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 (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). 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.
What is legalism?
Legalism does not mean just having rules or laws;
it is a misuse of rules and laws.
Theologically, legalism is a
distortion of the law of God,
a misunderstanding of the law given by God to Israel. The
law of God
is not legalism. It was a covenant relationship
between God and the people Israel. Unlike the covenants God
made with Noah and with Abraham, which were covenants of
sheer grace, with no conditions attached to the receiving of
the blessings of the covenant, the Mosaic covenant was
conditional. God made unconditional promises to Noah and to
Abraham of what He would do. But the blessings of the
Mosaic covenant were conditioned upon Israel's obedience to
God (Deut. 28:1-14); their disobedience to Him would bring
curses upon them (Deut. 28:15-20; 30:1-20). These
conditions are given in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:3-17;
Deut. 5:6-21) and other statutes and ordinances. These
commandments were not an end in themselves; they were
specific ways in which they were to obey God. The law is
concerned with Israel's personal relationship to God: to love
and obey God and not to worship or serve other gods. The
history of Israel shows that they did not obey God. They
disobeyed Him by turning from Him to other gods. From the
time of Moses through the times of the judges and kings they
kept backsliding into idolatry. The prophets over and over
again rebuked them for the sin of idolatry. The curses that
God said He would bring upon them for their disobedience and
idolatry (Deut. 28:36-52, 63-66; 29:24-28) came upon them;
they were scattered among the nations: the northern tribes
in 722 B.C. by Assyria and the southern tribes in 586 B.C.
by Babylonia. When they returned from the 70 years of
Babylonian captivity, the Jews never again went into the
idolatry of worshipping pagan gods. But it seems that very
soon after the last of the O.T. prophets, Malachi, they
developed an idolatry of the law. They began to trust in
the law (Rom. 2:17). The law became an absolute standard to
be obeyed. Obedience to the law subtly took the place of
obedience to God. Keeping the law became a meritorious work
that could earn God's favor and blessings. Eventually there
evolved the idea that one's eternal destiny depends upon the
amount of merit or demerit that one accumulates during one's
life-time. This whole scheme of merit with its absolute
standard of the law is what we mean by legalism.
Jesus and the early apostles, particularly Paul, opposed this Jewish legalism. Paul combated the Judaizers' attempts to put Christians under the Mosaic law. When we realize the covenant nature of the law, we can see why this was not possible. Since the Christian's relationship to God was already established in the New covenant, it could not at the same time be established under the Old Mosaic covenant. Then it must be that what the Judaizers were trying to do was to make the law in an absolute sense necessary for a right relationship to God. This is not just the Mosaic law; it is legalism. And Paul refused to allow it.
In Eph. 2:8-9 Paul contrasts salvation by grace with salvation by works. What is salvation by works? Salvation by works is a salvation that is earned; it is merited. "To the one working the reward is reckoned not according to grace [as a gift] but according to debt [something owed since it was earned]" (Rom. 4:4). The works that are supposed to earn salvation are more than just good works (good deeds or acts); they are meritorious works; they are good deeds that earn salvation. Each good work is regarded as having a certain quantity of merit attached to it; when the good work is done, the merit is placed or reckoned to the account of the person performing the act.
Correspondingly, each evil or bad work is regarded as having a certain quantity of demerit or negative merit (penalty) attached to it so that the demerit is reckoned to the account of the person doing the evil work (sin). At the final judgment each person's account is balanced -- the merits and demerits are weighed against each other. If the merit outweighs the demerit, that person is saved -- he has earned eternal life. If the demerit outweighs the merit, that person is condemned -- he is punished eternally for his sins. This merit scheme underlies and is implied by all teaching that salvation is by works.
Paul very clearly teaches that salvation is not by works (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). Salvation is by grace through faith. Man cannot be saved by his good works; he cannot earn salvation by his works. This is the clear and explicit teaching of Scripture. Salvation by grace and salvation by meritorious works are mutually exclusive and opposing views of salvation. "But if it is by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." (Rom. 11:6)
Even though Paul's opposition to the Judaizers in the early church effectively stopped the entrance into Christianty of the Jewish legalism (see the Letter to the Galatians), this did not stop another form of the legalism from creeping into Christian thought and practice some 200 years later. In this later form of legalism the rationalism of the Greek philosophers had been wedded to the legal philosophy of the Romans developed by such earlier writers as Cicero (1st century B.C.). This rationalistic legalism crept into Christian theology by way of a 3rd century lawyer and Christian apologist, Tertullian, and since the time of Augustine (5th century) has formed the basis of most Roman Catholic and Protestant theology.
