Romans 5: 12 Commentary

Charles @Post 30: My commentary on Matt. 19:14 is posted as promised.

By Roland G (wrote 1651 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/15/2011 02:22 am

Roland, Paul was a great scholar who made his own religion. Jesus did not die to save us from original sin. He never said that. He never mentioned original sin. Paul made all that up.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/6/2011 10:26 am

Charles (Post #29): Paul was a scholar par excellence. It is not likely Paul misread Jesus. I will post a commentary under Mathew 19:14.

By Roland G (wrote 1651 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/6/2011 07:34 am

Roland, I had not seen your post 28 until now. As I have noted before, I have a big issue with this born-sinner syndrome which I think is a depressing, masochistic and anti-Christian idea. I was born an innocent, cute little baby (like every other newborn). Now I may have done a few bad things as I grew up, but nothing to require a man-god to be crucified for them. St. Paul certainly committed much worse crimes in his lifetime than I was ever capable of even imagining. Maybe Jesus died for people who kill and steal and make war - not for cute babies!

I am convinced that Paul totally misread Jesus on this issue. Jesus never
said enything about the original sin or about redemption from it. Let me ask you this: If children are born with sin, why did Jesus say that the kingdom of heaven belongs to them (Matthew 19:14)?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/5/2011 22:46 pm

We are all born physically alive, but spiritually dead, that is, without fellowship with God (Rom. 5:12). Cf. Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:18; 1 Cor. 15:21-22; 1 Cor. 15:56; Eph. 2:3

By Roland G (wrote 1651 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/29/2011 18:34 pm

“But, jumping to your last paragraph, I hear your hopeful words. Maybe there is a good, just Lord and maybe he understands the likes of me.”

Charles, on this you can count because it is HE who wants YOU to understand the likes Of Him.

Shalom

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/30/2010 17:24 pm

Scott, there’s a lot of truth in what you said in the first paragraph of post 25. Funny, but true. I may be a little more like Dr. Spock and a little less like ET! Perhaps that’s because I hardly ever had any toys to play with when I was a kid. I never had Santa Claus until I had to play one for my kids. I grew up questionning everything. St. Thomas is my patron saint!

You and I will never agree. You see what you want to see in the God of the OT and, being the positive person you are, you see nothing but good in him. I see a changing God there, one who is sometimes cruel and other times kind, sometimes powerful and other times unremarkable, sometimes predictable and other times going back on his own word.

But, jumping to your last paragraph, I hear your hopeful words. Maybe there is a good, just Lord and maybe he understands the likes of me.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/30/2010 16:55 pm

Charles,

It occurs to me that perhaps the Bible should’ve been written in reverse for you. I say this sincerely because it seems to coincide with your belief that “truth” comes first followed by “faith”. In other words, if the many doctrines espoused by Paul (mostly) could’ve been understood intellectually BEFORE the drama of Eden ever occured, then everything that followed would make more sense.

However, life just doesn’t work that way. God appeals first and foremost to our heart, not our head. Doctrines only come AFTER revelation has taken place. God reveals something first; then we try to figure out what it all means and that’s where doctrines come from.

Just look at the order of the Bible itself. No doctrines were needed in the Garden of Eden because Adam and Eve had God himself. What doctrine could possibly give them more understanding than what they already had? Was it necessary for them to know in advance what the full extent of their sin would cause in order for them to be content? Was’nt this the very thing that the Serpent tempted them with.. an appeal to the intellect, an appeal to gain knowledge that God had not thought necessary (or fitting) to give them? But, for whatever reason, they disobeyed the command to “not eat from the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil”.

Then, from that time on, from Genesis through the book of Acts, there is hardly anything written that could qualify specifically as “doctrine”. However, that same long period of roughly 4,000 years, is chock full of revelation from God culminating in the manifestation of his own son. Thank God that he saw fit to convert Paul the “Hebrew of Hebrews” so that we may better understand what all the revelations of God were about.

The doctrines of the NT are incredibly important for the great sea of humanity but at the beginning, they weren’t. The knowledge of God and the need for salvation through him permeated the ancient culture from the time of Adam through the flood of Noah. This knowledge was then passed on from Noah and his sons to all the known world. Even the Tower of Babel under Nimrod testifies to this. It’s a known fact that even today, remote tribes who have never seen the light of civilization understand the need for redemption.

