The Doctrine of Sin, Part 2

By Lewis Sperry Chafer

[Author’s Note: This installment, the second of a series of discussions on the Doctrine of Sin, has been preceded by I, “The First Sin in Heaven and its Effect” (Bibliotheca Sacra, October, 1934), and is to be followed by III, “Man’s Present Estate as a Sinner”; IV, “The Specific Character of the Christian’s Sin”; and V, “The Divine Remedy for All Sin.”

These articles aim at a practical, Biblical treatment of the Doctrine of Sin rather than its philosophical and metaphysical aspects—L.S.C.]

II. The First Sin on Earth and its Effect

Embracing (1) The Origin of Human Sin; (2) The Beginning, Constitution, and Character of the First Human Sinner; (3) The Scope and Nature of the First Human Sin; (4) The Effect of the First Human Sin upon the One Who Sinned; and (5) The Effect of the First Human Sin upon the Race.

Should an error be adopted as the major premise in a sequence of closely related themes, there is little hope that the entire succession of thought would not be characterized by deviation from, if not contradiction of, the truth. There is scarcely another phase of divine revelation which is more germane to the right understanding of all doctrine than that of Sin. Practically all heretical systems of thought base themselves upon misconceptions of sin, and these must, therefore, of necessity be saturated with error. An attempt to enumerate in full these misconceptions would be inconsistent with the purpose of this thesis. However, in this connection it may be observed that to underestimate the true character of sin is (1) to disregard the explicit terms employed in the Bible to set forth the exceeding sinfulness of sin, thus causing God to seem to be untruthful; (2) to contradict, to a greater or less degree, the holy character of God; (3) to vitiate even the right conception of human guilt; (4) to disregard the sanctity and authority of the Word of God; (5) to cause the unavoidable divine reprobation of sin to seem to be an extreme and unwarrantable judgment; (6) to render the great facts of redemption, reconciliation, and propitiation to appear to be uncalled for; and (7) to dismiss from consideration the only sufficient reason for the death of Christ.

It is true, as before stated, that sin is sinful because of the fact that it is unlike to God, and that a thing which is evil will be demonstrated to be such when compared with the holy character of God. It is equally true that sin calls for judgment because it is an outrage against the Person and law of God; and, since God is infinite and His goodness unbounded, sin is infinite and its evil character is beyond all human computation. Sin inflicts not only an immeasurable injury upon the one who sins, but is more specifically characterized by the injury it inflicts upon God; the Creator’s rights being disregarded and His property being damaged through sin.

The various features of human sin are to be considered as this discussion proceeds. This particular article contemplates some of its most fundamental aspects, namely:

1. The Origin of Human Sin

In the preceding article it was pointed out from the Scriptures that sin began in heaven and the first sinner of the universe is no less a personage than the highest of the angelic beings. His sin, it was observed, was caused by the restless unwillingness on the part of the creature to abide in the sphere and limitations in which the Creator, guided by infinite wisdom, had placed him. The first man is declared to be but the gateway through which sin, until then belonging only to heaven, found entrance into this world (Rom 5:12). Further evidence is seen on this point when it is revealed that the first sin on earth was in principle a reenactment of the first sin in heaven, namely, a restless unwillingness on the part of the creature to abide in the sphere and limitations in which the Creator, guided by infinite wisdom, had placed him. The first sinner in heaven sinned against inconceivable light, being tempted, so far as revelation discloses, by no other being. He yielded to an unholy ambition which had its origin within himself. Likewise, the first sinner on earth, when unfallen, departed from the holy fellowship with God; but not without solicitation from the original sinner. It is true that Adam was not deceived, as was Eve (1 Tim 2:14), and though the temptation may have been present for a period of time, he had not yielded to it until he was appealed to by his wife and until he was brought under the tempter’s power. Satan’s sagacity directed him to approach the man through the woman; to her his first suggestions were addressed; he appealed to natural desires; he belittled sin; and he attacked the character of God, intimating that God is untrustworthy and unloving. Though the first human sinner was divinely permitted to sin and was encouraged by others to sin, he, according to the Word of God, stands responsible for the sin he committed, and is declared to be the channel through which sin entered into the world.

