Romans 5:12

COMPARISON AND CONTRAST BETWEEN ADAM AND CHRIST IN THEIR RELATION TO THE HUMAN FAMILY. (Rom 5:12-21)

Wherefore--that is, Things being so; referring back to the whole preceding argument.

as by one man--Adam.

sin--considered here in its guilt, criminality, penal desert.

entered into the world, and death by sin--as the penalty of sin.

and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned--rather, "all sinned," that is, in that one man's first sin. Thus death reaches every individual of the human family, as the penalty due to himself. (So, in substance, BENGEL, HODGE, PHILIPPI). Here we should have expected the apostle to finish his sentence, in some such way as this: "Even so, by one man righteousness has entered into the world, and life by righteousness." But, instead of this, we have a digression, extending to five verses, to illustrate the important statement of Rom 5:12; and it is only at Rom 5:18 that the comparison is resumed and finished.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 12. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world] From this verse, to the conclusion of the chapter, the apostle produces a strong argument to prove that, as all mankind stood in need of the grace of God in Christ to redeem them from their sins, so this grace has been afforded equally to all, both Jews and Gentiles.

Dr. Taylor has given the following analysis of the apostle's mode of argumentation. The argument stands thus:-"The consequences of Christ's obedience extend as far as the consequences of Adam's disobedience. The consequences of Adam's disobedience extend to all mankind; and therefore, so do the consequences of Christ's obedience. Now, if the Jews will not allow the Gentiles any interest in Abraham, as not being naturally descended from him, yet they must own that the Gentiles are the descendants of Adam, as well as themselves; and being all equally involved in the consequences of his sin, from which" (as far as the death of the body is concerned) "they shall all equally be released at the resurrection, through the free gift of God, therefore they could not deny the Gentiles a share in all the other blessings included in the same gift."

This argument, besides proving the main point, goes to show:

1. That the grace of God in the Gospel abounds beyond, or very far exceeds, the mere reversing of the sufferings brought upon mankind by Adam's one offence; as it bestows a vast surplusage of blessings which have no relation to that offence, but to the many offences which mankind have committed, and to the exuberance of the Divine grace.

2. To show how justly the Divine grace is founded on the obedience of Christ, in correspondence to the dispensation Adam was under, and to the consequences of his disobedience: if this disobedience involved all mankind in death, it is proper that the obedience of Christ should be the cause not only of reversing that death to all mankind, but also of other blessings which God should see fit (through him) to bestow on the world.

3. It serves to explain, and set in a clear view, the difference between the law and grace. It was the law which, for Adam's one transgression, subjected him and his posterity, as included in him when he transgressed, to death, without hopes of a revival. It is grace which restores all men to life at the resurrection; and, over and above that, has provided a gracious dispensation for the pardon of their sins; for reducing them to obedience; for guarding them against temptations; supplying them with strength and comfort; and for advancing them to eternal life. This would give the attentive Jew a just notion of the law which himself was under, and under which he was desirous of bringing the Gentiles.

The order in which the apostle handles this argument is this:-

1. He affirms that death passed upon all men by Adam's one transgression, Ro 5:12.

2. He proves this, Ro 5:13; Ro 5:14:

3. He affirms there is a correspondence between Adam and Christ; or between the παραπτωμα, offence, and the χαρισμα, free gift, Ro 5:14.

4. This correspondence, so far as the two opposite parts answer to each other, is justly expressed, Ro 5:18; Ro 5:19; and there we have the main or fundamental position of the apostle's argument, in relation to the point which he has been arguing from the beginning of the epistle, namely, the extensiveness of the grace of the Gospel, that it actually reaches to ALL MEN, and is not confined to the Jews.

5. But, before he laid down this position, it was necessary that he should show that the correspondence between Adam and Christ, or between the offence and the gift, is not to be confined strictly to the bounds specified in the position, as if the gift reached no farther than the consequences of the offence; when in reality it extends vastly beyond them, Ro 5:15-17.

6. Having settled these points, as previously necessary to clear his fundamental position, and fit to his argument, he then lays down that position in a diversified manner of speech, Ro 5:18; Ro 5:19, just as in 1Co 15:20, 1Co 15:21, and leaves us to conclude, from the premises laid down, Ro 5:15-17, that the gift and the grace in its utmost extent, is as free to all mankind who are willing to accept of it, as this particular instance, the resurrection from the dead. They shall all be raised from the dead hereafter; they may all be quickened by the Spirit here.

7. Having thus shown the extensiveness of the Divine grace, in opposition to the dire effects of the law under which Adam was; that the Jews might not overlook what he intended they should particularly observe, he puts them in mind that the law given to Adam, transgress and die, was introduced into the Jewish constitution by the ministry of Moses; and for this end, that the offence, with the penalty of death annexed to it, might abound, Ro 5:20. But, to illustrate tho Divine grace by setting it in contrast to the law, he immediately adds: where sin, subjecting to death, hath abounded, grace hath much more abounded; that is, in blessings bestowed; it has stretched far beyond both Adam's transgression, and the transgressions under the law of Moses, Ro 5:20; Ro 5:21, and see the note on the first of these verses.

Upon this argument the learned doctor makes the following general remarks:-

"I. As to the order of time: the apostle carries his arguments backwards from the time when Christ came into the world (Ro 1:17; to Rom. 4.) to the time when the covenant was made with Abraham, (Rom. 4.,) to the time when the judgment to condemnation, pronounced upon Adam, came upon all men, Ro 5:12, to the end. And thus he gives us a view of the principal dispensations from the beginning of the world.

"II. In this last case, as well as in the two former, he uses law or forensic terms; judgment to condemnation, justification, justify, made sinners, made righteous. And therefore, as he considers both Jews and Gentiles at the coming of Christ, and Abraham when the covenant was made with him, so he considers Adam, and all men, as standing in the court before the tribunal of God. And this was the clearest and concisest way of representing his arguments." Notes, p. 283.

Sin entered into the world] There was neither sin nor death before the offence of Adam; after that there were both. Adam's transgression was therefore the cause of both.

And death by sin] Natural evil is evidently the effect of moral evil; if man had never sinned, he had never suffered. Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return, was never spoken till after Adam had eaten the forbidden fruit.

Death passed upon all men] Hence we see that all human beings partook in the consequences of Adam's sin. He propagated his like; and, with the rudiments of his own nature, propagated those of his moral likeness.

For that all have sinned] All are born with a sinful nature; and the seeds of this evil soon vegetate, and bring forth corresponding fruits. There has never been one instance of an immaculate human soul since the fall of Adam. Every man sins, and sins too after the similitude of Adam's transgression. Adam endeavoured to be independent of God; all his offspring act in the same way: hence prayer is little used, because prayer is the language of dependence; and this is inconsistent with every emotion of original sin. When these degenerate children of degenerate parents are detected in their sins, they act just as their parents did; each excuses himself, and lays the blame on another. What hast thou done?-The woman whom THOU gavest me, to be with me; SHE gave me, and I did eat. What hast THOU done? -The SERPENT beguiled me, and I did eat. Thus, it is extremely difficult to find a person who ingenuously acknowledges his own transgressions.

See Clarke on Ge 3:6, &c., where the doctrine of original sin is particularly considered.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

12–21. The same subject, illustrated by the connexion of fallen man with Adam, and justified man with Christ

12. Wherefore, &c.] Here begins an important section, closing with the ch. In point of language, and of links of thought, it is occasionally difficult, and moreover deals with the deep mystery of the effects of the Fall. We preface detailed comments with a few general remarks.

1. The section closes one main part of the argument—that on the Way of Justification; and it leads to another—that on its Results. It is connected more with the former than with the latter.

2. Its main purpose is unmistakable. It brings out the grandeur and completeness of Christ’s work by contrast with the work (so to speak) of Adam. It regards the two as, in some real sense, paralleled and balanced.

3. Without explaining (what cannot be explained, perhaps, in this life,) the reason of the thing, it states as a fact concerning the Fall that its result is not only inherited sinfulness, but inherited guilt; i.e. liability to punishment, (that of death,) on account of the primeval Sin. Death (in human beings) is penalty: but e.g. infants, void of actual moral wrong, die: therefore they die for inherited (we may say for vicarious) guilt.

4. From this admitted mystery and fact (as plainly it was with the Romans) St Paul argues to the corresponding “life” of believers in virtue of the vicarious righteousness of Messiah, whom here (and in 1Co_15:22; 1Co_15:45; 1Co_15:47,) he regards as the Second Adam.

5. Unquestionably the mystery of the Effects of the Fall is extremely great and painful. But it is the mystery of facts; and it is but one of the offshoots of the greatest and deepest of all distressing mysteries, the Existence of Sin.—See further, Appendix D.

Wherefore, as, &c.] There is no expressed close to this sentence. But a close may be taken as implied in this first clause: q. d., “Wherefore [the case of Justification is] just parallel to the entrance of sin by one man, &c.” Rom_5:12 will then be a complete statement.

by one man] Cp. 1Co_15:21-22; 1Co_15:45-49.

sin … death] See Rom_5:17-18 for the implied antithesis: Christ, righteousness, life.

death by sin] In the case of Man. Scripture nowhere says that death in animals is due to human sin. Death was the specially threatened penalty to the sole race which was on the one hand created with an animal organism, which could die, and on the other, “made in the image of God.” The penal character of death is essential to St Paul’s argument.

passed] Lit. went through, traversed, penetrated.

upon] Better, unto; so as to reach all men. “Men” is expressed here in the Gr., marking the special reference to human beings.

for that all have sinned] Better, for that all sinned; the aorist. St Paul refers to the First Sin, to the guilt of the Representative of the race. A close parallel, in contrast, is 2Co_5:15, where lit. “since One died for all, therefore they all died;” i.e. ideally, in their Divine Representative. See too 1Co_15:21, where our death in Adam is spoken of just as our sin in Adam here.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 5:12-21 has been usually regarded as the most difficult part of the New Testament. It is not the design of these notes to enter into a minute criticism of contested points like this. They who wish to see a full discussion of the passage, may find it in the professedly critical commentaries; and especially in the commentaries of Tholuck and of Professor Stuart on the Romans. The meaning of the passage in its general bearing is not difficult; and probably the whole passage would have been found far less difficult if it had not been attached to a philosophical theory on the subject of man’s sin, and if a strenuous and indefatigable effort had not been made to prove that it teaches what it was never designed to teach. The plain and obvious design of the passage is this, to show one of the benefits of the doctrine of justification by faith. The apostle had shown,

That that doctrine produced peace, Rom 5:1. That it produces joy in the prospect of future glory, Rom 5:2. That it sustained the soul in afflictions;

(a)By the regular tendency of afflictions under the gospel, Rom 5:3-4; and,

(b)By the fact that the Holy Spirit was imparted to the believer.

That this doctrine rendered it certain that we should be saved, because Christ had died for us, Rom 5:6; because this was the highest expression of love, Rom 5:7-8; and because if we had been reconciled when thus alienated, we should be saved now that we are the friends of God, Rom 5:9-10. That it led us to rejoice in God himself; produced joy in his presence, and in all his attributes.

He now proceeds to show the bearing on that great mass of evil which had been introduced into the world by sin, and to prove that the benefits of the atonement were far greater than the evils which had been introduced by the acknowledged effects of the sin of Adam. “The design is to exalt our views of the work of Christ, and of the plan of justification through him, by comparing them with the evil consequences of the sin of our first father, and by showing that the blessings in question not only extend to the removal of these evils, but far beyond this, so that the grace of the gospel has not only abounded, but superabounded.” (Prof. Stuart.) In doing this, the apostle admits, as an undoubted and well-understood fact:

1. That sin came into the world by one man, and death as the consequence. Rom 5:12.

2. That death had passed on all; even on those who had not the light of revelation, and the express commands of God, Rom 5:13-14.

3. That Adam was the figure, the type of him that was to come; that there was some sort of analogy or resemblance between the results of his act and the results of the work of Christ. That analogy consisted in the fact that the effects of his doings did not terminate on himself, but extended to numberless other persons, and that it was thus with the work of Christ, Rom 5:14. But he shows,

4. That there were very material and important differences in the two cases. There was not a perfect parallelism. The effects of the work of Christ were far more than simply to counteract the evil introduced by the sin of Adam. The differences between the effect of his act and the work of Christ are these.

The sin of Adam led to condemnation. The work of Christ has an opposite tendency, Rom 5:15. The condemnation which came from the sin of Adam was the result of one offence. The work of Christ was to deliver from many offences, Rom 5:16. The work of Christ was far more abundant and overflowing in its influence. It extended deeper and further. It was more than a compensation for the evils of the fall, Rom 5:17.

5. As the act of Adam threw its influence over all people to secure their condemnation, so the work of Christ was suited to affect all people, Jews and Gentiles, in bringing them into a state by which they might be delivered from the fall, and restored to the favor of God. It was in itself adapted to produce far more and greater benefits than the crime of Adam had done evil; and was thus a glorious plan, just suited to meet the actual condition of a world of sin; and to repair the evils which apostasy had introduced. It had thus the evidence that it originated in the benevolence of God, and that it was adapted to the human condition, Rom 5:18-21.

(The learned author denies the doctrine of imputed sin, and labors to prove that it is not contained in Rom 5:12, Rom 5:19. The following introductory note is intended to exhibit the orthodox view of the subject, and meet the objections which the reader will find in the Commentary. The very first question that demands our attention is, What character did Adam sustain under the covenant of works, that of a single and independent individual. or that of the representative of the human kind?

This is one of the most important questions in Theology, and according to the answer we may be prepared to give, in the affirmative or negative, will be almost the entire complexion of our religious views. If the question be resolved in the affirmative, then what Adam did must be held as done by us, and the imputation of his guilt would seem to follow as a necessary consequence.

1. That Adam sustained the character of representative of the human race; in other words, that he was the federal as well as natural head of his descendants, is obvious from the circumstances of the history in the book of Genesis. It has been said indeed, that in the record of the threatening no mention is made of the posterity of Adam, and that on this account, all idea of federal headship or representation must be abandoned, as a mere theological figment, having no foundation in Scripture. But if God regarded Adam only in his individual capacity, when be said unto him “in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” then, the other addresses of God to Adam, which form part of the same history, must be construed in the same way. And was it to Adam only, and not to the human kind at large, viewed in him, that God said, “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth?” Was it to Adam in his individual capacity, that God gave the grant of the earth, with all its rich and varied productions? Or was it to mankind at large? Was it to Adam alone that God said, “in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground,” etc.? The universal infliction of the penalty shows, that the threatening was addressed to Adam as the federal head of the race. All toil, and sweat, and die. Indeed, the entire history favors the conclusion, that God was dealing with Adam, not in his individual, but representative capacity; nor can its consistency be preserved on any other principle.

2. Moreover, there are certain facts connected with the moral history of mankind, which present insuperable difficulties, if we deny the doctrines of representation and imputed sin. “How shall we on any other principle account for the universality of death, or rather of penal evil?” It can be traced back beyond all personal guilt. Its origin is higher. Antecedent to all actual transgression, man is visited with penal evil. He comes into the world under a necessity of dying. His whole constitution is disordered. His body and his mind bear on them the marks of a blighting curse. It is impossible on any theory to deny this. And why is man thus visited? Can the righteous God punish where there is no guilt? We muss take one side or other of the alternative, that God inflicts punishment without guilt, or that Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity. If we take the latter branch of the alternative, we are furnished with the ground of the divine procedure, and freed from many difficulties that press upon the opposite view.

It may be noticed in this place also, that the death of infants is a striking proof of the infliction of penal evil, prior to personal or actual sin. Their tender bodies are assailed in a multitude of instances by acute and violent diseases, that call for our sympathy the more that the sufferers cannot disclose or communicate the source of their agony. They labor with death and struggle hard in his hands, until they resign the gift of life they had retained for so short a while. It is said, indeed, that the case of infants is not introduced in Scripture in connection with this subject, and our author tells us, that they are not at all referred to in any part of this disputed passage, nor included in the clause, “death reigned, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.” On this, some observations will be found in the proper place. Meanwhile, there is the fact itself, and with it we are concerned now. “Why do infants die?” Perhaps it will be said that though they have committed no actual sin, yet they have a depraved nature; but this cedes the whole question, for that depraved nature is just a part of the penal evil, formerly noticed. Why are innocent infants visited with what entails death on them? One answer only can be given, and no ingenuity can evade the conclusion, “in Adam all die.” The wonder is, that this doctrine should ever have been denied. On the human family at large, on man and woman, on infant child, and hoary sire, on earth and sky, are traced the dismal effects of the first sin.

3. The parallelism between Adam and Christ is another branch of evidence on this subject. That they bear a striking resemblance to each other is allowed on all hands. Hence, Christ is styled, in 1 Cor. 15, “the last Adam,” and “the second man,” and in this very passage, Adam is expressly called a type, or “figure of him that was to come.” Now in what does this resemblance consist? Between these two persons there are very many points Of dissimilarity, or contrast. The first man is earthy, the second is the Lord from heaven. From the one come guilt, and condemnation, and death; and from the other. righteousness, justification, and life. Where then is the similarity? “They are alike,” says Beza, “in this, that each of them shares what he has with has.” Both are covenant or representative heads, and communicate their respective influences to those whom they represent. Here then, is one great leading point of similarity, nor is it possible in any other view to preserve the parallel.

For suppose we disturb the parallel as now adjusted, and argue that Adam was not a federal head, that we are therefore neither held guilty of Adam’s sin, nor condemned and punished on account of it; where shall we find the counterpart of this in Christ? Must we also maintain that he does not represent his people, that they are neither esteemed righteous on account of his work, nor justified and saved by it? Such is the legitimate consequence of the opposite views. If we hold that from Adam we receive only a corrupt nature, in consequence of which we sin personally, and then become guilty, and are in consequence condemned; we must also argue that we receive from Christ only a pure or renewed nature, in consequence of which we become personally righteous, and are then and therefore justified and saved. But such a scheme would undermine the whole gospel. Though the derivation of holiness from Christ be a true and valuable doctrine, we are not justified on account of that derived holiness. On the contrary, we are justified on account of something without us - something that has no dependence whatever on our personal holiness, namely, the righteousness of Christ. Nay, according to the doctrine of Paul, justification in order of nature, is before sanctification, and the cause of it.

It is but justice to state, that the commentator maintains that a resemblance between Adam and Christ lies not at all in the mode in which sin and righteousness, life and death have been respectively introduced by them; but is found in the simple fact that “the effect of their doings did not terminate on themselves, but extended to numberless other persons.” pp. 117, 118, 128. Indeed, he repeatedly affirms, that in regard to the introduction of sin by Adam, nothing whatever is said in this passage in regard to the mode of it. The fact alone is announced. If this were true, it is allowed that the arguments we have now employed would be much weakened. But the assertion cannot be substantiated. If the analogy do not lie in the mode, but in the simple fact, that the effects of their doings do not terminate on themselves; what greater resemblance is there between Adam and Christ, than between any two persons that might be named? David and Ahab might be compared in the same way; the good deeds of the one, and the evil deeds of the other, not terminating with themselves. Besides, Paul certainly does state in the previous chapter, the mode in which the righteousness of Christ becomes available for salvation. He states plainly that “God imputeth it without works.” When then in the 5th chapter he looks back upon this subject, and introduces his parallel with “Wherefore as by one man,” etc. are we to believe that he intends no similarity in the mode? Shall we make the apostle explain the manner in which the righteousness becomes available, and say nothing of the way in which its opposite is introduced, at the very time he is professedly comparing the two?

Such is a brief outline of the evidence on which the doctrine of imputed sin is based. The principal arguments are those derived from the universality of penal evil, and the parallel between Adam and Christ. And these are the very topics handled by the apostle in this much vexed passage. Our author, indeed, in his opening remarks maintains, that nothing is said by the apostle of original sin in this place. “The apostle here is not discussing the doctrine of original sin;” and “his design is to show one of the benefits of the doctrine of justification.” But the design of Paul is to illustrate the doctrine of justification, and not simply to show one of its benefits. For in the former part of this chapter Rom 5:1-11, the apostle had fully enlarged on these benefits, and there is no evidence that Rom 5:12, Rom 5:19, are a continuation of the same theme. On the contrary, there is obviously a break in the discourse at Rom 5:12, where the apostle, recalling the discussion, introduces a new illustration of his principal point, namely, justification through the righteousness of Christ. On this the apostle had discouraged largely in Rom. 3; 4.

And lest any should think it anomalous and irrational to justify people, on account of a work they themselves had no hand in accomplishing, he now appeals to the “great analogous fact in the history of the world. This seems the most natural construction. No wonder,” says President Edwards, “when the apostle is treating so fully and largely of our restoration, righteousness, and life by Christ, that he is led by it to consider our fall, sin, death, and ruin by Adam.” - Orig. Sin. p. 303. The following analysis will assist the reader in understanding the whole passage: “As the point to be illustrated is the justification of sinners, on the ground of the righteousness of Christ, and the source of illustration is the fall of all men in Adam; the passage begins with a statement of this latter truth. ‘As on account of one man death has passed upon all people; so on account of one,’ etc. Rom 5:12. Before, however, carrying out the comparison, the apostle stops to establish his position, that all people are regarded, and treated as sinners on account of Adam. His proof is this. The infliction of a penalty implies the transgression of a law, since sin is not imputed where there is no law, Rom 5:13. All mankind are subject to death or penal evils, therefore all people are regarded as transgressors of a law, Rom 5:13. The Law or covenant which brings death on all people, is not the Law of Moses, because multitudes died before that Law was given, Rom 5:14.

Nor is it the law of nature, since multitudes die who have never violated even that law, Rom 5:14. Therefore, we must conclude, that people are subject to death on account of Adam; that is, it is for the offence of one that many die, Rom 5:13-14. Adam is, therefore, a type of Christ. Yet the cases are not completely parallel. There are certain points of dissimilarity, Rom 5:15, Rom 5:17. Having thus limited and illustrated the analogy, the apostle resumes, and carries the comparison fully out in Rom 5:18-19. “Therefore as on account of one man.” etc. Prof. Hodge.)

Rom 5:12

Wherefore, - διὰ τοῦτο dia touto. On this account. This is not an inference from what has gone before, but I a continuance of the design of the apostle to show the advantages of the plan of justification by faith; as if he had said, “The advantages of that plan have been seen in our comfort and peace, and in its sustaining power in afflictions. Further, the advantages of the plan are seen in regard to this, that it is applicable to the condition of man in a world where the sin of one man has produced so much wo and death. “On this account” also it is a matter of joy. It meets the ills of a fallen race; and it is therefore a plan adapted to man.” Thus understood, the connection and design of the passage is easily explained. In respect to the state of things into which man is fallen, the benefits of this plan may be seen, as adapted to heal the maladies, and to be commensurate with the evils which the apostasy of one man brought upon the world. This explanation is not what is usually given to this place, but it is what seems to me to be demanded by the strain of the apostle’s reasoning. The passage is elliptical, and there is a necessity of supplying something to make out the sense.

As - ὥσπερ hōsper. This is the form of a comparison. But the other part of the comparison’s deferred to Rom 5:18. The connection evidently requires us to understand the other part of the comparison of the work of Christ. In the rapid train of ideas in the mind of the apostle, this was deferred to make room for explanations Rom 5:13-17. “As by one man sin entered into the world, etc., so by the work of Christ a remedy has been provided, commensurate with the evils. As the sin of one man had such an influence, so the work of the Redeemer has an influence to meet and to counteract those evils.” The passage in Rom 5:13-17 is therefore to be regarded as a parenthesis thrown in for the purpose of making explanations, and to show how the cases of Adam and of Christ differed from each other.

By one man ... - By means of one man; by the crime of one man. His act was the occasion of the introduction of all sin into all the world. The apostle here refers to the well known historical fact Gen 3:6-7, without any explanation of the mode or cause, of this. He adduced it as a fact that was well known; and evidently meant to speak of it not for the purpose of explaining the mode, or even of making this the leading or prominent topic in the discussion. His main design is not to speak of the manner of the introduction of sin, but to show that the work of Christ meets and removes well-known and extensive evils. His explanations, therefore, are chiefly confined to the work of Christ. He speaks of the introduction, the spread, and the effects of sin, not as having any theory to defend on that subject, not as designing to enter into a minute description of the case, but as it was manifest on the face of things, as it stood on the historical record, and as it was understood and admitted by mankind.

Great perplexity has been introduced by forgetting the scope of the apostle’s argument here, and by supposing that he was defending a special theory on the subject of the introduction of sin; whereas, nothing is more foreign to his design. He is showing how the plan of justification “meets well understood and acknowledged universal evils.” Those evils he refers to just as they were seen, and admitted to exist. All people see them, and feel them, and practically understand them. The truth is, that the doctrine of the fall of man, and the prevalence of sin and death, do not belong especially to Christianity any more than the introduction and spread of disease does to the science of the healing art. Christianity did not introduce sin; nor is it responsible for it The existence of sin and we belongs to the race; appertains equally to all systems of religion, and is a part of the melancholy history of man, whether Christianity be true or false.

The existence and extent of sin and death are not affected if the infidel could show that Christianity was an imposition. They would still remain. The Christian religion is just “one mode of proposing a remedy for well-known and desolating evils;” just as the science of medicine proposes a remedy for diseases ‘which it did not introduce, and which could not be stayed in their desolations, or modified, if it could be shown that the whole science of healing was pretension and quackery. Keeping this design of the apostle in view, therefore, and remembering that he is not defending or stating a theory about the introduction of sin, but that he is explaining the way in which the work of Christ delivers from a deep-felt universal evil, we shall find the explanation of this passage disencumbered of many of the difficulties with which it has been thought usually to be invested.

By one man - By Adam; see Rom 5:14. It is true that sin was literally introduced by Eve, who was first in the transgression; Gen 3:6; 1Ti 2:14. But the apostle evidently is not explaining the precise mode in which sin was introduced, or making this his leading point. He therefore speaks of the introduction of sin in a popular sense, as it was generally understood. The following reasons may be suggested why the man is mentioned rather than the woman as the cause of the introduction of sin:

(1) It was the natural and usual way of expressing such an event. We say that man sinned, that man is redeemed, man dies, etc. We do not pause to indicate the sex in such expressions. So in this, he undoubtedly meant to say that it was introduced by the parentage of the human race.

(2) The name Adam in Scripture was given to the created pair, the parents of the human family, a name designating their earthly origin; Gen 5:1-2, “In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam.” The name Adam, therefore, used in this connection Rom 5:14, would suggest the united parentage of the human family.

(3) In transactions where man and woman are mutually concerned, it is usual to speak of the man first, on account of his being constituted superior in rank and authority.

(4) The comparison on the one side, in the apostle’s argument, is of the man Christ Jesus; and to secure the fitness, the congruity (Stuart) of the comparison, he speaks of the man only in the previous transaction.

(5) The sin of the woman was not complete in its effects without the concurrence of the man. It was their uniting in it which was the cause of the evil. Hence, the man is especially mentioned as having reordered the offence what it was; as having completed it, and entailed its curses on the race. From these remarks it is clear that the apostle does not refer to the man here from any idea that there was any particular covenant transaction with him, but that he means to speak of it in the usual, popular sense; referring to him as being the fountain of all the woes that sin has introduced into the world.

“In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” Gen 2:17. This is an account of the first great covenant transaction between God and man. It carries us back to the origin of mankind, and discloses the source of evil, about which so much has been written and spoken in vain. That God entered into covenant with Adam in innocence, is a doctrine, with which the Shorter Catechism has made us familiar from our infant years. Nor is it without higher authority. It would be improper, indeed, to apply to this transaction everything that may be supposed essential to a human compact or bargain. Whenever divine things are represented by things analogous among men, care must be taken to exclude every idea that is inconsistent with the dignity of the subject. If the analogy be pressed beyond due bounds, the subject is not illustrated, but degraded. For example, in the present case, we must not suppose that because in human covenants, the consent of parties is essential, and both are at full liberty to receive or reject the proposed terms as they shall see fit; the same thing holds true in the case of Adam. He indeed freely gave his consent to the terms of the covenant, as a holy being could not fail to do, but he was not at liberty to withhold that consent. He was a creature entirely at the divine disposal, whose duty from the moment of his being was implicit obedience. He had no power either to dictate or reject terms, The relation of parties in this covenant, renders the idea of power to withhold consent, inadmissible.

But, because the analogy cannot be pressed beyond certain limits, must we therefore entirely abandon it? Proceeding on this principle, we should speedily find it impossible to retain any term or figure, that had ever been employed about religious subjects. The leading essentials of a covenant are found in this great transaction, and no more is necessary to justify the appellation which orthodox divines have applied to it. “A covenant is a contract, or agreement, between two or more parties, on certain terms.” It is commonly supposed to imply the existence of parties, a promise, and a condition. All these constituent parts of a covenant meet in the case under review. The parties are God and man, God and the first parent of the human race; the promise is life, which though not expressly stated, is yet distinctly implied in the penalty; and the condition is obedience to the supreme will of God. In human covenants no greater penalty is incurred than the forfeiture of the promised blessing, and therefore the idea of penalty is not supposed essential to a covenant. In every case of forfeited promise, however, there is the infliction of penalty, to the exact amount of the value of the blessing lost. We cannot think of Adam losing life without the corresponding idea of suffering death. So that, in fact, the loss of the promise, and the infliction of the penalty, are nearly the same thing.

It is no valid objection to this view, that the word “covenant,” as our author tells us, (p. 137,) “is not applied in the transaction in the Bible,” for there are many terms, the accuracy of which is never disputed, that are no more to be found in the Scriptures than this. Where do we find such terms as “the fall,” and “the Trinity,” and many others that might be mentioned? The mere name, in, deed, is not a matter of very great importance, and if we allow that in the transaction itself, there were parties, and a promise, and a condition, (which cannot easily he denied,) it is of less moment whether we call it a covenant, or with our author and others, “a divine constitution.” It is obvious to remark, however, that this latter title is just as little to be found “applied in the transaction in the Bible,” as the former, and besides is more “liable to be misunderstood;” being vague and indefinite, intimating only, that Adam was under a divine law, or constitution; whereas the word “covenant” distinctly expresses the kind or form of law, and gives definite character to the whole transaction.

But although the doctrine of the covenant of works is independent of the occurrence of the name in the Scriptures, even this narrow ground of objection is not so easily maintained as some imagine. In Hos 6:7, it is said (according to the marginal reading, which is in strict accordance with the original Hebrew,) they like Adam: כאדם k'-’Aadam have transgressed the covenant. And in that celebrated passage in the Epistle to the Galatians, Gal 4:24, when Paul speaks of “the two covenants,” he alludes, in the opinion of some of the highest authorities, to the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. This opinion is espoused, and defended with great ability by the late Mr. Bell of Glasgow, one of the most distinguished theologians of his times, in a learned dissertation on the subject: Bell on the Covenants p. 85. Scripture authority, then, would seem not to be entirely lacking, even for the name.

This doctrine of the covenant is intimately connected with that of imputed sin, for if there were no covenant, there could be no covenant or representative head; and if there were no covenant head, there could be no imputation of sin. Hence, the dislike to the name.)

Sin entered into the world - He was the first sinner of the race. The word “sin” here evidently means the violation of the Law of God He was the first sinner among people, and in consequence all others became sinners. The apostle does not here refer to Satan, the tempter, though he was the suggester of evil; for his design was to discuss the effect of the plan of salvation in meeting the sins and calamities of our race. This design, therefore, did not require him to introduce the sin of another order of beings. He says, therefore, that Adam was the first sinner of the race, and that death was the consequence.

Into the world - Among mankind; Joh 1:10; Joh 3:16-17. The term “world” is often thus used to denote human beings, the race, the human family. The apostle here evidently is not discussing the doctrine of original sin, but he is stating a simple fact, intelligible to all: “The first man violated the Law of God, and, in this way, sin was introduced among human beings.” In this fact - this general, simple declaration - there is no mystery.

And death by sin - Death was the consequence of sin; or was introduced because man sinned. This is a simple statement of an obvious and well-known fact. It is repeating simply what is said in Gen 3:19, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return into the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” The threatening was Gen 2:17, “Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” If an inquiry be made here, how Adam would understand this; I reply, that we have no reason to think he would understand it as referring to anything more than the loss of life as an expression of the displeasure of God. Moses does not intimate that he was learned in the nature of laws and penalties; and his narrative would lead us to suppose that this was all that would occur to Adam. And indeed, there is the highest evidence that the case admits of, that this was his understanding of it.

For in the account of the infliction of the penalty after the Law was violated; in God’s own interpretation of it, in Gen 3:19, there is still no reference to anything further. “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” Now it is incredible that Adam should have understood this as referring to what has been called “spiritual death,” and to” eternal death,” when neither in the threatening, nor in the account of the infliction of the sentence, is there the slightest recorded reference to it. People have done great injury in the cause of correct interpretation by carrying their notions of doctrinal subjects to the explanation of words and phrases in the Old Testament. They have usually described Adam as endowed with all the refinement, and possessed of all the knowledge, and adorned with all the metaphysical acumen and subtility of a modern theologian. They have deemed him qualified in the very infancy of the world, to understand and discuss questions, which, under all the light of the Christian revelation, still perplex and embarrass the human mind. After these accounts of the endowments of Adam, which occupy so large a space in books of theology, one is surprised, on opening the Bible, to find how unlike all this, is the simple statement in Genesis. And the wonder cannot be suppressed that people should describe the obvious infancy of the race as superior to its highest advancement; or that the first man, just looking upon a world of wonders, imperfectly acquainted with law, and moral relations, and the effects of transgression, should be represented as endowed with knowledge which four thousand years afterward it required the advent of the Son of God to communicate!

The account in Moses is simple. Created man was told not to violate a simple law, on pain of death. He did it; and God announced to him that the sentence would be inflicted, and that he should return to the dust whence he was taken. What else this might involve, what other consequences sin might introduce, might be the subject of future developments and revelations. It is absurd to suppose that all the consequences of the violation of a law can be foreseen, or must necessarily be foreseen, in order to make the law and the penalty just. It is sufficient that the law be known; that its violation be forbidden; and what the consequences of that violation will be, must be left in great part to future developments. Even we, yet know not half the results of violating the Law of God. The murderer knows not the results fully of taking a man’s life. He breaks a just law, and exposes himself to the numberless unseen woes which may flow from it.

We may ask, therefore, what light subsequent revelations have east on the character and result of the first sin? and whether the apostle here meant to state that the consequences of sin were in fact as limited as they must have appeared to the mind of Adam? or had subsequent developments and revelations, through four thousand years, greatly extended the right understanding of the penalty of the law? This can be answered only by inquiring in what sense the apostle Paul here uses the word “death.” The passage before us shows in what sense he intended here to use the word. In his argument it stands opposed to “the grace of God, and the gift by grace,” Rom 5:15; to “justification,” by the forgiveness of “many offences,” Rom 5:16; to the reign of the redeemed in eternal life, Rom 5:17; and to” justification of life,” Rom 5:18. To all these, the words “death’ Rom 5:12, Rom 5:17 and “judgment” Rom 5:16, Rom 5:18 stand opposed.

These are the benefits which result from the work of Christ; and these benefits stand opposed to the evils which sin has introduced; and as it cannot be supposed that these benefits relate to temporal life, or solely to the resurrection of the body, so it cannot be that the evils involved in the words “death,” “judgment,” etc., relate simply to temporal death. The evident meaning is, that the word “death,” as used here by the apostle, refers to the train of evils which have been introduced by sin. It does not mean simply temporal death; but that group and collection of woes, including temporal death, condemnation, and exposure to eternal death, which is the consequence of transgression. The apostle often uses the word “death,” and “to die,” in this wide sense, Rom 1:32; Rom 6:16, Rom 6:23; Rom 7:5, Rom 7:10, Rom 7:13, Rom 7:24; Rom 8:2, Rom 8:6,Rom 8:13; 2Co 2:16; 2Co 7:10; Heb 2:14. In the same sense the word is often used elsewhere, Joh 8:51; Joh 11:26; 1Jo 5:16-17; Rev 2:11; Rev 20:6, etc. etc.

In contrasting with this the results of the work of Christ, he describes not the resurrection merely, nor deliverance from temporal death, but eternal life in heaven; and it therefore follows that he here intends by death that gloomy and sad train of woes which sin has introduced into the world. The consequences of sin are, besides, elsewhere specified to be far more than temporal death, Eze 18:4; Rom 2:8-9, Rom 2:12. Though therefore Adam might not have foreseen all the evils which were to come upon the race as the consequence of his sin, yet these evils might nevertheless follow. And the apostle, four thousand years after the reign of sin had commenced, and under the guidance of inspiration, had full opportunity to see and describe that train of woes which he comprehends under the name of death. That train included evidently temporal death, condemnation for sin, remorse of conscience, and exposure to eternal death, as the penalty of transgression.

And so - Thus. In this way it is to be accounted for that death has passed upon all people, to wit, because all people have sinned. As death followed sin in the first transgression, so it has in all; for all have sinned. There is a connection between death and sin which existed in the case of Adam, and which subsists in regard to all who sin. And as all have sinned, so death has passed upon all people.

Death passed upon - διῆλθεν diēlthen. Passed through; pervaded; spread over the whole race, as pestilence passes through, or pervades a nation. Thus, death, with its train of woes, with its withering and blighting influence, has passed through the world, laying prostrate all before it.

Upon all men - Upon the race; all die.

For that - ἐφ ̓ ᾧ eph' hō. This expression has been greatly controverted; and has been very variously translated. Elsner renders it, “on account of whom.” Doddridge, “unto which all have sinned.” The Latin Vulgate renders it, “in whom (Adam) all have sinned.” The same rendering has been given by Augustine, Beza, etc. But it has never yet been shown that our translators have rendered the expression improperly. The old Syriac and the Arabic agree with the English translation in this interpretation. With this agree Calvin, Vatablus, Erasmus, etc. And this rendering is sustained also by many other considerations.

(1) If ῳ ō be a relative pronoun here, it would refer naturally to death, as its antecedent, and not to man. But this would not make sense.

(2) If this had been its meaning, the preposition ἐν en would have been used; see the note of Erasmus on the place.

(3) It comports with the apostle’s argument to state a cause why all died, and not to state that people sinned in Adam. He was inquiring into the cause why death was in the world; and it would not account or that to say that all sinned in Adam. It would require an additional statement to see how that could be a cause.

(4) As his posterity had not then an existence, they could not commit actual transgression. Sin is the transgression of the Law by a moral agent; and as the interpretation “because all have sinned” meets the argument of the apostle, and as the Greek favors that certainly as much as it does the other, it is to be preferred.

All have sinned - To sin is to transgress the Law of God; to do wrong. The apostle in this expression does not say that all have sinned in Adam, or that their nature has become corrupt, which is true, but which is not affirmed here; nor that the sin of Adam is imputed to them; but simply affirms that all people have sinned. He speaks evidently of the great universal fact that all people are sinners, He is not settling a metaphysical difficulty; nor does he speak of the condition of man as he comes into the world. He speaks as other men would; he addresses himself to the common sense of the world; and is discoursing of universal, well-known facts. Here is the fact - that all people experience calamity, condemnation, death. How is this to be accounted for? The answer is, “All have sinned.” This is a sufficient answer; it meets the case. And as his design cannot be shown to be to discuss a metaphysical question about the nature of man, or about the character of infants, the passage should be interpreted according to his design, and should not be pressed to bear on that of which he says nothing, and to which the passage evidently has no reference. I understand it, therefore, as referring to the fact that people sin in their own persons, sin themselves - as, indeed, how can they sin in an other way? - and that therefore they die. If people maintain that it refers to any metaphysical properties of the nature of man, or to infants, they should not infer or suppose this, but should show distinctly that it is in the text. Where is there evidence of any such reference?

