22-The Offenses of Adam and the Righteousness of Christ

The Offenses of Adam and the Righteousness of Christ And now comes a wonderful passage, very full indeed of difficulty, linguistic and other, but also richly full of suggestive thought. It is true that, for the writer, Adam was a veritable person; whereas, for many moderns, he is not. We al know, know only too well, our dismal liability to fall into acts that shame us. Some modern thinkers tell us, that these tendencies do not matter; that they are mere survivals; that by slow yet sure degrees they will be eliminated, and so the race will attain to a state of moral perfection. But Christians, for ‘reasons and reasons,’ are unprepared to accept this latterday message of comfort. Instead they are very sure that things are somehow wrong, and that it is not to racial evolution we must direct our gaze to save us, but to moral regeneration, acting upon the individual. Therefore, even if we do not accept an historic ‘Adam,’ yet we know what the name ‘Adam’ means for us. His story typifies the mystery of sin-of wedded sin and death. It will be said, if we give up ‘Adam,’ as an historical personage, we make the section meaningless. But that we cannot help. Anyhow we can study it as it came from the Apostle. The attempt to master his meaning is prodigiously worth the effort.

Let us paraphrase some verses and pass to their interpretation.

5:12-14. “And so, as through one Man Sin entered into the world, and Death through Sin-and so death made its way to all mankind, because that all have sinned … sin, mark you, was in the world before Law came, though sin is not laid to men’s charge where Law exists not; notwithstanding Death did reign from Adam until Moses even over those that had not sinned precisely as Adam did-Adam, who is the type of Him that was to come.” The connexion of the διὰ τοῦτο is of the very vaguest. I have therefore employed the formula which seemed to me to reproduce such vagueness most naturally. Ἀνθρώπου, I should say, might be spelt with a capital: to one versed in Hebrew speech it recalled the idea of Adam, as ‘man’ cannot do for us. Sin and Death (as S. observes) are both personified. We are moving in the realms of ‘myth’-the acknowledged vehicle of religious truth, as the Greek sage taught long since. ‘Death’ is to be taken as physical death. For that is linked with sin, in some mysterious way, in the teachings of O.T.; and so St Paul conceives of it. The διά (in διῆλθεν) means ‘all about,’ ‘in every direction.’ The ‘sin’ spoken of in ἥμαρτον may be mystical, or literal. It may be part and lot in Adam’s transgression or it may be individual erring; in the latter case, not uninfluenced by hereditary taint; for Adam’s sin is plainly regarded as worldwide in its effect. This latter explanation is the likelier. There is an undeveloped antithesis latent in the first two lines. We can follow its general trend without any difficulty: ‘as one man’s sin brought death, so one man’s holiness brought life for all.’ it disappears because the writer suddenly realises the importance for his argument of the worldwide phenomenon of death. Death and sin go together: the fact that all men die, is a proof that all men sin-though truly responsibility is not perfectly developed until the coming of Law. Ἐλλογᾶσθαι must be distinguished from the more general λογίζεσθαι. It is a definite bookkeeping metaphor. Therefore ‘imputed’ is perfectly fair (if one knows what ‘imputed’ means). St Paul in ‘Philemon’ says τοῦτο ἐμοὶ ἐλλόγα “please put that down to me.” Ἄχρι νόμου is an odd expression; but it can only have the meaning I have assigned to it. The sin of Adam, ex hypothesi, was not a sin of innocence; it was a sin of knowledge, an act of flat disobedience. That is what is meant by speaking of folks “who had not sinned exactly as he did.” The last clause of v. 14 is, as we should say, ‘dragged in.’ It is owing to the Pauline habit of constantly letting the thought outrun the pen. For the idea is not wanted here.

5:15. “But not comparable to the transgression is the gracious gift of God. For if by the sin of the one the many died, much more has the grace of God and the free gift, that came by grace-the grace of the one man Jesus Christ-abounded unto the many.”

