I'm trying to preach on this passage next week. But at a superficial level, it makes no
sense to me, because it all works around a parallel between the one man, Adam, and the one
man, Christ.
Here's the problem.
Nowadays (and in my view rightly) almost no-one believes that there ever was "one
man, Adam"; and even if we could trace one primordial ancestor (please no-one talk
about the Mitochondrial Eve), we certainly don't believe that either sin or death came
into the world through his/her actions.
Death has been in the world as long as life, because it is the condition of life; which
means it antedates the first human by about 100 million years, perhaps several times that.
Sin in a broad sense - selfishness - has also been in the world as long as life: you
don't have to buy Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" whole to take that point.
(Of course there is a sense of sin that is uniquely human, the conscious rejection of
good and God. But at the moment I'm trying to make it hard for myself.)
Given all of this, is Paul's argument any good any longer? It's not that I disagree
with his conclusions - but is there any use in even talking about his way of getting
there? If Adam this... then Christ that... isn't much of an argument if we see Adam as
just a character in a story.
Of course there is a way out of this through literalism. But that's not a perspective I
share; and I'm not trying to start an argument about that.
What I'm trying to see is whether there is anything we can do with Paul's style of
argument here from any other perspective.
Stephen, Lay preacher, Exeter UK
Romans has always been considered as one of the more complex letters within the Holy
Bible. Sin, Adam and Eve, Good and bad we can debate and promote whatever view we have, we
can only rely on faith to guide us.
If Adam was the first and only man, who was then joined by Eve is that so impossible to
believe, if we believe in the power of God/ I know, there are some who then bring in the,
"Well, where did Cain and Able's wives come from?" It is a sticky point indeed
and one that can be explained with little thought or deep analysis.
However, I believe that we have to have sin, in order for us to live. Without the sin,
Jesus' death would have been meaningless, he died for our sins, but he rose again. When we
die, we too will rise again because we have denounced sin and followed the Lord, but are
we still tempted at times?
TRW, Scotland
Stephen,
Why is it hard to believe that sin entered the world through "one" man? That
Man received moral sentience from God at a particular point in time is not a difficulty
regardless of whether one is a literalist or not.
Yes, Genesis presents some difficulties from a scientific perspective but the science
of origins (which I find fascinating) is full of difficulties of its own. It also deals
with life in a very superficial way if isolated from the religious viewpoint.
stephen I dont know the everybodys that you come in contact with, but most folks I know
believe their bible, and therefore believe the Adam and Eve account. I for one put my
faith in the God and Christ of the bible, and His word. not the Idols of secular science
im afraid you must speak for yourself on this one
Alhaz, Pastor Arkansas
Stephen, the lay preacher from UK... Don't say you are not trying to start an
arguement, with your inflammatory statements, that IS what you did! Sounds like MR.
STEPHEN is one of those "cementary" I...er...mean Seminary Theologians! I am
from Southern USa too... And I,and we have no problem excepting the Creatism story... The
Bible IS the inspired words of God! And you accept it on the Faith, like a child, that's
how you have to be to enter heaven... I consider myself a well educated Person, I grew up
a United Methodist, and attended an American Baptist College for Undergraduate work as
well as attending a state College. So, I have have Professors of both views...I had a
Biology professor who stated Evolution isnt not fact based, is a theory, and is proved
wrong in certains items all the time.... I have no problem accepting creatism...anyway
archeologist are finding out things that prove the BIBLE right! I.E. these asromers use
the Juputer moons , and guess what the Bible acurately predicted things, not cosmoslogy...
I grew up in the 1980's and read and agreed somewhat with Carl Sagan's BiG Bang Theory,
but now scientists call the the BIg Bust Theory... Holes can be shot in science... But the
Bible is Constant and it should be IT's GOD's WORD!!!!! Ladypreacher in Ohio
Hi there Stephen. Thanks for offering your understanding and struggle of how God speaks
through this test to today. The "one man" phrase is all the way thropugh this
text with the point being that the one man Jesus was more than sufficilent to deal with
all the sin that spread so fast from one man. Whther Adam started the sin virus with his
disobedience or whether it's a "freedom gene" gone wrong in all of us I know
that my Adam influences me and soon my one sin is being multiplied from one to another. It
only takes someone with bad attitude toward me and I am surpised that too often I pass it
on to the next and so on. Jesus said the pass-the-blame, pass-the-sin,
pass-the-retaliation process stops at his cross. This one man road block to evil is what I
thank God for. Blessings on you all thanks for this wonderful site, Petereo.