(The following note on Rom 5:12, is intended to exhibit its just connection and force. It is the first member of a comparison between Adam and Christ, which is completed in Rom 5:18-19. “As by one man,” etc. The first point which demands our attention, is the meaning of the words, “By one man sin entered into the world.” Our author has rendered them, “He was the first sinner;” and in this he follows Prof. Stewart and Dr. Taylor; the former of whom gives this explanation of the clause; that Adam “began transgression,” and the latter interprrets it by the word “commence.” It is, however, no great discovery, that sin commenced with one man, or that Adam was the first sinner. If sin commenced at all, it must have commenced with some one. And If Adam sinned at all, while yet he stood alone in the world, he must have been the first sinner of the race! President Edwards, in his reply to Dr. Taylor of Norwich, has the following animadversions on this view: “That the world was full of sin, and full of death, were too great and notorious, deeply affecting the interests of mankind; and they seemed very wonderful facts, drawing the attention of the more thinking part of mankind everywhere, who often asked this question, ‘whence comes this evil,’ moral and natural evil? (the latter chiefly visible in death.) It is manifest the apostle here means to tell us how these came into the world, and prevail in it as they do. But all that is meant, according to Dr Tay or’s interpretation, is ‘he began transgression,’ as if all the apostle meant, was to tell us who happened to sin first, not how such a malady came upon the world, or how anyone in the world, besides Adam himself, came by such a distemper.” - Orig. Sin, p. 270.

The next thing that calls for remark in this verse, is the force of the connecting words “and so” καὶ οὕτως kai houtōs. They are justly rendered “in this way,.”” in this manner,” “in consequence of which.” And therefore, the meaning of the first three clauses of the first verse is, that by one man sin entered into the world. and death by sin, in consequence of which sin of this one man, death passed upon all people.

It will not do to render “and so” by “in like manner,” as Prof. Stewart does, and then explain with our author, “there is a connection between death and sin. which existed in the case of Adam, and which subsists in regard to all who sin.” This is quite contrary to the acknowledged force of καὶ οὕτως kai houtōs, and besides, entirely destroys the connection which the apostle wishes to establish between the sin of the one man, and the penal evil, or death, that is in the world. It, in effect, says there is no connection whatever between those things although the language may seem to imply it and so large a portion of Christian readers in every age have understood it in this way. Adam sinned and he died, other people have sinned and they died! And yet this verse is allowed to be the first member of a comparison between Adam and Christ! Shall we supply then the other branch of the comparison, thus: Christ was righteous and lived, other people are righteous and they live? If we destroy the connection in the one case, how do we maintain it in the other? See the supplementary note.

The last clause “for that all have sinned,” is to be regarded as explanatory of the sentiment, that death passed on all, in consequence of the sin of the one man. Some have translated ἐφ ̓ ᾧ eph' hō, in whom; and this, indeed, would assign the only just reason, why all are visited with penal evil on account of Adam’s sin. All die through him, because in him all have sinned. But the translation is objectionable, on account of the distance of the antecedent. However, the common rendering gives precisely the same sense, “for that,” or “because that” all have sinned, that is, according to an explanation in Bloomfield’s Greek Testament, “are considered guilty in the sight of God on account of Adam’s fall. Thus, the expression may be considered equivalent to ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν hamartōloi katestathēsan at Rom 5:19.” There can be no doubt that ἡμαρτον hēmarton does bear this sense, Gen 44:32; Gen 43:9. Moreover, the other rendering “because all have sinned personally,” is inconsistent with fact. Infants have not sinned in this way, therefore, according to this view, their death is left unaccounted for, and so is all that evil comprehended in the term “death,” that comes upon us antecedent to actual sin. See the supplementary note.

Lastly, this interpretation would render the reasoning of the apostle inconclusive. “If,” observes Witsius, “we must understand this of some personal sin of each, the reasoning would not have been just, or worthy of the apostle. For his argument would be thus: that by the one sin of one, all were become guilty of death, because each in particular had besides this one and first sin, his own personal sin, which is inconsequential.” That people are punished for personal or actual transgression is true. But it is not the particular truth Paul seeks here to establish, any more than he seeks to prove in the previous part of his epistle, that people are justified on account of personal holiness, which is clearly no part of his design.)

Rom 5:13

For until the law ... - This verse, with the following verses to the 17th, is usually regarded as a parenthesis. The Law here evidently means the Law given by Moses. “Until the commencement of that administration, or state of things under the law.” To see the reason why he referred to this period between Adam and the Law, we should recall the design of the apostle, which is, to show the exceeding grace of God in the gospel, abounding, and superabounding, as a complete remedy for all the evils introduced by sin. For this purpose he introduces three leading conditions, or states, where people sinned, and where the effects of sin were seen; in regard to each and all of which the grace of the gospel superabounded. The first was that of Adam, with its attendant train of ills Rom 5:12, which ills were all met by the death of Christ, Rom 5:15-18. The second period or condition was that long interval in which men had only the light of nature, that period occurring between Adam and Moses. This was a fair representation of the condition of the world without revelation, and without law, Rom 5:13-14. Sin then reigned - reigned everywhere where there was no law. But the grace of the gospel abounded over the evils of this state of man. The third was under the Law, Rom 5:20. The Law entered, and sin was increased, and its evils abounded. But the gospel of Christ abounded even over this, and grace triumphantly reigned. So that the plan of justification met all the evils of sin, and was adapted to remove them; sin and its consequences as flowing from Adam; sin and its consequences when there was no written revelation; and sin and its consequences under the light and terrors of the Law.

Sin was in the world - People sinned. They did what was evil.

But sin is not imputed - Is not charged against people, or they are not held guilty of it where there is no law. This is a self-evident proposition, for sin is a violation of law; and if there is no law, there can be no wrong. Assuming this as a self-evident proposition, the connection is, that there must have been a law of some kind; a “law written on their hearts,” since sin was in the world, and people could not be charged with sin, or treated as sinners, unless there was some law. The passage here states a great and important principle, that people will not be held to be guilty unless there is a law which binds them of which they are apprized, and which they voluntarily transgress; see the note at Rom 4:15. This verse, therefore, meets an objection that might be started from what had been said in Rom 4:15. The apostle had affirmed that “where no law is there is no transgression.” He here stated that all were sinners. It might be objected, that as during this long period of time they had no law, they could not be stoners. To meet this, he says that people were then in fact sinners, and were treated as such, which showed that there must have been a law.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Rom_5:12-21

By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men.

The entrance of sin into the world

Sin entered as a foe into a city, a wolf into a fold, a plague into a house; as an enemy to destroy, a thief to rob, a poison to infect. (T. Robinson, D. D.)

Introduction of sin into the world

The word entered indicates the introduction of a principle till then external to the world, and the word by throws back the responsibility of the event on him who, as it were, pierced the dyke through which the irruption took place. Paul evidently holds, with Scripture, the previous existence of evil in a superhuman sphere. Assuredly no subsequent transgression is comparable to this. It created, here below, a state of things which subsequent sins only served to confirm. If the question is asked, how a being created good could perpetrate such an act, we answer that a decision like this does not necessarily suppose evil in its author. There is in moral life not only a conflict between good and evil, but also between good and good, lower good and higher good. The act of eating the fruit of the tree on which the prohibition rested, was not illegitimate in itself. It became guilty only through the prohibition. Man, therefore, found himself placed--and such was the necessary condition of the moral development through which he had to pass--between the inclination to eat--an inclination innocent in itself, but intended to be sacrificed--and the positively good Divine order. At the instigation of an already existent power of revolt, man drew from the depths of his liberty a decision whereby he adhered to the inclination rather than to the Divine Will, and thus created in his whole race, still identified with his person, the permanent proclivity to prefer inclination to obligation. (Prof. Godet, D. D.)

Sin and death

I. The Origin And Diffusion Of Sin.

1. As to the origin of sin. By one man sin entered into the world.

(1) Sin is the transgression of the law, and the one man by whom it entered into the world was Adam. He was created after the image of the Almighty, and placed in Eden, where we behold a test of obedience, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, with regard to which, the Lord God commanded the man, saying … thou shalt not eat of it. Here, then, was the law, showing the right of God to command, the obligation of man to obey, and the responsibility and the final account which man must render to the Almighty for his conduct. Satan, animated by malignant hatred to God and holiness, became the tempter, that he might introduce sin. Our first parents yielded, an event which changed the path of nature, and whose mighty consequences will be felt throughout eternity.

(2) The transgression of our first parents was of vast and heinous amount. There are some who have been inclined to treat it with levity, and have sometimes inquired, What mighty offence could there be in the eating of an apple? In answer, note the sins connected with this transgression. There was--

(a) Unbelief, because they denied the right to command and the penalty that existed.

(b) Ambition, because they aspired to be as gods, distinguishing between good and evil.

(c) Sensuality, because they wished to gratify mere animal appetite.

(d) Ingratitude, because they turned against that God who had spread around them every enjoyment.

2. As to its diffusion, all have sinned.

(1) As it is impossible that an evil tree should bring forth good fruit, so it was impossible, when the nature of our first parent had become corrupted, that one of his descendants could enter into the world except as being a partaker of corruption also. Each, then, enters the world possessing what we term original sin.

(2) This important doctrine is indicated in Gen_5:3, where Adam is said to have begotten a son in his own likeness, after his own image, apparently in contrast to the fact that he was formed after the likeness of God. The same doctrine is affirmed in the inquiries of Job and Bildad, Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one. How can he be clean that is born of a woman? There is the confession of David, Behold, I was shapen in iniquity. There is the statement of Christ, That which is born of the flesh is flesh. There is the asseveration of the apostle, The old man is corrupt, according to the deceitful lusts.

(3) Now, that original sin always produces actual transgression. Hence it is that the children of the first man exemplify in themselves unbelief, ambition, sensuality, and ingratitude. Whatever modification may have been formed by education, example, or interest, this one fact remains, that man everywhere is a sinner. The charges of Scripture are without exception or limit: All flesh has corrupted his way upon the earth. There is none that doeth good, no not one. The heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

II. The origin and diffusion of death.

1. The origin of death by sin. Man was formed with a susceptibility of being affected by the prospect of reward, and by the fear of punishment. Obedience was connected with the one, and disobedience with the other; and thus the most powerful of motives was put in action to aspire to good, and to avoid evil. Now, death was a penalty presented as the result of transgression (Gen_2:16-17; Gen_3:17; Gen_3:19). The wages of sin is death. Corporeal death was included, but much more, viz., spiritual and eternal death; i.e., the debasement of human nature consequent upon its alienation from God, the withdrawment of the Divine friendship, the terrors of the conscience at the prospect beyond the grave, the consummation of all this by the entrance of the soul into a state of retribution forever.

2. The diffusion of death. Death passed upon all men. In Adam all die; all men are sinners, and therefore against all men the penalty is still standing.

(1) Corporeal death is a penalty which is exacted from all the sons and daughters of Adam.

(2) The ages at which the allotment is suffered vary. There is the child at the mothers breast, the youth in the springtide of gaiety and buoyant spirits, the man in the maturity of wisdom and of power, the aged bending under the decrepitude of years.

(3) The method in which the allotment is suffered varies. The convulsions of nature; war; famine; accident; disease, slow and sudden. And yet, amid the variety of modes, seasons, the path is the same. All these things are but so many avenues leading down to the one narrow house, which has been appointed for all living.

3. Spiritual death constitutes the state of every man by nature. Every man in consequence of that state of spiritual death, is also in peril of proceeding to receive the recompense of it in the agonies of death eternal.

III. Those reflections by which our views of the combined origin and the diffusion of sin and death may be duly sanctified.

1. It becomes us to perceive and to lament over the exceeding sinfulness of sin.

2. We are called upon also to admire the riches of that Divine mercy which has provided a remedy against an evil which is so dreadful. (J. Parsons.)

Death by sin, and sin by man

I. The great curse of the world.

1. In its physical application. All the pains that our body has to endure are but the efforts of death to master it; and those pains are rendered worse because they awaken the fear of death. It is because accidents and disease are so often fatal that they are so greatly dreaded, and their pains so bitterly endured.

2. In its social results. Friendships shattered, homes broken up, hearts bleeding, does not the mere mention of these daily facts remind us what a curse death is. The graves of good men, and of beloved ones bear witness to more terrible things about death than can be expressed.

3. Spiritual death, all that is the opposite of purity, peace, love, joy, i.e., of eternal life is meant in Scripture by death. This death, which is insensibility, corruption, helplessness, ruin, is widespread. Every soul is either a temple or a tomb, a sanctuary or a sepulchre. Let the life of God be wanting, and the soul is dead. Over such death good men lament, angels may wail, and the Spirit of God grieves.

II. The original cause of death. Sin. Death is not here naturally. It invaded the world and is here because sin is here. Some find a difficulty in admitting that physical death is the result of sin; our bodies must die, they say, altogether apart from it. In answer may we not ask--

1. May not our physical nature be so injured by sin, that we cannot tell from our present knowledge what it might primarily have been? May not sin have introduced some mortal element that makes death now a necessity, or have expelled some immortal element that would have made death impossible?

2. Can we not see that the God who translated Enoch and Elijah could have so translated all the human race, supposing it were necessary that they should go? or--

3. Can we not see that but for sin death might have been without pain or fear? Even now to the Christian death resembles sleep. To the sinless the analogy might have been still more true. But explain it how we may, the teaching of the Scripture is that death is the penalty of sin. Shall not we count sin, then, our deadliest enemy, and contend with it as such?

III. The vast influence of man. By one man. It was the hand of man that opened the worlds gates to sin and to death. What the force of no foe from without could accomplish, happened through the compliance of a traitor within. But the text says that by one man sin entered, etc. Oh, the stupendous power, the momentous responsibility of that one man! Had that one man resisted temptation all might have been otherwise. We should have inherited stronger natures, nobler habits, and holy tendencies. But the one man who stood in the very forefront of the battle used the will he had (and without which will he could not have had any virtue), and chose to sin. And today our ancestors sins, even back to the sin of the first sinner, have exercised their share of influence in making us what we are. Our yielding to temptation is none the less guilty than Adams. For if our nature is weaker and our tendencies more debased, we have in the sufferings and deaths of generations a warning such as he could not have known. So without charging home on our first father more than his due proportion of guilt, we summon him here as an unanswerable witness to the vast influence of individual men. Our sins should ever be discouraged, our virtues excited by the remembrance that by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin. Conclusion: Let us thank God for the gospel that so gloriously meets at every point the sad suggestions of our text.

1. Is death in the world? Its conqueror, He who has taken its sting and crushed its power, is the ever living, ever present Christ.

2. Is sin in the world, working its fearful ravages as the precursor of death? The Saviour from sin is even more intimately one with this same human race. As one man sinned, one man has redeemed the world. And where sin abounded, grace doth much more abound. (U. R. Thomas.)

On the fallen state of man

I. The sinfulness of our fallen state.

1. What it is, or wherein the sinfulness of our fallen state doth consist.

2. Not only particular expressions and passages, but the whole of Divine revelation, concerning Christs coming into the world to save His people from their sins, proceeds upon a supposition of this truth, that sin has entered into the world, and that all have sinned.

3. Sin has in it an unlikeness, or contrariety and opposition, to the very nature of God. Sin is a transgression of the Divine law, and betrays want of loyalty to our supreme Lord--rebellion, and a contempt or denial of His authority and right of sovereignty over us. Sin is also dishonouring to God, and robs Him of that glory, honour, and service we owe to Him. Sin likewise carries in it the baseness of ingratitude to God, our kind Benefactor. Further, sin brings confusion into our frame, turning our affections from God to the creatures, and exalting the passions and appetites to reign over reason, and counteract the dictates of conscience. Again, sin brings deformity, pollution and defilement on our souls; effacing that likeness to God, and conformity to His law, which is their beauty and glory; stamping them with the likeness of the prince of darkness, and making them vile and filthy.

II. The misery of our fallen state. Death by sin, and so death passed upon all men.

1. Let us consider what this misery is, or what is implied in that death which entered into the world by sin. They are exposed to manifold miseries in this life--to internal miseries in the soul--the distress that flows from vile affections and disorderly appetites. Further, the death which is here said to have entered into the world by sin, no doubt includes natural death, or the separation of soul and body. The second, or eternal death, is by far the worst and most dreadful part of the misery to which we are exposed by sin.

2. Sad experience, in all ages and in all nations, witnesseth that troubles of various kinds are incident to the children of men while they live and that death is the common lot of all mankind. Death or misery is the punishment which sin deserves; its just reward. Death or misery is the fruit of sin connected with it and allotted to it by the law of God; God having expressly threatened to Adam, In the day thou eatest, thou shalt surely die. The honour of the Divine veracity requires that sin be punished. The connection established betwixt sin and punishment is not a mere arbitrary constitution, but founded upon the infinite purity, rectitude, and goodness of God. The same thing may be argued from the Divine justice and righteousness. Of this He has given a most awful and striking display in the sufferings and death which Christ, as our substitute, endured when He His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree. Nay, this the very goodness of God, and the end of His government, as the kind and merciful Ruler of the world, require. When the Lord caused His goodness to pass before Moses, He proclaimed, as one part of it, That He will by no means clear the guilty; intimating that even His punishing the guilty is an act of His goodness and love.

3. The greatness of that misery to which we are, by sin, become liable. (T. Fernie, M. A.)

The introduction and consequences of sin

1. The question of the origin of evil has exercised and perplexed the understandings of men in every age. The theories of most of the ancient philosophers on this point involved far greater difficulties than that which they were introduced to account for. And how could it be otherwise? for the principles of the subject lie beyond the range of the human faculties.

2. Even the Christian revelation does not profess to give a full explanation; for it does not countenance the presumptuous attempts of men to be wise above what is written. It is a religion of faith; and God expects that all His rational creatures should be willing to receive with humility, and thankfulness, the measure of knowledge with respect to Himself and His ways which He is pleased to communicate. It is also a religion of practice. It was never intended to furnish materials for mere intellectual exercise.

3. In conformity, then, with these leading characteristics of our religion, the gospel revelation, although it does not profess to give a full explanation of the origin of evil, does yet give us some information which calls for the exercise of humble faith and is intended to promote the purposes of practical godliness. The substance of the information is given in the text.

I. By one man sin entered into the world. From this we learn that God was not the author of sin, it formed no part of our constitution as it came from the hand of its Creator. But although man was able to stand, he was also liable to fall; and he did fall through the temptation of the devil. The introduction, then, of sin into the world was the joint work of Satan and of man.

II. In what way did this first sin of our first parent bear upon the character and condition of his posterity?

1. Does the text mean merely that the first man was the first that sinned, and that all his descendants have also sinned in like manner, following his bad example? There is a great deal more in the matter than this.

(1) The Scriptures, and especially the whole subsequent part of the chapter, represent all Adams posterity as implicated both in the guilt and in the punishment of his first transgression. The trial of Adam, under the covenant of works, was substantially the trial of the human race. Adam was a fair specimen of human nature, and his conduct was a fair test of what human nature could do, and would do, when placed in certain circumstances, and subjected to certain influences.

(2) But Adam was not only a fair specimen of human nature, he was also the federal head and representative of all his posterity. In consequence of this, all men sinned in him, and fell with him, and are justly subjected to all the penal consequences of Adams first sin.

2. Adam lost communion with God. It was no longer consistent with the holiness of the Divine character to hold fellowship with a being who had rebelled against His authority. Adam, accordingly, was expelled from Eden, where he was wont to hold personal intercourse with the Father of his spirit. So all his posterity are born where they cannot in the ordinary course of things expect to be visited with any intimations of a Fathers care and love.

3. From this all the other consequences of Adams sin upon his posterity are derived. These are all comprehended under the word death. The sanction attached to the covenant of works was, that in the day he broke it he should surely die.

(1) That the word death here means more than the separation of the soul and the body is evident, for the denunciation was not literally fulfilled. At the same time, we are expressly informed that temporal death was a consequence of Adams transgression. We are too much in the habit of looking upon death just as the natural consequence of our bodily constitution, and of the physical influences to which we are subjected. But had man not fallen, he had never died, nor been subjected to those influences which now are the proximate causes of death; but he would have flourished forever in undecaying health.

(2) Death, then, involves something more than dissolution. Men are naturally dead in trespasses and sins; kept in a state of distance and alienation from God, the truth of which fact rests upon grounds independent of the truth that mans moral nature is derived from Adam. This might be proved in many cases by an appeal to a mans consciousness, and by an impartial examination of the state of the world, and the moral aspect of human society. This condition is not only one of sinfulness, but one of misery. The true happiness of a rational and immortal creature can consist only in the favour of God. Everything else, although it may afford pleasure for a time, is in reality only a vain show of happiness, and can afford no permanent enjoyment.

(3) But there is a more alarming sense still in which the word death is used. The apostle tells us that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord, where, from the contrast between the two parts of the statement, it follows necessarily that the death which is the wages of sin must be eternal death, that is, the endurance of everlasting misery in hell.

4. The reason of man has often alleged that it is inconsistent with justice to involve men in the penal consequences of an offence which they did not commit. To which the full and adequate answer is--Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? At the same time, before anyone can show that he is treated unjustly, the objector must show that, if he had been placed in Adams circumstances, he would not have fallen as Adam did, but would have held fast his integrity. And this is a position which few individuals will be presumptuous enough to maintain. Besides, our actual transgressions are independent of the particular manner in which they originated. It is our duty to state plainly and openly all the doctrines revealed to us in Scripture; and if wicked men will pervert the doctrines of Scripture their blood be upon their own head.

5. But, remember that God did not abandon all intercourse with the human race when He drove Adam from paradise. Immediately after the fall, He held out an intimation of a Deliverer, and by a series of wonderful dispensations He made preparations for the manifestation of Him who was to destroy the works of the devil. Accordingly, in the fulness of time, God sent into the world His only-begotten Son for the purpose of delivering men. On the ground of what Jesus Christ did and suffered, every man is warranted to come to Christ that he may receive salvation. The offers of the gospel are addressed to you, and if you do not accept of them, you remain, of course, in your sins; but the guilt is entirely your own, you have rejected the counsel of God against yourselves and judged yourselves unworthy of eternal life. (W. Cunningham, D. D.)

Original sin

This doctrine may be regarded as it respects the disposition to sin, and as it respects the guilt of it. These two particulars are distinct. The corruption of human nature means its tendency to sin. The guilt of them who wear that nature means their evil desert on account of sin.

I. The fact of the sinful disposition--

1. Can only be gathered from mans sinful doings or desires. We do not need to dig into a spring to ascertain the quality of its water, but to examine the quality of the stream which flows from it. We have no access to the hearts of the inferior animals, and yet we can pronounce from their doings on their disposition. We speak of original ferocity in the tiger. This means that, as the fountain on the hillside is formed and filled up before it sends forth the rills which proceed from it, so a ferocious quality of nature exists in the tiger before it vents itself forth in deeds of ferocity; and it is a quality not due to education, provocation, climate, accident, or to anything posterior to the formation of the animal itself; it is seen, both from the universality and unconquerable strength of this attribute, that it belongs essentially to the creature. There is no difficulty in understanding here the difference between original and actual. Could the cruelties of a tiger be denominated sins, then all the cruelties inflicted by it during the course of its whole life--then would these be its actual sins. These might vary in number and in circumstances with different individuals, yet each would have the same cruel disposition. It is thus that we verify the doctrine of original sin by experience. Should it be found true of every man, that he is actually a sinner, then he sins, not because of the mere perversity of his education, the peculiar excitements to evil that have crossed his path, the noxious atmosphere he breathes, or the vitiating example that is on every side of him; but purely in virtue of his being a man. And to talk of the original sin of our species, thereby intending to signify the existence of a prior and universal disposition to sin, is just as warrantable as to affirm the most certain laws, or the soundest classifications in natural history.

2. There is not enough, it may be thought, of evidence for this fact, in those glaring enormities which give to history so broad an aspect of wicked violence. For the actors in the great drama are few, and though satisfied that many would just feel and do alike in the same circumstances--there is yet room for affirming that, in the unseen privacies of social and domestic life, some are to be found who pass a guileless and a perfect life in this world. Now it is quite impossible to meet this affirmation by passing all the individuals of our race before you, and pointing out the actual iniquity of the heart or life, which proves them corrupt members of a corrupt family. You cannot make all men manifest to each man; but you may make each man manifest to himself. You may appeal to his conscience, and in defect of evidence in his outward history you may accompany him to that place where the emanating fountain of sin is situated. You may enter along with him into the recesses of his heart, and there detect the preference to its own will, the slight hold that the authority of God has over it. We dispute not the power of many amiable principles in the heart of man, but which work without the recognition of God. It is this ungodliness which can be fastened on every child of Adam. From such a fountain innumerable are the streams of disobedience which will issue; and though many of them may not be so deeply tinged, yet still in the fountain itself there is independence of God. Put out our planet by the side of another, where all felt the same delight in God that angels feel, and are you to say of such a difference that it has no cause? Must there not be a something in the original make and a constitution of the two families to account for such a diversity?

3. We are quite aware that this principle is but faintly recognised by many expounders of human virtue. And therefore it is that we hold it indeed a most valid testimony in behalf of our doctrine, when they are rendered heartless by disappointment; and take revenge upon their disciples by pouring forth the bitterest misanthropy against them. Even on their own ground, original sin might find enough of argument to make it respectable.

4. The existence of mans corruption, then, is proved from experience; how it entered into the world is altogether a matter of testimony. By one man, says our text, sin entered into the world. He came out pure and righteous from the hand of God; but Adam, after he had yielded to temptation, was a changed man, and that change was permanent, and while God made man after His own image, the very first person who was born into the world, came to it in the image of his parent. This is the simple statement, and we are not able to give the explanation. The first tree of a particular species may be conceived to have come from the Creators hand with the most exquisite flavour. A pestilential gust may have passed over it, and so changed its nature, that all its fruit afterwards should be sour. After this change it may be conceived to have dropt its seeds, and all the future trees rise in the transformed likeness of the tree from which they sprung. If this were credibly attested, we are not prepared to resist it; and as little are we entitled to set ourselves in opposition to the Bible statement that a moral blight came over the character of our great progenitor; and that a race proceeded from him with that very taint of degeneracy that he had taken on.

5. Another fact announced in this passage is the connection between the corruption of our nature and its mortality. This brings out in another way the distinction between actual and original sin. All have not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression, i.e., by a positive deed of disobedience; infants e.g. The death that they undergo is not the fruit of any actual iniquity, but of that moral virus which has descended from the common fountain. And what is this but the original and constitutional aptitude that there is to sinning, a disposition that only yet exists in embryo, but which will come out into deed so soon as powers and opportunities are expanded. The infant tiger has not yet performed one act of ferocity, but we are sure that all the rudiments of ferocity exist in its native constitution. The tender sapling of the crab tree has not yet yielded one sour apple, but we know that there is an organic necessity for its producing this kind of fruit. And whether or not we should put to the account of this the boisterous outcry of an infant, the constant exactions it makes, and its spurning impatience of all resistance and control, so as to be the little tyrant to whose brief but most effective authority the entire circle of relationship must bend, still the disease is radically there. Original sin, then, as it respects the inborn depravity of our race, is at one with the actual experience of mankind.

II. We should further proceed to show in how far original sin, as it respects the imputation of guilt to all who are under it, is at one with the moral sense of mankind. Experience takes cognisance of whether such a thing is, and so is applicable to the question whether a depraved tendency to moral evil is or is not in the human constitution. The moral sense of man takes cognisance of whether such a thing ought to be, and whether man ought to be dealt with as a criminal on account of a tendency which came unbidden by him into the world.

1. To determine the question we should inquire how much man requires to have within his view, ere his moral sense be able to pronounce conclusively. One may see a dagger projected from a curtain, grasped by a human hand, directed against the bosom of an unconscious sleeper; and, seeing no more, he would infer that the individual was an assassin. Had he seen all he might have seen that he was in fact an overpowered victim, an unwilling instrument of the deed. The moral sense would then instantly reverse the former decision and transfer the charge to those who were behind.

2. Now, the mind of man, in order to be made up as to the moral character of any act, needs to know only what the intention was that originated the act. An act against the will indicates no demerit on the part of him who performed it. But an act with the will gives us the full impression of demerit. How the disposition got there is not the question which the moral sense of man, when he is unvitiated by a taste for speculation, takes any concern in. Give us two individuals--one of whom is revengeful and profligate, and the other kind and godly, and our moral sense leads us to regard the one as blameable and the other as praiseworthy. And in so doing it does not look so far back as to the originating cause of the distinction.

3. What stumbles the speculative inquirer is this, he thinks that a man born with a sinful disposition is born with the necessity of sinning, which exempts him from all imputation of guiltiness. But he confounds two things which are distinct, viz., the necessity that is against the will with the necessity that is with the will. The man who struggled against the external force that compelled him to thrust a dagger into the bosom of his friend, was operated upon by a necessity that was against his will; and you exempt him from all charge of criminality. But the man who does the same thing at the spontaneous bidding of his own heart, this you irresistibly condemn. The only necessity which excuses a man for doing evil, is a necessity that forces him by an external violence to do it, against the bent of his will struggling most honestly and determinedly to resist it. But if the necessity be that his will is bent upon the doing of it, then such a necessity just aggravates the mans guiltiness.

4. It is enough, then, that a disposition to moral evil exists; and however it originated, it calls forth, by the law of our moral nature, a sentiment of blame or reprobation. If it be asked how this can be, we reply that we do not know. It is not the only fact of which we can offer no other explanation than that simply such is the case. We can no more account for our physical than for our moral sensations. When we eat the fruit of the orange tree we feel the bitterness; but we do not know how this sensation upon our palate stands connected with a constitutional property in the tree, which has descended to it through a long line of ancestry. And when we look to the bitter fruit of transgression, and feel upon our moral sense a nauseating revolt, we do not know how this impression stands connected with a tendency which has been derived through many centuries. But certain it is that the origin of our depravity has nothing to do with the sense and feeling of its loathesomeness wherewith we regard it.

5. There is an effectual way of bringing this to the test. Let a neighbour inflict moral wrong or injury; will not the feeling of resentment rise immediately? Will you stop to inquire whence he derived the malice, or selfishness, under which you suffer? Is it not simply enough that he wilfully tramples upon your rights? If it be under some necessity which operates against his disposition, this may soften your resentment. But if it be under that kind of necessity which arises from the strength of his disposition to do you harm, this will only stimulate your resentment. And thinkest thou, O man, who judgest another for his returns of unworthiness to you, that thou wilt escape the judgment of God?

6. These remarks may prepare the way for all that man by his moral sense can understand in the imputation of Adams sin. We confess that no man is responsible for the doings of another whom he never saw, and who departed this life many centuries before him. But if the doings of a distant ancestor have in point of fact corrupted his moral nature, and if this corruption has been transmitted to his descendants, then we can see how these become responsible, not for what their forefathers did, but for what they themselves do under the corrupt disposition that they have received from their forefather. According to this explanation, every man still reapeth not what another soweth, but what he soweth himself. Every man eateth the fruit of his own doings.

III. In attempting to vindicate the dealings of God with the species, let us begin with the portion now within hearing. What have you to complain of? You say that, without your consent, a corrupt nature has been given you, and that so sin is unavoidable, and yet there is a law which denounces upon this sin the torments of eternity. Well, is this an honest complaint? Do you really feel your corrupt nature, and are you accordingly most desirous to be rid of it? Well, God is at this moment holding out to you in offer the very relief which you now tell us that your heart is set upon. Does not God wipe His hands of the foul charge that His sinful creatures would prefer against Him, when He says, Turn unto Me and I will pour out My Spirit upon you? Who does not see that every possible objection which can be raised against the Creator is most fully and fairly disarmed by what He offers to man in the gospel? And if man will persist in charging upon God a depravity that He both asks and enables us to give up, did not we firmly retain it by the wilful grasp of our own inclinations, is it not plain that on the day of reckoning it will be clear that the complaints of man, because of his corruption, have been those of a hypocrite, who secretly loved the very thing he so openly complained of. We may conceive a man murmuring at being upon a territory over which there is spread a foul atmosphere charged with all the elements of discomfort and disease, and at length to be wrapped in some devouring flame which would burn up every creature within its vortex. But let God point his way to another country, where freshness was in every breeze, and the whole air shed health and fertility and joy over the land that it encompassed--let Him offer all the facilities of conveyance so as to make it turn simply upon the mans will, whether he should continue in the accursed region or be transported to another. And will not the worthless choice to abide rather than to move, acquit God of the severity wherewith He has been charged, and unmask the hypocrisy of all the reproaches which man has uttered against Him? What is true of the original corruption is also true of the original guilt. Do you complain of that debt under the weight and oppression of which you came into the world? What ground, we ask, is there for complaining, when the offer is fairly put within your reach, of a most free and ample discharge, and that not merely for the guilt of original, but also for the whole guilt of your proper and personal sinfulness. (T. Chalmers, D. D.)

Original sin, a scientific fact

Now he who would deny original sin must contradict all experience in the transmission of qualities. The very hound transmits his peculiarities, learnt by education, and the Spanish horse his paces, taught by art, to his offspring, as a part of their nature. If it were not so in man, there could be no history of man as a species; no tracing out the tendencies of a race or nation; nothing but the unconnected repetitions of isolated individuals, and their lives. It is plain that the first man must have exerted on his race an influence quite peculiar; that his acts must have biassed their acts. And this bias or tendency is what we call original sin. (F. W. Robertson.)

Original sin

Probably no one will seriously deny the fact which is asserted throughout the Bible that all are under sin, that in many things we offend all. The universality of sin, apart from all theories as to its origin, or the cause of its universality, is a fact of experience as incontestable as any universal statement about the human race can be. This is different from the doctrine of original sin; it is an assertion that, as a matter of fact, all human beings whom we know, all of whom any record exists have, so far as we can judge, shown in one point or another a weakness and corruption of nature, a faultiness--to use the lowest term--which in most cases rises to occasional wickedness, in some to the most extreme and continuous depravity. But it has been pointed out by a great theologian of our own time, that when such a fact as this can be affirmed of every representative of a race composed of such various sorts, under such various conditions of time and place, as the human race, the fact points to a law. No fact can be universal unless some law, some general cause, lies behind it. We may not always know what it is, but we believe that it is there though we have not yet discovered it. It is simply impossible for us to think that the universal phenomenon of sin is due to chance; that men, differently constituted and differently placed as they are, should all have fallen into sin by accident. There must be, then, some law corresponding to the fact and explaining it. Such a law is that which we assert in asserting the doctrine of original sin. For this doctrine does not simply declare that all men sin--that would be merely a re-statement of the universal fact, a summary, not a law; but it asserts that this is the result of inheritance depending upon the physical relation of one generation to another, and that each human being brings with him into the world a tendency to sin, which is due to no act or wish of his own, but is the working out of far off causes among the dim origins of the human race. That is the law which, according to the Bible and the Church, lies behind and explains the universal fact of sin. There might be another explanation, another law. It might be maintained that every soul was freshly created by God, that it came into the world unaffected by the previous conditions of the race, untainted by any stain of will or deed of its human ancestry, and that by the direct act of its Creator every such soul has been made to fall into sin; so that the phenomenon of universal sinfulness is simply a repetition in millions and millions of cases of an act of Gods controlling power by which men are allowed--nay, impelled--to become evil. This is a conceivable theory; but the conscience of every Christian must revolt from such a travesty of Gods love and human free will. Whatever the mystery of sin may be--and I am not, of course, attempting (the Church has never attempted) to explain its origin, its first appearance in Gods universe--we must at least bring it into harmony with what we know of Gods will and of His methods in other parts of His action. And it is surely more consistent with our knowledge of the universe to say that sin is due to one great cause acting uniformly throughout the human race than to ascribe it to so many repeated separate acts of Gods will. We dare not believe that God directly wills that any soul should sin, but we can see that indirectly, and in consequence of one of the great general laws of His action, He may allow men to reap the fruit of human sin even if the harvest should be their own continuance in sin. That, apart from the question of redemption, is the Christian doctrine of original sin. It depends upon a general law, the law of the intimate relation of human beings one to another--the solidarity, as it is called, of the human race. Indeed, but for this relation, it is difficult to see how Christianity could be an intelligible system at all. If we do not share in the sinfulness of our forefathers, neither do we share in the redemption won for us by Christ, the spiritual Head of our race. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. If men are simply separate atoms, unrelated to each other save by the similarity of outward form and nature, how can they be Christs brethren? If they do not constitute a body, how is Christ the Head? (Hon. and Rev. A. T. Lyttelton.)

Original sin: why God did not arrest its consequences

Was it compatible with Divine perfection to let this succession of generations, stained with original vice, come into the world? God certainly might have annihilated the perverted race in its head, and replaced it by a new one; but this would have been to confess Himself vanquished by the adversary. He might, on the contrary, accept it such as sin had made it, and leave it to develop in the natural way, holding it in His power to recover it; and this would be to gain a victory on the field of battle where He seemed to have been conquered. Conscience says to which of these two courses God must give the preference, and Scripture teaches us which He has preferred. (Prof. Godet.)

Original sin

Sin is born in a child as surely as fire is in the flint--it only waits to be brought out and manifested. (W. F. Hook, D. D.)

Original sin

acted as an extinguisher; and therefore the soul is born in darkness and cannot see until enlightened by the Holy Spirit. (A. Toplady, M. A.)

Original sin

Our father Adam had a great estate enough at first, but he soon lost it. He violated the trust on which he held his property, and he was cast out of the inheritance, and turned adrift into the world to earn his bread as a day labourer by tilling the ground whence he was taken. His eldest son was a vagabond; the first born of our race was a convict upon ticket of leave. If any suppose that we have inherited some good thing by natural descent, they go very contrary to what David tells us, when he declares, Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Our first parents were utter bankrupts. They left us nothing but a heritage of old debts, and a propensity to accumulate yet more personal obligations. Well may we be poor who come into this world heirs of wrath, with a decayed estate and tainted blood. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Original sin, a root

A pious minister, having preached on the doctrine of original sin, was afterwards waited on by some persons, who stated their objections to what he had advanced. After hearing them, he said, I hope you do not deny actual sin too? No, they replied. The good man expressed his satisfaction at their acknowledgment; but, to show the folly of their opinions in denying a doctrine so plainly taught in Scripture, he asked them, Did you ever see a tree growing without a root? (J. G. Wilson.)

The misery of mans sinful state

Note--

I. That all mankind are made miserable. This needs no proof. Sad experience in all ages confirms the truth of this assertion.

II. That this misery came upon men by the fall. Man came not out of Gods hand with the tear in his eye, or sorrow in his heart, or a burden on his back. Death never could enter the gates of the world till sin set them wide (Gen_3:1-24). And then one sin let in the flood, and many sins followed and increased it. The first pilot dashed the ship on a rock, and then all that were in it were cast into a sea of misery.

III. What that misery is. Note--

1. Mans loss by the fall. He has lost communion with God.

(1) A saving interest in God as his God. Man could then call God his own God, his Friend, his Portion, being in covenant with Him.

(2) Sweet and comfortable society and fellowship with God (Gen_3:8). Thus man lost God (Eph_2:12), the greatest and the fountain of all other losses. Had the sun been forever darkened, it had been no such loss as this. Man is a mere nothing without God; a nothing in nature without His common presence, and a nothing in happiness without His gracious presence (Psa_30:5; Psa_63:3).

2. What man is brought under by the fall.

(1) Gods wrath (Eph_2:3).

(2) His curse (Gal_3:10).

3. What man is liable to in consequence.

(1) In this world.

(a) To all the miseries of this life. First, outward miseries, as, Gods curse upon the creature for our sake (Gen_3:17); calamities, such as sword, famine, and pestilence; miseries on mens bodies, sickness, pains, etc.; on our estates, as losses, wrongs, and oppressions; on our names, by reproach, disgrace, etc.; on our employments; on our relations. Secondly, inward spiritual miseries, as blindness of mind (Eph_4:13; 1Co_4:4), a reprobate sense (Rom_1:28), strong delusions (2Th_2:11), hardness of heart (Rom_2:5), vile affections (Rom_1:26), fear, sorrow, and horror of conscience (Isa_33:14).

(b) At the end of this life, man is liable to death (chap. 6:23).

(2) In the world to come.

(a) The punishment of loss--of all the good things of this life; of all the good things which they are enjoyed here; the favourable presence and enjoyment of God and Christ (Mat_25:41); of all the glory and blessedness above.

