For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:22 NASB
In – We’ve looked at the difference between reading this preposition (en) as the material cause or the efficient cause. I know, it’s complicated. Maybe you had to read it a few times to see the important difference. But now let’s look at something else.
The Greek construction is a bit odd. Paul uses en to before the name of each of these two persons. Literally the text says, “in the Adam” and “in the Christ.” Now we can understand this in the second case because “the Christ” is the Hebraic equivalent of “the Messiah.” But if Paul wanted to say “in Adam,” naming Adam as a unique person, he should not have used this expression. What he said makes sense for “the Messiah,” but does it make sense for “the Adam”?
We could argue that it is merely linguistic parallelism, keeping the Greek construction en to in both occurrences. But I find it curious. If “the Messiah” is a title (and also a particular person), wouldn’t we want to say the same things about Adam? And what does “the Adam” mean? Could it be that Paul wants us to look at the role that these two men play rather than the actual men themselves?
You can see that the translators ignore this funny problem in both phrases. Why? Could it be that the translators already presuppose that this verse is about the material causality of Adam’s sin? Could it be that if I introduced “the Adam” and “the Christ” into the translation, it would be harder to treat the verse as if it were about two people instead of about two consequences represented by these people?
Let’s back up a verse or two in order to get the context. The entire section of this letter treats the objection that there is no resurrection. Paul vehemently argues 1) that resurrection from the dead exists and Yeshua is proof of the claim; 2) that if there is no resurrection, the entire claim of Yeshua’s standing collapses and Paul and others are false witnesses; and 3) if Yeshua was not raised from the dead, then we and all those who have since died are fools or worse. Paul then asserts that Yeshua has been raised from the dead as the first fruits of all those who are to follow. This is an Hebraic concept implying that what has happened to Him empowers all who follow Him so that the same thing will apply to them. What matters in this discussion are two critical things: Yeshua did come back to life and His resurrection guarantees ours.
Now Paul talks about Adam and death. Why now? Because it is plainly obvious to all men that death reigns in this world. In light of his argument about the reality of resurrection, Paul needs to explain why death still prevails. And the answer is, “We are experiencing the same consequences that befell Adam which lead to his death.” Death continues in spite of the resurrection because of sin, and until the fulfillment of the Messiah’s full plan, death will continue to be a reality for humankind. But when the Messiah “delivers the Kingdom to YHWH,” the experience of death will end!
In other words, Paul’s concern in this entire section of the letter is not with sin. It is with death! The presence of death seems to contradict the claim of resurrected life. Paul explains this apparent contradiction by noting that men participate in the same experience as Adam because they act as Adam acted and that will continue until men are removed from the consequences of those actions by the sanctification process that accompanies the actions of the Messiah. It is not Adam the person that brings death, but Adam the exemplar of disobedience, just as it is the Messiah who is the exemplar of obedience that brings life. We can see this in Paul’s conclusion in verse 26, “The last enemy that will be abolished is death.”
All of this leads to puzzlement about the conclusions of David Stern. Stern suggests that Paul, as a Jewish rabbi, advocated the doctrine of original sin while Judaism rejected the doctrine “in its effort to avoid the conclusion that it is essential to trust in Yeshua’s atoning sacrificial death.”[1] But this is anachronistic theology. It assumes that Jewish thinking of the first century was so hostile to Yeshua as the Messiah that it refused to acknowledge a doctrine created 350 years later. Stern does not seem to remember here that most of the followers of the Messiah in the first century were Jews and that Messianic and non-Messianic Jews did not part company until sometime after the Bar Kochba revolt. Stern assumes that the rabbis were intentionally blind to this doctrinal truth because they rejected the Messiah. But if many practicing Jews followed the Messiah, and they did not develop a clearly articulated doctrine of sinful nature as a rabbinic confession, why should we believe that Yeshua had anything to do with such a doctrine? In Stern’s view, Jews developed the idea that man is capable of following the Torah through his efforts to domesticate the influence of the yetzer ha’ra. Stern argues that this is impossible without the assistance of God, and in particular, without specific trust in Yeshua. But what Jew would ever argue that God has nothing to do with this effort? Of course we must rely on God’s involvement in this process, but that does not mean that we must name the Messiah in order for God to provide such assistance. If that were so, then Abraham is lost – and ultimately so are we.
Topical Index: sin, death, Adam, Christ, 1 Corinthians 15:22, Romans 5:12
[1] David Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, p. 368.
IRENE – There were a lot of comments posted on the blog site about the announcement concerning Irene, so many that I find it necessary to add this: it is entirely true that we don’t know what God will do with this situation. It is true that Irene may go on to be a runner again- and a great one. It is also true that we as a community will continue to help her as we are able given what we are able to do. But it is also true that her choices have complicated everything, so much so that some doors are now closed. She is on a path whose usual end is the repetition of so many of those who live in the camps. We had hoped to get her off that path. It was never my goal, or the goal of the community, to count Irene as a “world track star.” All we really wanted was to give her a greater opportunity for a life without poverty and fear. That might still be possible, but not in the way we thought. The harsh reality is that life where she lives is very, very difficult, and it is now even more difficult. Pray for her.
Frankly, I am at a loss as to what to do for her now. We will assist her through this, but the path after that is completely dark. Maybe that’s the real obstacle. I have no clear idea how to help her beyond the daily needs and that doesn’t change her reality. If you have offers or suggestions that are realistic, please provide them.