#25. Romans 5:13-14 - Elaborating on How Sin Rolls (Conciliation Series, Part VI)

 Part IV: God’s Conciliation, Confirmed

And now we have a verse that’s muddled and confused people for almost two thousand years. It’s… an odd continuation from the previous verse, because you would expect an immediate contrast to be revealed for you in verse 13, right? Why tell us about how sin enters the world through Adam? How did the previous verse connect with the overarching theme of peace? I mean, sure, now we have one man being held accountable for the race’s sin, but how does this connect with the previous five verses, where Paul discussed God’s justifying the irreverent and conciliated to the sinner?

There are many misinterpretations of this verse. I mean this in every respect. It’s hard to get a straight answer out of someone on this verse at all. Many college professors and Biblical scholars today have gone as far as to call Paul confused; that he loses himself in verse 12 and, instead of completing the thought, course corrects in the following verse. We’re only a few chapters into Romans, but I would hope that by now you’re not discounting God’s revelations to an old man’s confusion! There is indeed a direct reason that this verse follows the previous one – its goal is to compare two different time periods. See, verse 12 begins a comparison with Adam and Christ from the previous verses. The structure of Romans 5:12-21 can be observed in the graph above.

With this in mind, it becomes clear that this is not a disjointed idea, but the complement to the idea he’s been laying out throughout the chapter. The fact that Biblical scholars will shrug their shoulders and go, “Well, he probably meant this,” goes back to that “irreverence” thing we’ve been talking about. God’s not a dumbass, guys. He knows what He’s doing.

– for until law sin was in the world, yet sin is not being taken into account when there is no law…

“For” should clarify for us that we’re dealing with a connecting statement to the previous verse. No confusion here – it’s very simple and stately! For until law sin was in the world. This proves the previous verse quite well. We can see, in Genesis 4-5, that “genealogies” began to exist, thanks to Adam’s penalty. We saw an example of death being passed through into all mankind through Cain and Abel, with the natural affect being sin, which Cain certainly did. So we see, as the race grows on the planet, from Genesis 5 until Mt. Sinai in the latter half of Exodus, sin ran rampant in society.

Literally speaking, God does not charge people with sin when no law is present. This is the period of time Paul points at in order to prove it. See, Adam’s transgression earned death for all, but when the Israelites became subject to the law, they were essentially taking credit for their own sin – God, through law, would hold them accountable for their own sin, instead of letting it rest on Adam. As we know from Romans 3:20, if we don’t know law, we don’t recognize sin, thus would not actively recognize “breaking a law.” Thus, those that clearly had no law from Adam to Moses were still dying, though they weren’t actively breaking a law – it was the one law that Adam broke that has impacted all.

And there are so many objections to this, of course. I’m not going to cover them all, because, truth be told, I don’t care. It’s not about what we think, or whether or not our personal objections make complete sense to us, but about how God perceives the situation. A simple objection from the crowds would be, “Well, what about the big flood? Didn’t God say that He flooded the world, ending the second eon, because of the evil of humanity? That sounds like a pretty big judgment of our sin, doesn’t it?”

Heh. You thought you did something there, didn’t you? If you look back at Genesis 6:1-4, you may realize that the evil of humanity is the effect of a much larger issue; that the sons of Elohim were coming down to earth from the celestials and screwing the women, making weird babies and corrupting the race that Yahweh planned to birth Christ through. The word “evil” in Hebrew literally means, “destruction.” It has no moral connotation to it. From God’s point of view, it is “evil” to tear down an abandoned building, whether the intent was good or not. Moreover, their “judgment” is not a direct result of their evil, but still a direct result of Adam’s offense. If Adam had not offended, no flood would be. No Tower of Babel would be. No Egypt. No Sumer. No Israel. No Messiah. No Paul. Truth would have nothing to contrast Himself with.

A big one would be, “Well, why is God unveiling indignation on us if He’s not charging sin to the individual?? You and Paul both said yourselves in Romans 1:18 that He’s inflicting indignation on our irreverence and injustice!” To this I would say, no no no! Don’t mix the teaching! Romans 1:18 is unveiling indignation on those who retain the truth in injustice, which is all of us. Take that flood, for example! That occurred, correctly, during the period of no law! Clearly God takes issue with sin during this time as well! He hates sin! Romans 1:18 is not talking about hereditary death, but on those who are retaining the truth in injustice. God has a plan for the lost, and the hurt (Psalm 82.) None of this changes the fact that He is working a justification in the believer and has, in fact, been the One to make them believe to begin with. With or without law, those that do not recognize God are described in Rom. 1:27-32, which is all of us, and are deserving of death. How does He know we are deserving of death? Because the descriptors in Rom. 1:27-32 are in Adam, as we can clearly see through His offspring. God was ahead of the curve in damning sin at the garden. The discipline instructs us on God’s dealings with us – the ignorance they have is what they are given (Rom. 1:24,) in choosing the irreverence and injustice.

You can apply this thought process to any objection, yes. It’s not any more complicated than this; yes, we all sin. It’s what we see, visually. Does this mean that death is our fault, when Scripture states the direct opposite? Are we truly to say that Paul, God’s appointed apostle to the nations, is wrong? That he’s incorrect, though this is the beginning of God’s evangel (Rom. 1:1)?

…nevertheless death reigns from Adam unto Moses, over those also who do not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who is about to be.

We know all sin because death reigns from Adam to Moses. Again, they are not charged individually with sin worthy of God’s anger, for their predecessor, Adam, already brought this on the entire race. The word “nevertheless” here is just but. Although sin is not taken into account when there is no law, death still ruled during that timeframe. Now, I’m no genius, but it looks like Paul is proving the exact opposite of today’s “Biblical scholars.” Death is the root, something you can’t control, nor could you ever.

