When St. Paul Has A Hammer...

There is that old saying: If you have a hammer, everything around you starts to look like a nail.

It struck me recently that perhaps a biblical corollary can be spelled out along similar lines. When St. Paul has a point to hammer in, he can be pretty inventive in how he employs the use of various biblical (and even extra-biblical) texts as nails suitable to task. (So... that statement wasn't nearly as pithy or short, but there you have it.)

I should begin by asserting my personal belief that Paul, fallible as he was, was used by God to establish the worldwide Church. In this reflection I have no intention to suggest that Paul's letters are not to be trusted, much less to imply that they were not inspired by God.

Written by a human? Yes. Holy Scriptures? Also, Yes.

But that won't stop me from coming in with eyes wide open, willing to see a fallible and real man behind those inspired words. Moving on...

As modern understandings (based upon very reliable scientific advances) continue to chip away at the heart of the inerrantist view of the Genesis story, one thing that used to bother me suddenly does not bother me quite so much, anymore. I refer here to the story of The Fall. If Adam was not a literal, flesh-and-blood, particular individual, Paul's argument in Romans 5 start to look a bit shaky—at least, as I used to read it.

I've been reading through Romans recently and this conundrum hit me in the head again. But another thought introduced itself, and here I introduce another disclaimer: I'm not a theologian. I'm not even a particularly well-read lay wannabe theologian.

Plain English, please?

I mean to say here that I may be treading on shaky theological ground unawares. And on the other hand I may be on soil so well trod that it's packed down by the feet that have already gone this route. I'm not even sure which analogy is more appropriate. What I am sure of is this: the conservative response will no doubt be to suggest that I am not on soil, but rather quicksand. Meanwhile, the far left long ago abandoned theological terms like infallible and inerrant, so I'd guess they'll suggest I'm walking on a paved road. I feel, for myself, like Peter–trying to walk on water while keeping my eyes on the Lord. Never more than a moment away from starting to sink.

But let's move on. What do I wish to say here? It's this: I think that, in Romans 5, Paul latched upon Adam as a wonderful "nail" to hammer away at precisely because the point Paul wanted to make dealt directly with The Fall and with Jesus. Paul saw a beautiful sermon illustration waiting like low-hanging fruit: a comparison between Adam and Jesus. Both of them were, needless to say, "one man". This is not rocket science, but let's just look at the passage with that focus in mind....

Romans 5:12-19
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Now needless to say, this is all terribly significant stuff. I'm not such a theological novice as to be unaware that a ton of Christian doctrine is pinned on this passage. I get that. But take a step back and look at it again. It wasn't Adam who introduced sin to the world, according to the Genesis account. If we're going to treat it inerrantly (which I don't), that honor goes to Eve.

Of course, of course! I know. I'm not the first to have noticed this. And there's going to be a work-around, to be sure. Adam as the representative. Adam as the one to whom the commandment was given.

Yada. Yada. Yada.

But wipe the excuses off the table, and we're back to the fact: It was Eve who first sinned. We, men and women, are equally sinful. Equally in need of God. Equally in Christ, our redeemer. And, according to Genesis, it was Eve who first sinned.

So why does Paul hammer away at Adam? My 2 cents? Because it suited his sermon illustration.

(I'm waiting for the lightning to strike.)

Seriously. Some theologian will tell me I'm pulling the pin out beneath a skyscraper, but I am not feeling it. Sin definitely came into the world. And Jesus leads the way out of the mess we made. But even as science chips away at any last notion that there was a first, single, "My name is Adam" individual, so too I am feeling that Romans 5 doesn't require it either. An inerrant approach to the topic should have used Eve in the first place. But Paul didn't.

And what led me to get this reflection down was the realization that St. Paul really did play a bit loose with his illustrations. After all, he said the same thing I just said. When? He did it when the sermon called for a woman.

1 Timothy 2:13-14
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Oh, yeah, this passage causes a lot of heartburn, and for entirely other reasons that relate to gender equality and all of that. I'm not here to pick it apart for those reasons. I post it here to note the simple thing about it, and it's this: St. Paul had a point to make, and it suddenly became convenient to refer to Eve as the first sinner. In this passage, it is Eve who first introduces sin to the world. Can we just acknowledge that fact, together?

I'm probably trying to accomplish too much by throwing this next bit in, but I see (for myself, at least) a bit of the same free-wheeling "sermon-on-the-fly" approach in this next one, too...