We shall see directly what is meant by the opening statement in this great verse. The Apostolic writer is grappling with a question which many a man must have asked (at least one would so suppose) in Rabbinical schools. That is, how does it comport with the infinite justice of God, that one man’s error should have effects so wide in extent, as to involve the whole race in death? It is indeed a natural question. St Paul answers it by bidding us note that the righteousness of Christ (I am not speaking in accurate terms) was infinitely more far reaching for good than Adam’s transgression was for evil. That every man’s death is due to the influence of the latter, in ways we cannot apprehend, was plainly part of his creed. In this he was a man of his age. The belief, no doubt, troubled him (or, at least, had troubled him, in his pre-Christian days) as it troubled others, his countrymen. But now he sees light on the difficulty and hastens to set it before us. “The many” (that is, the world at large) do die, because they have sinned. One sin will involve them in death, any sin at all; for death is the inevitable concomitant of sin. But, contemplate on the other hand Christ and what He has achieved. God’s ‘grace’-His free undeserved love-is pitted against ‘Adam’s’ sinfulness. This goodness, this royal bounty (δωρεά is more than mere ‘gift’), operating in the sacred person of the one man Jesus Christ (for the ‘grace’ in a sense is His, as well as the Father’s), has likewise affected ‘the many,’ but in a vastly higher degree-as we shall proceed to understand. The next phrase needs much of expansion; I will venture to supply it. The lines on which expansion must proceed are laid down in the latter half of the verse.

5:16. “Moreover the transgression was with one man sinning once. Not so was the glorious gift. For judgment proceeded from one sin, and ended in condemnation; but the free gift came after many sins, and ended in full acquittal.”

Here, as δικαίωμα balances κατάκριμα, it should bear a ‘forensic’ sense. The full text I postulate, would run as follows,

καὶ οὐχ ὡς διʼ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος ἦν τὸ παράπτωμα, οὕτω διʼ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος ἦν τὸ δώρημα.

Also, I assume that διʼ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος is a ‘circumstantial’ expression. Διά must not be rendered ‘by’ or ‘through,’ but merely ‘with.’ One sin once sinned brought judgment upon all-and judgment of the most serious; nothing short of κατάκριμα. When the reign of Grace arrived, sins were infinitely multiplied, yet Grace notwithstanding availed for worldwide ‘acquittal.’ With ἐξ ἑνός we must of course supply παραπτώματος, from the following παραπτωμάτων. With regard to the term itself, Thayer very justly remarks, that it differs from ἁμάρτημα ‘not in force, but only in metaphor.’

5:17. “For, if through the sin of the one Death reigned, by means of the one, much more they who receive the abundance of the grace-that is, the gift off ‘righteousness’-shall reign in life through the one, through Jesus Christ.”

This, I think, will speak for itself. It is surely amply plain. The καί before τῆς δωρεᾶς is a καί of identity. The ‘royal gift of righteousness,’ in the technical, theological sense, constitutes the χάρις. There is but one thing more to remark before passing from the verse. It is this. Death has reigned in ‘the many’; we should anticipate that St Paul would declare, by way of antithesis, that Life will reign in those who are described as οἱ λαμβάνοντες-a term, be it remarked, susceptible of two meanings: it may be either, “those who take,” or, “those who are given”: for everyone is aware that λαμβάνειν and διδόναι are regular correlatives. But he does not. It is his way to vary his antitheses, and here there is special reason. The idea of the believer ‘reigning’ with Christ was a favourite one with St Paul. To reign ἐν ζωῇ, again, might signify more things than one. I incline to the belief it means in this place, ‘reign and live.’ The διὰ τοῦ ἑνός appears in either clause. There is no ‘man’ in either member; in the second in this verse it would not have been desirable, in connexion with the Glorified Jesus.

We may now push on to the end of this deeply interesting chapter.

5:18. “So then, as with a single act of sin all mankind were affected, to the extent of condemnation; so also with one righteous deed a life-giving acquittal extended to all the race.”

