Romans 5:12-19; Paul's Problems Second Essay

Paul is interested in consigning us all to death in order that the life brought by Christ might be available to all. Unless he can do that, we might make the case that we are "Abraham-like" and can be justified by faith, like Abraham, without knowledge of or commitment to Christ. In 5:12-19 he tries to take the ground out of any kind of argument like that by emphasizing the reign of death in the world, even when there was no law. His argument flows as follows. First, there was Adam (Eve doesn't call for any mention...); Adam sinned; This sin "spread" like some kind of gooey miasma to all people. Paul isn't precisely clear on the mechanism of this: whether sin itself spread, causing all people to sin or people sinned, thus confirming the truth that sin had spread to all. Sin's result or wages is death. Even though sin isn't "marked" without law, death nevertheless spread and reigned in human experience. Thus, it was the transgression of the one man which led to death for us all.

After getting us where he wants us (dead), Paul then can bring in the clincher for his argument: Christ. Adam's sin leads to death; Christ's life leads to life. Adam's sin condemned us all to death; Christ's life brings us all to justification. The argument culminates in v. 18:

"Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all."

It is a perfectly balanced rhetorical syllogism, the kind that Paul loves to use. I have often remarked in my essays on Paul describes a problem and then extricates himself from it by brilliant rhetorical flourishes. One of my favorite passages where he does this is in II Cor. 4:

"We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies (4:8-10).

Contrast provides the grist for Paul's rhetorical mill. Romans 5 presents a skillful argument because Paul has laid out the contrast--between the first Adam and Christ. One brings death, the other brings life. One brings trespass, the other brings free gift. Condemnation is the result from Adam's sin; justification is the result from Christ's act. Many were made sinners through Adam's act; many are made righteous through Christ'a obedience. All of this is true if we feel inclined to be convinced by Paul's premises--that we are condemned to death through Adam's sin, a sin which we either inherit or practice. But even if we accept Paul's premise, we run into a slight problem, brought on by Paul's rhetorical brilliance.

IV. The New Problem Paul Creates

Our gifts often provide the key to our shortcomings. Literary or rhetorical gifts can often convince a person that problems really are solved only by words, and that skillful words are all you need in order to succeed in life. Or, alternatively, the one who can say anything with words might be oblivious to the way that words can actually get you into intellectual trouble. I think this is what happens with Paul in this passage. By consigning all to death, and then stating that Christ is the divine answer that brings life to all, he has, in fact, stated a universalistic Gospel. One can try to make the point that the Gospel can only be received by faith, thus making salvation not a "done deal" for all the world's people. Indeed, Paul makes that argument many other places in his letters, and the whole concept of justification by faith, which he argues for beginning in Rom. 3:21, suggests that faith does indeed trigger the new life in Christ.

But his argument in Romans 5:12-19 really works in the opposite direction. The power of his argument is the parallelism between Adam and Christ. He must, as it were, consign all to death in order that the sacrifice of Christ be seen as available for all. But the logic of his argument doesn't permit the additional point--'the benefits of Christ are only triggered through faith.' Indeed, if faith was an unspoken "qualifier" in his argument, then we could throw in some unspoken qualifiers in the first part of his argument. Maybe Adam's death really only reached to Jews or to people who had heard of the Jewish people, or something like that. If faith can be injected into the argument in Rom. 5:12-19, so other things can be injected, too.

In short, my contention is that Paul has proved "too much" by his Adam/Christ comparison in this passage. He is inclined to use language such as "all/every" because that is one of the ways he extricates himself from theological problems in his writings. He loves the contrasts, the polar opposites. It is the reason why his lines are so memorable. But, in this instance, his words get the better of him. If we grant the point that all people are condemned by Adam's sin, without more, we must also accept the point that all people are redeemed by Christ's sacrifice without more. The word of proclamation of the Gospel, then, is only to let people know that they are already saved.

Conclusion

I was talking not long ago to a former colleague at the university about Michel Foucault, the 20th century French philosopher. My colleague contended (and I didn't disagree) that Foucault was the most significant philosopher of the century. Then, he added briefly, "And he got almost all of his ideas slightly wrong." I had just written a few essays on Foucault's concept of parrhesia or freedom in antiquity, and I felt that he had gotten the idea slightly wrong--because he hadn't taken into consideration the way that Luke uses the word in Luke-Acts.

I feel a little bit the same when I think of St. Paul. He was, no doubt, the most brilliant Christian writer of the 1st (or maybe any) century, but he almost always got things slightly skewed. Thus, the "bottom line" in my reading of Paul is to realize that his brilliance consists of his taking on the important problems, in his scintillating intellect and mastery of language, in his attempt to press the conflicting realities of life into a consistent system of thought. But neither Paul, nor we, can completely do so. Limbs hang out of the sides of the bed, and to attempt to slice them off so that everything fits nicely would make us a like a modern Procrustes. It just doesn't work--that is, if you want your guests to be alive in the morning.

Can we use Paul's argument today? Maybe not, at least in its present form. The search for an appropriate Christology thus goes on, though Paul is without doubt the place where we must begin...

3269