32:10,35; Num. 25:3; Lam. 3:42-43; Judges 2:11-15; II Kings 17:9-12; 15-18.)
The wrath of God is directed particularly against the sin of idolatry because it is the basic sin. But more fundamentally it is directed against this sin because of the effect that a false god has upon the one who chooses it as his god. A false god destroys the freedom of its worshipper by putting him into bondage. Since a false god is a being that has limited or no freedom (that is, power of self-determination), such a god circumscribes and restricts the freedom of choice of the person who chooses it as his god; it acts as a frustrating limitation, a ball and chain upon the exercise of the freedom of its worshipper. Also a false god destroys the freedom of its worshipper by denying his freedom. Since a false god has limited or no freedom (no power of choice), such a god implicitly and/or explicitly denies the reality of its follower’s freedom of choice. Thus having used his freedom to give this god his ultimate allegiance, the worshipper finds his freedom curtailed to the point of extinction and himself bound in a miserable slavery. This is the bondage of sin (John 8:34; Prov. 5:22). Man becomes a slave of sin when he gives his ultimate allegiance and devotion to a false god. In fact, the false god is sin personified as a slavemaster (Rom. 6:16).
The true God, on the other hand, preserves and fulfills the freedom of the one who chooses and worships Him. Since the true God is a living God (Jer. 10:5-15; I Thess. 1:9), that is, a being that has the power of self-determination, with unlimited freedom, He can preserve His worshipper’s freedom. When this Being who has such freedom is made the ultimate criterion of one’s decisions, one’s freedom of choice may be exercised without restriction or frustrating limitation. But more importantly, the true God not only preserves the freedom of the one who chooses and worships Him but also fulfills the freedom of the one who commits and devotes himself to Him. This He does by loving him, that is, by acting toward him for his highest good. Now man’s highest good is the true God; He alone can preserve the freedom of the one who chooses Him. For when a man chooses the true God as his God, he has found his highest good and obtained true happiness (Prov. 16:20; Psa. 40:4; 84:12; 144:15; Jer. 17:7, etc.). Because the true God is love (I John 4:8, 16), He acts toward man in such a way as to bring man to the choice of man’s highest good, that is, the true God, and hence the fulfillment of his freedom. One way He does this is by directly opposing (i.e., the wrath of God) man’s choice of a false god (the sin of idolatry). Since idolatry not only destroys man’s freedom but is an obstacle to God’s love which would fulfill man’s freedom, the wrath of God is directed against this particular sin. But wrath is not the only way that God in His love deals with man’s sin. The wrath of God is not the only nor the last word about what God has said or done concerning man’s sin. God’s wrath is His strange work.
“The Lord will rise up as on Mount Perazim, he will be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon; to do his deed — strange is his deed! and to work his work — alien is his work!” (Isa. 28:21)
It is that act of His love that is alien to the way God wishes to act. He desires to act toward man in mercy and grace (Psa. 103:9-12; Micah 7:18-19). In mercy He desires to turn away His wrath and forgive man’s sin (Psa. 85:2-3). And in grace He desires to remove the sin which causes His wrath. This is the other way that God in His love deals with man’s sin. Thus, God deals with man’s sin in two ways. In His wrath He opposes the sin, and in His grace He removes it: the grace of God is the love of God in action to bring man salvation (Titus 2:11; Eph. 2:8). In this second way God fulfills man’s freedom; He removes the idolatry which would destroy man’s freedom. And this He does by removing the cause of sin — death — through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, the wrath of God is not opposed to His love. But rather it is one of the two ways in which God in His love deals with man’s sin. God’s wrath as well as His grace is an expression of His love. There is no eternal principle of divine retribution (justice) in God which causes His wrath. Since God is love, the wrath of God must be understood in terms of His love as the direct personal opposition of His love to sin that would destroy the one whom He loves. Wrath is the reaction of His love to sin. The cause of God’s wrath is not in God; it is external to God and in the sin of man. And as long as man remains in sin, so long does the wrath of God remain upon him (John 3:36).
Man is under the wrath of God because of his sin of idolatry (Rom. 1:18-25); that is, the wrath of God is caused by sin; it is a direct consequence of each man’s own sin. But since man is a sinner as a consequence of Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:19a), then the wrath of God is also a result of Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:18a; note that condemnation is the same as wrath). But it is only indirectly, not directly, a result of Adam’s sin. For all men are sinners only indirectly as a consequence of Adam’s sin. They are sinners directly because of the spiritual death (Rom. 5:12d; Gal.4:8), which they have received from Adam (Rom. 5:12c; I Cor. 15:22). Sin is the direct consequence of spiritual death and hence only an indirect consequence of Adam’s sin (only the spiritual and physical death came directly from Adam). And since man is a sinner as an indirect consequence of Adam’s sin, then the wrath of God (condemnation) is also an indirect consequence of Adam’s sin. Condemnation is not the direct result of Adam’s sin; that is, man is not condemned because of Adam’s sin but because of his own personal sin, his own choice of a false god. The cause of the wrath of God is the sin of each individual man (Ezek. 18:1-4, 14-20).