2. The Beginning, Constitution, and Character of the First Human Sinner

On the basis of the fact that the nature and position of the sinner does, in some measure, determine the degree of his guilt, when contemplating the first human sinner, as when contemplating the first heavenly sinner, it is essential that some consideration be given to the beginning, constitution, and character of that sinner.

a. The Beginning of the First Human Sinner

Whatever scientists predicate regarding supposed evolutionary processes, it is the testimony of the Bible that man came into being by God’s immediate act of creation, and all subsequent Scripture, following the revelation as to man’s creation, proceeds upon the hypothesis that the Genesis account is true. Obviously, there is a lower order of physical life below man as there is a higher order of spirit life above man, and the human race is no more related to one than to the other. If man must, in unbelief, attempt to trace his origin from some source other than the direct, creative act of God, he is as much justified in the attempt to trace it from the angels as from the beasts. It is no more a problem to demonstrate that man is a human spirit who by natural processes has acquired a body than it is to demonstrate that man is a beast who by natural processes has acquired a human spirit. A combination of the material with the immaterial is the estate of both man and beast; but few indeed will assert that the immaterial in man is not of another and higher order than the immaterial in the beast. While still preserving their cherished privilege of contradicting God, some forms of science would certainly confer more honor upon the human race if their proponents attempted to trace the origin of man to the realm of the spirits.

Man is a distinct order of creation, representing an unchanging divine ideal, and, while the Scriptures give full recognition of his degeneration through sin and of his regeneration into eternal glory through redemption, the essential facts which constitute the human species are ever the same. It is no less than a human being who fell through sin, nor is it any more than a human being, though redeemed and regenerated, who will be exalted to heaven’s glory. There is not the slightest evidence of evolutionary processes in man’s past history, nor is there any prediction of evolutionary processes to be in operation in the future. The same God who creates man and who permits his fall, recreates and presents His redeemed one in glory.

b. The Constitution of the First Human Sinner

Nothing higher could be predicated of a creature than that he, as man is said to be, is created in the ”image” and ”likeness” of God. Universal authority belongs to God, and a restricted authority, by divine decree, belongs to man; but the fact that authority belongs to each is not the “likeness” which exists between God and man. It is probable, rather, that authority was given to man on the ground that he was already in the ”image” and ”likeness” of God.

There is little indeed upon which a human conception may be formed as to man’s first estate. Aside from the fact of the fall and its implications as to moral weakness, every revelation as to man’s first estate is of surpassing exaltation. It is possible that the term ”likeness” may represent that in man which he lost in the fall, or it may refer to that which was potentially in view in the final perfection of the unfallen creature. In his constitution and moral responsibilities, man, though fallen, is even now in the image of God. While redemption achieves far more than a mere reversal of the fall or a mere restoration to the estate of unfallen Adam, it is true that, in its consummation, redeeming grace does include, along with much more, the regaining of all that was lost in the fall. Both moral and intellectual spheres are involved. Referring to the results of saving grace, the Apostle Paul declares the new man to be one who is created anew “in righteousness and true holiness” (Eph 4:24), and, “renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him” (Col 3:10). It may be conceded that the moral losses sustained in the fall were more extensive than the intellectual losses. However, the unregenerate man is now said to be restricted in understanding, being unable to receive or know the things of God, while the spiritual man discerns all things (1 Cor 2:14, 15). Again, the Apostle Paul characterizes fallen man, by a recognition of things both intellectual and moral, as “having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness” (Eph 4:18, 19). The Apostle Peter declares that believers are not to be fashioning themselves according to the former lusts in their ignorance (1 Pet 1:14).

Fallen man is now in the image of God in that he, as no beast could ever be, is destined to live on forever. Human life, though endless, should not be confused with the gift of God which is eternal life, which they who believe on Christ receive; nor should it be confused with immortality, which is the future and final estate of the redeemed human body.

Similarly, fallen man is now in the image of God in that God is able anthropomorphically to represent Himself in the terms of human capacities and endowments, and, finally,

Fallen man is now in the image of God in that he, when wrought,upon by divine power and grace, has capacities to receive the blessings which are proffered through the salvation that is in Christ Jesus.

The constitution of unfallen man—as to his component parts, his maturity at creation, and his peccability—has long been the subject of theological discussion.

