I very much like Brian Bill's introduction to this passage. He asked the members of his congregation who, after Jesus, had been the greatest influence in their lives. I wonder what their answers were. I had a visit a few weeks ago from two of my old A level Geography pupils from the early 1970's. They presented me with a little plaque on the back of which was written, 'For Mr Reed, our inspirational Geography teacher; what we learned from you has informed our lives.' Well that was very gracious of them - but I doubt whether I was the greatest influence on their lives, indeed, I hope very much I was not! Sadly, the person who has had the greatest influence on our lives if we are not Christians is Adam. This passage is about the relationship between Adam's sin and our own. This raises some very difficult questions the answers to which vary greatly from one commentator to another. The passage is also about God's effective antidote to sin and its consequences, namely, his abounding grace.

I must admit to being by no means entirely confident that everything I have written in this exposition is true. I hope it is! But this is not quite the same of being sure it is!

(B) Man's sinful condition.

It is:

(1) Universal. Death came to all men, because all sinned. v12.

The universality of death is the clearest possible evidence of the universality of sin. No one, absolutely no one, lives forever. All die.

Brian Bill got a kick out of a letter 'Dear Abby' received several years ago. Her response shows that she clearly understood the pervasiveness of sin.

Dear Abby: “I am 44 and would like to meet a man my age with no bad habits.”

Dear Rose: “So would I.”

The best of men have their weaknesses. Perhaps, it is worthwhile repeating what I wrote in my series on Ecclesiastes: The Teacher observes that: Whosoever breaks through a wall may be bitten by a snake. Ecc12v8. The Teacher means by this that no one is harmless and it is very dangerous to presume so. The old wall, weathered and mellow, and the new wall, whitewashed and cheerful, may look harmless but behind each facade there lurks a snake. Similarly within each human being, regardless of the attractiveness of the facade, there lurks a snake - the old nature. If that old nature is disturbed, stirred up, it will strike and its venom will poison your system.

Sometimes we catch people with their defences down. They are feeling vulnerable, stressed, unloved or frustrated. A little tap - the facade crumbles - the snake strikes. The old nature lurks just below the surface in those with low self-esteem and fragile egos. So, I tell the usually sweet Victoria that she needs to spend longer on her homework and she snarls, "I've better things to do with my time than Geography homework." Her venom gets into my system and I am in a bad mood all morning.

Other walls are strong and the snake is buried deep. The strongest wall can be broken down and then, beware, because the serpent unused to being disturbed can be the deadliest of all. A jolly, kind hearted, easy going, headmaster may bear with the antagonism of an aggressive and awkward member of staff for many years but finally something is said and the wall crumbles and the snake strikes. The member of staff who has gone unscathed for so long and has begun to presume upon his safety is finally struck down.

We should not be surprised if we break through a wall to get bitten by a snake. It is no use complaining.

When I gave a school assembly along the lines above I got a response from a surprising number of children - they had discovered from experience the truth of the Teacher's observation.

(2) Constant. Before the law was given, sin was in the world ... death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses. v14.

Men have always known how they would like to be treated and know that this is the best way to treat others - as they would wish to be treated. This is the basis of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

So Pharaoh and Abimelech were angry with Abraham for deceiving them over Sarah his wife. They did not need the commandment, you shall not bear false witness, to know that deception was wrong! Abraham knew that what he was doing was wrong. It is bad to deceive people. None of us like being deceived.

Men have from the beginning known how to behave but have failed to live as they know they should. In this they sinned and were held responsible by God for their sin otherwise neither the world of Noah would have been destroyed nor the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

(3) Natural.

Children are not born innocent. They do not remain innocent until corrupted by the world. Brian Bill in his sermon on this subject quotes from the Minnesota Crime Commission: Every baby starts life as a little savage. He is completely selfish and self-centred. He wants what he wants when he wants it—his bottle, his mother’s attention, his playmate’s toy, his uncle’s watch. Deny him these wants, and he seethes with rage and aggressiveness, which would be murderous, were he not so helpless. He is dirty. He has no morals, no knowledge, no skills. This means that all children, not just certain children, are born delinquent. If permitted to continue in the self-centred world of his infancy, given free rein to his impulsive actions to satisfy his wants, every child would grow up a criminal, a thief, a killer, a rapist.