(b) The punishment of sense. Conclusion:

1. See here the great evil of sin.

2. Woeful is the case of all who are in a state of nature. (T. Boston, D. D.)

Mans fall

Let us consider--

I. That sin which by one man entered into the world.

1. What this sin was, and how it came to be committed. The sin itself, as to the outward act, was the eating of the tree of knowledge contrary to the command of God. The manner of doing it may be collected from Genesis

3. compared with other Scriptures.

2. Its heinousness.

(1) It contained many sins.

(a) Direct disobedience and rebellion against God.

(b) Unbelief.

(c) Inordinate indulgence to the sensual appetite.

(d) Pride and covetousness.

(e) An envious discontent with God.

(f) Sacrilege; for God was robbed.

(g) Idolatry; because the trust due to God only was transferred to the devil, and because they made a tree a god to themselves, and expected from it greater benefits than their Maker would bestow.

(h) Ingratitude.

(i) Injustice and cruelty against all their posterity.

(2) It had special aggravations.

(a) It was committed in a direct manner against God, and struck at all His perfections at once. His Majesty was treated by it with irreverence, His truth was arraigned, as though He had spoken what was equivocal or false. His Omnipotence was impeached, by the hope of escaping an evil certainly threatened; His goodness was contemned by ingratitude. Finally, His omnipresence, wisdom, justice, and holiness all shared in the affront.

(b) It was perfectly voluntary, being done against the clearest light.

(c) The broken command was an easy one, for it required nothing to be done, but only somewhat to be foreborne.

(d) The sin was committed in paradise, a delightful spot, honoured with the special presence of God and friendly communion with Him.

(e) This sin was the first in our world, which gave birth to the innumerable sins and calamities.

II. The concern which all men have in the first sin.

1. All men suffer and die through it (verses 14-17).

2. It belongs in the guilt of it to all men. All have sinned. How? Why, in Adam, their common father and head. (See also verses 18, 19.)

III. The dreadful consequences of the first sin to all the posterity of Adam.

1. Natural death, with a long train of miseries in life preceding it.

2. The punishments of another world.

3. One which commences in every man on the first union of soul and body--the want of habitual rectitude, or of effectual principles to incline and enable him to do what is pleasing to God, together with the inherency of an evil habit and bias prompting and disposing him to sinful actions.

Conclusion:

1. Let us learn from the first sin growing into such an enormous size, though conversant about a matter in itself inconsiderable, never to account the doing of anything which God forbids a slight trespass, and never to venture on it under such a pretence (1Co_5:6; Jam_3:5).

2. Let us be deeply humbled before God, for original sin without us, even that of our first parents, which, though not done by us is yet upon us by a just imputation, and for original sin within us.

3. Let us see that we abuse not this doctrine by charging all our sins so to the score of original corruption, as by the presence of a necessity, either to take an unbounded liberty in sinning or to extenuate the guilt of what we do knowingly with free and full consent of will. On the contrary, it is incumbent on us to watch, strive, and pray the more carefully and earnestly against sin as it easily besets us.

4. Let us take occasion from the view of our fall in the first Adam, with its sad consequences, to admire and thankfully use the way of our recovery in the second, which is in exact opposition to the former, only with superior efficacy and advantage. (Hubbard-Puritan.)

Human depravity

It is--

I. Total in its influences over the mind. Even--

1. The understanding.

2. The conscience.

3. The will.

4. The affections.

II. Universal in its prurience among mankind. It exists in all--

1. Ages.

2. Countries.

3. Communities.

4. Families.

5. Individuals.

III. Inherent in our nature in consequence of the fall.

1. The origin of sin is in the creature, not in the Creator.

2. Accordingly, man was created pure and holy.

3. But almost the first thing recorded of him is his fall.

4. The results of the fall--its degradation and misery of man--pass from one generation to another. (T. Raffles, D. D.)

The need of healing

1. The traits of greatness and of misery in man are so clear, says Pascal, that it is absolutely necessary that the true religion should teach us that there is in him some great principle of greatness, and at the same time some great principle of misery.

2. In Gen_3:1-24 we see the beginning of all that dreary, mean, disfiguring misery that rudely clashes with the honour of humanity, as the heir of a great house entering upon his envied heritage is saddened for life as he is told the secret of some shameful cloud upon the name he boasts, some taint of dishonour or wretchedness that is in his veins--so we learn the great blot on our scutcheon: how it is that we can be so noble and so base--it is because by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin.

I. Let us try to see how naturally faith may link the record of the fall with the facts of our present state.

1. There is a clear and familiar analogy between our childhood and the childhood of our race. We look back, and in both cases the utmost effort of our thought fails long before it draws near to the first dawn of life and consciousness; in both eases there is much that we most take on trust, here relying upon the words of earthly parents, there upon the Word of God. And we then come to find, in both cases, that life itself is a verification of that which we have thus received by faith.

(1) For as we try to recall the first years of our own lives, the lines which we can retrace through our school days grow faint and uncertain as they enter the furthest past, till in the far distance of childhood only a few points of quivering light appear, like the scattered lamps of a straggling suburb, and then the tracks of consciousness are utterly lost in impenetrable haze. It is from others that we learn the story of those earliest days. It is faith in others, the evidence of things not seen, which links our present and our past. But then, as we go on living by this faith, accepting the manifold conditions of the state assigned to us, the witness of experience day by day confirms our trust.

(2) Now, is it not even exactly thus with the dim childhood of mankind? We travel back along the centuries towards the beginning of our race; presently the guidance of history falters and then stops; then tradition fails us long before we get to the boyhood of humanity; at last even science is irresolute, and only offers us hypothesis. Natural reason tells us as little of the childhood of humanity as memory can tell us of our own. But then, from behind the veil, there comes the voice of the Father of Spirits, whose eyes did see our substance yet being imperfect, and He alone tells us how man first became a living soul, and what were the conditions of his dawning thought; from Him we learn how our new life was lifted up by the inward strength of His own holiness, by the unchecked fulness of His grace; He teaches us what was the trial of those early years, and what choice first called our freedom into exercise. And then He shows us the beginning of our sin and all its devastating work. All that wondrous vision of mans infancy He offers to our faith. But here again Faith is not left to stand alone. By experience we find ourselves to be just what that strange revelation would lead us to expect: confused, uncertain of our proper place, bewildered between our ideal and our caricature, contented neither with virtue nor with vice; we have forces striving in us which are and are not ourselves, we have desires from which we recoil, and aversions for which we long, so that sometimes it almost seems as though man might have called himself fallen, even if God had never told him how he fell.

II. Yes, it is true indeed that, as Pascal says, The mystery of the fall and of the transmission of original sin is a mystery at once most remote from our knowledge and most essential to all knowledge of ourselves. It is, indeed, itself incomprehensible, but without it we are incomprehensible.

1. The facts of life force our thoughts to the recognition of the fall, just as the attractions and repulsions of the heavenly bodies guide the astronomer to believe in the existence of an undiscovered star. And so it has come to pass that the doctrine of the fall has been at once the most scornfully rejected and the most generally acknowledged truth in all the Christian faith. Surely it is both true and strange that a belief which seems at first so hard to realise, which is often thrust away with a confident impatience, can yet appeal to a vast army of witnesses, often unconscious, sometimes incredulous, of that which they have attested.

2. Plato compares the soul in its present plight to the form of the god Glaueus, immortal and miserable, crippled and battered by the waves, disfigured by the clinging growth of shells and seaweed, so that the fishermen as they catch sight of him can hardly recognise his ancient nature. However it may be misnamed, however the moral sense may be crushed down to die under fatalism and despair, still there is the witness to a corruption, a perversion of humanity, wide as the world and deep as life. The witness of all our experience, of all current language, all common expectations, about the ways of man; the witness of daily life, of our journals with their columns full of ceaseless news about the fruits of sin; the witness, interpreting all else, of our own hearts, all converge upon the truth of a worldwide disfigurement of human life, a pervading taint through all our history, a sense of something wrong in the ethical basis of our nature, thrust into every movement of the will.

3. And then, it may be, our minds will stagger and our hearts begin to sink at the dreary vision of that vast desolating gloom: there is none good, then, no, not one. There be many that say, Who will show us any good? The lies of the cynic and the pessimist claim kindred with our thoughts. Yes, they say, all this is true, and we had better simply acquiesce in it. What have we to do with those vague ideals which have made so many restless and miserable? When will men frankly recognise their proper level, and live there, and renounce those fruitless, wasteful hopes.

III. Oh, then, if that worst of all infidelity, the disbelief in goodness, the despair of holiness, begins to creep about your souls, then turn and gaze, where through the rent cloud the pure white light of God Himself has broken through. One break there is in that uniform tenor of our history, even the surpassing miracle of a sinless life.

IV. We can afford to realise and face the sin of the world, the sinfulness of our own hearts; we can bear to know the worst because we know the best, because the darkness is past, and the true Light now shineth, because we can turn from the gloom of sinful history to the perfect glory of the holiness of Christ. In Him is no sin, the Life was manifested, and we have seen it, and shew unto you that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us. The Word was God, and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father. (F. Paget, D. D.)

What is chance

?--

1. All death is a solemn and fearful thing. When it comes to an old person one cannot help feeling it often a release; but when death comes suddenly to people in the prime of life we cannot help asking, What is this death? this horrible thing which takes husbands from their wives, and children from their parents, and those who love from those who love them? What right has it here, under the bright sun, among the pleasant fields, destroying Gods handiwork, just as it is growing to its prime of beauty and usefulness? And there, by the bedside of the young at least, we do feel that death must be the enemy of a loving, life-giving God, as much as it is hated by poor mortal man. And then we feel there must be something between man and God. What right has death in the world if man has not sinned? And then we cannot help saying further, This cruel death! it may come to me, young and healthy as I am. It may come tomorrow, this minute, by a hundred diseases or accidents which I cannot foresee or escape, and carry me off tomorrow. And where would it take me to?

2. But perhaps you young people are saying to yourselves, You are trying to frighten us, but you shall not. We know very well that it is not a common thing for a young person to die, and therefore the chances are that we shall not die young, and it will be time enough to think of death when death draws near. Well, what do you mean by chance? What are these wonderful chances which are to keep you alive for forty or fifty years more? Did you ever hear a chance? Did anyone ever see a great angel called Chance flying about keeping people from dying? What is chance, which you fancy so much stronger than God?

3. Perhaps you will say, All we meant was that Gods will was against our dying. Then why put the thought of God away by foolish words about chance? For it is God only who keeps you alive, and He who makes you live can also let you not live.

4. Then again, it is not as you fancy, that when God leaves you alone you live, and when He visits you you die--but the very opposite. Our bodies carry in them from the very cradle the seeds of death. We live because God does not leave us alone, but keeps down those seeds of disease and death by His Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life.

5. Gods Spirit of Life is fighting against death in our bodies from the moment we are born. And, as Moses says, when He withdraws His Spirit then we are turned again to our dust. So that our living a long time or a short time does not depend on chance, or on our own health or constitution, but entirely on how long God may choose to keep down the death which is ready to kill us at any moment, and certain to kill us sooner or later,

6. And therefore I ask you, For what does God keep you alive? Will a man keep plants in his garden which bear neither fruit nor flowers; or stock on his farm which will only eat and never make profit; or a servant in his house who will not work? Much more, will a man keep a servant who will not only be idle himself, but quarrel with his fellow servants, and teach them to disobey their master? And yet God keeps thousands in His garden, and in His house, for years and years, while they are doing no good to Him, and doing harm to those around them.

7. Then why does not God rid Himself of them at once and let them die, instead of cumbering the ground? I know but one reason. If they were only Gods plants, or His stock, or His servants, He might do so. But they are His children, redeemed by the blood of Christ. God preserves you from death because He loves you. Oh, do not make that truth an excuse for forgetting and disobeying your heavenly Father! Why does any good father help and protect his children? Not as beasts take care of their young, and then as soon as they are grown up cast them off and forget them; but because he wishes them to grow up like himself, to be a comfort, help, and pride to him. And God takes care of you and keeps you from death for the very same reason. God desires that you should grow up like Himself.

8. But if you turn Gods grace in keeping you alive into an excuse for sinning--if, when God keeps you alive that you may lead good lives, you take advantage of His fatherly love to lead bad lives, and basely presume on His patience, what must you expect? God loves you, and you make that an excuse for not loving Him; God does everything for you, and you make that an excuse for doing nothing for God; God gives you health and strength, and you make that an excuse for using your health and strength just in the way He has forbidden. What can be more ungrateful? What can be more foolish? Oh, if one of our children behaved to us a hundredth part as shamefully as most of us behave to God, what should we think of them? Oh, beware! God is patient; but if a man will not turn, He will whet His sword. And then, woe to the careless and ungrateful sinner. God will take from him his health, or his blind peace, and by affliction, shame, and disappointment, teach him that his youth, health, money, and all that he has, are his Fathers gifts, and that his Father will take them away from him till he cries, Father, I have sinned against heaven and before Thee. Father, take me back, for I have sinned, and am not worthy to be called Thy child. (C. Kingsley, M. A.)

A historical parallel

The apostles argument turns entirely upon a parallel between the effects of Adams sin and those of Christs righteousness.

I. He is accordingly obliged to glance back upon the results which followed upon tire first mans transgression of law.

1. The point to be proved is this: Sin and death spread to all mankind through one man. The proof is this: All men betwixt Adam and Moses died. Why? Not, argues St. Paul, for any transgression of their own, but for Adams. At first one may object, sin was in the world. Why should they not have died for their own sin?

(1) But remember that Paul has already taught us to discriminate betwixt sin committed against, and sin committed without law. Without a law sin may be present as a defect of nature or fault of will, but sin as a violation of statute can enter only where the statute is known. Where no law is there can be no transgression (Rom_4:15). This he now supplements by sin is not imputed where there is no law (verse 13), axioms which carry with them all the stronger assurance of truth, that they not only echo, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do, but are in accord with all that our Lord taught us concerning Him who is perfect love.

(2) Turning next to the bearing of these legal maxims upon the position of men betwixt Adam and Moses, one cannot fail to see that it applies to them roundly, yet with qualifications. That they sinned without law, and therefore not after the fashion of Adams transgression (verse 14), is true in the main, but only partially true of some of them. St. Paul himself implies as much by, even over them that had not sinned as Adam did. For although the ages before Moses, like the vast heathen world ever since, possessed no statute recognised to have come from heaven which denounced death as the penalty of transgression, such as Adam or the Jews had, and therefore could not break the statute with their eyes open in the same degree; yet they still retained (chap. 1) the relics of natural conscience, testifying to the eternal rules of right and wrong, and testifying quite clearly enough to render some of them at least inexcusable. But in many of them conscience was undeveloped, false judgments; in all, it was defective, prescribing only certain rules of duty, and very feebly declaring, if at all, the penalty for disobedience. Besides, this inadequacy of the moral sense, being a portion of that subjection of human nature to the consequences of transgression for which we are seeking to account, needs itself to be accounted for.

2. After all fair deductions have been allowed for, let the question be put broadly: Were the sins committed without revealed law such that, had there been no antecedent transgression, they would have been in the bulk of cases punishable with eternal death? I think St. Pauls reasoning compels us to reply that they were not. Suppose it conceivable for a new-created moral agent to be left in that condition of imperfect knowledge of the Divine will, and to sin, his fall would not entail such a penalty as actually followed the transgression of Adam. Here, then, were men dying for thousands of years under a penalty which was originally attached to the express violation of a known law, but not attached to such sins as they themselves could commit. Before Adam there had been placed a clear command with precise warnings. Deliberately breaking it, he died. But his posterity could not so sin. Before them no such positive law had been set. To them no such consequences had been foretold. They made no such deliberate choice. Yet on all of them alike falls that same penalty. There is the fact. Is there any other explanation of it except St. Pauls, viz., that they died because Adam sinned; because the sentence passed on the first man for his transgression included his posterity in its sweep, be their personal offences what they might; and from this point of view it does supply an explanation for what must otherwise appear inexplicable. Moreover, if it be once admitted, it materially alters the complexion of all the subsequent sins of mankind. Those later sins of the men without law might not be such transgressions as of themselves to entail death. Yet it is impossible to cut them off from their guilty origin in the one transgression which went before. If the race be one, and its whole sin be the fruit of one culpable and deliberate act of original rebellion, then it is clear that the total mass of moral evil must continue to be stained throughout with the dark hue of its origin.

3. It need hardly be added that in the case of adults under Christianity, sin has to a great extent recovered the type of Adams first transgression. The law has long since been republished with plain spoken promises and penalties. Most of us have chosen evil with the clearest knowledge. Still, even we can be proved to underlie the penalty, not of our own, but of Adams sin. For time was when we, too, had no law. As children we knew nothing of sin or duty, of the Lawgiver or the penalty. Yet we were subject then to death.

4. All this, however, is not preliminary merely, but parenthetic. Now that the sweeping lapse of a race into death through the single act of a representative man has been proved, he is prepared at the close of verse 14 to resume his interrupted sentence begun in verse 12. He does not resume it, and the reason is very notable. He has caught sight of differences betwixt the two cases which make the parallel in some points a contrast. The cases are similar, but not equal. Is there any shortcoming? On the contrary, there is a glorious excess. The apostle, therefore, forbears to conclude his parallel, but abruptly exclaims--

II. But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift! (verse 15).

1. One point of superiority is developed in verse 15, If by the trespass of the one, etc. Here are two similar procedures on the part of God, by which a vast multitude of human beings is involved in each case in the fate of one man. The one application of the principle turns out to be a terrific disaster which overwhelms countless millions of unhappy beings in the judgment and ruin that overtake their transgressing representative. The other is a blessed provision of Divine kindness brought in to remedy the sad efforts of the former through the action of a better and abler Representative. This argument bears upon us in two ways.

1. Do we feel the fact of universal condemnation for a single mans sin to be baffling? Then learn the best use to be made of this hard fact. If anything can relieve the difficulty it must be when grace pledges itself to save on the same principle. It is at least something to discover that it is a principle of the Divine administration and not an isolated occurrence. There comes out (to say no more) a certain noble consistency in Gods treatment of us. When the very principle which, on its first application, in Adam worked disaster, turns its hand, so to say, in the gospel, to work a remedy for its own ruin, is there not a certain poetical justice, or dramatic completeness, in the two-fold scheme? May not the one be intended to be read in the light of the other? Is it not conceivable that both applications of the one rule to the Two Heads of Humanity may be requisite to make up that plan of Omniscience, of which each were but a broken part? At all events one thing is plain. The more keenly anyone feels the hardship of being involved without his will in the condemnation of another, with so much the more joyous eagerness ought he to embrace the parallel way of escape which has been brought nigh by the obedience of Another.

2. Are you one who stumbles, not at the fall in Adam, but at the doctrine of a free pardon in Christ apart from merits of your own? Have you never considered to whom you are indebted for your sin and condemnation? Surely, if you must take death at another mans hand, you may as well take life too! Is it not idle to quarrel with the way in which God would set us right, since it is in this very way that we have got wrong.

3. Another point of superiority arises: one of fact no less than of logic. blot as through one that sinned, so is the gift, etc. (verse 16, R.V). In order to mens condemnation there needed but the one trespass of Adam. In order to our being declared righteous, there need many trespasses to be wiped out in blood. The Restorers work might perhaps have followed close on the fall by an instant purging of the first transgression, and an instant replacing of the lapsed race in recovered purity again. There would in that event have been no room for the superiority St. Paul seems here to have in his eye. But it pleased the Most High to suffer sin to make its way through the world till it had grown to be a burden intolerable to the earth. Then at length came the free gift of an atonement which covered all. It is the same with individual experience. Is it not alter a man has for years abused his freedom to choose the wrong, adding to the inherited fault under which he is condemned a crowd of illegal acts, that the free gift which justifies is usually revealed to the soul? Then when it comes to a mature and experienced offender, grown penitent at last, how widely must it abound!

4. Another point of superiority remains: If by the trespass of the One, etc. (verse 17, R.V). The results to be expected from redemption are grander than the results of the fall were disastrous. This sounds fabulous, for the disaster entailed on mankind by the fall of the One might well appear too fearful ever to be overtopped by any subsequent advantage; that disaster Paul does not attempt to soften. Death reigned; it not only entered and passed through unto all (verse 12), it is mans king. A triple crown it wears: over body, soul, and spirit. Over against this last extremity of ill, what can Jesus bring us of excelling good? Why, merely to undo that curse calls for the abolishing of death. To discrown our tyrant--no more; and set them free who are all their lifetime subject to his bondage; is not this as much as mans highest hope dare look for? But superabounding grace conceives a higher triumph. The Deliverer turns a rescue into a conquest. The curse is reversed till it becomes a blessing. Having brought back life, Christ raises life to glory. Death is discrowned, but only to set a crown upon the head of the redeemed. Not death reigns any more, but we reign in life. (J. Oswald Dykes, D. D.)

The great parallels

I. The universal diffusion of death by the deed of one man (verses 12-14).

II. The superiority of the factors acting in Christs work over the corresponding factor in the work of Adam (verses 15-17).

III. The certainty of equality in respect of extension and effect between the second work and the first (verses 18-19).

IV. The indication of the true part played by the law between these two universals of death and righteousness (verses 20-21).

Adam and Christ

I. Adam. Through Him we are all--

1. Subject to suffering, sorrow, and death.

2. Debarred from entrance into Paradise.

3. Kept from eternal happiness.

II. Christ. By Him--

1. Our sins are atoned for.

2. We are entirely freed from guilt.

3. Eternal life is granted to us.

4. Immortal happiness is our portion. (J. H. Tarson.)

Adam and Christ

I. The parallel.

1. Both stand in a federal relation to mankind.

2. In both cases the effect of individual action is transferred.

3. The effect in both cases is coextensive.

II. The contrast.

1. The effects in the one case are--sin, condemnation, death; in the other--grace, justification, life.

2. In the one they follow by just consequence, in the other by grace.

3. In the one are suffered involuntarily; in the other are enjoyed by faith.

4. In the one they proceed from one sin; in the other cover many offences.

5. In the one they terminate in death; in the other in everlasting life.

III. The conclusion.

1. If sin has destroyed all, grace can save all.

2. If sin has abounded, grace doth much more abound.

3. If sin has reigned unto death, grace reigns unto eternal life. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Adam and Christ

Where frost and snow have abounded in winter, there spring, sunshine, and gladness will abound still more. Where, at Passion tide, Herods cunning, Pilates cowardice, the Pharisees envy, Judass treachery, and the blind Crucify, Crucify! of the mob have risen high, there, on Easter morn, the hallelujah of angels and the Church around the triumphant Saviour will rise still higher. Here are contrasted--

I. The one transgression and the one obedience.

1. What, I hear it objected, is it not arbitrary, and unjust that the fall of the first man should involve all succeeding generations, and scatter them, as children of misery, upon fields of thorn, as children of death upon churchyards? But, is it not simple matter of fact that some fate--explain it as we may--does, again and again, strew us, as children of misery and death, upon the earth?

2. And if further it be objected that, as Abraham was once nerved for endurance by the vision of his posterity, so Adam must needs have been deterred if the thought of the ruin hanging over the sons of men had been granted him in time. But was such prevision wanting? In the blessing, Replenish the earth, and subdue it, Adam sees himself set at the head of an entire economy; his lot is to be the lot of his heirs and posterity. By the image of God born with him, by his covenant fellowship with God, by the paternal warnings of the hostile powers against which the Garden of Eden was to be fenced and guarded, by the highest aim of eternal life, were not the fullest means of security imparted to the first man?

3. And when the fall took place, think you that God should have annihilated the human race? Annihilation is no redemption, and to yield the game to Satan is no victory. Then only is evil overcome by good when Divine love makes itself a sacrifice. Who will doubt, when over against the one Adam stands the one Christ, who with, It is written, wields a victorious sword, and becomes the dispenser of every heavenly blessing.

II. The dominion of one death and the dominion of one life.

1. You are familiar with the doubt of the unity of the race, which appeals to the various shapes of the skull, different complexions, divers tongues, etc. But Paul believes in the unity of the race, and knows one family of Adam, when, in Athens, he speaks of one blood, of which the nations are made; and when he says, Is God the God of the Jews only?--is He not the God of the Gentiles also?

2. And what sombre witnesses to this unity Paul summons! First sin itself, which shows itself far as humanity extends. But at the same time he points to death, which is the lot of all men, not merely of those struggling with poverty, but of those nursed in luxury; not merely of those feeble through age, but of children with their morning and May tide freshness; not merely of those branded with vice, but to the truly good, comes the stern creditor who demands of all the payment of the debt of life!

3. Nothing is more unnatural than for Gods image, instead of declining gently, and then being quietly transplanted; instead of entering into glory by a transfiguration, to fall a prey to violent dissolution, and be devoured by corruption. In outer death an inner death is imaged; the sting of death is sin, the wages of sin is death. Sin is absence from the source of all life--from God--and is therefore deadly in nature. The one separation is punished by the other; separation between the soul and God by separation between soul and body; yea, by a separation which rends in twain the soul itself. But if a house be divided against itself, how can it stand?

III. The condemnation on all and the abounding grace for all. What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? Nothing more wretched than man in his sin, in his death--a lost son, a dethroned king. What is man, that Thou visitest him? Nothing higher in dignity than man; far above angels; since the Son of God assumes human nature, and by His incarnation, passion, resurrection, outpouring of His Spirit, makes fallen humanity partaker of the Divine nature. Four dispensations of God with mankind are here to be described. The original one in Paradise; the second in the fall, where, without intermission, death is preaching repentance, and to every life history affixes the black seal bearing the inscription, And he died; the third dispensation under the law, which came between the fall and the rising again, that sin might abound, that is, become more and more perceptible; the fourth in the fulness of time. Now that you have been driven from the first, you will not deny. Are you living in the second, in utter indifference, a man utterly without conscience, not even alarmed by a command of God? Or are you living under the law, pursued by sin, not merely as sin but also as a punishment? Or do you know, in addition to the weakness and guilt of the first Adam, the power, the riches, and the grace of the second? Have you, under the Cross, come under the shelter of the strong arm, mightier than a Samson who, in his death, embracing the pillars of the idol temple, buried four thousand of the worshippers? Have you felt the arm which, stretched out in Golgotha, overturned the idol temple of sin and the gloomy prison house of death? And as David once cut off the giants head with the giants sword, have you learnt under the Cross that death is conquered by death; death as the wages of sin by death as a sacrificial offering? (R. Koegel, D. D.)

The analogy between the manner of mans condemnation in Adam and justification in Christ

I. The fact on which the analogy proceeds.

1. Stated (verse 12).

2. Proved (verses 13, 14).

II. The points in which it does not hold.

1. The free gift transcends the offence, it reaches not only as far, but in those who receive it effects much more good than the offence did evil (verse 15); for the free gift neutralises the effect not only of one offence but of many (verse 16); not only destroys death but brings abundance of life (verse 17).

III. The points in which it does hold.

1. One offence (marg) occasioned the condemnation of all; one righteousness (marg.) provides for the justification of all (verse 18).

2. In one man many sinned, in one shall many be made righteous (verse 19).

IV. The summing up of the whole.

1. Grace abounds over sin (verse 20).

2. Death is swallowed up of life. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The principle on which justification proceeds: that of mediation

Mediation is the principle on which human society is based and constituted. Ever since the creation of the first pair, all have been born and preserved by it. The dominion conferred on the man in Eden (Gen_1:28) was not to be achieved singly, but in society. Even here our blessings come through mediation. Yet not our blessings only. The fact that men have it in their power to do us good involves also that of doing us mischief. This constitution of society is precisely that which made it possible for the first man to involve himself and all his posterity in sin and ruin, and for the Second Man to provide salvation and glory (verse 18).

I. Both Adam and Christ were Divinely appointed and responsible representatives of the whole human race.

1. Adam was its natural head; but he was much more. All men are affected by the conduct of Adam, in a wider sense than that in which children are affected by the conduct of their parents. All children born into the world to the end of time will be affected by the one offence of Adam just in the same sense and to the same extent as his own children were affected by it. And this is not simply because he was the natural head. Noah was also the natural head of all the men who have existed since the deluge; but it is never intimated that he, by his one recorded sin, entailed a curse upon all his posterity. But it is plainly affirmed that Adam, by his one offence, has done so. For he was also the federal head of the race. God dealt with the entire race in and through him. To him were entrusted the interests of all his descendants. Had he proved faithful these would have been born into the world holy and happy, and would each have commenced his probation on terms as favourable as Adams. But he failed us, and thus induced our ruin.

2. Now Adam is a type of Christ in that he was a Divinely constituted representative of the race. Adam was created in the image of God. But Christ, the beloved Son, is the image of the invisible God. The race, therefore, in its very creation, sustained special relationship to Him. And it was fitting that He, whose image in man had been marred by the fall of the first man, should Himself become man in order to its restoration. For we are predestinated to be conformed to His image. Adam, as our first head and representative, failed in his fidelity, and thereby betrayed and ruined our interests; Christ, our Second, has gloriously succeeded.

II. The likeness between Adam and Christ is one of essential opposition, because that Adam has affected us for evil, Christ for good.

1. The judgment to condemnation on account of Adams sin involved the penalty of moral death for all his posterity. Not that any positive evil principle was infused into our nature, but rather that the Holy Spirit, in fellowship with whom all spiritual life is sustained, was then penally withdrawn, and that being so men became dead in trespasses and sins. In Adam all died.

2. The judgment to condemnation on account of Adams sin was a judgment to bodily death (Gen_3:17-19). And this in all probability resulted from the penal withdrawment of the Spirit of life. Naturally liable to death man must have been; i.e., regarded as a creature whose animal life is an organic successional growth, sustained by material food. So long as he remained innocent he had the pledge and sacrament provided against this liability in the tree of life. But as soon as he had sinned, he was subjected to the vanity which was the lot of the lower creatures, denied access to the tree of life, and surrendered to the dissolution which had already been the natural termination of the existence of the inferior orders. But as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive (1Co_15:22; Joh_5:28-29). And though the restoration of immortal life to the bodies of His people is deferred, the quickening Spirit is a pledge and earnest that He who raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken their mortal bodies (Rom_8:11).

3. The judgment to death, on account of sin, was a judgment to everlasting death. As grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord, even so (unobstructed) sin reigns in death, by offending Adam, unto everlasting death. In the very nature of things it cannot be otherwise. For to doom a man to death at all is to doom him to endless death. No one ever thinks of a criminal being sentenced to death for so many years. The dead have no power to recover life. And this is as true of spiritual as of physical death. The fact is that sin reigns in death, and by death is its dread dominion sustained.

III. The grace of redemption, which is by Jesus Christ, not only meets, and avails to counteract, the curse entailed from Adam at every point, but abounds far beyond even that.

1. Adam entailed upon us the curse of one offence only. He doubtless committed other sins; but they have involved us in no disadvantages. If, therefore, Christ had made provision for nothing beyond the cancelling of the judgment on account of that, the parallel between the first and Second Man would have been at that point complete. But He has done much more (verse 16). And not only so, but being justified, there is provision made to secure our continued acceptance. Nor does even a lapse cut off the offender from hope: but, because God has just ground on which to multiply to pardon, a fallen David and a backsliding Peter may be restored. Therefore the word of exhortation (Gal_6:1), and the word of compassionate love (1Jn_2:1-2). Thus richly does the grace of Christ super-abound over the curse from Adam.

2. The apostles position clearly implies that the number of the saved through Christ will far exceed that of the finally lost through Adam. It is not intended to intimate, however, that any are really lost on account of Adams sin alone. The apostle clearly assumes that there are none such (verses 15, 18). And have we not an assurance here that all infants, incapables, etc., shall through Christ inherit everlasting life? But those who resist grace and refuse salvation thereby make the sin of Adam their own, and in that sin they shall perish. But--

3. The apostle further intimates that those who avail themselves of the redemption which is by Jesus Christ shall be elevated to a far higher state of glory and blessedness than could have been inherited by unfallen man (verses 17, 20, 21). Conclusion:

1. This review of the Divine administration calls for ardent and adoring gratitude.

2. We must learn to regard sin with ever-increasing hatred:

3. Let all avail themselves with glad alacrity of the gift of grace through Christ. (W. Tyson.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 5:12-13. Wherefore — This refers to all the preceding discourse, from which the apostle infers what follows: he does not therefore make a digression, but returns to speak again of sin and righteousness; as if he had said, “We may from these premises infer, that the benefit which we believers receive from Christ is equal to the detriment we derive from Adam; yea, is on the whole greater than that.” For, as by one man — That is, Adam, the common father of the human species; (he is mentioned, and not Eve, as being the representative of mankind;) sin entered into the world — Actual sin, namely, the transgression of Adam and its consequence, a sinful nature, which took place in him, through his first sin, and which he conveyed to all his posterity; and death — With all its attendants. It entered into the world when it entered into being; for till then it did not exist; by sin — Therefore it could not enter in before sin; and so — Namely, by one man; death passed — From one generation to another; upon all men, for that all have sinned — Namely, in Adam, their representative, and as being in his loins. That is, they are so far involved in his first transgression and its consequences, and so certainly derive a sinful nature from him, that they become obnoxious to death. Instead of, for that, Dr. Doddridge renders εφ’ ω, unto which, (namely, unto death, mentioned in the preceding clause,) all have sinned. In which ever way the expression is rendered, the words are evidently intended to assign the reason why death came upon all men, infants themselves not excepted. For until the law — For, from the fall of Adam, unto the time when God gave the law by Moses, as well as after it; sin was in the world — As appeared by the continual execution of its punishment; that is, death: but — It is a self- evident principle that sin is not, and cannot be, imputed where there is no law — Since the very essence of sin consists in the violation of a law. And consequently, since we see, in fact, that sin was imputed, we must conclude that the persons, to whose account it was charged, were under some law. Now this, with respect to infants, could not be the law of nature, (any more than the law of Moses,) for infants could not transgress that; it must therefore have been the law given to Adam, the transgression whereof is, in some sense, imputed to all, even to infants, he being the representative of all his posterity, and they all being in his loins. In other words, they do not die for any actual sins of their own, being incapable, while in infancy, of committing any, but through Adam’s sin alone.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2. In the grand antithesis between Adam and Christ. (Rom_5:12-21.)

This memorable passage is here with great distinctness set, as a living picture presenting, as it were to the eye, the tableau of ruin and renovation. To the Jew, with whom St. Paul is discussing, Christ is thus installed in his exalted position in the organic system of the world. Adam, as head of the race, is the type; yet the mournful contrast and dark background to this new world-wide Saviour.

12. Wherefore—As the result of all that has gone before, describing man’s natural fall and gracious delivery, but more specially now suggested by that ruin and redemption in Rom_5:10-11.

One man—Adam, (and not Eve.) as the representative of the race.

Sin entered—The first actual human sin was committed. Satan had sinned before, and both he and his sin were in the physical world, that is, on earth. Indeed, Satan’s sin in tempting preceded Adam’s sin in the world; so that it is not the physical earth that is meant, but the human world, the race of man.

By the sin that entered many understand the state of sin (sometimes called corruption) into which man is fallen as a nature. And no doubt there is a state of evil, as well as evil action, which in the Scriptures is called sin. Sin is not in action alone: there may be a permanently wrong and wicked state of mind, of purpose, of temper, of character. A man may for years entertain a purpose of murder, waiting the opportunity for the deed. He is thus in heart, state, and character a permanent murderer. Whether awake, asleep, or in a swoon, there is the same unsuspended state of character. A man’s sensual nature may have the entire predominance over his moral nature, so that, awake or asleep, he may be a sensual, drunken being. So pride, ambition, scepticism, and a thousand other vices, may be triumphant in a man’s permanent mental state and fixed moral character. He is, therefore, in a state of sin. And whatever good there is in him is so subordinated to, harmonized with, and tainted by, these predominant evils as to be only qualifiedly good. Yet it was Adam’s flagrant act of disobedience to God’s law which at once thus subordinated the good to evil in his moral constitution God; law, conscience, were no longer supreme; self submission to temptation, animal indulgence, took the ascendant. That changed condition of soul becoming hereditary, has been called “Original Sin.” Whatever may be the suitableness of the term, Scripture, consciousness, and experience amply attest the mournful fact.

Death by sin—Geologists declare, and science seems universally to accept the declaration, that animal death existed for ages before the human race existed. Indeed death, disintegration, dissolution, appears to belong to the very nature of all material organisms. This fact seems to be recognised in the Genesis history. Adam’s first organism seems to have been naturally dissoluble, and its dissolution to have been prevented by the tree of life.

His bodily immortality seems thus to have been properly supernatural. Just so his holiness was supernatural, being superinduced by the blessed indwelling and communion of the Divine Spirit. Sin removed the Holy Spirit; the sentence upon sin removed him from the tree of life, (Gen_3:22,) and so when sin entered then also entered death by sin. It was, as above said, into the human world that both sin and death now entered. It is said explicitly that “death passed upon all men,” not upon the lower animal races. On Adam’s sin, moral subversion and mortality obtained full sway over him, and so of all his descendants by the law of propagation; the law by which throughout the entire generative kingdoms, whether vegetable, animal, or human, like nature begets like nature, bodily, mental, and moral.

“When the apostle here teaches that all evil has its origin in sin, and all sin in that of the ancestor of the human race, he by no means propounds an entirely new doctrine. It is substantially contained in the third chapter of Genesis, and is frequently declared in the Apocrypha: Wisdom of Solomon, Rom_11:23-24; Sir_25:24. It has likewise been handed down in the exegetical traditions of the rabbins, among whom, for example, are to be found such sentiments as the following: The Targum, on the text, Ecc_7:29, ‘God hath made man upright,’ observes: ‘But the serpent and the woman seduced him, and caused death to be brought upon him and all the inhabitants of the earth;’ and on Rth_4:22, ‘Jesse lived many days, until the counsel which the serpent gave to Eve was called to mind before God. In consequence of this counsel all men upon earth are obnoxious to death.’ To the same purpose are the words of R. Shemtob (died anno 1293) in the book Sepher Haemunoth: ‘In their mystical commentaries our doctors say that if Adam and Eve had not sinned their descendants would not have been infected with the propensity to evil; their form would have remained perfect like that of the angels, and they would have continued forever in the world, subject neither to death nor change.’

‘Bereschith Rabba,’ a mystical commentary upon Genesis from an early period of the Middle Ages, par. 12, 14: ‘Although created perfect, yet when the first man sinned all was perverted, and shall not return to order until the Messiah come.’”—Tholuck. Yet some of these authorities are probably the borrowers from the apostle rather than originals. Other Jewish doctors maintain an implanted tendency to evil born in every man.

All have sinned—How does the apostle mean that all have sinned? Theologians have replied, All have sinned in Adam. But no such phrase as sinned in Adam occurs in Scripture. The phrase In Adam all die does occur. This does not mean, however, that any man’s body or person was physically, materially, or morally present, or so incorporated in the body of Adam as to expire with him when he expired. No more was any person present in Adam to eat the forbidden fruit when he ate. Every man dies conceptually in the first mortal man, just as every lion dies in the first mortal lion; that is, by being subjected to death by the law of likeness to the primal progenitor. The first lion was the representative lion, in whose likeness every descended lion would roar, devour, and die; and so in him all the lion race die. Adam, separated by sin from the Holy Spirit, was a naturally disposed sinner, and, shut from the tree of life, a natural mortal; and so by the law of descent his posterity are naturally disposed sinners, and both naturally and penally mortal.

But when the apostle declares that all have sinned, he declares not merely the natural disposition, but the actual sinning of all. Our view is this: The aorist or past tense, here used of the word sinned, does in this epistle often imply a general certain fact or state of facts. So it is used in Rom_3:23; Rom_9:22-23; Rom_8:29-30, (where see notes,) where justified and glorified express a uniform general fact in the same tense. And it is so regularly used throughout this very passage, 12-21. Rom_5:15, Hath abounded, essentially means always abounds and always will abound; 17, Death reigned; 21, Sin hath reigned, express permanent, universal facts. The clause all have sinned, therefore, means just the same as all sin—thus stating a fact which (allowing for volitional freedom) is as uniform as a law of nature. Now such a uniform law of nature, however generally stated, takes effect only in those circumstances or conditions which allow it possible. Thus “water runs,” that is, such is the nature of water if gravitation permit. “Lead melts,” that is, when the temperature allows. “All men sin”—such is their nature—when their probation presents itself. Such being their normal action, such must be their permanent nature. And infants are of the same nature, they needing only the possible conditions for actual sinning. The sentence of universal death must stand, therefore, because in the divine view men are by nature universal sinners. Not because they literally sinned in Adam; not because Adam’s personal sin is imputed to them, but because such is their nature that in this scene of probation, hemmed in with temptations on all sides, sooner or later they will sin; and of whatever act a being is the normal, if not absolutely universal, performer, of that he is normally called the doer; if of sin, then a sinner.

