Legalism in absolutizing the law has distorted the meaning and the place of the law in God's dealings with man. The law in its proper place in God's dealings with man must be carefully distinguished from the distortion of the law that results from the legalistic absolutizing of the law. The failure to make this distinction between the proper understanding of the law and the legalistic misunderstanding of the law has led to much confusion in the discussion about the relationship of the law to the gospel. The distinction between the law and the gospel is not the same as the distinction between legalism and the gospel. The distinction between the law and the gospel is the distinction between the old Mosaic covenant and the new covenant. Whereas the distinction between legalism and the gospel is the distinction between salvation by meritorious works and salvation by grace through faith. The law as the old Mosaic covenant is not legalism and does not contain any of the legalistic abuses of law discussed above. These were introduced later by the Pharisees, etc. Legalism has taken some elements of the Mosaic covenant of the law and has exaggerated them, distorting them into something that God did not intend or reveal. The apparent truth of legalism stems from these elements of the Mosaic covenant that legalism has distorted.
There are two of these elements of the Mosaic covenant in particular that legalism has distorted which needs to be especially noted here. The first is the meaning of sin. With the revelation of the law, sin becomes more than just any choice contrary to faith and trust in the true God; it becomes the transgression of a God-revealed command. Now in legalism this element that a transgression of the law is sin is taken and generalized into a universal definition of sin; sin is now defined as any transgression of or want of conformity to the law (The Larger Catechism of the Westminster Assembly). Sin is thus defined in terms of the law as a universal standard. What was true in a particular situation under the Mosaic covenant, legalism has generalized into a universal definition of sin that is true everywhere and always. And to justify this universal definition, legalism assumes contrary to explicit statements of Scripture ( Rom. 2:14; 5:13) that there is a universal standard, a law of nature, that exists everywhere and in the conscience of everyone. Legalism thus has taken an element of the Mosaic covenant that a transgression of the law is sin and generalized it into the definition of sin, distorting the Biblical meaning of sin.
This is not the Biblical concept of sin. From the Biblical point of view, sin must be understood and defined in terms of the true God and not just in terms of the law. Sin must be defined as any choice that is contrary to faith and trust in the true God. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23). Since sin existed before the law of God was given, sin must not be just a trangression of the law. According to Rom. 5:13, in the period before the law, "sin was in the world." Men were sinning and sin existed where the law did not exist. Therefore, sin must be more than just a transgression of the law. If sin is just a transgression of the law, then all would not have sinned before the law was given, since all did not have the law. Not only those before Moses did not have the law, but also the Gentiles did not have the law.
"When the Gentiles who have not the lawBut all have sinned (Rom. 3:23). Therefore, sin is not just a transgression of the law.
do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves,
even though they do not have the law" (Rom. 2:14 ERS).
The Greek word translated "have sinned" in Rom. 3:23 means "missing the mark."
The mark is not the law as the divine standard, but God Himself. Man misses
the mark when he puts his trust and faith in a false god, a substitute for
the true God. The falling short of the glory of God in the last part of
Rom. 3:23 does not mean falling short of the standard of God's perfection
given in the law. The Greek word here translated "falling short" means
"to be in want of" or "to be in need of".
[2]
In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint,
this same word is used in Psa. 23:1.
"The Lord is my shepherd: I shall not want."
(See also Mt. 19:20; Mark 10:21; Luke 15:14; 22:35;
John 2:3; I Cor. 1:7; 8:8; 12:24; II Cor. 11:5,9; 12:11; Phil. 4:12;
Heb. 4:1; 11:37; 12:15).
The glory of God in the Old Testament is the manifest presence of God.
Therefore, according to Rom. 3:23 (ERS) man does not have this presence of God;
he is in want or need of it. In other words, he is spiritually dead,
separated from God's presence.
And all have sinned because they are spiritually dead (
Rom. 5:12d ERS).
Thus Rom. 3:23 should be translated:
"All have sinned and are in need of the glory [the presence] of God." (Rom. 3:23 ERS)
A second element of the Mosaic covenant that legalism has distorted is the relationship of sin to death. The Biblical concept of sin as basically trust in a false god, idolatry, is misunderstood as basically a transgression of the law, the breaking of the rules and a falling short of the universal divine standard. According to legalism, sin is considered to be a crime against God, and the penalty for these crimes is spiritual, physical and eternal death. Until the penalty is executed at the last judgment, man is under the burden of an objective guilt or condemmation which must be satisfied by the execution of the penalty. And in addition to this objective guilt there is a subjective guilt of a bad conscience, which may or may not correspond to the objective guilt. This objective guilt has been conceived in terms of a debt which man owes and/or as demerit on man's record. Thus man needs to be saved because he is a guilty sinner.
The legalistic concept of death is a misunderstanding of the Biblical concept of death. In the Scriptures, death is not always the result of each man's own personal sins. All men have received spiritual and physical death from Adam ( Rom. 5:12 ERS) but not eternal death. Since Adam, man is not responsible for being spiritually dead because he did not choose that state. He received spiritual death from Adam just as he received physical death from Adam ( Rom. 5:13-14). But man is responsible for the god he chooses. The true God has not left man without a knowledge about Himself.
