Hello Deacon and thanks for your… question? … rebuttal?

It’s an interesting verse from which to present the argument you do. This is certainly more the kind of objection I was expecting to my theory (and it provides a welcome opportunity to move on from the “guilt of God” controversy), however, I am not sure that this text alone offers quite the sufficient rebuttal that your parting use of “though” implies…

The context of Paul’s reasoning in this passage, in fact, seems to very much uphold my original reasoning. Your translation avoids the complex link word usually translated “inasmuch” (death spread to all men inasmuch as all men sinned) and that oversimplifies Paul’s argument, particularly taken out of context.

In the context of a passage which includes the following arguments by Paul, I would suggest that we need to view the 5.12 text as providing a much closer link between sin and death, than the individual causal relationship which you have in sight. Take a look and see if you can see what I refer to. First the whole of 5.12:

“It was through one individual that sin entered the world and through sin, death; and in this way death passed through to the whole human race, inasmuch as everyone sinned.”

So far, inconclusive, but the verse is definitely speaking mainly about both sin and death entering through One Man (Adam). This theme is repeated constantly by Paul:

• (15) … because of One Man’s offence, many died….
• (16) … what resulted from One Man’s sinning;
• for from One Sinner came judgement that brought condemnation…
• (17) … because of the offense of One Man, death ruled through that One Man
• (18) it was through one offense that All People came under condemnation
• (19) just as through the disobedience of One Man, many were made sinners

Verse 19 also holds another clue, by continuing

so also through the obedience of the Other Man, many will be made righteous

You will be aware that the righteous-making action of the Other Man’s obedience is to do with that Man’s Power, not our own natural power.

Likewise Romans 5.12-21 as a whole is indicating that the Many (the Human Race) were made into “sinners” - those without the power to Live free of Rebellion - by the action of the One Man (Adam) in the same way they might be delivered by the obedience (“even to the point of death upon the cross”) of the Other Man (Jesus).

In other words, “sin reigned through death” indicates that it was precisely because the world had come under the power of Death, that men inevitably sinned. This is made clear by 5.14: death ruled even over those who didn’t actually transgress a specific command, as Adam did. Death and Sin in this passage enjoy a certain synonymity, as far as I can tell.

Thus, this is more that a regurgitated “original sin” argument that avoids individual complicity in sin (though my argument can be abused that way). Paul in this passage, and I in my theory, are demonstrating the strangehold placed upon the Creation at the Judgement which followed Adam’s transgression. At that point the unbridled power of Sin and Death overtook Humanity and placed it in need of a Deliverer. We needed that Deliverer before we sinned against a commandment ourselves, as individuals, because Death was reigning.

This line of argument is admittedly complex. The use of the term Death and Sin as referring to powers contributes to this. However, it is particularly relevant with regard to the over-dependence of the Penal Substitution theory upon the role of “Law” in condemning individuals in order to “place” them in need of a Redeemer. Paul in this passage - and myself with my theory - challenges and undermines that dependence.

I hope this will provoke further thought along this line. This is not intended to present a fait accomplis. Some of the issues surrounding these issues appear paradoxical, in which case they are best held in a degree of tension, rather than being pushed to obviate one another.

Shalom!
John