The aoristic character of the verbs we have quoted is preserved by the writer’s being considered as assuming his standpoint at the close of the whole series of transactions they express. Standing at the finale of all probationary history, he recognises that all sinned when the lengthened trial came. (For the reconciliation of volitional freedom with this universality of sin see WILL, pp. 338-343.)

In Rom_5:12 the apostle states one side of the comparison, but he does not state the other side until Rom_5:18. What intervenes may be considered logically parenthetic. To obtain the gist of the parallel, Rom_5:12; Rom_5:18 may be read together.

The Adamic side of the comparison the apostle assumes on the admitted authority of Genesis. The purpose of the parallel is, (1.) To show the illustrious place of Christ in the history of our world. (2.) To show that justification by Christ extends beyond mere Judaism, and embraces the race. (3.) To show that the redemption more than repairs the fall.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 12-21. (b) From consideration of the blessed effects on believers of faith in the reconciliation through Christ, the apostle now passes to the effects of that reconciliation as the position of the whole human race before God. His drift is that the reconciliation corresponds to the original transgression; both proceeded from one, and both include all mankind in their results; as the one introduced sin into the world, and, as its consequence, death, so the other introduced righteousness, and, as its consequence, life.

It may be observed that in Ro 1 also he has in one sense traced sin backward through the past ages, so as to show how all mankind had come to be under condemnation for it. But the subject was regarded from a different point of view, the purpose of the argument being also different. There he was addressing the heathen world, his purpose being to convince the whole of it of sin, on the score of obvious culpability; and, suitably to this design, his argument is based, not on Scripture, but on observation of the facts of human nature and human history. It did not fall within his scope to trace the evil to its original cause. But here, having shown Jew and Gentile to be on the same footing with respect to sin, and having entered (at Rom_3:21) on the doctrinal portion of his Epistle, he goes to Scripture for the origin of the evil, and finds it there attributed to Adam"s original transgression, which implicated the human race as an organic whole. This is the scriptural solution of the mystery, which he here gives, not only as accounting for things being as they are, but also, in connection with the stage of the argument at which he has now arrived, as explaining the necessity and the purpose of the atonement for the whole guilty race, effected by the second Adam, Christ.

Wherefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all sinned. To this sentence, introduced by wsper , there is no apodosis. One has been sought in the course of what follows, and by some found in ver. 18. But ver. 18 is a recapitulation rather than resumption of the argument, and is, further, too far removed to be intended as a formal apodosis. It is not really necessary to find one. The natural one to the first clause of the sentence would have been, "So through One righteousness entered into the world, and life through righteousness;" and such may be supposed to have been in the writer"s mind. But, after his manner, he goes off to enlarge on the idea expressed in the second clause, and never formally completes his sentence. A similar anacoluthon is found in 1Ti_1:3. Sin is here, as elsewhere, regarded as a power antagonistic to God, which has been introduced into the world of man, working and manifesting itself in concrete human sin. (cf. Rom_5:21 Rom_6:12, 14 7:8, 9, 17) Its ultimate origin is not explained. Scripture offers no solution of the old insoluble problem, koyen to kakon : its existence at all under the sway of the Omnipotent Goodness in which we believe is one of the deep mysteries that have ever baffled human reason. All that is here touched on is its entrance into the world of man, the word eishlye implying that it already existed beyond this mundane sphere. The reference is, of course, as the scriptural account of the beginning of sin in our own world. It is there attributed to "the serpent," whom we regard as a symbol of some mysterious power of evil, external to man, to which primeval man, in the exercise of his prerogative of free-will, succumbed, and so let sin in. Through sin entered also death as its consequence; which (primarily at least) must mean here physical death, this being all that is denoted in Genesis, (comp. Gen_3:19 with Gen_2:17) and necessary to be understood in what follows in the chapter before us (see ver. 14). But here a difficulty presents itself to modern thought. Are we to understand that man was originally so constituted as not to die? that even his bodily organization was immortal, and would have continued so but for the fatal taint of sin? We find it difficult at the present day to conceive this, however bound we may feel to submit our reason to revelation in a matter so remote, so unknown, and so mysterious as the beginning of human life on the earth, in whatever aspect viewed, and indeed of all conscious life, must ever be. But St. Paul himself, in another place, speaks of "the first man" having been, even on his first creation, "of the earth, earthy", (1Co_15:45, 1Co_15:47) with a body, like ours, of" flesh and blood," in its own nature corruptible. (1Co_15:50) Neither is the narrative of Genesis 3 inconsistent with this idea. For it seems to imply that, but for his eating of the mystical "tree of life" (whatever may be meant by it), the first man was in his own nature mortal, and that his liability to death ensued on his being debarred from it. (Gen_3:22) It may be impossible for us to understand or explain. The following considerations, however, may perhaps help us in some degree.

(1) When we pay regard to man"s spiritual capabilities and aspirations, even as he is now, death does seem to us an anomaly a contradiction to the ideal of his inner self. That a beast of the field should die appears to us no such anomaly; for it has done all that it seems to have been meant to do, or to be capable of doing: it has served as a link in the continuance of its kind, not having been conscious, as far as we know, of anything beyond its surroundings. But man (i.e. man as he is capable of being, so as to represent the capacity of humanity) connects himself in his inner self with eternity; his mind resents the idea of death, as an unwelcome stoppage to its development and its yearnings. It goes on ever maturing its power, enlarging its range, thirsting for higher knowledge, entertaining affections that seem eternal; and then bodily decay and death arrest its progress as it were in mid-career. Thus death, as it comes to us and affects us now, seems to involve a contradiction between man"s inner consciousness and the facts of his existence at present; it is shrunk from as something that ought not to be. It is true that, when faith has once grasped the idea of bodily death being but a transition to a better life, the anomaly disappears: but such is its aspect to the natural man: and thus we can enter into the scriptural idea of death, as it comes to us so inevitably now, being something not originally meant for man, though we may be unable to say how it would have been with him had not sin entered.

(2) Though physical death, obvious to men"s eyes, and not spiritual death of the soul either in this world or in the world to come, is here evidently in view (see ver. 14), yet we must bear in mind the general idea associated with the word "death" in the New Testament. It is sometimes used so as to imply more than the mere parting of the soul from the body, including in the conception of what it is all the woes and infirmities that flesh is heir to, which are its precursors in the present state of things, (cf. 1Co_15:31 2Co_4:10, 2Co_4:12, 16 6:9) being thus regarded also as the visible sign before our eyes of man"s present alienation from the life that is in God. St. Paul, then, in the passage before us, though alleging mere natural death as sufficient evidence of sin, may be conceived as having in his view Death armed as he has been with a peculiar sting to man through all known time. The main point of his argument is that the doom recorded in Genesis as having been pronounced on Adam had obviously remained in force throughout the ages; and there is surely no difficulty in assenting to the position that the dominion of death, as it has been exercised since that doom, is evidence of its continuance, and consequently of sin. "For that all sinned" (more correctly so than, as in the Authorized Version, "all have sinned") seems to mean, not that all since Adam in their own persons committed sin, but that all sinned in him were implicated in the sin of the progenitor, (cf. ver. 15; also 1Co_15:22, "in Adam all die;" and 2Co_5:14, where all are said to have died to sin in the death of Christ) The doctrine of original, as distinct from actual, sin, thus intimated, has been, as is well known, the subject of much controversy since the time of Pelagius. It does not fall within the proper scope of this Commentary to discuss the theories of divines, but rather to set forth candidly what the language of the portions of Scripture commented on in itself most obviously means, viewed in the light afforded by general Scripture teaching. With respect to the passage before us, it may suffice to say:

(1) That more must be understood than the mere imputation of Adam"s transgression to his descendants, irrespectively of any guilt of theirs. This notion, which jars on our conception of Divine justice, is precluded by the entire drift of the earlier chapters of this Epistle, which was the actual culpability of mankind at large, and also by what follows here, sin itself being spoken of not the imputation of it only as being in the world after Adam, and universal too, as evidenced by the continued reign of death. All men are said to have sinned in the sin of the first transgressor, because sin was thus introduced, as a power in human nature antagonistic to God, and because this "infection of nature" has continued since. And thus

(2) the Pelagian position is also precluded, according to which "original sin standeth (only) in the following of Adam" (Art. 9), i.e. in actual imitation of his sin, which man is supposed to have still, as Adam had, the power to avoid. For it is expressly said (ver. 14) that death reigned over in proof that sin infected even those who had not sinned after the similitude of his transgression. But

(3) we must guard against confusion between the idea of man"s natural liability to condemnation on the ground of transmitted sinfulness, and that of God"s actual dealing with him. It is nowhere said or implied that the natural infection which they could not help will be visited on individuals in the final judgment. All that is insisted on by St. Paul is that man, in himself, as he is now, falls short of the glory of God, and cannot put in a plea for acceptance on the ground of his own righteousness. But he no less emphatically declares that "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.

Additional Note on ver. 12.

The significance of the words "life" and "death," as used in St. Paul"s Epistles and elsewhere, demands peculiar attention. They evidently bear a sense in many places different from that of ordinary use; and this in accordance with our Lord"s own recorded language, as, for instance, in his memorable words to Martha, given in Joh_11:25, Joh_11:26. The following considerations may aid our comprehension of what is meant. The mysterious principle or potency of life, even in the common acceptation of the term, varies not only in degree, but in kind; and the same living organism may be at the same time alive with respect to its own mode of vitality, and dead with respect to some higher one which vivifies others. The plant, while alive with respect to its own kind of life, is dead to the higher life of sentient beings. The brute beast, while alive with respect to mere animal life, is dead, as it were, to the higher life of intelligent man. A whole world of environing influences to which the mind of man responds, so as to live in them, are to the brute as nothing; it may be said to be dead to them. Now, Scripture teaches, and we believe, that there is a spiritual sphere of things above and beyond this visible sphere, which man is capable of apprehending, being influenced by, and living a still higher life than his natural life therein. He is thus capable through the higher and diviner part of his mysterious being, called by St. Paul his pneuma , (cf. 1Th_5:23, Umwn to pneuma kai h quch kai to swma) when in touch with the Divine pneuma . For man to be in vital correspondence with his spiritual environments is spiritual life; to be out of correspondence with them is spiritual death. And so, as the plant is dead to sentient life, though alive in its own life; or as the brute may be said to be dead to the higher life of man, though alive in mere animal life; so man may be dead as to spiritual life, though alive as to psychical life; and thus "dead while he liveth". (cf. 1Co_2:14, "The natural man (quciko) receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." In other words, he is dead to them) Further, this spiritual life, unlike the psychical life, is ever spoken of as eternal. For it consists in intercommunion of man"s immortal part with the spiritual sphere of things which is eternal. Nor does natural death interrupt it; for it is not dependent for its continuance, as is psychical life, on environments from which we are severed by the body"s death, but on such as are eternal. Thus, too, we see how it is that eternal life is regarded, not as one that will have its commencement after death, but as one to be enjoyed at present, and to which we are to rise in Christ even now. This idea is notably expressed in our Lord"s words above referred to: "I am the Resurrection, and the Life: he that believeth in me, though he die, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die". (Joh_11:25, Joh_11:26) Doubtless we are bidden to look forward to a fulness and perfection of the eternal life, of which our present enjoyment of it is but an earnest, in the swma pneumatikon (1Co_15:44) in store for us hereafter cf. "Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet manifested what we shall be," etc. (1Jn_3:2) but still this is regarded as but the consummation of a life already begun. On the other hand, whatever penal consequences of a state of spiritual death may be spoken of as in store hereafter for the wicked, it is regarded as being itself but the continuance of a state of death in which they are before they pass away. (cf. Rev_22:11) In Rom_5:12, etc., to which this note refers, the above view of what is often meant by "death" ought to be kept before us. For, though the apostle seems evidently to be speaking of the natural death that comes to all, he must be taken as regarding it as but the symbol and evidence of the sway of that spiritual death to which all men are now, in their fallen nature, liable.

The thoughts embodied in the above note have been derived from, or suggested by, "Natural Law in the Spiritual World," by Henry Drummond, F.R.S.E., F.G.S. (Hodder and Stoughton: 1888).

Vers. 12-21. Grace abounding.

Here the apostle contrasts the reign of sin with the reign of grace, and shows that, while there is a point of similarity between them, there are many points in which they differ, and in which grace is triumphant over sin. All this is for the encouragement of the sinner, that he may be led from the captivity of sin to hope and live under the influence of God"s mercy.

I GRACE AND SIN BOTH CAME BY ONE PERSON. "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin" (ver. 12); "Through the offence of one many died" (ver. 15); "Death reigned by one" (ver. 17); "By one man"s disobedience many were made sinners" (ver. 19). So also with the reign of grace. "The grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one Man, Jesus Christ" (ver. 15); "They who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by One, Jesus Christ" (ver. 17); "So by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous" (ver. 19). Observe here the power of the individual for good or evil. Our acts are widespread in their influences, perhaps eternal in their consequences. "None of us liveth to himself." Shall our life be a curse to those around us, or a blessing? Shall we be among those whose aim and errand in the world seem to be to do all the mischief or all the harm they can? Or shall we be amongst those who try to follow in the footsteps of him who "went about every day doing good"?

II THE INFLUENCE OF GRACE IS TRIUMPHANT OVER THE INFLUENCE OF SIN.

1. Sin brought condemnation; grace triumphant brings pardon. "The judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification" (ver. 16); "As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men to justification of life" (ver. 18). Grace and mercy triumph over the guilt of sin.

2. Sin brought sinfulness; grace brings righteousness. "As by one man"s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" (ver. 19). One man"s sin imposed upon the race a hereditary taint of sin. The depravity of human nature, as already shown, is universal. "All have sinned." But here, too, grace can triumph. Grace can change the corrupt and unregenerate heart. Grace reigns through righteousness God"s purpose in justification is not merely that his people may be saved from sin"s guilt, but also that they may be delivered from its rower. As St. Paul elsewhere says, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love". (Eph_1:4) The experience of many a true child of God has shown how grace can triumph over the hereditary sinfulness of human nature, and over the special temptations to which some natures are exposed.

3. Sin brought death; grace brings life. "That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord" (ver. 21). It is sin which has cast the gloom over the dark valley. "The sting of death is sin." But Jesus has come to give us light. "Thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ". (1Co_15:57) Truly, if sin has abounded to the corruption and despair and death of human nature, grace has much more abounded to its regeneration and hope and everlasting life. C.H.I.

Vers. 12-14. The reign of death.

The summing up of this first division of the Epistle: Christ has undone what sin has done, as regards our objective relation to God. In these three verses Sin through one works death to all.

I SIN WORRYING DEATH. "Death" a word with many meanings in Scripture. Dissolution of complex nature; corruption of spiritual nature; and final abandonment by God. Here the first. An objective punishment of an objective transgression; a manifest sentence of condemnation. Hence symbolic of condemnation itself, showing forth God"s wrath. May well lead thoughts to death that must reign in the inner man, through the withdrawal of God"s favour a spiritual paralysis. Also might well be premonitory of the total casting-off. Such, then, the triple death condemnation, helplessness, and the culmination of both in the hereafter. And this the death which "entered into the world" through sin.

II DEATH REIGNING OVER ALL. But this sin the sin of one. How, then, the universal death? Look around death, death, death! Yes, might answer, because sin, sin, sin! True; but carry thought back to time anterior to Law. Death still! And no sin then such as Adam"s was, such as yours is so conscious, so deliberate. There was the presence and working of sin, indeed, but the working was the spontaneous working of a corrupt nature.

No law, and therefore, strictly, no transgression. Argument might be reinforced by similar consideration of heathen now, and infants: death reigns! So, then, the death even of those who have the Law is not on account of their individual transgressions of the Law, but must be traced to the same cause as operates in the case of those who have "not sinned after the likeness of Adam"s transgression.

III THE SIN OF ONE THE SIN OF ALL. Therefore, if death be an objective punishment for an objective offence, it can be for none other"s than his offence who first transgressed God"s manifested will. And therefore, if the condemnation be imputed to all, the sin was imputed to all. Or, in other words, in him "all sinned" (ver. 12). The marvellous solidarity of all things species, genus, world, system, universe. So in respect of mankind, and the spiritual history of mankind: the act of one, the act of all.

So, then, all rest under a shadow the shadow cast by Adam"s sin! All bear a brand the brand of his punishment! Where is the path from darkness into light? Justification through Christ! Can this be coextensive in its range with the results of sin? Is there a solidarity here also? Yes."; for Adam was "a figure of him that was to come." We have another Head, a second Adam! T.F.L.

Vers. 12-21. Representative responsibility.

In last section we saw the blessed state into which the justified believer comes a state of peace, of gracious acceptance, of glorious hope, of joy in God. The apostle in the present section expounds the relation in which mankind stands to the two great representatives, Adam and Christ. We cannot do better than consider these two representatives in the order named, and how they are related to the race.

I THE FIRST ADAM AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RACE. Now, the apostle distinctly declares in this passage that death entered into our world through one man"s sin. The one man in his sin must, therefore, have been acting for the race; and it is for us to get a clear view of his representative position. Now, the usual mistake made in this subject is in supposing that representatives must be voluntarily selected by those they represent. This is not always the case. A representative may occupy his position of necessity. This was the case with our first parent. The human race is not made up of a number of independent units, but of a series of dependent generations. Consequently, as first parent, Adam was in the very nature of the case representative of the race. "The unreasoning flippancy," says an able writer, "with which some object to their responsibility for the act of Adam, because they had no part in choosing him as their representative, shows singular want of thought and of discriminating observation of the settled order of God"s providence. It is evident that when God himself directly institutes a social organization, he always appoints, either by special act or by an invariable natural order, the ruling and representative head... The unity of the human race is his own immediate institution, and he appointed Adam its ancestor to be its representative and federal head. And in this case also he rendered an elective appointment by man impossible, by the constitution which brought man into being in successive generations. Not having from the beginning contemporaneous existence, consentaneous action was impossible. Their unity, therefore, was made to depend upon a common head and upon his representative action .... The constitution of nature and the course of providence render it a matter of social justice that one generation shall bind the succeeding, however remote, for good or evil. All legislation and all government proceeds upon this principle, and cannot avoid it. The evil entailed upon the race has come upon us by the selfsame principle, and its repudiation is impossible without the violation of the moral order upon which the stability of society depends. Our responsible relation to the first sin of Adam in no way depends upon our consent to his appointment as our covenant head, any more than our responsible relation to the national debt of Great Britain is affected by the fact that it was contracted without our personal consent, and before we were born." It will be found also that Adam"s parental authority carries with it the idea of kingship; he was in a regal as well as representative position; he had dominion not only over the creatures, but also over his own posterity. His acts were consequently of a regal and representative character. Carrying these necessary principles with us, we can see how his sin in eating the forbidden fruit was a representative act. In this the race was represented, by it the race was bound; he was acting in his representative capacity, and there is no good gained by repudiating it. But, further, we can understand in some measure how a sin like Adam"s affected his constitution, so that he became with his wife tainted, and so transmitted the sin to succeeding generations. The death of infants is the positive proof that the race has been treated as an organic unity, and that the taint of sin has been transmitted by ordinary generation. The whole subject of "heredity," as now scientifically treated, bears upon this relation of Adam to his posterity. It is evident that the generations have been linked each to each. Representative responsibility has been in operation from the first. Instead of quarrelling with the arrangement, our duty is to recognize it, and to see how out of the same principle we may receive blessing as a glorious set-off to the curse which has been transmitted to us.

II THE SECOND ADAM AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE JUSTIFIED. We have seen how the first Adam was constituted the representative of the race, and by his sin involved the whole race in trespass and condemnation. Death passed unto all men, for that all in him have sinned. But now the apostle shows us the glorious set-off to this inheritance of guilt and death. God has given a new Representative to the race, even Jesus Christ his Son. By his obedience the representative principle is transmuted into an organ of grace instead of an organ of condemnation. But let us carefully note the nature of the relation set up between us and Christ. And here let us observe:

1. While we are united to the first Adam by ordinary generation, we get united to the second Adam by regeneration. The first union is involuntary; we cannot determine who our parents shall be. But union to Christ partakes of a voluntary character. When the Spirit is received and regenerates us, he makes us willing in the day of his power. Freedom of the will has its place in the relation into which we enter towards the second Adam. We may reject the union or close with it. Hence the whole race is not necessarily embraced in Christ"s vicarious work, simply because the whole race will not be. All will not come to Jesus that they may have life. (Joh_5:40)

2. Jesus proposes to quench the fire, not only of original sin, but also of actual sin, in those who receive his grace. This is the apostolic idea in this passage. The arrangement might have been to checkmate merely the original sin; that is, to put the race upon as good a platform as our first parent occupied before the Fall. Christ"s obedience might thus have been the mere equivalent for Adam"s disobedience. But the free gift of justification through Christ embraces our actual sins as well as our original sin. Grace is thus seen to abound. All sin in which we have been involved gets cancelled and put away through the obedience of our Representative. And:

3. Jesus proposes not only to counteract the sin, but also to secure a reign of grace unto eternal life. The abounding grace of the second Adam raises its recipients into an eternal life in the favour and society of God. Thus is it that the representative principle provides the most magnificent compensation for all that it entails through our first parent"s fall. If we by faith are united to the second Adam, then we get the benefit of his obedience; his endurance of the penalty we deserved is accepted as ours; his perfect obedience to the requirements of the Divine Law is imputed to us; and his gracious Spirit comes to abide within us. The result is that the grace so abounds as to overmaster the sin and to raise us into that fellowship with God which is life eternal. The second Adam thus more than redeems us from our relation to the first Adam.

III THE ADMINISTRATION OF GRACE THROUGH JESUS CHRIST MAKES AMPLE COMPENSATION FOR ALL APPARENT ANOMALIES IN THE PREVIOUS COVENANT. Now, one of the facts referred to by the apostle in this passage is, on the admission of almost all the commentators, the death of infants in consequence of their relation to Adam. It may, of course, be said that these infants were in the loins of Adam when he sinned, as Levi was in the loins of Abraham when he paid tithes to Melchizedek. Still, the fate of infants would seem an anomaly in the government of God if they are to receive no compensation through relation to the second Adam. But if it is scriptural to believe that all infants who die because of their relation to the first Adam inherit everlasting life because of their relation to the second Adam, then all harshness disappears and the anomaly is overborne. Now, this is, as we believe, the proper doctrine. All who die in infancy are, through the all-abounding grace of the second Adam, saved. We need have no fears for them, wherever they have passed away. Their suffering unto death is a cheap price to pay for exemption from the temptations of the present world; and each of them in the glory will accept the painful passage to it as, after all, a merciful arrangement, seeing that glory lay beyond it. R.M.E.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Rom_5:12.—Adam the head of a race whose transgressions lead on to condemnation. Christ the ancestor of a seed whose faith and obedience culminate in eternal life. Rabbis spoke of a double death of the soul and of the body, and thought that but for Adam’s sin man would not have died, but only expired, the spirit being dismissed by the kiss of peace. The sin of all men was wrapped up in the one act of Adam’s sin, and developed afterwards in individual cases. Adam’s descendants not accountable for his sins.

Rom_5:13.—The law made sin more manifest. The sin of those who lived between Adam and Moses could not be sin against that law of Moses, which was not promulgated. It must have some other explanation.

Rom_5:14.—Cabbalists spoke of Adam as the later or lower Adam, in contrast with the ancient Adam, the Messiah existing before the Creation.

Rom_5:15.—Mankind generally included in the Fall. In the Redemption is universal provision, though not universal acceptance.

Rom_5:16.—One sin, many sinners; many sins, one Saviour.

Rom_5:21.—In Rom_5:14 death is a monarch, while here sin is the monarch. Death is the sphere where sin shows its power, for “the sting of death is sin.” ἐν indicates death as the terminus of sin; εἰς points to life as the end and reward of righteousness. But where sin abounded, grace did superabound—i.e., the pardoning mercy of the gospel has triumphed even over the sins of the Jews, which were greatly aggravated by reason of the light they enjoyed (Stuart).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Rom_5:12-21

The two opposing sovereignties.—St. Peter regarded his beloved brother Paul as having written epistles in which are some things hard to be understood; but there are some who seem to speak as if St. Peter were a weakling. They treat St. Paul in deferential style, as if they would challenge him to come forth from the unseen world and propound more difficulties for them to solve. But we follow in the footsteps of St. Peter, and feel, especially in the Epistle to the Romans, that these are things hard to be understood—things which for their explanation will require the revealing light of eternity. We cannot explain all. We do not make the vain attempt. Sufficient if some help is given to earnest seekers of the truth. In previous chapters we have found things hard to be understood, and we enter now on ground that is thickly sown with difficulties. Mystery is everywhere. It begins in the garden of Eden. Its course is the pathway of the human race. We bow in the presence of the mystery, and find sweet refuge in the arms of all-embracing mercy.

I. The two opposing sovereigns.—Sin and grace are the two opposing sovereigns placed before us by St. Paul as ruling in the moral sphere, and with their sceptre touching even the material world. St. Paul does not sever the moral from the material. There are forces working above, beyond, and through all material forces. Sin touches the physical. A soul act taints the race. Sin, the dread sovereign, has brought in death, trouble, moral inability.

1. Death. Solemn word! What does it mean? Our understanding or misunderstanding of biblical expressions and terms has been formed very much by Milton,—of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste brought death into the world and all our woe. We read and speak as if death were unknown before Adam’s fall. Pelagius anticipated modern geologists, for he affirmed that death is not a consequence of sin and that Adam would have died even if he had not sinned. The modern scientist tells us that there is ample proof in the geological remains that physical death has been the lot of the lower animals from all time. All the animals are in one chain of progressive development, and are all related. The lower animals were all subject to death; and the highest animal, man, is by implication and analogy subject now and always in the past to physical death. Let scientists, if they please, reduce themselves to mere animals. Well, there is death and death,—death as the king of terrors; death as a gentle nurse putting the child to sleep, from which it is to awake in the sweet morn of eternity’s day. Death is no death to unfallen Adam, who walks his earthly course of hundreds of years, and then in the eventide, with the sweet balm of the breeze blowing about his frame, with the rich music of the birds and the rippling waters, with a gently falling sound soothing his tired nature, seeks repose upon his bed of flowers, and his spirit passes to commune with the spirit of the Eternal. Surely that apostle who could form the beautiful ideal expression to set forth the transition of Christians, “And some have fallen asleep,” is not to be unthinkingly charged with the idea that mere physical dissolution is of recent introduction to our planet. Death as a terror was brought in by sin. Death in its repulsive aspect was brought in by the dreadful act of the first murderer. Death came in by sin; and the blood of the slaughtered Abel gives emphasis to the utterance, “Death has reigned, for sin has entered.” Earth’s gory battle-fields tell what an awful power is sin.

2. Trouble. Sin brings trouble. Here no elaborate arguments are required. We do not stand on debatable ground. Experience, and history which is recorded experience, declare that sin entails sorrow; and trouble, in the sense of an absence of peace, the presence of unrest.

3. Moral inability. Disobedience. No need to enter upon the discussion of disputed questions. We may dispute until doomsday about the freedom of the will and cognate topics; but man everywhere shows the signs of a fallen nature. Education may do something to restain the outbreak of human depravity, the restraining force of society may check; but on all hands we have marks of man’s sinfulness. Divine grace is needful, and is the only adequate remedy. The one sovereign is baneful, but the other is blessed. Grace, the benign sovereign, has brought in life, peace, and moral ability.

1. Life. In Christ Jesus there is life eternal. And this life eternal is not a future but a present possession. It is life here and now for the believer. In the midst of the groans and pains and tears which accompany and precede death, we may enjoy the blessing of eternal life.

2. Peace. Sia brings trouble and unrest. Grace brings peace and sweet soul-rest. How infinitely blessed the repose which is enjoyed by the children of peace!

3. Moral ability. Obedience. We do not know how far grace reigns and influences. The restraining power of grace may extend to regions and persons far beyond our thought. Grace abounds unto many. Let us not in our thoughts ever turn the apostle’s many into a few. The abundance of grace reigns, and though its sovereign influence many royal persons are walking through the universe of God.

II. The seeming weakness of one sovereign and the apparent strength of the other.—Sin still reigns. Even in our optimistic moods we must confess that sin reigns, and spreads death in all its forms and pains and unutterable agonies. Grace as a sovereign is apparently weak. Grace has been reigning for a long period, and yet, after all, how ungracious is the greater part of humanity! How far does the apostle’s grace reach? Can it touch and bless the millions upon millions that are e as yet outside the pale of Christianity? Oh, our faith sometimes seems ready to fail when we think that grace is still a sovereign, with, apparently at least, a very small portion of the race as its subjects.

III. But the seemingly weak must finally overcome the apparently strong.—Grace, after all, may not be so weak as it may appear to the superficial vision. “In due time Christ died.” The due time was marked a long way on time’s great dial-plate. The due time for the triumphant vindication of grace’s all-abounding force and all-pervading sovereignty may yet be some distance off, if it is to be measured by the due time of the Saviour’s advent. In the past by weak things God has conquered. Base things have overturned the mighty. Seeming folly has confounded wisdom. And grace, though seemingly weak, shall in due time conquer and subdue and destroy sin. “Grace shall reign through righteousness unto eternal life.” Many questions trouble the anxious soul when studying such passages as the one before us. But let us not ask, Why sin, why moral evil, why a taint upon the whole race, from one man’s disobedience? Let us rather say, Here is the sin, here is the undoubted fact of a depraved moral tendency; and thus in the mediatorial work of Jesus is the sovereign remedy. Seek, my soul, for the divine healing. The sick does not ask, Whence and why the pestilence? but seeks after a remedy. The wise Israelite bitten by the serpent did not ask, Whence the serpents, why the infliction, how is the virus infused? but he looked to the brazen serpent, and was healed. Thank God, we may be healed through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let us seek that grace may reign in our hearts through righteousness unto eternal life—eternal life with all its amplitude of bliss. What eternal life means will require an eternal life to unfold. It will be ever developing into divine possibilities through eternity.

Rom_5:19. Adam and Christ.—Up to this point Paul has been discussing condemnation and justification. “Wrath is on all, even on the Jews,” and “the righteousness of faith is for all, even for the Gentiles.” In chaps. 6–8 he is about to consider the theme of sanctification. “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.” He is passing from the one to the other. But before he does so he inserts these three concluding verses of chap. 5, in which he tersely sums up the former subject, and consciously prepares the way for the latter. Rom_5:19 is the summary.

I. The apostle’s favourite conception of two representative men.—Adam and Christ. They are the federal heads of the human race. They are not regarded as individual units. No man ever is. He is bound by ties to his fellows that he dare not disregard. You cannot uproot even so much as a tare without uprooting along with it some of the precious wheat. “Whenever one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.” And yet the whole tendency of modern preaching is towards individualism. True religion is represented as a certain definite dealing between the individual soul and Jesus Christ. That indeed is a great truth. Individual salvation is one truth; but representative responsibility is another. The statesman in the commonwealth, the minister in the congregation, the parent in the home, and the teacher in the class are all representative men.

II. The conduct of these two men as under law to Jehovah: Adam disobeyed, Christ obeyed.—The Greek word indicates that the first step in Adam’s fall was simply carelessness—the neglect or refusal to hear. But how much may be involved in that! Carelessness or remissness on the part of the guards, that is the first step in the capture of a city or the wreck of a train. Carelessness is always culpable and blameworthy. In the case before us it was “the moral act which provoked the sentence of condemnation.” It was the sin that opened the floodgates of evil upon a world. The plea of carelessness or thoughtlessness is no plea. All minimising of evil is a corrupting of the mind from the simplicity that is in Christ, “as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety.” But Jesus obeyed. He did not neglect to hear, as Adam did, through listening to the siren voices of evil. His obedience was both voluntary and obediential (cf. Rom_5:6 with Rom_5:19). A voluntary sacrifice, and yet in strictest obedience to law. The two aspects are not incompatible. They are reduced to harmony by the moving element of love. When we do anything in love, that does not exclude the feeling and the fact that it is also a thing of duty. Adam’s disobedience was one act, but not so Christ’s obedience. It was “the entire work of Christ in its obediential character.” The Passover lamb had not merely to be slain; it must be “without blemish.”

III. The fruit or outcome of their conduct.—“The many were made sinners” and “the many shall be made righteous.” Here we meet the great Pauline doctrine of imputation. It is confessedly one of great difficulty. But if there be mystery in it there is also mercy. For read 2Co_5:21. There are three imputations—Adam’s sin imputed to us, our sins imputed to Christ, and Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. These three must stand or fall together. If the principle of imputation be unjust, it is equally unjust for all the three cases. But when we speak of Adam’s sin as being imputed to us, we are only stating a half-truth. It was our sin—that is, the other half: “As through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin: and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned,”—not “have sinned” (A.V.), a fact which no one doubted; but “sinned” (R.V.)—sinned at a special point in time, sinned in the one man. It is all mystery, we say. Well, perhaps so it is; but the fruit need not be so. We are sinners through our connection with Adam; we may be made righteous through our connection with Christ,—only the one connection is that of birth, the other that of faith.—John Adams.

Rom_5:21. Grace abounding.—Two facts are here worthy of attention and suggested by the passage:—

I. That “sin” and “grace” are in the world as ruling powers.—“Sin” and “grace” are two small words, but they represent mighty things. “Sin” here stands for the principle of evil, the root of all wrong; “grace,” the principle of all goodness, the root of all that is virtuous and holy in the universe. In the chapter Paul speaks of these two forces as coming into the world—one through Adam, the other through Christ. These principles are the moral monarchs of the race, and monarchs always in fierce fighting. All the battlings in the world are but the results of their mutual antagonism.

II. That the rule of the one issues in death, of the other in everlasting life.—“As sin hath reigned unto [or, in] death.” It is not necessary to regard death here as meaning the dissolution of the body, for this would have taken place had sin never been introduced into the universe; nor the extinction of our being. But it means the destruction of all that can make life worth having. “Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” What is the death of a spirit but the life of wickedness? This is sin. But whilst sin leads to death, grace leads to everlasting life. What is everlasting life? Not mere life without end, but life without evil. Everlasting life is everlasting goodness.

Conclusion.—The great question is, Which is our moral monarch, “sin” or “grace”? In all hearts one must be subordinate to the other, one must reign over the other.—Homilist.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Rom_5:12-21

Death by Adam; life by Christ.—“And so death passed on all men”—that is, thus it is, or so it happened, that death passed on all men. As death is the penalty of sin, and as by one man all became sinners, thus it was by one man that death passed on all men. The force of the words “and so” have been much disputed; many understand them as answering to the word “as” at the beginning of the verse: “As Adam sinned and died, so also do all men.” But, in the first place, the words do not admit of this interpretation; Paul does not say “so also,” but “and so,” “thus it was.” Besides, according to the view of the passage, this verse does not contain the first part of a comparison between Adam and Christ, but merely a comparison between Adam and his posterity. It is by one man that men became sinners; and thus it was by one man that death passed upon all men. The scope of the passage is to illustrate the doctrine of justification on the ground of the righteousness of Christ, by a reference to the condemnation of men for the sin of Adam. The analogy is destroyed, and the point of the comparison falls, if everything in us be assumed as the ground of the infliction of the penal evils of which the apostle is here speaking. Not only does the scope of the passage demand this interpretation, but also the whole course of the argument. We die on account of Adam’s sin: this is true, because on no other ground can the universality of death be accounted for. But if we all die on Adam’s account, how much more shall we live on account of Christ? The doctrine which the verse thus explained teaches is one of the plainest truths of all the Scriptures and of experience. Is it not a revealed fact, above all contradiction, and sustained by the whole history of the world, that the sin of Adam altered the relation in which our race stood to God? Did we not fall when Adam fell? If these questions are answered in the affirmative, the doctrine contained in the interpretation of Rom_5:12, given above, is admitted. The doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s sin, or that on account of that sin all men are regarded and treated as sinners, was a common Jewish doctrine at the time of the apostle as well as at a later period. He employs the same method of expression on the subject which the Jews were accustomed to use. They could not have failed, therefore, to understand him as meaning to convey by these expressions the ideas usually connected with them. Whatever obscurity, therefore, rests upon this passage arises from taking the word “death” in the narrow sense in which it is commonly used among men: if taken in its scriptural sense, the whole argument is plain and conclusive. Let “penal evil” be substituted for the word “death,” and the argument will stand thus: All men are subject to penal evils on account of one man. The simple doctrine and argument of the apostle is, that it was by the offence of one man that judgment came on all men to condemnation.—Hodge.

Man might have been translated.—Long before the creation of man the existence of death is proved in the domain of animal life. Now the body of man belongs to the great sum-total of animal organisation, of which he is the crown; and therefore the law of death must already have extended to man, independently of sin. Paul’s words in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, as well as those of Genesis, the sense of which he reproduces, prove beyond doubt the natural possibility of death, but not its necessity. If man had remained united to God, his body, naturally subject to dissolution, might have been gloriously transformed without passing through death and dissolution. The notion of the tree of life, as usually explained, means nothing else. This privilege of an immediate transformation will belong to the believers who shall be alive at the time of our Lord’s return (1Co_15:51-52), and it was probably this kind of transformation that was on the point of taking effect in the person of the Lord Himself at the time of His transfiguration. This privilege, intended for holy man, was withdrawn from guilty man: such was the sentence which gave him over to dissolution. It is stated in the words, “Thou art dust [that is to say, thou canst die], and to dust shalt thou return [that is to say, thou shalt in fact die].” The reign of death over the animals likewise proves only this: that it was in the natural condition of man to terminate in dissolution. Remaining on the level of animalism by the preference given by him to inclination over moral obligation, man continued subject to this law. But had he risen by an act of moral liberty above the animal, he would not have had to share its lot (see also on Rom_8:19-22).—Godet.

Christ paid more than we owe.—Far more than what we owed was paid by Christ, as much more as the immeasurable ocean exceeds a drop. Doubt not, therefore, O man, when beholding such a treasure of blessings; nor ask how the old spark of death and of sin has been extinguished, seeing that such a sea of the gifts of grace has been poured upon it.—Chrysostom.

Calvin as an interpreter.—Mark the language of Calvin on these words: “The free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” “Communem omnium gratiam facit, quia omnibus exposita est, non quod ad omnes extendatur re ipsâ. Nam etsi passus est Christus pro peccatis totius mundi, atque omnibus indifferenter Dei benignitate offertur; non tamen omnes apprehendunt.” “This free gift of God,” says Calvin in the above passage, “is here declared to be common to all, because it is open to all, not because it actually extends to all. For although Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and, by the mercy of God, is offered to all without distinction, yet all do not lay hold of Him.” In this passage Calvin speaks as an interpreter of Scripture, in the Institutes as the advocate of a system. His Institutes, moreover, were written in his earlier days; but his commentaries on Scripture were the labours of his maturer days. It is the observation of Witsius that Calvin uses one language in controversy and another when tranquilly explaining Scripture: “Tantum sæpe interest, utrum quis cum adversario contendat, an libero animo commentetur.”

