Perishing Apart from the Law
This is actually an observation that I had when I was writing a paper on Romans 5:12-21 a few years ago. I’ll start by laying out the two verses I want to look at here:
. . . for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted (imputed) where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam . . .
Romans 5:13-14
I think sometimes people just pass over these verses without really thinking about them and trying to understand what Paul is really saying here. I know I did before writing that paper. After all, as a Reformed Christian, I would skim over Romans 5 and think, “Oh yeah. Imputation of Adam’s sin. I know that.” And then move swiftly along.
When I took up that section for my exegetical study, I thought I knew exactly what I was going to find. What a surprise I had! I might write later posts about some of the other things I discovered in that study, but I’ll just concentrate on verses 13 and 14 here.
First, I think it is clear that Paul is speaking here specifically to Gentile believers. That is not to say that the text has no relevance to the Jews, but he is clearly zeroing in on a state where one is not “under the law.” He has made this distinction before in Romans, and he maintains it now for the sake of the Gentile who might say “But what has the Torah to do with me? Why does God yet condemn?”
In answer to this, Paul makes clear that sin was in the world even “before the Law was given”—that is, in the period of time between Adam to Moses—and that this sin was enough to condemn, even apart from the Law. However, Paul also make clear that there is a qualitative difference between the sin of Adam and the sin of those between Adam and Moses.
This brings to mind Romans 2:12, where Paul tells his readers that all are under condemnation. Those who sin apart from the Law will perish even without it. Those who sin under it will be judged by it. Note that it is possible to sin apart from the Law; this is a clear reference to Gentiles and Jews.
Here’s the real kicker though, and the part that really challenged me to reconsider everything I thought I knew about Romans 5. Sin, Paul tells us, was in the world “before the law was given,” but is not “imputed” apart from the Law. From Adam to Moses was the period “before the law was given.” So if we give the text its due, we must conclude that sin was not imputed to sinners from Adam to Moses.
Now, if we take the text to mean what it says, we must either rethink our traditional systematic definition of the theological term “impute,” or we must adopt a weird interpretation that says that those between Adam and Moses did not receive condemnation of Adam’s sin.
If we take the context into account, then we must also recognize that Paul is likening his Gentile readers to those “before the Law was given.”
I will not attempt to define “imputation” in this post. I’ll save that for later. I just wanted to encourage everyone to take another look at Romans 5 here. Because how we read it has broad-sweeping implications for how we read the rest of the book. Romans 7, for instance, where Paul says (whether of himself or of another is another related discussion), “I was once alive apart from the Law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.”
” . . . apart from the Law. . . .” Hmmm . . . we’ve heard Paul use that kind of language before, haven’t we?
Tags: Adam, covenant, imputation, Law, Moses, Pauline studies
Romans, Theology | Christopher Kou | 
January 21, 2010 12:23 PM
Subscribe
Romans 3:28? Guessing. Interesting Chris, I'd like to see more. I've found this whole area of study confusing; this is an interesting focus.
Have you read Peter Leithart's essay on Romans 5:12?It is brilliant.As usual.UR
Yes, I seem to remember having read it a while after writing my paper. I know I read something by Leithart on Romans 5, but I'm not sure if we're thinking of the same essay.I don't seem to be able to find the one I remember reading though, right now.
I'll look forward to reading your definition of imputation. Something tells me that it will have to have something to do with the idea of "death entering" as in v.12.
Well . . . sure, I think it has something to do with it. However, I see v.13's "sin is not counted where there is no law" to be more directly related to v.20's "Now the law came in to increase the trespass . . ."
what about the law written on the hearts of men, gentiles being a law unto themselves?
what bearing does that have?
Shaggy, it is related, of course, being in the general context. But within Romans 5:12-21 Paul uses the word "nomos" to refer specifically to the codified Mosaic law. Otherwise he could not speak of a time "from Adam to Moses" as being "before the law was given."
which we discussed before on my note…moving on…before adam and sinai, you seem to be arguing that God did not condemn them for their trespasses or unrighteous actions? is that the case? i dunno…i guess i may not be understanding your point, they are associated with Adam's covenant breaking and the ensuing death, but do you think they were not judged for their disobedience of God's righteous standards?