But God does not, nor has he ever, held us accountable for the doctrines we believe. He holds us accountable for obedience to the things we understand as right and wrong, just like he did with Adam and Eve. Every man’s conscience testifies to this.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/30/2010 16:19 pm

Yes, Scott. Thank you! Your first quotation (sinful at birth) can certainly be understood in terms of the original sin, but only in the light of Paul’s letter to the Romans, which occurred at least three centuries later. If you were living at the time the psalms were published would you have understood this phrase to mean that EVERYBODY was born with the original sin? And, even if you did, don’t you think this was rather late considering that the sin had occurred thousands of years before? God had a lot to say to Adam and Eve when they sinned. He meted out many punishments. The original sin was not one of them.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/30/2010 13:56 pm

Charles,

Will these OT verses get us back on topic?

“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Psalm 51:5 (David)

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/30/2010 06:10 am

Scott, I am very sorry to hear about the loss of your loved ones and the other setbacks you had in your life and I’m glad you seem to have found your path. Whatever works, works. I had my setbacks too, and I solved them quite differently. Different things work for different people.

You decry the polytheism of Hindus, but the Christian faith is not exactly monotheistic either. I don’t want to trigger another lecture, but to me one Hebrew God + one Jesus Christ + one Holy Spirit do not equal ONE! Hinduismm does not appeal to me but I must say it has proven to be much more peaceful than any of the monotheistic faiths.

Over the past 4,000 years or so of history we have seen what the monotheistic faiths have done, and it isn’t pretty. What does Yahweh have in common with Mohammed, the popes, the Jewish state, and Muslim terrorists? The answer is wars. They all gave us wars. That’s what faith leads to. It never leads to the truth.

In any case, we have totally veered away from the verse in question. The more I kept trying to get back to Romans 5:12 the more we drifted away to totally unrelated topics. If you want to talk about faith we’d have to find another verse.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/30/2010 04:58 am

Charles,

If you look back, you will see that I made a point to call it “biblical faith” not merely faith. There’s a huge difference between the kind of faith practiced by a Hindu versus a Christian. The paradigms are completely different just as Christianity is with every other religion as well.

I’m afraid you are the one who has it wrong regarding the order of faith and truth. Truth is not a subjective thing. There are absolutes in the universe and there are moral absolutes as well. The Hindu “truth” of polytheism cannot coexist with the monotheism of Christianity. They cannot both be objectively true. Subjectively one can believe anything he wants; even making up his own religion like Mohammed did. But without objective, verifiable evidence; it’s just a mind game.

Christianity believes there is one God who is not only THE Truth but also the DISPENSOR of truth. [The kind of truths I’m talking about are things like the nature and character of God; the nature and condition of humanity; is sin real; is there life after death; will the world end someday; can I know these things for certain; why are there so many different religions??] There is a NT scripture that sums this up rather well:

“He who comes to God must BELIEVE that he IS; and that he is the rewarder of those who DILIGENTLY seek him”

Concerning my upbringing; I was raised in a nominally Catholic household and I mindlessly continued going to the Catholic church into adulthood and through 7 years of marriage. But then, my world began to spin out of control: marriage heading for divorce; lost my job; two babies to raise; forced to sell our new custom built home; lost two loved ones in separate tragic accidents and I was daily plagued by enormous failure and guilt. My Catholic upbringing meant nothing to me at all. It was completely irrelevant; no, it was worse than irrelevant because the thing I needed more than anything else was hope; and all my Catholicism could do was condemn me. So, for the first time in my entire life, I cracked open a bible at the age of 30 and what I read began to disolve my entire belief system. It disolved what I thought about God; about heaven and hell; about myself; and about the purpose of life just to name a few. God had my FULL attention and when he did, I was able to hear his voice for the very first time.., something I had previously thought impossible!