Words signifying sin.—The first, translated “offence” or “trespass,” means “the falling from a position”; the second, by the general word “sin,” implies the “missing of a mark”; while in Rom_5:19 we have the “disobedience” of Adam, which signifies the “neglect” or “refusal” to hear, and in Rom_5:14 the term “transgression,” or the “overstepping” of a positive law. What is the precise significance of the statement that the “law entered that she offence might abound”? What is this “offence”? The majority of commentators answer, “the first sin of Adam.” But in what sense is it this? In the previous steps of his argument the apostle has asserted that sin reigned from Adam to Moses. That sin, however, could not be a “transgression” of positive law, for as Paul asserts in Rom_4:15, “where no law is, there is no transgression.” It was rather an “offence”—a wider term, embracing definite acts of sin, whether committed without law or under it. Wittingly or unwittingly, it was the actual repetition of the “disobedience” of Adam. Death reigned from Adam to Moses because “sin” reigned; and one object, at least, which was served by the law was to prove that this was indeed the case—was to prove that every “offence” was practically a real “transgression,” and that both were the expression or manifestation of the “disobedience” of Adam. Thus the first way in which the law makes the “offence” to abound is by bringing the “knowledge of sin”—by putting the already existing offence in its true light. But it does so, in the second place, by being a “provocation to sin.” “I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” The principle contained in the law is opposed to the principle of sin. There is an exasperating antithesis between the two. So that when the light of the law is flashed upon the principle of sin in man, it arouses into intense action the slumbering volcano within, until it rushes forth in molten streams of intensified and multiplied transgressions. The office of the law is therefore to show that all the differences in the terms do not alter the real nature of the thing. And the apostle consequently returns to the general term for “sin” (ἁμαρτία), which he has held in abeyance since the beginning of the paragraph, and writes, “But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.”—John Adams, B.D.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

SECOND DIVISION

SIN AND GRACE IN THEIR SECOND ANTITHESIS (AS IN THEIR SECOND POTENCY): ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL EFFECTS IN HUMAN NATURE, AND IN NATURE IN GENERAL. THE SINFUL CORRUPTION OF THE WORLD, PROCEEDING FROM ADAM, AND INHERITED IN COMMON BY ALL MEN, AND THE LIFE OF CHRIST AS THE INWARD LIVING PRINCIPLE OF THE NEW BIRTH TO NEW LIFE IN INDIVIDUAL BELIEVERS, IN ALL MANKIND, AND IN THE WHOLE CREATED WORLD. (THE PRINCIPLE OF DEATH IN SIN, AND THE PRINCIPLE OF THE NEW LIFE; AS WELL AS THE GLORIFICATION OF THE NEW LIFE, AND OF ALL NATURE, IN RIGHTEOUSNESS.)

s Rom_5:12 to Rom_8:39

First Section.—Adam’s sin as the powerful principle of death, and God’s grace in Christ as the more powerful principle of the new life, in the nature of individual men, and in mankind collectively. The law as the direct medium of the complete manifestation of sin for the indirect mediation of the completed and glorious revelation of grace.

Rom_5:12-21

12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death35 passed upon all men, for that [ἐφ̓ ᾧ, i.e., on the ground that, because] 13all have [omithave] sinned: ([omit parenthesis]36 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law [where the law is not]. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned [those that sinned not]37 after the similitude [likeness] of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure [a type] of him that was to come [the coming one, i.e., the second Adam]. 15But not as the offence [fall, transgression],38 so also is the free gift: for if through the offence [transgression] of [the] one [the] many be dead [died], much more [did]39 the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man [the gift by the grace of the one man], Jesus Christ, hath abounded [abound] unto [the] many. 16And not as it was [omitit was] by [the] one that sinned,40 so [omit so] is the gift: for the judgment was [came] by [ἐξ, of] one (fall) to condemnation, but the free gift is [came] of many offences [falls, transgressions] unto justification [δικαίωμα, sentence of acquittal, righteous decree, or, righteous act]. 17For if by one man’s offence [by one transgression, or, by the transgression of the one]41 death reigned by [through the] one; much more they which [who] receive [the] abundance of [the] grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by [the] one, Jesus Christ.) 18[omit parenthesis.] Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life [So then, as through the transgression of one, or, one transgression, it came upon all men to condemnation; so also through the δικαιώματος, righteous act of one, or, one righteous act, it came upon all men unto justification of life].42 19For as by one man’s disobedience [through the disobedience of the one man] [the] many were made [constituted]43 sinners, so [also, οὕτως καί] by the obedience of [the] one shall [the] many be made [constituted] righteous. 20Moreover the law entered [came in besides],44 that the offence [transgression] might abound [multiply]. But where sin abounded [multiplied], grace did much more [exceedingly]45 abound: 21That as sin hath [omit hath] reigned unto [ἐν, in] death, even so [so also] might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by [through] Jesus Christ our Lord.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

[Special Literature on Rom_5:12-21.—S. J. Baumgarten, De imputatione peccati Adamitici posteris facta, 1742. S. Schott, Opuscula, i. p. 313 sqq. C. F. Schmid, Ueber Röm. Rom_5:12 ff., in the Tübing. Zeitschrift for 1830, No. IV. p. 161 ff. (A very able and sound discussion. Comp. the same author’s Bibl. Theologie des N. T., vol. ii. pp. 256–262.) Rich. Rothe (died 1868), Neuer Versuch einer Auslegung der Paulin. Stelle Röm. Rom_5:12-21, Wittenberg, 1836. (A masterpiece of exegetical acuteness and finesse.) I. Chr. K. v. Hofmann, Der Schriftbeweis, 2d ed., Nördlingen, 1857, vol. i. pp. 524–541. Jul. Müller, Christl. Lehre von der Sünde, vol. ii. p. 407 ff., 472 ff., 3d Germ. ed., 1849. H. Ewald, Adam und Christus, Röm. Rom_5:12-21, in his Jahrbücher für bibl. Wissenschaft, ii. p. 166 ff. Timothy Dwight (of Yale College), Princeton Exegesis. A Review of Dr. Hodge’s Commentary on Rom_5:12-19, in the New Englander for July, 1868, pp. 551–603. (Polemical against Hodge). A. Stölting, Beiträge zur Exegese der Paulin. Briefe, Gött., 1869, pp. 1–42. Reiche, Olshausen, Tholuck, Stuart, Hodge, and Forbes, are most full, though widely divergent, in the exposition of this passage, which many regard as the most difficult in the whole Bible.—P. S.]

[Introductory Remarks.—This section is difficult in proportion to its depth, grandeur, and world-historical comprehensiveness. Only a mind of the very highest order—to say nothing of inspiration—could conceive such vast thoughts, and compress them within so few words. The beginning, the middle, and the end of history, are here brought together in their representative moral powers and principles. Paul deals with religious truths and facts, which are much broader and deeper than the afterthoughts of our logic and theology, and cannot be squeezed into the narrow limits of particular schools and schemes. The exegesis of this part of the Romans began in earnest with Augustine, in his contest with the Pelagian heresy; it was resumed in the Reformation period, and carried further, philologically and doctrinally, in the present century, but is by no means exhausted, and puts exegetical skill again and again to the severest test. Every line bears the marks of theological controversy about original sin, free agency, imputation, limited atonement, universal salvation, and other questions which will occupy the human mind to the end of the world. The section is not a mere episode, but a progress in the argument from the doctrine of justification to the broader doctrine of a life-union of the believer with Christ, which prepares the way for the doctrine of sanctification, in chap. 6., and glorification, in chap. viii. Like a skilful physician, the Apostle goes not only to the root and fountain-head of the evil,46 but also to the root and fountain head of the cure. In bold antithetical contrasts, and on the basis of a vital, organic union of humanity, both in the order of fallen nature and the order of redeeming grace, he presents the history of the fall by the first, and the redemption by the second Adam. Adam and Christ are the two representative heads of the whole race, the one the natural, the other the supernatural: from the one, the power of sin and the power of death have proceeded upon all men through their participation in his fall; from the other, righteousness and life have come upon all on condition of faith, or a living apprehension of Christ. But the gain by the redemption greatly surpasses the loss by the fall. The main stress lies on the idea of life in its progress from Christ to the believer. The same parallelism between the first and second Adam, but with exclusive reference to the contrast of death and the resurrection, occurs in 1Co_15:21-22; 1Co_15:45-48, which should be kept in view. It is impossible to understand this section from the standpoint of a mechanical and atomistic conception of humanity and of sin, such as Pelagianism and cognate systems maintain. On the surface, all things appear separate and isolated; in the hidden roots, they are united. It is characteristic of all deep thinking, to go back to principles and general ideas. Paul evidently views the human race as an organic unit. Adam and Christ sustain to it a central and universal relation, similar to that which the fountain sustains to the river, or the root to the tree and its branches. Adam was not merely an individual, but the natural head of the human family, and his transgression was not an isolated act, but affected the whole race which sprung from his loins; just as the character of the tree will determine the character of its branches and fruits. So it is with Christ. He calls himself emphatically the (not a) Son of Man, the universal, normal, absolute Man, the representative head of regenerate humanity, which is from heaven, heavenly, as Adam’s fallen humanity is “of the earth, earthy” (1Co_15:47-48). Both were tried and tempted by the devil, the one in the garden of innocence, the other in the desert; but the one succumbed, and dragged his posterity into the ruin of the fall; while the other conquered, and became the author of righteousness and life to all who embrace Him. Christ has gained far more for us than Adam lost—namely, eternal reunion with God, in the place of the temporary union of untried innocence. The resurrection of humanity in Christ is the glorious solution of the dark tragedy of the disastrous fall of humanity in Adam. In view of the greater merit of Christ and the paradise in heaven, we may reverently and thankfully rejoice in the guilt of Adam and the loss of his paradise on earth—always, of course, detesting the blasphemous maxim: Let us do evil, that good may come. It is God’s infinite wisdom and mercy alone which overrule the wrath of man for His own glory.—P. S.]

Meyer inscribes this section: The drawing of a parallel between salvation in Christ and the ruin produced by Adam. But this does not do justice to the context of the section. Tholuck adopts Bengel’s view: “Respicit totam tractationem superiorem, ex qua hœc infert apostolus, non tam digressionem faciens quam regressum de peccato et de justitia.” [Bengel continues: ”In imitation of Paul’s method, we should treat first of actual sin (chaps. Rom_1:3.), and then go back to the source in which sin originated.” Philippi also regards this section as a comparative or contrastive retrospect and comprehensive conclusion; De Wette and Rothe as an episode.—P. S.] We differ from all these, and refer to our division of the Epistle, and to the superscription here.

1. The principle of sin and death become immanent (hereditary) in humanity (Rom_5:12-14).

2. The opposing principle of the gift of grace and of the new life made immanent (spiritually hereditary) in humanity (Rom_5:15-19).

3. The coöperation of the law for the finished revelation of sin and for the communication of the finished revelation of the grace of justification (Rom_5:20-21).

1. Arrangement of the first paragraph, Rom_5:12-14.

(a.) Sin and death, proceeding from Adam’s παράβασις upon all, under the form of an ethical appropriation by all (Rom_5:12).

(b.) Death as revealer of the improperly apprehended sin, from Adam to Moses, or to the law (not by the law, Rom_5:13-14).

2. The second paragraph, Rom_5:15-19.

(a.) The actually manifested contrast in the effects of the two principles, (aa.) The contrast between the natural and actual effects, according to their quantitative extension to persons; or the contrast in its personal relation (Rom_5:15). (bb.) The contrast between the positive effects, according to the qualitative intensity of judgment and justification; or, the contrast in its essential relation (Rom_5:16).

(b). The contrast in the potential and prospective effects of the two principles. (aa.) The contrast between the enslavemment of all personal life by impersonal (merely personified) death, and the future glory of the pardoned, immortal, and reigning personalities in the new life (Rom_5:17, at the same time a proof for Rom_5:16). (bb.) The contrast in all its ideal magnitude: One condemnation came upon all men, because of the power of the fall of one man; so, by the righteousness of one, can all men attain to the justification of life (that is, not merely of faith, Rom_5:18).

(c.) The contrast in the final effects disclosed by the gospel. By the effect of one man’s disobedience, the many are represented in the light of the gospel as sinners exposed to the judgment; finally, by the obedience of one, the many are to be represented as righteous in the judgment (Rom_5:19).

3. Third paragraph, Rom_5:20-21.

The law is designed to effect directly the developing process of sin to historical completion, in order to effect indirectly that revelation of grace which far preponderates over the development of sin (Rom_5:20-21).

First Paragraph (Rom_5:12-14)

The principle of sin and death in humanity

Rom_5:12. Wherefore [Διὰτοῦτο]. Rückert, Köllner [Tholuck, Reiche, Stuart], &c., refer διὰ τοῦτο to the entire discussion from Rom_1:17;47 Rothe, to the previous section, Rom_5:1-11, which he claims to treat of holiness; Tholuck, to Rom_5:11; Rom_5:10; Rom_5:9, &c.; Meyer, to Rom_5:11 alone.48 We refer it merely to ἐλάβομεν in the previous verse. The verb λαμβάνειν does not denote, in the New Testament, a passive reception, but an ethical, religious, and moral appropriation; for example, Joh_1:12. And this is here the point of comparison between Rom_5:11-12.

Because this point has been overlooked, an incredible amount of vexation has been produced in reference to the presumed anacoluthon, or ἀνανταπόδοτον [an incomplete sentence, a protasis without an apodosis]. Conjectures [concerning the construction or the apodosis corresponding to ὥσπερ, like as]:

1. According to Calvin, Tholuck, Philippi, and others, the conclusion is indicated in the words ὅς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος, Rom_5:14. [Meyer also regards the clause: ”who is a type of the future (Adam),” as a substitute for the apodosis, which was swept away by the current of ideas in Rom_5:13-14.—P. S.]

2. According to Rückert, Fritzsche, and De Wette [?], Paul dropped the comparison between Adam and Christ after enumerating the points of analogy, because their dissimilarity occurred to his mind (Rom_5:15). De Wette translates Rom_5:12 : Therefore (is it) as by one man, &c. According to Origen, Bengel [Rothe], and others, the Apostle designedly suppresses the conclusion. [Bengel says simply: ”Apodosis, variata oratione, latet in seq.,” is concealed in what follows. But Rothe holds that Paul designedly omitted the apodosis, to prevent the illegitimate doctrinal inference of a universal salvation. See below.—P. S.]

3. According to Grotius, [E. V., Stuart, Barnes, Hodge], &c., Rom_5:13-17 are parenthetical; and the conclusion follows in Rom_5:18. [Against this construction may be urged, with Meyer, the unexampled length and importance of the supposed parenthesis, and that Rom_5:18 is not so much a reassumption as a recapitulation.—P. S.]

4. According to Clericus, Wolf, and others, the conclusion is already in Rom_5:12, and begins with καὶ οὕτως [as if this could be synonymous with οὕτω καί, so also, which is impossible.—P. S.]; according to Erasmus, Beza, and others, it begins with καὶ διά [which makes διὰ τοῦτο superfluous, and sets aside the comparison between Adam and Christ.—P. S.]

5. The proper view is the one defended by Koppe, in harmony with [Cocceius] Elsner, and others. The apodosis begins as a comparative statement with ἕσπερ, since ἐλάβομεν καταλλαγὴν δἰ αὐτοῦ is brought over from Rom_5:11. [In other words, ὥσπερ introduces the second member of the comparison, while the first must be supplied from Rom_5:11 in this way: Therefore (we received and appropriated the reconciliation through Christ in the same manner) as by one man sin entered into the world, &c.—P. S.]49 Tholuck remarks, that then we do not know exactly what to do with the comparison.50 But the comparison is contained in the already indicated conception of the ethical appropriation of the principle of the reconciliation on one hand, as of the principle of sin and death on the other. The antithesis, more fully extended, is the following: Διὰ τοῦτο ἐλάβυμεν τὴν καταλλαγὴν, ἐφ̓ ὧ πεπιστεύκαμεν—ὥσπερδἰ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κοσμονεἰζῆλθεν καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατοζγ, καὶ οὕτως ὁ θάνατος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους διῆγθεν, ἐψὧ πάντες ἥμαρτον. It is very plain that, without the conception of λαμβάνειν, the whole of the following antitheses would appear as a series of blind natural necessities; see Book of Wis_1:16; Wis_2:24, and the explanation of ἐψ̓ ὧ, which follows below. Rothe thinks that the Apostle’s supposed anacoluthon was even premeditated—according to the idea of Origen—in order to conceal the doctrine of the apocatastasis which might be deduced from the protasis. See thereon Tholuck, p. 215.

[I cannot bring my mind to adopt Dr. Lange’s construction, which evades a grammatical difficulty only to give room for a more serious logical one, and mars the beauty and completeness of the analogy. It seems to me that the most natural solution of the difficulty is either (1) to take ὥσπερ elliptically: ”This is therefore like the case when;” comp. Mat_25:14 : ὥσπερ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος, as a man going abroad, where ὥσπερ neither has, nor necessarily requires, a corresponding οὕτως (see Textual Note in the Amer. edition of Lange on Matthew, p. 442); Gal_3:6; 1Ti_1:3, where καθώς, and Mar_13:34, where ὡς is used elliptically; or (2) to assume an intentional anacoluthon (comp. Winer, Gramm., p. 527 ff., on the two kinds of anacolutha, involuntary and intentional). I prefer the latter solution. The complete antithesis would read thus: ”As (ὥσπερ) by one man (Adam) sin (ἡ ἁμαρτία) entered into the world, and death (ὁ θανατος) through sin, and thus death extended (διῆλθεν) to all men, inasmuch as all sinned (ἥμαρτον): so also (οὕτωζκαί) by one man, Jesus Christ, righteousness (ἡ δικαιοσύνη) entered into the world, and life (ἡ ζωή) through righteousness, and thus life shall extend (διελεύσεται) to all men, inasmuch as (on condition that) all shall believe (πιστεύσονται).” We might also supply, after the second ”righteousness”: ”in order that all, being justified by faith, may be saved.” Rothe (p. 61) supplies as the last clause of the apodosis: ἐψ̓ ὧ πάντες δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται; Philippi: ἐψ̓ ὧ πάντες δίκαιωθγ́σονται. But these are unessential differences. The great points of comparison are: (1) Sin and death, as a principle and power, proceeding from Adam; righteousness and life, as a counteracting and conquering principle and power, proceeding from Christ, upon the whole human race. (2) Death passing upon all men by participation in the sin of Adam; life passing upon all men by participation in the righteousness of Christ. But the analogy is not absolute; for (1) the participation in Adam’s sin is universal in fact, while the participation in the righteousness of Christ, though this righteousness is equally universal in power and intention, is limited in fact to believers; in other words, all are sinners, but not all are believers; all men are one with Adam, but not all are one with Christ (hence the past tense κατεστάθησαν in the case of the ἁμαρτωλοί, but the future κατασταθήσονται in the case of the δίκαιοι, Rom_5:19). (2) What Christ gained for us is far greater (πολλῶ μᾶλλον ἐπερίσσευσεν, Rom_5:15, comp. τὴν περισσείαν τῆς κάριτος, Rom_5:17, and ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν ἡ κάρις, Rom_5:20) than what was lost by Adam. Paul, therefore, in the rush of ideas suggested by the parallel, intentionally suspends the apodosis, to make first some explanatory and qualifying statements in regard to the difference in the mode, extent, and quality of the effects proceeding respectively from Adam and Christ, and then, after hinting at the second member of the comparison, at the close of Rom_5:14, he brings out the double parallel of similarity and dissimilarity in full as a conclusion, Rom_5:18-19; Rom_5:21. The whole section, as Meyer justly remarks, bears the impress of the most studied and acute premeditation; and this must apply also to the apparent grammatical irregularity in the absence of the apodosis. The Apostle might have spared the commentators a great deal of trouble, if he had, according to the ordinary rules of composition, first stated the comparison in full, and then given the explanations and qualifications; but such grammatical difficulties in the Scriptures are generally overruled for a profounder investigation and elucidaton of the sense.—P. S.]

As by one man [ὥζπερ δι’ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, ”by one man, single and singular in his position, and so presented as the ρύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος, the type of the one greater man;” Webster and Wilkinson.—P. S.] Not by his guilt (Meyer) [δἰἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος, Rom_5:16], which would by no means suit the antithesis: Christ. But rather by one man, as the human principle, as the historical cause.51 The one man is Adam, as representative of the first human pair in their unity. The sin of Eve (Sir_25:24; 2Co_11:3; 1Ti_2:14) did not fully decide concerning the future of the human race, because Adam was the head. It was with his sin that the sin of Eve was consummated as the guilt of the first man [and acquired its full power over posterity]. Therefore Adam is meant as the head, as the principle, and not merely with regard to propagation. [Webster and Wilkinson: ”Adam, not Eve, is charged with the primal sin, as he received the command direct from God, and his sin was without excuse. Here, only the guilt of the transgression is in view; in 2Co_11:3; 1Ti_2:14, the mode, instrument, and process.” Bengel assigns three reasons for the omission of Eve: (1) Adam had received the commandment; (2) He was not only the head of his race, but also of Eve; (3) if Adam had not obeyed his wife, one only would have sinned. The omission of the mention of Satan, the primary cause of sin (comp. Gen. iii.; Joh_8:44; 2Co_11:3), he accounts for because (1) Satan is opposed to God, Adam to Christ, whose economy of grace is here described; (2) Satan has nothing to do with the grace of Christ. It should be remembered, also, as Forbes remarks, that in Genesis the very name of Adam, with the article prefixed (חָאָדָם, the Adam, the man), is treated as an appellative more than as a proper name, and that, in Gen_1:27, it includes generically both sexes: ”So God created Adam (in Hebrew) in his own image, in the image of God created he him: male and female created he them;” comp. Gen_5:1-2. It was man, or human nature which we have in common with him, that was put on trial in Adam. Paul draws a parallel between Adam and Christ, but never between Eve and Mary. The latter analogy is an unjustifiable inference, first hinted at by Irenæus, and more fully developed by Roman Catholic divines, and became a fruitful source of Mariolatry, which virtually makes the human mother of Christ the fountain of the Christian salvation.—P. S.]

Sin. [ἡ ἁμαρτία. The definite article before ἁμαρτία, and also before θάνατος, denotes sin and death as a power or principle which controls man and reveals itself in hereditary corruption, and in every form of actual sin. So ἡ δικαιοσύν̓η, which corresponds to it as its opposite, Rom_5:17; Rom_5:21, is not a single righteous act, but the power of good as a state and as a working principle. Sin is personified as a fearful tyrant, who acquired universal dominion over the human race; he ”reigns in death,” Rom_5:21; ”works death in us,” Rom_7:13; ”lords it over us,” Rom_6:14; ”works all manner of concupiscence,” Rom_7:8; ”deceives and slays” the sinner, Rom_7:11, &c. In all these cases the force of the definite article can be rendered in German, but in English, on the contrary, the absence of the article has the force of generalizing, not so much, its far as I know, from any rule of grammar, as from usage, and perhaps for euphony’s sake.—P. S.] In what sense? Explanations: 1. Original sin, or natural depravity (Augustine, Calvin); 2. Sinfulness [Sündhaftigkeit, habitus peccandi], (Koppe, Olshausen [also Webster and Wilkinson: sinfulness personified; a sinful disposition, our sinful nature; Rom_6:12; Rom_6:14]); 3. Actual sin (Limborch, Fritzsche); 4. Sin as a ruling power (Meyer [De Wette], Tholuck), or better as a principle (Rothe). Philippi, on the contrary, understands sin as the unity of propensity and deed, as also Aret., Schmid, J. Müller. But sin, as an individual deed, is expressed by ἐφ̓ ὧ,, &c. It is therefore the principial or fundamental power (die principielle Macht) of sin as the mother of death (Jam_1:15). [The Apostle very carefully, throughout this whole section, distinguishes between ἁμαρτία, as the generic idea, and παράβασις and παράπτωμα, as a concrete act, the transgression of a law; compare Rom_5:12-13; Rom_5:20-21, with 15, 16, 17, 18. By the παράπτωμα of Adam the ἁμαρτία entered into the human world, and this ἁμαρτια again became the fruitful mother of the innumerable παραπτώματα of his descendants.—P. S.]

Entered into the world. [εἰς τὸμ κόσμονεἰσῆλθεν; comp. the Book of Wisdom ii. .24 (in explanation of Gen. iii.): φθόνω διβόλου θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον. Sin εἰζῆλοωε, came in; death διῆλθε, passed through; the Mosaic law παρειζῆλθε (Rom_5:20), came in by the side, or between.] Limborch: a popular personification. On the excessive personification of sin and death in Fritzsche, see Tholuck, p. 219.—Into the world. Not merely into the human world (Meyer), or into human nature (Rothe), but as ruin and destructive power in the whole sphere of humanity in general (see Rom_8:20). It is plain that the human sphere of the world alone is assumed here (according to Abelard: in hanc partem mundi sc. terrenam, in qua homines habitant), as Tholuck remarks, from the fact that, ”according to the Apostle’s conviction, evil was already in existence in another world.” [Comp. 1Co_11:3; Gen. iii.; Book of Wis_2:24; Joh_8:44.—P. S.] The expression indicates not only the tendency to sin and death in human nature (Rothe), but also the propagation of sin (Augustine); because the κόσμος is a conjunction of things, and means an organic connection. The words διῆλθεν and ἐφ̓ ὧ refer to the individual and ethical appropriation of sin which is in the κόσμος since Adam’s fall.

Death (namely, entered into the world). Explanations: 1. Physical death (Chrysostom, Augustine, Calov., Meyer. Reference to Gen_2:17; Gen_3:19);52 2. Spiritual death (Pelagius); 3. Physical, spiritual, and eternal death; or the collected evil result of sin (Olshausen, De Wette, Tholuck [Philippi, Schmid, Jon. Edwards, Alford, Stuart, Hodge]). This is no doubt correct, for physical death in itself has no biblical and ethical significance (see Rom_8:6; 1Co_15:56; Jam_1:15).

[The Bible uniformly connects sin and death as cause and effect; comp. Gen_2:17; Eze_18:4 (”The soul that sinneth, it shall die”); Jer_31:30; Jer_6:16; Jer_6:21; Jer_6:24; Rom_7:10; Rom_8:13; Jam_1:15, &c. ”Jeder Sündenfall,” says Dr. Nitzsch, ”ist ein Todesfall, und jeder Fortschritt in der Sünde ein neues Sterben.” Without sin, there would be neither spiritual nor physical death. This was symbolically intimated by the tree of life in paradise, of which fallen man was forbidden to eat, ”lest he live for ever.” Adam, if he had not sinned, might have passed to higher forms of life, but without a violent separation of body and soul, without being ”unclothed,” but by being ”clothed upon” (2Co_5:2-4), or, in the beautiful figure of the Rabbins, ”by a kiss of the Almighty.” Death and life are very deep and comprehensive terms in the Scriptures, and the connection must decide whether all, or which of the meanings are exclusively or prominently kept in view. There are three kinds of death: (1) The death of the soul (1Jn_3:14; comp. Mat_8:22; Eph_2:1), which is properly the first and immediate effect of sin, since sin is a separation of the soul from God, the fountain of life; (2) The death of the body (Rom_5:10; Mat_20:18; Mat_26:66; Joh_11:4; Joh_11:13; Act_13:28; Php_1:20; Php_2:8), which is the culmination and end of all physical malady and evil in this world; (3) the eternal death of soul and body (Rom_1:32; 2Co_3:16; 2Co_7:10; Jam_5:20; 1Jn_5:16), which is also called the second death, ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος (in the Rev_2:11; Rev_20:6; Rev_20:14; Rev_21:8). In our passage (as also Rom_7:21; Rom_7:23; Rom_7:5; 2Ti_1:10), ὁ θάνατος is as comprehensive as ἡ ἁμαρτία, its cause, and as ἡ ζωή, its opposite. It embraces all physical and moral evil, as the penal consequence of sin; it is death temporal and spiritual, viewed as, one united power and principle ruling over the human race. That the Apostle meant physical death, is clear from Rom_5:14, and from his unmistakable reference to Gen_2:17; Gen_3:3; Gen_3:19; while from Rom_5:17-18; Rom_5:21, we may infer that he had also in mind spiritual and eternal death, as the contrast to eternal life, ζωὴ αἰώνιος, in which the Scripture idea of life culminates, as the idea of death culminates in eternal damnation. Ewald has an excellent note on this passage (Die Sendschreiben des Ap. Paulus, p. 373): ”Paul knew that, notwithstanding the words Gen_2:17, Adam did not literally die immediately after his sin; consequently he must mean by death that entire inner corruption (jenes ganze innere Verderben) by which even the physical death only becomes true death; just as, on the other hand, he ascribes true life to the genuine Christians even now before the resurrection of the body. All this is so well founded in his constant use of language, that it needs no explanation.” Comp. also the remarks of Philippi in loc., and Cremer, Bibl. Theol. Wörterbuch, sub θάνατος, p. Rom 232: ”Daher ist Tod zusammenfassender Ausdruch für die gesammte gerichtliche Consequenz der Sünde, Rom_5:12; Rom_5:14; Rom_5:17; Rom_5:21; Rom_6:16; Jam_5:20, in welchem alles durch die Sünde bedingte Uebel sich concentrirt, synon. Verderben, ἀπώλεια.”—P. S.]

And so (death) passed upon all men. The second θάνατος was left out probably because διῆλθεμ would be referred equally to sin and death. But both are comprehended in the θάνατος in its spiritual character. The διέρκεσθαι denotes the extension, the universal progress; though a germ-like development is not contained in the word, but in the thing itself. [οὕτως (demzufolge, dergestalt, consequently) connects the universal reign of death, chronologically and logically, with the universal reign of sin, as its preceding cause. Some make καὶοὕτως, and thus, equivalent, by transposition, to οὕτω καί, so also, and regard this as the apodosis of the first clause of the twelfth verse; but this is entirely ungrammatical, and inconsistent with the main object of this section, which is to draw a parallel, not between Adam and his posterity, or sin and death, but between Adam and Christ.—εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, upon, all men, is equivalent to the preceding κόσμος, but differs from it ”as the concrete parts from the abstract whole; and διέρκεσθαι differs from εἰζέρκεσθαι as the going from house to house differs from entering a town;” De Wette. Luther well translates διῆλθεν: ist durchgedrungen, passed through and pervaded, as a destructive and desolating power.—P. S.]

In such a manner that [solcherweise dass, or, on the ground that; better: inasmuch as]. ἐφ̓ ᾧ (=ἐφ̓ οἷς) is as much as ἐπὶ τούτω ὅτι. It can therefore mean here: on the ground that; διότι, propter ea quod (Meyer); under the supposition that (Baur); on condition that (Rothe); in conformity with it, that. Tholuck [p. 234] favors the meaning because, with reference to 2Co_5:4; Php_3:12; yet he makes the because relative, and translates, so far as they all.

[It is almost unanimously agreed now, that ἐφ̓ὧ, for which the Greeks generally use the plural, ἐφ̓ (propter ea quod), has here the sense of a conjunction, and that ὧ is the neuter, not the masculine to be referred back either to εἷς ἅνθρωπος (with Augustine, some Roman Catholics, older Lutherans and Calvinists), or to θάνατος (with Glöckler, Hofmann). It can mean neither in quo, ἐν ὧ (Augustine), nor per quem, δἰ οὗ (Grotius), nor propter quem or cum quo, δἰ ὅν or σῦν ὧ (Chrysostom, Theophylact, (Œcumenius, Elsner). But it must be resolved either into ἐπὶ τούτω ὥστε, ea conditions ut, ea ratione ut, unter der Voraussetzung, unter der näheren Bestimmtheit dass, on the presupposition, on the definite ground that, on condition that (so Rothe, in a learned and subtle discussion, 1. c. pp. 17–38, and Schmid, Bibl. Theol. des N . T., 2:260 f.); or into ἐπὶ τούτω ὅτι = διότι (Thomas Magister and Phavorinus: ἐφ ὧ, ἀντὶ τοῦ διότι), propter id quod, auf Grund dessen dass, darum dass, weil, on this account that, because; comp. 2Co_5:4; Php_3:12, and classical passages quoted by Meyer, p. 204 f. (so Fritzsche, Rom. 1. 299 sq., Meyer, Tholuck, Philippi, Winer, Gramm., p. 368, who are followed, without further discussion, by Alford, Webster and Wilkinson, Stuart and Hodge). The latter explanation gives the plain sense, that the universal reign of death is caused by universal sin; while Rothe’s explanation conveys the more subtle idea that the actual sin of individuals is a consequence of the same proceeding by which death, through Adam’s sin, passed upon all men, or that the sin of Adam has caused the sin of all others in inseparable connection with death. I prefer the translation, so far as, inasmuch as, which gives good sense in all the Pauline passages (2Co_5:4 : ἐφ̓ὧ οὐ θέλομεν ἐκδύσασθαι, ἀλλ̓ ἐπενδύσασθαι; Php_3:12 : ἐφ̓ ὧ καὶ κατελήφθην). It is not so much a causal, as a qualifying and conditioning conjunction (a relative or modified ὅτι), which in our passage shows more clearly the connection of death with sin. It implies that a moral participation of all men in the sin of Adam is the medium or cause of their death; just as faith on our part is the moral condition of our participation in Christ’s life. It is unfavorable to the doctrine of a gratuitous imputation. The legal act of imputation is not arbitrary and unconditioned, but rests on a moral ground and an objective reality.—P. S.]

[All sinned (not, have sinned, E. V.), πάντες ἥμαρτον. The aor. II. presents the sinning of all as a historical fact, or a momentary action of the past; comp. ἀπέθανον, in Rom_5:15; οἱ πάντεζἀπέθανον, 2Co_5:14; and especially Rom_3:23, where precisely the same phrase occurs: ”all sinned,” as in one act (in Adam), and consequently became sinners (comp. Textual Note5, p. 128). Some take the aorist in the sense of the perfect ἡμαρτήκασι = ὑφ̓ ἁμαρτίαν εἰσί; but the aorist was chosen with reference to the past event of Adam’s fall, which was at the same time virtually the fall of the human race as represented by him, and germinally contained in him.53 ‘Αμαρτάνειν cannot mean: to be, or, to become sinful (= ἁμαρτωλὸν εἶναι , or, γίγνεσθαι), although this is the necessary result of the first sinful act; still less, to suffer the punishment of sin; but it means real, actual sinning. In what sense? The choice in the following list lies between interpretations (4) and (5), which are both equally consistent with the natural grammatical sense of ἥμαρτον; while the other interpretations are more or less strained or false.—P. S.]

Explanations of πάντες ἡμαρτον:

(1) In quo, namely, in Adam, the whole race sinned. (Origen,54 Chrysostom,55 Theophylact, Augustine56 [Beza, Brenz, Bucer, Este, Erasmus Schmid], and, as probably ”the last among Protestant expositors” [?], Benjamin Carpzov, 1758).57 The supposition here is the organic unity of the human race.

(2) Because all have become sinful [vitiati sunt, peccatores facti sunt]—that is, sinners by original sin (Calvin, Melanchthon, Flatt).58

(3) Metonymically, because all have been punished as sinners, or are involved in the consequences of the fall (Chrysostom,59 Grotius,60 Arminians and Socinians [and Calvinists of the Federal school, Macknight, Hodge]).61

(4) Some supply even Adamo peccante after ἐφ̓ ὧ (Pareus, and others; Bengel, Olshausen, &c.). Philippi, p. Rom 179: ”We must mentally supply ἐν̓ Αδάμ, or more specifically; Adamo peccante, to ἥμαρτον.” Meyer, likewise, ”because all sinned when Adam sinned, in and with him!” 1Co_15:22 [ἐν τῶ̓ Αδάμ πάντες ἀποθνήσκουσιν] has been alleged as proof of this.62

(5) The expression must be understood of the personal sins of individuals (Reiche, Rückert, De Wette, Tholuck [Fritzsche, Baur, Van Hengel, Stuart], and others).63 Meyer calls this interpretation false in view of the many millions of children who have not yet sinned64 [i.e., committed actual transgression]. Tholuck refers to the disposition of children to sin [which, however, is inconsistent with ἧμαρτον.—P. S.]. But he who finds no difficulty in conceiving that children sinned in Adam, should find less difficulty in thinking that they sinned in the womb of their mother, and least difficulty in sinking their individuality in the solidarity of their sinful ancestry. Meyer objects further, that the view that the death of individuals is the result of their personal sins, would vitiate and even contradict the whole parallel between Adam and Christ. “For as the sin of Adam brought death to all (therefore not their self-committed sin), so the obedience of Christ (not their own virtue) brought life to all (comp. 1Co_15:22).”65 Thus an absolute natural necessity prevailed on both sides! The proper consideration of the parallel, on the contrary, leads to this conclusion: As in the actual appropriation of the merits of Christ a personal ethical appropriation takes place by faith, so in the actual sharing in the guilt of Adam does an ethical participation by unbelief take place (see Rom_11:32). It is a great error to imagine that, in order to avoid the Pelagian heresy, we must cast ourselves into the arms of the Augustinian theory, and do violence to the plain text. This is done by Beza, Calvin, Philippi, and Meyer, though by each in a different way.

(6) The ἐφ̓ ὧ is understood as causa finalis: unto which, viz., death or punishment; thus making ἐπί to mark the end, or consequence, to which sinning came. (Venema, Schmid, Glöckler, and Ewald [formerly, not now].)66 Meyer observes, that this telic view implies a necessary, though not intended effect, in accordance with the idea of fate.

(7) Hofmann: Under whose (death’s) dominion they sinned. This view might be better supported by the thought in Heb_2:15, than by the language in Heb_9:15. Yet it is untenable.67

(8) Thomasius: Under which relation (namely, that sin and death came into the world by one man) all sinned, &c.

It is evident that the most of these explanations are attempts, from doctrinal considerations, to avoid the idea of individual personal guilt, and by this means a relation, clear enough in itself, is obscured. The Apostle’s assumption is, the priority of sin in relation to death, and the causal connection of the two. Accordingly, the meaning is, since sin came into the world as an abnormal ethical principle, death came into the world with it as the corresponding abnormal physiological principle. Therefore the propagation of the abnormal principle of death presupposes the preceding propagation of the principle of sin in the real sinning of all. It arises from the unity and solidarity of humanity, that certain cases—for example, children born dead, or dying [and idiots]—do not here come into consideration. The definition of the ἐφ̓ ὧ, under the presupposition that, is therefore the most natural. In view of the death of innocent children, we may assume different degrees of guilt and death: “in proportion as,” or “in what measure, they all sinned.”

