CLAIM: Paul writes, “Just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12). What does Paul mean by this statement? Does he mean that all people sin—just as Adam sinned? Or does he mean that we were held responsible for what Adam did in the fall?
RESPONSE: Let’s address the questions associated with this verse:
What does it mean “because all sinned”?
The words translated as “because” (eph hō) can be translated in a variety of ways. The grammar alone cannot solve this debate. Since there are so many different ways to take the preposition (eph hō), we cannot solve our interpretation based solely on grammar.[1] The NET Bible explains three major possibilities:
(1) Resultative view. Robert Mounce holds this view. He states that we should translate verse 12 as a “consecutive conjunction.” Thus, it would read, “Death spread to all people with the result that all sinned.” Mounce writes, “In this case the primary cause of our sinful nature would be the sin of Adam; the result of that sin would be the history of sinning on the part of all who enter the human race and in fact sin of their own accord.”[2] However, this view doesn’t seem to deal adequately with the language of the text. It seems to put the cart before the horse—namely, sin leads to death, rather than death leading to sin.
(2) Causal view. Under the causal view,[3] we would translate verse 12 as, “Death spread to all people because all sinned.” This means that all people chose to sin, freely imitating Adam’s sin. Moo writes, “Paul’s concern in this verse, and throughout the passage, is not with ‘original sin,’ but with ‘original death.’ Paul says nothing explicitly about how the sin of one man, Adam, has resulted in death for everyone; nor has he made clear the connection—if any—between Adam’s sin (v. 12a) and the sin of all people (v. 12d). What he has made clear is that the causal nexus between sin and death, exhibited in the case of Adam, has repeated itself in the case of every human being.”[4] However, we see difficulties with this view:
First, if Paul is merely stating that all humans choose to sin, then why does he appeal to Adam at all? Indeed, Adam appears out of nowhere in this section, and the interpreter needs to discern why.
Second, there is an ethical difficulty with the causal view: Infants and the mentally handicapped could be in hell. After all, under this view, these people sinned. Those who hold to this view fall into different camps regarding babies and the mentally handicapped: (1) God will forgive these babies or the mentally handicapped because they didn’t sin, (2) God will save babies of believing parents, or (3) God will choose the “elect” babies from eternity past to be saved.[5] Douglas Moo—an advocate of the causal view—writes, “I have personally wrestled with this emotive question especially since my niece was born with such severe handicaps that she is not expected to live long. What am I to say to her parents when she dies? What do I respond when they ask me, the ‘family theologian,’ where their daughter will spend eternity? All that is within me wants to be able to assure them that their daughter is in heaven. But I am not yet convinced Scripture gives me the right to do so. And I do not want to be a purveyor of ‘cheap comfort,’ giving home based on my emotions rather than on Scripture. I do not yet have an answer I am comfortable with.”[6]
(3) Relative view. Under this view, we would translate verse 12 as, “Death spread to all people in whom [Adam] all sinned.” We hold to this final view.[7] Since all of humanity was “in Adam” at this time, our lives were tied up with his decision. His decision to bring death into the world necessarily affects us. Humans all sinned in the sense that they were “in Adam” at the time.
First, the concept of “corporate personality”[8] is firmly rooted in Jewish thinking. Consider several examples:
- Noah’s entire family was rescued because of his righteousness (Gen. 6).
- Achan’s entire family was executed because of his sin at Ai (Josh. 7:1-11).
- The author of Hebrews argues for Christ’s superiority over the Levitical priesthood, because Levi was “still in the body of his ancestor [Abraham]” (Heb. 7:9-10). In other words, Levi came from Abraham, and Abraham bowed to Melchizedek; therefore, Levi bowed to Melchizedek.
Second, the grammar favors this view. The expression “because all sinned” (hēmarton) is an aorist indicative verb, which refers to “a single past action.”[9] If Paul meant that humans continue to sin like Adam, then he would’ve used the present or imperfect tenses to communicate a continual action (hamartanousin).[10]
Third, the immediate context supports the view that we sinned “in Adam,” who was our federal head. It is true that “all have [individually] sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). But that is not Paul’s point here. The context makes clear that Paul is referring to the origin of sin through Adam:
- “Death reigned… even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam” (v.14). So, it seems that we are born into death—even if we don’t sin like that Adam sinned.