Stephan, have you never heard of a situation in a family, a school, workplace,
wherever, where one person's selfish actions hurt dozens of people (maybe even hundreds)
who had no participation, or even knowledge of those actions? Look at Enron. Granted, that
is not just one person's actions, but how many hundreds or thousands of peoples' lives are
now devestated because of a handful of greedy and/or incompetent people? When one family
member is an addict, the whole family suffers. When a church leader, be it a pastor or
layperson, behaves inappropriately, the whole body suffers. I don't know if this helps you
iron out the problem of dealing with Paul's words without resorting to literalism, but
even if you don't accept a literal translation of the Genesis text, it is not hard to see
how sin enters through one person, and infects us all.
Hey folks, while the discussion of One Man, Adam, Eve, etc., is very interesting - the
main thrust of the readings seems to be how we respond to TEMPTATION! Adam and Eve, either
figuratively or literally, failed the test of Temptation. Jesus did not. If we accept the
premise of Jesus' complete humanity - we cannot fall behind the "well, he had God to
help him" argument because we all have the same resource. This provides the means for
us to avoid the snare into which Adam (again either literally or representationally) fell
- following human desires instead of God's directions. Jesus example of following the
Scripture and God's directions offers hope for those of us who deal with temptation every
day - and I fervently hope I am not the only one who faces that problem among this august
body. It's funny, the apple was given freely and led to death. Jesus death was given
freely and leads to life. Sounds like grace to me. Rick in So. Ga.
Stephen in UK, I just got on to start working on my sermon. I think the death Paul
talks about is more a metaphysical death. What I means is that "through Adam" we
were spiritually dead. Through Christ we are now alive again.
Speaking of the single man theory, I just can't resist..."If it was good enough
for Paul, it's good enough for me."
What's so hard about believing in a literal Adam? We believe in a resurrected
Messiah...takes just as much faith in my book.
John near Pitts.
Harold in Alabama,
Some scholars hold that the writer of Isaiah was referring to the King of Babylon as
the Lucifer of Isaiah 14. (read Is. 14:4) And the Ezekiel passage is quite clear that he's
referring to the King of Tyre. (Ez. 28:12)
John near Pitts
Thanks, Rick in So. Georgia, for your insights. I agree that this passage is about
sin/temptation vs. God's grace. I'm calling my sermon, "All for One, and Once for
All" I followed a link at "www.textweek.com" that took me to chapter 19 of
Paul Tillich's book, "The Shaking of the Foundations." In that chapter, Tillich
wrote about how "sin" and "grace" had been given secondary meanings
over the centuries of the faith--that is, sin came to mean acts and grace came to mean
particular gifts. On the contrary, he pointed out that sin is a state of separation (from
God and each other) and grace is the state of reunion.
A couple thoughts: As I understand it, Paul uses the word "hamartia" (we
would call that Sin, with a capital "S"), rather than
"paraptamata"--which would be the plural "sins"--meaning actions.
Also, some scholars posit that the "man" Paul wrote of is most literally
"humanity" or "human kind" rather than a singular man.
Now, as for those who have been beating up on Stephen in the UK--I think it's too bad
that we can't offer up differing opinions sometimes without others bashing us and telling
us that we don't "believe the Bible." "Believing the Bible" takes on a
different meaning to many Christians, and it doesn't always have to be in the literal
sense. Just because one does not believe in a literal "One man Adam," it doesn't
mean that he/she doesn't see truth and relevance in the scriptures.
Sorry about the lengthy post--God bless all, and may the Holy Spirit fill your
preaching this week!
Mac in Delaware, Ohio
Well Stephen, I hope you're proud of yourself! Look how you have upset the other
children with such talk. Shame! You have stirred up a hornets' nest.
Now it is my turn. I can take or leave Original Sin, I've got my own to deal with. Or
do I? Look at verses 18-19. Does this speak of Universal Salvation? Are we all already
saved? I have some ideas but would like to hear the thoughts of others, especially ones
that I can fit into a sermon. GENTLE-men(and -women), start your engines.
Note to TRW, Scotland- Nowhere does it say Adam was the first or only man. Gen. 2:7
simply says God formed a man. While the Bible's first story of creation is a universal
genesis story, the second is a particular geneology story, the beginning of one family
line. It does not deny other families in other places but relates the start of a certain
clan's history, one that would lead to Noah, Abram, Issac, Jacob, David and Jesus. Neither
story refutes the other. tom in TN(USA)
Stephen,
This is a bit late in the week, but in case you are returning to the site...