Rom_5:13. For until the law, &c. [Ἄκριγὰρ νόμου,—i.e., from Adam to the Mosaic legislation, comp. Rom_5:14—ἁμαρτία ἦν ἐν κόσμω. Alford: “How, consistently with Rom_4:15, could all men sin, before the law? This is now explained.” But Rom_4:15 is too far off, and treats of παράβασις, not of ἁμαρτία. γάο connects this verse with πάντες ἥμαρτον, Rom_5:12.—P. S.] The Apostle did not need to show first that the death of all was grounded in Adam’s sin (Meyer); this he could presuppose from Jewish and Christian knowledge. But he proves rather that the actual extension of death took place always under the supposition of preceding sin in the world. Therefore his first proposition: Even in the period between Adam and Moses, sin was universal in the world. It was indeed not imputed, not placed directly in the light of the conscious judgment of God, because the law, as the rule of conduct and the accuser, was not yet present. But, indirectly, its presence was made manifest by its effect, the despotic government of death; although a transgression in such a definite way as that committed by Adam could not occur in the period designated (notwithstanding many analogies: Cain, the Cainites, Ham, Ishmael, Esau). Even the transgression again made manifest by the Mosaic law does not remove the great antagonism by which, in principle, sin and death proceeded from Adam, the type of Christ, the antitype, from whom, in principle, righteousness and life proceded. Meyer supposes the Apostle to say: “The death of individuals, which passed also upon those who have not sinned, as Adam did, against a positive commandment, cannot be derived from sin committed before the law, because, the law not being present, the imputation was wanting [absolutely?]; and the conclusion which Paul draws therefrom, is, that it is by Adam’s sin (not by individual sins) that death has been produced” (!). Now, how does this agree with the history of the Deluge, and of Sodom and Gomorrah? Here, definite death is everywhere traced to definite offences. Tholuck’s view of the connection [p. 238 ff.] is similar to Meyer’s. The most of the later commentators, on the contrary, properly regard Rom_5:13-14 as an argument for πάντες ἥμαρτον (Rückert, De Wette, Neander, and others; and formerly Diodorus, Calvin, and others). Calov has correctly concluded: Since they were punished because of sin, they must have had some law.68

But sin is not imputed [reckoned, in Rechnung gebracht, Ἁμαρτία οὐκ ἐλλογεῖται]. (Philem. Rom_5:18 [text. rec.] is the only other place).69 Meyer explains: Is brought to account by God for punishment [wird in Rechnung gebracht, viz., zur Bestrafung]. His citation (Rom_4:15) is sufficient to correct him. It is with the νόμος, and the consciousness of it, that the ἁμαρτία (which is also transgression, according to the measure of the natural conscience) first receives the impressed character of conscious transgression, παράβασις, and therewith the ὀργή is first finished by the κατεργάζεσθαι of the νόμος. Therefore even the sin of the generations before the flood was not yet definitely settled by its overthrow (1Pe_3:20; 1Pe_4:6); therefore the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of less sin than the contemporaries of Jesus. The ἐλλογεῖν of sin constitutes therefore the reverse side of the λογίζεσθαι εἰς δικαιοσύνην; it does not denote any preliminary attribution, but the final imputation, or settlement.—Explanations: Is not imputed, a. By God; (1) Not in general (the Deluge, Sodom and Gomorrah, &c., were exceptions); (2) Not in the usual manner of sin (Bengel: peccatum non notat scelera insignia [qualia Sodomitœ, ante Mosis tempora luerunt, sed malum commune]); (3) The Arminians: the θάνατος was only natural evil; (4) Calov., better than all: the word must be understood only hypothetical. The men of the ante-Mosaic period also had a kind of law. b. By man (Ambrose, Augustine, Theodore Mopsvestia, Luther: “Sin is not minded,” man achtet ihrer nicht). c. Zwingli: By the human judge. Altogether foreign to the context. Hofmann: the proposition laid down refers only to humanity in general, and not to individuals. This is a modification of Schleiermacher’s representation of penal justice.—We must add the remark, that the imputing judge is God, but that, in the imputation, the human knowledge of the παράβασις in the light of the judgment is to be taken fully into consideration. [Alford explains ἐλλ., “reckoned, ‘set down as transgression’—‘put in formal account,’ by God. In the case of those who had not the written law, ἁμαρτία is not formally reckoned as παράβασις, set over against the command; but, in a certain sense, as distinctly proved, Rom_2:9-16; it is reckoned, and they are condemned for it.”—P. S.]

When there is no law [μὴ ὄντος νόμου]. Not: Where the law is not. [So Alford, and those who refer νόμος to the Mosaic law exclusively.—P. S.] The Apostle appears to lay down the proposition in the form of a general maxim (“where there is no accuser, there is no judge”) in order to suggest the idea of degrees of legality and imputation (see the explanation of Calov.). Here, too, Meyer would relieve the death of the generations before Moses from being caused by individual sin (see, on the contrary, Psalms 90). We say, with Rom_1:18 ff., that the falling of those generations into sin was, in general, a great judgment of God; but an ethical because [Rom_1:19] always precedes.

Rom_5:14. Nevertheless [notwithstanding the relative non-imputation of sin] death reigned [Ἀλλὰ ἐβασίλευσεν, emphatically put first, ὁ θάνατος]. Death, already personified, appears here as a ruler, and, according to its nature, as a tyrant.70 The universal reign of death implies the universal reign of sin as its cause, in proof of Rom_5:12 (against Meyer and Hofmann). The dominion of death embraces not only physical death with all its historical terrors, but also the consciousness of death, or the sting of death (1Co_15:56), and the consequence of death, the dreary, wretched existence in Sheol.71 [μέχρι, (until) Μωϋσ. = ἄκρι νόμου, Rom_5:13. There is no clear difference between μέκρι and ἄκρι, except that μέκρι, from μακρός, etymologically, denotes primarily extension, or length of time; ἄκρι, from ἄκρος, point of time.—P. S.]

Even over those, &c. [καὶ ἐπὶ72 τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας ἐπὶ τῶ ὁμοιωματι τῆς παραβάσεως Ἀδάμ]. Over those who, unlike Adam, were not guilty of a definite παράβασις, or transgression of a definite command of God. The καί may be understood as antithetical to Adam, or better, as making a distinction between sinners in the general sense, and the wicked transgressors of special laws of God, who effect, as it were, new falls of man, such as Cain, Ham, &c. Athanasius explains thus: those who committed no mortal sin; Grotius: no gross sins; Crell, and others: transgressed no law to which the threat of death was attached. But the measure is simply the παράβασις, as in Rom_4:15. The elder expositors have included here also the children [and idiots] subjected “by Adam’s sin to the pœna damni;” Brenz makes this the exclusive reference [against which Calvin correctly protests. Children are included, but not specially intended.—P. S.] Indirectly, this verse refers definitely to the connection between sin and death in the period from Adam to Moses, as has been also perceived by De Wette, Fritzsche, and Baur, but is opposed in vain by Meyer.

Who is a type of the coming one [i.e., the second Adam, ὅς ἐστιν τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος]. Koppe comes in positive conflict with the context, when he takes μέλλοντος as neuter: of that which should come. The first Adam is the type of the second (1Co_15:45), and is the principle of the first eon, as Christ is the principle of the second, but according to the antagonism between the first and second eons. See Meyer, for similar expressions of the Rabbis; e.g., Adamus postremus est Messias. According to Tholuck, the deduction of the antithetical side should now have followed, but Paul was contented with the ὅς ἐστι, &c., in order to indicate the other half. But in our view the antithesis has already preceded (Rom_5:9-11), and is fully elaborated in chap. 6–8, after the transitional individual antitheses that now follow.

[This important clause points back to Rom_5:12, and indicates the apodosis, the other member of the comparison. Τύπος, from τύπτω, to strike, to wound, has a variety of significations which are closely related, and yet may seem in some cases contradictory (comp. the German Abbild, Urbild, Vorbild). It means (1) a blow; (2) a print, or impression, made by a blow (Joh_20:25, τὸν τύποντῶν ἥλων); (3) a form, image, figure (Bild, Abbild; so often in the classics, and in Act_7:43, τοὺς τύπους, οὕς ἐποιήσατε προσκυνεῖν αὐτοῖς); (4) a pattern, model (Muster, Modell, Urbild; Rom_6:17, τύπον διδακῆς; Act_7:44; Heb_8:5 : in the two last passages, however, τύπος is taken by some in the sense of copy; comp. Bleek on Heb_8:5, vol. iii. p. 439 f.); (5) a moral model or example for imitation (Vorbild; 2Th_3:9, ἵνα ἑαυτοὺς τύπον δῶμεν ὑμῖν εἰς τὸ μιμεῖσθαιἡμᾶς; 1Ti_4:12; Tit_2:7; Php_3:17; 1Pe_5:3); (6) a historical prefiguration (Vorbild), or type in the usual theological sense—i.e., a person or thing designed to foreshadow or symbolize a future person or thing which is the ἀντίτυπος (Urbild); so 1Co_10:6; 1Co_10:11, and here. Generally the New Testament antitype is related to the Old Testament type, as the substance is to the shadow, or the original to the copy.73 But Christ corresponds to Adam in the antithetical sense: Adam being the author of death for all, Christ the author of life for all. The prefigurative feature in Adam was his central and universal significance for the whole race, which was fulfilled in a much higher sense and with opposite effect in Christ, the absolute and perfect Man. In 1Co_15:45, Paul likewise contrasts ὁπρῶτος ̓Αδάμ, and ὁ ἔσκατος ̓Αδάμ, with reference, no doubt, to the Rabbinical theology, in which the Messiah is called הָאָדָם הָאַחֲרוֹן, Adamus postremus, in opposition to הָאָדָם הָרִאשׁין.74 To this personal contrast corresponds the contrast of two epochs and orders of things, σ̔ αἰὼν οὗτος and ὁ αἰὼνμέλλων. The coming one (τοῦ μέλλοντος) is not to be referred to the second coming of Christ (Fritzsche, De Wette), but to the first. Paul speaks from the historical standpoint of the first Adam.—P. S.]

Second Paragraph (Rom_5:15-19)

Tholuck remarks on the train of thought to Rom_5:19 : In the explanations of the elder expositors there is no attempt to trace the connection and progress of thought to Rom_5:19; many of the later ones doubt altogether the possibility of such a proof. Morus says: “De hac dissimilitudine agitur jam per quinque versus ita, ut quinquies idem illud repetatur, variatis quidem verbis, at re manente semper eadem.” Köllner and Rückert similarly; against whom, see Rothe. According to Tholuck, the train of thought is as follows: In Rom_5:15, the quantitative “more” on the side of the operation proceeding from Christ; in Rom_5:16-17, the qualitative “more;” in Rom_5:18-19, resumption of the parallel, including the differences pointed out. Our construction is given above.

[Rom_5:15-17 occupy an intermediate position between Rom_5:12 and Rom_5:18-19; and as Rom_5:13-14 are explanatory of the reign of death in connection with sin, asserted in Rom_5:12, so Rom_5:15-17 are qualifying, by stating as briefly and tersely as possible the disparity in the parallel between Adam and Christ, in favor of the superabounding grace of Christ. The admirable symmetrical adjustment of parts will appear from the following arrangement of the text in literal translation:

15. But not as the fall (παράπτωμα)

so also (is) the grace (Χάρισμα):

for if by the fall

of the one man (τοῦ ἑνός)

the many died;

much more

did the grace of God and the gift by the grace

of the one man Jesus Christ

abound unto the many.

16. And not as by one guilty transgression (ἁμαρτήμαος)75

(so also is) the gift (τὸ δώρημα):

for the judgment (issued in, or, came)

from one (full)

unto condemnation (κατάκριμα),

but the grace (issued in, came)

from many falls

unto a righteous act (δικαίωμα):

17. For if by the fall of the one76

Death reigned

through the one;

much more

will they who receive the abundance

of the grace and the gift of righteousness

reign in life

through the one Jesus Christ.—P. S.]

A. The contrast in the effects of the principles made manifest. 1. The natural consequences in relation to persons (Rom_5:15); 2. The positive consequences in relation to the intensity, the essential gradation of the effects (Rom_5:16). Rom_5:15 refers to the opposition of Christian salvation to the ruin in the non-legal period and sphere; Rom_5:16, to its opposition to the ruin in the legal world.

Rom_5:15. But not as the fall (transgression), so also is the gift of grace77 [Ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὡς τὸ παράπτωμα, οὕτως καὶ τὸ χάρισμα]. We hold that the Apostle, in his brief and pregnant expressions in Rom_5:15-16, lays down axioms in negative construction. Meyer translates Rom_5:15 : “Not as the trespass, so also the gift of grace;” and quite unintelligibly Rom_5:16 : “And not as by one who sinned is the gift.” The παράπτωμα is ἑνὸς, the κάρισυμα ἑνός. As principles which enter humanity and permeate it, Adam and Christ are alike; but in the nature of their effects they constitute contrasts.—Rosenmüller, and others, would neutralize the negation by regarding οὐκ as interrogative; but this, as Meyer remarks, is forbidden by the contrasting character of the contents. We see no reason for taking the παράπτωμα, contrary to its most natural signification, as “offence;” it denotes, with sin, a fall, an ethical defeat; yea, the fall as a medium of the fall, just as the κάρισμα of Christ is not merely κάρις, but a medium of the κάρις. [ΙΙαράπτωμα, from παραπίπτω, to fall, is not a sinful state or condition, but a concrete actual sin, the transgression of the law (παράβασις), the act of disobedience (παρακοή) by which Adam fell; comp. Rom_5:16; Rom_5:18-19, and Book of Wis_10:1, where it is likewise used of the fall. τὸκάρισμα and ἡκάρις mean nearly the same as ἡδωρεά in this verse, τὸ δώρημα, Rom_5:16, δικαίωσις ζωῆς, Rom_5:18, but they emphasize the idea that salvation is of free grace. Forbes ingeniously refers τὸ κάρισμα, the Grace which pardons the sinner, antithetically to Death, the penalty of transgression, and τὸ δώρημα, the Gift of righteousness, antithetically to Sin, which it removes and supersedes; the one is mainly the grace that justifies, the other the grace that sanctifies. See his note, p. 243 f.—P. S.] Tholuck thinks that we should expect δικαίωμα [ὑπακοή would correspond better.—P. S.] instead of κάρισυα. But the question here is concerning the natural or historical effects of both principles, while in Rom_5:16 they are presented in their relation to law and right.

For if through the fall of the one the many died [Ἐιγὰρ τῶ τοῦ (mark the definite article, which is overlooked in the E. V.) ἑνὸς παραπτώματι οἱ πολλοὶ (the many, i.e., the immense multitude of all the descendants of the one Adam) ἀπέθανον.—P. S.]. The εἰ is not hypothetical. There is an oxymoron in the expression: one fell, many died (not only the one). Why οἱ πολλοὶ, and not πάντες, as in Rom_5:12; Rom_5:18? Meyer: “The antithesis to the εἷς is made more sensible and stronger by marking the totality as multitude; for ‘possunt aliqua esse omnia, quœ non sunt multa,’ Augustine. Grotius wrongly: ‘fere omnes, excepto Enocho,’ which is contradicted by Rom_5:12; Rom_5:18.” [ἀπέθανον must be taken in the same comprehensive sense as θάνατος in Rom_5:12.; see p. 176. It is parallel to ἥμαρτον, Rom_5:12, and must be explained accordingly; see p. 177.—P. S.]

Much more. Is πολλῶμᾶλλον the expression of a logical plus,

that is, of an inference ([Chrysostom, πολλῶ γὰρ τοῦτο εὐλογώτερον] Theodoret, Philippi [Fritzsche, Hodge, Stuart], and others), or of a real plus, a comparison (Calvin [Bengel78], Rothe [Alford: much more abundant], &c.). [In other words, does πολλῶ μᾶλλον express a stronger degree of evidence, as an argumentum a minore ad majus (here a pejori ad melius), as it certainly does Rom_5:9-10, or a higher degree of efficacy?—P. S.] Meyer: This latter is contrary to Rom_5:17. This is so far right as death, viewed absolutely, is an absolute negation, and a real plus [a higher degree of abundance] is comprised already in περισσεύειν. But the logical plus involves also a real plus. [So also Tholuck.] It rests on the following antitheses: 1. The εἱς introduced here without name, and opposite to him, ὁ θεός and ὁ εἷς ἄνθρωπος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός; 2. παράπτωμα, and the opposite ἡ κάρις καὶ ἡ δωρεὰ ἐν κάριτι; 3. ἐπερίσσευσεν, in opposition to the simple fact, ἀπέθανον. The χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ is the source and spirit of the universal and personal charisma, which is Christ himself; the δωρεὰ ἐν χάριτι, &c, is its form and appearance, the positive gift of Divine adoption, with the Divine inheritance, in the pardon of sin. Both must not be resolved into an ἕν διὰ δυοῖν (Rosenmüller, and others). According to Rothe, Tholuck, and others, ἐν χάριτι must be connected with δωρεά; according to De Wette and Meyer, δωρεά stands absolutely, and ἐνκάριτι, &c., belongs to ἐπερίσσευσεν, on account of the antithesis to παραπτώματι. But in that case the article should be expected before κάριτι. Besides, δωρεἀ ἐν κάριτι forms the idea of δώρημα. The aorist indicates an event which had already taken place.

Rom_5:16. And not as by one transgression [Καὶ οὐχ ὡς δἰ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήματος, which Lange renders Verschuldung, transgression accompanied with guilt.—P. S.]. We must first of all substitute the reading ἁμαρτήματος of the Codd. D. E. F. G., and of the Itala [Vulg.: Et non sicut per unum peccatum] for ἁμαρτήσαντος [by one that transgressed], although the latter has better authority.79 The reason lies in the text; Rom_5:16 contains only definitions of things, not persons. The opposite of ἁμάρτημα is παραπτώματα; besides, we have δώρημα, κρῖμα, κατάκρυιμα, κάρισμα, and δικαίωμα. Tholuck observes: “Those Codd. present frequently a corrupted text, one conformed to the Latin translation; and as ἁμαρτήματος is not even sufficiently attested by external authorities, it must give way to the more difficult reading.” But, at first appearance, δἰ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος was the easier reading, for it was supposed that in every antithesis Adam himself must have been mentioned again. Meyer explains: “And not by one that sinned (ἁμαρτήσαντος) so is the gift; that is, it is not so as if it would be caused δἰ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος.”80 Tholuck: “The gift has another character than that which came by the one who sinned.” These explanations are no recommendation to the reading ἁμαρτήσαντος. For, first, the thought that the δώρημα may have come by one that sinned himself, is far-fetched and unnatural. Second, the antithesis between the effects of the two principles is obliterated. Those who adopt the reading ἁμαρτήσαντος, propose different supplements: Grotius, and others, θάνατος εἰζῆλθεν [after ἁμαρτήσ.]; Bengel [Webster and Wilkinson, Stuart, Hodge], and others, τὸ κρῖμα; Reiche, after Theophylact, τὸ κατάκριμα; Fritzsche, and others, παράπτωμα; Beza, and others [after ὡς], τό (De Wette: and not like that which resulted from one who sinned, is the gift).81 Rothe, Tholuck, and Meyer, supply merely ἐστί [after δώρημα]; Philippi, ἐγένετο [after ἁμαρτήσ., and ἐστί after δώρημα.—P. S.]. This [which? ἐστί, or ἐγένετο?—P. S.] is sufficient with ἁμάρτημα, which means more than ἁμαρτία, and expresses the idea of guilt Verschuldung) in connection with sin (see Mar_3:28; Luk_4:12, &c.).

For the judgment (passes) from one (transgression) to condemnation [τὸ μὲν γὰρ κρῖμα ἐξ ἑνὸς εἰς κατάκριμα. Lange supplies, from the preceding clause, ἁμαρτήματος after ἐξ ἑνὸς, and translates it, in both cases, Verschuldung.—P. S.] Here, too, the verb is wanting. Meyer supplies ἐγένετο, or resulted; De Wette, turned out. But the verb is indicated by the εἰς; εἰς requires the idea of progress, development. (For the antithesis, Rothe has attempted to substitute an untenable division, τὸ μὲν, τὸ δέ). The κρῖμα might mean judgment in general (Meyer),82 if it did not refer to ἁμάρτημα, by which it becomes judgment to punishment. Explanations: reatus (Beza, Cocceius); the threatened punishment, Gen_2:17 (Fritzsche, Tholuck); the sentence of punishment pronounced on Adam and his posterity, Gen_3:19 (Reiche, Baumgarten-Crusius [Rückert, De Wette], and others).—From one (transgression). We simply supply the foregoing ἁμάρτημα, and translate the incurring of guilt, because the deed is connected with its consequence, and the word is connected with the idea of guilt. ἐξ ἑνός is taken by Meyer as masculine.—To condemnation [εἰς κατάκριμα]. Explanations of the antithesis τὸκῖμα, τὸ κατάκριμα: 1. Fritzsche: The threat of punishment, Genesis 2, and the sentence of punishment, Genesis 3; similarly Tholuck. Reiche: the sentence of punishment pronounced on Adam, and that on his posterity. 2. Rückert: the Divine sentence and its result, death, was declared against the one who had sinned; but from him the sentence has extended to all. Plainly, the κρῖμα, as the principle of judgment, proceeds from the one ἁμάρτημα of Adam, and passes through gradations of judgment to the κατάκριμα, which is completed ideally as the sentence of fitness for condemnation by the appearance of the gospel, and will be actually completed as real judgment to condemnation at the end of the world. Yet the antithesis here does not pass beyond the ideal judgment to condemnation. The antithesis of the one Adam and of the whole race, which Baumgarten-Crusius finds here, is only presumed; the numerical antithesis, rather, in this passage is ἕν ἁμάρτημα, πολλὰ παραπτώματα. It must be borne in mind that the expression παραπτώματα is much stronger than άμαρτήματα, and denotes the gradations of the one fall by many new apostasies (see the Second Commandment).

But the gift of grace (passes) from many falls (lapses) unto the good of justification [τὸ δὲ χάρισμα ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων εἰς δικαίωμα, which Lange translates: das Gnadengut aber geht von vielen Sündenfällen aus fort bis zum Rechtfertigungsgut; or, in the Exeg. Notes, Rechtfertigungsmittel.—P. S.]. The personal charisma is Christ himself (see Rom_5:15), the source of all special gifts of grace (see Tit_2:11).—From many falls, or lapses (Sündenfällen). Caused by them. As the κρῖμα of Adam has become the universal κατάκριμα of humanity, so has the κάρισμα, of Christ grown to be the universal and absolute δικαίωμα. As Christ, as the Risen One, has come forth ἐκ νεκρῶν, so has He, as the Just One, the personal δικαίωμα, come forth from the place of the παραπτώματα. It was thus with the advent of Christ on earth; but the finished παδάπτωμα was the same crucifixion by which He was perfected as δικαίωμα. The usual explanations rest mostly on a misconception. Meyer: Since God declared sinners righteous. Augustine: Quia non solum illud unum solvit, quod originaliter trahitur, sed etiam quœ in uno quoque homine motu propriœ voluntatis adduntur. Better De Wette [and Alford]: “The gift of grace became, by occasion of many transgressions, justification.” Philippi: “From out of many lapses.” The δικαίωσις is neither the condition of righteousness (that would be δικαιοσύνη; Luther, Tholuck, and others), nor the declaration of God by which He executes the δικαίωσις (Meyer), but, according to Rückert and [Adelbert] Maier, the means or medium of justification (Rechtfertigungsmittel), which is in harmony with the form of the word. Meyer asks for the empirical proof; it lies right before us: Were δικαίωμα the real justification of mankind, κατάκριμα would be its real condemnation, and that would be a contradiction. Comp. also Rom_5:18, where the δικαίωμα is the presupposition of the δικαίωσις. (The explanation of Rothe, after Calvin: legal compensation in the sense of satisfactio is partly too general, and partly impinges very much on δικαίωσις). An elaborate discussion see in Tholuck, p. 258.

[Δικαίωμα, in Hellenistic usage, means usually statutum, ordinance, a righteous decree, or righteous judgment (Rechtsspruch, Rechtsbestimmung); comp. Rom_1:32; Rom_2:26; Rom_8:4; Luk_1:6; Heb_9:1; Heb_9:10; Rev_15:4; or also. (as in classical usage) a righteous act, a just deed, as Rev_19:8 (τὰ δικαιώματα τῶν ἁγίων); Bar_2:19 (δώσουσι δόξαν καὶδικαίωμα τῷ κυδίῳ); comp. the Hebrew םִשְׁפָּט as distinct from צְדָקָה in Pro_8:20, where both are translated δικαιοσύνη in the Septuagint, while the Vulgate distinguishes them as judicium and justitia. I see no good reason for departing from this meaning. It is either, in opposition to κατάκριμα, the righteous decree which God declared on account of the perfect obedience of Christ; or it is, as Rom_5:18, in opposition to παράπτωμα, the righteous act of Christ as the objective basis (or, as Lange has it, the means) of our δικαίωσις. Tholuck, after a full discussion of the various interpretations, favors (p. 261) the translation, Rechtfertigungsthat, actio justificativa, which would difer from δικαίωσις, justificatio, as the accomplished fact differs from the process. Wordsworth explains it here, and in Rom_5:18, to mean a state of acceptance as righteous by God, a recognized condition of approval; but this is without any authority. The Latin Vulgate (justificatio, Rom_5:16, but justitia, Rom_5:18), the E.V., and even De Wette, Olshausen, Robinson (sub δικαίωμα, No. 3), Stuart, Alford, and Hodge, take δικαίωμα in Rom_5:16 as equivalent to δικαι.ωσις. (Alford: “As κατάκριμα is a sentence of condemnation, so δικαίωμα will be a sentence of acquittal. This, in fact, amounts to justification.” Hodge: “It means justification, which is a righteous judgment, or decision of a judge, pronouncing one to be just.”) Rothe (p. 103) calls this interpretation a piece of ”exegetical levity;” and it is evident that, in Rom_5:18, δικαίωμα is distinguished from δικαιωσις. He goes back (with Pareus, J. Gerhard, Calov, Wolf, B. Carpzov) to classical usage, quoting a passage from Aristotle (Eth. Nicom. v. 10), who defines δικαίωμα to be τὸ ἐπανο ρθωμα τοῦ ἀδικιήματος, the amendment of an evil deed.83 Rothe consequently translates it, full satisfaction of justice, legal adjustment (Rechtserfüllung, Rechtsgutmachung, Rechtsausgleichung). This meaning suits admirably here, and in Rom_5:18 (where, however, the word is opposed to παράπτωμα, not, as in Rom_5:16, to κατάκριμα), and does not materially differ from the explanation of Lange. In Rom_5:18, δικαίωμα, being the opposite of παράπτωμα, and essentially equivalent to ὑπακοή, in Rom_5:19, must denote the righteous deed, i.e., the perfect obedience of Christ, and is so understood by Calvin, Este, Grotius, and Bengel. As it is not likely that the same word should be used in one breath in two different senses, it is safe to explain δικαίωμα in Rom_5:16 from its more obvious meaning in Rom_5:18. I prefer this (with Lange) to the other alternative chosen by Meyer (Rechtfertigungsspruch), Ewald (Gerechtsspruch), Van Hengel, Umbreit, who give it in both verses the meaning, righteous decree. I quote, in addition, the excellent note of Bengel on δικαίωμα in Rom_5:18, which throws light on its meaning in Rom_5:16 : “Δικαίωμα est quasi materia δικαιώσει (justificationi) substrata, obedientia, justitia prœstita. Justificamentum liceat appellare, ut ἑδραίωμα denotat firmamentum, ἔνδυμα vestimentum, ἐπίβλημα additamentum, μίασμα inquinamentum, ὀκύρωμα munimentum, περικαθαρμα purgamentum, περίψημα ramentum, σκέπασμα tegumentum, στερέωμα firmamentum, ὑπόδημα calceamentum, φρόνμα sentimentum, Gall. sentiment. Aristot. l. v. Eth. c. 10 opposita statuit ἀδίκημα et δικαίωμα, atque hoc describit τὸ ἐπανόρθωμα τοῦ ἀδικήματος, id quod tantundem est atque Satisfactio, vocabulum Socinianis immerito invisum. Exquisitam verborum proprietatem schematismus exhibit:

A.B.C.D.Rom_5:16.κρῖμα,κατάκριμακάρισμα,δικαίωμα A.B.C.D.Rom_5:18.παράπτωμα,κατάκριμαδικαίωμα,δικαίωσις ζωῆς.In utroque versu A et B συστοικεῖ, itemque C et D, sed A et C, ἀντιστοικεῖ, itemque B et D. Versu 16 describitur negotium ex parte Dei: Rom_5:18 describitur ex parte Adami et Christi: idque in œconomia peccati minore verborum varietate, quam in œconomia gratiœ. δικαίωσις ζωῆς est declaratio divina illa, qua peccator, mortis reus, vitœ adjudicatur, idque jure.”—P. S.]

B. The contrast of potential, prospective effects.

1. The contrast between the enslavement and negation of all personal life by personified death, and of the future glory of pardoned persons in the new life (Rom_5:17).

2. The contrast in all its ideal magnitude: owing to the power of the fall of one, judgment and condemnation came upon all men; all men can attain to justification of life (that is, not merely of faith) by the justifying righteousness of one (Rom_5:18).

Rom_5:17. For if by one man’s fall, &c. [Ἐιγὰρ τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι, κ.τ.γ.]. This verse (which Rothe has improperly treated as a parenthesis,84 and which Er. Schmid has even conceived to be the contradiction of an opponent) is, in form, first of all a proof of the δικαίωμα and κατάκριμα in Rom_5:16; but it develops the consequence of the δικαίωμα, as of the καάκριμα, to a new and glorious contrast. Here, now, the personal element in Rom_5:15 is united with the material one in Rom_5:16; yet the personal predominates. From one proceeded, through one offence, the tendency toward destruction; death tyrannized over and defaced the personal life, and threatened to extinguish it; but much more shall believers become by the one Christ, on the ground of the δικαιοσύνη, the βασιλευόντες, the ruling, royal personalities in eternal life. The point of the antithesis is therefore ἐβασίλευσεν and βασιλεύσουσιν. The πολλῷ μᾶλλον is also here a logical conclusion, which involves the higher degree of real power, as brought out in the antitheses: ἕν παράπτωμα, and the opposite ἡπερισσεία τῆς κάριτος καὶ τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης; to which is yet added the λαμβάνοντες in contrast with the bondage of the former slaves of death (Heb_2:14); then again, the nameless εἷς and the one Jesus Christ; and finally, to a certain extent, ὁ θάνατος and ἡ ζωή. Meyer well remarks: “Bear in mind that Paul does not say in the paradosis, in conformity with the protasis: ἡ ζωὴ βασιλεύσει ἐπὶ τοὺς … λαμβάνοντας, but, in harmony with the matter in question, and corresponding to the active nature of the relation, he places the subjects in the active first.” This is the chief point just here. (Menochius: “suavius et gloriosus sonat.”) Tholuck: ”To be ruled, is a bound and passive condition, while, on the other hand, the quality of free movement lies in life. The eschatological idea of a ruling in the finished kingdom of God, was brought over by Christ in a more profound sense from Judaism (Mat_19:28; Luk_22:29). Paul has especially appropriated it (1Co_4:8; 1Co_6:2; 2Ti_2:12).” Tholuck questions the right to make prominent, according to Thomas Aquinas, Grotius, Stier, and others, the element of subjective spontaneousness, here, “where the whole weight falls on the Divine work of grace.” But the Apostle speaks of the self-active appropriation of the work of grace in the life of believers.

Rom_5:18. Therefore, as through the fall of one, &c. [Better: through one fall (ἐνός in the neuter), Ἄρα οὖν ὡς δἰ ἑνός παρδαπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα, οὕτω καὶ δἰ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς].85 This verse is, as Meyer and others remark, a resumption of the preceding contrasts compressed in one sentence (συλλογίζεται ἐνταῦθα τὸ πᾶν, Theodore of Mopsvestia). But we must not overlook the new contrast brought out here. (On the use of ἄραοὔν, see Meyer.)86 As far as the verb that is wanting is concerned, De Wette remarks: It is usual to supply here (likewise Rückert and Fritzsche), in the first member, τὸ κρίμα ἐγένετο, and in the second, τὸ κάδισμα ἐγένετο; but better, something indefinite, as ἐγένετο (thus Meyer and Tholuck); Winer, ἀπέβη. We call up the pregnant expressions in Rom_2:28-29, and repeat accordingly παράπτωμα after παραπτώματος, and δικαίωμα after δικαιώματος. ἀπέβη is sufficiently contained in εἰς. The contrast in that case is simply this: The fall of one man came ideally and dynamically as a fall upon all men unto condemnation; that is, by the common fall, all men would, without redemption, be subject to condemnation; on the other hand, the δικαίωμα of one came ideally and dynamically as δικαίωμα upon all men unto justification of life in the last judgment; that is, the δικαίωμα of Christ is sufficiently powerful to justify and perfect all men. Meyer [with Rothe, Ewald, Alford, Wordsworth.—P. S.] construes δἰ ἑνὸς here both times as neuter (one trespass, one sentence of justification), which Tholuck has properly rejected. The Greek writers, Theodoret and Theophylact [as also Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, E. V., Bengel, Fritzsche, Philippi, Hodge.—P. S.], have taken it as masculine.87 Here, as in Rom_5:16, Meyer makes the δικαίωμα to mean judgment of justification (Rechtfertigungsspruch), and rejects the translations: fulfilment of the right (Rechtserfüllung, Rothe and Philippi); deed of justification (Rechtfertigungsthat, Tholuck); virtuousness (Tugendhaftigkeit, Baumgarten-Crusius); obedience (Gehorsam, De Wette); the recte factum of Christ (Fritzsche). It is simply the same everywhere. If it be said that Christ is our righteousness, it is the same as saying that Christ is the personal medium of our justification. [Comp. the remarks on p. 184 f.—P. S.] The future ἀποβήσεται supplied by Winer and Philippi in the apodosis, is sufficiently implied in εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς. We hold that the Apostle here means the final δικαίωσις, justification, which, in the general judgment, constitutes the antithesis of the κατάκδιμα, condemnation. The δικαιωμα is offered to all men, and the δικαιωσις ζωῆς is its purpose; but the realization of the purpose takes place merely according to the measure of faith. The Roman Catholic expositors assert that justification of faith itself is denoted here as justification of life [i.e., progressive justification = sanctification.—P. S.] According to Calvin, and others, it is the justification whose result is life. Tholuck: The δικαίωδις with the effect of the future completion of life. Augustine likewise. Thomas Aquinas describes correctly the ideal universality of the δικαίωμα: “Quamvis possit dici, quod justificatio Christi transit in justificationem omnium, ad sufficientiam, licet quantum ad efficientiam procedit in solos fideles.”

[ΙΙάντες ἄνθρωποι are, in both clauses, all men without exception, as in Rom_5:12; but this does not justify a Universalist inference, for Paul speaks of the objective sufficiency and intention of Christ’s δικαίωμα, not of its subjective application to individuals, which depends upon the λαμβάνειν of faith, as intimated in Rom_5:17. The distinction drawn by Hofmann and Lechler between πάντες ἄνθρωποι, all men without distinction, and πάντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι, all, without exception, lacks proof (Meyer calls it, rein erdichtet). More of this in Rom_5:19.—P. S.]

C. The Contrast of the Final Effects.

Rom_5:19. For as through the disobedience of the one man, &c. [̔́ Ωσπερ γὰρ διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἁνθρωπου ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοὶ, οὕτως καὶ, κ.τ.λ.. According to Meyer, Rom_5:19 furnishes only a grand and conclusive elucidation of Rom_5:18 (γάρ). Tholuck likewise, in harmony with Calvin. But this contrast denotes the final antithesis of the judgment and of justification as made manifest by the gospel (see Rom_2:16). The sense is: As, in consequence of the disobedience of the one man Adam, the many (as many as there are) have been presented in the light of the gospel as sinners subject to condemnation, so, in consequence of the obedience of the one man Christ, shall the many (as many as believe) be presented in the same light as just. It is self-evident that the effect of the gospel is included in the second clause; but from Rom_5:20-21 we must infer that it is presumed also in the first clause. It is only through the gospel that this ideal general judgment is brought to pass, by which all men are presented and exposed as condemned sinners in consequence of their connection with the sin of Adam (see Joh_16:8-9; comp. Psa_51:5-6). We are authorized by the language in maintaining that καθιστάνω possesses here the full idea of setting down, exhibiting, making to appear as what one is. [See below.]

[Through the disobedience of the one man, διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου. The trespass, or fall, of Adam, τό παράπτωμα, is here definitely described as an act of disobedience, which is the mother of sin, as obedience to the Divine will is the mother of virtue; for disobedience is essentially selfishness in actual exercise, the rebellion of the human will against the Divine, the false self-assertion or independence in opposition to God, to whom we owe life and all, and whose service is true freedom.—P. S.]88

The many were constituted sinners [ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάωησαν].89 Meyer: “According to Rom_5:12, they were, through Adam’s disobedience, actually placed in the category of sinners, because they sinned in and with Adam’s fall.” This is Augustinian dogmatics, but no exegesis warranted by the context. [? see below.—P. S.] Tholuck: Were made, became. In this sense, according to his account, certain commentators have found the imputatio forensis expressed; others, a real becoming, in which the element of spontaneity is included. On the further complications which have arisen between Romish and Protestant commentators on the supposition of really becoming, see Tholuck, p. 268. The παρακοή of Adam himself has certainly set forth the many as sinners, but only because it has come into the light of the law, and finally of the gospel, and so far as it has now become clear: 1. As an ethico-physical causality, but not as a purely physical fatality; 2. So far as the offence of Adam has become the clear type of the sinfulness and sin of every man; 3. So far as the judgment of the finished revelation comprehends the many as in one.

So by the obedience of one shall the many be made (constituted) righteous [οὕτως καὶ διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλο ί]. That is, not merely by the death [the passive obedience] of Christ, but also by the [active] obedience of His whole life, which was finished in His death.90 But why the future? Meyer: “It relates (corresponding to βασιλεύσουσι) to the future revelation of glory after the resurrection (Reiche, Fritzsche, Hofmann).” Tholuck also, together with Abelard, Cocceius, and others, refers the future to the final judgment. But the setting forth of believers as righteous extends from the beginning of the preaching of the gospel through all subsequent time. Beza properly observes, that the future denotes the continua vis justificandi; and Grotius, Calov., Rückert, De Wette, and Philippi, regard it similarly as a prœsens futuribile. Tholuck objects: Is not objective justification a single act? Certainly, but only for individuals; but in the kingdom of God these acts are repeated through all the future to the end of the world.

[The interpretation of ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν (passive Aor. I.) and δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται has been much embarrassed and obscured by preconceived dogmatic theories. Καθίστημι (also καθιστάω and καθιστάνω) means: (1) to set down, to place (this would give good sense here: to be set down in the rank of sinners; but see below); (2) to appoint, to elect (this is inapplicable here, as it would make God directly the author of sin); (3) to constitute, to cause to be, to make (reddere aliquem aliquid); hence the passive: to be rendered, to become; (4) to conduct, to accompany on a journey (only once in the New Testament). Reiche has spent much learning to establish a fifth meaning: to show, to exhibit; but this is somewhat doubtful. The verb occurs twenty-two times in the New Testament, three times only in Paul (twice here, and once in Tit_1:5). In sixteen of these cases (including Tit_1:5) it clearly refers to official appointment; in one it means, to accompany (Act_17:15); in the remaining, five, viz., Rom_5:19 (twice); Jam_3:6; Jam_4:4; 2Pe_1:8, it is, to constitute, to render. So it is taken in this verse by nearly all the recent commentators.91 But in what sense? Figuratively, or really? Chrysostom, and the Greek commentators who did not believe in original sin, started the figurative or metonymic interpretation, which was subsequently more fully developed by the Arminians and Socinians (Grotius, Limborch, Wetstein, Socinus, Crell), and advocated also by Storr and Flatt, of the school of the older Germansupernaturalism, namely, that κατεστάθησαν ἁμαρτωλοι means: they were only apparently made sinners, or accounted, regarded, and treated as sinners—i.e., exposed to the punishment of sin, without actually being sinners.92 The same view has been strenuously advocated even by so sound and orthodox a commentator as Dr. Hodge, but from the very opposite doctrinal standpoint, and in the interest of immediate forensic imputationism. He takes κατεστάθησαν, like ἥμαρτον, Rom_5:12, in a purely legal and forensic sense: they were regarded as sinners independently of, and antecedently to, their being sinners, simply on the ground of the sin of Adam, their federal representative; as, on the other hand, they are regarded as righteous solely on the ground of Christ’s righteousness, without any personal righteousness of their own.93 This interpretation, though less artificial than the corresponding passive rendering of ἥμαρτον, Rom_5:12, is not supported by a single passage of the New Testament where καθίστημι occurs, and conflicts with the connection. For Rom_5:19 gives the reason (γάρ) for the statement in Rom_5:18, why “judgment came upon all men to condemnation,” and it would be sheer tautology to say: they were condemned because “they were regarded and treated as sinners.” The phrase, then, can be taken only in the real sense, like ἥμαρτον in Rom_5:12. It means: they were made sinners either by virtual participation in the fall of Adam, or by actual practice, by repeating, as it were, the fall of Adam in their sinful conduct. Both interpretations are perfectly grammatical, and do not exclude each other. Even if the verb under consideration, in the passive, could be made out to mean: to be exhibited, to appear (κατεστάθησαν = ἐφανερώθησαν, see Wetstein, Reiche, Fritzsche), it always presupposes actual being: they were made to appear in their true character as sinners, or what they really were.94 Comp. Lange above.95 This is very different from: they were regarded and treated as sinners, without being such. The metonymic interpretation confounds the effect with the cause, or reverses the proper order that death follows sin. We are regarded and treated as sinners because we are sinners in fact and by practice. So, on the other hand, δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται is more than the declaratory δικαιωθήσονται, and means, that by Christ’s merits we shall be actually made righteous, and appear as such before His judgment seat. It denotes the righteousness of life, as a consequence of justification by faith (comp. εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς, Rom_5:18). Luther says: “Wie Adam’s Sünde unsere eigene geworden ist, also auch Christi Gerechtigkeit;” as Adam’s sin has become our own, so also Christ’s righteousness. Calvin correctly translates: “peccatores constituti sunt, … justi constituentur,” and remarks in loc.: “Unde sequitur, justitiœ qualitatem esse in Christo: sed nobis acceptum ferri, quod illi proprium est.” David Pareus, one of the ablest among the older Reformed commentators, explains δίκαιοι καταστ.: “multo plus est, quam justificabuntur. Nam justificari est a condemnation absolvi justitia imputata; justum constitui est etiam justitia habituali sanctificari, hoc est, simul justificationis et sanctificationis beneficium complectitur.” Bengel in loc.: “Apostolus talem justorum constitutionem videtur prœdicare, quœ justificationis actum subsequatur, et verbo inveniri includitur (Php_3:9; coll. Gal_2:17);” i.e., the Apostle seems to set forth such a constituting of men as righteous, as may follow upon the act of justification, and as is included in the expression, being found. Alford: “be made righteous, not by imputation merely, any more than in the other case; but, ‘shall be made really and actually righteous, as completely so as the others were made really and actually sinners.’ When we say that man has no righteousness of his own, we speak of him as out of Christ: but in Christ, and united to Him, he is made righteous, not by a fiction or imputation only of Christ’s righteousness, but by a real and living spiritual union with a righteous head, as a righteous member, righteous by means of, as an effect of, the righteousness of that head, but not merely righteous by transference of the righteousness of that head; just as, in his natural state, he is united to a sinful head as a sinful member, sinful by means of, as an effect of, the sinfulness of that head, but not merely by transference of the sinfulness of that head.”—P. S.]

