This week's passage could be summarised an explanation of how the original sin of Adam lead to the sin and death of the world. The Mosaic Law amplified effect and severity of sin, but this only serves to demonstrate the overflowing grace of God through Christ that surpasses all condemnation.
There was a large focus on how Adam's sin resulted in the transgressions and deaths of many. In light on my recent readings into Islam, I had to raise the question : 'Why is it that the original sin is hereditary?' In the introduction to Islam that I read, it stated that Muslims do not believe that Adam's original sin condemns us collectively to divine estrangement. According to Islam as I understand it, each individual's own sin results in their separation from God, rather than it being inherited from Adam's initial transgression. So why then, does this sin of Adam's carry such enormous weight in Christianity and Judaism? The discussion may have answered some parts of this question.
Clearing something out of the way, why aren't we looking at Eve in all this? After all, she took the fruit first. A point was raised that Eve never heard the command not to eat of the tree directly from the LORD. When the command is given in Genesis 1:16 - 17, only Adam heard it; Eve was not yet created. Also, I have a little misgiving about how clear Adam was in telling Eve the sole command. When Eve quotes God in Genesis 3:3, she's already got it slightly wrong, with an embellished 'and you must not touch it, or you will surely die.' Talk about a game of Chinese whispers, the first two human beings can't even get it right between them. Or perhaps this is just a translation issue. Anyhow, the point is that Adam was the one who suffered the culpability since he had clear explicit knowledge that the fruit was forbidden.
Alright, back to the issue of hereditary sin. Does that make sense? Why wasn't the effect of the sin confined to Adam and Eve? Why did God not welcome the innocent infants of Cain and Abel back into the Garden of Eden to be tended by angels? They did not make the conscious decision to rebel against God as their parents had. Is it fair that they should suffer for their parent's transgressions? A good suggestion was made to consider the case of children who inherit the debt of their parents. The children were certainly not responsible for the financial troubles generated by their parents, but they are somehow held accountable for the debt even after their parents are long departed.
Let's take it as though Adam had a huge debt to repay, a debt that his children inherited and continue to be plagued by to this day. What exactly makes the penalty this enormous? The answer may lie in the relationship between knowledge, clarity and expectations that God has of us. Earlier in Romans, we discussed how the Mosaic Law held those who studied it to a higher standard, because they were aware of the specified requirements for sin and sacrifice. The Gentiles are given a little leniency in a sense, because the law was never revealed to them in precise detail. Well, as Jews are to the Gentiles, Adam is to the Jews and the rest of us. I doubt an instruction could be much clearer than : 'Do not eat the fruit of this tree.' Not to mention it was a single instruction. What's more, Adam had all the comforts of life; he had no work to do, perfect health, an abundance of nature and a loving wife. We could hardly blame Adam's error on a childhood trauma or a broken family. So it should follow quite logically that God had high expectations of Adam, possibly higher than what He expects of the Jews who know the Law.
Nonetheless, I would be wary about judging Adam to harshly. After all, there's no telling what any of us would have done in his position.
Another issue was how Paul resolves misgivings about the role of the Law. The Jews rested their assurance on the Law, they stood on a platform of pride supported by their rituals and appearances. In this passage, Paul reinterprets the role of the Law as a magnifier of sin and its effects. So far in Romans, Paul has been harsh on the Law, somehow that sounds oddly ironic now that I'm typing it out. He's told the Jews that their ritual is useless if it covers a faithless heart. He's tried to break that confidence in the Law by showing it does not bring life, but only judgement and condemnation. The Jews may have been left wondering what all the minutiae of the Law was for, given that they were no better off than the common Gentile in Paul's new worldview. At this juncture, by reinterpreting the role of the Law, Paul is able to reconcile the Law to righteousness by faith in full. The law was given that we might recognise the full severity of our sin, and after that, more importantly, the immensity of grace that Christ's sacrifice embodies.
No comments:
Post a Comment