Have you ever wondered what Paul meant when he said that “sin is not imputed where there is no law”? (Rom 5:13). You are not alone. A reader recently emailed in this Bible and theology question:
What’s your interpretation of Romans 5:13?”
The question is short and sweet and to the point! People occasionally send me Bible questions or Theology questions, and I usually try to respond via email, and post my answer here on the blog for anybody else who might have a similar question.
Here is how I responded to this question about Romans 5:13.
What does Romans 5:13 mean?
By way of disclaimer, I have not done an in-depth study of Romans or of this verse in particular. Eventually (10 or 20 years from now), I will write a commentary on Romans, but there are numerous commentaries I need to write first, before I have the courage to tackle Romans.
Until then, here is my current view.
In the surrounding context (Rom 3:23; 6:23) Paul is explaining to his readers that the reason death reigns over all people is because all people have sinned. In other words, the consequence of breaking God’s law is death.
But there is a minor problem with Paul’s argument. Everybody knows that Adam broke God’s command to not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, so that explains why Adam died. And everybody knows that after God gave His Law to Moses on Mount Sinai, every single person on earth has broken the Law of God in one way or another (Rom 3:9-23).
But what about the time between Adam and Moses? God had not given any commands to those people. There was no written or spoken Law of God for them to break. Therefore, they couldn’t have broken any of God’s Laws because for them, there was no law.
And yet they still died. Why?
It is popular among the elite Bible scholars and academy-trained theologians to sneer at the uneducated lay person who seeks to teach Scripture and theology to others as being “untrained” and therefore, unable to accurately teach others what God is like, what He says in Scripture, and how to live life in light of what we learn.
I have never been enamored with the process of historical criticism when it comes to the text of Scripture.
by Kenton Sparks, which is purportedly an evangelical defense of critical biblical scholarship. I suppose it was one of the best defenses of critical scholarship I have read, and if someone is going to adopt the practices and conclusions of historical criticism of the Bible, they should follow the practice proposed by Kenton Sparks.
“If you think this passage means that, you’re in real trouble, serious trouble!” a man in our Bible study group screamed at me.
has been very good to me over the years. It is my 