As to the component parts of man, it is generally agreed that he is composed of that which is immaterial and that which is material, and that the immaterial functions are intellect, sensibility, will, and conscience; but there is not general agreement as to whether man is dichotomous or trichotomous—the question being, is the immaterial part of man divisible into soul and spirit, or are these merely synonymous terms representing one and the same thing? It is true, as uncounted pages of theological literature have proven, that the terms soul and spirit are used interchangeably in very much of the Bible, and that when there is no necessity to discriminate between the ideas presented by these two terms, the Bible represents man to be dichotomous. However, when occasion demands, the Bible does distinguish between soul and spirit. Precisely what that difference is no one has ever clearly defined. Generally speaking, the soul is identified as being the seat of the sensations, appetite and sensuous emotions, while the spirit functions upon higher planes, notably, in the sphere of man’s relation to God. The two words, πνεῦμα and ψυχή, like σάρξ and σῶμα, do represent different shades of meaning, though at times they are used synonymously. Whenever a distinction between soul and spirit is indicated, the Bible represents man as trichotomous. The Bible’s representation of man is, therefore, both dichotomous and trichotomous, depending wholly on the specific scope and character of the truth under consideration.

Similarly, that the human body originates with human gestation is conceded by all; but there are widely different theories as to the origin of the immaterial part of man. (1) The soul and spirit, it is asserted, descend from a preexistent state; a theory which is ancient indeed and still advanced by Theosophists, Hindus, and some individuals who desire to be classed as Christians. (2) The human soul and spirit, it is claimed by those who are designated as Creationists, are created by God and placed in the body when the individual begins to exist, whether it be before or at the time of birth. This theory is held by all Romanists and many evangelical theologians. The Biblical support of this theory rests upon a very few passages (Isa 57:16; Zech 12:1; Acts 17:25; Heb 12:9) which prove nothing beyond the fact that God forms the immaterial part of man as He does the material. This theory is burdened with difficulties, especially for those who embrace the doctrine that all men are fallen by nature, and these difficulties are not decreased by the propositions set forth by the Covenant theory of imputation. (3) By a third class, known as Traducianists, it is believed that the immaterial part of man is, like the material, derived from the parents. This theory provides latitude for the Biblical teachings relative to the fallen nature of man, and for heredity, and does not contradict the direct teaching of the Word of God, namely, that when God had made the first man and woman He ceased from the work of creation.

This abbreviated analysis of the constitution of man as created and unfallen leads naturally to the consideration of:

c. The Character of the First Human Sinner

Under this division of the theme no more will be introduced than a brief reference to the question of Adam’s maturity when created. Here, again, wide difference of opinion obtains. Not a few argue that, of necessity, man could have been no more than an inexperienced child, and this, it is pointed out, is seen in the simplicity of the temptation by which man fell. Others as earnestly contend that the full-orbed maturity of Adam at creation is not only possible within the divine creative power, but is evidenced from the fact that Adam was depended upon to name every living thing and that he was naturally fitted for association and communion with God, who, it is revealed, walked and talked with Adam to the day of his fall. The man, likewise, is included in the divine estimate that all that had been created was “very good.” This would hardly be said of any creature possessing only the potential features which enter into the divine ideal represented by that creature.

3. The Scope and Nature of the First Human Sin

So untarnished and innocent was the first man at his creation that God took delight in him and the question naturally arises, how could such a creature sin? But the peccability of the first man can not be questioned in the light of the record of his sin. Basing their arguments upon the fact that the first man did sin, some have contended that on His human side, though unfallen, Christ could have sinned; but all such efforts fail to reckon with the fact that, whatever, hypothetically, His humanity might have wrought if left alone, it was never, nor could it be, left alone, but was ever welded into and never separate from, His Deity. Therefore, the last Adam, though possessing His own unfallen human nature, which human nature in the case of the first Adam did sin, was, because of His Theanthropic Being, an Impeccable Person.

From the viewpoint of men who are accustomed to hideous sin, it is exceedingly difficult to estimate the force, the temptation, or the sinfulness of sin, as experienced by an unfallen creature. Too often men have rated the sin of Adam to be of no importance and have deemed God’s serious consideration of it to be unworthy of Him. It is asserted that such a slight indiscretion, as Adam’s sin is supposed to have been, is common in every household, concerning which parents often do well to pass over. Opposed to this viewpoint is another which at least attempts to consider the attending facts in the case.

