Adam and Jesus-Comparison or Contrast?

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.  And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.  For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.  (Romans 5:15-17)

Often folks who study these verses tend to draw multiple comparisons between Adam and Jesus.  Scripture indeed draws certain comparisons between them.  For example, we have just completed our study of federal headship; both Adam and Jesus appear in this chapter from Paul's Roman letter as federal heads, as representative of all people whom they individually represent.  Adam is the federal head of the human family-no exceptions.  Jesus is the federal head of God's chosen family-no exceptions here either.  However, a study of the language that Paul uses in this lesson indicates that he had contrast more in mind than comparison.  Consider such words as "but" and "not as" in the passage.  These are words of contrast.  Consider the consequences of each federal head's actions on their representative "family."  Adam's conduct brought negative consequences on all of his representative family, while Jesus' actions bring amazing positive consequences on all of His representative family.  I will not argue the point with good brothers who choose to focus their thoughts of this lesson on the comparative features between Adam and Jesus, for their intent and theological soundness is not in question, at least among those with whom I have discussed this question.  However, as I survey the passage and assess my own interpretation of the lesson, I am inclined to focus more on the contrast than the comparison.  For example, the third chapter of Genesis clearly indicates that Eve ate the forbidden fruit first, and that Adam immediately followed her in eating it.  He ate it knowingly.  Since Moses in Genesis does not mention Adam's motive, we have no way of knowing from Scripture what Adam's motive was.  Any conclusion as to his motive must stand on our personal speculation.  However, when we get to the New Testament and begin to study Jesus' work on behalf of His chosen people, we find abundant Scriptural testimony to identify His motive in suffering, dying, and rising again for His people.  His work was an act of love for His people and profound obedience to the will of the Father-to His will.  His and the Father's will are in no way at conflict.

In terms of federal headship-the fact that what each federal head did had and has material impact on the individuals they represented-the two are similar.  However, Paul introduces our thought with a straightforward "But not as…so also" assessment.  The free gift bestowed on God's elect because of Jesus' work is in some material sense "not as" the impact of Adam's sin and its impact on humanity.

Do not overlook the basic terms that Paul chooses to describe each event.  In assessing Adam's action and its impact on humanity Paul uses the term "offence."  When he refers to Jesus' work and its impact on God's elect, Paul uses the term "free gift" and "the gift by grace."

In no point does Paul more emphatically draw contrast than in his description of results or consequences.  In the case of Adam one act by one man brought "condemnation" onto all of his offspring.  By his sinful act (not described here by Paul as a noble act or even as a loving act), Adam brought judgment, a legal verdict of guilty, onto all humanity.  In contrast by his perfect obedience Jesus transformed the legal sentence for all of His elect, despite a just verdict of "Guilty as charged," from many offences into "justification of life," an official verdict from heaven's court of "Not guilty"!  Despite their guilty participation in Adam's sin and sentence, and exclusively because of what He did, Jesus transforms His elect into the mirror opposite so that they now "reign in life by one."  Adam's sin carried with it the sentence of death.  Paul has already reasoned from this fact that death reigned from Adam to Moses over all humanity, even over those who did not sin as conscious adults.  He clearly in this reasoning affirms that the death sentence did not originate against humanity in Moses' law, but in the Edenic law given to Adam.

We should further note Paul's emphasis in this federal headship line of reasoning that as he attributes the fact of sin and death in all humanity to Adam and his sin, he also credits the whole of our righteous standing and life with God to Jesus.  If each individual must at some point in life choose to identify with Adam, we might have reason to make a parallel point that each individual must also at some point in life make a conscious choice to identify with Jesus.  Absent this pivotal point, the accepted teaching in many pulpits that an individual's eternal destiny is contingent on a personal decision or choice to be made by that individual must fail for lack of Biblical support.  Decisional salvation can claim no support in Paul's teaching here.  In fact his teaching renders it an impossible theology, one in which all of humanity would universally face condemnation and death.

"…shall reign in life by one;" here Paul carefully uses a future tense verb.  Although writing to Roman Christians who were already born again, already saved in terms of their present spiritual standing with God, Paul distinctly anticipates a future salvation or life yet to be experienced by them.

The idea that Jesus died provisionally for all humanity, but factually for none finds no basis whatever in this passage.  Nor does the idea that Jesus died for all the sins of all humanity, except for the sin of rejecting Him or effectively choosing not to believe in Him, find support in this lesson.  In contrast to either of these populist ideas Paul affirms that Jesus' work is as "unilateral" as Adam's.  The impact of His work on behalf of His people is as involuntary and as specific as the impact of Adam's actions on his offspring.

The contrast between Adam and Jesus appears in no point more in contrast than in the consequences of their actions.  We sometimes hear people refer to something they consider to be highly important as being a matter of "life or death."  In the case of our lesson the term holds special significance.  Adam becomes synonymous with the sentence of death, both physical death and spiritual death, while Jesus becomes synonymous with the sentence of life, both natural life in terms of the final resurrection of the body and in terms of spiritual life.

The prevalent teaching of our age-not essentially different from past ages other than the greater creativity with which advocates of human-centered salvation attempt to describe their ideas-that salvation in its final and decisive point depends on some action or decision by the sinner contradicts Paul's teaching in this passage.  To one degree or another Pelagius and his successors taught that Adam's sin had no inherent impact on anyone else other than setting a bad example.  Functionally the prevalent teachings of decisional salvation in our time must build their foundational premise on this error.  According to their teaching, Adam made a bad decision and faced the consequences of his sin.  At some point in their lifetime, according to advocates of this idea, each individual must make a decision either for or against God.  Each individual must face his own serpent in his own Garden of Eden.  Thus in the final analysis each individual becomes his own personal judge and jury. Each individual becomes either his own executioner or his own savior!

If we follow Paul's teaching in this lesson, whatever impact we receive from Adam's action becomes the basis for whatever impact we receive from Jesus' actions.  If the impact of Adam's sin on us is nothing more than a bad example, we must conclude that the impact of Jesus' actions on us is nothing more than a good example!  This teaching leads us to the dreadful conclusion that every individual person must become his or her own savior, or they shall have no salvation.  If this were the case, why does Scripture so carefully and consistently present Jesus to us as the one and only Savior of sinners?

Is this a "new doctrine"?  The answer echoes off the canyon walls of centuries, but the first and primary echo comes from the mouth of inspired Scripture.  Consider these words from Augustus Toplady, the author of the favorite hymn "Rock of Ages."

Hallelujah, what a Savior!