I take this first of all to mean
simply that the sinful nature was not introduced by the law, but
rather the sinful nature is part of human nature, and thus
precedes the law. The reason why he might be bringing up that
fact is to say that the law is not the problem. Throughout
history and today there are people who think they can solve the
problem of sin in the world through legislation. But if history
teaches us anything, it teaches us that sin is much more
ingrained and cannot be done away with through legal
regulations.
True, if there were no laws, people could not be reckoned
guilty, even though complying with their sinful nature. For
there would be nothing they were transgressing against. But
again remember what Paul had already pointed out.
"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who
do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law,
they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have
the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are
written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing
witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending
them.)" Rom 2:14,15
Thus we find whole societies generally agreeing upon what is
right and wrong, because human nature also has a conscience, to
which each of us will be held accountable.
Therefore even prior to written law, people became spiritually
dead because they did what they knew was wrong, in compliance
with their sinful nature, or failed to do what was right. Adam
had law. He explicitly knew God's command. But it doesn't take
explicit commandments to know right from wrong. And thus all are
guilty who comply with the desires of their sinful nature.
The Gift is Unlike the Trespass
Rom 5:15,16 But the gift is not like the
trespass. For if the many died (spiritually) by the trespass of the one man,
how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the
grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s
sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation,
but the gift followed many trespasses and brought
justification.
The one sin, the one trespass brought condemnation to Adam's
descendants in that his sinful nature was passed down through
the flesh through which condemnation came. In fact throughout
the New Testament the phrase "sinful nature" is "sarx" in Greek,
which is elsewhere translated "flesh".
While we're not born
guilty of sin, we're born with a sinful nature. And when people
comply with the desires of their sinful nature they are
condemned. In this way it could be said that the one sin brought
condemnation to all.
There are misconceptions concerning what people label "original
sin", in which people have explicitly said to me,
"God is not just, in human terms",
whereas the Bible, speaking to humans, says
"God is just" 2Th 1:6a. And thus
"fathers shall not be put to death for their
children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each
is to die for his own sin." Deuteronomy 24:16
But
"this only have I found: God made mankind
upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes."
Ecc 7:29 This effect being due to the sinful nature.
Some also misread Rom 5:15 to mean that the gift is just like
the trespass, whereas it says that that gift is not like the
trespass. So there is a danger in drawing too much analogy
between the two. Paul is simply pointing out that as Adam is the
progenitor of a race of sinners, so also Christ is the
progenitor of the righteous.
The Reign of Death and the Reign of Life
Rom 5:17 For if, by the trespass of the
one man, (spritual) death reigned through that one
man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant
provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in
life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
Spiritual death's reign is a matter of choice, as Paul later
writes,
"Do not let sin
reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires."
Rom 6:12 But as we saw
in the
Eph 2:1-3
passage, the reign of the death is through our sinful nature,
Adam being the progenitor of the sinful nature of his
descendants. "Reign" itself implies choice as submitting to
one's ruler is a matter of choice. But the sinful nature coerces
us to submit.
In a similar manner when one is born of God, the new nature
coerces us into doing what is right.
"And I will put my Spirit in you and move you
to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. You will
live in the land I gave your forefathers; you will be my
people, and I will be your God." Eze 36:27,28 And
"if we endure, we will also
reign with Christ." 2Tim
2:12 For concerning the saints it is written,
"You have made them to be a
kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on
the earth." Rev 5:10
The End Results of Adam & Christ's Actions
Rom 5:18,19 Consequently, just as the
result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also
the result of one act of righteousness was justification that
brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience
of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the
obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
Note Paul's usage of the word "result". He's talking about the
result, not the process. He's speaking by way of ellipsis with regards
to the process. But what is the process, by implication?
ADAM'S SIN
leads to
A FALLEN HUMAN NATURE
leads to
PEOPLE SINNING
leads to
CONDEMNATION
But here he's simply pointing to the two ends speaking of the
ultimate effect and not the process which led up to that
effect.
The Augustinian heresy,
as held by a number of sects of Christianity, came from a
misinterpretation of these verses. Namely the idea that God
holds people accountable for things over which they have no
control. In this case they claim that God holds children
accountable for the sins of their father, namely Adam. But as
the Bible is clear that God is just and
"Children
shall not be put to death for their fathers; each is to
die for his own sin." Deut 24:16,
therefore such an interpretation is unBiblical.