I think that Paul is simply focusing upon the logic of imputation of guilt so that the conveyance of the penal sanctions are made clear to his audience. Notice that only a few words prior to the parenthetical remarks of Rom. 13+14 Paul makes the statement that all "have sinned" in Adam. I believe this should remain the focus of the following parenthetical remark. The words "all sinned" in Greek are actually one word – "heemarton" – and is given to us in the aorist tense (of the verb hamartano). This particular aorist tense emphasizes the fact that "all sinned" (in a punctiliar sense) in Adam once for all, at a particular time and event. That being said, the focal point of verses 13 and 14 are rather obvious. Verse 13 is connected parenthetically with the word "for" (gar in Greek), which introduces the proof that the penal sanctions of law (i.e. death) had passed on all men, on account of one man. Since the infliction of penal sanctions implies the violation of law, the statement of Paul that "for until the law, sin was in the world" simply expresses that the violation of the law of Moses per se will not account for the universality of death, because men died and suffered under the curse of God's Law before that mosaic law was given. Hence, men have always been subject to the penal sanctions of God's law on account of the sin (aorist tense) of there Federal Head – Adam. This is all I see Paul arguing for in the parenthetical remarks of verses 13+14.
And with all due respect to Chris and the best of his intentions in writing this article, I'm concerned that this particular attempt to "dig deeper" into the meaning of the phrase, "sin is not imputed where there is no law," appears to be a side-track from Paul's argument in an attempt to be more creative with theological concepts that the author originally intended. Sin is the transgression of God's moral law according to I John 3:4; Rom. 7:7; 3:20; I Cor. 15:56; and James 2:9. Sin is therefore correlative to law. If there is no law, there can be no sin, as Paul had already taught one paragraph earlier (in Rom. 4:15). THEREFORE….THIS IS A PROOF- TEXT THAT SIN WAS IMPUTED (in its traditional, forensic and legal sense) TO SINNERS FROM ADAM TO MOSES, contrary to your statementabove. The "traditional systematic definition of the theological term 'impute,' " to use your own words in quotes, is perfectly adequate in that sense and needs no re-defining. If someone is genuinely interested in an incredibly detailed analysis of "imputation" according to the Bible, I recommend 4 one-hour lectures of Greg Bahnsen expositing the WCF on "Of the Fall of Man, of Sin & of Punishment". Very good stuff for sincere critics and if you download it, it will cost less than 10 bucks. Just go to CMFNOW.com and go to MP3 downloads if this link does not work: http://www.cmfnow.com/thewestminsterconfession.aspx?page=2Hopefully my intrusion in this dialog is of no serious offense to Chris or the readers.
Jonathan, your comments betray many many assumptions about the text that cannot be drawn out of it. You are looking at Paul's words through a lens of systematics rather than letting Paul speak for himself. I have no wish to be "creative" with my theology. Only to be true to the text. Systematics are fine, but they must not take the place or hinder honest exegesis. I am not digging deeper here at all, but simply reading the text in its plainest sense.So let's take this by the paces. First "all sinned" is two words, just as in the English (πάντες ἥμαρτον). It is indeed in the aorist tense, but we should not make so much of tense being conclusive since Romans 3:23 "for all sinned" is also in the aorist, and is most certainly not talking about some "punctiliar sense" there.You are correct that Paul says "all sinned," however you add "in Adam" as if it were plain to see from the text. It is not so plain in the immediate context. I agree completely that "in Adam" is implied, and later established and I also see covenant headship and resulting condemnation in this phrase. However, we cannot simply assume it.You do nothing to distinguish between "sin" and "transgression," which clearly have specific and close, but different meanings in Paul's usage. Sin is a cosmic reality brought into the world by Adam and passed to everyone through his headship (since he is "the type of the one to come"). Transgression is sin, but narrower. It is specifically a violation of a stated law. This is why Paul says in Romans 4 that where there is no law there is no transgression, and then in the very next chapter says that where there is no law, sin is NOT imputed–but death still reigns.
Premises that are explicitely stated in the text are these:1) Sin is NOT imputed where there is no law2) "from Adam to Moses" is the time "before the law was given"3) Death still reigned even over those who did not transgress (as opposed to sin) like Adam.4) The Law CAME that transgression might aboundTo say then that this should prove that sin WAS imputed is to twist the text to say something OPPOSITE of what it actually says.You cannot get away from the fact that Paul speaks of a time when there is no law, and you cannot get away from Paul's language of Gentiles "perishing without the law."You seem to think I am attacking the concept of covenant headship and resulting condemnation IN Adam, and this is not the case at all. But it not surprising that you think so, since you are working with a mediaval to 16th century definition of "impute" and not necessarily the definition that Paul has in mind. In fact, if I am using the 16th century DEFINITION of "impute," then I have no problem with saying that Adam's sin is imputed. However, I don't think that's the definition Paul is using.