This is very depressing. It is quite awful. Some months ago I watched an extract from a home movie about two brothers. One, Peter, must have been about three or four. The other, Harry, was probably about a year and a half. Peter gave his brother Harry a cuddle. Harry thought he would try out his new teeth on Peter's finger. He bit it - hard. Peter squealed and whimpered. He said, "That hurt, Harry." After a few seconds Harry chuckled to himself. He had enjoyed inflicting a little pain on his brother. I have to admit I had to laugh - but nonetheless that small, private chuckle was quite terrible. What would a being from another planet who had never sinned make of it?

(4) Disastrous.

Man's sin is disastrous in two ways:

(a) It affects our relationship with our Maker. He has condemned us to:

• Spiritual death. Sin separates us from God. When Adam and Eve sinned they hid from God - he did not hide from them! Our sin means we are no longer comfortable with God.

• Physical death. I think this is just as well. It is a mercy that men die. It would be dreadful if very evil men were indestructible. Every time you knocked them over they bobbed up again - like the wobbly man toy of my childhood. It is significant that God took action to prevent Adam and Eve eating of the tree of life and living for ever. See Gen3v22. They had that potential but after their sin it was denied them.

• Ultimate destruction. If sin is not dealt with individual men and women will suffer the Second Death and extinction. See article on heaven and hell.

  It is amazing that God didn't put an end to Adam and Eve after they sinned and write the whole thing off as a failed experiment. By allowing Adam and Eve to live on and reproduce God was only adding to his anguish at the sad and sorry condition of beings he had made in his own image. God desisted because he had a redemptive plan.

(b) It affects our relationship with one another. By far the greatest cause of human misery and suffering is man's inhumanity to man. Every day in our newspapers are numerous instances of man's inhumanity. I was shocked to read of one particularly bad example recently. A man was admitted to hospital for a hip joint replacement. He had a medical condition that meant he needed a very high fluid intake. All his pleas for a drink of water fell on deaf ears. Eventually in desperation the man phoned 999 for help! When the police turned up the nursing staff told them that the man was behaving irrationally and not to worry. The man was eventually sedated and died from dehydration. This news item made me shudder with horror. What a shocking lack of care and compassion. The nurses were too proud to give into the man in his despair. They knew best and condemned him to death. Such is the state of our health service that if a nurse offers to pray with a patient she faces the sack - but if a man dies through neglect no one is punished.

In one of C Philip Green's sermons he quotes a telling piece of doggerel about three monkeys discussing a most disturbing rumour:

“What do you think? Now listen you two,
here, monkeys, is something that cannot be true,
that humans descended from our pure race.
Why, it's simply shocking – a terrible disgrace.

“Who ever heard of a monkey deserting his wife?
Leave a baby starve and ruin its life?
And have you ever known of a mother monk
to leave her darling, with a stranger to bunk?
Their babies are handed from one to another
and scarce ever know the love of a mother.

“And I've never known a monkey so selfish to be
as to build a big fence around the coconut tree
so other monkeys can't get a wee taste,
but would let all the coconuts here go to waste.
Why, if I'd put a fence around this coconut tree,
starvation would force you to steal from me.

“And here is another thing a monkey won't do,
seek a bootlegger's shanty and get in a stew,
carouse and go on a whoopee, disgracing his life,
then reel madly home and beat up his wife.
They call this all a pleasure and make a big fuss,
they've descended from something, but not from us.”

When one contemplates the misery and mayhem caused by sin one can't help but sympathise with the indignant monkeys.

(C) The origin of sin.

This is the very difficult issue raised by Paul in this passage. It is a fundamental question and one I shall try, albeit with some trepidation, to address.

(1) It does not lie with God.

It is absolutely impossible for God to be responsible for our sinful condition and fallen nature. Our first parents were not originally like us. Adam and Eve were not created with a tendency to sin. They had no predisposition to sin at all. The Christian position on this subject must be different from the evolutionist's. Evolution may have played a part in the creation process but when our first parents arrived they were innocents with no knowledge of good and evil. We still occasionally show evidence of this lost innocence. See article on flashbacks to Eden.

Not only were Adam and Eve innocents but they were also made in the image of God. Today the image is tarnished and defaced. But, just as on an old, worn coin the monarch's image can still be made out so there are times when something of God himself can be seen in us. Man bears God's image in his creativity, love of beauty, sacrificial love and admiration of virtue.