"1:19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them;This knowledge about God leaves man without excuse for his idolatry. He knows that his false gods are phonies. But this knowledge does not save him because it is knowledge about the true God, and not a personal knowledge of the true God which is life eternal (John 17:3). But even though man is not responsible for being spiritually dead, he is 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 life in Christ Jesus, he will receive the wages of his decision, eternal death (Rom. 6:23). If a man refuses the gift of spiritual and eternal life in Christ Jesus and continues to put his trust in a false god, remaining in spiritual death, then after he dies physically, at the last judgment he will receive the results of his wrong decision or sin, eternal death, separation from God for eternity.
for God manifested it to them.
1:20 For 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." (Rom. 1:19-20 ERS)
Romans 6:23 does not mean that sin must be punished and that death is the penalty of sin. The meaning of this verse must be determined by considering its context, the previous verses from 15 to 23. The context of this verse is not the law-court but slavery. Sin is personified as a slavemaster. Verse 14 says that sin will no longer have dominion or lordship (kurieusei) over the Christian, because he is now under grace. Verse 16 speaks of yielding oneself as a slave - either to sin or to obedience [to God]. Verse 17 speaks of having been slaves to sin but now (verse 18) being slaves of righteousness. Verses 20-21 asks what return did they get from the things that they did as slaves of sin. Paul says that the end of the slavery to sin is death. Verse 22 says that the end result of being a slave of God is eternal life. Then in verse 23 Paul summarizes his argument by saying that the wages of sin, that is, the wages paid by sin as a slavemaster, is death. But God does not pay wages, but gives a free gift, eternal life in Christ Jesus, our Lord.
It is very plain from verses Rom. 6:17 and 18 that the slavery of sin was a past experience for the Christian. He has now changed masters. If he had remained under his old master, sin, that master would have eventually paid off in only one kind of coin, death. But since they have changed masters, they are not now in a position to collect wages from the old master, sin. And it does not say the they get wages from their new master, God. But they get a free gift, something that could not be earned, eternal life. What kind of death did they receive from their old master? Eternal death, eternal separation from God. That eternal death is meant here is clear from the second half this verse: "...but the gift of God is eternal life..." Paul is not here talking about spiritual or physical death but only about eternal death, the end result of the slavery of sin. Romans 6:23 says nothing about the penalty of sin, that is, that sin must be punished. This verse only says that the end result of the slavery of sin is eternal death.
But that does not mean that sin must be punished before the sin can be forgiven. If the sinner repents and turns from his idolatry and to the true God in faith, he will be freely forgiven. If he does repent and believe, he will not still be liable to be punished for his sins.
"18:21 But if a wicked man turns away from all his sinsHere is the error of legalistic understanding of death. It says that sin must always be punished even if the sinner repents and believes (trusts) God. This contradicts the plain and clear teaching of God's Word (Ezek. 18:21-23; 33:10-20; Lam. 3:31-33; Isa. 55:6-7; II Chron. 7:14; II Pet. 3:9). Do not misunderstand what I am saying here. I am not saying that God does not punish sin. He does. This is not the error. The error is to say that God cannot forgive sin before or until he has punished sin. The error is that God must always punish sin before sin can be forgiven. That is, that before God can in love forgive the sinner, He must of necessity punish the sin. This is false. Man needs to be forgiven but paying the penalty of sin is not forgiveness. When sin is punished, it is not freely forgiven. The punishment of sin is the execution of the results of sin; forgiveness is free dismissal of the results of sin. If sin is forgiven, it is not punished and if sin is punished, it is not forgiven. Forgiveness through punishment is a contradiction. The punishment of sin is not forgiveness of sin and forgivenss of sin is not its punishment.
which he has committed and keeps all my statues
and does what is lawful and right,
he shall live; he shall not die.
18:22 None of the transgressions
which he has committed shall be remembered against him;
for the righteousness which he has done he shall live.
18:23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked,
says the Lord God,
and not rather he should turn from his way and live? ...
18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone,
says the Lord God; so turn, and live."
(Ezek. 18:21-23,32; see also Ezek. 33:11)
According to this legalistic teaching, this necessity of punishment is grounded in the justice of God. This justice requires, it is said, that the penalty must be paid before guilt can be removed. The guilt of sin cannot be freely forgiven, but only can be taken away by paying the penalty, which alone can satisfy justice. Justice demands that sin must be always punished. According to this legalistic theology, God is not free to forgive the repentant sinner until the sin is punished. God's freedom is thus limited and his love is conditioned by his justice. As we will see, this legalistic concept of justice is a misunderstanding of the righteousness of God.
The legalistic preoccupation in Christian theology with death as the necessary penalty of sin has distorted the Biblical concept of spiritual death as separation from God and of eternal death as eternal separation from God. Separation from God is far more serious than the penal consequences of sin as God is more important than the law. But not only is death misunderstood but life is also misunderstood as the reward for meritorious works. Life as fellowship and communion with God, that is, a personal relationship to God, is lost sight of in the legalistic preoccupation with the law and its meritorious observance.