Shaggy, what I wrote to Jonathan might answer your question too. However, I'll just answer again quickly. No, there is definitely condemnation for those from Adam to Moses. Paul says so, and I'm not contesting it. "Death reigned even over those whose sin was NOT like the transgression of Adam."What I am saying is that there is a distinction between sin and transgression. All are in sin. All sinned in Adam. But not all transgressed as Adam did or as those after Moses did.Sin is the offense of man against God in any form. Transgression is the violation of a given commandment. Both bring condemnation and death. Transgression makes one more accountable. Oops. There's that word "account" . . .
well weren't the people in Noah's day judged for their wickedness? Which would imply direct offenses against God's righteous standards and not just their general nature of sin causing death right? because the flood was a judgement against particular actions…
Well. Sin is sin, and worthy of condemnation. Paul is clear. Sin came into the world by Adam, and sin brings death. It always brings death. Even if it's not a transgression of an explicitly given commandment.Sin, evil and wickedness is one thing. Transgression is more specific, I believe. So for the generation of Noah, from Adam to Moses, sin was not imputed, but death reigned.As far as why God destroyed the generation of Noah, yes it was judgment. God judges Ninevah even though Israel is the one who has the law. But more than, the flood was a type of New Creation. God remade the world through Noah, who was a type of second Adam, though not THE second Adam.
so how does this effect your view in regards to the imputation of Christ's active and passive obedience?
Chris….as I read these comments of yours in response to what I presented plainly and I keep seeing far too many inconsistencies in what you are presenting. I think you are a God-fearing and creative guy, and I consider your views to be well worth reflection for any serious student of scripture, but in this case I fear that you (and perhaps others as well) are breaking down the text of Rom. 5:13-14 beyond Paul's original intention. For instance, you responded with 4 things "explicitly" stated in the text, one of which is not in verses 13 or 14, but is found in verse 20 (and you didn't even do an comparative analysis of the original Greek to see Paul's particular uses of the aorist tense throughout the chapter, which I see as a great help to guide our focus upon imputation). Also, in the list you gave, you make a completely artificial distinction between "transgression" and "sin." Where in the world did that come from? Certainly not from God's Word! "Sin is the transgression of the law" according to 1st John 3:4 and according to Psalm 32:1, the syntax parallels "Transgressions" that are forgiven with "Sins" that are covered. One would hope that these simple facts were accidentally overlooked by you. And finally, you have stated quite explicitly that you hold to a non-medieval to 16th century definition of imputation AND you believe that is the definition Paul is using. Could you please be a LOT clearer as to what that definition is exactly, just so we all can compare your claims?
Yes, Jonathan, that list was not intended to be limited to only vv.13 and 14. The distinction between transgression and sin in Paul comes from the way Paul uses them in different ways. He is speaking to both Jews and Gentiles, and not even directly regarding their current condition. Certainly in the context of the Psalmist and to those who know the law (such as those to whom John is speaking), sin is always transgression. However, Paul is speaking of a unique situation in history when there was "no law.">>>you have stated quite explicitly that you hold to a non-medieval to 16th century definition of imputation AND you believe that is the definition Paul is using<<<I don't know if this is a typo or if you misread me, but what I said was that I DON'T think Paul is using the word imputation in quite the same way we understand it since the 16th century. What I DO hold to is that we are regarded by God as righteous for the sake of being in Christ (en Christo).I'd rather lay out what I think of Paul's use of the word imputation in a later full post, rather than in the comments here. But I will get to it, don't worry.
Here's the Leithart link, to which I believe Uncle Ralph is referring: http://www.leithart.com/archives/000750.php. My point about vs. 12 is that *if* imputation in a traditional sense is not possible from Adam to Moses, than vs.12's death entered (dying you shall die) provides the basis for Adam's sin being carried by, say, Abel. Or Seth.
Well, if we mean by "imputation" the condemnation of sin passed down from Adam to all his generations, then I think the passage does teach that. The confusion comes in because I don't think Paul is using the word "impute" to refer to this passing on of condemnation. In this passage I see covenant headship of Adam resulting in sin and death for all mankind. And then separate from that, I see imputation brought about by the Law.
I have seen that article by Peter Leithart. But that wasn't the one I was thinking of that saw a few years ago.
Ah! Here is the article I was thinking of:http://www.leithart.com/archives/000683.phpI should note that I did not read this until after I wrote my paper.
Yeah, he references an earlier one in that article. I picked one.