Legalism in its fullest form consists of four distortions of the law.
These are the essential characteristics of legalism.
This misunderstanding of God in terms of the law leads not only to a misunderstanding of the relationship of God to man but also of the relationship of man to God. Sin is defined in terms of the law and not in terms of God; sin is understood only as a falling short of the divine standard of the law, the breaking of the law or rules, the transgression of or want of conformity to the law in thought, word and deed. Sin is a crime and the penalty for these crimes is spiritual, physical and eternal death. Until the penalty is executed at the last judgement, man is under the burden of an objective guilt or condemnation which must be satisfied by the execution of the penalty. This objective guilt has been conceived in terms of a debt which man owes and/or as a demerit on man's record.
Righteousness, correspondingly, is also misunderstood to be keeping of the law or rules, a conformity to the law in thought, word, and deed; legal and moral perfection. Man's highest good and final goal according this point of view is this moral perfection, this legal righteousness. To stand spotless and without legal blame before the law is thought to be man's ultimate hope. Man is misunderstood as being created under the law and for the law; he is a moral, rational animal. Accordingly, man is different from the lower animals and like God because he possesses a moral and rational nature like God does. There is within man's conscience an absolute standard of right and wrong -- the law of nature, a universal moral law. This misunderstanding of man in terms of the law follows from the misunderstanding of God in terms of the law. As a result, the relationship between God and man is depersonalized. The depersonalization of the law thus necessarily follows from the absolutizing of the law.
Jesus opposed this distortion of the law in His parable of the householder (Matt. 20:1-16). The Apostle Paul also rejected this distortion when he opposed salvation by works. Paul refers to such meritorious works as "the righteousness of the law" (Rom. 10:5; Phil. 3:6, 9) and "the works of the law" (Rom. 3:20; 4:2-5; Gal. 3:2,5, 10). In his language a "work of law" was usually more than just a good deed or act; it was a meritorious good deed or act. The law was considered to be the standard by which the merits of good works can be determined. For James, on the other hand, a "work" was just a good deed or act (James 2:14-26). Since the Apostle Paul was talking about something different from James, they do not contradict each other when they speak of justification by works.
These four characteristics of legalism are based on a
misunderstanding of the law,
which leads to
a misunderstanding of the need for salvation,
a misunderstanding of the origin of sin,
a misunderstanding of salvation,
a misunderstanding of the righteousness of God,
a misunderstanding of the grace of God, and
a misunderstanding of Christian life.
[1] "I find that it has been the opinion of the wisest men
that Law is not a product of human thought, nor is it any
enactment of peoples, but something eternal which rules the
whole universe by its wisdom in command and prohibition.
Thus they have been accustomed to say that Law is the primal
and ultimate mind of God, whose reason directs all things
either by compulsion or restraint ... it is the reason and
mind of the wise lawgiver applied to command and
prohibition.... Ever since we were children, Quintus, we have
learned to call, 'If one summon another to court,' and other
rules of the same kind, laws. But we must come to the true
understanding of the matter, which is as follows: this and
other commands and prohibitions of nations have the power to
summon to righteousness and away from wrongdoing; but this
power is not merely older than the existence of the nations
and states, it is coeval with that God who guards and rules
heaven and earth. For the divine mind cannot exist without
reason, and divine reason cannot but have this power to
establish right and wrong.... For reason did not exist,
derived from the Nature of the universe, urging men to right
conduct and diverting them from wrongdoing, and this reason
did not first become Law when it was written down, but
when it first came into existence; and it came into existence
simultaneously with the divine mind. Wherefore, the true
and primal Law, applied to command and prohibition, is the
right reason of supreme Jupiter."
Cicero, Laws, II, 8-10.
Cicero, De Re Publica, De Legibus.
English trans. by Clinton Walker Keyes, in
The Loeb Classical Library
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1961), pp. 379-383.
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 though 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 in particular that legalism has distorted which need 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.
A second element of the Mosaic covenant that legalism has distorted is 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, 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 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.