The field of possible temptation for one in Adam’s unfallen state is limited indeed. With him there was, no occasion for covetousness or avarice; he was in possession of all creation. There was no occasion for envy or jealousy; he was supreme in his sphere. There was no occasion for social immorality, since the only woman in the world was his beloved and cherished wife. If temptation reached him at all it would need to be confined within the sphere of things which are, under normal conditions, legitimate for an unfallen creature. The testing came on the sole issue of conformity to the revealed mind and will of his Creator—One who was not to Adam a distant, theoretical, unseen Person, but One with whom he was then having unbroken fellowship. The disobedience of a child or the indiscretions in diet on the part of adults are hardly to be considered as comparable here. The sin of Adam was far-reaching in its implications. Like the first sin in heaven, it expressed a determination to attain to an estate other than that assigned by the Creator; or as before stated, it was due to a restless unwillingness on the part of the creature to abide in the sphere and limitation in which the Creator, guided by infinite wisdom, had placed him. So far from being a passing deflection, which some deem it to have been, the sin of Adam was itself the most sinful sin an unfallen man could commit. Adam listened to the slander of God, he doubted God, he lusted for that which God had prohibited, he disobeyed God. His was an unqualified repudiation of God. The fate of the first man did not depend upon an external act, a mere physical process of eating fruit of one kind or another; it was a concrete case involving that reverence and obedience which a creature should render to his Creator. The test is thus seen to be far-reaching in its issues. It was fair to man, and worthy of God.

4. The Effect of the First Human Sin upon the One Who Sinned

When human judgment, guided by divine revelation, is broadened to the point where it is able to contemplate eternal issues which obtain in other spheres and relationships than this realm of human life, it is perceived that the creature’s most God-dishonoring sin is that of departing from that position and estate in which by creation and divine arrangement he has been placed. Such was the sin of the highest angel in heaven, and such was the sin of the first man upon the earth. The exceeding wickedness of this sin, as it is seen by God, is reflected faithfully in the penalty connected with the sin. Though no record is given that Satan was divinely warned before he sinned, it is disclosed that Adam was told that in the day he disobeyed God dying he would die. As a penalty for his sin, Satan was eventually to be cast out of heaven and into the lake of fire. The penalty imposed upon Adam was that death in all its hideous reality-death spiritual, which he experienced the day that he sinned; death physical, which began at once to work in his body and was consummated when his earthly life ended; and the second death, in certain prospect unless through divine grace he should be redeemed from his lost estate would be visited upon him.

Death, like sin, was foreign to unfallen man. What his future would have been, had he never sinned, is speculation. It is recorded of Adam that he did sin and that he thus secured for himself and his posterity the enemy, death-an exerience which has terrorized the race and drawn a veil over all that lies beyond; so effective, indeed, that multitudes question as to whether there is a life after death. But since, as created, man was an undying creature, as enduring as the angels, and since the Bible nowhere intimates that death is the end of man’s existence, it is not only Scriptural, but reasonable, to believe that the original, ever-abiding life of man is not changed as to its duration even by this new and unfathomed experience which is called death.

After many years physical death came to Adam, but the immediate and immeasurable tragedy in his experience was that of spiritual death. This was something far more transforming than the mere acquiring of guilt; Adam descended to a lower level of existence. He was converted downwards. He became a different kind of creature from the one God created. This change, of necessity, extends to his posterity. True to the law of every living thing, he could propagate only after his kind, and his first born proved to be degenerate and depraved.

Adam’s first sin was a transaction wholly complete in itself. No doubt he continued sinning throughout his long life; but the spiritual transaction and catastrophe was fully accomplished as a result of the one, initial sin.

Adam had been placed under a definite probation with every requisite of a true testing present-he understood the divine requirements, he was free to act or not to act, and he was fully aware of the consequences. The probation did not consist in a series of testings ever present and increasing in force until he should break under the strain, or weaken through old age. The appeal of the first temptation may have long besieged his will, but, had he endured the first, there would have been no more. It is probable that he would have then passed on in those stages of spiritual development which were in the transcendent path of an undying, unfallen, human creature.