But not only has the Biblical concept of sin been misunderstood but, correspondingly, the Biblical concept of righteousness as a right relationship with God through faith in God ( Rom. 4:4-5) is also misunderstood as a keeping of the rules, a conformity to the law in thought, word and deed, a living up to the divine standard. Righteousness is misunderstood as moral perfection, that is, a conformity to the divine standard without exception, sinless perfection. Since man is created, according to legalism, under the law and for the law, man's highest good and final goal is this moral perfection, this legal righteousness. To stand spotless and without blame before the law is thought to be man's ultimate hope. This righteousness is often conceived in terms of merit; each good deed has a certain quantity of righteousness or merit associated with it. During the course of his life, a man acquires merit by his good works or demerit by his sins, transgressions of the law. At the final judgment these will be weighed in the double-pan balance of justice (dike). And justice will render to each impartially that which is due to him (he has earned it). If the merits outweigh the demerits, the man is legally declared righteous and legally entitled to eternal life and blessedness (he has earned it). On the other hand, if the demerits predominate, he justly deserves and receives eternal death, punishment, pain and suffering. In order for man to be saved, he must have this righteousness, this moral perfection. Thus man needs to be saved, not only because he is a guilty sinner, but also because he does not have this legal righteousness.
This legalistic concept of righteousness is a misunderstanding of the Biblical concept of righteousness. The Biblical concept of righteousness is revealed in the story of Abraham. After God revealed His promises to Abraham, the Scripture says, "then he believed in the Lord; and He [God] reckoned it [his faith] to him as righteousness" (Gen. 15:6; see also Rom. 4:3 and Gal. 3:6). Abraham believed the promises of God and his faith was reckoned to him as righteousness ( Rom. 4:3, 9). And Abraham's faith was reckoned to him as righteousness because faith in God is righteousness, the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:16-22). Righteousness is not a quality that we possess, neither merit that we have earned or have imputed to our account, but a right relationship to God. Faith in God relates us rightly to God. A man is righteous when he is in right relationship to God. And faith in God, believing the promises of God, trusting in God is being in right relationship to God. The righteousness of faith is the opposite of sin; sin is trusting in a false god and righteousness is trusting in the true God. Just as man's basic sin is idolatry, so man's basic righteousness is faith in, allegiance to and worship of the true God from the heart. It has nothing to do with merit just as sin has nothing to do with demerit.
This legalistic misunderstanding of sin and death as well as of righteousness and life, leads to a misunderstanding of the need for salvation. Since according to legalism, sin is basically a transgression of the law, the breaking of the rules and a falling short of the universal divine standard of perfection, sin is considered to be a crime against God, and the penalty for these crimes is spiritual, physical and eternal death. Until this penalty is executed at the last judgment, man is under the burden of an objective guilt or comdemnation which demands that his sins must be punished. Thus man needs to be saved because he is a guilty sinner. But man also needs to be saved because he does not have a righteousness which God can reward with eternal life. As we just saw, this righteousness is conceived legalistically as merits, that is, that quantity of righteousness which entitles its owner to a reward of eternal life. Thus according to this legalistic theology, man needs to be saved, not only because he is a guilty sinner liable to eternal death, but also because he does not have this legal righteousness which entitles him to eternal life.
This legalistic misunderstanding of the need for salvation underlies both Roman Catholic and orthodox Protestant theology. It is true that they both in their own way teach that salvation is by the grace of God. But they do so in such a way that this basic legalistic conception remains intact. This legalistic misunderstanding came into Christian theology through Tertullian (3rd century) and Cyprian (4th century) and was fixed upon Christian theology by Augustine in the early fifth century A.D. This came about in connection with his controversy with a British monk, Pelagius. The legalistic misunderstanding of the need for salvation underlies this controversy. Both Augustine and Pelagius assumed that eternal life was something that had to be earned by meritorious works; it was a reward for righteousness or good works. But they differed on whether man was able or free to do such good works. Pelagius taught that by grace of nature man was free not to sin and to do good works and Augustine taught that the grace of nature was lost by the fall and man was not free not to sin and to do good works; only by the special grace of God in Jesus Christ is man able not to sin and to do good works. Apart from this difference concerning nature and grace (and the doctrine of original sin), Augustine and Pelagius both assumed that eternal life was basically a meritorious reward, and freedom to do good works was given by God's grace in order that man might receive eternal life as a reward for his meritorious good works that grace made possible. The conception of salvation of both of them is basically legalistic: eternal life is something that has to be earned by meritorious good works. But because the grace of God makes good works possible, salvation is also by grace.
It was this teaching that the Protestant Reformers opposed. They rejected the idea that grace was something infused into man to make it possible for him to earn salvation. Grace, said the Reformers, is God's unmerited favor, and salvation (eternal life) was a gift to be received by faith. But, they said, that eternal life was earned by the active obedience of Christ during his life on earth. This "merits of Christ" is imputed to the believer's account when he first believes in Christ. Thus salvation is still ultimately and fundamentally by meritorious works. It is true that they said that it was not by our works and it was a gift received by faith. But salvation was still by works -- not by our works but by the meritorious works of another, Jesus Christ. Christ by his active obedience earned for us eternal life. It is a vicarious salvation by works. This explanation of salvation like the earlier Roman Catholic explanation mixes grace and works, which Paul says that cannot be done or grace will no longer be grace.