The legalistic distortion of these Biblical elements involves a misunderstanding of the need for salvation. The Biblical concept of sin that the basic sin is 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. 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. But not only has the Biblical concept of sin been misunderstood but, correspondingly, the Biblical concept of righteousness as a right personal relationship with God through faith in God (Rom. 4:3,5) 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 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 Augustine's 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.
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 reason 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.
Covenant theology sees the relationship of God to the human race as a 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.
The Scriptures nowhere teaches that God made a covenant of works with Adam. The covenant theologians claim that Hosea 6:7 teaches that God made a covenant with Adam; but among biblical theologians there are different interpretations of Hosea 6:7. Some take the Hebrew word adam to mean "man"; and that the Hebrew word refers not to the first man, but to men in general. That is the interpretation which the translators of the King James Version held and they translated Hosea 6:7 as: "But they like men have transgressed the covenant, there have they dealt treacherously against me." The NIV translation recognizes that possible translation in their footnote "Like men", but accepts the other intrepretation that it refers to the first man, Adam. And so does the New American Standard translation; "But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me." But the verse does not say that God made a covenant with Adam. It says, "like Adam they have transgressed the covenant." What covenant? This is the covenant that God made with Israel; in verse 4 God says, "O Ephraim, what shall I do unto you? O Judah, what shall I do unto thee?" (Hosea 6:4). The "they" in verse 7 refers to Ephraim and Judah; and it is the covenant that God made with children of Israel (the Mosaic Covenant) that they had transgressed. Their transgression was like Adam's transgression; it was a transgression of the command or commands that God had given them. Adam's transgression was like Israel's transgression in that they both had disobeyed the command or commands of God. The only similarity between Adam's sin and Israel's sin is that their sin was the disobedience of a command or commands that God had given them, not that they both had a "legal" covenant. Nowhere in Genesis nor in the rest of the Old Testament does it say that God made a covenant with Adam. In the Old Testament there are revealed only four covenants that God made: the Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, and the Davidic Covenant; and the New Covenant was prophesied (Jer. 31:31-34). (See my discussion of the covenants in the section " Covenants of God" in chapter 3 of my book From Death to Life) But it is not revealed that God made a covenant with Adam; God had given Adam a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This was not covenant, but a command of God. And it told Adam what would happen if he ate of the tree, but it did not say what would happen if he did not eat of the tree; neither was there any probationary period established by God. This command was not a covenant of works by which God would reward Adam's obedience with eternal life.
But in spite of the difference between the Federal Headship Theory and the Natural Headship Theory, 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.
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), is 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. Mark the Hermit and Theodore of Mopsuestia, for example, 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." [6]
"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." [7]
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. [9]
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." [8]
Augustine attempts to refute this view of sin-because-of-death in his "A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians," bk. IV, chapter 6-8. Augustine 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. [10]
Augustine took the relative pronoun ho 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, as we have seen. 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.
[11]
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." [12]
A legalistic Christian theology requires this doctrine of an inherited sinful nature. It teaches that man must have an inherited sinful nature, otherwise, he could save himself by his meritorious good works. It argues that if man does not have a sinful nature, he could save himself by his meritorious good works. But this is not why man cannot save himself. Man cannot save himself because he is dead and cannot make himself alive, not because he is not able to do meritorious works (Gal. 3:21). A legalistic Christian theology does not understand this. As long as Christian theology thinks of salvation legalistically as something to be earned by merits, the doctrine of original sin will be needed to explain why man cannot save himself.
To Continue, Click here.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] See Edward Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin
(Notre Dame: Fides Publishers, 1971), p. 64.
[9] J. N. D. Kelley, Early Christian Doctrine
(New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1960), pp. 170-174, 346-348.
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] John Murray, The Imputation of Adam's Sin
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959),
footnote 10, p. 9.
What is the law?
