\n<\/p>\n
Following up on my last post, 5 Old Testament Reasons Why Original Sin Doesn\u2019t Work, <\/a>let\u2019s reflect on\u00a0a 2015 article that caught my eye (thank you, Facebook feed) by Orthodox theologian (and walking thesaurus) David Bentley Hart.<\/p>\n The article is called\u00a0\u201cTraditio Deformis<\/a>,<\/em>\u201d\u00a0and in it\u00a0Hart explains in no uncertain terms, and with his usual wit and punch, that St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) really screwed up our understanding of the story of the \u201cfall\u201d of Adam (Genesis 3) because he absolutely screwed up what Paul was saying about Adam in Romans 5:12-21.<\/p>\n And let there be no mistake: the doctrine of the Fall, as it is understood by many (but not all) Christians, is absolutely dependent on this\u00a0one<\/em> passage filtered to us through Augustine\u2019s understanding of Paul, and remains a\u00a0view usually championed in the\u00a0Reformed tradition (especially neo-Calvinism; and hence Hart\u2019s\u00a0title, \u201cDeformed Tradition\u201d) and middle-of-the-road American Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism.<\/p>\n It\u2019s clear Hart really doesn\u2019t like Calvinism\u2014not one bit. I don\u2019t have the same amount of bile in my throat for Calvinism as does Hart\u2014it is a broad tradition, after all, and the \u201chyper-Calvinists\u201d (aka, Fundamentalist wolves in\u00a0Calvinist-sheep\u2019s clothing) are just one flavor.<\/p>\n But speaking as a biblical scholar with no small interest in Paul and Adam [click here<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0or blog categories\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong> and here<\/a><\/strong>],\u00a0\u00a0I do most definitely share\u00a0Hart\u2019s assessment of how Augustine\u2019s handling of Paul\u2019s reading of the Adam story and other portions of Romans have left us\u00a0with an unhelpful\u2014an unPauline\u2014theological legacy.<\/p>\n You should\u00a0read the article, of course, and Hart goes in some interesting directions\u00a0that\u00a0I won\u2019t engage\u00a0here. But as for me, the three issues Hart raises that resonate most with me about mistaken readings of Paul rooted in Augustine and perpetuated in western Christianity are the following:<\/p>\n Romans 5:12, translated properly (as in the NRSV and other translations), says: \u201cTherefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because<\/span> all have sinned<\/em>\u2014\u201c<\/p>\n The \u201cone man\u201d is, of course, Adam. And Paul seems to be saying, quite clearly in fact,\u00a0that death spread because all have sinned<\/em>. Now what that means exactly needs some clarification, but that isn\u2019t the issue here<\/em>. The issue is that Augustine, working from a poor Latin translation of Romans 5:12, has \u201cin him<\/span>\u201d where the Greek has \u201cbecause<\/span>.\u201d<\/p>\n You can see the problem. Augustine\u2019s reading is that death spread to all because all sinned in him<\/em><\/span>\u00a0[in Adam]. <\/em>In other words, death spread to humanity because all humanity was somehow \u201cpresent\u201d in Adam\u2019s act of disobedience.<\/p>\n This\u00a0bad reading of Romans 5:12, rooted in a bad Latin translation of the Greek, has led to the notion that all humans\u00a0are\u00a0culpable<\/em>\u00a0(guilty) with\u00a0Adam for\u00a0what Adam did<\/em>\u2014all humanity sinned\u00a0in him.<\/em><\/p>\n Augustine\u2019s reading is what many Christians believe Paul actually said, and which is why Augustine\u2019s notion of \u201coriginal sin\u201d is defended with such uncompromising vehemence as the \u201cbiblical\u201d teaching.\u00a0But neither Romans nor Genesis or the Old Testament<\/a> supports the idea.<\/p>\n When Paul contrasts \u201cworks\u201d and \u201cfaith\u201d he is not saying, \u201cYou are such vile creatures that there is nothing you can\u00a0do<\/em> to please God\u2014so works are worthless. Stop trying to earn your way into heaven. Have faith instead.\u201d<\/p>\n As odd as it may seem to some readers, Romans doesn\u2019t address this either\/or and very individualistic (see below) topic. Rather Paul\u2019s focus is the Law of\u00a0Moses<\/em> and its function of setting apart the people of God (Jews) from Gentiles (Greeks and Romans).<\/p>\n Actually, in Romans, Paul seems to have two specific Mosaic laws in mind:\u00a0circumcision and dietary laws (see Genesis 17 and Leviticus11).\u00a0These laws served at the time as \u201cboundary markers\u201d for Jews to identify them as a people faithful to the covenant amid a pagan culture (not unlike how the Amish mark themselves off from modern culture).