On the question raised by Tholuck, and others, whether this passage does not lead to the doctrine of the ἀποκατάστασις, see Doct. and Ethical, No. 12.

[The inference of a universal salvation from this verse, as also from Rom_5:15 (εἰς τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐπερίσσευσεν) and 18 (εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰςδικαίωσιν ξωῆς), is very plausible on the surface, and might be made quite strong if this section could be isolated from the rest of Paul’s teaching on the terms of salvation. The same difficulty is presented in 1Co_15:22 : ”As in Adam all die (πάντες ἀποθνήσκουσιν), so in Christ shall all be made alive (πάντες ξωοποιηθήσονται).” It has been urged by some that the apocatastasis is implied partly in the indicative future, κατασταθήσονται and ζωποιηθήσονται, but especially in the fact that, as πάντες, all, and οἱ πολλοί, the many,96 are confessedly unlimited in the first clause, we have no right to limit them in the second clause. (The advocates of eternal punishment forcibly derive the same argument for their doctrine from the double αἰώνιος, Mat_25:46). The popular explanation that πάντες and οἱ πολλοί means, in one case, Adam’s natural seed (οἱ ἁμαρτωλοί), in the other, Christ’s spiritual seed (i.e., οἱπιστεύοντες), though true as to practical result, fails to do justice to the superabundance of God’s grace over man’s sin. Paul unquestionably teaches emphatically the universal sufficiency of the gospel salvation, without any restrictions which might break the force of the parallel between Adam and Christ.97 All men are capable of salvation, or salvable (erlösbar), which must by all means be maintained against Manichæism and fatalism. If any are ultimately lost, it is not from metaphysical or constitutional inability, nor from any defect in Christ’s atonement, which is of infinite value in itself, and was made for the sins of the whole world (1Jn_2:2), nor from any unwillingness on the part of God, who, according to His benevolent purpose, will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth (1Ti_2:4; comp. Rom_4:10; 2Pe_3:9). But we must make a distinction between the objective sufficiency and the subjective efficacy of Christ’s atonement, between the possibility and the actuality of a universal salvation. All men may be saved, since abundant provision has been made to that end, and under this view we must approach even the worst sinner; but which, and how many, will be saved, is a question of the future which God only knows. From the great stress which Paul lays in this passage on the superabundance of grace which greatly exceeds the evils of the fall, we have a right to infer that by far the greater part of the race will ultimately be saved, especially if we take into consideration that the half of mankind die in infancy before having committed actual transgression, and that, in the days of millennial glory, the knowledge of Christ will cover the earth. It is a truly liberal and noble sentiment of Dr. Hodge when he says (p. 279): ”We have reason to believe that the lost shall bear to the saved no greater proportion than the inmates of a prison do to the mass of the community.” But from all our present observation, as well as from the word of God (comp. Mat_7:13-14), we know that many, very many—yea, the vast majority of adults even in Christian lands—walk on the broad path to perdition, although they may yet be rescued in the last moment. Paul himself speaks of the everlasting punishment of those who obey not the gospel of Christ (2Th_1:9), and teaches a resurrection of the unjust as well as of the just (Act_24:15). We know, moreover, that none can be saved except by faith, which is God’s own express condition. For salvation is a moral, not a mechanical process, and requires the free assent of our will. Now Paul everywhere presents faith as the subjective condition of justification; and in Rom_5:17 he expressly says, that those who receive (λαμβάνοντες) the abundance of the grace and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by the one, Jesus Christ. He contrasts the whole generation of Adam and the whole generation of Christ, and, as the one die in consequence of their participation in Adam’s sin, so the other shall be made alive by virtue and on condition of their union with Christ’s righteousness. In Gal_3:22 he states the case beyond the possibility of mistake: ”The Scripture hath concluded all (τὰ πάντα) under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe (τοῖς πιστεύουσιν).”—Universalism must assume a second probation after death even for those who lived in Christian lands, with every opportunity of saving their soul. But such an assumption is contrary to Gal_6:7-8, and the whole practical tenor of the Bible, and is in itself untenable and illusive. A new trial, instead of improving, would greatly lessen the chance of building up a good character. For as it is impossible, without a new creation, to return to the mother’s womb and live the old life over again, the second trial would have to commence where the first left off—that is, with a dismal outfit of neglected opportunities, broken vows, sad reminiscences, abused faculties, bad habits, and in the corrupting company of moral bankrupts, with every prospect of a worse failure and a more certain ruin. God wisely and mercifully gave to men but one state of probation, and those who improved it best, would shrink most from running the risk of a second.—P. S.]

Third Paragraph (Rom_5:20-21)

How the law is designed to bring about directly this process of the development of sin, in order also to bring about indirectly the revelation of grace.

Rom_5:20. But the law. [Νόμος δέ, κ.τ.λ. The Mosaic law is meant, though the article is wanting, as is often the case where there can be no mistake.—P. S.] The Apostle now cannot avoid to state the relation of the law or of Moses to this antithesis—Adam and Christ—especially since he had already intimated this relation in Rom_5:13. Grotius thought the following discussion induced by an objection. But chaps. vi. and vii. show that Paul could not avoid to answer this question.—Came in between [zwischenein, parenthetically, as it were] παρεισῆλθεν. Not besides, thereto (Meyer);98 nor subintravit (Vulg.);99 nor incidentally, subordinately (nebensächlich, Rothe,100 Tholuck [Reiche, Philippi], and others [contrary to the pedagogic mission of the law; Rom_3:20; Gal_4:24]). The coming to, in addition to, lies in the παρά; the coming into, in the εἰς. Therefore, properly to enter between, to come between [Adam and Christ] (Theodoret, Calvin, Luther [Estius,101 Grotius, Usteri, Ewald], &c.), which Meyer opposes without warrant. The reference to the position of Moses between Adam and Christ may, indeed, be only an intimation; but to say that sin merely supervened in addition to sin (Beza, De Wette, &c.), is not satisfactory, because the question in the foregoing is not concerning sin alone, but the antithesis of sin and grace. Tholuck concludes incorrectly from this consideration, that the law is characterized as an incidental factor. The law incidental? (Chrysostom [Theophylact, Cornelius a Lapide, without any foundation], have understood παρά as denoting obiter, ad tempus). The Apostle has evidently the idea of an ethico-chemical process. The law had to enter into the process of the development of sin, in order to force it to a crisis. [Olshausen: ”Paul regards the law as a salutary medicine, which forces the disease that rages in the inward, nobler parts, to the surface.” So also De Wette and Rothe.—P. S.]

That the fall might multiply [ἵνα πλεονάσῃ τὸ παράπτωμα; Lange: damit der Sündenfall völliger werde (erscheine); Alford: in order that the trespass might multiply. The Apostle uses παράπτωμα here (not παραπτώματα, nor ἁμαρτία), because the law does not aim to multiply sin as such, but to make it appear and to reveal it to the conscience as a παράπτωμα—i.e., a transgression of the positive will of God; comp. Rom_3:20; Rom_4:15; Rom_7:7; and Rothe, p. 167.—P. S.]. The boldness of this thought has troubled the commentators. It is indeed not satisfactory to alleviate it by supposing that the law is intended merely to enhance the knowledge of sin (Grotius, Baur, and others); but this is one important element of its mission (see chap. vii.), and must not be rejected, with Meyer, as false. To explain ἵνα of the consequence or result (merely ἐκβατικῶς, with Chrysostom [οὐκ αἰτιολογίας, ἀλλ̓ ἐκβάσεως; Estius: “non finalem causam denotat, sed eventum.”—P. S.], Koppe, Reiche [Stuart, Barnes]), is likewise unsatisfactory; yet the Apostle has certainly inferred from the result the design and intention in the ἵνα.102 Gal_3:19 does not serve as an elucidation of this passage, as Meyer would have it; and Rom_7:14 proves that, by the law, the knowledge of sin comes; while 1Ti_1:9 shows that the law constitutes a weapon against the ungodly. Reiche has called the telic construction blasphemous; in reply to which, comp. Meyer [p. 224]. He properly remarks, that sin had to reach its culminating point, where it will be outdone by grace. Only this culminating point should not be merely objective, but subjective also, in accordance with the sentence quoted from Augustine, on Psalms 102.: “Non crudeliter hoc fecit Deus, sed consilio medicinœ; … augetur morbus, crescit malitia, quœritur medicus et totum sanatur.” It is a fact both that the misunderstood law, according to God’s decree, induced the crucifixion of Christ—the climax of the world’s guilt—and that the same law, well understood, prepared the way for the saving faith of the New Testament. For this reason there is truth in Rothe’s explanation: All sin should ever stand out more complete under the form of the παράπτωμα. Tholuck also takes ground with Olshausen, De Wette, and Neander, in favor of the telic rendering. Reasons: 1. Nitimur in vetitum; 2. Thomas: ”When the passions dare not manifest themselves, they become more intense.” Does this apply here? Sin, even in the form of anti-Christianity, undoubtedly becomes, more intense in opposition to the gospel, but still this is mostly ecbatic consequence; 3. Luther: The accusing and condemning law awakens enmity to God. For this reason, Judaism, like all fanaticism, is angry at God. It is a prime consideration that here the law is specifically understood as the law of the letter, as designed to finish, both objectively and subjectively, the sinful process of the old world. Therefore the second ἵνα in Rom_5:21, as Tholuck well remarks, takes the sting from the first. [In other words, the first ἵνα indicates the mediate, the second ἵνα the ultimate end and purpose.—P. S.] Philippi understands by παράπτωμα merely the παράπτ. of Adam inhering in sinners. But it denotes here rather the completion of the fall of humanity itself.

But where sin multiplied [οὗ δέ ἐπλεόνασεν ἡ ἁμαρτία]. Where it was completed, came to full revelation. It is very strange that Rothe regards the head of the whole deduction from οὗ δὲ to κάρις as parenthetical. ()ὗ is not temporal (Grotius [De Wette, Fritzsche, Stölting]), but spacial (Meyer, Tholuck)—perhaps both; time being considered as an expansion—[Grace exceedingly abounded (not, much more, E. V.), ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν ἡ χάρις]. ὑπερεπερισσεύειν [supra modum redundavit] is superlative [not comparative; comp. ὑπερπλεονάζω, ὑπερνικάω, ὑπερυψόῳ, ὑπερλίαν]; (2Co_7:4 [the same verb]; 1Ti_1:14; Mar_7:37; 2Th_1:3).

Rom_5:21. That, as sin reigned in [not unto, E. V.; Lange, mittelst, by means of] death [ἵνα, ὧσπερ ἐβασίλευσεν ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ. The second ἵν indicates the more remote and ultimate purpose of the coming in of the law, as the first ἵνα, Rom_5:20, denotes its nearer and mediate aim and effect; the increase of sin served merely as a means for the triumphant and eternal reign of grace. Hodge: ”The design of God in permitting sin, and in allowing it to abound, was to bring good out of evil; to make it the occasion of the most wonderful display of His glory and grace, so that the benefits of redemption should infinitely transcend the evils of the apostasy.”—P. S.] As sin wrought death, so again did death work sin (see Heb_2:14). But here the priority in the βασιλεία is ascribed to sin. It reigned [aor., the historic past]. It reigns no more. ἐν before θασνάτῳ is not a substitute for εἰς (Beza, and others). Meyer opposes also the explanation: by death (Tholuck, Philippi). Death denotes the sphere of the dominion of sin. But death is also the medium of the reign of sin; see the antithesis, διὰ δικαιοσύνης.

So also grace may reign, &c. [οὕτως καὶἡ χάρις βασιλεύση, κ.τ.λ.] The law would thus bring to pass the dominion of grace; and it now reigns in reality. The material medium is righteousness unto (leading to) life eternal; the personal medium is Jesus Christ our Lord; and both are identical. The δικ., and not the ζωή, is named as the medium of the dominion of grace, because the ζωή αἰώνιος is the goal. The righteousness of faith and the righteousness of life are comprised here in the idea of the δικ. (βασιλεύση is aorist, not future. Meyer against Reiche, see Col_3:4.)

[The last word in this section is, Jesus Christ our Lord, the one glorious solution of the Adamic fall and the dark problem of sin. Adam disappears, and Christ alone remains master of the field of battle, having slain the tyrants, Sin and Death. Forbes concludes his notes on Rom_5:12-21 with the exclamation (p. 257): “Who can rise from the study and contemplation of this wondrous passage, full of such profound views and pregnant meanings, with all its variously complicated yet beautifully discriminated relations and interlacements of members and thoughts, without an overpowering admiration and irresistible conviction of the superhuman wisdom that must have dictated its minutest details!”—P. S.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

[Literature on the Doctrinal Questions involved in Rom_5:12-21.—The authoritative Creed statements on anthropology and hamartiology from the Synod of Orange, A. D. 529 (comp. my Church Hist., vol. 3. pp. 866 ff.) to the Westminster Assembly, 1643. To these may be added two quasi-creeds of sectional and temporary authority, drawn up in the interest of immediate imputationism, viz., the decree of the French Reformed Synod of Charenton, 1645 (“Decretum Synodi nationalis Ecclesiarum Reformatarum Galliæ A. D. 1645 de imputatione primi peccati omnibus Adami posteris, cum ecclesiarum et doctorum protestantium consensu, ex scriptis eorum ab Andrea Riveto collecto,” in the Opera Theol. of A. Rivet, Roterod. 1660, tom. 3. pp. 798–827); and the Formula consensus Helvetica, 1675 (in Niemeyer’s Collectio Confess. Reform., pp. 720–739). Comp., in part, Winer’s Comparative Symbolik, pp. 53 ff., where the principal passages from the symbolical books are collected.—The numerous works of Augustine against Pelagius and Julian of Eclanum. Anselm, De conceptu virginali et orig. peccato. Rivet, Theses theologicæ de peccato originis (Opera, tom. 3. pp. 804 sqq.) President Edwards, On Original Sin (Works, vol. 2:303–583.) Jul. Müller, The Christian Doctrine of Sin (the most exhaustive work on the subject, now accessible also to the English reader in an intelligible translation, from the 5th German edition, by Rev. W. Urwick, Edinb., 1868). Ebrard, Christl. Dogmatik (1851), 1. pp. 511 ff.; Kirchen- und Dogmen-Geschichte (1866), 2:504 ff., 538 ff. Heppe, Dogmatik der evang. reform. Kinche aus den Quellen (1861), pp. 204 ff. Chs. Hodge (Princeton). Theol. Essays, New York, 1846, Nos. 6.–8., on Imputation, pp. 128 ff.; in Princeton Rev. for April, 1860, pp. 335 ff., and revised edition of Romans (1864), pp. 279–284. Archibald Alex. Hodge (Alleghany), Outlines of Theology, New York, 1860, chap. xvi., pp. 230–246. R. W. Landis, several articles in the Danville Review, from Sept. 1861 to Dec. 1862. Shedd, History of Christian Doctrine (1863), 2:152 ff. (and essay on Original Sin, in his ”Discourses and Essays,” pp. 218–271). Sam. J. Baird, The First Adam and the Second. The Elohim Revealed in the Creation and Redemption of Man, Philad., 1860, pp. 11–50, 305 ff., 410 ff., 474 ff. G. P. Fisher, The Augustinian and the Federal Theories of Original Sin compared, in the New Englander for 1868, pp. 468 ff.—P. S.]

1. On the internal connection of the section, as well as its organic relations to what precedes and follows, compare the inscription and the introductory foundation of the Exeg. Notes.

[2. Historical Statements on the different Theories of Original Sin and Imputation.—The Apostle clearly teaches, and our religious experience daily confirms, the fact of the universal dominion of sin and death over the human race, which dominion goes back in unbroken line to our first parents; as, on the other hand, the power and principle of righteousness and life go back to Jesus Christ, the second Adam. Sin existed before Christianity, as disease existed before the science and art of healing; and, however explained, the stubborn, terrible fact remains. It is all-important, as we stated in the introductory remarks, to distinguish clearly between the fact itself and the different modes of explanation, or between the primitive truths of the Bible and the after-thoughts of human philosophy and theology. Here lies the reason why Christian men, holding very divergent views on the why and wherefore, or the rationale of Scripture truths, may yet in their inmost heart and religious experience be agreed. The commentators have so far dwelt mainly on the negative clause of Paul’s parallelism, viz., the propagation of sin and death from Adam; but he lays the chief stress upon the positive clause, the antitype, and the life-union of the justified believer with Christ, which prepares the way for chap. vi.

The following are the principal theories on this subject:

(1) The pantheistic and necessitarian theory regards sin as an essential attribute (a limitation) of the finite, and a necessary stage in the development of character; it consequently destroys the radical antagonism between good and evil, and places itself outside of the Christian system. Where there is no real sin, there is no room for redemption.

(2) The Pelagian heresy denies original sin, and resolves the fall of Adam into an isolated and comparatively trivial childish act of disobedience, which indeed set a bad example, but left his character and moral faculties essentially unimpaired, so that every child is born into the world as innocent and perfect, though as fallible, as Adam was created. It offers no explanation of the undeniable fact of the universal dominion of sin, which embraces every human being with the one solitary exception of Jesus of Nazareth. It rests on an atomistic anthropology and hamartiology, and is as anti-scriptural as the opposite extreme of pantheism. Socinianism, Unitarianism, and Rationalism likewise deny original sin and guilt in the proper sense of the term.

(3) The assumption of a pre-Adamic fall of all men, either in time—i.e., in a state of individual preëxistence of the soul prior to its connection with the body (as Origen held it), or timeless and transcendental (so Dr. Jul. Müller: ein ausserzeitlicher Urzustand und Urfall). This is a mere hypothesis, without support in human consciousness, and inconsistent with the plain sense of Rom_5:12, which, in harmony with Genesis 3., derives sin from the one historical Adam.

(4) The Augustinian or realistic theory of a real though impersonal and unconscious participation of the whole human race in the fall of Adam, as their natural head, who by his individual transgression vitiated the generic human nature, and transmitted it in this corrupt and guilty state to his descendants by physical generation. As an individual act, Adam’s sin and guilt was his own exclusively, and is not transferable to any other individual; but as the act of mankind in their collective, undistributed, and unindividualized form of existence, it was, virtually or potentially, the act of all who were germinally or seminally contained in their first parent, as Levi was in the loins of Abraham (Heb_7:9-10). Persona corrumpit naturam, natura corrumpit personam. In other words: Adam’s individual transgression resulted in a sinful nature; while, in the case of his descendants, the sinful nature or depraved will results in individual transgressions. See the passages from Augustine quoted on p. 178, third foot-note. His view rests on his deep religious experience and his interpretation of Romans 5., but it presupposes, as a necessary prerequisite, the original organic unity of the human race, a distinction between person and nature (which must be made also in the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation), and may be philosophically supported by the Platonico-Aristotelian realism concerning the doctrine of the general conceptions, as the original types of individual things.

This realistic view of the fall of the race in Adam became the orthodox doctrine of the Latin Church. It was defended by the great schoolmen, Anselm, Peter the Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, &c. (yet with a material modification of Augustine’s conception of original sin and guilt, which scholastic theology made to consist only in the loss of original righteousness; viewing it more as a negative state of privation than as positive corruption). It was even more earnestly and vigorously maintained by the Reformers, both Lutheran and Calvinistic (who advocated afresh the Augustinian view of hereditary sin and guilt in all its severity). The various writings of Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and the symbolical books of the sixteenth century, abound with quotations and reminiscences from Augustine on the doctrines of Sin and Grace.

But within the Augustinian system different views of imputation were developed, especially in the Reformed Church:

(a.) Imputation, immediate and mediate,103 conjoined and inseparable. This makes the guilt of Adam’s first sin imputed, and the guilt of inherent depravity inseparable and conditional to one another. Both kinds of imputation are held in fact; but the distinction was not made before the seventeenth century. Participation is assumed as the ground of imputation. Native corruption is itself sin, and likewise punishment for guilt incurred in Adam’s sin. Hereditary guilt coëxists with hereditary sin; man is condemned, both on account of the act of disobedience which he committed in the loins of Adam, and for hereditary depravity.

Here we must distinguish again a minor difference relating to the order of the two kinds of imputation:

(aa.) Some put immediate imputation before mediate in the order of things. So Augustine and his strict followers in the Catholic Church, and the Calvinists of the Montauban school, David Pareus, Andrew Rivet,104 the elder Turretin,105 and Heidegger;106—with this difference, that the Dutch and French Calvinists of the seventeenth century combined, with the Augustinian theory of participation, the federal theory of representation (see below, No. 5); and, while still holding to both kinds of imputation, they laid the chief stress upon immediate imputation—thus preparing the way for exclusive immediate imputationism.

(bb.) Others give mediate imputation, or the imputation of inherent depravity, the logical priority, so that Adam’s sin is imputed to us only because it becomes our own by propagation (to which some add, by actual transgression). Here belong, in all probability, Anselm among the schoolmen,107 Calvin,108 and Bullinger among the reformers;109 and, more clearly and expressly, Stapfer and President Edwards,110 who are often inaccurately quoted as mediate imputationists; also the orthodox Lutherans of the seventeenth century.111 It is certain that we have all to bear the consequences of Adam’s sin, and this sin is therefore the cause of our native corruption; but it is not our personal guilt independently of this corruption, and our assent to it.

(b.) Mediate or consequent imputation makes inherent depravity derived from Adam, and this alone, the ground of condemnation. “Vitiositas prœcedit imputationem.” So the Reformed school of Saumur, in France, especially Joshua Placæus (La Place), who denied that the imputation of Adam’s sin was prior to, and independent of, inherent depravity, but who claimed to be in full harmony with the teaching of Calvin on this subject. This view, “so far as it restricts the nature of original sin to the mere hereditary corruption of Adam’s posterity, excluding the imputation of the first sin by which he fell,” was condemned by the French Reformed Synod at Charenton, near Paris, in 1645, yet without mentioning the name of Placæus, who contended that he was not touched by this decree, since he admitted a mediate imputation of Adam’s sin, consequent and dependent on corruption.

(c.) Immediate or antecedent imputation as opposed to mediate imputation, makes, on purely legal grounds, the sin of Adam, as the sin of the federal head of the race, the only and exclusive ground of condemnation independently of, and prior to, native depravity and personal transgression; so that hereditary guilt precedes hereditary sin, and not viceversâ. This exclusive immediate imputationism is held by Calvinists of the supralapsarian and federal school, and gives up the Augustinian ground of participation. See below, No. (5) (b). In antagonism to this view, the New School theology of New England has departed to the opposite extreme of rejecting imputation under any form. (See No. 6.)

(5) The federal theory of a vicarious representation of mankind by Adam, in virtue of a covenant made with him. It arose in Holland in the seventeenth century, simultaneously with the development of representative federal government, and gained advocates among Calvinistic or Presbyterian divines in France, England, Scotland, and the United States. It supposes a (one-sided, μονόπλευρον) contract or covenant of the sovereign Creator with the first man, called the covenant of works (fœdus operum, fœdus naturœ), as distinct from the covenant of grace (fœdus gratiœ), to the effect that Adam should stand a moral probation on behalf of all his descendants, so that his act of obedience or disobedience, with all its consequences, should be judicially imputed to them, or accounted theirs in law. Adam’s position is compared to the relation of a representative to his constituents, or rather of a guardian to his wards, since in this case the wards were not consulted, and did not even exist at the time of his appointment. The transaction must be resolved at last into the sovereign pleasure of God.112

Here again we must distinguish two schools:

(a.) The Augustino-federal school is a combination, and superadds the federal scheme on the realistic basis of participation, so that imputation is made to rest on moral as well as legal grounds. This was the view of the founders and chief advocates of the federal theory, Cocceius (originally John Koch, or Cook, born at Bremen, 1603, died as professor at Leyden, 1669), Burmann, Witsius, and is taught by the Westminster standards,113 and even in the Consensus Helveticus, although in this the Augustinian idea of participation is almost absorbed by the idea of the covenant.114

(b.) The purely federal school (from nominalistic premises, according to which the general conceptions are mere names, not things, subjective abstractions, not objective realities) denies the Adamic unity of the race in the realistic sense, consequently also all participation of Adam’s descendants in the act of the primal apostasy; yet it holds that, by virtue of his federal headship on the ground of a sovereign arrangement, his sin and guilt are justly, directly, and immediately imputed to them. The imputation of Adam’s sin, and in the same way also the imputation of Christ’s righteousness or justification, is thus made a purely forensic process, which affects our legal relation, but by no means our moral character.

This forensic theory of imputation, which excludes participation in Adam’s sin, dates from the time of Turretin, in the latter part of the seventeenth century,115 and is upheld by a number of Calvinistic divines in England and America, but has no advocate of note, as far as I know, among modern Continental divines.116

Legal representation seemed to offer an easier vindication of Divine justice than the Augustinian view.117 It involves, undoubtedly, an element of truth, but, if detached from the idea of moral participation, it resolves itself into a mere legal fiction, and greatly enhances the difficulty of the problem by removing the best reason for imputation. For how can an infinitely just and holy God punish countless millions of human beings simply and solely for the sin of another, in which they had no part whatever? The passage, Eze_18:1-4, where God rebukes the Israelites for using the proverb of the sour grapes, which Julian of Eclanum and his sympathizers have quoted ad nauseam against the Augustinian theory, returns here with double force. The analogy of forensic justification is not to the point, for the righteousness of Christ is not imputed to the impenitent sinner, but only on the subjective condition of faith, by which Christ is apprehended and made our own. Justification presupposes regeneration, or an action of the Holy Spirit, by which He creates repentance of our sins and trust in Jesus Christ, and makes us one with Him. By ”being in Christ” is meant, not merely a nominal, putative, or constructive relation, but a real, substantial union; so also our ”being in Adam,” by which the other relation is illustrated, is real and vital. This analogy, therefore, leads to the opposite conclusion, that moral participation, either potential or personal, or both, must be the ground of the imputation of Adam’s sin.

(6) The New School Calvinists of New England (since the days of the younger Edwards), in radical opposition to Princeton, reject imputation altogether; but maintain that the sinfulness of the descendants of Adam results with infallible certainty (though not with necessity) from his transgression; the one class holding to hereditary depravity, prior to sinful choice, the other class teaching (with Dr. N. W. Taylor, of New Haven) that the first moral choice of all is universally sinful, yet with the power of contrary choice. This is a peculiar modification of the Pelagian conception of liberum arbitrium, but differs from it in making a nice distinction between natural ability and moral inability.118

(7) The semi-Pelagian, and the cognate Arminian theories (of which the former, since the fifth century, has gained large influence in the Latin, the latter, since the seventeenth century, in a considerable portion of the Reformed Churches, and was adopted by the Wesleyan Methodists), though by no means explicit and uniform on this point, agree in that they admit the Adamic unity, and the disastrous effects of the primal apostasy upon the whole posterity of Adam, but regard the native or hereditary corruption not properly as sin and guilt exposing us to just punishment, but only as an evil, an infirmity, malady, and misfortune, for which the most benevolent God provided a sufficient remedy for all. Zwingli taught a similar view, and distinguished original sin as a moral defect or disease (he called it, in the Swiss dialect, Bresten) from sin proper. Semi-Pelagianism holds a medium position between Pelagianism and Augustinianism; Arminianism wavers between semi-Pelagianism and Calvinism; both may, according to the elastic nature of compromises, lean now more to the one, now to the other extreme; employing at times the Augustinian phraseology, but putting, after all, a different interpretation upon it.

The stationary anthropology and hamartiology of the Greek Church occupies a similar position, but it never passed through the mill of Western controversies, and remains to this day theologically incomplete.

Most evangelical divines of the present day are divided between the Augustinian or realistic, the federal or forensic, and the Arminian theories, or they look for a still more satisfactory solution of the difficult problem by a future Augustine, who may be able to advance, from a deeper study of the Scriptures, the knowledge of the Church, and reconcile what now seem to be irreconcilable contradictions. It should be remembered that the main difficulty lies in the fact itself—the undeniable, stubborn, terrible fact—of the universal dominion of sin and death over the entire race, infants as well as full-grown sinners. No system of philosophy has ever given a more satisfactory explanation than the great divines of the Church. Outside of the Christian redemption, the fall, with its moral desolation and ruin, remains an impenetrable mystery. But immediately after the fall appears, in the promise of the serpent-bruiser, the second Adam, and throws a bright ray of hope into the gloom of despair. In the fulness of the time, according to God’s own counsel, He appeared in our nature, to repair the loss, and to replace the temporary reign of sin by the everlasting reign of superabounding grace, which never could have been revealed in all its power without the fall.119 The person and work of the second Adam are the one glorious solution of the problem of the first, and the triumphant vindication of Divine justice and mercy. This is the main point for all practical purposes, and in this, at least, all true Christians are agreed.—P. S.]

3. [In Lange, No. 2.] Criticism of the Augustinian doctrine of Sin and Grace. Augustine, in his controversy with Pelagius, has undoubtedly expressed and defended the Church’s sense of religious truth, and thereby become a rich source of blessing to Western Christendom. It cannot be denied, however, that the theologico-dogmatical expression of his sense of truth—especially his doctrine of original sin—far transcends the Scriptural bounds, and has done harm by its erroneous features. Augustine has not only supported, but also obstructed the Reformation. His explanation of ἐφ̓ ῷ in Rom_5:12, which has obscured the exegesis of this passage even in Meyer (not to speak of Tholuck and Philippi), is of itself a sufficient testimony of this. See the Exeg. Notes. It sets aside the formal freedom which remains even within the material bondage and slavery, and which, under the power of sin, becomes a λαμβάνειν of death by means of unbelief, but, under the exercise of the gratia prœveniens, becomes a λαμβάνειν of the marks of salvation by means of faith. It thus destroys or weakens the ethical signification of the λαμβάνειν itself [comp. Rom_5:11; Rom_5:17, and Notes] in the interest of the Augustinian dogmatics. The biblical doctrine of original sin is distinguished from the Augustinian mainly in the following respects:

(a.) The Bible teaches an ethico-physical fall of the human race from Adam, as a fall in principle; Augustine, a physico-ethical fall of the human race in Adam, as a completed fact.120 Therefore Augustine ignores the distinction between the inheritance of the propensity and curse of sin, or of death—which inheritance oppresses all who are Adamically begotten—and the ethical appropriation of the corruption.

(b.) With Augustine, the ideal and potential condition of condemnation—that is, the condemnableness of men, apart from redemption—coincides with a judicially completed condition of condemnation; therefore, with him, redemption is properly a new creation.

(c.) With Augustine, the exercise of grace, of the Logos, and of the Spirit of God, is theocratically and ecclesiastically bound and limited; his Christ is, in substance, not greater than the extent (rayon) of the Church; therefore he does not perceive the gradations of the hereditary blessing and of the hereditary curse within the general corruption of mankind, and still less the significance of the antithesis in Rom_2:14-15, within the whole world. His acceptation of mere gradations of evil downwardly, is in contradiction with his own system.

(d.) A consequence of this extreme view of original sin is his extreme view of the government of grace. He had in mind, probably, the great religious truth of the ethical irresistibility of all-conquering love; but in his theological system he gave it a fatalistic character in opposition to formal freedom.

(e.) Because, with him, the ideal and potential condemnation of all is aggravated into an actual condition of condemnation, he has also—in consequence of the fact that only a part of humanity within the ecclesiastical pale of this world believe and are saved—limited the extent of the effects of the ideal and potential δικαίωμα, or righteous act of Christ; while Paul teaches that the δικαίωμα has come εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς upon all men.

[There is considerable force in these objections to the Augustinian system which apply à fortiori to Calvinism. But they cannot diminish the great merits of the African father, who searched the problem of sin more profoundly than any divine before or after him. He was right in teaching the (virtual or potential) fall of the whole race in Adam, and the sinfulness of our nature, or depraved will, as the source of all sinful volitions, words, and acts. But he did not take into sufficient account that there is a Divine πάρεσις and ἀνοκή, which hold the arm of God’s ὀργή, and suspend the full and final execution of the well-deserved judgment, until men make the fall of Adam their personal, individual act, and reject the offer of redemption (comp. the remarks on Rom_3:24-25, p. 134). Hence Augustine consigns even all unbaptized children to condemnation, although in the mildest form (De pecc. orig., c. Rom 36: “Infans perditione punitur, quia pertinet ad massam perditionis.” Enchir., c. Rom 93: “Mitissima sane omnium pœna erit eorum, qui prœter peccatum quod originale traxerunt, nullum insuper addiderunt.”) In this respect even the strictest Calvinistic divines of our age decidedly dissent from him, and are disposed to hold that all children who die in infancy, whether baptized or not, will be saved by the infinite mercy of God. This charitable belief and hope has a strong support in the universal sufficiency of the atonement, and especially in the words of our Saviour concerning little children, spoken without qualification or limitation (Mat_19:14; Mar_10:14). There can be no salvation without Christ, even for children; but God is not bound to the use of His own appointed means, by which the benefits of Christ are ordinarily applied to men.—P. S.]

4. On the question why Eve is not the one human being by whom sin came into the world (Pelagius and Ambrosiaster have really held that Eve is meant),121 compare, in addition to the Exeg. Notes, Tholuck, p. 216.

5. The Apostle does not speak here of the first origin of sin, or of the fall of Satan, as Christ does, Joh_8:44. Although the doctrine of the devil is by no means wanting in his writings, it does not stand out very prominently. He here speaks merely of the entrance of sin into our human world from an unknown world beyond this, where it is assumed that it already existed in personified form. Now, this human world is neither the whole universe, nor merely human nature, but the human race in connection with the earth and the cosmic nature as far as it is organically connected with man (see 2Pe_3:10, and other passages). The personification of sin and of death exhibits both as (pseudo-formative) principles which have pervaded the organism of the human world, but under the ethical conditions under which they can alone become thoroughly dominant. The individual man, in his organic nature, is connected with humanity, but as an individual intellectual being he has an existence in himself. Pelagius denied the former, while Augustine has largely ignored the latter. The organic connection implies the propagation of the sinful propensity and guilt, according to Joh_3:6, as well as according to chaps. 6–8 of this Epistle. In the broader sense, Christ also stood in the organic connection of humanity as the Son of Man, but only in the historical sense. Therefore He bore the burden of humanity for its reconciliation.

6. Paul calls the sin of Adam παράβασις, as the transgression of the Divine commandment standing clearly before him; παράπτωμα, as the sin which resulted in a fall; ἁμάρτημα, as a starting-point of many sins; παρακοή, as disobedience to the known will of God. These designations and statements set aside such theories on the origin of sin as that of J. Müller (that there was a previous or timeless fall of the human souls), and that of R. Rothe (that sin was the original, abnormal condition of humanity proceeding from their material constitution).

7. The relation of sin to death. Sin is death, says John (1Jn_3:14-15); sin bringeth forth death, says James (Rom_1:15); sin has, as its wages or punishment, death as a consequence, says Paul (Rom_6:23). This is all the same relation, but from different points of view. The physical dying of the creature in itself is not thereby meant, but the perishableness of the creature is increased by ethical or spiritual death (Romans 8.); and the original transformation destined for man (2Co_5:1 ff.) has, by sin, become fearful death, in connection with corruption and the gloom of Sheol. Therefore Death itself is conquered by the death of Christ, because its sting is taken from it (1Co_15:51; 1Co_15:56). The ethical character of death and the salvation of the redeemed from death are brought to light not only in the resurrection, but also in the revelation of the original transformation at the end of the world (1Co_15:51); while the ungodly, in spite of the general resurrection, are subject to the second death (Rev_2:11; Rev_20:6, &c.).

8. In the period between Adam and Moses, death appeared to be merely the order of nature, because the paradisaical law had disappeared from knowledge by the fall, and the Mosaic law had not yet appeared. Nevertheless, sin was also at that time the causality of death, but not as transgression in the light of legal knowledge. The concealed sin against the law dwelling in all man (Rom_2:14-15) was, indeed, attested by the manifest, tyrannical, and terrible dominion of death. Sin, says Paul, is not imputed where there is no law—that is, not fully settled until the law. But since it is with the gospel that the full significance of the law becomes clear, it follows that condemnation can only come with final hardening of the heart against the gospel.

9. Adam and Christ appear here as principles of the old and new humanity, of the first and second æon, so far as their posterity is determined by their life. Yet it is not Adam in himself who is the principle of sin and death, but Adam in his deed—his disobedience. From the nature of sin, the disobedience (παρακοή) cannot coincide in him with personality. In Christ, on the contrary, personality and the obedience (ὑπακοή) are one. In reference to personal issue, Adam is the natural ancestor of the whole human race. Christ is the spiritual founder of the whole human race. Both constitute together a harmonious antithesis in historical consequence (1Co_15:45). But they represent the principal antithesis in so far as sin and death proceeded from one (through him), and righteousness and life from the other. The Apostle sets forth these antitheses in a series of parallels, in which, first, their homogeneousness comes into consideration (the through one, the organic development), and second, the dissimilarity (the much more on Christ’s part); then the removal of sin by grace, and the triumph of the new principle (so far as by means of the law it makes sin itself serviceable to its glory). On the construction of these antitheses, compare the general groundwork of the Exeg. Notes.

10. While doctrinal theology has ascribed to the law a threefold use or purpose (bar or bridle, mirror, rule—Zügel, Spiegel, Regel), the Apostle seems here to add a usus quartus, or rather primus, in so far as he says that the law must have brought sin to full manifestation and development. This thought is not altogether included in the use of the mirror (see the Exeg. Notes), but it is most intimately connected with it. As the knowledge of sin must come by the law, so also the revelation, the bringing of sin to light, must come by the law. The law has not produced real inward sin, but, like a chemical element, it has introduced a fermenting process into humanity, in which human nature and sinfulness seem to be identical; and by this means the external manifestation of sin is finished, in order to render possible its distinction and separation from human nature itself. The holiness of this effect is properly understood when we distinguish properly between the inward sin and its outward realization, its phase, in which the judgment has already commenced. Hence it is clear that the use of the law is the effecting of the knowledge of sin. The manifestation of sin for bringing to pass the knowledge of sin, comes by the law. The law, as letter, has completed the development of sin; the law, as the word of the Spirit, has brought the perfect knowledge of sin.

11. Although Paul, in this section, has mostly contrasted the many on the one side with the many on the other—because this expression makes more apparent the grandeur of the fundamental developments from the one—he yet declares definitely, in Rom_5:18, that the δικαίωμα of the one Christ is available for all men, with the tendency to become for them the δικαίωσις ζωῆς.

