multitude, a totality. So oiJ pa>ntev In <470514>2 Corinthians 5:14 indicates a corresponding conception of the organic unity of the race.

Prof. George B. Stevens, Pauline Theology, 32-40,129-139, denies that Paul taught the sinning of all men in Adam: ?They sinned in the same sense in which believers were crucified to the world and died unto sin when Christ died upon the cross. The believer?s renewal is conceived as wrought in advance by those acts and experiences of Christ in which it has its ground. As the consequences of his vicarious sufferings are traced back to their cause, so are the consequences, which flowed from the beginning of sin in Adam traced back to that original fount of evil and identified with it. The latter statement should no more be treated as a rigid logical formula than the former, its counterpart. There is a mystical identification of the procuring cause with its effect ? both in the case of Adam and of Christ.?

In our treatment of the New School theory of sin we have pointed out that the inability to understand the vital union of the believer with Christ incapacitates the New School theologian from understanding the organic union of the race with Adam. Paul?s phrase ?in Christ? meant more than that Christ is the type and beginner of salvation and sinning in Adam meant more to Paul than following the example or acting in the spirit of our first father. In <470514>2 Corinthians 5:14 the argument is that since Christ died, all believers died to sin and death in him. Their resurrection-life is the same life that died and rose again in his death and resurrection. So Adam?s sin is ours because the same life which transgressed and became corrupt in him has come down to us and is our possession. In <450514>Romans 5:14, the individual and conscious sins to which the New School theory attaches the condemning sentence are expressly excluded, and in verses 15-19 the judgment is declared to be ?of one trespass.? Prof. Wm. Arnold Stevens, of Rochester, says well: ?Paul teaches that Adam?s sin is ours, not potentially, but actually.? Of h{marton , he says: ?This might conceivably be: (1) the historical aorist proper, used in its momentary sense; (2) the comprehensive or collective aorist, as in dih~lqen in the same verse; (3) the aorist used in the sense of the English perfect, as in <450323> Romans 3:23 ? pa>ntev ga<r h[marton kai< uJsterou~ntai . In 5:12, the context determines with great probability that the aorist is used in the first of these senses.? We may add that interpreters are not wanting who so take h[marton in 3:23; see also margin of Revised Version. But since the passage <450512>Romans 5:12-19 is so important, we reserve to the close of this section a treatment of it, in greater detail.

<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment