Hebrews Lesson 92 July 5, 2007
NKJ Psalm 119:105 Your word is a
lamp to my feet And a light to my path.
We are in Romans 5 tonight –
Romans 5 as we continue to work our way through the second of two big questions
that come out of Hebrews 7, Hebrews 7:9-10.
Again tonight I was reading through
a particular writer’s comments even on Romans 5 and the explanation that he had
on some of the issues of Romans 5:12f. This is another man that is a world
class scholar, respected exegete and took a position of pure seminalism. He
offered no explanation, no defense, just cited Hebrews 7:9 as if this settles
it. Once again I find that very few exegetes deal with this one phrase that is
there that is translated as I have it
on the screen “in a manner of speaking” indicating that this is really a
figure of speech. It’s not talking about a literal reality. Yet this verse
seems to be the only verse that people go to, to defend this position of seminalism
as well as Traducianism. As I have pointed out before, those are linked together.
So the first question we dealt with
was the origin of the soul and the transmission of the soul from one generation
to another and how does human life progress. The second question is the origin
and transmission of sin and Adam's original sin. This is important for us to
understand because it gives us an understanding, an appreciation for the
complexity of our salvation. Because if we don’t understand the complexity of
the problem and how the problem has manifested itself throughout the entire
human race; then we tend to have a shallow and superficial view of our
salvation - what Jesus Christ did on the cross and the intricacies of God’s
plan of salvation and what He did in order to save us.
Romans 5:12-21 is one of the most
significant passages or sections in the entire Bible. It draws to a conclusion
not only the argument that Paul uses in Romans 5 - now I use the word argument
- the average person uses the word argument as two people disagreeing with each
other and yelling at each other; but that is not the way it is used in legal
type literature. You have somebody who presents a case for something that is
called an argument. So in literature you talk about somebody who is presenting
a case for something, building a case for a particular position and that is
also called an argument. That is what I mean in this particular section.
Paul has built an argument in the
previous chapters for the necessity of salvation and how faith justifies -
faith in Christ justifies, the imputation of righteousness and the need for
righteousness in salvation. In
chapter 5 we have the focus on the results which is peace with God through
reconciliation.
Then in verse 12 we come to a
conclusion that wraps up not only chapter 5 but also the section from 1:18 down
through 5:11. We need to overview our section here in verse 12.
He begins a comparison and contrast
between Adam’s sin and Christ’s work. We have to be very careful here just as
Paul is very careful. He begins
the comparison though in verse 12.
NKJ Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as
He only gets the first part of the
comparison in and before he gets to the second aspect, the part about
Christ.
He stops as it were and thinks,
“Well, I had better make sure that I qualify as much as I can because I don’t
want people taking this comparison and this contrast too far. I am not
comparing everything about Adam and Christ. I am not comparing everything about
sin and its being passed on to all humanity and what Christ did on the cross; I
am just comparing two tight areas.”
So he stops to qualify and his
qualification includes a definition of sin and death - an explanation of it in
verses 13 and 14 and then in verses 15 through 17 he shows the contrast between
Christ and Adam – the differences before he will compare them. Then in
verse 18 to 21 he comes back to the comparison. So verse 12 begins the
comparison and contrasts. Verses 13 through 14 give an explanation of sin and
death and how that is passed on to the whole human race. Verses 15 to 17 contrast
Christ and Adam. Then he comes back and connects the comparison between Adam’s
sin and its application of condemnation to all men and Christ’s righteousness
and man’s justification through His substitutionary work in verse 18.
Now when we come to verse 12:
NKJ Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the
world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all
sinned --
Now there are some important nuances
to the grammar here that we have to pay attention to and some things that we
can learn from the way this is set up. But the question that we are answering
is how does this last part happen? We read:
just as through
one man sin entered the world,
We understand that in terms of
Adam’s sin, his disobedience. He ate of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge
of the Good and Evil in Genesis 3.
That is how sin entered the world and that is how death entered the
world. But how does death spread to all men? That is the question. In what way
does death spread to all men and sin to all men?
So let’s just review a couple of
things I said last time. I am going to review things I said last time, but in
that review what I have done is I have expanded within almost everything I said
last time. So as you listen you are going to see parallels, but then watch for
the things that I have added.
Start of with the “therefore”. Dia touto in the Greek describes the
ground, the motive or the cause of something. Literally it is “for this reason”
which would be a better translation.
For this reason just as through one man.
So he is expanding on and concluding
the entire section. He sets up this comparison that we see in the English with a
good translation – just as. It is the Greek word hosper. “Just as”, which introduces a comparison that he is going
to make between the first Adam and the Second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ. He
then qualifies it in the next few verses and finally completes the comparison
in verse 18. Now when you get down to some of the details in this particular
passage there is a lot of debate over just how the grammar impacts our
understanding of the text.
The other key word that we look at
is this phrase right here - “and thus” as it is set up in the Greek text. It is
in the Greek kai which is the word
for “and” and houtos - kai houstos. It
really means in this manner as follows. This is the same adverb that you have
at the beginning of John 3:16
NKJ John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only
begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have
everlasting life.
We have the phrase there that “God
so loved”. The Greek there that is translated “so” is this adverb houtos. You will hear some people take
it as meaning the degree.
God loved the world so much that He gave His only begotten Son.
But that is not what this word means. It is a word that means thusly or in the
manner that follows. It focuses on what is about to be said. So we should
translate John 3:16 “in this way” or “in this manner” or “thusly God loved the
world”.
In this way God loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son.
It indicates manner - stresses manner,
how something is done. So when we come to this particular verse and we read the
phrase “and thus” or “in this way death spread to all men”, in what way? Because
all sinned. That tells us that the ground for this is because all sinned. We
have to understand the connection. How did they sin? Is this emphasizing
actual, personal, individual sins or is it positional? I have already indicated
that in the way I have translated this.
In this manner death spread to all men because all sinned in Adam
positionally.
Not seminally, but positionally. That
is our position in Adam has to do with his spiritual death.
Now in the Greek you have two
different ways you can set up this houtos
construction. The way we have it is “and thus” or kai houtos. That always suggests what I have said that it is an
expansion of the initial comparison. It is not giving the other side of the
comparison. If you were going to give the other side of the comparison you
would reverse the two. That has been demonstrated through technical studies and
it bears itself out consistently that when you have houstos kai it would indicate the other side of the comparison. You
have one side “just as through one man sin entered the world” and on the other
side “death through sin”. Death through sin and thus and also or thus also -
that just doesn’t make sense in Greek. There are various scholars, who try to
argue that, but the kai houtos is a
very technical phrase in Greek and it indicates an extension of the original
comparison. So all that we have in verse 12 is the initial side of the
comparison - what is happening in regard to Adam. He doesn’t make to Christ
yet.
Then there is this break that is
called an anacoluthon where you start to talk about something, all of a sudden
you are reminded, “Well before I get any further I need to expand on this. I
need to elucidate that, maybe tell this story.”
For some people that becomes a
rabbit trail and it may be a long time before you get back to the main track. That’s
what Paul does in verses 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. He is going to make sure that
everybody understands what those qualifications are so they don’t take the
comparison too far.
Therefore just as through one man sin enters the world.
Now let me go back to that verse
again. Notice – just as through one man sin enters the world. What is the
next thing we mention? And death through sin and thus death spread to all men
because all sinned.
Now I skipped that “death through
sin” because that phrase needs to be taken in its entity. And death through sin
and thus death spread to all men because all sinned.
So what do you have? You have a chiasm. Sin – death
– death - sin. And so there is our familiar X for the Greek letter chi or as it is pronounced in most
scholarly treatments of Greek “kee”, not like you do in college fraternities as
a chi. This is a “kee”. The focal
point is what is in the center which is death. That’s the center part of the
chiasm. So the emphasis here is on the death and the spreading of death to all
men because that is the penalty for sin. And so just the way its structured
indicates what the author is putting the emphasis on. So we read:
just as through
one man
The “through” is the Greek
preposition dia with the genitive
which indicates the means. It is through the means of one man that sin enters
the world.
Then you have three verbs in this
sentence. You have “entered” which is the verb eiserchomai. Now this is the root verb is erchomai which means to go, to come. In its own sense it can have
the idea of entering. Then it can have various prefixes, various prepositions
or prefixes. Eis means to go into or
to enter. Exerchomai – ex means to go out - so it means to come
out of. Those are very important words when you are studying demon possession
because you always have the interchange between the demon going into something
(eiserchomai) and then being cast out
of or being told to come out of someone (exerchomai)
which indicates that demon possession is going into and coming out of. It’s not
just some intense form of demon influence.
