Contagion
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 – Romans 5:12 NASB
Death – Why do we die? Before you quickly respond, “Because we are sinners,” let’s examine the cultural thinking during the time when Paul wrote these words. Since Paul intends to speak to an audience that already had a particular view about death, we must understand what his audience thought before we can assert our own interpretation.
Paul’s letter to the Roman believers addresses both a Hebrew and a Greek audience. Mark Nanos has demonstrated that Paul is most likely specifically targeting the thinking of Gentile believers within the Hebrew Roman synagogue. If this is true, then we must first know what the Greeks thought about death before we can understand what Paul teaches. Discovering the Greek background is not difficult but it is complicated. For Homer and the ancient Mycenaeans, death is the inevitable natural process that marks a transition from life into some mystifying shadowy world. In spite of the Orphic and Pythagorean assertions that death is the release of the soul from the prison of the body, early Greek thinking saw death as the single most important question about the purpose of life and the greatest opportunity to demonstrate excellence in the face of irrationality. In other words, the kind of death I choose can leave a legacy of immortality in the remembrance of men. Death defines life. This ancient idea is present in the mythology of the gods and the stories of Greek heroes like Achilles and Hector. It isn’t until Plato that death itself is recast as an ethical dilemma. Plato’s adaptation of the Pythagorean dualism essentially claims that dying is the problem, not death. Death is a perfectly natural process, but dying becomes an ethical choice. Dying is the final test of my willingness to obey God, but since it only affects the body, even dying does not extinguish my true self, the psyche, the soul. Dying is liberation from this life into a higher, purer world. How I die becomes the crucial concern for I can die ignominiously or with glory. The choice is mine. The opportunity is not mine.
One of the consequences of the Greek view of life and death is this: no man can die for another. Dying is a uniquely individual event and the excellence associated with dying is also completely individual. The idea of a substitution in dying that provides credit or honor for another is completely foreign to Greek thinking.
A secondary consequence is that dying is not particularly significant other than its presentation of the opportunity to exhibit arête (excellence). Since dying is nothing more than escape from this mortal prison of the flesh, it is not to be feared. The only real issue is, once again, how I die, not why I die.
Paul’s Gentile audience would have been quite familiar with these thoughts about death and dying. Now notice how radically opposed Paul’s words are to these Greek ideas. First, death is not a natural process. It is a catastrophe. It is punishment for disobedience. Second, the source of this catastrophe is not of this world. Sin existed before Adam opened the door and let it in. How or why it existed before its involvement with human beings is not Paul’s focus, but that it is in some respect an alien force imposing itself on the human condition seems to be Paul’s teaching. Rabbinic teaching provides two opposing views; that death is the result of the Fall of Man and that death is the result of the individual sins of each man. Perhaps most importantly, the theological doctrine of the Fall plays almost no role in rabbinic thinking. The disaster of Adam’s choice certainly is recognized for its subsequent grievous results, but the Fall as a theological explanation for the origin of evil and the propagation of sin and death does not find expression until Augustine, more than 200 years after Paul.
Notice that Paul associates death directly with sin. What would this mean to a Gentile audience? First, it means that glory is not to be found in dying. One does not achieve immortality by giving his life in the service of Sparta or any other cause. Dying is tragic, not heroic (we might reflect on this for our contemporary views of heroism). Unlike the Greek idea, how I die does not provide redemptive qualities for life. Death is always terrible, even peaceful and expected death.
Secondly, Paul clearly sets the stage for substitutionary death, an idea that is totally foreign to the Greek mind. How is it possible for one man to actually take the place of another in dying, let alone for one man to take the place of all men? Unless we realize that this question begs a Greek answer, we will never recognize that the question itself is illegitimate in Hebrew. It is not one man who dies for another. It is God who sacrifices Himself for Mankind. How that is possible is not at issue here. That it happened is a statement of trust – and paradox.
Finally, Paul asserts that death spread to all men. But does he mean that as all men sinned they experienced the consequence of separation from God and the result of death, or does he mean that all men die because Adam opened the door to an alien force? Does death spread because sin spreads, like any other infectious disease? Or does the final outcome (death) hold sway over all men as a result of Adam’s choice? How you answer these questions has enormous implications for your idea of justice, culpability and choice. Do you find it rather curious that Paul doesn’t answer these questions at all? Perhaps Paul assumes that his readers will already know where he is going. Perhaps Paul isn’t Augustine after all. Perhaps the doctrinal implications of the Fall which we take almost for granted were not a part of Paul’s Hebraic thinking.