I suppose it would be nice if I could say; “Then, God restored my marriage; gave me my job back with a raise and I bought a bigger and better house yada yada.” But what REALLY happended was a transformation within me. Gone was the guilt and shame of sin and failure; gone was the doubt of who I was and who God was; gone was the purposeless direction of my life; gone was the nagging fear and doubt that I was alone in the world and no one really cared; gone was the inability to know how to really love and lead my wife; gone was the fear of divorce (yes, God DID restore our marriage and we will be celebrating our 39th anniversary in May!). And gone was the fear of death.

I not only know who God is, I know him as well. For nearly 30 years now he has continually shown his goodness and faithfulness to me. My faith does not rest at all on the basis of my upbringing or any creed of men; it rests entirely on the word and character of God as revealed in the scriptures.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/30/2010 02:26 am

Scott, you say you need to have faith first in order to find the truth. Many people have faith. A billion Hindus in India have absolute faith. I have seen first-hand how devout they are, how good they are to everybody, and how steadfast they are in their “truth”. The same can be said of millions of Muslims who are so committed to their faith that they are willing to kill and die for it (much like Christians were doing a few centuries ago). All these people have an honest and true, unshakeable faith just like you. How can we have all these vastly different “truths”?

My assumptionn is that you happen to have been brought up as a Christian and what you believe in now is what you were taught as a child. Which leads me to beleive that if you were brought up in India you would be totally committed to the Hindu religion. You would still be a trinitarian, but it would be the trinity of Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the Preserver), and Shiva (the destroyer). You would be fervently arguing for the karma and talking about reincarnation. You would say that your faith led you to this Hindu “truth”.

Sorry, Scott, but I have to conclude you got it backward. It’s knowing the truth first that leads you to faith, not the other way round.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/29/2010 17:31 pm

Charles,

You are correct; faith is not truth. But without faith, truth (in the biblical sense) will never be known.

The mystery and wonder of biblical faith is that the God who is revealed in the bible either exists or he doesn’t and that the bible really is or isn’t his word to lost humanity. Faith is the key to knowing.

This kind of faith is not abstract or merely subjective. When properly placed in the word of God; be it his promises, prophecies, commands or comforts, HE makes good on it. HE reavels truth and makes mysteries known. HE gives understanding of prophecy, HE removes fear and doubt. HE imparts strength and knowledge. I could go on and on. HE is the omnipotent, omniscient creator and redeemer.

Man’s big problem is that we want “PROOF” of these things before deciding to believe and trust but proof will NEVER come until we do trust. God simply won’t reveal himself to anyone apart from faith so our understanding remains in the dark. The EVIDENCE of and for God is everywhere. But we typically won’t place our faith in the “mere” evidence alone so we choose darkness rather than light because we “need more proof”; or we don’t want to “owe” anyone anything and thereby feel obligated; or we don’t agree with God’s assessment that we are all sinners racing headlong to destruction and we don’t even realize it. The reasons (excuses) are without end.

Consequently, we remain on the fence of doubt and unbelief and never come to the knowledge of the Truth.

As far as Original Sin not being mentioned in the Hebrew bible, to my knowledge, it isn’t specifically mentioned (except perhaps in Psalm 51), but the FACT of it runs throughout the entire OT and is evident to every author of every book.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/29/2010 16:59 pm

Scott, some say that the Garden WAS heaven, but that’s not something we need to get into here.

More importantly, I have a big issue with your (and many people’s) use and misuse of the word TRUTH. I respect whatever you believe in but faith is by definition NOT truth. Truth is something that has been proved to be a fact while faith is something that is not yet (or perhaps can never be) proven to be true. That’s why it’s called faith!

The only seemingly true prophecy in the Bible is one that you didn’t even mention. I am talking about Jesus raising himself in three days. This is the only thing that’s keeping my faith. Many other Bible prophecies and stories have proven to be bogus, and I think you inadverently agree with this when you say “prophecies require faith in God”. This is an admittance that they do not stand on their own.

You spent many words trying to interpret Gen 3:15 in a way that has nothing to do with the actual words of the scripture. You can put your own words to anything, but it is clear that the original sin is not mentioned in the entire Hebrew Bible AT ALL.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/29/2010 16:16 pm

Charles,

I don’t think Paul is writing about Adam and Eve’s expulsion from heaven. The consequence of their sin was expulsion from the garden and the loss of dominion. Personally, I fully expect to see our first parents in heaven when I get there.