So here we have this idea of something
going into something else. It’s the picture of someone entering the front door
of a house – going inside. So this depicts sin entering into the
world.
The Greek word for world here is kosmos which we are familiar with because
this is the world’s system. But there is another sense to world which is refers
to the inhabited planet. This is the same use that John has in John 3:16.
NKJ John 3:16 "For God so loved the world
God loved what? He loved the world - the inhabited
planet. So we read:
Just as through one man sin entered the inhabited planet.
It stands for the human race. Sin
enters into the human race and death through sin. Thus death spread to all men.
Now we have another verb. It is dierchomai. That is the Greek
preposition dia plus the same verb erchomai. So eiserchomai means to go into or to enter and dierchomai has the idea of passing through something. It is used
of a sword piercing the body and passing through the body. It is used of Jesus
Christ who passes through the heavens in His ascension to the throne of God. It’s
also used of someone who’s traveling through various regions to get to another
area. So the idea here is that sin enters the world through this doorway. The
doorway is Adam’s decision, Adam’s sin. When he chose to eat the fruit, sin
then walks through the door and enters into the human race and enters into
human history and with it comes death. There is a companion with sin and it
brings with it death.
In this manner through this entry into the world death spread thusly to
all men because all sinned.
So it says thus (what is to come)
death spread.
It is the idea of – let’s say
you had a gas leak in your house. Somebody turned on the valve and the gas
would enter the house through that valve. Then what does it do? It starts to fill
up the space of the house. That is this idea here of death spreading. It is
like gas spreading throughout the whole house. So death spreads throughout the
entire human race.
In this manner death spread to all men and because all sinned
positionally.
We have one more verb. So we have eiserchomai; we have dierchomai. Both of these are aorist
active indicatives.
Then the third verb in the sentence
is the last one – because all sinned. That’s hamartano meaning to miss the mark. This also is an aorist active
indicative. The fact that all three are aorist tenses indicates that they all
referred to a past event. This is all something that has been completed.
We have about four observations to
make on this particular passage at this point.
That fits the parallel that we have
in Romans 3:23 which says:
For all have sinned
We have an aorist active indicative
of hamartano again.
and fallen short of the glory of God.
It doesn’t talk about the fact that
all are going to sin. There are some that haven’t lived yet that still have yet
to sin. It is talking about all - every member of the human race - has already
sinned. That is why we get into this discussion about how did that happen in
relationship to Adam. What exactly was the way that this sin spread to all men?
Is it positional or is it actual?
Let me help you understand this a
little differently. I have used the term federal in the past. Federal indicates
a representative – that Adam functioned as a representative. Seminally
means that we actually participated in some physical way in Adam’s sin when he
sinned. That is based on – every time you read anything on that it is based
on the Hebrews 7 passage. So how does this death spread to all men?
Another word I want to use that’s
like the federal word and may make it a little clearer to you (It might be more
familiar to you.) is the word positional. We are positionally in Adam –
we are physically there. It is important. As I pointed out before there are
dimensions of both of these that are true. It is not this either-or kind of
thing. That is why I am spending some time on this to try to understand the
distinctions here.
So we go to this next phrase.
And thus (or in this manner) this is how death spread to all men because
all sinned.
So in what way did we participate in
that original sin? This is based on a very unusual construction in the Greek
here. First we have the phrase kai houtos, which I have already mentioned
several times.
In this manner that follows, this is the way that death spread to all
men because all sinned.
So the writer views this that all every human being sinned in
Adam’s sin. You were not a sinner because you sinned. This is one of those fun
little brain twister sayings that people love to use in Bible college or
seminary. Are you a sinner because you sin or do you sin because you are a
sinner? You see most people think
they are sinners because they sin. But that’s not biblical. The Bible teaches
that you sin because you are a sinner. That’s what this is pointing out.
This is how death spread to all men because all sinned in Adam’s
sin.
How did we participate in that sin? Was
it physical or was it positional? I am going to argue that it is actually both.
So remember that I already gave you four points that we looked up to that
point. I am interspersing this in the middle between four and five. But we have
this first phrase:
Thus, in this manner all sinned because all sinned.
