It Must Not Be Math

One of the passages used most for justifying the doctrine of Original Sin is Romans 5:12-21:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-- for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:12-21)

A key part of this passage that is called out in, for example, Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology is verses 18-19:

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:18-19)

Concerning these verses, Grudem states (Systematic Theology, pgs. 494-495):

Here Paul says explicitly that through the trespass of one man "many were made [Gk. katestathesan, also an aorist indicative indicating completed past action] sinners." When Adam sinned, God thought of all who would descend from Adam as sinners. Though we did not yet exist, God, looking into the future and knowing that we would exist, began thinking of us as those who were guilty like Adam. This is also consistent with Paul's statement that "while we were yet sinners Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8). Of course, some of us did not even exist when Christ died. But God nevertheless regarded us as sinners in need of salvation. The conclusion to be drawn from these verses is that all members of the human race were represented by Adam in the time of testing in the Garden of Eden. As our representative, Adam sinned, and God counted us guilty as well as Adam.

Grudem calls this "inherited guilt" rather than using the terminology for Original Sin, but he means the same thing (Systematic Theology, pg. 494, note 8). You can see from the quote above that this comes directly from the very clear statements in Romans 5:18, "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men..." and 19, "For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners..." Too often we can be lulled into the sense that such statements are like math equations, where x+1=5 then x always equals 4. Sucking the verses out of context is not possible if they are like equations because the equation x+1=5 cannot be taken out of context, it stands alone. Likewise it appears that if we read "one trespass led to condemnation for all men" and "by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners" then we have equations that always lead to the doctrine of Original Sin (where at the very moment we are conceived the guilt from the Sin of Adam is attached to us). The problem comes in when we take into consideration the remainder of the verses. If "one trespass led to condemnation for all men" means that the trespass of Adam is automatically conferred upon each and every one of us then the rest of that verse, which reads, "so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men" means that everyone is saved. Do you see how this works if we read these like equations, that is, as though we are reading a math book? The original equation is "one trespass equals condemnation for all men" but the follow up equation is "one act of righteousness equals justification and life for all men." They negate each other! The same is true for Romans 5:19, which if we read it like a math book states, "one man's [Adam's] disobedience equals many sinners." The second half of the verse, in math book form is, "one man's [Christ's] obedience equals many righteous." Do you see the problem here? If we proof-text Original Sin by making syllogisms out of sub-pieces of sentences in individual verses then Universalism (the idea that everyone is saved) immediately follows. You can't get Original sin out of Romans 5:18-19 without also getting Universalism and since Universalism violates so many parts of the Bible (large swaths of the Old Testament and most of the New Testament) Original Sin is not an acceptable exegesis of Romans 5:18-19.

When it comes to Romans 5, then, the interpretation must be other than Original Sin. That is, the point of the passage is not to prove Original Sin. I think the problem most people have is not understanding what Adam's sin led to. We can understand this if we go back to what God told Adam in the Garden of Eden:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17)

The "Surety of Death" was the punishment that came to Adam as a result of his sin. This Surety of Death is passed down through all generations and we inherit it even today, for we know that we will "surely die" unless Jesus comes before our death. Even if it were possible for us to live a perfect life then we would still "surely die" so we have inherited the punishment that Adam received for his sin. This is different from inheriting sin that we did not commit, which would violate passages like Ezekiel 18 (yeah, the whole chapter, which teaches quite clearly that we are responsible for our own actions). Humanity "surely dies" and so that punishment is still with us, even today, but we are responsible for our own actions and do not inherit some sin from our forefathers that we did not commit ourselves.

I AM

I find the choices that Bible translators make interesting sometimes. For example, in the well-known passage in John 8:58 where Jesus tells the Jews that he pre-existed Abraham almost all translations render the Greek there as "I AM" in a clear reference to Exodus 3:14

Then Moses said to God, "If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" (Exodus 3:13-14)

The Greek in John 8:58 is:

εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ᾿Ιησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.

Which says, "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.'" The part in question here is specifically the ἐγὼ εἰμί which is an emphasized "I am" since εἰμί by itself means "I am." The Jews clearly understood what he was saying because in John 8:59 we read:

So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (John 8:59)

They intended to stone him because they knew he was saying he was God.

John 8:58 is fairly straightforward, but what I find interesting are the other passages where Jesus uses ἐγὼ εἰμί and yet most translations don't use the "I AM." A good example (where I think the "I AM" would help) is John 18:4-6:

Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, "Whom do you seek?" They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said to them, "I am he." Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. When Jesus said to them, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground. (John 18:4-6)

It is not clear why those coming to arrest Jesus draw back and fall to the ground. But I think if you look at the Greek here and translate it differently, then the passage suddenly comes into a new light (I've bolded the use of ἐγὼ εἰμί in the passage):

᾿Ιησοῦς οὖν εἰδὼς πάντα τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν, ἐξελθὼν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· τίνα ζητεῖτε; ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ· ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον. λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς· ἐγώ εἰμι. εἱστήκει δὲ καὶ ᾿Ιούδας ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν μετ᾿ αὐτῶν. ὡς οὖν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὅτι εγώ εἰμι, ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω καὶ ἔπεσον χαμαί.

Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and saidto them, "Whom do you seek?" They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth."Jesus said to them, "I AM." Judas, who betrayed him, was standingwith them. When Jesus said to them, "I AM," they drew back and fellto the ground.

In this case it appears that they draw back and fall to the ground because of the pronouncement of I AM on the part of Christ. (Notice how John even calls attention to this by pointing out that, "When Jesus said to them 'I AM,' they drew back and fell to the ground.")