Topical Index: death, dying, thanatos, Fall, sin, Romans 5:12
What do the scriptures say? What is the Biblical view (God’s view) of death? and what is life according to the scriptures? Where is life to be found? When the Bible says, “all have sinned” does this include the Jew and the Greek? Does “all have sinned” include Moses, David, and Isaiah? Is there none righteous, no, not one? (Romans 3.10) Or is there one Righteous ONE? (1 John 2.1) Are even the ones with the correct “worldview,” (the Rabbi’s) included here? Is there now, today, at this very moment- a solution for the sin problem? And if so, what is it?- Again, -what do the scriptures say?
“Sin existed before Adam opened the door and let it in.”
… and so before, during, and after the exodus from Egypt people died. But Moses tells the Hebrew to put Lambs blood on the door. The way the Hebrews were instructed to paint the door frame in Exd 12:22-23 -looks like the Hebrew letter “Chet”. ח
The pictographic meaning of that letter is: Tent wall/ fence /separation.
This separated them from God’s Judgement against a particular sin, which resulted in a particular death that evening, the first born of the Egyptians.
We are separated by the Blood of the Lamb, from God’s judgement (on our sins), but not from death.
Would like a little more feed back, because I know there is more!
“Paul asserts that death spread to all men. But does he mean that as all men sinned they experienced the consequence of separation from God and the result of death, or does he mean that all men die because Adam opened the door to an alien force? Does death spread because sin spreads, like any other infectious disease? Or does the final outcome (death) hold sway over all men as a result of Adam’s choice?”
What a good question. I’ve never thought about those two perspectives. Couldn’t it be both? Death holds sway over all men as a result of Adam’s choice (sin). That sin spreads by hereditary iniquity (evil inclination) like an infectious, terminal disease to all humanity?
I was thinking the same thing Robin. The answer to Skip’s question seems to be BOTH…death spreads because sin spreads, AND Adam started the disease by his choice.
I’ll be interested to read what Skip thinks.
Hey, I’ll be interested to see what I write. Some of these studies are open-ended in hopes that one of you have greater insight.
🙂 🙂
Another thought; “Yea, thou I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me…” Death is a shadow, it cannot touch you! You will walk right by the shadow and not be afraid because the Lord will be on your side! Remember the shadow hand puppets you made on the wall as a child; you were not afraid of it were you? Neither will I fear the shadow of death.
It certainly is appointed to every man ONCE to die. I am not afraid, because I know Him and His goodness.
“Rabbinic teaching provides two opposing views; that death is the result of the Fall of Man and that death is the result of the individual sins of each man. Perhaps most importantly, the theological doctrine of the Fall plays almost no role in rabbinic thinking.”
Doesn’t the last sentence contradict the first Rabbinic teaching above? I’m confused!
Let’s see if I can help. Rabbinic thought acknowledges the actions of Adam as catastrophic, but it does not recognize them (as Ian mentions in another comment) as ontologically catastrophic. In other words, the “fall” doesn’t play much of a role in determining what happens in your life or mine. We make choices, just like Adam did, but what Adam did doesn’t make us make choices (as Luther would claim). Christian thinking places great emphasis on the Fall, as a precipitating factor in every man’s sins. Rabbinic thinking see the actions of Adam repeated in some way or another in our individual choices. In other words, the theological construct of a sinful nature that is the functional CAUSE of sin in the lives of every human being is NOT part of Judaism. So, the rabbis see that death comes into the human arena because of Adam’s disobedience, but they do not agree that AS A RESULT OF ADAM’S disobedience, we all die.
Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever–” 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.”
That would seem to indicate there was a LOSS of “living forever” as a result of the actions of Adam and Eve. It indicates death comes about because of banishment from the Garden so there is no longer access to the “tree of life”. A loss, that is restored in the work of the Messiah, so that living forever again becomes a reality. But does that not indicate that death really is the result of the actions of Adam and Eve, and that we die because of their disobedience? 🙂
I think that I have written something on this passage, noting the rabbinic traditions and the cultural setting in the ancient world. I would have to look, and its a bit difficult now since I am on the road, but I think that we must ask what this would mean in the context of the competing ancient near-Eastern myths. It seems to me that Sarna addresses this.
I don’t think its as clear cut as Christian interpretation makes it seem. I am concerned that a great deal of our views of the meanings of these passages come from centuries removed from the author and the audience.