- “Through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men… as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners” (vv.18-19). The term “made sinners” (katestathēsan) is an aorist indicative verb that indicates a past and completed action—not a continual action. Therefore, this text doesn’t say that we made ourselves sinners. Instead, we were made sinners by Adam’s sin. Moo states that this could simply be an “unresolved tension.”[11] The way he resolves it is to say that all people sinned “in Adam.” This doesn’t refer to how Adam sinned, and we were identified with him. No, in fact, just the opposite. Moo argues, “Adam, like Christ, was a corporate figure, whose sin could be regarded at the same time as the sin of all his descendants.”[12] Moo continues, “Paul affirms in this passage that human solidarity in the sin of Adam is the explanation.”[13] However, Paul’s parallel doesn’t refer to our sinning like Adam—anymore than we give righteousness like Christ gives righteousness. Instead, we are passively affected by inheriting a sin nature from Adam (Eph. 2:3).
Since Adam is a type of Christ (v.14), what could be the comparison that Paul is making? He must be saying that Adam affected the whole human race in the same way that Christ affected the whole human race. If we bring death and sin like Adam, do we bring life and righteousness like Christ brings life? Not at all. Instead, Christ brings life just as Adam brought death (v.15).
Fourth, the greater context of Scripture supports the view that we sinned “in Adam,” who was our federal head. Paul writes, “As in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22). Paul gives a similar construction in 2 Corinthians 5:14: “One died for all, therefore all died.” This also explains how we can be considered “by nature children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3). When Christ died, this affected all of us—whether we like it or not.
How can this be fair?
First, Adam’s sin affected us locationally, but it did not affect us legally. That is, we suffer the consequences of Adam’s decision, but we are not culpable for Adam’s sin. We receive Adam’s sin nature, but we do not receive the guilt for something we never did.
Second, we will not be judged for Adam’s sin—only our own. A principle of hermeneutics is to interpret the “unclear in light of the clear.” While we did inherit a sin nature from Adam (Eph. 2:4; Ps. 51:5), we are not judged for the sins of another person. The overarching teaching of the Bible is that God will judge each person according to their own deeds (Mt. 16:27; Lk. 12:47-48; Jn. 5:29: Dan. 12:2; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 20:12; Ezek. 18:19-20; Eph. 2:3). We are affected by the sin of others (Ex. 20:5; 34:6-7; Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9), but we are never determined to act based on their sin.
Third, the alternative to affecting others through our free will decisions is abject misery. Imagine if we weren’t allowed to affect others with our decisions. This would sacrifice a large aspect of our personhood. In order to have meaning, purpose, morality, and relationships, we need to be able to have an effect on others around us. Consider Will Smith in I am Legend. He steals from apartments, destroys property, and he drives his car at high speeds through the city. This isn’t immoral, because he lives in isolation. Morality cannot be exercised in the absence of persons.[14] Therefore, in order to be moral beings, we need to be able to affect one another.
One of our worst forms of torture in the Western world is solitary confinement. Many people find it inhumane to place someone in solitary confinement for too long—even if they were a violent criminal. Being separated from personal contact is one of our most extreme tortures in the U.S. penal system. In asking for a world that insulates us from human impact like this, we are asking for a world, where humans are devoid of meaningful contact—namely, a tortured world. John Wenham writes, “It is just conceivable that a world could be made in which every man was his own Adam, in which every individual was insulated from his neighbor, unable to help him or harm him, unable to receive his help or suffer his injuries. But it would be a dull and lonely place.”[15]
Fourth, this view makes sense of our fallen world. Why does every single human person commit sin? Why aren’t there parts of humanity or even single human persons who don’t sin? G.K. Chesterton wrote, “The ancient masters of religion… began with the fact of sin—a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or [not] man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders… have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.”[16]
Fifth, we benefit from Jesus’ decision—even though this isn’t “fair.” Our forgiveness through Christ isn’t fair, but that shouldn’t stop us from accepting this. Thus it seems that we are disappointed when someone’s bad decisions affect us, but not when their good decisions affect us. We cannot have it both ways. For more on this subject, see our earlier article “Original Sin.”
[1] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 342-343.
[2] Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 142.
[3] This is also called the “inclusion view.” Douglas Moo, Romans: The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 190.
[4] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 322–323.
[5] Douglas Moo, Romans: The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 191.
[6] Douglas Moo, Romans: The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 191.
[7] Augustine also was a proponent of this view. See Augustine, Against Two Epistles of the Pelagians 4.4.7.
[8] H. W. Robinson, Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980).
[9] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), p.653.
[10] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), p.653.
[11] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 324.
[12] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 328.
[13] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 329.
[14] Of course, when we are all alone, we can still commit sin because we are always in the presence of God—a personal Being. This analogy is given to explain the necessity of persons for morality. Also, God is an inter-personal Being, so morality existed before the creation of humans (Jn. 17:5; 24; Eph. 1:4).
[15] John Wenham, The Goodness of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1974), 76.
[16] G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (New York: John Lane Company, 1909), 24.