You reject the doctrine of immediate imputation in Romans 5:12, which states: ‘all sinned’. What is your view of this disputed phrase? Are we born under judgment (see Romans 5:17)?

This text is from a transcript of talk given by David Gooding entitled ‘The Glorious Gospel of the Blessed God’ (1995).

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. (Romans 5:12 KJV)

The question that has vexed Christian people for centuries is, what is meant by the term in verse 12—all have sinned? Now comes the point of disagreement. The Greek word is a verb in what we call the aorist or, in some languages, the past definite. The Greek past definite tense, or aorist tense, has a wider possible field of meaning than the English past definite tense. There are occasions when the Greek uses the past definite and in English we have to use the past definite: 'My Aunt Sophia came last night.' The Greek would use an aorist, and the English would use an aorist. But Greek can sometimes use an aorist in situations where, in order to translate it properly into English, you must not use an aorist; you must use a perfect.

Now both points of view on Romans 5:12 admit this matter of Greek grammar. There is no dispute upon this. In Romans 3:23 it says, 'For all . . .' Now what should it say? 'For all . . . and come short of the glory of God.' The intervening verb is the verb, 'to sin'; it is in the aorist tense in Greek. Would you have it translated by a past definite in English—'For there is no difference: for all sinned and come short of the glory of God'? The King James Version translators said, 'No, here is a case where the Greek past definite should be translated by the perfect: "For all have sinned".' I agree with them. I don't always agree with the King James translators (it's a little impertinence on my part); but all agree in Romans 3:23, and both sides of the argument on Romans 5:12 admit that you can either translate it as an aorist ['For all sinned']; or as a perfect ['For all have sinned']. The King James Version at Romans 5:12 translated it once again as a perfect—'For all have sinned'.

Those who take the contrary view say that here it would be better to translate it as, 'all sinned'. What is the difference? If you translate it, 'all have sinned', it would mean that death passed upon all men because all, individually and personally, have sinned. Some say, 'What about little babies? They haven't sinned personally, but they die don't they?' And therefore on that ground, and some others as well, they hold it should be translated, 'death passed on all men for that all sinned'. And if you say, 'What do you mean, all sinned? When did they sin?', the answer comes back, 'They sinned in Adam.' Augustine held that view (though he mistranslated the Greek, not understanding it, and working from the Latin, which was a wrong translation anyway!). But he held the view that it meant all sinned in Adam, and of course many hold that view still.

Some say that Adam's disobedience ruined him and the entire race that came from him, so that the race of men and women since him are born with a fallen nature, sinners by nature even before they have done any particular sin. I would agree with that bit. The effects of Adam's sin are upon us to ruin us, so that we are born sinners by nature long before we have actually done any personal sinning. That's the effect.

But some go further and say that it means more than that. Because we were in Adam, when Adam sinned we sinned. Therefore, as Adam was guilty of disobeying God, we too were guilty of disobeying God—we sinned when Adam sinned. In a slightly different way they explain that the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to all his posterity. That is what I find very difficult to believe: that God would impute the guilt, not just that he would allow the effect of Adam's sin to ruin us, but he would blame us for Adam's sinning and impute the guilt of it to us. I find it impossible actually to believe that it means that everybody sinned in Adam, because Romans 5:14 talks about people who died even though they had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. If everybody sinned in Adam, and when he sinned they sinned, and his sin was a sin of disobedience, and they sinned Adam's sin; how could Scripture subsequently talk of people who did not sin after the similitude of Adam's transgression? If they sinned in Adam they didn't merely do a sin similar to his sin, they did exactly the precise sin. Well, that phrase makes me think that the translation: 'sinned'—that is, 'sinned in Adam', cannot be what Paul intended.

I bring considerations of common justice to bear upon the matter. Here is an analogy (of course, analogies don't prove anything but they are useful to help us to see what the question is). In Singapore, if a woman is caught selling drugs and is convicted, she suffers the mandatory sentence of being hanged. Suppose a woman is caught and convicted of selling drugs and she has a newborn baby boy, two weeks old. The authorities condemn the mother to death—justly, according to their laws. Would they also be just to take the baby and say: 'Because you were in your mother when she was selling drugs, we must execute you too. You sinned when your mother sinned.'

I don't think the Singaporeans would do that! Yes, the child could well have been ruined by what his mother did and be born suffering the withdrawal symptoms of the drugs that his mother took, which are penetrating the child's blood stream. Born defective, when he grows up he could possibly engage in drugs himself, having a tendency to that area. If he did engage in drugs himself, then he would be rightly condemned. But how would it be just to condemn a baby to be hanged along with his mother, because he was in his mother when she broke the law? That I fail to see.

There is a theological difficulty too. Romans 5:19 says: 'For as through the one man's disobedience the many were constituted sinners (that is, the effect of his sin upon them) even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous.' If it is true that when Adam disobeyed we have to admit that we also disobeyed, then of course we had a part in rendering ourselves sinners. But what would that do to the other half of the equation—'so by the obedience of the one shall many be made righteous'? Are we going to say that we had a part in that as well? Can I say to my blessed Lord, 'You obeyed and so I am constituted righteous because of what You did. But Lord, please remember that I helped, for I am in You!' That would be very questionable theology, wouldn't it? On those and other grounds, and with due respect to better scholars than I, and much more godly men who take the opposite view, I put these before you as some of my considerations. To sum up: We are damaged by Adam's sin, but not guilty of Adam's sin.

One final thing. Some argue here from Hebrews 7:9–10 (it is a very common argument which is why I detain you to mention it): 'Doesn't it say that Levi was in the loins of Abraham when Abraham met Melchizedek, therefore when Abraham paid tithes Levi paid tithes?' It does say that indeed, but you can't compare that with this passage in Romans 5, for the simple reason that they are talking about two completely different things. Hebrews is talking about the status of Levi. The father of the Jewish people shows himself as inferior in status to Melchizedek by doing what an inferior needed to do—pay tithes to Melchizedek. If the very head and fount of the nation had that lowly status then none of his descendants could have a bigger status. It is not attributing to Levi either the credit for what Abraham did or the blame for it. It is simply a matter of their status.