"But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works;And as it turned out in the history of Protestantism, the strong dynamic concept of God's grace as God's love in action is reduced to the weak idea of grace as unmerited favor. The grace of God is not just the unmerited favor of God, but it is the love of God in action to save man from death to life.
otherwise grace would longer be grace." (Rom. 11:6)
"2:4 But God who is rich in mercy,But the Protestant Reformers were wrong concerning the righteousness or merits earned for us by Christ's active obedience; righteousness is not merit but right personal relationship to God through faith.
out of the great love which he loved us,
2:5 even when were dead in our failures,
made us alive together with Christ
(by grace you have been saved)" (Eph. 2:4-5 ERS).
"4:3For what does the scriptures say?And God puts man into this right personal relationship to Himself by His grace, not by vicarious meritorious works earned for them by another.
'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'"
(Rom. 4:3)
4:4 Now to the one who works his wages is not reckoned according to grace [as a gift]
but according to debt [something owed since it was earned]
4:5 But to the one who does not work,
but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly,
his faith is reckoned for righteousness."
(Rom. 4:4-5 ERS)
"4:9 ... We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness."
(Rom. 4:9)
The difference between Augustine and Pelagius centered in the doctrine of original sin. Augustine appealed to the doctrine of original sin to support his denial of human freedom not to sin. The whole race, he held, was corrupted in the first or original sin of Adam and from Adam each member of the human race received a sinful nature. This nature expresses itself in sinful acts. Because of his sinful nature, man is not able not to sin (non posse non peccare); he has lost his freedom not to sin and to do good works. Because all men literally sinned in Adam, their natural head, they are all guilty and have all inherited the guilt of that sin. Men are under condemnation not only because of their own personal sins, which each commits as an expression of his sinful nature, but because of the guilt of the original sin in which they participated in Adam before they were born. Thus man cannot save himself. He is not able not to sin and also not able to do the meritorious works that could earn him eternal life. This reasoning assumes that salvation is by works but man is not able to do the works.
After the Reformation, many Protestant theologians reinterpreted the doctrine of original sin. During the seventeenth century, it became known as covenant or federal theology. Among its earliest advocates were the Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) and his successor, Johann Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575), who were driven to the subject by the Anabaptists in and around Zurich. From them it passed to John Calvin (1509-1564) and to other Reformers; it was further developed by their successors, and played a dominant role in Reformed theology of the seventeenth century. Its emphasis on God's covenantal relationships with mankind was seen as less harsh than the earlier Reformed theology that emanated from Geneva, with its emphasis on divine sovereignty and predistination. From Switzerland the covenant theology passed over into Germany. The German linguist and theologian Johann Koch [latinized to Cocceius] (1603-1669) set forth in his Doctrine of the Covenant and Testaments of God (1648) and in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (1655) the fully developed covenant theology. It spread from there to the Netherlands and to the British Isles where it was incorporated into the Westminster Confession of Faith (1648); it came to have an important place in the theology of Scotland and of New England.
This Covenant theology sees the relationship of God to the human race as a legal compact or agreement. It said that God appointed Adam, who was the natural head of the human race, to be the federal (foedus, Latin "covenant") head or legal representative of the whole race. God then entered into a covenant with the whole race through Adam as their legal representative. According to the terms of this Covenant of Works God promised to bestow eternal life upon Adam and the entire human race if he, Adam, as their federal head, obeyed God. On the other hand, God threatened the punishment of death, that is, condemnation and a sinful corrupt nature, upon the whole human race if he, Adam, as their federal head, disobeyed. Now since Adam sinned, God reckoned his descendants as guilty, under condemnation to eternal death. Adam's sin is imputed to each member of the human race as their own guilt. And because of this imputation of guilt, each member of the human race has received by inheritance a sinful or corrupt nature. This sinful nature, which is itself sin, leads invariably to acts of sin. And each man in addition to the racial guilt is also guilty for his own personal sins. Thus men carry a double burden of guilt, of both objective and subjective guilt and condemnation. This theory of the relationship of Adam's sin to the rest of the human race is known in Christian theology as the Federal Headship Theory to distinguish it from the Natural Headship Theory of Augustine.
But in spite of the difference between them, these two theories lead to the same view of man's need for salvation. Man is a guilty sinner because of Adam's original sin and also because of his own personal sins which he commits because of an inherited sinful nature. Both theories view man's relationship to God as a legal relationship and sin as a violation of that relationship as well as intrinsic to human nature. They are both basically and essentially legalistic.
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,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. The immediate, contemporary and personal origin of sin is set forth in the last phrase, "because of which [death] all sinned."
and death through sin, and so death passed unto all men,
because of which [death] all sinned: - " (ERS)
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.
"2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying,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. 2:17; 3:8) and assumed by the Scriptures (Matt. 8:22; Luke 9:60; 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 spiritually dead bury their physically dead." This spiritual death is implied by the Hebrew experssion which is translated "you shall surely die" in Gen. 2:17 and which is literally "dying you shall die." That they 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. 3:23-24). 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). 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, it 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.