Here, once again, I would take the διά as ‘circumstantial,’ though I conceive it is less necessary so to do than in v. 16 above. Ἑνός is probably neuter. One cannot imagine διὰ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος meaning “thanks to a sin of one.” The elliptical form of the sentence is highly singular. But the gaps are easily filled. Only I doubt if it be wise to fill them with terms as definite as ‘judgment’ and ‘free gift’ (with our English versions). However Luther does the same. The imperturbable Vulgate passes grandly on its way with a literalness that makes the Pauline sentence more bald than ever. What is anyone to make of such a verse as this;

Igitur sicut per unius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem; sic et per unius justitiam in omnes homines in justificationem vitae? Could one wish for a more convincing proof of the sacredness that attached to the letter of the New Testament from very early days? The sense in which δικαίωμα is used in the verse is unexampled. Yet our Revisers adopted it, and I think with justification. The truth is, we must have a concrete term to balance παραπτώματος. What the δικαίωμα may be is another question. The next verse leads us to see in it that ‘obedience’ of the Only-begotten, which stands out in absolute contrast to the disobedience of ‘the man.’ One thinks of the famous quotation in ‘Hebrews’ from Psalm 40, “Then said I, Lo I am come … for to achieve, O God, Thy will.” But that is not a Pauline quotation. Some justification perhaps for this bold use of δικαίωμα may be found in the well-known term employed by the Stoical School to describe a perfect act. That term is κατόρθωμα. We need not ‘righteousness,’ but a ‘piece of righteousness’; seeing that in the former member we have not ‘sinfulness’ but a single ‘sin.’ Besides, in ‘Revelation,’ which I had for the moment wholly forgotten, the word is found in the plural for the “righteous acts” of the saints (Revelation 19:8). Aristotle apparently draws a distinction between δικαίωμα and the word δικαιοπράγημα. But I doubt if that throws any light on the passage before us. Δικαίωμα, he says, is ἐπανόρθωμα ἀδικήματος. This definition, one suspects, is due to the sage’s belief as to the meaning of δικαιοῦν. He takes it as meaning a ‘setting right.’ The astonishing freedom wherewith the Apostolic writer handles vocabulary is shown by his employing δικαίωσις here, whereas in v. 16 above he said δικαίωμα. Moreover the employment, in the course of a single verse, of δικαίωμα and δικαίωσις in wholly different senses is ἀνδρείας οὐ τῆς τυχούσης.

Perhaps one ought to say that the Vulgate version is evidence for an early belief amongst Christians that the ἑνός in either case in this verse is masculine. Here is precisely one of those points which latterday translators will have to consider. The tradition of early versions is a thing which has to be weighed. Per unum delictum (plainly) is what we should have anticipated, seeing the general tendency exhibited in the Latin.

5:19. “For as through the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted sinners; so also by the obedience of the one the many shall be constituted ‘righteous’.” In classical Greek παρακοή means ‘mishearing.’ Here and in Hebrews 2:2 (where it is coupled with παράβασις) and 2 Corinthians 10:6 it is used for ‘disobedience.’ The verb in the Greek O.T. means to ‘disregard,’ as in Isaiah 65:12. It belongs to the later books only. Hebrews 5:8 gives us an instance of ὑπακοή applied to Christ. In ‘Philippians’ St Paul himself subsequently spoke of Him as “obedient unto death.” The use of καθίστασθαι in the section is well illustrated from St James’ Epistle. James 4:4 is an excellent instance. Δίκαιος, it will be noticed, means here the opposite of ‘sinner’-a person who is not a sinner, nothing more. It is not ‘righteous’ positively, but only negatively, i.e. destitute of guilt. That is why I place the word in inverted commas.

5:20, 21. “Law entered in by the way, that the transgression might multiply. But where sin multiplied, Grace altogether surpassed (it). That, as sin had reigned and men died, so Grace might reign by ‘righteousness,’ and the end be life eternal, through Jesus Christ Our Lord.”