The term "law" is used most often in the Bible, especially in
the New Testament (Matt. 5:18) and Christian theology, to refer to the Ten
Commandments, the Decalogue (Exodus 20:1-17; Deut. 5:6-21), sometimes
improperly called the moral law. Sometimes it is used to refer to the whole
law of Moses, ceremonial as well as the Ten Commandments, statutes and
ordinances (Luke 2:22; John 7:23). Sometimes it is also used to refer to the
first five books of the Old Testament, the Pentateuch (Matt. 12:5; Luke 2:23-
24; 16:16; 24:44; Rom. 3:21) as well as the whole Old Testament (John 10:34,
quoting Psa. 82:6; I Cor. 14:21, quoting Isa. 28:11). The Hebrew word for
law, torah, means direction, guidance, instruction, teaching. As such
it is that content of God's revelation of Himself which makes clear man's
relationship to God and to his fellowman. It provides guidance of man's
actions in relationship to God and to his fellowman. Thus it is the Word
of the Lord (Deut. 5:5; Psa. 119:43, 160). It is first of all about God's act
of redemption of Israel from Egypt (Ex. 20:2; Deut. 5:6; Psa. 119:174
parallelism) and then about man's obedient response to this act (Ex. 20:3-17;
Deut. 5:7-21). The law is the covenant that God made with the children of
Israel through Moses (Ex. 24:1-12). The commandments of the law are based
upon the grace of God who provided redemption from Egypt (Deut. 4:37-40;
Psa. 119:146) and are the terms of God's covenant with His people
(Ex. 19:3-8; Deut. 5:1-3). In contrast to the covenants with Noah
(Gen. 9:8-17) and with Abraham (Gen. 15:12-18; 17:1-14), which were covenants
of sheer grace, the Mosaic covenant is conditional. God made unconditional
promises to Noah and Abraham of what He would do. The blessings of these
covenants were unconditional. The blessings of the Mosaic covenant are,
on the other hand, conditioned upon obedience (Deut. 28:1-14) and the curses
upon disobedience (Deut. 28:15-20;
30:15-20).
These conditions are given in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:3-17; Deut. 5:6-21)
and other statutes and ordinances.
What is the difference between law and grace?
The difference is not: rules and no rules.
The difference is in the relationship of the blessing to obedience.
Under the law the bestowal of the blessing is conditioned upon obedience;
obey in order to be blessed (Ezek. 18). Under grace the blessing is bestowed
unconditionally to bring about obedience: obey because you are already
blessed (John 13:34; Eph. 4:32; Titus 2:11-12; I John 3:3; 4:11,19). Grace
appeals to the unconditioned prior bestowal of the blessing as the grounds of
obedience. Law, on the other hand, appeals to obedience as the ground of the
bestowal of the blessing.
The Mosaic covenant is not pure law but is based on the grace of God who graciously provided redemption for the children of Israel from the bondage in Egypt and who in free grace chose to establish His covenant with them. This redemption by God from Egypt is the grounds of the appeal for obedience to the terms of the covenant which are stated in the Ten Commandments.
"2 I am the Lord your God,This is the order of grace; obey because you are already blessed.
who brought you out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage.
3 You shall have no other gods before me."
(Ex. 20:2-3)
"15 See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil.This is the order of law. Obey in order to be blessed.
16 If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God
which I command you this day,
by loving the Lord your God,
by walking in His ways,
and keeping His commandments
and His statutes and His ordinances,
then you shall live and multiply,
and the Lord your God will bless you in the land
which you are entering to take possession of it.
17 But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear
but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them,
18 I declare to you this day, that you shall perish,
you shall not live long in the land
which you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess.
19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day,
that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse;
therefore, choose life, that you and your descendants may live.
20 loving the Lord your God,
obeying his voice, and cleaving to him;
for that means life to you and length of days,
that you may dwell in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers,
to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them."
(Deut. 30:15-20)
What is the purpose of the law?
Being a clarification of man's relationship to God,
the purpose of the law is to expose the nature of sin (Rom. 3:20; 7:7b)
and God's reaction to man's sin in the form of wrath (the curse of the law;
see Rom. 4:15; Gal. 3:10). Therefore, to the question: "Why the law?"
Paul answers in Gal. 3:19:
"It was added because of transgressions,... until the seed [Christ, Gal. 3:16]Until Christ came, the Jews were kept under the law (Gal. 3:23) as a tutor (Gal. 3:24) who guarded the immature child until he became a mature son (Gal. 4:1-2). Therefore, the law was a temporary arrangement (Heb. 7:18; 9:9-10). The Mosaic law was given only to Israel (Deut. 4:7-8, 32-33,36; Psa. 147:19-20). From Adam to Moses there was no law (Rom. 5:13-14), and the Gentiles do not have the law ( Rom. 2:14, twice).
should come to whom the promise had been made." (cf. Rom. 5:20)
The Scriptures, and in particular the Apostle Paul, do not teach that there is a law of nature, lex naturae, after Stoic fashion. In Romans 2:15 Paul does not say that the Gentiles have "the law" (ho nomos) written on the heart, but that "the work of the law" (to ergon tou nomou) is written on their hearts. In this passage Paul is not talking about having the law but about keeping or fulfilling the law. In the context Paul is contrasting the Jew who has the law but does not keep it with the Gentile who does not have the law but does what the law commands. Having the law is not sufficient.