The results of Adams first sin upon himself were far-reaching. His natural powers became depraved, he lost his moral character, his intelligence was blinded, his affections were corrupted, he became a slave to sin, he surrendered to the domination of Satan, he became one who was already ruined by spiritual death, and destined to both physical and eternal death. Such is the effect of the first sin upon the unfallen man who sinned. So far from being a mere deflection, or momentary indulgence, Adam’s first sin, as measured by its results and penalties, was exceedingly sinful; but no more sinful than every sin, as viewed by the holy eyes of God. The first sin was a complete disobedience in itself requiring no added evil action to perfect its unholy details and corrupting Power. By that one sin the ruin of a race was wrought, the covenant between God and man was broken, the curse was incurred, the image of God was deface, and discord between heaven and earth was introduced. Thus did the first man fail and fall, thus was he changed by his sin, and thus, likewise, did a race begin its tragic history.

5. The Effect of the First Human Sin upon the Race

At the beginning, God declared concerning man that he was “very good,” but after fifteen hundred years of human history, Jehovah said of man, that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually”; and more than two thousand years later He said, “they are all under sin; ...there is none that doeth good, no, not one; ...there is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom 3:9–12). This contrast is as strong as language can make it. Theologians have differed on certain phases of the doctrine of sin, but there is a notable agreement among them as to the universality of sin. This agreement may be accounted for on the basis of the fact that the Word of God is exceedingly clear in its testimony as to the sinfulness of man, and, also, on the fact that human observation so fully corroborates the Scriptures. The doctrine of depravity is often rejected through misunderstanding. This doctrine does not imply that there is no good to be seen in men as men observe each other, it rather asserts that, because of the fallen nature, God sees nothing in them which commends them to Himself. They are only objects of His grace. It is significant that the drastic indictments against the whole race which appear in the New Testament are quotations from the Old Testament; thus demonstrating that the Bible is a unit in its testimony on the doctrine of depravity. There are special privileges and covenants which are extended to the Jew, but in the matter of sin and a divinely provided remedy, “there is no difference.” As Doctor Dwight states when writing of the universality of sin, “in truth, no doctrine of Scripture is expressed in more numerous or more various forms, or in terms more direct or less capable of misapprehension.”[1] Added to this, it may be observed that the fact of universal human sinfulness and depravity is implied in the provision of a sacrifice for sin whether typical or antitypical; in the Bible’s emphasis upon the universal need of regeneration; in the disclosure that the human body is injured and, in the case of the saved, will yet be redeemed; and in the fact that “God now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.”

As related to humanity, the first sin of Adam is properly termed the Original Sin. From it, as a fontal cause, far-reaching, universal results have been realized by his posterity. The doctrine of Original Sin divides into two branches of truth which are, notably, quite unrelated other than that they proceed from the same source. One branch has to do with Original Corruption, which is spiritual death, while the other has to do with Original Guilt, with its penalty of physical death. Though the term Original Sin is more frequently used in reference to the former, it is, also, as properly a designation of the latter. This division of the present discussion assumes to trace this two-fold effect of the first sin upon the posterity of the first sinner. This can be undertaken only in great brevity.

a. The first division of the doctrine of Original Sin, which is Original Corruption, or spiritual death, contends that the whole race has inherited from its first progenitor a vitiated nature which is ever and incurably at enmity with God, being, in His sight, wholly depraved and spiritually dead, and is the root from which, as fruit, evil thoughts, words, and actions spring. The doctrine contends that Adam is the first and only member of the race who has become a sinner by sinning; all other members from the first to the last are born sinners and sin, not to become sinners, but because they are sinners. They do not die spiritually by sinning, but are born spiritually dead. The doctrine contends, likewise, that this fact of corruption in nature and spiritual death is the first and all-important ground of divine judgment upon the race; and that evil works, as wicked as they may be, are but the reasonable manifestation of that corrupt nature. Similarly, apart from the fact of the corrupt nature, it is impossible to demonstrate to the lost the need of the full saving grace of God. When the unregenerate are told that they are lost because of the personal sins they have committed, they, for want of knowledge of the primary issue between God and man, may answer, “I have never sinned one half as much as I might have done, therefore I am no more than half lost.” On the other hand, the full saving grace of God is needed in the salvation of the lost because of the fact that the whole being of man is depraved and spiritually dead. It is beside the point to argue that man is not to blame for the nature received by birth. Though born in poverty and ignorance the individual is justified in doing what may be done to correct these limitations; but how much more is one justified in claiming God’s relief from the lost estate in which he is born when it is remembered that God, in infinite love and at infinite cost, has provided that relief.

