Skip to main content

Paul’s use of “all the more so” arguments

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:12-21)

“All the more so” (technical term: a fortiori) arguments are employed by Paul (a lot!), and especially in the book of Romans. The typically take the form, “If A is true, all the more so B must be true”. For the proposition to work, A and B must share some similarity but, and this is important, B must exceed A in some way.

Perhaps a good demonstration of this is Luke 11:13 where Jesus says – “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

The item of similarity here is fatherhood. Jesus compares (1) evil human fathers with (2) the heavenly Father. But the heavenly Father obviously exceeds human fathers because there is no evil in Him.

Jesus then employs the a fortiori: If even evil human fathers know how to give good gifts, all the more so the heavenly Father will give the best possible gift of all (the Holy Spirit) to those who ask Him.

Now let’s try to understand Paul. The tricky thing here is that Paul is comparing many things in Rom 5:12-20. One example is that he compares Adam’s disobedience (trespass) to Jesus’ obedience. Another item of similarity is that they are also both God’s sons (“the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God” – Luke 3:38). But though they are similar, Jesus is greater than Adam.

One argument Paul is making is that if Adam’s disobedience brought the reign of death into our lives, all the more so Jesus’ obedience brought the reign of eternal life into our lives! – Romans 5:17

Another that he is making is that if Adam’s one act of disobedience led to condemnation for all men, all the more so Jesus’ act of obedience led to justification for all men. The similarity here is the effect of Adam and Jesus’ actions on all humanity.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8

  For Paul in Ephesians 4:8, clearly there are some changes from the text that Paul is supposedly citing which is Psalm 68:18. Comparing Psalm 68:18 and Ephesians 4:8, it is obvious there are differences. I believe Paul was actually using the LXX but has changed its words for the occasion in Ephesians 4. The LXX version of Psalm 68:18 and Ephesians 4:8 differs by a few words: Psalm 68:18 (it is actually Psalm 67:19 in the LXX): ἀναβὰς εἰς ὕψος  ᾐχμαλώτευσας  αἰχμαλωσίαν, ἔλαβες  δόματα  ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ , Ephesians 4:8 ἀναβὰς εἰς ὕψος  ᾐχμαλώτευσεν  αἰχμαλωσίαν,* ⸆  ἔδωκεν  δόματα ⸀ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. Structurally you can see the LXX and Eph 4 is similar but for a few words changes.   The first change is from 2nd person (LXX) to 3rd person (Eph 4) with regards to who is doing the ascending in the first line.  So the English Bible rightly translates the phrase to "When  he  ascended on high" versus Psalm 68, " you  ascended" ...

Paul and the Epicurean and Stoic Philosophers in Acts 17

Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there. Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean.” Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new. (Acts 17:16-21) (1) Christianity is meaningless to a person if it is classified as simply another school of thought, like the Epicureans or...

Lot, Noah, Shem, the Fall - how they all combine together

In this short writing, an attempt is made to show how the accounts of Noah, Shem, Lot, as well as the events after the Fall serve to powerfully combine to reveal the character of God in those who obey Him and those that do not.  The stories of Noah and Lot seem disparate but the parallels are incredible. The first connection is the feature of “wine” in both of these accounts. The parallels follow the pattern of (A) God’s salvation act (B) The drinking of wine (C) Actions of the Children.  It is easier to see the parallels when they are juxtaposed side-by-side (see picture). The (C) parallel may be harder to observe. Lot’s daughters’ attempts to bear children by their father is in fact the “uncovering of nakedness” prohibited later in the Pentateuch in Leviticus 18:6 -20. The verse below suffices for us to develop our thoughts further: “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord.” (Lev. 18:6) This ties back to the F...