In what sense was sin not counted between the time of Adam and Moses?

Explanation:

Paul writes in Romans 5:12 that death is the consequence of sin, and in Romans 5:14 that death reigned from Adam to Moses. Yet in Romans 5:13b he writes that sin is not counted where there is no law. So how can it be true that death is the result of sin and everyone dies, when sin is not counted where there is no law, and the law was not presented until the time of Moses?

Most likely, Paul has in mind a classic Jewish distinction between unwitting and intentional sin.⁴ For we know from the Old Testament that there is a difference between unwitting sin and high-handed or intentional sin. Unwitting sins were still punishable, and had to be atoned for through sacrifices (Numbers 15:27–29), but high-handed sins were considered more serious, where the offender was to be cut off from the people of God (Numbers 15:30–31).⁵

The apostle John makes a similar distinction when he explains there is a difference between sins that lead to death and sins that do not (1 John 5:16–17).

Likely, Paul has this same distinction in mind. He explains that while it is true that all people die because all people sin (Romans 5:12), sin is not counted in the same way when there is no law.

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that Paul does not write that sin is not counted in the same way when there is no law. Rather, Paul writes, Sin is not counted where there is no law. He does not include in the same way. Rather, he simply says that sin is not counted and leaves it at that. Of course, the above argument depends on the distinction between sin being counted and not being counted in the same way. For the above argues that Paul holds there is a consequence for all sin, but the severity differs depending on whether the sin is high-handed or not. Unfortunately, Paul makes no such distinction in severity in Romans 5:13 but simply indicates that the sin is not counted at all when there is no law.

Response to counterargument:

We can hold both that Paul distinguishes levels of sin in Romans 5:13 and that he does not qualify the fact that sin is not counted where there is no law. That is, there is compatibility between the argument and counterargument. For the argument here is that according to Paul, death is the consequence of sin, but there is a difference between sin without the law and sin with the law. If we concede that Paul does not add in the same way but simply says that sin is not counted where there is no law, we can still hold that there are differences between sinning with and without the law. For what Paul may be saying is that without the law, the consequence of sin is death, but still, without the law, there is no detailed ledger of each person’s specific sins.⁶ That is, unless one is consciously aware that one breaks a specific command of God, while the consequences of sin will result, such unwitting sins are not tallied against the person, but they are when one is aware that he sins.

Explanation:

Paul wants his audience to notice that all humans sin, which means that all humans die as a consequence. Still, there is a difference between sin without the law and sin with the law, in that sin with the law is a more serious offence. We can deduce that Paul wants his readers to notice this distinction because in Romans 5:14 he makes two explicit statements to support this.⁷ First, he explains that death reigned from Adam to Moses, implying that because of sin, all humans died even when there was no Mosaic law. Next he points out this was the case even over those whose sin was not like the transgression of Adam. By referring to the transgression of Adam, Paul has in mind that Adam was given a specific command not to eat from the tree, which Adam failed to obey. In other words, Adam’s sin was a transgression, which implies that it was counted against him. Still, as Paul makes clear, death still reigned from the time of Adam to Moses, even though those people did not transgress God by disobeying a specific command the way Adam did. So, while death results from sin, there is a difference between sinning without explicit commands and sinning with explicit commands.⁸ In other words, Romans 5:14 repeats and clarifies what it means that sin is not counted where there is no law. It is not counted in the sense of transgressing an explicit command, but death is still the consequence of sin.

Counterargument:

There is no way to reconcile Romans 5:13 with Romans 5:14. In fact, Paul has already explained in Romans 4:15 that without the law there is no transgression. And in Romans 5:13 he specifically writes that sin is not counted where there is no law. Paul then says in Romans 5:14 that death reigns over all, even though they have not transgressed. The fact is, Paul has raised a logical obstacle to his argument that he never resolves. That is, Paul cannot resolve the fact that sin is not counted without the law, and yet death reigns over all.⁹

Response to counterargument:

This argument offers a specific strategy for reconciling Romans 5:13 and Romans 5:14, which this counterargument does not overturn. That is, according to the above argument, we should reconcile Romans 5:13 and Romans 5:14 by understanding that while death is the consequence of all sin, there is still a difference between sin and transgression. This counterargument has given us no reason to think that this is not Paul’s intent. Further, it is unlikely that Paul would contradict himself so clearly from one verse to the next. That is, it is highly unlikely that Paul would say there is no result for sin without the law before saying that death reigned over all those who did not have the law. Thus, the counterargument is unable to overturn the argument.

This view depends on the notion that there can be consequences for sins that are not tallied. But God is omniscient. So what sense is there in the notion of sin being tallied when God knows all things, and there is still a consequence for sin? For if God knows all things, then he knows the list of sins one has committed without the law, and the consequence is still death, which seems to imply that the sins have been tallied so that death results. This view must clarify how the consequence of sin results even though the sins are not tallied.

