Verse-By-Verse Understanding
Romans 5:12
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”
Paul says it was through Adam’s sin that death was passed to all men. Whereas the early church would describe this as imitation, later theories propose imputation. I would like to outline a difference.
Imitation would suggest that all men were made sinners by following in Adam’s likeness. Essentially, Adam introduced sin into the world, and people followed his lead. This reconciles with Romans 5:14 which says that “. . . death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression. . . .” This spiritual death was passed onto everyone because of their own sin, and they sinned because they followed in Adam’s likeness. Adam made them sinful by leading them, and they followed suit.
Imputation suggests that every man was made sinful because Adam’s sin was put onto him. This is not what is suggested by the passage, and it doesn’t make sense in light of context. Romans 5:14 describes people who sinned differently from Adam, but this couldn’t apply if all received Adam’s imputation for the same sin. They were made guilty by sinning in a different likeness and Adam’s sin being imputed to them? This suggestion in non-sensical. The imitation interpretation is consistent with the rest of Romans 5, and, ultimately, scripture.
Romans 5:18
“Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.”
This passage falls in the same boat as 5:12. By one man’s offense everyone came to condemnation, it reads. The questions is again this: How?
Jesus said on his Sermon on the Mount, “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matt 5:32). The phrase here “causeth her to commit adultery” is essential to how the writers thought. In Jesus’ mind, this woman was not guilty for adultery because her husband divorced. Because of the culture, it was near impossible for a woman to live on her own. Remarrying was necessary, and it was this act that was considered adultry. The man brought about the means for this sin, and through him she was made an adulterer. There’s no theory of imputation here, just as there shouldn’t be on with Romans 5:18. Is one judgment coming upon all to condemnation through imputation or imitation? Scripture supports imitation.
Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Some translations (NIV, CSB, NLT) interpret the verse to say, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” This is a butchering of this passage. Take a keen look at the grammar of the sentence. The sentence is in a passive voice, meaning David did not do the action, but it was something that happened to him. He was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did his mother conceive him. His mother is the one doing the action in the sentence, and she is the one conceiving and shaping David in sin/iniquity. There is much reason to believe that David’s mother was an adultress.
1) David had two half-sisters named Zeruiah and Abigail (1 Chron. 2:13-16).
2) The father of David’s half-sisters was not Jesse but Nahash (2 Sam. 17:25).
3) Nahash was an Ammonite king (1 Sam. 11:1; 1 Sam. 12:12).
4) David’s father was Jesse, not Nahash. But the Father of David’s half sisters were daughters of Nahash. This could explain why Nahash showed kindness towards David (2 Sam. 10:2).
5) David’s mother was most likely the second wife of Jesse. The first wife of Jesse would have been considered superior to his second wife which had been either the concubine or wife of a heathen king.
6) This would explain why David’s half brothers viewed themselves as superior to David, and why David was considered prideful for thinking he was as good as them (1 Sam. 17:28-30).
7) This may explain why David was not called before Samuel the prophet amongst the other sons (1 Sam. 16:11).
8) David’s mother had a good relationship with the Lord (Ps. 86:16; 116:16). But she would have been, in the eyes of Jewish law, considered defiled by her previous relationship with an Ammonite (Num. 25:1,2; Deut. 7:3,4; 1 Kings 11:2-4, Ezra 9:2; Neh. 13:23,25; 2 Cor. 6:14-17).
Furthermore, if I said to you, “Behold, I was shapen in adultery, in prostitution did my mother conceive me,” would you apply the adultery and prostitution to the child, or the mother? If I replaced “adultery” and “prostitution” with any word such as “drunkenness,” “lying,” “addiction,” or “sexual immorality” you would always apply the word to the mother. Yet when we get the more vague word of “sin” in the phrase, we apply it to the child. Is this consistent? Scripture suggests not.
Scattered Verses
Psalm 58:3 reads, “The wicked have turned away from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.” The Calvinist reads that we are born wicked from the womb. If we take a completely literal interpretation of this passage, you would have to argue that children are lying from birth. Notice it also says we have “turned away from the womb.” Remember the pole parrell? This would imply a sinless conception, but a guilty birth. However, this passage is far from literal. It’s poetry, found in the book of Psalms. It’s in no way meant to be understand that we are born wicked, but it’s a poetic exaggeration in passage where David prays for the wicked to be destroyed. Personally, until I meet a child who is lying to me at birth (or speaking for that instance), this verse will be meaningless in context of original sin.
Exodus 20:5–6 says, “You shall not worship them nor serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, inflicting the punishment of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
Notice that the people getting punishment inflicted upon them are the ones “of those who hate Me.” There’s nothing in the passage suggesting there were born this way, but what of the Federal Headship theory? People are being punished for their father’s sins, are they not? Notice in this verse, however, that the people are those who “hate Me.” It is the one that “keep my [God’s] commandments” that God says he will love. The idea conveyed by the text is that people will be guilty for their parent’s sins if they continue to be wicked, not that they were born wicked or the parent’s sins will be imputed to them. What’s told is that they will be held accountable if they continue to be wicked.
Isaiah 48:8 reads, “You have not heard, you have not known. Even from long ago your ear has not been open, Because I knew that you would deal very treacherously; And you have been called a rebel from birth.”
In context, Isaiah is talking about how the house of Jacob (Israel) has fallen away from God. “From birth” does not speak to individuals, but “from the womb” refers to the time of Israel’s national existence. God brought them forth from Egypt, and that deliverance was a new birth.
Job 15:14–16 says, “What is man, that he should be pure, Or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Behold, He puts no trust in His holy ones, And the heavens are not pure in His sight; How much less one who is detestable and corrupt, Man, who drinks iniquity like water!”
Firstly, we must remember that because a passage is in the bible does not mean that God is saying it or he is affirming it. Job 2:9 says, “Then his wife said to him, ‘Do you still hold fast to your integrity? Curse God and die!’” Obviously we are not to “curse God and die,” and the context of Job’s wife saying such a thing is not God endorsing it. When we read this passage, it is actually Job who is quoting Eliphaz the Temanite. In Job 42:7, God rebukes this man and commands him to repent. Eliphaz said that he who is born of a woman is born sinful and that man is detestable and corrupt, and God later rebukes him for bad theology. While this verse may be used to prove original sin, it ultimately tells us just the opposite.
Job 25:4–6: “How then can a man be just with God? Or how can he be clean who is born of woman? If even the moon has no brightness And the stars are not pure in His sight, How much less man, that maggot, And the son of man, that worm!”
Remember, just because it is in the bible does not mean God has said it or endorsed it. This passage, again, is quoting Bildad the Shuhite, who is also rebuked by God for not having spoken rightly. Bildad the Shuhite asks “How can he be clean who is born of a woman?” This is Bildad imposing his man-made philosophy on Job as he accuses him of sinning when Job has not.