Romans 5:12-19
Lent 1 - Year A
Here Paul affirms that one-causes-many. This is the domino effect. You simply have to get the chain started and it will fall into place. All the effort and blame/fame belong to the start of a reaction. All subsequent consequences are attributable to the starter.
Another approach is leadership-by-modeling. When we model distrust, fear, embarrassment those who witness it find themselves distrusting back in order to protect themselves. However this chain reaction can be stopped anywhere along the way. We do not have to fatalistically follow what has gone before.
We can also model trust, peace, and gracious hospitality. One of the greater things Jesus would have us to is break the train of causality. An eye for an eye can move beyond retribution to reconciliation and love of enemy.
One of the strongest temptations is the temptation of habit -- "It has been this way and so it will be." A part of the power of habit is the locus of our authority to keep on keeping on with our keeping on. If survival has been our authority, we will keep at it. If scripture has been our authority, we will keep at it. If status quo has been our authority, we will keep at it. In each case, and any others, we end up defending our authority more than we do facing the choice of whether or not this is still life-filling in this situation. We are aware that Jesus intentionally went against survival as an authority by going to Jerusalem. We know that he also went beyond scripture with his, "But I say to you" and offering a Holy Spirit to continue teaching us beyond his beyond. We know that he challenged the status quo of hometowns, kings, and death.
My trespasses have been a stumbling block to others (sinner that I am). My righteousness has been life giving to others (saint that I am). Can we get beyond an either/or between ancestor Adam and descendant Christ. If GOD can repent and Jesus be forsaken, might we not look deeper than pat formulas?
http://www.kairoscomotion.org/lectionary/2005/february2005.html
For the moment let us imagine that this thing called "sin" that so many folks define in so many different ways - mostly to blame someone - came knocking on our gene pool by one person. For this same moment we can imagine that something called "grace" entered through another.
In this same imaginative moment let us consider what we are bringing to the mix? Sins and graces, virtues and vices, understanding and knowledge are not the only things brought through one. What mutation is now needed? or are we just playing out the past?
Surely the world needs your presence as much as it needed Jesus'.
When talking with partners about a public ceremony celebrating their relationship I ask what would make this the very best time for them? How might they best represent who they are in the presence of the folks they have invited? We talk about how traditions have come down to us, having started with one couple and another seeing it and saying that spoke to them and so they repeated it until now it doesn't so much mean anything other than we think it is necessary in order to have a "real" ceremony. I suggest that there might be something that is so authentic about their relationship and the way in which they wish to exhibit it that someone else will see what they do and claim its importance for themselves. A new tradition will begin that at some much later time will need to be revised for it, too, will become a formality instead of an understanding of life.
What for our time needs to come through such as those of us visiting this site? This may be a question for the rest of our Lenten time? How might we deal with this new way through such basics as loving God and Neighbor through our Prayer and our Care? How will it show up and be lived in our very lives?
http://www.kairoscomotion.org/lectionary/2005/february2005.html
A tree of knowledge certainly sounds helpful, particularly if it aids one in distinguishing good from evil - even if such distinguishing is as fine as the difference between a white and black thread at the rising and setting of the sun.
Such a tree presupposes that there is good and evil to be distinguished. If created by G*D was good and evil only latent until a eye was opened or did it exist already? If so how important is the whisper of its existence? Does it take some ability to distinguish good from evil to desire to better distinguish?
There is some sense in which stepping between good and evil leads us into confusion.
It is from this very tree that Jesus seems to have also eaten. He is able to distinguish helpful applications of the scriptures (accumulated wisdom of our experiences with G*D) from unhelpful applications. It is not that scripture is automatically helpful. Knowing when to apply which is important.
There is some sense in which stepping between good and evil leads us to clarity.
Thank you "Adam" for joining "Eve" in engaging wisdom.
Thank you Jesus for building on wisdom and clarifying the need for larger contexts regarding "tests" or experiences of life.
- - -
I am a type of one who has gone before
and a type of one who will follow
I am a free gift borne by a past
and a free gift invested in a future
of all the options available - I arrived
and now more options are opened
wrestling still with good and evil
my appetites struggle to be met
my desire for immortality leaps into the fray
my controlling power claims first place
and on other days they all face
poverty, chastity, obedience
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html
Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more. (Romans 5:20b)
Grace Greater than Our Sin was catchy hymn for previous generations. The refrain is hard to beat:
Grace, grace, God's grace,
Grace that will pardon and cleanse within;
Grace, grace, God's grace,
Grace that is greater than all our sin.
I suspect that Jesus could easily have added this refrain into his singing of the Psalms – it would have been a "contemporary" hymn addition to the tradition. I'm not so sure he would have approved the verses with their exclusive focus upon crucifixion and a formulaic reversal [sin condemned = death; death justified = life]. Anyone out there up for a rewrite that scans better than this?
Marvelous grace of a living G*D,
Grace that exceeds any sin or guilt!
From deep, deep within each life's facade
Creation wells up to be rebuilt.
refrain
Sin and despair, like the sea waves cold,
Threaten each soul with infinite fear;
Grace that is greater, yes, grace untold,
Reveals a refuge always so near.
refrain
Marvelous, infinite, matchless grace,
Unrestrained in its application,
Extends to each neighbor an embrace
Grounded in salvation's foundation.
refrain
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html
A free gift following many temptations and transgressions is simply a free gift. It does not justify anything. It simply makes a next choice toward abundant life easier by showing a step can be taken where only quicksand was perceived to be. (ref verse 16)
Transgression occurred, with the result that the temptations multiplied; but where brokenness increased felt limitations, opportunity to choose living from abundance increased all the more. Just as temptation was followed by transgression, so an experience of abundance grows and grows and leads to participation in paradise right here, right now. (ref verses 20-21)
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2011/03/romans-512-21.html
Did anyone who received Paul’s letter bother to ask what evidence he had for asserting his “Therefore”? Not unsurprisingly, any such query is not recorded. The tape seems to have a several minute gap in it.
If it is revealed knowledge that says sin came into the world through one man, it is important to ask about the revealer and whether they have a vested interested in their revelation. In this case, yes, Paul loses his overall argument if he can’t defend this point. If it is not revealed, it would be important to hear some evidence, of which there is none. This is one of those wondrous dualistic/theological analogies based on rhetorical flourishes. Unfortunately its consequences echo on.
At least there is a tacit acknowledgment that Jesus is human with the repeated comparison to Adam and reference point of “one man”.
If you would like to read a short two-part critique of this section you can go to: Paul's Problem by Bill Long.
Here is a sample from that article:
In short, my contention is that Paul has proved "too much" by his Adam/Christ comparison in this passage. He is inclined to use language such as "all/every" because that is one of the ways he extricates himself from theological problems in his writings. He loves the contrasts, the polar opposites. It is the reason why his lines are so memorable. But, in this instance, his words get the better of him. If we grant the point that all people are condemned by Adam's sin, without more, we must also accept the point that all people are redeemed by Christ's sacrifice without more. The word of proclamation of the Gospel, then, is only to let people know that they are already saved.