"For not the hearers of the law are righteous with God,It is these particular actions of the Gentiles, which are in harmony with the law, that Paul is referring to when he says that the work of the law is written on their hearts. For it is from the heart, where the decisions are made, that the work of the law comes. Grammatically the word "written" (grapton) agrees with the word "work" (ergon), and not with the word "law" (tou nomou). The work, not the law, is written on the heart. For if Paul had said that the law was written on the heart, he would be saying that the Gentiles had the law in a more intimate way than the Jews had it. The latter had it written only on the tables of stone or in a book. Moreover, Paul would also be saying that the Gentiles had the law written on their hearts which provision was only promised in the new covenant.
but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Rom. 2:13 ERS).
"But this is the covenant which I will make withBut in the preceding verse (Rom 2:14) Paul specifically says that the Gentiles do not have the law.
the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord:
I will put my law within them,
and I will write it upon their hearts;
and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."
(Jer. 31:33)
"14 For when Gentiles, not having the law, do by nature the things of the law,And he says it twice in this one verse alone that Gentiles do not have the law, so that there will be no misunderstanding. We must be careful not to read into Paul any Stoic-like concept of the law of nature, lex naturae, that is the exact opposite of what he here intended or meant.
these, not having the law, are a law to themselves,
15 who show the work of law written in their hearts." (Rom. 2:14-15a ERS)
The conscience does not contain an absolute standard of right and wrong as implied in the Stoic law of nature. The standard that conscience uses to judge the action of the will is relative to the ultimate criterion that the person has chosen. That is, the god that a person has chosen and worships supplies the standards of the conscience. This is why not every person has the same feelings of guilt or responsibility for his decisions or actions (I Cor. 10:28-29; 8:7). The conscience can be modified (seared or hardened, I Tim. 4:2) by rejecting the judgments of the conscience (I Tim. 1:19-20). And a weak conscience can be made strong by the increase of knowledge (I Cor. 8:7). The fact that everybody's conscience has a standard does not mean that all have the same standard. There is not in everyone's conscience a universal standard, lex naturae.
[The double genitive absolute phrase in Rom. 2:15b,
"their conscience bearing witness
and their conflicting thoughts accusing or even excusing",
is a grammatically independent clause. It should be taken with
the sentence that follows, which is the usual syntax, and
not with the preceding subordinate clause. It should be
translated as follows:
"15b As their conscience bears witnessThis makes good sense if the Stoic teaching concerning the law of nature in the conscience is not read into the context.]
and their conflicting thoughts accusing or even excusing,
16 in that day God will judge the hidden things of men
according to my gospel, through Christ Jesus." (Rom. 2:15b-16 ERS)
Can man keep the law?
Yes, he can; that is, man is able to choose to do what the law commands.
"11 For this commandment which I command you this dayBut man does not do it (Rom. 3:10-12; Jer. 4:22; Psa. 10:4; 14:1-3; 53:1-3). Why? Becuase he is spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1), and he sins because he is spiritually dead (Rom. 5:12d ERS). The law cannot make alive and thus produce righteousness.
is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that you should say,
'Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us,
that we may hear it and do it?'
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say,
'Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us,
that we may hear it and do it?'
14 But the word is very near you;
it is in your mouth and in your heart,
so that you can do it." (Deut. 30:11-14)
"Is the law then against the promise of God? Certainly not;Although the law is God's revelation of Himself, the Word of the Lord (Deut. 5:5; Psa. 119:43, 160), it contains only a knowledge about God and not a personal knowledge of God. But more basically, this knowledge is only about God's act of redemption of the children of Israel from bondage in Egypt, and not of the salvation of man from death and sin. The situation of man spiritually has not been altered by this act of God or the giving of the law. Man is still spiritually dead. Therefore, because the law contains only the knowledge about a national, political-sociological act of God and not about God's of act of salvation from death, nor a personal revelation of Himself to the heart of man that makes him alive; the law cannot make alive. On the contrary, the law presupposes the possession of life and righteousness. The keeping of the law only guarantees the continuance of life (Lev. 18:5; Deut. 30:18-20; Ezek. 18:5-9, 21-23, 27-28; 20:11; Luke 10:27-28) already possessed. The choice between life and death in Deut. 30:15-20 is the choice between physical life and physical death, not between spiritual life and spiritual death, which choice is only presented under grace in the preaching of the gospel. The choice of faith in Jesus Christ is the choice of spiritual and eternal life in Christ, for He is the life (I John 5:11-12). Of course, it is also the choice of physical life and the resurrection from physical death at His second coming. The law could not make alive physically, spiritually, or eternally, but only guaranteed the continuance and elongation of physical life ( Deut. 30:18-20).