Regarding the other matter you raise; I’m sure you would agree that truth, like an eternal flower, is an ever-unfolding revelation. We would not come to know what truth is unless God revealed it to us. This is how the Bible is presented to us and this is also one of the critical roles of biblical prophecy. Some call prophecy “history revealed in advance”. It is also “truth revealed in advance”. But there is more to it than that because the prophecies are all part of one specific goal: the fullness of the redemption of all creation.

You’ve suggested that the prophecies are not very specific. On the contrary, I believe they are extraordinarily specific! The timing of Daniel’s prophecies of “70 weeks” are stunning not to mention Ezekiel’s prophecy of 2520 years (which is on the brink of fulfillment). The prophecies regarding the return of the Jews are so specific that most people cannot believe them. And the prophecies concerning Christ are also in this camp.

But prophecies require faith in God. Even when a prophecy is fulfilled, only those who have a heart tender toward God will recognize it. This is just like the miracles; they seldom produce faith in unbelievers but they always manifest in praise among believers. (Just recall the ten miraculous plagues against Egypt or the raising of Lazarus from the dead). And though the prophecies are generally given well in advance of fulfillment, they seldom benefit anyone until AFTER they’re fulfilled; but each fulfillment is another page in the marvelous story of redemption. Whether we praise God or curse God, he is working his plan and will not be denied. Think of Jesus and his determination to go to Jerusalem near the end of his ministry for the purpose of dying for the sins of the world. Only a handful went with him and even they abandoned him in Gethsemane. My point: God is steadfastly working his plan whether we praise him or not. Whether we join him or not. We can look at the prophecies and scoff or look at them and be amazed. And once the finger of God is recognized in the fulfillment of a prophecy, our eyes become opened just a little bit more to understand other prophecies.

Concerning Genesis 3:15; this is one of the more obscure yet potent prophecies. It’s fulfillments are not merely pages in the story of redemption; they are whole chapters! The imagery of a man crushing the head of the serpent is a picture of the rule and dominion of the world being returned to the descendants of Adam. Eve probably thought this would occur through one of her own sons. But this was a timely promise of God that he would restore (redeem) the tragedy unleashed by Adam’s disobedience. He would not have given such an encouraging word to our Parents if he were not a compassionate God. But there is more. The bruising of the heal indicates that the victory to regain dominion will come at a deadly price.

The specifics of the fulfillment of this prophecy are two-fold: Exactly HOW will the crushing of the serpents head and the bruising of a man’s heel take place? And HOW do these things restore the dominion to man’s rule? (I could take a lot of space giving you my interpretation but I’ll try a shortened version):

The bruised heal must occur first and it is a picture of Christ taking on the sin of the world at Calvary (literally becoming sin). This is the venom of the serpent (Satan) and it results in death.

Regarding the crushing of the serpent’s head; many say that this is a picture of the resurrection when Jesus conquered sin and death. I do not agree with this interpretation because Satan is very much still alive and active AND dominion has NOT yet returned to man. However, Revelation 19 is a better fulfillment than the resurrection because Christ literally crushes the full manifestation of Satan and restores the dominion and rule of the earth to man. Significantly, this is not merely the result of superior power on the part of Christ. Jesus has ALWAYS had superior power. Rather, it is also the result of a legal warrant against Satan for the murder of an innocent man (Christ) and the illegal occupation and rule of the earth.

Much more can be said but I’m spent for the night and you probably are too if you’ve made it this far!

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/29/2010 05:27 am

Scott, I admire the kindness that you derive from the Bible. I do see such kindness in Jesus, who is all about forgiveness from sin, though I see very little of it in the Hebrew Bible.

