One might ask the question, "How can we be justified through what Christ did?" It doesn't seem right. Chances are you may have come across non-Christians pointing out how stupid it sounds. If someone does wrong, then (laws of) justice and fairness demand that only the person who does wrong should wear the consequences of their own action. So then, "What kind of good and fair God would allow this!?"
To put it more forcefully, some may invoke Hitler. I've on occasion come across something like: "Hitler was Christian. Hitler is saved! Although he is responsible for gassing and torturing many Jews, don't worry about it Hitler because Jesus died for your sins." and then gets added, "What kind of just God is this?!" Ignoring the fact Hitler appears more utilitarian so-far-as religion and Christianity was concerned, rewriting the Bible to support his Nazi ideology and Aryan ideals (Hitler surely saw himself as the supreme Übermensch)... Yet, does a non-Christian here have a point?
It is to such questions that Paul anticipates and attempts to answer in Romans 5:12-21. Note, here that Paul's anticipating the response of Jewish leaders well versed in the Law and Hebraic Scriptures (Tanakh / our "Old Testament"), since he often debated in Jewish synagogues. So Paul's response here may not satisfy non-Jewish non-Christians, for he sets up a logical argument based upon beliefs in the Hebraic Scripture to do with Adam, disobedience, sin, death, our judgement and condemnation.
- 12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For 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. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
In summary, to deny the Hebraic belief that we are tainted due to one man's disobedience and sin, and therefore judged and condemned, makes the logic of our being made righteous and saved via the one Christ inconsistent. Yet, if we accept the former (as many Jews did in Paul's day), then the latter is acceptable. And if we accept the latter (as ALL Christians do), then the former is acceptable.
That is, if we are "made sinners", receive "judgement resulting in condemnation", and "death" due to one man's "offence", one man's "sin", one man's "disobedience", then consistency demands the reverse must also be true that we can be made righteousness, receiving such on account of the one man (Christ) which leads to justification and eternal life.
The whole point of the entire section in Romans 5:12-21, is to compare and contrast the one man Adam, with the one man Jesus Christ, in order to give warrant to the belief of justification by faith in Christ. I count that Paul uses the term "one" 13 times, from the beginning of the verse 12 to the end of verse 19.
-------
A corolally here, it is almost like Paul anticipates modern theologians who try to detach us away from the one person of Adam, those who talk in terms of "Adam" not being a man but rather representing a human race. Such talk isn't new, but has been going on since the early 20th century and perhaps earlier.
Yet, if we say that Adam wasn't one man, but a race then we have to say that Jesus wasn't one man, but represents some idea of the new humanity. The whole point of the passage entirely disappears if we believe Adam represents a human race. Rather, Paul keeps on emphasising "one", "by the one", "the one man", "the sin of one", "the one transgression", one, One, ONE! So then, this isn't humanity, but it is one person, one individual whose name was Adam, the first man.
You cannot read Paul with an open mind without seeing perfectly clear that he believes what is presented in the first chapters of Genesis is literal history. Jesus too appears to see the creation narrative, man and woman, also as literal history. For example, in Mark 10:6-8 he is reported as teaching:
- 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,[a] 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.
- 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Getting back to the topic of the Romans passage, we love to accept the Gospel of Christ that we are forgiven, saved, made righteous, pass from God's judgement and receive eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord. For myself, I freely accepted the good news of Christ, my forgiveness, redemption and everlasting life. However, I realised that we can't pick a choose like that sounds good so I'll accept it, but you know what, "original sin" doesn't sound good -- it sounds unfair -- so I'm going to reject it!
Paul's logic in his argument is clear, we accept we are forgiven and saved on account of one man Christ, in the same way we were made sinners and condemned due to one man Adam. To deny one, would be to deny the other. If Jews deny the latter is possible, then they must deny all are guilty and accountable in the one person Adam. If we as Christians deny the former, then to be consistent we must deny that we can be forgiven, made righteous, and declared innocent in Christ.
We cannot as Christians be double-minded here. I mean we can be double-minded, but then we are being logically inconsistent and even incoherent. If we wish to accept Paul's good news that we are all saved by faith in Christ, then we must equally accept the bad news that we all stand condemned in Adam. To deny one, is to deny the other. We often freely want to accept the good news about Christ and our forgiveness, yet we can't just pick and choose what sounds good and reject what doesn't.
Paul's logic in his argument is clear, we are forgiven and saved on account of one man Christ, and in the same way we were condemned and made sinners on account of one man Adam. In this way, Adam was a type of him (Christ) who was to come (Rom 5:14), only Adam was the first and had an opposite effect to Christ who was last, makes us righteous and gives us life.
Now you've read my reasoning, don't take my word on what Paul is saying, re-read Romans 5:12-21 above in green with fresh eyes.