Another interesting place that Christ uses ἐγὼ εἰμί is in Matthew 14:27 when he is walking on water and the disciples are afraid of him. To comfort them he says, "Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid." At least, in the ESV that is what he says. The Greek here reads like so:

εὐθέως δὲ ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς λέγων· θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰμί· μὴ φοβεῖσθε.

Notice that Jesus says this, "Take heart; I AM. Do not be afraid." This certainly has a different ring to it. Here is the Son of Almighty God walking on water and to calm his disciples who fear what on earth could be walking across the storm-driven sea he tells them to take courage. Why? I AM. Why be afraid? He is the I AM.

A third interesting passage, if looked at in this way, is Mark 14:61-63:

But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." And the high priest tore his garments and said, "What further witnesses do we need? (Mark 14:61-63)

In the Greek, Jesus' answer looks like this:

ἐγώ εἰμι· καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.

So imagine the High Priest asking Jesus if he is the Christ, the Son of the Blessed and the first words out of Christ's mouth are ἐγώ εἰμί - I AM. No wonder he tears his garments. It isn't only Jesus' later statement but the fact that he starts with his claim of divinity - blasphemy to the High Priest who does not believe his claim.

There are a few other instances of this, but these were the most interesting in my opinion since they seemed to actually change the tenor of the passage.

There are passages in the Bible that make you realize some things:

1. The Jews did not make this up, and
   
2. We know very little about the spiritual world

One such passage is at the end of Joshua chapter 5.  The children of Israel have just crossed over the Jordan and they will soon be attacking Jericho.  The land is theirs for the taking and God has said that the inhabitants there will be driven out before them (Joshua 3:10).  And it says that, "When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand."  Joshua reacts as a leader of an army would when he is before a hostile city and sees somebody he does not recognize with a drawn weapon.  He asks, "Are you for us, or for our adversaries?"  Now here is where the story takes a very interesting turn.  In one word we realize that the Jews did not make this story up (because if they did, the next word would have been different) and in one word we find out that we know so very little of what is going on behind this world, at the spiritual level.  The "man's" answer to Joshua is:

"No."

So in answer to, "Are you for us, or for our adversaries?"  He answers, "No."  His whole answer is that of immense power, of an entity who realizes he is representative of more power than the man talking to him can even imagine.  He says, "No; but I am the commander of the army of the LORD. Now I have come."  He merely announces his presence.  This is reminiscent of the answer that Gabriel gives to Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, when his word is questioned.  He says, "I am Gabriel.  I stand in the presence of God."  But the interesting thing to me about the answer given to Joshua is that if you were making stories up about your God, who favors you as a people and who is going to purge your enemies from before you then why would you have the Commander of the Army of the LORD answer the question of whether or not he is for you or against you with a "No"?  Does that make sense?  It certainly does not.  This, to me, is a great proof of the Bible.  It is one of those times when we get a glimpse into the spiritual realm and it makes little sense to us.  There are other verses in the Bible that give similar glimpses (Daniel chapter 10 has a few of them, for example) and it is clear from these that we know very little (and the Bible reveals very little) of what is really going on outside of this temporary existence.

Baby Jesus

It seems there is a possibility that I'll be preaching the Christmas Eve sermon at the church we attend.  It is, of course, a very grand Church of Christ tradition to preach about something completely unrelated to Christmas, or better yet, to preach against Christmas celebration, but I've heard some interesting things on the Incarnation lately that made me think a lot so I'm actually considering a real, no-kidding, Christmas-birth-of-baby-Jesus sermon.

The first thing I heard recently that got me into this line of thinking was listening to David Bercot's lessons on what the early Christians thought of the Atonement.  He doesn't just approach this from a single angle and one of the angles that he does approach it from is that the Incarnation was more important to the early Christians than it is to a lot of Protestant churches today.  This, of course, is a reaction to the perception on the part of Protestants that Catholics over-emphasize the Incarnation, but Bercot's point is that this is no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water (sorry, couldn't resist).  Anyway, he had an amazing point based on 1 Corinthians 15:19-22 and 41-49:

If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
(1Corinthians 15:19-22)

There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
(1Corinthians 15:41-49)

His point is that the Incarnation is the birth of a second being to descend from.  Before Christ we only had the option of descending from Adam (obviously) and this was insufficient since Adam's sin had corrupted the world and brought death.  The second Adam (in accordance with 1 Corinthians 15:41-49) brought to us the ability to descend from spiritual perfection, which explains what Jesus was talking about in John 1:12-13 and 3:5-8:

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
(John 1:12-13)

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."
(John 3:5-8)

So to enter the kingdom of God you must be descended from Christ, a man who was both man and God, thus making it possible for us to descend from God (to become "children of God" - John 1:12) so that we could say to the Father, "Abba, Father" in accordance with Galatians 4:4-6:

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"
(Galatians 4:4-6)

It is not a trivial thing to be descended from the Father.  In our era we underestimate what that means.  In Christ's era such a concept was blasphemous:

But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working." This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
(John 5:17-18)

But Christ's coming was to give us a new genealogy, a new line to trace ourselves through so that we could escape the effects of sin on this world, so that we could claim as our Father the Father of our Savior, and the Father of our Savior could claim us as sons.  The vision of the judgment that I had previously was, I'll admit, wrong.  I had in my mind (and I have heard this preached) that on the day of judgment when Satan is accusing us God will look at us and only see Jesus.  This paints God as a being who can be deceived, as though he sent Christ so that he could create an optical illusion for himself.  The truth of the matter is that when he looks at us he will see us as his sons.  We will belong to him, as we were meant to from the beginning.