'From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
2:17 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)
The immediate, contemporary and personal origin of sin is set forth in the last phrase of Rom. 5:12, "because of which [death] all sinned." (ERS) The Scriptures teach that all men have sinned because they are spiritually dead. This is what the Apostle Paul says in the last clause of Romans 5:12, which clause is incorrectly translated in our English translations (RSV, NAS, NIV) as "because all sinned," making Paul appear to contradict himself in verse 14:
"5:13 For until the law sin was in the world;But Paul does not contradict himself; the translation of the last clause of Rom. 5:12 as "because all sinned" only makes Paul to appear to contradict himself. In the Greek of this last clause of verse 12, there is a relative pronoun that has not been translated. If it were translated, the whole clause in English would read, "because of which all sinned," the relative pronoun being translated as "of which". In the Greek, it is clear that the antecedent of this relative pronoun is the Greek word translated "death" in the preceding clause. (The antecedent of a relative pronoun is the word to which the pronoun refers.) The last clause would then be equivalent to "because of death all sinned" and would mean that all men sinned because of the death received from Adam. Thus Rom. 5:12 should be translated:
but sin is not imputed where there is no law.
5:14 But 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).
"Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world,But how is this possible? How can men sin because of death? Let me explain how this is possible by referring to another passage in the writings of the Apostle Paul, Galatians 4:8. In this passage, Paul is reminding the Galatian Christians of their condition before they became Christians.
and death through sin, and so death passed unto all men,
because of which all sinned: - " (Rom. 5:12 ERS)
"Formerly, when you did not know God,Not to "know God" personally as a living reality is to be spiritually dead. And a man is "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.
you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods." (Gal. 4:8)
Let me put it another way. Every man must have a god. Man, by the very structure of his freedom, must choose something to be the ultimate criterion of all his decisions. This is because every choice a man makes is made with reference to some criterion. That is, behind every decision as to what a man will do or think there is a reason, a criterion of decision. And the ultimate criterion or reason for any decision -- practical or theoretical -- must be given in terms of some particular criterion, an ultimate reference or orientation point in or beyond the self or person making the decision. This ultimate criterion is that person's god. In this sense, every man must have a god. Every man, if he hasn't already, must choose something as his god, as his ultimate criterion. Now if he doesn't know the true God personally as a living reality, that is, if he is spiritually dead, and since he must have a god, he will choose a false god. He will choose some part or aspect of reality as his god, deifying it.
"They exchanged the truth about God for a lieThe choice of a false god and consequent personal allegiance and devotion to it is what the Bible calls idolatry. An idol does not have to be an image of wood, stone or metal. It may be money, wealth, power, pleasure, education, the family, the state, democracy, reason, experience, science, the moral law, etc. It may be anything that is good in its proper place that is exalted as the ultimate good, taking the place of the true God, who is the ultimate Good (Matt. 16:17). An idol is a false god, and a false god may be anything that takes the place of the true God, anything a man chooses as his ultimate criterion of decision, exalting it as God in the place of the true God. It is any substitute or replacement for the true God in a man's life. Since a false god usurps the place of the true God in a man's life, idolatry is the basic sin. This sin is directly against God; it is a direct insult to the true God and an affront to His divine majesty. No more serious sin could be imagined than this one. Since it is the most serious sin, it is therefore the most basic. This is the main reason that idolatry is the first sin prohibited by the Ten Commandments. "Thou shalt have no other gods besides Me." (Exodus 20:3 ERS) Idolatry is also the basic sin because this sin leads to other sins. It leads to other sins since a person's god, being his ultimate criterion of decision, ultimately controls the direction and character of a man's decisions. The choice of a wrong god will lead to other wrong choices. That is, the idol that a man sets up in his heart (Ezek. 14:3-5) will affect the character and quality of his whole life. In other words, if in his heart a man clings to a false god, his actions and speech will show it. In this way also idolatry is the basic sin.
and worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator" (Rom. 1:25).
Now we can understand how death leads to sin. If a man is spiritually dead, separated from God, and since he must choose a god, he will usually choose a false god. If a man does not know personally the true God, the true God will not be a living reality to him. And lacking this personal knowledge of the true God as a living reality, man does not have the adequate reason for choosing the true God as his ultimate criterion of decision. 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 but rather that reason for which He is chosen would be god. Only a living encounter with the true and living God can produce the situation in which God Himself may be chosen. If God Himself is the only adequate condition for the choice of Himself, then apart from a personal revelation of God Himself, man will usually choose as his god that which seems like god to him from among the creation around him or from the creations of his own hands or mind. Man does not necessarily have to sin but he usually will. Spiritual death is not the necessary cause but the basis or condition for his choice of a false god. (The Greek word translated "because" in the last clause of Romans 5:12 means "on the basis of" or "on the condition of".)