You and I are on agreement on that last sentence of yours. But you do raise an important issue on hermeneutics: is the meaning of the text determined by the recipients or by the author?
P.S. I’m concerned about you being on the road. Since all accidents happen on the roads, might I suggest you stick to the footpaths! 🙂
The intended meaning is, of course, the prerogative of the author. The received meaning is the arena of the audience. Sometimes it isn’t always the same. Since we are not able to query the author of ancient texts, unless he goes on to elaborate, we are left with our best estimate of the meaning derived from the audience – that is, what it would have meant to anyone who heard it in the time it was given. Sometimes the author tells us (Yeshua did this on more than one occasion), but normally this is not the case. Therefore our hermeneutics must begin with “What would this have meant to the audience?”
I will do my best to stay on the footpaths.
Ah, that helps a lot…thanks for expanding the ‘condensed soup’ version, Skip!
Zombies. The walking dead.
Is there a connection between the cultural resurgence of interest in zombies, and the cultural loss of the Hebraic definition of ‘life’. God created Adam to:
1. Be fruitful, (parah)
2. To multiply, to grow, (rabah)
3. To fill, to be full, complete (mawlay)
4. To subdue, (kabash) and
5. To rule (radah) the earth.
Since Adam was made from the earth, it doesn’t seem to be too much of a stretch to extend these verbs to Adam’s own flesh. He was to be complete,.. both subduing and ruling over his own flesh. If this is ‘life’, then death is a loss of rule over our own flesh. The environment forms us, instead of us influencing our environment.
Interesting research on the language of psychopathic killers, they reference bodily needs much more, and use much more language describing that they “had to” do certain actions.
From the article:
“Psychopaths used more conjunctions like “because,” “since” or “so that,” implying that the crime “had to be done” to obtain a particular goal. They used twice as many words relating to physical needs, such as food, sex or money, while non-psychopaths used more words about social needs, including family, religion and spirituality.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111014145114.htm
“Paul asserts that death spread to all men. . . . Perhaps the doctrinal implications of the Fall which we take almost for granted were not a part of Paul’s Hebraic thinking”
If death spread to all men, that sounds pretty much like a Fall of some kind. Both Adam and Eve were created in adulthood. they wee not born like every other person. They were created in God’s image, and therefore were not created “blanks” who had to establish personality and character. They had immediate fellowship with God, and they could not have been ignorant of how they came to exist. However, even in their “natural” condition, with God’s revelation of himself all around them, they still required a “special” revelation to understand there was a tree whose fruit was forbidden. It is the fact that they were not moral “blanks” which makes their action so reprehensible. They knew better but could not resist the call – you, too, can be “like” God, knowing (determining) good and evil. This was a “go-it-alone” mentality where Adam and his partner figured they no longer needed “special” revelation to frame the moral landscape. They were now quite capable of doing this themselves, just as they could now “interpret” nature rightly without any reference to the Creator.
Banishment from the Garden and the other outcomes God ordained as a result of this one act of “go-it-alone” is certainly a Fall from their previous condition. Now the question arises about their offspring. They are not created mature, but born immature, and subject to death at any time, from conception through old age. Because we don’t know “how” people are born with a disposition towards “go-it-alone” it is easy to dismiss it as now an essential character trait of mankind. Nor do we know how God can hold people accountable for their actions if they are “born this way”, or how they can be held accountable when to us, they seem not yet capable of making moral choices.
Yet the Scriptures paint this great contrast between the “old” Adam who ruined everything, and the “new” Adm who came to restore everything to the point where sin and death will be no more – Paradise restored.
Is there a one-time Fall that affects everyone? Paul indicates there is. Is there a one-act of restoration by the Messiah that affects everyone, even those who continue to reject the Messiah? Paul indicates there is. So it seems it is not so much the idea of a Fall that is in question, but as to what does the Fall mean. And too often, it gets close to implying an ontological Fall rather than moral failure. The two are not the same.
I’d like to know why no one, (whether Jew or Greek) has to teach a child to “do what it wrong..” or for that matter, why weeds grow naturally in the garden while “good fruit” involves so much labor. Why have we been instructed to “train up a child in the way he should go?”- shouldn’t good behavior come naturally? ~ But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned ~ (1 Corinthians 2.14). Who is this “natural man?” And who does this refer to? ~ At that time you were without Christ. You were aliens rather than citizens of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of God’s promise. In this world you had no hope and no God. ~ (Ephesians 2.12)
Wow!- Those are mighty strong words there..- you would think maybe “without Christ” we would have no hope!!- and maybe you might be right!!