(2) Adam and Eve sinned of their own free choice.

Adam and Eve as free, rational beings would sooner or later face a choice. They would face a choice between putting God first and trusting him and putting themselves first and distrusting God.

Our first parent's were told not to eat from the tree in the middle of the Garden of Eden - but they did eat of it. Adam and Eve wanted to eat of it to be like God. That was the essence of the serpent's temptation: "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Gen3v5.

Adam and Eve didn't have to sin. They could have chosen to ignore Satan and to trust God. Perhaps, if they had passed this first test God would have given them a bias or inclination for good. Perhaps, they would have been permitted to eat of the tree of life and lived for ever. The history of the human race would have been entirely different!

(3) The consequences of sin for Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve were changed by their disobedience. According to the old story in Genesis they were changed in these ways:

(a) They were no longer innocent but knowing.

(b) They became self-conscious - covering their nakedness with aprons of leaves.

(c) They hid from the LORD GOD.

(d) The opportunity to live forever was lost. God banished them from Eden and the tree of life.

(e) Eve would suffer in child birth and Adam would labour to produce food.

Adam and Eve's nature changed. They lost their innocence and acquired instead a predisposition to sin and as such were under God's condemnation.

(4) The consequences for all humanity. For if by the trespass of one man, death reigned through that one man. v17. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men.... .v18.

A huge amount of controversy exists over the relationship between Adam's sin and our own.

Some argue that Adam was mankind's representative and so when he sinned we all had a share in it. This isn't very convincing. Reference is made to David representing the Israelites in the contest with the Philistine champion, Goliath - but as I remember it, this didn't stop the Israelite and Philistine army going at it hammer and tongs. Mention is made of Achan's family all being put to death for his sin of looting Jericho. Achan the family head and representative sinned and so all his family sinned with him and died with him.

This is not just. No one today would advocate punishing children for the sin of their father. The only justification for the draconian punishment meted out by Joshua on Achan's family was to deter the Israelites from looting the Canaanites.

The fact is we didn't choose Adam to be our representative. Even if we had, a crime by our representative doesn't make us criminals. If my Member of Parliament is convicted of fraud that doesn't make me a fraudster! We don't punish the electors for the crime of their elected member!

I believe the sin of Adam and Eve does affect us all. We are condemned to inherit Adam's fallen, changed nature. Something happened to him when he fell, to his DNA, and this has been passed down to us all. We are all born with a predisposition to put ourselves first.

Some might argue that this is not fair! But what was the alternative? Should God have scrapped Adam and Eve and tried again with another couple - and kept on trying until two actually resisted temptation. The trouble with this is that Adam and Eve would not then have been truly free. We are only free if our choices are allowed to have consequences - inevitable consequences. If God was going to restart his experiment then it didn't really matter much what Adam and Eve did. Their actions were of little consequence except possibly to themselves!

Another reaction to inheriting a fallen nature is to say, "Well, if that is the case, I'm not responsible for my sin - I can't help it." We are all inclined to think like this especially when our disposition predisposes us to certain sins. I am by nature very hot tempered - so is it my fault when I from time to time explode with rage?

However, it could be argued that we are much better off than Adam. There are many checks on our inclination to sin: Moral instruction from our parents, an innate sense of right and wrong, the law of the land, God's law and Christian ethics.

It is also true that men and women do act altruistically whether they be Christian or not. People act for the common good. They show courage, compassion, patience and generosity. The Good Samaritan was, after all, neither a religious Jew nor a Gentile Christian.

In two separate accounts of prisoner of war experiences under the Japanese I read of great acts of kindness by Burmese Buddhists. In one instance a Burmese tried to supply the starving prisoners with beef. He tried twice and on both occasions the meat was confiscated and he was beaten for his pains. On the third occasion he drove a live bullock into the camp and this was successful.

I believe, like Adam and Eve, we are all faced with a choice. We can pursue our own narrow interest or the common good - our neighbour's good. Our fallen nature pulls us in one direction and our sense of right pulls in another direction. We are not innocents like Adam and Eve but unlike them before they sinned we have many helps to do the right.