Calvinists
largely discard God's judicial nature when interpreting the Bible rather
than interpreting the Bible in light of God's judicial nature.
Classical Calvinists, like John Gill, hold to an Augustinian
theory. Note how he interprets these verses,
"though the
posterity of Adam are habitually sinners, that is, derive
corrupt nature from Adam, yet this is not meant here; but that
they are become guilty, through the imputation of his sin
to them; for it is by the disobedience of another they
are made sinners, which must be by the imputation of that
disobedience to them; he sinned, and they sinned in him, when
they had as yet no actual existence; which could be no other
way, than by imputation, as he was reckoned and accounted
their head and representative, and they reckoned and accounted
in him, and so have sinned in him."
Thus such people hold that God holds people accountable
for things of which they hadn't actually done wrong, things of
which they had no control over, things that occurred even before
they were born. That is not justice. That is prejudice. That is
injustice. And consequently such a view is anti-Biblical,
anti-Christlike. Not only this but they interpret other passages
to indicate that God imputes guilt to Christ, which is contrary to
God's character.
"Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty." Ex 23:7
"Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— the LORD detests them both." Pr 17:15
As such,
God detests Calvinism. Consequently any interpretation
which compromises God's judicial nature or any of God's character is to be
discarded, and those who hold such interpretations to be discredited as
those who portray a false image of God.
Made Sinners versus Made Righteous
The many being "made" sinners is speaking of the result, not the
process. And note that he's not saying the God makes us sinners, but
rather that through Adam's disobedience we ended up as sinners.
There are those who misinterpret
Rom 5:18,19 to mean that a person is made into a sinner
in the exact same way that a person is made righteous. Now the
Bible teaches us that the way a person is made righteous is that
he is first of all justified, forgiven of sin, through faith in
the blood of Christ. Such a person is reckoned guiltless. Then,
having been saved, and his destiny secure, for God
"set his seal of ownership on
us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit,
guaranteeing what is to come." 2Cor 5:5, the Holy Spirit
then coerces him into doing what is right. Thus righteous
behavior is characteristic of those born of God. In fact
"Anyone who does not do what is
right is not a child of God" 1John 3:10a Because doing what is right is in
the nature of those born of God.
But there are those who claim that people become sinners in a
similar manner, namely God first reckons guilt to them and then
gives them a sinful nature which leads to unrighteous behavior.
That's like portraying God as reckoning guilt to the innocent
and then putting them in jail so that the environment there
would cause them to become bad people. Obviously such a
portrayal makes God out to be unjust, and indeed they will admit
that in their theology
"God
is unjust, in human terms". (In fact if God were unjust
in this way then Christ wouldn't have had to die. For Christ's
death appeased God's judicial nature. But if God reckoned guilt
prejudicially, he could have just as well forgiven sin
prejudicially, without having to appease his judicial nature if
indeed he had no judicial nature to begin with. The Augustinian
heresy denigrates God's character.)
Rather the process goes like this:
Adam past down a sinful nature
People are guilty when they comply with that nature
Having then sinned, they are condemned
Christ died for sins.
When they come to faith in Christ, people are forgiven of sin
Having been justified, they are born of God, given the Holy
Spirit
The new nature coerces them into righteous living.
So while Paul was making an analogy between the end effects of
what Adam did to what Christ did, how each led to the end
effect was different. Thus one should not read too much into
these verses of how these end effects came about. Among the
hermeneutical errors Calvinists make in this whole section is to take it
out of the context of what Paul had already stated in the first four
and a half chapters of Romans, and to read too much into the analogy
Paul is making without interpreting it in light of God's character.
Law Increases Sin
Rom 5:20,21 The law was added so that the
trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace
increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death,
so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Paul later describes how the law
causes sin to increase with regards to his own experience in
chapter 7. "Once I was
alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin
sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment
that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For
sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment,
deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death."
Rom 7:9-11 For example,
"I would not have known
what sin was except through the law. For I would not have
known what coveting really was if the law had not said, 'Do
not covet.' But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the
commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire." Rom 7:7b-8
But if the law, though itself being
good, provokes our flesh to sin, why introduce it? It was
introduced because people need to realize they need to be saved.
We all need to recognize that we are sinners, that we commit sin
and therefore are guilty, subject to condemnation. Remember Paul
previously wrote, "through
the law we become conscious of sin." Rom 3:20b Therefore "the law was our tutor to bring
us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Gal 3:24 For Christ died for
sins and he says, "I have
not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Mark 2:17