Then we have this phrase that is
translated ‘because’, but in the Greek it is made up of two words, epi which is contracted to an “f” there
because it is followed by another vowel plus the dative of a masculine pronoun epiho. So the question is what does this
mean? In fact there are 8 or 9 different suggestions as to how to handle this. This
is where you get into really fun exegesis because what you have to do is look
at these – I mean if you really had time to do everything on this that
you wanted to, what you would do is trace each one out, look for all the
different commentators who took each different position, look at their
arguments, their general theological frameworks and then compare and contrast
those and trace how those views were held down through history. That is the
stuff doctrinal dissertations are made of. But when you are cranking through
Bible class on a regular basis you just don’t have time always to do that. But
you have to do it in some sort of – at least a quick superficial level -
just to make sure you are not headed down the wrong road. Most commentators
have taken this to indicate “because” but not always for the right reasons. It
seems to be basically an idiom that is used. This whole thing is a conjunction
meaning because. It understands the sin here not to refer to man’s actual
individual sinning but to their participation in Adam's original sin
positionally.
Now I am emphasizing that
“positional”. That is my conclusion based on the fact the seminal position has
such little weight to it. But let’s just go on and I am going to add as we go
through this. Once again I want to remind you of these two views. I have been
using the terms throughout the lesson so far, but I have added a little bit to
both of these and underlined what I have added to help you see the
difference.
Seminalism: As I said before this is
the view that the entire human race, body and soul, was genetically present in
Adam – not just positionally but genetically. Thus God considered every
human being to be physically participating in Adam's original sin and thus
receiving the same penalty.
What this view is saying is that when Adam made this decision, you made
it to. You are right there with him in a very real sense. I have problems with
that, not only exegetically but conceptually. And as I said this view is
usually connected to the Traducianist view of the transmission of the soul.
Federalism: In contrast federalism is
the view that Adam stood as the head and representative of the human race. Adam’s
decisions were on behalf of all humanity. God viewed Adam’s sin as the act of
all people through representation.
As I am working through this the
idea that comes back again and again is this idea of representation. I entitled
the lesson tonight “Sin: Representation, Substitution and Imputation”. We have
to look at the other side of this comparison where Paul is going here because
what he is talking about is what happens with Adam and sin and how that gets
passed on to the human race is related to what happens when Christ dies as our
representative, as our spiritual substitute on the cross and where His righteousness
is imputed to us. We have Adam’s sin being imputed to us. We also have Christ’s
righteousness imputed to us. So to make sense of both of these, we have to
recognize that there has to be a representative dimension to this – not
simply a real or physical or genetic connection.
Now the problem that some people have
with this that has been raised with me is that the more extreme forms of this
federal sense were represented in covenant theology. But this isn’t a view that
is restricted to covenant theology. In fact as I pointed out last time in
discussing various theologians through the ages that have held the different
view, many of them were covenant theologians. Many were seminalists. Most
seminalists are covenant theologians. Most federalists are covenant
theologians. So it is not something that is inherent to covenant theology. So
this was really point 5.
We made 4 observations. The first
one was that the reason for sin was death. The second was the sin of one man
sin enters the world. Third, the sin brings death not only to the one but to
the whole. Fourth are three aorist tense verbs indicating that the entire human
race is viewed as sinning in Adam’s one sin. Then we digress to Romans 3:23. Look at the last phrase
– thus sin spread to all men because all sinned. Now I am at point 5,
which is the two views on how all of this happened.
We have the Pelagian view, the Arminian view, the Federal view and the
Augustinian view. There are some views that fall kind of in-between. For
example you have a view called the semi-Pelagian view which was the view that
was adopted at the Council of Orange (That is spelled orange for most of you.)
where the Roman Catholic Church officially adopted what is called a
semi-Pelagian position.
I brought that up because somebody
came up last week and said, “Well, what about the Roman Catholic position?”
That wasn’t in the chart originally.
The Pelagian view is that people incurred death when they sin after Adam’s
example. They would understand Romans 5:12 to be saying:
Death spread to all men because all actually sinned.
So it is only when they actually sin
that the death spreads to them because they are born neutral, without a sin
nature, without corruption and they get to make their own decision which is no
different from Adam’s original decision. They are born with the same absolute
freedom in one sense that Adam had and that is hindered by the fall. For them Adam’s
sin affected only Adam. No one else in humanity was affected by Adam’s sin. The
modern adherents of this would be Unitarians.
The semi-Pelagian view is the view that’s
held by Roman Catholics. That is why Roman Catholics tend to have this rather
positive view of people. Everybody somehow gets to heaven. Everybody is
basically good enough. You may have to work a little more when you get to
purgatory, but everybody is not really dead. They are just sick.
