Sermons

In the beginning . . . not the very beginning but the human beginning there is Adam, the fairer Eve, and a serpent. We all know what happens and the consequences. Eve is hoodwinked by the wily serpent (that simply tells the truth), gets her husband to join her in taking a bite of the fruit of the wrong tree, to which knowledge of nakedness ensues bringing about the end of innocence, God finds out, tosses the pair out of Eden, and places rather ominous guards at the east gate just in case either or both try to sneak back in.

The result is far-reaching; their bad behavior creates problems not only for them but all humans thereafter. All humanity is perceived to be painted with the same brushstroke of "sin." 

As I have said before, the introduction of 'sin' into the world explains why a world that should be perfect isn't. God made it, right? Shouldn't it therefore be perfect; I can imagine the writers looking around and thinking "God made this and us this way?" Something is terribly wrong. This something wrong we later call 'sin.' Sin is not so much doing something that you are not supposed to do, the Eden couple notwithstanding, or not doing something you should but rather an attitude that "misses the mark" of God's will for your life.

For example, God does not have in mind Adam and Eve to know so much that they now must spend time making clothes. O.K., this is somewhat flippant. It is just a story after all, but what it plainly says is that clamoring to be with God takes something more than clamoring.

In chapter five as it later comes to be, Paul blames Adam more than Eve for this human tragedy. In fact it is as though Paul doesn't even know the story we know. He does, of course, but his "blame and switch" is necessary to set up his claim that what comes into the world by one man's foolishness is sent packing by another man's (a greater man's) wisdom. A woman is hardly a fitting parallel.

Paul may have thought about this much differently than his words seem to indicate to later Christians. He is extremely vague for being so precise, almost redundantly so with his language, which I am sure is quite unintentional. After all, Paul has no idea that later generations are going to parse his words to serve widely divergent agendas - fundamentalist to universalist. Paul is just writing a letter, a persuasive one, but a letter all the same.

So what is Paul up to in chapter five? Clearly he is still trying to make room for the non-Jews or Gentiles to become Christians without the added burden of adopting Jewish practices. But is there anything else to it?

It is interesting that bringing Adam into his thoughts follows his argument that faithfulness in this Father of Jesus is the path to salvation. He tells them that faithfulness in this Father "justifies" or gets them what they hope for - just as it did for Jesus - entry into the eternal peaceful, loving Kingdom that Jesus will soon bring to replace the Roman version.

With his "Abraham" example Paul addresses the devout types, the pew sitters of the day concerned about following the family tradition. In chapter five, I believe, he answers before they ask the "religious historian" type among his listeners.

Family history tells how Adam brings calamity on all who come after him. God boots him out of Eden and ever after it remains well guarded against intruders. It seems clear that no one is getting back in. It is a done deal. Sin is sin and the law must be followed because everyone has sin thanks to Adam, and there is no getting rid of it just living with it as we toil the soil under the sun.

So what does Paul say? "Not so fast." The expulsion from God's presence and the guards at the gate may not be God's last word on the matter. Sure the Jewish family since offers its sacrifices through the priests, and only the highest priest can enter the "holy of holies" on the temple grounds and into God's presence but . . . God may not be done yet. "Missing the mark" or disobediently straying away from God's will no longer requires animal sacrifices to put things right, argues Paul, the obedient act of Jesus faithful to the end of God's plan for his life shows a better way.

Paul believes that sin is man's obstacle to get into the Kingdom and that the "works" of the law do nothing to remove it. The law only shines a bright light on it, revealing the magnitude of the problem. Remember Paul is not James - "works" don't do it for Paul only faith or, as I will say, faithfulness that God keeps promises. Jesus', God's messenger, promises can be, must be trusted as well by those hoping to get into the Kingdom.

Essentially, what Paul offers (my interpretation) is a way to get back to Eden. Jesus' kingdom on the way is the later parallel to Eden. Adam can never get himself back in Eden. But Jesus' knows a way back to life with God, a way of faithfulness based on what he has seen and heard of God to keep promises. Jesus' resurrection is for Paul convincing evidence of the Father's kept promise to a faithful son.

Paul extrapolates from this a parallelism with regard to more than just the men in question. What Adam cannot accomplish for self he certainly cannot do for others. The law exposes sin but it can't do much more than that. But the acts of God can do "much more;" they can do for all men what God did for Jesus - resurrect their lifeless selves into citizens fit for the kingdom on the way. Paul puts it: "For just as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous."

The best part for Paul is that access back to Eden does not have to be, in fact, can not be earned. There is no need to "do" anything special or in particular, just believe that God can do it.   It is a "free gift" to those who have faith that God keeps promises. Seems for Paul that God removes the guards at the east gate of Eden and invites all back in no questions asked. 

But all good things are usually not so easily gained. Salvation is no exception. It may be a "free gift," as Paul says, but one still must know to have the good sense to accept it. For those hopeful to get back where they belong with God, they must be willing to seek that place on terms that may be different than their own. The "religious historian" type that listens to Paul's letter may know too much "history" of the family to believe it's possible.

This is how I see Paul answering another group of Jewish critics who know their "religious history" perhaps better than they know their God.      Amen.