Submitted by john doyle on Mon, 03/03/2008 - 18:02.
In my last comment I addressed the difficulty of reconciling the differences between "the many" and "all men" in this discourse by Paul. Paul seems to be saying that "all men" were doomed to mortality as a result of Adam’s sin, regardless of whether they had entered into a relationship with God, regardless of whether they had transgressed against commands that God had explicitly imposed on them. As I pointed out on a different thread, to my knowledge this is the only passage in the entire Bible that even gestures toward a doctrine of original sin. Consequently we needn’t reconcile what Paul says here with other scriptural elaborations on the consequence of Adam’s sin for his descendants, inasmuch as no such elaborations exist until we get to the Church Fathers and especially to Augustine.
In Philippians 3:6 Paul asserts that, according to the righteousness of the Law, he was found blameless. Paul wasn’t the only one: Matthew 1:19 says that Joseph the husband of Mary and "father" of Jesus was a righteous man; Luke 1:6 says that Zacharias and Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist, were "both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord." So apparently it could be done: to be under the Mosaic Law and yet to be numbered among "those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam’s offense" (Romans 5:14). Still, the judgment of God on Israel extended even to these blameless ones, because the Law’s curse was a communal one, levied not just against individual transgressors but against "the many" who collectively participated in the legal relationship with God.
Suppose, as Andrew consistently argues, Paul wrote Romans in general and chapter 5 in particular for the instruction of the Jewish believers. Suppose Paul sees the parallels between Adam and Jesus as applying exclusively among "the many" who have entered into relationship with God, referring not at all to Gentiles who had historically been excluded from such a relationship. In that case, "the many" and "all men" point to the same referent; namely, all those who collectively through history have been positioned inside God’s covenantal arrangements.
Now of course everyone is mortal, regardless of whether they are part of "the many" or not. But if Paul is speaking only of "the many" here, then why does he speak of them inheriting death from Adam, a fate that befalls everyone, not just those inside the communal covenant? Maybe Paul isn’t really talking about physical death here; maybe, as has been proposed by many other Biblical interpreters, he’s talking about spiritual death.
In Romans 5 Paul associates a whole complex of troubles with Adam: disobedience, sin, transgression, condemnation, death. In contrast, Paul associates with Jesus a parallel complex of blessings: free gift, grace, justification, obedience, righteousness, life. It seems the exegete has two clear choices when interpreting the extended parallelism of this chapter: (1) Just as all men became mortal through Adam, even if as individuals they weren’t in a relationship with God, so too life will be granted to everyone through Christ. (2) Just as the many who had entered in covenantal relationship with God received condemnation through Adam, even if as individuals they were found blameless before God, so too they shall receive justification through Christ. Given the overall thrust of Romans, I think option 2 is the best bet.
Who are "all men"?
In my last comment I addressed the difficulty of reconciling the differences between "the many" and "all men" in this discourse by Paul. Paul seems to be saying that "all men" were doomed to mortality as a result of Adam’s sin, regardless of whether they had entered into a relationship with God, regardless of whether they had transgressed against commands that God had explicitly imposed on them. As I pointed out on a different thread, to my knowledge this is the only passage in the entire Bible that even gestures toward a doctrine of original sin. Consequently we needn’t reconcile what Paul says here with other scriptural elaborations on the consequence of Adam’s sin for his descendants, inasmuch as no such elaborations exist until we get to the Church Fathers and especially to Augustine.
In Philippians 3:6 Paul asserts that, according to the righteousness of the Law, he was found blameless. Paul wasn’t the only one: Matthew 1:19 says that Joseph the husband of Mary and "father" of Jesus was a righteous man; Luke 1:6 says that Zacharias and Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist, were "both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord." So apparently it could be done: to be under the Mosaic Law and yet to be numbered among "those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam’s offense" (Romans 5:14). Still, the judgment of God on Israel extended even to these blameless ones, because the Law’s curse was a communal one, levied not just against individual transgressors but against "the many" who collectively participated in the legal relationship with God.
Suppose, as Andrew consistently argues, Paul wrote Romans in general and chapter 5 in particular for the instruction of the Jewish believers. Suppose Paul sees the parallels between Adam and Jesus as applying exclusively among "the many" who have entered into relationship with God, referring not at all to Gentiles who had historically been excluded from such a relationship. In that case, "the many" and "all men" point to the same referent; namely, all those who collectively through history have been positioned inside God’s covenantal arrangements.
Now of course everyone is mortal, regardless of whether they are part of "the many" or not. But if Paul is speaking only of "the many" here, then why does he speak of them inheriting death from Adam, a fate that befalls everyone, not just those inside the communal covenant? Maybe Paul isn’t really talking about physical death here; maybe, as has been proposed by many other Biblical interpreters, he’s talking about spiritual death.
In Romans 5 Paul associates a whole complex of troubles with Adam: disobedience, sin, transgression, condemnation, death. In contrast, Paul associates with Jesus a parallel complex of blessings: free gift, grace, justification, obedience, righteousness, life. It seems the exegete has two clear choices when interpreting the extended parallelism of this chapter: (1) Just as all men became mortal through Adam, even if as individuals they weren’t in a relationship with God, so too life will be granted to everyone through Christ. (2) Just as the many who had entered in covenantal relationship with God received condemnation through Adam, even if as individuals they were found blameless before God, so too they shall receive justification through Christ. Given the overall thrust of Romans, I think option 2 is the best bet.