No this is not a brain teaser like the old saying, "which came first the chicken or the egg?". Its similar in structure to that question but far more important to ponder. While the chicken and the egg are somewhat irrelevant the question of when we become sinners is very relevant. That's basically the difference in the two sides of the question. The first part assumes that in order to be a sinner one must sin first. The second part assumes that one sins because they are first a sinner. This may seem like an argument base purely on semantics; however, it is imperative to get it right. Our understanding of the gospel depends on it greatly.
First let's take a couple of other questions just for fun that have obvious answers. I hope that you will see by the end of this blog entry that the answer to our question is just as obvious. I'll put our question beside these two to hopefully show the similarity. Here we go:
Do we have eyes because we see or do we see because we have eyes?
Do we have ears because we hear or do we hear because we have ears?
Are we sinners because of our sin or do we sin because of our sin nature?
I put these questions here that have to do with physical traits on purpose. No one would argue against the fact that because we are born of a human being that we too would possess certain physical traits common to human beings. Our parents had ears and so do we. We could even go then back to Adam and Eve and say the same thing. Adam and Eve had eyes and now so do I. We are of the same type. Now I realize that animals have ears and eyes as well, but I think you understand what I'm trying to communicate here. Therefore, it is possible that if sin entered into the world and corrupted the very nature of the first representatives of mankind then it could be passed from generation to generation. Ok now that we've been purely logical about it, lets go to the bible and see what it says. The bible always trumps human logic.
Let's start with David. He spoke of being born into sin. This was not a strange way of thinking to him.
(Psa 51:5) Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Jesus said the following in John.
(Joh 3:3) Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
(Joh 3:6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
If you couple these two truths together you get the totality of Christ's message in the first part of this chapter. Why would one need to be born again if there wasn't in fact already something wrong with their first birth? If we are born without sin then why would there need to be a second birth of the spirit? Verse 6 goes on to say that flesh bares more flesh, and the inference here is that flesh is not alive to God. It is disposed to that which is at enmity with God, namely sin. Therefore one would need a second birth that awakens them to love what is good, namely God himself. In order to "see the kingdom of God" one must be born again. It seems highly unlikely that Christ would talk like this if the first birth was sufficient. We must infer from the way Christ speaks of being born again that the first birth (physical) is not sufficient and a new creation must be made in order to be saved.
Lets go to Paul in Ephesians.
Eph 2:1-3 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins (2) in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-- (3) among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
Paul plainly states here that our nature is has afforded us wrath from God. Paul is writing to believers here, but he is reminding them of their previous state when they were "by nature children of wrath" (v3). He also attributes following the spirit that is "at work in the sons of disobedience" to the "passions of our flesh" and the "desires of the mind". Its important to realize here that Paul is equating the passions of the flesh and the desires of the mind (before being born again) to sin. Then it is no surprise when he ends verse three with "[they] were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind". Paul includes all of mankind into one category here, and that category is children of wrath. If we are all children of wrath by nature then wouldn't it seem like he is trying to say that we are born sinners? Since God's wrath is revealed against sin wouldn't we assume that if we are 'by nature children of wrath' then we are also by nature sinners?
Let's got to Paul one more time.
Rom 5:12-21 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-- (13) for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. (14) Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (15) But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. (16) And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. (17) If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. (18) Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. (19) For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (20) Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, (21) so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
This kind of a lengthy one, but its important that we read it all in context to get the entire meaning. First lets take verse 12. Paul clearly states that sin came into the world through one man. That man was Adam. Death followed sin. So lets trace his logic here. It seems evident that Paul attributes our physical deaths to sin. Sin came through one man, death came through the one mans sin, and death spread to all men because all have sinned. If we just stopped at verse 12 and didn't go to verses 13-14 we could interpret this passage incorrectly. It would seem at first that death spread to all men because their own personal sin. However, we must notice the tense of the last phrase in verse 12. The tense is in the past. It reads "because all have sinned". This is a completed action. In other words all men die because all men share in the guilt of Adams first sin. Our nature is so corrupted by that one sin that our physical deaths are imminent. Let's go to verses 13-14. As with any argument it is important to read the whole thing to understand the whole idea. We can more easily accept that Paul is attributing Adam's guilt to all mankind when we read verses 13-14. Paul here makes the argument that there was still death in the world when the law had not yet been given to Moses. He also says that "sin is not counted where there is no law". This means that if all of the people from Adam to Moses had no law then there would technically be no sin counted against them. However, "death reigned from Adam to Moses". Now we know from verse 12 that sin is the cause of physical death, and if there is no sin then there would be no death. Yet, people died during this time. Paul is explaining in verses 13-14 what he means by "death spread to all men because all sinned". He is drawing the conclusion that even though there was no law to hold them to, the sin of Adam was so corrupting to mankind that they to were accountable for it and eventually died a physical death because of it.
The whole argument in this portion of Romans 5 is, how can one man's righteousness save us from our sins? In order to explain that Paul had to layout the facts about how one mans sin brought condemnation to all mankind. Just as Adam's sin is imputed to all of mankind and makes us "by nature children of wrath" so can Christ's righteousness be imputed to us to make us by the spirit "children of God".
We must realize that all things lead up to the exaltation of Christ. All of scripture in the Old Testament was pointing to a need for a savior. All of the New Testament is about Him and how he saved us! He's the only sinless man and will forever be the only sinless man. Let us find our true spot in the gospel as lowly sinners in need of an all sufficient savior.
TG