Galatians 3:15-29 (excerpted)
Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life...
...The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.
...What I mean is this...
...So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith... for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
... If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

What I don't doubt or question is that by God's sovereignty, this passage is Holy Scriptures. But take a step back and also call it what it looks like: Paul moving fast as he shares "from the pulpit." One minute the seed is singular. And that's really important. Because it's Jesus. *NOT* a bunch of people. A moment later, it's plural. Because we are one with Christ. It *IS* a bunch of people. And for Paul's purposes, both are true, and I do get what he means. But he is having his seed cake and splitting it two. We can acknowledge that, can't we?

Or how about Jannes and Jambres?

2 Timothy 3:7-9
They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.

Once again, we see Paul pulling out a sermon illustration, and as one able to relate to the common man, he uses known personages. Paul compares evil men that we as Christians should avoid to "Jannes and Jambres"–except that those names are not from the Old Testament. The names themselves are about as "factual" as the names of the three wise men that visited baby Jesus.

Don't know what I'm talking about? If so, you were probably raised in different Christian tradition—or perhaps a non-religious home. I didn't grow up with those names. To me they were just three wise men. But many Christians grew up knowing the names Balthasar (of Arabia), Melchior (of Persia), and Gaspar (of India). With all due respect, however, we don't know their names. (And isn't that convenient that these three individuals covered three distinct regions of the known earth??) There's absolutely no reason to assume those names (or place of origin) are accurate. There is no such information in the gospel account! And if out of four gospel accounts only Matthew notes them, it's not as if their names and their stories were commonly known. These extra details pop up (out of the blue) literally hundreds of years after Matthew penned his gospel. For hundreds of years, their names were not known. And then suddenly we know them. Right.... Sure....

[Editor's note: In point of fact, the astute reader may have noted that my reference to three wise men itself isn't an accurate one. Why? Because St. Matthew referred to magi, but he gave neither names nor a count of how many there were. The rest is tradition, which most of us Christians have swallowed either in part (the count of three) or in whole (hell, we even know their names and place of birth!). Admit it! Many who didn't grow up with names did grow up with three wise men in every picture and every nativity scene. But most of us didn't notice that the number three is no less contrived than the names and origins others have helpfully added to the narrative!]

Friends, this same logic applies to Jannes and Jambres. How credible would the claim be that the names of two Egyptian magicians would pass unmentioned for (literally) more than a thousand years!!! Unmentioned. And then. Suddenly. Their names are known.

Really? And we believe this??

Or might it be that the names Jannes and Jambres were invented later? Just maybe? But the point I am making is not to criticize Paul -- he's just speaking to peers in terms that both he and they commonly understand. Jannes and Jambres. We have our three wise men. They had Jannes and Jambres. The bad guys. Isn't that the part that matters? My point is that Paul is only doing that. I don't have to hang my faith on the reliability of these two Johnny-come-lately names any less than I hang the truth of the incarnation on the names of the [three] magi that Matthew never counted, let alone named.

The point Paul made to Timothy stands just as well without the sermon illustration as it does with. Jannes and Jambres don't make or break the significant things Paul had to say. Not in this passage. Nor, I venture to say, in Galatians. Or in Romans.

So I end this reflection with this simple conclusion. I'm not as worried as I used to be about how to square our scientific understanding of origins with Paul's treatment of Adam as one, particular individual. Paul was making a point, and his point stands. Sin entered the world. That's the point (among many others) that we can take from the Genesis account, and Paul reiterates it. As for the singular Adam? Adam "himself" isn't the lynchpin to this argument. Which is a relief, because it's (in my heart, at least) quite clear that there was no lonely first individual raised up from literal dust, as if by CGI magic. God could have done it that way. But I don't think he did.

My faith survives that statement just fine, and realizing now (my opinion, anyway) that Paul used Adam (instead of Eve) because he was a great counter-balance to Jesus makes me feel more comfortable that, as with Genesis, so with Paul. Don't read into the words more than God requires.

I take Paul's conclusions on faith, not least because they are good and lead to godly living, but also because most of them do not rest upon precarious science. In those rare cases where they do, however, the conclusions are still trustworthy. (We have a sin problem that dates to our very origins. And I don't doubt Paul's counsel to Timothy was well-advised.) But I don't think God requires us to cling tenaciously to things science has helped us to see were never the case.

There will, of course, be some things in the Bible that science cannot speak to. We call them miracles. And I believe they happened and happen. So, for the record... science will never explain how Jesus rose from the dead. Science assures us he did not. I still believe Jesus did rise from the grave on the third day. This gives me hope based upon faith. Science, in contrast, provides no hope beyond the grave–and never will.