Intellectual Integrity and Faith? 7 – Romans 5 (RJS)

Last updated on: November 27, 2010 at 7:18 pm by RJS

Intellectual Integrity and Faith? 7 – Romans 5 (RJS) 2010-11-27T19:18:19-06:00 RJS

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

100_0098 ds.JPG

Romans 5:12-21 proves to be one of the key texts in any discussion of science and faith these days, and the problem hits full force with v. 12:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned– (Ro 5:12 NASB)

The issue of course is death – what is this death spread to all men through the sin of Genesis 3?

Our scientific understanding of the world leads us to conclude that the earth is old – some 4.6 billion years and the universe older still (ca. 14 billion years). We are impressed with dinosaurs that lived and died long before mankind appeared on the scene. There is an massive array of evidence for an evolutionary mechanism for creation that relies on time and the cycle of life. How does this reconcile with Romans 5? For the next several posts we will look at NT Wright’s commentary on Romans, specifically Romans 5:12-21 in The New Interpreter’s Bible : Acts – First Corinthians (Volume 10)

For the wages of sin is death – but what is the nature of this death?

The nature of death referred to in Romans 5 is a key issue. The sin of Adam (whether Gen 3 is literal-historical or mytho-historical) resulted in death for all. But this need not encompass all biological death – and did not entail a timeless primeval paradise.

One of the interesting insights from John Calvin’s commentary on Genesis 3 is that he apparently did not think that the man and woman were intended for eternal earthly existence.

For dust thou art. Since what God here declares belongs to man’s nature, not to his crime or fault, it might seem that death was not superadded as adventitious to him. And therefore some understand what was before said, ‘Thou shalt die,’ in a spiritual sense; thinking that, even if Adam had not sinned, his body must still have been separated from his soul. But, since the declaration of Paul is clear, that ‘all die in Adam as they shall rise again in Christ,’ (1 Corinthians 15:22,) this wound also was inflicted by sin. Nor truly is the solution of the question difficult, — ‘Why God should pronounce, that he who was taken from the dust should return to it.’ For as soon as he had been raised to a dignity so great, that the glory of the Divine Image shone in him, the terrestrial origin of his body was almost obliterated. Now, however, after he had been despoiled of his divine and heavenly excellence, what remains but that by his very departure out of life, he should recognize himself to be earth? Hence it is that we dread death, because dissolution, which is contrary to nature, cannot naturally be desired. Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change. (Gen 3:19 from Commentary on Genesis – Vol. 1, emphasis mine)

In his commentary on Romans 5:12 NT Wright reflects on Adam and Eve and the original sin:

Our knowledge of early anthropology is of course sketchy, to put it mildly. Each time another very early skull is dug up the newspapers exclaim over the discovery of the first human beings; we have consigned Adam and Eve entirely to the world of mythology, but we are still looking for their replacements. What “sin” would have meant in the early dawn of the human race it is impossible to say; but the turning away from open and obedient relationship with the loving creator and turining instead toward that which, though beautiful and enticing, is not God, is such a many-sided phenomenon that it is not hard to envisage it at any stage of anthropoid development. (p. 526)

This view of the original sin is consistent with the essence of Calvin’s … something else was put in place of God. The Fall was real. Wright also reflects on the nature of death – the consequence of the sin:

One potentially helpful way of understanding the entry of death into the world through the first human sin is to see “death” here as more than simply the natural decay and corruption of all the created order. The good creation was nevertheless transient: evening and morning, the decay and new life of autumn and spring, pointed on to future, a purpose, which Genesis implies it was the job of the human race to bring about. All that lived in God’s original world would decay and perish, but “death” in that sense carried no sting. The primal pair were, however, threatened with a different sort of thing altogether: a “death” that would result from sin, and involve expulsion from the garden (Gen 2:17). This death is a darker force, opposed to creation itself, unmaking that which was good, always threatening to drag the world back toward chaos. Thus, when humans turned away in sin from the creator as the one whose image they were called to bear, what might have been a natural sleep acquired a sense of shame and threat. (p. 526, emphasis mine)

Both of these men advance a variation of a view here that is not commonly taught in our churches, at least not in my experience – but an interesting view to consider. The death of Genesis 3 and Romans 5 is not a limiting of earthly existence, but a change in the nature of the end and the entrance into eternity. And entry into eternity – following sin and the introduction of “death” – is through Jesus Christ, through his life, death, and resurrection. In neither view – Calvin’s or Wright’s – does it appear that the “death” following the primal sin entails the introduction of biological death into the animal world, this already was part of the picture.

If this seems strange, consider the words of Jesus in Mt 22. Adam and Eve were “given in marriage” and commanded to be
fruitful and multiply, yet we are told in Mt 22:30 (parallels in Lk 20,
Mk 12) “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in
marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” The resurrection, the age to come, does not seem to be a reproduction of Eden – it is something else, the next step in God’s plan. The creeds, the scripture, affirm a bodily resurrection – to what would have been.

Does this make sense? What is the nature of the death of Genesis 3 and Romans 5?

Bible

Science and Faith

Previous Post

February 19, 2009

iGens 6

Next Post

February 19, 2009 A Brother's Wisdom 4

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What language was the New Testament originally written in?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Hebrew Aramaic Greek Latin