Matt Tillman
I was reading the Bible (again) and came to Ezekiel 18. How does one understand this chapter in relation to the words of Paul, who suggested that “because of the sin of Adam,” all men are sinners? Ezekiel explicitly says, “What do you mean that you use this parable over the land of Israel, saying, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? As truly as I live, says the Lord God, you shall no longer use this parable in Israel. Behold, all souls are Mine. Like the soul of the father, like the soul of the son they are Mine; the soul that sins, it shall die… The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” How, then, hundreds of years later, can Paul overturn the words of a prophet of God?
Like · December 18, 2012 at 11:34am ·
  • Austria Quintin Jun likes this.
  • New Apologetics This is an excellent question. Let’s begin the answer by clarifying a necessary aspect of the question: The Bible is a progressive revelation in that the biblical human authors’ understanding of God’s nature and character (as well as their understanding of our dignity and destiny as human persons) expands gradually over the course of scripture. Consider, for example, the question of suffering: 

    1) At first, scripture presents suffering as if it were a direct punishment from God for sins. The implication being that if you are suffering, it is either your fault or the fault of your parents. On this early understanding, the suffering is localized to those who are closely associated with the sin being punished.

    2) Later, (in Job) a radical departure from the idea that suffering is patterned in accordance with moral transgressions is put forth. In Job, we have an *innocent* and *righteous* person who is suffering. No answer to the question “why” is given, and the assertion that the suffering is a punishment is rejected. Job comes to understand that his suffering has a purpose though he does not know what that purpose is.

    3) In the gospels we see that a totally innocent person (God himself) has suffered. We are shown that the suffering of a totally innocent person has redeemed us.

    4) In the New Testament Letters, we are shown that God has transformed our suffering to be redemptive in union with the suffering of Christ. 

    Though God’s self-communication to us is perfect and unchanging, it is necessarily filtered through our limited, (yet hopefully ever increasing) ability to receive what he is saying. [“He said to them, ‘Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.'” (Matt 19:8-9)]

    The Bible is not to be read like a set of stereo instructions, nor as a philosophical treatise where each sentence is weighted equally, but such is the danger of fundamentalism or reading Sacred Scripture uninformed by Sacred Tradition and Magisterium. Really, if we read the Bible apart from the teaching authority of the Church, we are *not* reading the Bible, and we enter into a morass of confusion.

    We will continue this response in a second comment to immediately follow this one.
    December 22, 2012 at 6:16pm · Like
  • New Apologetics Our continued response:

    Considering that the Bible is a progressive revelation, here is how we address your question:

    Exodus 20:5 reads: “For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation…”

    But a clearer picture of God’s character is revealed in Ezekiel 18:2

    “Thus the word of the LORD came to me: Son of man, what is the meaning of this proverb that you recite in the land of Israel: “Fathers have eaten green grapes, thus their children’s teeth are on edge”? As I live, says the Lord GOD: I swear that there shall no longer be anyone among you who will repeat this proverb in Israel. For all lives are mine; the life of the father is like the life of the son, both are mine; only the one who sins shall die.” 

    If we are reading scripture in an uninformed way, these two verses are simply a contradiction. However, if we understand that God is revealing himself, but that the recipients are limited according to their capacity to receive, then we see a beautiful progression of truth.

    Going further (and finally to the point of your question), Paul (in Rom 5:18-19) recognizes that because of the sin of Adam, we are all made sinners:

    “In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.”

    Does this contradict Ezekiel 18:2, or is there a much higher revelation here?

    Here is what the Church says about it:

    “…original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” – a state and not an act.
    … original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. [As a result of Adam’s sin, human nature] is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin – an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 404-405)

    So, we must understand that Paul is not talking about moral fault, but a diminished and disordered condition which afflicts the descendants of Adam, not because of a punishment orchestrated by God, but because of the disruption and damage to the whole order of creation that is caused by sin.

    Most fundamentally, the higher revelation here is that Paul saw that we are all interconnected. As we are one body in Christ, so we are one body in Adam. In both of these, the actions of one affect all.

    “How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam ‘as one body of one man’. By this ‘unity of the human race’ all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 404)

    Finally, it is vitally important to realize that the whole problem with sin is not that it makes God angry at us (he is love eternal and unchanging), but that sin hurts *us.* God is against sin because it causes pain to human beings:

    “Sin offends God, that is, it saddens him greatly, but only in so far as it brings death to man whom he loves; it wounds his love.” Fr. Cantalamessa, Preacher to the Papal Household

    And the sweeping effects of Adam’s sin on the rest of humanity are not the result of a perverse and unjust curse instituted by God, but because we were all created to be in perfect relationship of love, and the effects of Adam’s sin have disrupted right relationally for all of humanity:

    “What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly? Finding an answer to this requires nothing less than trying to understand the human person better. It must once again be stressed that no human being is closed in upon himself or herself and that no one can live of or for himself or herself alone. We receive our life not only at the moment of birth but every day from without–from others who are not ourselves but who nonetheless somehow pertain to us. Human beings have their selves not only in themselves but also outside of themselves: they live in those whom they love and in those who love them and to whom they are ‘present.’ Human beings are relational, and they possess their lives–themselves–only by way of relationship. I alone am not myself, but only in and with you am I myself. To be truly a human being means to be related in love, to be of and for. But sin means the damaging or the destruction of relationality. Sin is a rejection of relationality because it wants to make the human being a god. Sin is loss of relationship, disturbance of relationship, and therefore it is not restricted to the individual. When I destroy a relationship, then this event–sin–touches the other person involved in the relationship. Consequently sin is always an offense that touches others, that alters the world and damages it. To the extent that this is true, when the network of human relationships is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters into a world that is marked by relational damage. At the very moment that a person begins human existence, which is a good, he or she is confronted by a sin-damaged world. Each of us enters into a situation in which relationality has been hurt. Consequently each person is, from the very start, damaged in relationships and does not engage in them as he or she ought. Sin pursues the human being, and he or she capitulates to it.”–Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
    December 22, 2012 at 6:58pm · Like · 3
  • Matt Tillman New Apologetics representative said, “It must once again be stressed that no human being is closed in upon himself or herself and that no one can live of or for himself or herself alone.” So asceticism (generally and for most people) is impossible, futile (useless), and counterproductive (damaging to relationships)?
    December 23, 2012 at 9:39am · Like
  • New Apologetics Matt Tillman Thank you for the keen attempt at a counterexample.

    You wrote: “So asceticism (generally and for most people) is impossible, futile (useless), and counterproductive (damaging to relationships)?”

    We reply: Aceticism is not a retreat from relationally, but (for those led by grace to practice it) a deeper entry into relationality which is *inescapable* and an essential attribute of human beings. Each of us is irrevocably connected to every other, and the actions of one affect all whether that one is a solitary monk in the desert or whether one’s whole life is spent in active beneficent service to others. Consider the words of Pius XII on the unity of the Church:

    “If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: “Though many we are one body in Christ.” 

    “But a body calls also for a multiplicity of members, which are linked together in such a way as to help one another. And as in the body when one member suffers, all the other members share its pain, and the healthy members come to the assistance of the ailing, so in the Church the individual members do not live for themselves alone, but also help their fellows, and all work in mutual collaboration for the common comfort and for the more perfect building up of the whole Body.”

    “Through the Communion of Saints, no good can be done, no virtue practiced by the individual members, which does not redound also to the salvation of all.”
    December 23, 2012 at 8:23pm · Like · 1