<\/p>\n Paul is arguing in Romans that what marks off the people of God amid the pagan culture isn\u2019t\u00a0these particular segments of the Mosaic Law, however cherished and biblical they were, but \u201cfaith\u201d in Jesus (which is rooted in the \u201cfaithfulness\u201d of God for sending Jesus and Jesus\u2019s \u201cfaithfulness\u201d for going through with the crucifixion.)<\/p>\n Why am I getting all into this? Because Paul\u2019s central concern\u00a0in Romans isn\u2019t \u201cHere\u2019s how you go to heaven.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0And thus the entire \u201cworks vs. faith\u201d model many Christians work with and assume is as clear as the sun at noon\u00a0is right off the table.<\/p>\n But Paul\u2019s central concern is really a question:\u00a0\u201cWho constitutes the people of God?\u201d Paul\u2019s answer (if I may paraphrase):<\/p>\n \u201cJews and Gentiles together<\/em>, on equal footing, united in and marked off by<\/em>\u00a0not by observing circumcision and\u00a0dietary restrictions, but by their common faith<\/em> that\u00a0Jesus is God\u2019s final answer to how all<\/em> the world will be reconciled\u2014and that is why you have to get along and love each other. All of you, Jew and Gentile\u00a0together,\u00a0<\/em>are the new \u2018people of God\u2019\u201d (see Romans 13-15).<\/p>\n If you get \u201cworks\u201d wrong in Romans, you get the whole book wrong. It feeds into the notion that Romans is a \u201csalvation\u201d tract, which is a reading where \u201coriginal sin\u201d plays a central role. But these are\u00a0questions Romans was not\u00a0written to answer.<\/p>\n Try reading Romans 8:28-29, so often quoted on the personal level, not as referring to individuals but as referring to Gentiles as a group<\/em>\u2014i.e., as supporting the larger point Paul is making in Romans (in #2 above).<\/p>\n We know that all things work together for good for those<\/strong> who love God, who are called according to his purpose.\u00a0For those<\/strong> whom he foreknew<\/strong> he also predestined<\/strong> to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Who are the \u201cthose\u201d Paul is referring to? Individuals who happen to have a conversion experience, invite Jesus into their heart, convert to Christianity?<\/p>\n Or does it refer to the shocking truth, now revealed, as Paul claims, by God through him, that\u00a0Gentiles\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>now are in Christ\u00a0and therefore\u00a0every bit as \u201celect\u201d in God\u2019s mind as Israel?<\/p>\n In fact, as Paul goes to great lengths to argue in chapter 9, maybe this full and equal inclusion of Gentiles was God\u2019s plan all along\u2014not a last minute change of plans<\/strong>, but what he had decided and known (foreknew, predestined) long ago, even as Israel\u2019s story was unfolding from the days of Abraham?<\/p>\n That is the point of those supposed \u201celection of individuals\u201d prooftexts in chapter 9: they are about Gentile<\/em> inclusion into the\u00a0family of Abraham\u00a0is God\u2019s plan from of old<\/em>. Of course,\u00a0Gentiles are made up of individuals, but again, that is not the argument Paul is making. He signals as much in 9:6-7 (where he says that \u201cchildren of Abraham\u201d does not equal \u201cJews\u201d but Gentiles, too).<\/p>\n OK, well. . .whenever I\u00a0open my\u00a0mouth about Romans it\u2019s\u00a0hard to shut it again. This post is more involved than I\u2019d like it to be, but Romans does that to you.<\/p>\n Let me bring this to a close.<\/p>\n Reading Romans through Augustine\u2019s eyes obscures more than illuminates the letter. The consequences are huge, including,<\/p>\n Hart\u2019s article is a good one. Hope you have a chance to read it.<\/p>\n [An earlier version of this post appeared December 2016. For other posts on Paul and Romans, see here<\/a><\/strong> and here<\/strong><\/a>. You can also read more about this sort of thing in The Evolution of Adam<\/a><\/strong><\/em>\u00a0(Baker, 2012) and\u00a0The Bible Tells Me So<\/a><\/strong><\/em>\u00a0(HarperOne, 2014).]\n<\/div>\n1. Romans 5:12<\/h2>\n
2. Augustine\u2014and those who have followed him\u2014do not seem to understand\u00a0that when Paul refers to \u201cworks\u201d he is referring\u00a0to the Law of Moses and not to a general \u201chuman effort to please God\u201d or some such thing.<\/h2>\n
3. The third\u00a0issue I have with an Augustinian inspired reading of Romans is the notion that\u00a0election is personal rather than corporate.<\/h2>\n
\n