for if a law had been given which could make alive,
then righteousness would indeed be by the law." (Gal. 3:21)
The law of God also intensifies the wrath of God against sin: "For the law works wrath" (Rom. 4:15a ERS). With the introduction of the law, sin becomes a transgression (parabasis, a going aside, a deviation, hence, a violation) of the law. "But where there is no law neither is there transgression" (Rom. 4:15b ERS). A transgression of the law is sin, but sin is more than just a transgression of the law and it may exist where the law of God does not exist.
"For until the law sin was in the world;In the period between Adam and Moses, before the law was given, there was no law. But in this period before the law "sin was in the world." Men were sinning. Sin existed where the law did not exist. From the Biblical point of view, sin must be understood and defined in terms of God and not in terms of the law. Sin is any choice that is contrary to faith in the true God - "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23 KJV). A transgression of the law is sin but sin is not just a transgression of the law. The KJ version mistranslates the statement in I John 3:4: he hamartia estin he anomia. It should be translated "sin is lawlessness" (RSV, NEB, NIV) not "sin is the transgression of the law" (KJV). The Greek word anomia basically may mean either "no law" or "against law." Hence, it means "anarchy" or "rebellion." "Freely translated v.4 would then be to the effect that 'he who commits sin is thereby in revolt against; indeed, sin is nothing but rebellion against God.'" [1]
but sin is not imputed when there is no law" (Rom. 5:13 ERS).
The law came in alongside in order that the transgression might abound (Rom. 5:20b). Thus through the law, sin became exceedingly sinful (Rom. 7:13b). "Since through the law comes the knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3:20b; see also Rom. 7:7b), the law shows what sin is and thus makes clear the true character of sin and that the basic sin is idolatry (Exodus 20:3-6; Deut. 5:7-10; 6:13-15; 8:19; 11:16-17; 29:24-27; 30:17-18). But this does not mean that sin is to be defined in terms of the law. The law just exposes its true character. The law not only reveals what sin is but also God's direct opposition to man's sin, that is, the wrath of God which is the curse of the law.
"Cursed is every one who continues not in all thingsThus the law brings the wrath of God, not directly by means of an inevitable moral process of cause and effect, but indirectly by showing what is God's personal reaction to man's sin.
that are written in the book of the law, to do them."
(Gal. 3:10 ERS; see also Deut. 27:26; 29:27).
What the law could not do, God has done through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, His Son. God has made us alive to Himself in the resurrection of Jesus and set us free from the slavery of sin. Since the basic sin is idolatry (trust in a false god) and sin is a slavery to a slave master (John 8:34), the false god is the slave master. We were all slaves of sin once, serving our false gods when we were spiritually dead, alienated and separated from the true God, not knowing him personally. But we have been set free from this slavery of sin through the death of Christ. Jesus entered into our spiritual death and died our death. His death is our death. Now when a slave dies, he is no longer in slavery; death frees him from slavery. So we likewise have been set free from the slavery of sin having died with Christ. We have died to sin with Christ (Rom. 6:1-7). But now Christ is alive, having been raised from the dead, and we have been made alive to God together with Him in His resurrection. His resurrection is our resurrection. We are no longer slaves of sin but have become slaves of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. Now that we are alive to God in Him, we have become slaves of righteousness (Rom. 6:17-18). For just as death produces sin, so life produces righteousness. Since we have passed from death to life, we have been saved from sin to righteousness (I Peter 2:24).
From the Biblical point of view the law has three serious weaknesses (Rom. 8:3).
[1] W. Gutbrod, "anomia", in
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
ed. Gerhard Kittel, translator, Geoffrey W. Bromiley
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967), Vol. IV, p.1086.