We may inherit Adam's fallen nature but that doesn't make sin inevitable. Our will is free. Sometimes we choose to resist the fallen nature but other times we give in to it. We are responsible when we give in to our sinful tendency. We cannot blame Adam for our choice to do wrong when we know that it is wrong and we could have done the right.

If Jesus was tempted in every respect like we are he must have inherited our predisposition to sin. But he NEVER gave into it. This is what makes his perfect life so remarkable.

Adam had no bias to sin, no fallen nature, but chose to sin. That choice affects us all. We do have an inclination to put ourselves first and we often give into this inclination by our own choice. Jesus was not born an innocent. He was of the seed of Adam - the second Adam. He like us was born with a tendency to sin - but unlike us he resisted and consistently chose to do God's will. This meant no man, no angel, not even God the Father could take his life from him. That is why he had to dismiss his spirit - voluntary give it up to God.

The natural man insofar as chooses to sin is, like Adam, under condemnation. We do not die because Adam sinned but because we, like him, are responsible for our own sin. We are certainly born with a disadvantage inherited from Adam - but so was Jesus and he managed to never sin.

(D) God's grace.

(1) Its greatness. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if many died by the trespass of one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by grace of the one man, Jesus Christ overflow to many! v15.

God's grace outweighs the sin of Adam. God's grace is infinitely greater for good than Adam's sin is for evil. Adam has bequeathed us a tendency to sin that is hard to resist and which in practice we frequently give into - to our condemnation. God's grace transforms for eternity the lives and destiny of all who are in Christ. Eventually the believers in Jesus will see him and be like him. Our natures will change again - not to be like Adam's before the fall - but to be like Jesus with no desire to sin ever again. We shall be without sin and any inclination to sin and so fitted to live forever in perfect harmony and fellowship with our Maker.

(2) Its provision.

Paul repeats himself somewhat in this passage which is one of the reasons an orderly treatment of it is difficult. He writes: Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. v18.

I have certain reservations about this statement but none the less God's grace does provide for our justification. We are declared righteous by God for the sake of his Son who laid down his life a ransom for sin.

Furthermore God's grace gives us new life in Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit to enlighten, empower and guide.

Finally, we shall reign in life as Christ's joint heirs when Jesus returns to earth with and for his own.

(3) Its dependence.

God's grace is not unconditional. If it was he could have said to Adam all those years ago, "Look old chap, it's a pity you sinned but, never mind, we'll rub along together somehow." No, God's grace depends upon: One act of righteousness ..... . For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. v19. God could never have lavished his grace upon us without the obedience of the one man.

If Jesus hadn't died on the cross - a perfect man offering himself as a sacrifice for sin on behalf of us all - God could not offer to declare us righteous or give eternal life to anyone.

(4) Its limitation.

The thing that troubles me about this passage is that Paul makes little mention of human responsibility. We may inherit Adam's fallen nature but we chose to identify with him in disobedience and sin. That is our condemnation.

Similarly men do not inevitably experience God's grace. We are saved by grace and through faith. God's grace is effectively limited to those with faith in him and his Son. We are responsible for faith. It is supremely the appropriate way to benefit from grace. Adam fell because he rebelled in the pride of his heart. He thought he could be God's equal. Saving faith is just the opposite. It is about humble submission; it is about pleading, begging for help; it is about opening your life to Jesus; it is about ceding control to Jesus and accepting him as Saviour and Lord.

When a sinner believes in Jesus it is the antithesis of what happened in Eden. It is thus the only way to benefit from God's grace and Christ's promise of eternal life.

(E) Conclusion.

This difficult passage can be summed up relatively simply in this way:

(1) Two Men. You are in Adam or you are in Christ.

(2) Two Gardens. Adam chose to follow his selfish desires and disregarded God’s command; Jesus surrendered to the Father’s will and fulfilled His purpose.

(3) Two Trees. Arthur Pink draws some contrasts between the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree upon which Christ died, the cross:

• The first tree was planted by God in the Garden, the second was planted by man at Golgotha.

• God forbade man to touch the first tree, but all are invited to embrace the second tree.

• The punishment for eating of the first tree brought condemnation; the eating of the second tree brings life and justification.

• Adam was sent out of Paradise for eating of the first tree, when we receive the fruit of Jesus’ work on the second tree we enter Paradise.