Explanation:

Paul writes that sin was not counted where there is no law, before stating that death reigned from Adam to Moses. We can detect what he means by noting the grammar. We observe that in other passages, Paul will sometimes introduce an opponent’s objections with a negative (not), and then present his own position with the strong adversative conjunction (nevertheless). And in fact, this is precisely what Paul does in Romans 5:13–14. That is, he introduces with the negative not the idea that sin is not counted where there is no law, and then he opens Romans 5:14 with the adversative conjunction nevertheless¹⁰ Thus, the grammar indicates that when Paul writes, Sin is not counted where there is no law, he is introducing his opponents’ objection to his view. That is, Paul has argued that all humans sin, and death reigns over all as a consequence, but this raises an objection, Isn’t it the case that sin is not counted where there is no law? Paul then responds to this potential objection by stating that death reigned from Adam to Moses, suggesting that in fact, death is the consequence of all sin.

Counterargument:

There is an important objection to his view. In particular, Paul has already said in Romans 4:15 that the law brings wrath, and where there is no law there is no transgression. Now Paul writes that sin is not counted where there is no law. The notion that there is no law where there is no transgression, and sin is not counted where there is no law, are essentially equivalent. Now, this argument contends that when Paul writes, Sin is not counted where there is no law, he raises an objection, but then he must be doing the same in Romans 4:15. But, when Romans 4:15 is read in context it is obvious that the statement, Where there is no law there is no transgression, is not an objection but Paul’s own assertion. So how could Paul say in Romans 4:15 that where there is no law there is no transgressions, while raising as an objection in Romans 5:13 that sin is not counted where there is no law, when we know that Paul holds to the first, and the two notions seem equivalent?

Response to counterargument:

The underlying assumption of this counterargument is that Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13 are equivalent. The fact is, Paul likely anticipates that some of his audience might make this mistake, so he pre-emptively addresses it here in Romans 5:13. So what is the difference between Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13? In Romans 4:15 Paul explains that where there is no law there is no transgression. What he means by this is that where there is no direct command from God, there is no sinning against one of God’s direct commands, which he refers to as a transgression. Of course, this might lead one to wonder why people die because of sin, for doesn’t it imply that sin is not counted where there is no law? This is the line of thinking Paul anticipates and rejects in Romans 5:13–14. For Paul explains that in fact, death reigned from Adam to Moses, implying that there is a consequence to sin, even if those sins are not transgressions. Since Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13 are not equivalent, this counterargument misses the mark.

The problem with this view is that it is not obvious that Paul raises an objection in Romans 5:13b. That is, if Paul were to raise an objection, one would expect him to make this clearer. For we know Paul does raise a possible objection in this letter, and when he does, he makes it clear that is what he is doing (Romans 3:1; Romans 3:3; Romans 3:5; Romans 3:9; Romans 3:27; Romans 4:1).

Explanation:

Paul writes in Romans 5:13b that sin is not counted where there is no law. He likely means that before God gave the Mosaic law to the people of Israel, God did not count the sins of humans against them. Of course, we know that immediately following Romans 5:13 Paul writes that death reigned from Adam to Moses, and in Romans 5:12 he says that death is the consequence of sin. So how can death reign if sin is not counted without the Mosaic law? When we consider the overall context of Romans 5:12–20, we notice that Paul is making two important claims. First, where there is no law sin is not counted against people. Second, all humans share in the consequence of Adam’s sin.¹¹ We can detect that these are Paul’s main points because he says both that sin is not counted where there is no law and that death reigns over all. He also says in Romans 5:15 that many died because of the one man’s trespass. Of course, if sin is not counted where there is no law, but death reigns over all, and many died through the one man’s trespass, likely Paul is saying that while sin is not counted where there is no law, because we all share in Adam’s sin, death reigns over all.¹²

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that Paul has already said in Romans 5:12 that the consequence of sin is death to all men, because all sinned. In other words, Paul has already explained that all men die, not because of the sin of Adam, but because all men sin. Of course, this raises the question about the role of the law, which Paul seems to be addressing in Romans 5:14. For if all die because of sin, what is the role of the law? Isn’t sin only counted where there is the Mosaic law? In other words, Paul is concerned with the tension between the fact that all die because all sin, which he has expressed in Romans 5:12, and the fact that there is no transgression without the law (Romans 4:15). But since he has already explained that all die because all sin, he cannot resolve this tension by suddenly implying that all die because Adam sinned.

The weakness of this view is that it is foreign to Paul’s writings that all humans share in Adam’s guilt and punishment. Rather, there is a tension in Scripture between all humans being personally responsible for their own sin and receiving a sinful nature from Adam.