I have to disagree with your last paragraph. Gen 3;15 read “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” How is this about redemption? I’m still trying to understand why it was left to Paul in ca CE 60 to tell us something that actually happened 4,000 years earlier at the point of expulsion of Adam and Eve from heaven.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 19:09 pm

Charles,

Please note that the alienation from God when one sins is not immediate nor irreversible. In other words, why are we not immediately struck down and killed and disposed of into the lake of fire when we first sin? As I’ve said, sin always has consequences but why should the consequences drive us deeper into sin rather than turning to God for help and deliverance? One reason is because we LIKE to sin! But God’s purpose in the consequences is to drive us back to Him in repentance and trust. The pang of guilt is the very first consequence. If there were no consequences (guilt, thorns, labor etc,) then God would TRULY be responsible for deceiving us by letting us think that nothing was wrong with sinning. A good father understands this all too well with his own children. TIME is the wonderful grace of God that facilitates all of these things. But, of course, one day we will die and “time” will run out. If we continually turn FROM God instead of TO God, then in the end, our destiny has been the result of our own choices. In this way, each person literally chooses their own eternal destiny.

The idea of inheriting original sin is very thorny and multi-faceted. But in the sense that I’ve mentioned before that each one of us “inherits” the weakness of Adam and the fear of death, we quickly learn to watch out for good old #1: ourselves. This self-centeredness (that Jayant alluded to) is the very essence of the original sin. It is the “default” of all human beings. It is the collective air that we breathe, it is the disease that infects every one of us. Strip away all vestige of grace, virtue, kindness, justice, truth, provision and health and the fires of affliction will quickly reveal our self-centeredness except to the measure that we have learned to trust God.

Regarding the mention of “redemption from original sin prior to Romans”; it occurs throughout the Bible beginning with Genesis 3:15.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 18:57 pm

Re post 13
“They had become mortal now. Now their mortal bodies would eventually go to the dust.” You’re talking about mortal death. Well, Jesus did not deliver us from mortal death, did he? What Paul refers to is not mortal death but salvation, or lack thereof. I can’t believe I’m luckier than Abraham and King David who had to wait in purgatory for centuries while I can go straight to heaven - if I mend my ways. that is

“We now believe in DNA and in many concepts about hereditary. How can then one be skeptical about the possibility of passing on of the sinful nature, the change that came about in Adam and Eve on account of their disobedience?” First of all I am totally surprised you could believe that the sinful nature passes on in the genes. That would mean that everybody from Noah to the Virgin Mary had a sinful nature. But that’s not what Paul says. Paul says in Romans 5:14 “death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned.” As I explained in the previous paragraph, Paul was not talking about mortal death. So Paul acknowledges that there were people who did NOT sin, and yet were punished. In other words, sin is not in our DNA.

“The promise of deliverance was also given through the Seed of woman. When in due time that was materialized in Jesus Christ, Paul explained it.” Ok, maybe I am missing something. I don’t see where the Bible tells us this. Please tell me where it is because I can’t see anybody talking about redemption from the original sin prior to Romans.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 17:04 pm

With the eating of the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve underwent drastic changes. First was that their eyes were opened. They came to some sort of realization they didn’t have before. This was the mental change and temptation and sin have to primarily do with the mind. In the second place, the death took control of them. They had become mortal now. Now their mortal bodies would eventually go to the dust.

But there is no hidden agenda from the very begining. For although Adam and Eve were punished for their sin as they were forwarned and the devil and the land was cursed. The promise of deliverance was also given through the Seed of woman. When in due time that was materilized in Jesus Christ, Paul explained it. And Paul expalined it on the basis of what is there in the Scriptures.

We now believe in DNA and in many concepts about heriditaory. How can then one be skeptical about the possibility of passing on of the sinful nature, the change that came about in Adam and Eve on account of their diobediance? Does any one teach a child sinful practices? And yet the sinful nature manifests itself in due season!Does not therefore our experience goes to prove that?

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 16:24 pm

Scott, condemned or not, nobody could go to heaven for 4,000 years until Paul came along with a much-belated revelation.

But, again, my question remains as I wrote it in the second paragraph of post 8.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 15:47 pm

Charles,

I think I was answering your question in #8. Paul and I are not in disagreement here.

“death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned.”