No, it’s not your fault. Who said death was your fault? In effect, the sin is over Adam’s head, not your own. The only way you are held accountable for your sin is if you place yourself under Mosaic law (Gal. 3:10-12.) It is entirely Adam’s fault that death is reigning over this current wicked eon. To quote George Rogers:

“So repulsive a condition as a race universally doomed to the failure of mortality and death is unnatural. It can be explained only as divine infliction and a stupendous disaster. It more than suggests that such a condition and destiny cannot be the consummation of a beneficent Creator's plan. Yet, concerning any happier consummation philosophy and science are silent; they must stand aside and wait for God to speak. And He says this dread state of things is a type of a gracious and compensative state where deliverance also shall be complete and universal.”

Indeed, this is the correct understanding of the passage, as humanity is called “cursed,” not permanently crippled. Yes, Adam transgressed. Eve was deluded; she didn’t know any better and was distracted by vain questioning. Adam, on the other hand, had received a direct order from God and, relatively, chose not to adhere to it. See, he was not under grace, but under a law. He had a rule to follow. He had to live in it, and his death reflected his sin. He didn’t just screw up, but disobeyed. Whereas you may screw up, and you’ll naturally justify yourself with a “no one’s perfect” or an “oops,” Adam had no such leeway. He didn’t have a contrast, no one’s mistakes to learn from; it was a test, and as a man, he failed. 

Yes, you’re hearing me correctly. Not all sin is “breaking the rules.” As we learned in Romans 2, those who live without law perish apart from it. Paul elaborates on this notion here. Everyone between Adam and Moses had no law. Abraham was not given a law; he was given a promise. So also with Isaac. So also with Jacob. So also with Joseph and his brothers. No law existed for the other nations, or the first ten patriarchs of Genesis 5. No one had a clue what sin was; they merely held a general difference between right and wrong (Gen. 20:1-6.) Thus, no one could transgress during this time. The ultimate curse and penalty – gradual loss of the life God provided, with an experience of evil to boot – had already been inflicted.

It is through the law, through Mosaic law, that sin had a light shined on its ugly face. There is something worse than your personal wrongdoings at play, here. Everyone dies, not because they sin. Everyone sins, because they are dying. This is the proper lens to be looking at life through. You fuck up because you are dying, not vice versa. Do you control when you die? No? 

That’s what I thought.

It’s why the innocent die, guys. They die all the time. It’s called “being a victim of death.” Babies die at birth. One of my cousins tragically lost their life coming out of the womb, because their umbilical cord was wrapped around their neck. What sin did they commit that caused this death? What about school shootings? When did the children in these campuses transgress God’s law? Goodness, even the attack on the twin towers! Sure, there’s plenty of greed in the world trade center, but if God was truly attacking greed right now, we wouldn’t need to ask questions! He would (and will) do way more than throw a couple planes at tall buildings!

Expand the thought to an even higher consideration; that all are victims of death, as a result of Adam’s transgression. Not only the victims of tragedies, but even those that perpetuate it. The Hitlers, the Mussolinis, the terrorists of the world, the politicians that only care about making an extra dollar. All of them are victims of death, which is why they act the way they do. Not one is free from this terror, and in adding this remark here, Paul both proves what he was saying before, that all are dying thanks to Adam, irrespective of their personal sin, and proves his next point, highlighted by the last part of this sentence, that this period of time that has no law was a type, or a model, or a pattern, of the current era we live in, which which believers are now not subject to law (Rom. 4:15, 6:14.)

Once the law hit Israel, sin once again turned into transgression. Like before, the penalty was death, and moreover weeded out the difference between faithful Israel and, simply, disbelief. Literally speaking, you could not act under law without becoming a transgressor. The law itself, comprised of 613 rules, is perfect. It was impossible to follow them without screwing up somehow. The penalty for these rules did not supersede or overpower the curse laid out thanks to Adam, as the penalty was usually carried out by a priest in the relative.

Aaaaanyways, hopefully this clarifies the whole “it’s a type of that which is about to be” statement. One period of grace is contrasted with another. We should be careful in our understanding, here, of how Adam is portrayed as a “type” of Christ, that we don’t overstretch what Paul is saying. How is Christ, Who brings life, a type of Adam, who brings death? This is only in the sense that they have both greatly impacted the human race. They differ greatly in the way they have impacted the race. The verses above aren’t trying to continue the parallel that’s begun in verse 12. It’s running you through the proof of verse 12. The next three verses will slide us into two major contrasts before completing the parallel in verses 18 and 19. It must be understood that death is a result of Adam, because it’s crucial for the contrast brought about in the later verses, the antitype between Adam and Christ. These verses are hard to hear, yes, and if we only dwelled on this side of things, we would be miserable! But it is important to know how death works in us, if we are to understand any of Christ’s sacrifice. Paul ran through the proofs with Abraham on the concept of faith, but here takes death back to Adam, where everything began.

Most cannot handle this truth. Like Peter, they find Paul to apprehend (2 Pet. 3:16.) This is, simply, because the words written are not believed. The statement is simple – it’s man’s logic that interferes, based on personal experience, pain, or frustration. Paul said what he said, and he means it. It’s a great thought. A perfect one, honestly. No man could have thought of this. Yet he is God’s apostle to us, and his words ring true. Death is still reigning from Paul to you and me. We don’t “transgress” in the exact same way Adam did, because that’s not the parameter – death is. Sin is the effect of death.

- GerudoKing