Man is not responsible for becoming spiritually dead because he did not choose this state. He inherited spiritual death from Adam just as he inherited physical death. But he is responsible for the god he chooses. The true God has not left man without a knowledge about Himself ( Rom. 1:19-20). This knowledge about God leaves man without excuse for his idolatry. But it does not save him because it is knowledge about the true God and not a personal knowledge of the true God. But even though a man is not responsible for becoming spiritually dead, he is responsible for remaining in the state of spiritual death when deliverance is offered to him in the person of Jesus Christ. If he refuses the gift of eternal life in Christ Jesus, he must reap the harvest and receive the wages of his decision, eternal death.
"For the wages of sin is death,If a man refuses the gift of spiritual and eternal life in Christ Jesus and continues to put his trust in a false god, remaining in spiritual death, then after he dies physically, at the last judgment he will receive the result of his decision, eternal death, separation from God for eternity.
but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord"
(Rom. 6:23).
The legalistic distortion of the Biblical orign of sin involves a misunderstanding of the relationship of death to sin. With the Mosaic covenant, death, primarily physical death, becomes the result of personal sins (Ezek. 18:4, 20, 28; Deut. 24:16; Isa. 59:2). This relationship between sin and death is, with the coming of the law, superimposed upon the more basic and primary relationship of sin-because-of-death (Rom. 5:12-14 ERS). The coming of the law did not change this basic relationship: man sins because of spiritual death ( Rom. 5:12d ERS). The law only adds to the already existing relationship of sin-because-of-spiritual-death the relationship of spiritual-death-because-of-sin. The law makes spiritual death also the results of personal sin (Isa. 59:2). Legalism now takes this relationship of death-because-of-sin and generalizes it into the universal principle that death, spiritual, physical, as well as eternal death, is always the result of sin. Thus the more basic and primary relationship of sin-because-of-spiritual-death is either unrecognized or ignored or denied by legalism. According to legalism, death (physical and spiritual) is always the result of sin and never the other way around. And because death is considered always to be the penalty of sin, legalism cannot understand the more basic and primary relationship of sin-because-of-death and therefore thinks it is impossible. Again legalism has taken an element of the Mosaic covenant, that death, primarily physical death, is the result of sin, and exaggerates it by generalizing it into a universal principle, distorting the Biblical view of the relationship of death to sin and denying that all men have sinned because of spiritual death.
In the doctrine of original sin, sin is misunderstood as intrinsic to human nature as an inherited sinful nature, an intrinsic inability to do righteousness and a definite necessity to do sin. The doctrine of original sin, although containing elements of the Biblical doctrine of sin and death, is a legalistic distortion and misunderstanding of the Biblical doctrine of sin and death. That spiritual death, the separation from God which was spread along with physical death upon the whole race from Adam ( Rom. 5:12 ERS), as the condition for sin is not understood. This more primary and basic relationship of sin-because-of-spiritual-death is ignored. Most Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians ignore this relationship, not recognizing its existence. But Augustine could not ignore it because there were contemporary theologians in the 5th century who held to this view. For example, Mark the Hermit and Theodore of Mopsuestia held this view. Theodore of Mopsuestia in his treatise, "Against the Defenders of Original Sin," apparently held to such a view. Jaroslav Pelikan says,
"Theodore often attributed sin to the fact of man's mortality,Pelikan quotes Theodore as follows:
although he sometimes reversed the connection." [3]
"Since sin was reigning in our mortality,
and conversely death was growing stronger in us on account of sin,
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ came...
and destroyed death by his death,
he also destroyed the sin
which was rooted in our nature by reason of mortality." [4]
Concerning Mark the Hermit, Edward Yarnold says:
"What we have inherited from Adam, he maintained, is not his sin,Other early Greek church fathers such a Irenaeus and Athanasius also placed the emphasis on death rather than sin as what we received from Adam and from which Christ saved us. [6]
because in that case we should all be born sinners, which is not true.
What is inherited is his death, which consists in separation from God." [5]
Augustine attempts to refute this view in his
"A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians," bk. IV, chapter 6-8.
He writes concerning those who held this view.
"For where the apostle says,Note that the Latin translation of Rom. 5:12 which Augustine quotes omits the word "death" from the phrase "and so passed upon all men." On this basis Augustine incorrectly assumed that it was sin that passed upon all men, and that this sin is a sinful or corrupt nature that was passed. But the original Greek that Paul wrote includes the word thanatos [death] in the phrase, and our English versions correctly translates it, "and so death spread to all men."
'By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin,
and so passed upon all men,'
they will have it there understood
not that 'sin' passed over, but 'death.'
What, then, is the meaning of what follows,
'wherein all have sinned'?
For either the apostle says that
in that 'one man' all have sinned of whom he had said,
'By one man sin entered into the world,'
or else in that 'sin' or certainly in 'death.'
For it need not disturb us that he said not 'in which'
[using the feminine form of the pronoun]
but 'in whom' [using the masculine] all have sinned;
since 'death' in the Greek language is of the masculine gender.
Let them, then, choose which they will, -
for either in that 'man' all have sinned,
and it is so said because when he sinned all were in him;
or in that 'sin' all have sinned, because that was the
doing of all in general which all those who were
born would have to derive; or it remains for them
to say that in that 'death' all sinned.