For Pelagians they are not really
sick. They don’t get sick until they are sin. But for semi-Pelagians, they’re
just sick.
For Arminians, they are a little
sicker. All people consent to Adam’s sin, and then sin is imputed. They aren’t
dead; they are just real sick.
Now just think about how that affects
your political theory. Just think how that affects your view of criminality, of
the penal system or what the purpose of the penal system is, or your view of
corporate punishment on children. You see these things are not just abstract
theological doctrines.
Isn’t that are interesting? Somebody held this view. See your next door neighbor holds one
of these views. He doesn’t know it. Maybe you can tell him. They are probably a
Pelagian. They think that their little baby that is throwing rotten eggs at
your house is totally perfect and sinless. So when they grow up and join a gang
and then they go to prison, the prison warden thinks the same thing because he
is there to rehabilitate him and not to punish him. That’s the difference. They
don’t know that they have got bad theology. They are just ignorant.
So the Arminian view is that they
are just really, really sick and they need help. That is the purpose of the
church – to help people. So that is what Charles Grandison Finney was
doing. That is why his view – he invented the whole anxious bench, walk
the aisles, sing 67 verses of “Just As I Am” because you have to help people to
want to be saved. You have got to encourage them to be saved and you have got
to emotionally motivate them to get up and walk down the aisle because they are
basically good. They don’t need to trust in Christ. They don’t need to
understand the gospel and make a decision. So that is the Arminian view. For
the Arminians, Adam sinned and it partially affected humanity. It made them
real sick. Depravity isn’t total. They are still flopping around a little bit. They
are partially alive. So they receive a corrupt nature from Adam, but they don’t
have the guilt and full corruption. They are not spiritually dead. This is
Methodists, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, Holiness groups.
After listening to Bill talk last
night about the fact that Islam is not a peaceful religion and people need to
wake up and realize that Islam isn’t a peaceful religion. Just imagine if you
are a Methodist, especially if you are a modern Methodist… Up here I am talking
about historical Methodists. But if you are a modern Methodist where you are
somewhere between Pelagian and Arminian you think people are basically good,
don’t you have a predisposition because of your view of man to want Islam to be
a peaceful religion? So if you are a Methodist and you have only heard and been
taught anything about Christianity from a Methodist viewpoint, then you are
going to be predisposed that way, even if you are the President of the United
Sates. See, theology makes a difference. People keep trying to say that Bush is
an evangelical. Bush is not an evangelical, people. You go look at Gallop’s
website and his very tight definition of an evangelical and he concludes only
9% of Americans are evangelicals. You go to NBC or CNN and their very broad definition of an evangelical and they will
conclude that as may as 40% of Americans are evangelicals. So this is why we
have a problem and why people are blaming evangelicals for a lot of stuff
that’s not their fault. They aren’t even evangelicals. I have got a book on church
history and it consistently refers to Charles Grandison Finney as an
evangelical. He didn’t believe in total depravity or substitutionary atonement
or any of those things. How can he be an evangelical? This word means nothing
to people any more.
Anyway this gives you a little bit
of a practical understanding of these ideas. They are not just abstract
theological concepts that don’t affect everyday living. They give us good
categories.
Among Calvinists they hold to a
federal view in an Augustinian view. In that sense we would agree with this
very much and much of our background has to do with different elements of the
influence of Calvinism - their high view of Scripture, their low view of man,
their high view Christ’s work on the cross are things that are very much a part
of our thinking. In fact many of the founding fathers of dispensationalism in
the 19th century came out of a Presbyterian and Calvinistic
background so that Chafer was, Scofield was, and Darby was.
The federal view is that sin is
imputed to humanity because of Adam’s sin. Adam is a representative. It is
imputed. It’s not real. Even though this chart which I took out of the Moody Handbook of Theology argues that
the Augustinian view says that sin is imputed they haven’t made a distinction
because if humanity is actually sinning in Adam it is more that simple
imputation; it is an actual involvement. In the federal view, Adam alone
sinned; but the human race is affected in the view of how it affects the human
race, depravity is total. Sin and guilt are imputed. Presbyterians hold to this
as well as others who are influenced by various aspects of reformed
theology.
In the Augustinian view, sin is
imputed to humanity because of Adam’s sin; but it is because humanity sins in
Adam. That is the distinction. So what we are really talking about here is the
difference between these two and how to work out some of these distinctions. For
them depravity is also total. Sin and guilt are imputed to every human being. This
affects many reformers, later Calvinists as well as Lutherans in the classic
sense.