Death is not the same as damnation. There are many people who are not guilty of sin yet they all eventually die. And if they were able to live long enough, chances are great that they too, would eventually sin. The reason that ALL die is because our First Father forfeited access to the Tree of Life. He then became weak and all of us since then have inherited the same weakness resulting in death. We don’t inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin (though many would like you to think so), rather, we inherit the consequences of his sin. Part of that inheritance is the Fear of Death and the weakness of our flesh to do what is right. If we somehow still had access to the Tree of Life, we would live forever.

But there is a subtle, yet very important point that must not be overlooked. In 5:12 Paul is stating that before the Law was given, “sin was [already] in the world” and that all died because “all sinned”. However, they did not necessarily die because of God’s judgment upon their guilt because Paul says in vs.13 that without the Law, “sin is not taken into account”. Rather, they died because sin is fundamentally contrary to life whether the sin is conscious (intentional) or not.

Now, compare that to verse 14; Paul seems to be contradicting HIMSELF by saying that NOT all sinned. So, which is it; verse 12: “ALL sinned” or verse 14: “those who DID NOT sin” (not all sinned)??

Paul gives the amazing answer at the end of verse 14: not all sinned “by BREAKING a command AS DID Adam.” Paul is acknowledging different kinds of sin! Not all sin is the same and not all sin carries the same consequence. Unconscious sin brings consequence but conscious sin brings consequence and judgment.

So, what we see here is that death reigns over all as a result of Adam’s sin: over those who sin and DON’T know it; over those who sin and DO know it and even over those who DO NOT sin.

The issue of condemnation is an entirely different matter because it requires the willful breaking of God’s command. He does NOT hold your sins against you if you are ignorant of his commands. Of course, this is not a license to remain ignorant for “the Light has come into the world; but men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil”.

However, IMO, these verses show that God is and has been incredibly just with ALL men throughout the course of human history.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 05:41 am

Scott, you believe that “no man has ever or will ever be condemned simply because of the sin of Adam”, but Paul said almost exactly the opposite in this verse and in Romans 5:14 “death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned.” The way I read Paul is that for four thousand years nobody could go to heaven. Not Noah, not David, nobody. That’s why Jesus made the sacrifice he made. Am I not reading Paul correctly?

Anyway, my question remains as I wrote it in the second paragraph of post 8.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 03:37 am

Charles,

I have a few thoughts about your post #8:

I believe scripture shows that no man has ever or will ever be condemned simply because of the sin of Adam. He will be condemned for his OWN sin and only his own sin.

The enormous consequence of Adam’s sin was due to the fact that he was the progenitor (father) of the entire human race. Given this status in conjunction with the commission by God to have dominion and rule over all of the creation; two monumental tragedies occurred: Adam was weakened physically and spiritually.

His physical weakness guaranteed that ALL of his progeny would also be born with physical weakness. This weakness eventually resulted in death to Adam and everyone born through him. This fact also spawned the FEAR of death into every human being.

As the Fear of Death is ultimately corrosive to the physical nature of man; so also is guilt to the spiritual nature of man. The guilt resulting from the monumental failure on Adam’s part stripped him of both authority and ability (power) to continue to rule the creation.

From that time on, no man could ever look to Adam as a Godly father or authority figure. (The “proto-type” was flawed so also all of the “production copies”). Every human being since then was born with a fallen (weakened) nature (both physically and spiritually) into a fallen world. In other words, mankind became naked: stripped of everything that made him a unique and noble creature. In this “naked” condition, every man is fully primed to fall before Satan and sin.

God will not judge you or me for the sin of our fathers (though we suffer the consequences of their sin), he will judge us for our OWN sin. The scripture says: “to him who knows to do right and does it not; to him it is sin.” This truth existed before Calvary; before Sinai; before the flood and before the fall.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 01:51 am

Well, Jayant, it is not a just God who transmits the sin of one or two people to millions of innocents. That’s like executing the children and grandchildren of a murderer.

But my question is this: how could such a monumental event - a decision of death over life for all mankind - how could it stay hidden for thousands of years and only be revealed after it had been nullified? What sense does it make for God to tell us that as punishment for the sin he would create labor pains for pregnant women(Gen 3:16)and NOT tell us that, btw, he was also damning everybody!?!