But in what way this can be understood,
I do not clearly see. For all die in sin;
they do not sin in death;
for when sin precedes, death follows -
not when death precedes, sin follows...."But if 'sin' cannot be understood by those words of the apostle
as being that 'wherein all have sinned,'
because in Greek from which the Epistle is translated,
'sin' is expressed in the feminine gender,
it remains that all men are understood to have sinned
in that first 'man,' because all men were in him
when he sinned; and from him sin is derived by birth,
and is not remitted save by being born again." [7]
Augustine took the relative pronoun in the last clause of Romans 5:12 as
masculine and at the same time he gave the preposition epi the meaning
of "in." Thus he gave the prepositional phrase eph ho the meaning
in lumbis Adami [in the loins of Adam]. However, this interpretation
must be rejected. For
(a) the Greek preposition epi does not here have the meaning
of "in" and
(b) while the Greek relative pronoun ho may be taken as masculine,
it is too far removed from anthropou (man) for that to be its
antecedent, being separated from it by so many intervening clauses.
[8]
The Latin Vulgate translation is obviously not correct.
Most theologians today accept this conclusion
but many still hold to Augustine's interpretation
while rejecting his grammatical analysis of this phrase as its basis.
John Murray says,
"It is unnecessary at this stage in the history of expositionHow can a translation be theologically true and at the same time grammatically untenable? Does not exegesis determine theology and not theology exegesis? Murray's legalistic theological presuppositions, like Augustine's, determine for him the meaning of the phrase and not the rules of grammar. According to their legalistic presuppositions, death is always the penalty of sin, the penal consequence of the transgression of the law. Death, therefore, cannot produce sin. So according to them, the Apostle Paul cannot be saying that "all sinned because of death." Their legalistic theological presuppositions has made this interpretation impossible and meaningless for them.
to argue that the Vulgate rendering, in quo omnes peccaverunt,
though, as we shall see, it is theologically true,
is nevertheless grammatically untenable." [9]
The doctrine of the sinful nature is nowhere taught in Scriptures. None
of the passages of Scriptures usually cited in support of this doctrine
(Psa. 51:5; Job 14:4;
Eph. 2:3)
say that since the fall man has a sinful nature, that is, that man sins
because he is a sinner by nature. On the contrary, according to
Rom. 5:12d (ERS)
all men sin because they are spiritually dead. And all men are sinners
because they sin.
Psa. 51:5, which says,
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,means either that David's birth was a act of sin (that is, his birth was illegitimate, which it was not) or that he sins from birth as Psa. 58:3 says:
and in sin did my mother conceive me,"
"The wicked go astray from the womb,Job 14:4, which says,
they err from their birth, speaking lies."
(See also Isa. 48:8)
"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?means that righteousness can not come from the unrighteous and that a sinner can only bring forth sin; from the context it does not seem to be referring to the birth of a sinner. None of these passages says that man has a sinful nature or why man sins from birth. Paul explains that in Romans 5:12d:
There is none,"
In Eph. 2:2-3, Paul says,
"2:2 In which [sins] you formerly walked according to the course of this world,The "flesh" here is the body, which Paul contrasts with the mind; "the wishes of the flesh and of the mind." The NIV totally mistranslates this phrase as "the craving of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts." The RSV correctly translates it: "the desires of body and mind." Also Paul says, "we were by nature children of wrath", not "by nature sinners". Paul is here not saying why men sin, but only that men are naturely objects of God's wrath, since they have sinned.
according to the prince of the power of the air,
of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lust of our flesh,
indulging the wishes of the flesh and of the mind,
and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest." (Eph. 2:2-3)
The flesh is not the sinful nature. The Apostle Paul, like the other New Testament writers, never use the Greek word translated "flesh" (sarx) to mean the sinful nature in the sense of that in man which makes him sin, that is, that man sins because he is a sinner by nature. Man does not sin because he is a sinner, but he is a sinner because he sins by choice, not by nature. When the Apostle John wrote, "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14 NAS), he clearly was not saying that the Word of God became a sinner by nature and had a sinful nature. Clearly he means that the Son of God became a human being, a man. Paul uses the Greek word translated "flesh" (sarx), like the rest of the New Testament writers (The word "sarx" occurs 151 times in the Greek New Testament), with the following different meanings.
And also in Romans 8, Paul never identifies the flesh with the sinful
nature. In Romans 8:3 the word "flesh" (=human nature) is
qualified by the word sin because human nature is not inherently sinful (see
7
above). The flesh (=human nature) may be designated as sinful when a man
chooses to sin (Rom. 6:16-18).
The Greek word "sarx" in Romans 8:4-7, 12-13 designates
anything that is an object of trust instead of God (see
14
above); it is not the sinful nature.
This use of sarx in verse 5 is just Paul's way of
saying that "those according to the flesh," put their trust in
something other than the true God, that is, "set their minds on the things of
the flesh". The word translated "set the mind on" indicates a "conscious
spiritual orientation of life," an attitude or disposition of the will.
[11]
See Paul's use of this word phroneo in Rom. 12:16; Phil. 2:2, 5; 3:15;
Col. 3:2; and Matt. 16:23. This orientation toward the flesh, to that which
is not God who is spirit, is what we have been calling the basic sin of
idolatry. This is not the sinful nature and it is misleading to call it that.