With various theories concerning man’s lost estate this article, for want of space, cannot be concerned. The fact that a fallen nature received mediately from Adam (1) is established by the Scriptures, (2) is observable in all history, and (3) is witnessed to by the consciousness of man, should terminate all argument. These evidences may be considered in their reverse order:

(1) Human consciousness of an evil nature or disposition is practically universal, extending to the earliest records of human experience. Aristotle declared, “there appears another something besides the reason natural to us which fights and struggles against the reason.” Kant said, ”‘That the world lieth in wickedness,’ is a lament as old as history, nay, as old as the oldest poetry.” The Apostle Paul witnessed of himself, “when I would do good, evil is present with me.” Such, indeed, is the consciousness of all thoughtful men relative to themselves.

(2) The record of history which demonstrates the evil nature of man is inexhaustible. “Man’s inhumanity to man,” war, inquisition, murder, prostitution, slavery, drunkenness, cruelty, fauehood, avarice, covetousness, pride, unbelief, and hatred of God; all, and very much more, have their share in the history of the race.

(3) To those who are subject to God’s Word, the Scriptures are explicit and final authority. A very brief notation of references follows: “The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen 8:21; cf. 6:5); “Behold I was shapen in iniquity: and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps 51:5); “From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it” (Isa 1:6); “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it” (Jer 17:9); “But the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man” (Mark 7:15); “I am carnal, sold under sin” (Rom 7:14); “Sin that dwelleth in me” (Rom 7:17, 20); “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God” (Rom 8:7); “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God” (Eph 4:18); “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed” (Jas 1:14).

b. The division of the doctrine of Original Sin which has to do with the guilt of the race and its penalty of physical death contends that, since Adam stood in a representative or federal relation to his posterity, they rightfully are judged as partakers of the penalty. That each and every human being does die (with notable exceptions) and that death is foreign to the race and unaccounted for other than as declared in the Bible, namely, that this penalty is imposed because of the first human sin, few of those who heed the testimony of God’s Word will deny. It is equally certain from Hebrews 7:9, 10 that, in the divine reckoning, the federal head does act in behalf of his posterity. In this passage it is declared that, when Abraham, the federal head of the Jewish people, paid tithes to Melchisedec, Levi, divinely appointed to receive tithes, paid tithes to Melchisedec also while he was yet in the loins of his great grandfather, Abraham. Abraham was the federal head of the Jewish people. It need not be discussed here as to what the import of this payment on the part of Levi may have been; the passage serves to establish the fact that God recognizes representative action on the part of the race in the action of its federal head.

This important discussion centers on the precise meaning of Romans 5:12–21, and upon verse 12 in particular, as the primary statement concerning which all that follows in the context is a divine commentary. If this be true, it is essential that verse 12 shall be interpreted only in accord with that which follows. This primary statement reads: “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.” It may be restated that death, which was foreign to God’s unfallen human creatures, is, according to the Scriptures, accounted for only as being the divinely imposed penalty on the first Adamic sin. The passage goes beyond Adam’s sin as bringing death to himself and declares that “death passed upon all men.” It is certain that all men die, and the passage as evidently traces each and every death back to the initial sin of Adam. The passage goes on to state that death on the part of Adam’s posterity is due to the fact that “all have sinned.” At once the Apostle safeguards this statement, lest it shall be supposed that he refers here to personal sins which are common to the race, by pointing out that death reigned in that period between Adam and Moses, even before the law could have been transgressed, since the law was not yet given; and death reigned, also, over innocent infants and irresponsible people who, because of their limitations, had not sinned wilfully as Adam had sinned. The Apostle’s contention may be restated thus: If the phrase, “all have sinned,” refers to personal sins, why should people die because of law transgression before the law was given, and why should those die who, because of limitations, had not sinned personally at all?