While the Law was not given to us verbally from God as the 10 commandments until Moses, I would venture to say that the Law was given to Adam but in a different form. For when Adam broke the command given to him he became a transgessor of the whole law (James 2:10). Thus, while the 10 commandment weren't given verbally between Adam and Moses it is still on our hearts and that is why we stand guilty before it. Doesn't Paul present the agruement that even those who have not heard the law are still under the law for it written on their hearts (Romans 2: 11-15). For how can someone be a doer of the Law if they have not heard it. They do not need to hear it for it is written on their hearts. Again I will state that God gave the law to Adam in a different form in Gensis 2:16-17. And if you need me to I will go through and explain how he broke each one of the 10 commandments. So I think that Paul is possibly being rehetorical with saying that there was "no law" for I don't think he is referring to the 10 commandment there but law in general.
Josh (I assume), you are right about the WORKS of the law written on the heart of the Gentiles. This must be distinguished from the law that is GIVEN through Moses.Paul goes so far as to say that those who do not have the law will perish without the law (Rom 2:12). I see this as the same condition as those from Adam to Moses who "before the law was given."One may indeed argue that God gave Adam a type of law. However, Paul is talking about something else here. Otherwise he would not speak of the period between Adam and Moses as being "before the law." He also speaks of those in that period as sinners, but those whose sin was "not like the transgression of Adam." I think there is clearly a distinction.In this section, at least, it seems clear that Paul is speaking specifically about the Mosaic Torah.If it was intended to be rhetorical only, and we are meant by Paul to understand that the law was there between Adam and Moses nevertheless, then he would not say later in verse 20 that "the Law CAME IN to increase the trespass."
You specifically mentioned Romans 2:11-15, so I want to take a closer look at that.>>>For God shows no partiality.For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.<<<First here is the verse I was talking about. Paul says those without the law (Gentiles) will perish without it. Those UNDER IT (Jews) will be judged by it. Paul generally distinguishes between Jew and Gentile as those "under the law" and those apart from it.>>>For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.<<<There are a few things going on in this passage here. First, again Paul speaks of the Gentiles as those who "do not have the law." He then argues that they "by nature" do some things that the law requires. This is a function of the thing God gave us that we call conscience. When the Gentiles follow their conscience, Paul says, they are "a law unto themselves." That is, they are self-governing, even though they, as Paul RESTATES, "do not have the law." With Paul making so many references to the Gentiles as "those who do not have the law," I don't think we can be honest with the text and still insist that "YES THEY DO!">>>They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.<<<The sort of moral law that they have written on their hearts is sufficient only to condemn. It guides them in a sense, but it's like a blind man feeling his way in the dark. The Jews were the ones to whom the oracles were given. They had the light and transgressed all the same.I don't think we should force this "work of the law" on the heart to mean more than the text will bear. Paul's intent here is simply to show that all are under condemnation. This should not be taken to nullify all references to Gentiles as those "who do not have the law," which plainly refers to the Mosaic law.
This might be a good analogy. If sin is the act of smashing face-first into a brick wall, all who do it are equally injured. One man has no light and so smashes into the wall he cannot see. It's inexcusable, and claiming ignorance will not elevate his injury. He should have felt his way ahead.Another man is given a lantern by the town guard so that he may see his way. And he willfully smashes headfirst into the wall anyway.The first man is the Gentile, and the second the Jew. Having the light does no good for the Jew if he does not follow it. Not having the light is no excuse for the Gentile.
Chris, I think you're right that Paul is indeed talking about a different law than that given from Adam to Moses. The passage is clearly referring to Torah. I would however be curious how you would understand, if at all, the interplay between this text and the earlier law-i.e., the laws given immediately after the Fall and Flood. Cain/Abel tells us that there was a sacrificial system implemented, among many other things. Life for life is implemented at the giving of the Noahic covenant, Gen 9:8. Does the existence of these laws have any play in Rom 5?
David, it's interesting you bring up both Cain and the giving of the death penalty to Noah. Apparently the death penalty was not in force until after the flood. So Cain, while guilty, did not fall "under that law," as it were. And thus, no life for life penalty.Sacrificial principles were obviously in effect. But of course, we don't know the details of any hypothetical commandment that God may have given Adam and Eve. It could be that the pre-Mosaic sacrificial practice was instituted by Adam in keeping with God's example when He slaughtered animals to clothe Adam and Eve.Which gives me an idea for another post . . . unrelated, but something I haven't seen too many places.I don't think Paul has these isolated commandments so much in mind when he makes his discourse in Romans. However, a violation of any explicitly given commandments I think would certainly fall within Paul's definition of "transgression" if we were to ask him.
Yep.
Romans 5:13-14 is the passage that truly have to be kept in mind when i write about "Jews and Gentiles" related themes.