You always have to understand that
there is a difference between a Wesleyan or a Methodist before 19th
century liberalism and after 19th century liberalism. There is a difference
between Lutherans before 19th century liberalism and after 19th
century liberalism. Unless you are Missouri Synod or a couple of other
conservatives (small conservative) denominations – Lutherans aren’t
Lutherans; Presbyterians aren’t Presbyterians; Methodists aren’t Methodists.
They are liberals! They have all bought into 19th century liberal
theology and rejected the fundamentals of the faith.
The fundamentals of the faith have
to do with the infallibility of Scripture, the belief in miracles, the belief
in a substitutionary atonement, belief in the virgin birth, belief in a literal
return in Jesus Christ and the future and the Second Coming. If you don’t
believe in those things, then you a liberal in theology. You do not accept
biblical authority. That is the foundation. All the major denominations bought
into that in the late 19th century. They fragmented and then all the
fragments got liberal and they rejoined so you had the United Methodists and
the United Presbyterians and the United Church of Christ. So anybody who is
“united” is liberal. Just remember that. They aren’t flying the friendly skies,
they are just liberal
So we have to answer four questions
in relation to our understanding of sin here. I have a few more points before
we get to the three questions.
I’ve got 5 more points.
So the 7th point is that
an overview shows that there is a comparison between the two and that both have
a representational aspect. Point 8, Adam is able to be a representative of the
race because he is genetically related to the race and Christ is able to be a
substitute for the race because He is genetically related to the race. 9th
– Adam is a designated representative because God knows that any of us in
his place would do the same thing. His sin therefore is our sin as a
representative.
That leads us to these four
questions.
Last time I gave you several Greek
words for sin. I will review those in the middle of this but now I want to go
back to the Old Testament and look at three key words in the Old Testament for
sin because the New Testament doctrine of sin comes out of the Old
Testament.
NKJ Judges 20:16 Among all this people were seven
hundred select men who were left-handed;
every one could sling a stone at a hair's breadth
and not miss.
He is talking about the Benjamites.
Not miss the target - that’s the word - hata. We also have it in Proverbs 19:2.
NKJ Proverbs 19:2 Also it is not good for a soul
to be without knowledge, And he sins [misses
the mark, his way] who hastens with his feet.
He misses the mark. That is he is without knowledge or is ignorant.
This indicates a guy who stumbles or trips. He misses his way
actually.
NKJ Proverbs 8:36 But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul; All those who hate me
love death."
This is the concept of missing a goal. He who misses the goal or fails
me.
So these words all have more of a non-theological sense of simply
missing the mark.
Hata has the idea
of breaching civil law. It can relate to criminality, breaking the law. Like
all the other words for sin it assumes that there is an absolute objective standard
or law that is missed. It is not a subjective idea. Sin is not equated to
emotional guilt. Sin is breaking an external objective standard, or law. Hata emphasizes that idea of missing the
mark or breaking the law.
Those are the three primary words
that are used.
New Testament
We have the words we looked at last
time.
Those three I covered last time. And
I think I also mentioned parakoe.
Tonight I am going to add four more.
NKJ 1 John 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.
All adikia is sin – a
very important passage. Adikia is
just a synonym for sin. It is unrighteousness.
So you have anomia which is lawless and paranomia
which is contrary to law.
So these words all indicate that there is an external
standard; there is a violation of the standard. You miss the standard; you
break the standard; you transgress the standard; you twist or distort the
standard. All these ideas are what sin is. The standard is God’s character.
Now that helps us understand what
sin is. So next time – that addresses the first question, what is sin
– next time we are going to look at what the penalty for sin is, what the
sin nature’s relationship is to the corporeal human body and how this is passed
on and we will get into the next two verses in Romans 5 and try to understand
them. These are very difficult verses to understand.
NKJ Romans 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is
not imputed when there is no law.
What does that mean?
NKJ Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned
Even though it’s not imputed where
there is no law. There is no law before Moses.
from Adam to
Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the
transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
The point that he is making is there
was death there. Death came through sin because all sinned so obviously it is
not the individuals making sinful decisions that brought death to them, but
some prior decision which would be Adam's original sin.
So we will get into 13 and 14 next
time and answer the other three questions of our 4 questions.