Through One Man: Sin and Death

In today’s first reading our selection from The Letter to the Romans moves on from its prior focus on Abraham as a model of trust/belief/faith even when he has moments of doubts. Moving ahead to Chapter 5, St. Paul now takes on the matter of sin and death. Paul’s claim that “Through one man sin entered the world, and through sin, death” would have been nothing new to anyone familiar with Genesis chapters 2-3 and the Jewish understanding of those chapters. This “man” is, of course, Adam, whose very name means “man.”

Throughout Romans Chapter 5 and well into Chapter 8, Paul attributes to “sin” a very active role: 

it “reigns” (5:20; cf. 6:13, 14), can be “obeyed” (6:16–17), pays wages (6:23), seizes opportunity (7:8, 11), “deceives,” and “kills” (7:11, 13). In a word, he personifies sin, picturing it as a power that holds sway in the world outside Christ, bringing disaster and death on all humanity. Through this personification, Paul shows that individual acts of sin constitute a principle, or “network,” of sin that is so pervasive and dominant that the person’s destiny is determined by those actions. In the present instance, then, the “sin” that enters the world is more than an individual sin; it is the bridgehead that paves the way for “sinning” as a condition of humanity. The fact that Paul attributes to Adam this sin is significant since he certainly knows from Genesis that the woman, Eve, sinned first (cf. 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14). [Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 1996; p.319]

The verse above is incomplete. The entire verse reads: “and through sin, death, and thus death came to all men, inasmuch (houtōs) as all sinned.” The word houtōs is one of those words that depending on how it is translated has lots of different implications. Remember it is all tied to the expression “through one man.” That being said, the majority of commentators think that “houtōs” draws a comparison between the manner in which death came into the world—through sin—and the manner in which death spread to everyone—also through sin. The implications are death is universal because sin is universal: “all sinned.”

But it is not the only possible rendering. Perhaps the most famous alternative is the translation “in whom,” adopted by Augustine and others. For, assuming that “the one man” is the antecedent of the pronoun, we have then an explicit statement of “original sin”: “in Adam all sinned.” St. Paul’s single verse has resulted in centuries of debate and caused deep divisions among Christians over the “transmission of original sin.”

However, St. Paul’s main interest is not to talk about sin or death, but rather to draw a contrasting picture of Adam and Christ, prominent figures of the beginning and the end time respectively. Adam is a “prototype” of the person to come, namely, Jesus, who would far surpass what Adam did. The world was changed by both of these individuals.

Adam unleashed an active hostile force into the world (sin), which had the power to cause definitive alienation (death) from God, the source of all life, inasmuch as or because all individuals have sinned through personal, actual deeds (v. 12). Thus death has two causes in human existence: Adam’s sin and personal ratification of that deed by individuals who sin. This was Adam’s effect on the world. In contrast, Christ’s effect is starkly different. Through the gracious gift, namely, the redemptive death of Jesus Christ uprightness and life superabound for all individuals who accept him. [Collegeville Bible Commentary, 1989, p.1086]

Debates aside, it is good to remember sin and death are real, but more real are grace and eternal life found in Christ as Lord and Savior.


Image credit: Pexels + Canva, CC-BY-SA 3.0

What is Necessary?

Much of the Just War Theory conversations (apart from what I have called narrow consequentialism) centers on the deaths of civilian populations. Broadly reading the available literature there seems to be a rating of moral importance in which the moral weight is given to civilians over drafted military over volunteer military. In part, it is the theorist’s way to nuance out the factors involved in thinking through jus bello decisions. For example, if the only way to save 100,000 of our civilians’ lives from terrorist attacks is by bombing another country’s cities and intentionally killing 10,000 of its citizens – would it be an action jus bello? Or, what if some enemy civilians place themselves as voluntary shields around a military target, hoping to deter attacks on it. Have they become combatants? What if they are not voluntary but are being forced into that role as happened in the Battle of Manila? What if citizens, dressed as citizens, are part of a military charge against defended positions such as happened on Saipan? What if citizens have workshops, critical to war production, adjacent to their house as was common in Tokyo and other major industrial cities of Japan? What if only 20% of the homes in a neighborhood have such workshops but the majority of other residents work in the larger factory where home workshop items are assembled into war materials and weapons? 

And if the larger goal is to end the Asia Pacific war to stop the mass deaths of non-Japanese citizens in Japanese-occupied territories, is it proportional and necessary to not intend, but to know that it is inevitable that Japanese civilians will die because of allied military actions that are scaled up to a national level? What if the action is not direct attack by armed forces and weapons, but simply the blockade of the aggressor nation that will result in increasing civilian deaths by starvation until the nations, already militarily defeated, finally politically surrenders?

Continue reading

Japanese “Diplomacy”

When one talks about Japan’s efforts to end the war, there are those who claim there were numerous attempts, all of which were ignored by the Allies. There were indeed several and they were, for the most part, simply “noted.” The Allies then waited to see what might become of the Japanese inquiry.

What one must keep in mind is that diplomats, intermediaries, and private citizens can all be in conversation with important, well-placed individuals of other governments. Those individuals might informally pass along information, but there will be no substantive conversations that have a hope of going anywhere unless the government knows the inquiry was authorized by the Japanese government – not just the Foreign Minister, but the Supreme Council and Emperor – and there is some kind of “term sheet” outlining “this is what we want to talk about” and here is “the opening position.” Otherwise, it is just talk.

Continue reading

What is right

This coming Sunday the gospel is the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. We hear this parable differently than the first century listener.  We know how the parable ends and we also know how Luke has been describing the Pharisees, thus even at the words one was a Pharisee we know how this will end. Won’t it be that the Pharisee will represent the one who trusts himself and his own righteousness rather than God and the one who judges others and holds them in contempt? But let’s consider how the first century listener might have heard this narrative.

Continue reading