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/27/2010 21:30 pm

Further to my posts #5 and 6:

It seems to me that sin did begun to reign with the sin of Adam, but that Adam and Eve had undergone some change (their eyes were opened and they saw that ther were naked and were ashamed), and this change was for sure to pass their posterity.So not only they were easy pray for the Devil, but that they had an increased tendency to give in to sin, with perhpas less power of resistance Adam and Eve had in their inocent state.

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/27/2010 21:08 pm

Further to my post # 5:

Where there is no law, there is no sin. Adam eating of the forbidden fruit was counted as sin, as he was given a commndment- law- not to eat the fruit. Cain had not done sin of eating forbidden fruit; His sin was sin of murder, not specifically forbidden by any law till the time the Law of Moses was given. But sin was sin even without the law(Roman 7:7-14)
The question is: Why did Cain and others thereafter sinned? Is it because all the people are free to make choice on an individual basis and that they all equally have the tendency and propensity to sin? Is this tendancy and propensity derived from Adam or, is the whole mankind including Adam, made that way only? What does it mean when it says that sin had its entry and passing over with the sin of Adam? Does it mean the transfer of the sinful nature from Adam to his descendants, with the resultant change that took place after eating of the forbideen fruit? Or does it mean that it was the sin of Adam that gave way to the Devil to have authority over the mankind and that now the sin too had control over the mankind? This is the crux of the problem.

But the real problem that is there is that sin is there! No one can doubt the existence of sin; one has to read just one page of a daily newspaper. All have sinned and have thus missed their mark of reaching to the glory of God. (Roman 3:23) And Jesus is the One who can save from sin!(Matt.1:21) This much is clear to my feeble mind. I know I was blind, and now I see!

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/27/2010 20:59 pm

Sin and so also the resultant death entered the world when Adam sin as the verse under consideration says.It was because Adam sin therefore that sin passed over the mankind. Sin began to reign even on those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam? why? Because sin had already made entry and was passed over as Adam sinned (Roman 5:14)

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/27/2010 20:22 pm

Jason, I don’t understand your first point about Mary’s virginity.

I don’t have an argument with your second point. If you believe in the Bible you have to believe that what Paul says in this verse is true, and I respect that. However, an agnostic mind like mine needs something more than blind faith to understand why Jesus suffered so much without apparent reason. Or how anyone could be “punished” with a terrible sin they did not commit without even knowing they had it. I mean, can you have a sin when you’re not even aware of it? When a tree falls in the middle of a forest and nobody hears it, does it make a noise? (And does it matter if it does?)I am looking for “something more than blind faith” to understand a concept that seems too far-fetched for my feeble mind.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/27/2010 16:00 pm

Charles,

1. Mary hasn’t been a “Virgin” for 2,000+ years.

2. Just because the Bible may or may not reveal certain truths till late in the game, does not make those precepts any less true.

By Jason W. Elder (wrote 321 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/27/2010 14:35 pm

As far as I know this is the first mention of the original sin in the entire Bible. Nobody from Moses to Abraham to the Virgin Mary knew that they were born sinners. Jesus himself failed to reveal his mission on Earth to any of his followers. I find it incomprehensible that none of the evangelists bothered to tell us why Jesus died and it was only 25 years after his death that Paul finally broke the story.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/27/2010 13:40 pm

In the last phrase, “for that,” the Greek is EF W. “EF” is a contraction for “EPI,” which means “upon” or “because” depending on whether we are talking location or causality. Then “W” means “which.” So, it must be translated either “upon which” or “because of which.” “Upon which” is clearly not applicable as we are not talking location. It must be because of which. Most translations merely say “because” thus ignoring the word “W” which means “which.” The KJV essentially does the same, since “for that” boils down to “because.” The translation is wrong. It should read:

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; EVEN so death passed upon all men, BECAUSE OF WHICH all have sinned:”

The idea is that Adam’s sin has brought mortality on us all, and mortality causes us to sin. Why does mortality cause us to sin? Because the fear of death keeps us in bondage to sin; see Hebrews 2:15 and 1st Corinthians 15:32.

Hebrews 2:15 “And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.”

1st Corinthians 15:32 “If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.”

By rey (wrote 36 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/18/2008 04:30 am