Stuart Townsend wrote these words, which are so true!
In Christ alone my hope is found,
He is my light, my strength, my song;
this Cornerstone, this solid Ground,
firm through the fiercest drought and storm.
What heights of love, what depths of peace,
when fears are stilled, when strivings cease!
My Comforter, my All in All,
here in the love of Christ I stand.
In Christ alone! who took on flesh
Fulness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness
Scorned by the ones he came to save:
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied –
For every sin on Him was laid;
Here in the death of Christ I live.
There in the ground His body lay
Light of the world by darkness slain:
Then bursting forth in glorious Day
Up from the grave he rose again!
And as He stands in victory
Sin’s curse has lost its grip on me,
For I am His and He is mine –
Bought with the precious blood of Christ.
No guilt in life, no fear in death,
This is the power of Christ in me;
From life’s first cry to final breath.
Jesus commands my destiny.
No power of hell, no scheme of man,
Can ever pluck me from His hand;
Till He returns or calls me home,
Here in the power of Christ I’ll stand.
My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly lean on Jesus’ Name.
On Christ the solid Rock I stand,
All other ground is sinking sand;
All other ground is sinking sand.
When darkness seems to hide His face,
I rest on His unchanging grace.
In every high and stormy gale,
My anchor holds within the veil.
On Christ the solid Rock I stand,
All other ground is sinking sand;
All other ground is sinking sand.
His oath, His covenant, His blood,
Support me in the whelming flood.
When all around my soul gives way,
He then is all my Hope and Stay.
On Christ the solid Rock I stand,
All other ground is sinking sand;
All other ground is sinking sand.
When He shall come with trumpet sound,
Oh may I then in Him be found.
Dressed in His righteousness alone,
Faultless to stand before the throne.
On Christ the solid Rock I stand,
All other ground is sinking sand;
All other ground is sinking sand.
~ We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek ~ (Hebrews 6.19,20)
“Dying is tragic, not heroic (we might reflect on this for our contemporary views of heroism).”
Hmmm
On my first day of graduate school at UCSD, a Jewish female friend from the previous year
Warned me that there were two factions among the professors and students
Not wanting me to be turned off, I think, she said that the Marxist view
Just offered an alternative to the tragic view
Implying I thought that the Marxist view was a bit more optimistic
If the Hebrew worldview is tragic
As opposed to the Christian worldview
Where the Hero dies and goes to Heaven
Then the Marxist worldview is even closer to the Hebrew worldview
Than I once imagined
In both, the Hero puts his life on the line for the betterment of the community
And often dies having accomplished nothing
As an undergraduate I found Man’s Fate to be very inspirational
Man’s Fate (French: La condition humaine, “The Human Condition”) is a 1933 novel written by André Malraux about the failed communist insurrection in Shanghai in 1927, and the existential quandaries facing a diverse group of people associated with the revolution
Of course the greatest tragic writer was William Shakespeare
“Life’s but a walking shadow,
a poor player,
that struts and frets his hour upon the stage
and then is heard no more;
it is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing.”
King Lear
“zakar” – remember
“It does not mean to recall or bring back to memory, but rather to speak or act in behalf of someone or something. This is what is meant when the Scriptures state that “God remembered Rachael” or that “God remembered Noah”. It means that God acted or spoke in behalf of Rachael or Noah. When the thief asked Yeshua‘ to remember him when He came into His kingdom, he was not implying that Yeshua‘ could forget him. He was asking Yeshua‘ to act in behalf of him and Yeshua‘ promised him that He would do just that. So the frankincense or pureness of God’s word was to act or speak of His word continually. It would be a witness of the life sustaining words of YHVH. ” –
http://www.wildbranch.org/teachings/lessons/lesson37.html
But even if it means to remember – just imagine a world where every man always, first and foremost remembers Who his God is and what his God demands of him – a place of shalom. Shabbat Shalom !
Excellent commentary on “zakar,” Luzette.. this was the failure of Adam #1. He failed to remember and failed to speak to the serpent- “yes, God did say that..” I don’t know (I wasn’t there) if it was the beauty of the fruit, the beauty of the serpent, or the distraction of the moment, but Adam’s failure was in “remembering” (kakar-to do) the words of the LORD his Creator,Maker and Intimate Friend.