Those who are according to the Spirit, on the other hand, put
their trust in the true God; they are oriented to the things of the Spirit.
Since the god in whom one trusts is one's ultimate criterion for all his
choices, a person will choose those things that are in agreement with his
ultimate criterion; his attitude and disposition will be oriented toward the
things of his god. If his god is a false god (the flesh), he will be oriented
toward the things of that false god; if his God is the true God (the Spirit),
he will be oriented toward the thing of the true God.
The phrase "in the flesh" in Romans 8:8-9 is clearly equivalent to "unsaved" as in Rom. 7:5 (see 12 above); it is opposite to being in the Spirit which is to be saved. Paul used this phrase "in the flesh" previously in Rom. 7:5 to refer to their condition before they turned to Christ and were saved. It is equivalent to being "unsaved" and is the opposite to being "in the Spirit" (see verse 8:9). Those who are in the flesh cannot please God, because they do not have faith in the true God. "And without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11:6).
If the doctrine of the sinful nature is rejected, then how can salvation by works be logically opposed and rejected? If man does not have a sinful nature, then won't he be able to save himself by his good works? Won't he be able to earn his salvation by his meritorous works? Thus it would seem that the doctrine of the sinful nature must be accepted if salvation by works is to be rejected. Since the Scriptures clearly teach that salvation is not by works but by grace through faith ( Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5; etc.), then it appears that the doctrine of the sinful nature must be accepted in order to oppose and reject salvation by works.
Now the curious thing about this line of reasoning is that it assumes that if man is to be saved, he will be saved by works. That is, it assumes that if man were able to do good works, then he could save himself. But that is not true. Man can not save himself, even if he could do the good works to earn it. Salvation is not earned; it is a gift.
"2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith;Whether man is able to do good works or not has nothing to do with salvation since salvation is not something which can be earned with good works. The controversy between Augustine and Pelagius is beside the point; their disagreement over whether man is free to sin or not, free to do good works or not, has nothing to do with whether salvation is by works or not. It was because they both assumed that salvation was by works that their disagreement over man's free will had any point to it. And the doctrine of original sin and the sinful nature is also not necessary in order to reject salvation by works. It was only because Augustine made the legalistic assumption that salvation was something to be earned that he brought in the doctrine of the sinful nature to deny that man was able to save himself. Under the skin Augustine was as much a legalist as Pelagius who explicitly taught that man could be saved by his meritorious works.
and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God,
2:9 not as a result of works, that no one should boast."
(Eph. 2:8-9 NAS; Titus 3:5)
The doctrine of the sinful nature was introduced into Christian theology by Augustine in the early fifth century A.D. to explain why man can not save himself by his meritorious works. Instead of denying that salvation has anything to do with meritorious works (It is a free gift), he assumed that salvation is by meritorious works and he taught that since the fall because of his sinful nature man cannot do meritorious works to earn salvation apart from the grace of God. Since according to Scriptures ( Rom. 4:4-5; Eph. 2:8-9) salvation is not by meritorious works, the doctrine of the sinful nature is unnecessary to deny that man can save himself. Man cannot save himself because he cannot make himself alive, not because he cannot do meritorious works. The law cannot deliver one from sin or death, neither produce life or righteousness.
"Is the law then against the promises of God?There is no salvation by the law.
Certainly not;
for if a law had been given which could make alive,
then righteousness would indeed be by the law." (Gal. 3:21)
The sinful nature is not needed to explain why man cannot save himself, because the law was not given by God for salvation. God gave the law, not for salvation from sin, but for the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20b); that is, to show what should be man's right personal relationship to God and to his fellow men (Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18; Matt. 22:37-40). This knowledge does not save man, but only shows man what he ought to be, but cannot make him to be that. Because the law cannot make man alive ( Gal. 3:21), salvation is not by the law, nor is the Christian life lived by human self effort (the flesh). Salvation is only through Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit; Jesus Christ Himself is the life (John 14:6) and one is made alive with Christ (regenerated) and is kept alive (renewing) by the Spirit (Titus 3:5).
To Continue, Click here.
[2] C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans
(New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1957), p. 74.
[3] See Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian tradition: vol. 1,
The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971), pp. 285-286, and
Joanne McWilliam Dewart,
The Theology of Grace of Theodore of Mopsuestia
(Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1971), pp. 33-37.
[4] Theodore Mopsuestia, "Exposition of the Gospel of John 1:29", trans. from
Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium, 116:29 (115:42)
(Paris, 1903- ) quoted by Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, p. 286.
[5] See Edward Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin
(Notre Dame: Fides Publishers, 1971), p. 64.
[6] J. N. D. Kelley, Early Christian Doctrine
(New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1960), pp. 170-174, 346-348.
[7] 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's "A Treatise on Merits and Forgiveness of Sins,"
and on the "Baptism of Infants," bk. III, chapter 20.
[8] 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 Sons, 1915), p. 133.
[9] John Murray, The Imputation of Adam's Sin
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959),
footnote 10, p. 9.
[10] Eduard Schweizer, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
Vol. VII, pp. 129-131.
[11] Georg Bertram, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
Vol. IX, pp. 220-235.