In the explanatory portion (cf. verses 17–19), the Apostle introduces two forms of imputation-(1) the imputation of Adam’s sin to all men, and (2) the imputation of the righteousness of God to those who “receive abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness.” We read, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” As an actual imputation reckons to one that which is antecedently his own (being a divine pronouncement concerning personal guilt—note the implication in 2 Cor 5:19 as to what might have been), and a judicial imputation reckons to one that which is not antecedently his own, it is clear that the reckoning of God’s righteousness to man is judicial. But theologians disagree as to whether the imputation of Adam’s sin to the race is actual or judicial. The question thus centers on the problem as to whether the Adamic sin is, or is not, antecedently theirs. Though the explanatory portion of this context declares that this imputation is due to “one man’s offence,” and “one man’s disobedience” being imputed to the race, in which case the imputation might be either actual or judicial, the primary passage (verse 12) plainly declares not that Adam sinned alone, but that “all have sinned” and incurred a judgment of death, which death rests upon all men alike; and, as demonstrated, in verses 13 and 14, the phrase, “all have sinned,” could not refer to personal sins. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this passage presents an actual imputation, or a reckoning to men of that which is antecedently theirs, as those who shared in Adam’s first sin. If this be true, the guilt of Adam’s sin is universal, bringing death to each member of Adam’s race. Though participation in Adam’s sin was not a conscious and wilful act on the part of any other than Adam, there is in the federal-headship relation a representative responsibility, as seen in the case of Levi paying tithes in Abraham, which forms a basis for actual guilt.

The explanatory portion of Romans 5:12–21, by way of contrast, develops as fully the fact that imputed blessings flow out of the last Adam as imputed judgments flow out of the first Adam. The resurrected Christ is the Federal Head of the New Creation and there is no New Testament truth which is more fundamental or far-reaching in its comprehensiveness than the revelation that the believer is in Christ. Very much, indeed, is divinely undertaken at the moment of salvation, but, next to the impartation of the eternal life of the resurrected Christ, there is none other more emphasized than that the saved one is in Christ. The phrase, “ye in me and I in you” (John 14:20), could hardly be equaled for extent of revelation or for simplicity of language. It is beyond human power to comprehend either the cancellation of the judgments that were imputed because of position in the first Adam, or the benefits that accrue through imputation because of the new position in the last Adam. Being in Christ, the believer is said to be invested with the righteousness of God (Rom 3:22; 10:4; 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21), is accepted (Eph 1:6), is made nigh (Eph 2:13), is raised from the dead (1 Cor 15:21), and is possessed with every spiritual blessing (Eph 1:3). It is obvious that no objection is raised against the doctrine of imputation from a federal head when transcendent blessings are thus received. On the other hand, it is equally as obvious that objections are advanced against the doctrine of imputation from a federal head when immeasurable judgments are thus received. These two headships are ever related to each other by contrasting typology (Rom 5:12–21; 1 Cor 15:20–28, 44–49) and if an imputation is to be conceded on the ground of federal headship at all, it must be recognized in the one case as much as in the other. Neither of these imputations is a fiction. Eternal death and judgment come by one, and eternal life and righteousness come by the other. In the case of the Adamic imputation, guilt passes to each man immediately. When one dies he bears his own federal-headship penalty in relation to the Adamic sin, and is thus seen to be as immediately related to Adam as though no other being than the two had ever lived upon the earth. No philosophy of man will attempt to explain the intrusion of sin and death into the human family. The fact and force of these stupendous realities are disclosed only through a revelation from God.

Lewis Sperry Chafer

Dallas, Texas

Bread & Wine

H. Campbell

Maker of Earth and Monarch of the Sea!
Thou Everlasting White Sublimity!
Thou Sunburst here of Far Eternity!
‘Tis vain to search beyond the stars, to see
Back of the sun, into Infinity,
And find the Glory that envelopes Thee!

But Thou didst bear a Body like to mine.
Lo! Here’s Thy Broken Bread, Thy outpoured Wine!
Tokens of Death! Trophies of Life Divine!
An Eastern Dawn at dusky Eve’s decline!
Here, at this mystic white and crimson Shrine,
Thy Love’s the Feast! I seek no farther sign!

Notes

1. Theology Sermon 29.