Dodd in his commentary has some very helpful on this passage. He suggests that
the underlying conception here is solidarity: 'if an Achan broke taboo (josh 7) his whole
clan fell under the curse...
'with the growing appreciation of the ethical significance of the individual, the old
idea of solidarity weakened. But it corresponded with real facts. the isolation of the
individual is an abstraction. None of us stands alone. What we are and what we do is
largely affected by the forces of heredity and environment...'
For Paul there is a real unity of humankind, a sort of mystical unity in Adam; and also
so there is a mystical unity of redeemed humanity in Christ. Dodd continues:
'this Paul's doctrine of Christ as the 'second Adam' is not so much bound up with the
story of the Fall as a literal happening that it ceases to have meaning when we no longer
accept the story as such... It is enough for Paula nd for us to recognise that the
wrongdoind of an individual is not an isolated phenomenon, but part of a corporate, racial
wrongness which infects human society as we know it, and affects the individual through
heredity and environment...
Paul is not really cocnered about origins, but about the facts as they are.'
Shalom,
Paul Weary (Croydon, UK)
Oops! Last sentence of my post should read 'Paul is not really concerned...'
Tom in TN - I don't think we can read universal salvation into this. Paul would
presumably see that it is those who have been baptised into christ who are now part of
this new humanity.
Nice quote from Barrett, which tangentally relates to this and some of the other points
folks have been making:
'the words "sinners" and "righteous" and words of relationship, not
character. Adam's disobedience did not mean that all men necessarily and without their
consent committed particular acts of sin; it meant that they were born into a race which
had separated itself from God. Similarly, Christ's obedience did not mean that henceforth
men did nothing but righteous acts, but that in Christ they were related to God as Christ
himself was related to his Father.'
Shalom,
Paul Weary (Croydon, UK)
Tom In Tn
A few weeks ago I pulled out a five dollar bill and offered it to anyone in the
congregation who would like to have it. All they had to do was come up and take it.Boy did
I ever have a time trying to give it away. Finally after about Ten minutes one little girl
came and took it.You would think that was it but she immediately tried to give it back.
She said that she had money of her own and didn't need it. Thats exactly what the Gospel
tells us. Jesus paid the price for all but not everyone will accept it or even keep it.
Salvation is for everyone but God is not going to force it on us. Chew on that for a
while.
Harold in Alabama
Thanks, everyone, for your - including those whom Mac in OH thought were
beating up on me; it's OK, I come here to hear different views, and I assume they do too.
(But, Bro Ken, I do protest, I never massacred an innocent in my life.)
Thanks especially to Mac for taking me back to one of my favourite bits of Tillich; and
to the anonymous poster who made the neat point that whatever the history, one man would
have been ENOUGH to start all the sin in the world.
It's late now (pushing midnight Saturday here in the UK) and if your sermons aren't
done, mine is, so I won't try to start things up some more; and anyway the issues probably
belong on the discussion site. But here are a couple of problems that several participants
might like to be thinking about, ready for the next time:
(i) Like it or not, it's true of the people I preach to (and even more true of the
people I'd like to preach to, i.e. those who don't come to church) that they regard Adam
and Eve as just a story - so an argument based on them cuts no ice. Now, I don't much mind
myself if they don't take Genesis seriously; but I care very much indeed if they can't
take Paul seriously. So this area really does need some work.
(ii) Yes, of course an all-powerful God could have made the world in 7 days 6000 years
ago; but if he did, he spent an awful lot of time and energy making it look as though it
was created several billion years earlier. As Philip Gosse (a good biblical literalist)
concluded, he must have given Adam a navel. The theology of his doing so badly needs some
attention. To me, it is hard to reconcile with the view of God I get through Jesus; and
since to me HE is God's Word, if his message falls into conflict with a literal reading of
the old testament, then it is to him that I will cling.
See you all again!
Stephen in the UK.
I believe that verse 18 indicates that God's grace IS universally available to all. In
that respect, I AM a universalist. But v. 19 says that ". . . by the one man's
obedience the MANY will be made righteous." (emphasis mine) God's grace is available
to all. God is most certainly a universalist! Unfortunatley, not all of our fellow humans
are. That is why we preach! That is why our churches are commissioned by Jesus Christ to
". . . make disciples." Good Lent, everyone! Ken in WV