St Paul’s position with regard to Law we partly know already. Law is in no sense σωτήριος. It came in at a late date in the economy of God. Its purpose and aim we trace as the definition of sin. Here the παρεισῆλθεν emphasises its ‘episodic’ character. The verb is not so invidious as it is in Galatians 2:4. Τὸ παράπτωμα must, I think-that is, if any regard is to be paid to its form at all-be taken in a concrete sense, as pointing to the primal sin, the sin of Adam. We are not grammatically permitted to view it otherwise. In the very next clause we pass from the concrete to the abstract. Ἁμαρτία is ‘Sin,’ with a capital ‘S.’ Ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν here must mean “abounded more.” In v. 14 above, it was ‘Death’ that reigned. In this verse it is ‘Sin’; but the two are so close a pair, that the one’s reign is the other’s. “In death” should not be taken by any mean as ‘local.’ It might, perhaps, express union; but it probably is just ‘instrumental.’ Δικαιοσύνη (in v. 21) is the antithesis of ἀμαρτία. That means ‘sinfulness,’ δικαιοσύνη means simply the opposite state-the state of folks not ‘sinners.’

“So Grace might reign through righteousness, and the issue be life eternal” is not an easy clause. The status expressed by δικαιοσύνη corresponds in the spiritual sphere to death in the physical. Yet not altogether. For, in the Pauline thought, there are, so to speak, two ‘lives,’ corresponding to two ‘redemptions.’ The first redemption brings ‘life,’ as opposed to the ‘deadness’ of sin. So a man becomes καινή κτίσις. But it is the second ‘redemption’ (the ἀπολύτρωσις yet to be) which leads on to “life eternal.” In the comparison here there are two terms in the one member and three in the other.

There is ‘Sin’ and its issue ‘death’; set against these there is ‘Grace,’ which operates through ‘righteousness’ (the abolition of sin) and so finally leads on to ζωὴ αἰώνιος. But how are we to marshal this two, and this three? If Χάρις, Δικαιοσύνη, Ζωή are A², B², C², is Ἁμαρτία to be A¹ and Θάνατος B¹, or should they be B¹ and C¹? That is to say, is θάνατος opposed to ζωὴ αἰώνιος? or is it to be taken as expressive of that condition of moral death, in which all ‘sinners’ lie? Take it as you will, it is certain that θάνατος is not here so decisively physical, as it was in v. 14. From that we cannot get away.

There are yet two more things to say. The one is that he must be indeed a stickler for grammar on the lines of classical Greek, who sees in these two ἳνα’s a ‘final’ force. St Paul cannot have meant that Law came with the purpose of multiplying transgression. He is stating not an intention, but a result. A result inevitable, if you will-as inevitable indeed as the result of the Incarnation in dividing the sons of men-but still only a bye product. Law came to make clear to men what was right and what was wrong. By the way-only by the way-it tended to heighten guilt, and so intensify ‘sin’ (not but that the sense of πλεονάσῃ is actually literal). The second of the ἳνα’s is even further removed from the region of the purely telic. It introduces a remoter consequence. We are not required, I think, to imagine the Deity as having this double purpose in His thought when the Law was given to man. We are only to regard it as an edifying exposition of the results directly flowing from the function Law discharged. Guilt was multiplied on the one hand; and on the other hand the rich harvest of God’s Grace was enhanced beyond all measure. Man’s necessity (as the old proverb has it) is God’s opportunity. Homely though the proverb is, there lies in it real truth. And again we must note in passing the doxological force of the mention of Jesus Christ in the closing words of the chapter. St Paul himself was not one to forget, or let others forget, the personal obligation. I remember an old saint said (a Bishop of our Church, not long since gone to his rest) that he could not away with a sermon, in which there was no mention of the holy Name of Jesus. So was it with the great Apostle. The Lord Christ was first in his thoughts, and also first on his lips. Symmetry or no symmetry-and the pupil of Gamaliel never troubled himself to excess about literary artifice-he could not end this section without one grateful word to His honour, who has done it all. Διά-yes, διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ it comes. That is the Pauline ‘Gospel,’ the only Gospel that counts.

Already we have had at the end of v. 11 a similar recognition welling up spontaneously from an ever-grateful heart.