12. The Apostle makes prominent in many ways the great preponderance of the antitheses of grace over the theses of sin. The author of sin becomes to him a nameless being, who is opposed by God in His grace, and by the man Jesus Christ as the personal gift of grace. Sin itself falls immediately into the κρῖμα, and meets the κατάκριμα. But the work of grace breaks through many offences, as if invited and augmented by them, like a mountain stream from the rocky cliff; and the dominion of death on one side is only a measure of the much more powerful revelation of grace on the other. But the so-called ἀποκατάστασις, as a necessary, natural result of salvation, is no more declared in the πάντες of Rom_5:15, than the expression οἱ πολλοί is designed to abridge the universality of grace. The ethical part of the organized process, the λαμβάνειν on one or the other side, is opposed to such a conclusion. Nevertheless, it is the Apostle’s aim to glorify the unfathomableness, immeasurableness, and illimitableness of the stream of grace, and its absolute and universal triumph in the history of the world.

[“Sin reigns in death, grace reigns unto life.” On this, Dr. Hodge remarks (p. 279): “That the benefits of redemption shall far outweigh the evils of the fall, is here clearly asserted. This we can in a measure comprehend, because, (1) The number of the saved shall doubtless greatly exceed the number of the lost. Since the half of mankind die in infancy, and, according to the Protestant doctrine, are heirs of salvation; and since, in the future state of the Church, the knowledge of the Lord is to cover the earth, we have reason to believe that the lost shall bear to the saved no greater proportion than the inmates of a prison do to the mass of the community. (2) Because the eternal Son of God, by His incarnation and mediation, exalts His people to a far higher state of being than our race, if unfallen, could ever have attained. (3) Because the benefits of redemption are not to be confined to the human race. Christ is to be admired in His saints. It is through the Church that the manifold wisdom of God is to be revealed, throughout all ages, to principalities and powers. The redemption of man is to be the great source of knowledge and blessedness to the intelligent universe.”—I add a fine passage from Dr. Richard Clerke (Sermon on Tit_2:11, quoted by Ford): “Grace will not be confined. For God’s goodness cannot be exhausted. He is dives in omnes, saith the Apostle, rich enough for all (Rom_10:12). It is an excellent attribute, which is given him by St. James, πολυεύσπλαγκνος [in some MSS., but the usual reading in Jam_5:11 is πολύσπλαγκνος.—P. S.] In God’s mercy, there is both εὐ and πολύ: it is both free and rich; both gratiosa et copiosa (Psalms 130.), both bountiful and plentiful: not only περισσεύουσα, bursting forth round about, round about all ages, round about all nations, round about all sorts, but ὑπερπερισσεύουσα (Rom_5:20), surrounding all those rounds, and with surplus and advantage overflowing all. I say, not only πλεονάζονσα, an abounding grace, abounding unto all, to the whole world, but ὑπερπλεονάζουσα (1Ti_1:14), a grace superabounding; that, if there were more worlds, grace would ‘bring salvation’ even unto them all. St. Paul’s own parallel shall end this point (1Ti_2:4). It is God’s will that ‘all men should be saved.’ ”—P. S.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

What follows from the comparison of Adam with Christ? 1. That by the one Adam, sin, death, condemnation, and the dominion of death have come; 2. But by the one Christ, life, righteousness, and the dominion of grace have come upon all men (Rom_5:12-21).—Sin and death passed upon all (Rom_5:12-14).—Sin as the cause of death: 1. Original sin; 2. Sins of commission (Rom_5:12).—They too have sinned who have not committed the same transgression as Adam; comp. Rom_2:12 (Rom_5:14).—All sin is transgression of the law, but not in the same way (Rom_5:14).—Adam is a figure of Him that was to come (Rom_5:14).—Man a figure of the Son of Man (Rom_5:14).—The first and second Adam: 1. Resemblance; 2. Difference (Rom_5:14-19).—The difference between sin and gift. It consists herein: 1. That, through the sin of one, many have died, but that, on the other hand, God’s grace and gift have freely abounded unto many; 2. By one man’s sin many have become condemned, but one gift has abounded from many offences to righteousness; 3. By the sin of the one, death has reigned over many, but by the one Jesus Christ will many still more rejoice in the dominion of life (Rom_5:15-17).—The sole man Jesus Christ; not only (1) one, but also (2) the only one of His character (Rom_5:15).—Yet how different are the fruits of sin and righteousness! 1. The fruit of the former is condemnation; 2. The fruit of the latter is justification of life (Rom_5:18).—As condemnation is come unto all men, so also is justification of life (Rom_5:18).—The universality of Divine grace brought to pass by the righteousness of Christ (Rom_5:18).—The different effects of Adam’s disobedience and Christ’s obedience (Rom_5:19).—For what purpose did the law enter? 1. Not merely to make sin prominent; but, 2. To bring it to a crisis; and Song of Solomon , 3. To prepare for grace by Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom_5:20-21).

Luther: As Adam has corrupted us with foreign sin without our fault, so has Christ saved us with foreign grace without our merit (Rom_5:14).—Notice that he speaks here of original sin, which has come from Adam’s disobedience; therefore every thing is sinful which pertains to us (Rom_5:18).—As Adam’s sin has become our own, so has Christ’s righteousness become our own (Rom_5:19).

Bengel: God’s gift is grace, flowing from the Father upon Him, and through Him to us.

Starke: Believers are, by the spiritual life of the new birth, reigning kings over sin on earth, as they shall also be fellow-kings in the heaven of glory (Rom_5:17).—O universal grace of God, by which all may be saved by Christ! 1Ti_2:4; Act_17:30-31 (Rom_5:18).—A small drop of grace can calm and engulf the raging waves of corruption (Rom_5:20).—Cramer: As no one can deny that he is mortal, so also must no one say that he is not sinful (Rom_5:14).—Nova Bibl. Tüb.: Sin has a mighty kingdom and dominion. Let nobody regard it as small and contemptible! Yet the kingdom of grace is much more mighty. The purpose of the latter is to destroy the former; where the kingdom of grace increases, the kingdom of sin declines. The former brings life, the latter death.

Gerlach: There is this great difference between the effects of the fall and of redemption: the effects of the former consist in a strongly legal judgment, which must ensure condemnation in consequence of a single transgression; but the effects of the latter are a free gift, which made amends not merely for one sin, but for all the repetitions of Adam’s transgression that have arisen from that first one; and it has made amends so completely, that it has really effected in fallen men the righteousness required by the law (Rom_5:16).—So powerfully does grace operate on those who have received its fulness, that they, by grace, become rulers in life through Jesus Christ (Rom_5:17).

Lisco: Mankind is united in Adam and Christ; therefore the sin of Adam became the sin of all, and Christ’s offering became the propitiation for all. As every leaf of the tree suffers by disease of the root, so does every one recover by its restoration; thus it is with mankind in Adam and Christ (Rom_5:12-21).—Death is the great evil that was begotten by sin (Rom_5:12).—As Adam’s sin has become ours, so has Christ’s righteousness become ours (Rom_5:19).

Rieger: This little passage is as the pillar of fire in the wilderness; dark and threatening toward the Egyptians and impenitent, but bright and clear toward the Israelites. This passage lightens and thunders against hard sinners, who treat every thing lightly; but it shines with the lovely splendor of grace upon penitent and anxious souls (Rom_5:20).

Heubner: The dominion of sin in the world is not God’s work, but man’s guilt.—The universality of corruption should not comfort, but humiliate us: 1. We should each be ashamed before all the rest; 2. We should be ashamed before the inhabitants of other worlds, who perhaps do not know any thing about sin; 3. We should so much the more bear in mind, that, amid the universal sinfulness, we shall not be the only pure ones; 4. We must therefore work out our salvation the more earnestly by prayer, and faith in Christ (Rom_5:12).—Adam is the natural, Christ is the spiritual ancestor; the former is the transgressor of the Divine commandment, the latter the fulfiller of the whole Divine law; the former is the cause of death and human corruption, the latter the author of life, redemption, and holiness (Rom_5:14).—The real ground why the operation of Divine grace is as universal as the sinful corruption from Adam, is this: that grace knows no other limits than those which man himself sets by unbelief (Rom_5:17).—The more man is pervaded by the knowledge of his sin, the richer will be his reception of grace (Luk_7:47).

Besser: By one upon all (Rom_5:12-21).—The saving counsel of God has always been one and the same to all men, not only to the children of Abraham, but to all the sons of Adam (Rom_5:12).—Death, having once stepped its foot into the world, has forced its way to all men (Rom_5:12).—Sin has become a natural power over persons, which cannot be dislodged by the blows of any club; but grace—which does not enter with compulsory power, but with the evangelical drawing of the word of God—is so powerful that it breaks the power of nature (Rom_5:12).—Death reigned. Well for us that this is said as of a ruler who is dead (Rom_5:17).—The new decree, “You shall live,” which is warranted by the empty grave of Jesus Christ, is higher and stronger than the old decree, ”You must die,” which is confirmed by millions of graves (Rom_5:17).—The Apostle once more recapitulates the abundance of doctrine which he has demonstrated all along from Rom_5:12 : Sin, death, grace, righteousness, life. These five stand thus: grace rises highest in the middle; the two conquering giants, Sin and Death, at the left; the double prize of victory, Righteousness and Life, at the right; and over the buried name of Adam the glory of the name of Jesus blooms (Rom_5:21).

Schleiermacher, on Rom_5:19 : The effects of the death of the Redeemer, so far as it was a work of His obedience.—Deichert: Has the Christ who died for us become the Christ within us?—How much more blessed to live under grace than under the law!

Lange: Adam and Christ in the internal and historical life of mankind.—As all men are comprehended in the fall of Adam, so, and still more, are they in the righteousness of Christ.—As sin and death have assumed the appearance of personal, princely powers, in order to extinguish the personal life of mankind, so does the personal God again elevate men, by the glorious personality of Christ, to a personal life in royal freedom.—The antithesis between Adam and Christ: 1. In personal effects (Rom_5:15); 2. In essential effects (Rom_5:16); 3. In the destruction of the apparently personal life of sin, and the restoration and glorification of the true personal life of grace, or the false and the true βασιλεύειν (Rom_5:17); 4. In the final aims of both (Rom_5:18); 5. In the full manifestation of both in the light of the gospel (Rom_5:19).—The glory of God’s grace in the exercise of its authority. How it has not only, 1. Conquered sin and death; but, 2. Even made them of service.—The Divine art of distinguishing the effect of the law.—The twofold character of the law: 1. Apparently a promotion of sin; but, 2. Really a communication of grace.—Adam, Moses, and Christ.—How far does Moses appear to stand on Adam’s side; but how far does he rather stand on Christ’s side?—The twofold effect of the law and of legality in the history of the world.—The twofold curse of the law: 1. The curse of the law, well understood, leads to salvation; 2. The curse of the law, misunderstood, leads to ruin.

[Burkitt (condensed): Every sin we commit in defiance of the threatenings of God is a justifying of Adam’s rebellion against God. Our destruction is in ourselves, by our actual rebellion; and at the great day we shall charge our sin and misery upon ourselves—not on God, not on Satan, not on instruments, and not on our first parents.—Henry: We are by Christ and His righteousness entitled to, and instated in, more and greater privileges than we lost by the offence of Adam. The plaster is wider than the wound, and more healing than the wound is killing.—Scott: Instead of perplexing ourselves about the incomprehensible but most righteous dispensation of God, in permitting the entrance of sin and death, let us learn to adore His grace for providing so adequate a remedy for that awful catastrophe.—As our children have received a sinful and suffering nature from the first Adam, let us be stirred up by their pains and sorrows to seek for them the blessings of the second Adam’s righteousness and salvation.—Wesley (Sermon on God’s Love to Fallen Man, Rom_5:15): The more we deal our bread to the hungry and cover the naked with garments, and the more kind offices we do to those that groan under the various ills of human life, the more comfort we receive even in the present world, and the greater the recompense we have in our own bosom.—Dwight: The subject of moral evil is too extensive and mysterious to be comprehended by our understanding. Many things connected with it lie wholly beyond our reach. But where knowledge is unattainable, it is our duty and interest to trust humbly and submissively to the instructions of Him who is the Only Wise.—Clarke: The grace of the gospel not only redeems from death and restores to life, but brings the soul into such a relationship with God, and into such a participation of eternal glory, as we have no authority to believe would have been the portion of Adam himself, had he even eternally retained his innocence.—Hodge: We should never yield to temptation on the ground that the sin to which we are solicited appears to be a trifle (merely eating a forbidden fruit), or that it is but for once. Remember the one offence of one man. How often has a man, or a family, been ruined forever by one sin!—Compare Isaac de la Peyrere’s Men before Adam (London, 1656), in which the author attempts to prove that the first men were created before Adam, and builds up a curious theological system on that supposition.—Compare also W. Buckland’s Inquiry whether the Sentence of Death pronounced at the Fall of Man included the Whole Animal Creation, or was restricted to the Human Race. London, 1839.—J. F. H.]

Footnotes:

[35]Rom_5:12.—[Ὁθάνατος (Rec.) is found in א. B. C. K. L, some versions and fathers; is adopted by Lachmann, Meyer, Wordsworth, and Lange. Tischendorf and Alford omit it, on the authority of D. E. F. G., and many fathers. Alford considers it a marginal gloss, to define the subject of δι ῆλθεν. But the external authority for it is sufficient to overcome the doubt arising from the variation in position found in some authorities, especially as the omission may have readily arisen from the transcriber’s mistaking -ονς, which precedes, for the close of the word he was about to write: -τος (Meyer).

[36]Rom_5:13.—[On the parenthesis of the E. V. This is to be omitted; for, although it might be a help to the ordinary reader, it is inserted on the view that Rom_5:18 is strictly resumptive, which is not in accordance with Lange’s exegesis. Even were it the case, Rom_5:13-17 comprise an argument so important, that it does not deserve the subordination implied in a parenthesis. The E. V. is frequently unfortunate in this regard: e.g., Gal_1:7, where the very theme of the Epistle is put in parenthesis.

[37]Rom_5:14.—[Some cursives and fathers omit μή. This probably arose from a wish to make this verse correspond with Rom_5:12, the meaning of which was misunderstood. There is no question as to the correctness of its insertion.—The pluperfect of the E. V. is to be changed to the simple past: sinned, as a more correct rendering of the aorist participle. The other emendations are not absolutely necessary, but are offered as more literal, and perhaps preferable for other reasons.

[38]Rom_5:15.—[The word παράπτωμα, occurring five times in this section, is rendered offence in the E. V.; by the Amer. Bible Union: trespass. Both are etymologically correct, but more modern usage compels us to reject offence. Trespass would be preferable to transgression, on the ground that παράβασις (Rom_5:14) must also be rendered by the latter word; yet trespass has at present a technical meaning, which is legal, transgression, being more theological. The very slight distinction between παράβασις and παράπτωμα is sufficiently implied in the clauses where the words occur. Lange renders the latter: Sündenfall, fall, to distinguish it from παπάβασις, Uebertretung, Rom_5:14.

[39]Rom_5:15.—[The aorist, ἐπερίσσενσεν, is to be rendered did abound, and the auxiliary did placed after much more, as indicating more plainly that much more is rather quantitative than logical.—The articles are unfortunately omitted throughout in the E. V.; the one, the many, express the definiteness of the Greek.

[40]Rom_5:16.—[Lange adopts the reading ἁμαρτήματος (D. E. F. G., some fathers, cursives, and versions, Griesbach), urging that it is required as an antithesis to παραπτωμάτων. But this is the very reason for deeming it a gloss. Ἁμαρτήσαντος is found in א. A. B. C. K. L., adopted by Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Wordsworth.

[41]Rom_5:17.—[The two renderings correspond to two various readings; in any case, man’s, of E. V., must be rejected. A. F. G. have ἑν ἑνὶ παραπτώματι (D.E., ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ π.); adopted by Griesbach, Tischendorf, Meyer, Lange. א. B. C. K. L., many versions and fathers, read τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι; adopted by Lachmann, Alford, and Wordsworth. It is a question which is correct, but Meyer’s explanation is most satisfactory. He considers the former reading the original one, “because thus the origin of the other variations are very naturally explained. For more definite description the article was added by some (D. E.); by others, ἑνί was changed into ἑνος. But since, at all events, the sense was the same as τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς π. (Rom_5:15), this was at first added as a parallel passage, and then received into the text.”

[42]Rom_5:18.—[The questions respecting the changes to be made in this verse are exegetical. It is only necessary to note here, that the above rendering indicates the doubt as to the precise meaning of δἰ ὲνὸς παραπτώματος, and δἰ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος; leaving the subjects indefinite (instead of retaining the italicized glosses of the E. V.). Lange supplies παράπτωμα and δικαιώμα. On all the points, see Exeg. Notes.

[43]Rom_5:19.—[So Amer. Bible Union. Lange: herausgestellt. The rendering given above is correct; any dogmatic questions that arise cannot affect this.

[44]Rom_5:20.—[ΙΙαρειζῆλθες, only Gal_2:4; there, in malam partem. The above rendering is literal and exact. Lange translates: came in between. See Exeg. Notes.

[45] Rom_5:20.—[Alford suggests that words compounded with ὑπέρ have a superlative, not a comparative force.—The change in the first verb in English is to indicate that two different words are used in Greek.—R.]

[The following is the Greek text of this section, in parallelistic arrangement, from Forbes:

12.

A ”Ωσπερ δἰ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπιου ἡ ἀμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εὶσῆλθεν, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος, καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὸ θάνατος διῆλθεν, ἐφ̓ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον·

13. ἅκρι γὰρ νόμου ἁμαρτία ἥν ἐν κόσμῳ, ἁμαρτία δὲ οὐκ ἐλλογεῖται μὴ ὅντος νόμου·

14. B

ἀλλὰ ἐβασίλευσεν ὁ θάνατος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ μέκρι Μωυσέως καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς παραβάσεως Ἀδάμ·

C ὅς ἐστιν τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος

D Points of disparity in the comparison D stated in Rom_5:15-17.

18.

C

Justification. Ἅρα οὕν ὡς δἰ ἑνὸ̀ς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα, οὕτως καὶ δἰ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς·

19. Sanctification. ὥσπερ γὰρ διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοί, οὕτως καὶ διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί·

20. B Νόμος δὲ παρεισῆλθεν, ἵνα πλεονόση τὸ παράπτωμα· οὕ δὲ ἐπλεόνασεν ἡ ἁμαρ·τία, ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν ἡ κάρις,

21. A ἵνα ὥσπερ ἐβασίλευσεν ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ, οὕτως καὶ ὴ κάρις βασιλεύσῃ διὰ δικαιοσύνης εἰς ζωὴν αίώνιον διὰ ̓Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν.—P. S.]

[46][As Chrysostom remarks in the beginning of his tenth Homily on Romans, Opera, tom. 4. p. 519, ed. Montfaucon, but he omits the positive part, which is more important.—P. S.]

[47][So also Bengel “διὰ τοῦτο refers to the whole of the preceding discussion, from which the Apostle draws these conclusions, herein making not so much a digression as a retrogression.” Hodge: ”The wherefore is to be taken as illative, or marking an inference from the whole of the previous part of the Epistle, and especially from the preceding verses.”—P. S.]

[48][Meyer: “darum, weil wir namlich durch Christum die καταλλαγή und die Gewissheit des ewigen Heils empfangen haben, Rom_5:11.” But Meyer regards Rom_5:11 as the summary of the whole preceding doctrine of justification and salvation. Philippi likewise refers διὰ τοῦτο to Rom_5:11 in such a way that it looks at the same time to the whole deduction from Rom_1:17 to Rom_5:11. This to us seems to be the most satisfactory connection.—P. S.]

[49][This construction is favored, upon the whole, by De Wette (who, however, objects to it: ”Ergänzt man τὴνκαταλλαγὴν ἐλάβομεν δι ̓ αὐτοῦ, so weiss man nicht recht, was man mit der. Vergleichung anfangen soll”), Umbreit, Theo. Schott, Wordsworth, Alford, Jowett, Conybeare and Howson. I subjoin Alford’s note in full, though I dissent from it: ”This verse is one of acknowledged difficulty. The two questions meeting us directly, are: (1) To what does διὰ τοῦτο refer? (2) ὥσπερ, like as, may introduce the first member of a comparison, the second being to be discovered; or may introduce the second, the first having to be discovered. I shall endeavor to answer both questions in connection. I conceive διὰ τοῦτο to refer to that blessed state of confidence and hope just described: ‘on this account,’ here meaning, ‘quæ cum ita sint:’ ‘this state of things, thus brought about, will justify the following analogy.’ Thus we must take ὥσπερ, either (a) as beginning the comparison, and then supply, ‘so by Christ, in His resurrection, came justification into the world; and by justification, life;’ or (ß) as concluding the comparison, and supply before it, ‘it was,’ or ‘Christ wrought.’ This latter method seems to me far the best. For none of the endeavors of commentators to supply the second limb of the comparison from the following verses has succeeded: and we can hardly suppose such an ellipsis, when the next following comparison (Rom_5:16) is rather a weakening than a strengthening the analogy. We have examples for this use of ὼ́σπερ in Mat_25:14, and of καθὠς, Gal_3:6.”—P. S.]

[50][This objection was made by De Wette, from whom Tholuck, p. 215, quotes. Mever calls this explanation illogical, because the universality of Adam’s corruption, which is the prominent idea in Rom_5:12, has no corresponding parallel in the protasis which is supplied from the preceding verse.—P. S.]

[51][And also the efficient cause in the same sense in which Christ is the efficient cause of righteousness and life. According to the Pelagian and Unitarian theory, Adam was merely the occasion: he sinned, and set a bad example to others, as Christ set a good example. Here Christ sinks to the position of a mere teacher.—P. S.]

[52][Gen_2:17, where death is mentioned for the first time, speaks rather for a more comprehensive view, see below, sub (3); since the first parents were threatened with the penalty of death to be inflicted on the very day of their fall, and long before their physical death.—P. S.]

[53][Winer, p. 259, denies that the aorist is ever confounded with the perfect. Even in Luk_1:1 (ἐπεκείρησαν); Joh_17:4 (ἐδόξασα, ἐτελείωσα); Php_3:12 (ἕλαβον), and similar cases, the action is related simply as passed. The perfect expresses the past action in its relation to the present, so that the result of the action is generally, though not necessarily (see Krüger, 151, and Winer, 254), supposed to be continued.—P. S.]

[54][Origen taught a personal fall of all men in a preexistent state. In Ep. ad Rom. (Opp. 4. p. 546): ”Si Levi in lumbis Abrahæ fuisse perhibetur, multo magis homines in lumbis erant Adæ, cum adhuc esset in paradiso, el omnes homines cum ipso vel in ipso expulsi sunt de paradiso.”—P. S.]

[55][Chrysostom (Homilia X.) explains rather loosely and superficially: τί δέ ἐδτιν, ἐῤ ὦ πάντες ἥμαρτον; ἐκείνουπεσόντος, καὶ οἰ μ́ἡ ραγόντες ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου γεγόνασιν ἐξ ἐκείνου πάντες θνητοί, i.e., ”by the fall of Adam, even those who did not eat of the forbidden tree have all become mortal.” This is all he says, and then he passes immediately to Rom_5:13.—P. S.]

[56][Augustine, following the wrong translation of the Vulgate—in quo—used this passage as an argument for the doctrine of original sin and the fall of the human race in Adam. De pecc. mer. et rem. Rom_3:7 : ”In Adamo omnes tunc peccaverunt, quando in ejus natura, illa insita vi qua cos gignere poteral, adhuc omnes ille unus fuerunt.” Contra Jul. Rom_5:12 : ”Fuerunt omnes ratione seminis in lumbis Adami quando damnatus es’. … quemadmodum fuerunt Israelilæ in lumbis Abrahæ, quando decimatus est,” Heb_7:9-10. De Civitate Dei, l. xiii. c. Romans 14 : ”Omnes enim fuimus in illo uno, quando omnes fuimus ille unus, qui per feminam lapsus est in peccatum. … Nondum erat nobis singillatim creata et distributa forma, in qua singuli viveremus; sed jam natura erat seminalis, ex qua propagaremur;” i.e., ”the form in which we were to live, as individuals, had not yet been created and assigned to us, but that seminal nature was already in existence, from which we were to be propagated.” From this last passage it is evident that Augustine did not teach, as he is sometimes misrepresented, a personal and conscious coexistence and coagency of Adam’s posterity in Adam and his fall (which involves the contradiction of an existence before existence), but simply a potential or germinal coexistence. The genus homo or human nature which he represented, was not a receptacle of millions of human beings, but a single, simple essence, which became manifold by propagation. As in the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Person of Christ we distinguish between nature and person, so also here. Our human nature was on trial in Adam, and fell in him; consequently we all fell as partaking of that nature, and share in his guilt. This seems to me to be Augustine’s view. Estius, one of the best Roman Catholic commentators, gives the same interpretation on the basis of the Vulgate translation; ”Dicuntur omnes peccasse in Adam, tanquam in principio et radice totius generis, quoniam in lumbis ejus erant, quando ille peccabat.” Then, after quoting several passages from Aug., he continues, in explanation of the Augustinian theory: ”Id vero sic intellige: quia tunc quando ille propria voluntate peccavit, in quo tanquam in principio generis, omnes erant, causa data est, per quam deinceps universum genus inficeretur, et singuli constituerentur peccatores, videlicet a suo quisque peccato, quod ex illa origine contraheret; quomodo, si pater attaminatus lepra filios gignat leprosos, dicentur filii facti leprosi a patre, licet unusquisque suam ex illo contrahat lepram.” This, in a certain sense, is theologically true, but exegetically false—i.e., the doctrine of original sin, or total depravity as derived from Adam, is implied in the whole passage, especially in πάντες ἥμαρτον, but not in ἐφ̓ ᾧ. For ἐφ̓ ᾧ is not equivalent to ἐν ᾧ, (see above); ἀνθρώπον is too far separated from the relative ὧ, and the whole phrase, ἁμαρτάνειν ἐπί τινι, meaning, to sin in some one, or by one, is without example. For a modification of the Augustinian interpretation, see (4) below.—P. S.]

[57][Sam. J. Baird, Elohim Revealed, Philad. 1860, p. 417, defends the same view; taking ἐφ̓ ᾧ = ἐν ὧ, as in Rom_5:14; Mar_2:4; Luk_5:25; ἐν τῶ ̓ Αδάμ, 1Co_15:22.—P. S.]

[58][Melanchthon: ”Omnes habent peccatum, scilicet pravitatem propagatam et reatum.” Calvin: ”Nempe, inquit, quoniam omnes peccavimus. Porro istud peccare est corruptos esse et vitiosos. Illa enim naturalis pravitas, quam e matris utero afferimus, tametsi non ita cito fructus suos edit, peccatum tamen est coram Domino, et ejus ultionem meretur. Atque hoc est peccatum, quod vocant naturale.” According to Calvin, then the inherent, hereditary depravity derived from Adam is the reason why all die. This interpretation is not only ungrammatical, since ἁμαρτάνειν cannot mean, to become corrupt, but it also vitiates the analogy between Adam and Christ.—P. S.]

[59][Ἐξ ἐκείνου πάντες θνητοί.—P. S.]

[60][Grotius: pœnam lucre, to suffer punishment. He appeals to Gen_31:36; Job_6:24; 1Ki_1:21, for this metonymy of the effect. ἐν́ ὧ he takes = through whom. The same interpretation is more fully defended by Whitby, an Arminian, on Rom_5:19.—P. S.]

[61][Meyer calls this interpretation sheer ungrammatical arbitrariness (nur sprachwidrige Willkühr); for ἥμαρτον means, they sinned, and nothing else (p. 204). Nevertheless, it is defended by Dr. Hodge, of Princeton, even in the revised edition of his Comm. (p. 236 ff.), with a degree of dogmatic positiveness, as if there could be no doubt about it. He holds that all men sinned in Adam merely in a representative or putative, not in any real sense, and that ἧμαρτον has the passive meaning: they became legally guilty, and were regarded and treated as sinners on account of Adam’s sin by virtue of a natural and federal relationship between Adam and his posterity. ”The only possible way,” he says, ”in which all men can be said to have sinned in Adam, is putatively.” [This is begging the question.] ”His act, for some good and proper reason [?], was regarded as their act, just as the act of an agent is regarded as the act of his principal, or the act of a representative as that of his constituents” [although in this case they never elected him]. ”The act of the one legally binds the other. It is, in the eye of law and justice, their act.” But ἁμαρτάνειν never has this meaning of putative sinning. It is obviously impossible in ἁμαρτήσαντας, Rom_5:14. In the parallel passage, Rom_3:23, Hodge himself understands it of actual sinning (”all have sinned, and are sinners, or, all sinned,” p. 140). The two solitary passages which he quotes from the Septuagint (Gen_43:9, comp. Gen_44:32 : ἡμαρτηκὼς ἐ͂σομαι, and 1Ki_1:21 : ἐσόμεθα … ἁμαρτωγοί, i.e., in the view of the reigning prince), are neither parallel nor decisive, as has often been shown by older commentators. When Hodge confidently appeals to the authority of ”theologians of every grade and class of doctrine, Calvinists, Arminians, Lutherans, and Rationalists,” in favor of his interpretation (p. 241), he is greatly mistaken. I know of no recent commentator of note, German or English, who agrees with him on this point. Philippi and Wordsworth, whom he quotes on his side, hold the realistic Augustinian view (which Hodge repudiates as nonsense. See next foot-note.) So does even Robert Haldane, the most rigorous Scotch Calvinistic commentator on the Romans, who says (p. 211 of the Amer. edition): “Adam’s sin was as truly the sin of every one of his posterity, as if it had been personally committed by him. It is only in this way that all could be involved in its consequence. Besides, it is only in this light that it is illustrative of justification by Christ. Believers truly die with Christ, and pay the debt in Him by their union or oneness with Him. It belongs not to us to inquire how these things can be. “We receive them on the testimony of God.” … “If God deals with men as sinners on account of Adam’s sin, then it is self-evident that they are sinners on that account. The just God could not deal with men as sinners on any account which did not make them truly sinners.” The metonymical interpretation arose from opposition to the doctrine of original sin. Hodge tries to defend the dogma of imputation on a Socinian exegesis. But by rejecting the realistic theory of a participation of Adam’s posterity in his fall, he loses the basis for a just imputation, and resolves it into a legal fiction. Only a sinful and guilty being can be the subject of the displeasure of a righteous and holy God. “We do not object to the doctrine of imputation in itself, but simply to that form of it which, ignores or denies the vital nature of our connection with Adam and with Christ, as plainly taught in this whole section. Adam is our natural representative de facto as well as de jure. He is the root of humanity, and his fall affected the stock, and every branch, by the inherent law of organic life-union. “Not Adam’s transgression outwardly reckoned, but Adam’s sinfulness and mortality inwardly communicated or imparted,” are the chief points of comparison, and placed in contrast with the righteousness and life of Christ, with whom we hold even a more intimate life-union by faith, than with Adam by sin.—P. S.]

[62] [This interpretation, which Dr. Lange treats rather too severely, agrees theologically with Augustine’s (No. 1), although it differs from it grammatically. It is defended by two of the ablest modern commentators, Philippi, and (in recent editions) by Meyer. Philippi, whom Dr. Hodge (p. 241) wrongly quotes in favor of his purely legal imputation theory (see the preceding note), says, after criticising other views: “Wir werden deshalb mit Nothwendigkeit zu derjenigen Auffassung zurückgeführt, welche, obgleich sie von den neueren Auslegern aufgegeben ist (vgl. jedoch Olshausen) und fernliegend erscheint, dennoch die nächste, cinfachste und natürlichste ist. Es ist nümlich zu ἧμαρτον im Gedanken: ἐν Ἁδάμ, oder noch präciser: ‘Adamo peccante’ zu ergänzen. ‘Non agitur de peccato singulorum proprio,’ sagt Bengel. ‘Omnes peccarunt, Adamo peccante,’ oder, wie Koppe es ausdrückt, ‘ipso actu quo peccavit Adamus.’ Dafür spricht auch der momentane Sinn des Aoristes ἧμαρτον. Der Tod ist zu Allen hindurchgedrungen, weil sie Alle sündigτen, als Adam sündigte, weil in der Sünde Adam’s ihre eigene Sünde milbeschlossen war. So würden wir also dem wesentlichen Sinde nach, wenn auch auf anderem grammatischem Wege, das Augustinische ‘in quo omnes peccaverunt,’ wieder gewinnen. Passend lässt sich 2Co_5:15 vergleichen: εἰ εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν, ἅρα οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον, wozu wir hier den entsprechenden Gegensatz: εἰ εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων ἥμαρτεν, ἅρα οἱ πάντες ἥμαρτον finden. Wie ferner hier von dem ἁμαπτάνειν, so ist 1 Kor. Rom_15:22 von dem ἀποθνήσκειν Aller ἐν τῶ Ἀδάμ die Rede. Der Apostel stellt demnach die Menscheitssünde als objectiv in Adam beschlossen dar, gerade so wie er die Menschheitsgerechtigkeil als objectiv in Christo beschlossen denkt, und die Parallele erhält nun erst die rechte Präcision und plastische Anschaulichkeit.” Meyer, who is misrepresented by Dr. Hodge (p. 233) as charging Paul with forgetfulness in stating what is not true in point of fact, holds the same Augustinian view, and stated it plainly not only in the fourth edition (1865, p. 201), but in the third (1859, p. 187), and even in the second edition (1854, ten years before the appearance of Hodge’s revision!) as follows: “(ἐφ’ ὧ πάντες ἥμαρτον) auf Grund dessen dass, d. h., weil alle sündigten, nämlich (beachte den momentanen Sinn des Aor.) als durch den Einen die Sünde in die Welt eintrat. Weil, als Adam sündigte, alle Menschen in und mit ihm, dem Vertreter der ganzen Menschheit (nicht: ‘exemplo Adami,’ Pelag.), gesündigt haben, ist der Tod, welcher durch die in die Welt gekommene Sünde in die Welt kam, vermöge dieses ursächlichen Zusammenhanges der durch Adam in’s Vorhandensein getretenen Sünde und des Todes auf alle verbreitet worden. Alle wurden durch Adam’s Fall sterblich, weil dieses Gesündigthaben Adam’s ein Gesündigthaben Aller war, mithin τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπέθανον, Rom_5:15. So ist es allerdings in Adam begründet, dass Alle sterben (ἐν τῷ Ἀδάμ πάντες ἀποθνήσκουσιν, 1 Kor. Rom_15:22), weil nämlich, als Adam sündigte, Alle sündigten, Alle als ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν (Rom_5:19), und somit der durch seine Sünde eingekommene Tod keinen verschonen kann.” The same interpretation is substantially adopted by the best English commentators of the age. Alford says: “All sinned in the seed, as planted in the nature by the sin of our forefather, and in the fruit, as developed by each conscious responsible individual in his own practice. … Observe how entirely this assertion of the Apostle contradicts the Pelagian or individualistic view of men, that each is a separate creation from God, existing solely on his own exclusive responsibility, and affirms the Augustinian or realistic view, that all are evolved by God’s appointment from an original stock, and, though individually responsible, are generically involved in the corruption and condemnation of their original.” Wordsworth: “Observe the aorist tense, ἥμαρτον, they all sinned; that is, at a particular time. And when was that? Doubtless, at the Fall. All men sinned in Adam’s sin. All fell in his fall. All men were that one man, Adam (Augustine). All men were in him, as a river is in its source, and as a tree is in its root. We are all by nature in the first Adam, as we are all by grace in the second Adam, Christ.” Webster and Wilkinson: “All sinned virtually when Adam sinned, because in him their nature became sinful.”

This good orthodox interpretation, supported by the most respectable array of authorities from Augustine and the Reformers down to Philippi and Meyer, Dr. Hodge calls mystic and pantheistic nonsense, which “does not rise even to the dignity of a contradiction, and has no meaning at all;” adding: “It is a monstrous evil to make the Bible contradict the common sense and common consciousness of men” (p. 236). We hold that all men sinned in Adam, not indeed personally by conscious actual transgression (which Augustine never said or meant; see the passages quoted in the third foot-note on p. 178), but virtually or potentially; in other words, that Adam fell, not as an individual simply, but as the real representative head of the human race, and that his fall vitiated human nature itself, and prospectively his whole posterity, in the same manner in which the disease of the germ and root will affect the tree and branches proceeding from it. This may be uncommon sense (as is the whole fifth chapter of Romans), but it is certainly no nonsense. The human race is not a sandheap, but an organic unity; and only on the ground of such a vital unity, as distinct from a mechanical or merely federal unity, can we understand and defend the doctrine of original sin, the imputation of Adam’s sin, and of Christ’s righteousness. Without an actual communion of life, imputation is an arbitrary legal arrangement. We readily admit that the Augustinian view is liable to objections (see Lange’s and our strictures in Doctrinal and Ethical, No. 2 and 3), but it is far preferable to the legal fiction theory.—P. S.]

Footnotes:

[63][So Theodoret: οὐ γὰν τοῦ προπάτορος ἁμαρτίαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν οἰκείαν ἕκαστος δέκεται τοῦ θανάτου τὸν ὅρον. Pelagius may be ranked here, for in his brief comments on Romans he explains ἐῤ ὧ πάντες ἧμαρτον: ”In eo quod omnes peccaverunt, exemplo Adæ peccant,” or ”per imitationem,” in opposition to ”per propagationem.” Julian of Eclanum, the ablest champion of Pelagianism, takes ἐῤὧ in the sense of propter quod (Aug. Contra Jul. 6:75; Op. imperf. 2:66). But both denied original sin, which may be held in perfect consistency with this interpretation of ἧμαρτον. Among American commentators it is advocated especially by Barnes and Stuart. We quote from Moses Stuart: ”There remains, therefore, only the first plain and simple method of interpretation, viz., all men have sinned in their own persons; all men have themselves incurred the guilt of sin, and so subjected themselves to its penalty; or at least, all men are themselves sinners, and so are liable to death.” Prof. Dwight, in his article against Hodge, seems to adopt this view; taking, however ἧμαρτον in a semi-figurative sense, ”so that Paul conceives of our individual, personal sinning, as summed up and centred in Adam, not because we sinned either really or putatively when he did, but because, when he sinned, the whole future results were then made certain, and so, in a sense, were accomplished” (1. c. p. 560).—P. S.]

[64][The German-original reads; ”Dogegen sagt Meyer, das Wort passe nicht auf die gesündigt habenden Kinder,” children who have sinned, instead of ”in Betreff der vielen Millionen noch nicht gesündigt habenden K.” (see Meyer, p. 203). The printer’s omission of noch nicht, not yet, makes sad work here with the argument, and caused some perplexity to the translator. Flatt, and others, raised the same objection to the above interpretation, viz., that it would include infants among actual sinners, which is not true. Hodge, p. 232 f., urges five arguments against it.—P. S.]

[65][So also Hodge: ”It would make the Apostle teach that, as all men die because they personally sin, so all men live because they are personally and inherently righteous. This is contrary not only to this whole passage, but to all Paul’s teaching, and to the whole gospel.”—P. S.]

[66][In his Jahrbücher der bibl. Wissenschaft, ii. p. 171, Ewald explained, with the rejection of the second ὁ θάνατος: “und so zu allen Menschen durchdrang das, woraufhin alle sündigten,” “and so passed upon all men that unto which all sinned,” viz., death, which in Gen_2:17 is decreed as the punishment of sin, so that whosoever sins, sins unto death—i.e., must die. But subsequently, in his Comm. on the Pauline Epistles (1857, p. 327), Ewald translated: “Sofern alle, sündigten,” “inasmuch as all sinned,” and remarks (in a foot-note on p. 373) that this meaning of ἐφ̓ ῷ (as a conjunction) is similar to the preceding οὕτως, showing death to be the consequence of sin.—P. S.]

[67][Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, vol. i. p. 529, 2d ed., takes ἐπί as a preposition of time, and refers τω̈ to the preceding βάνατος (which is wanting in several MSS.) in the sense: bei dessen Vorhandensein, i.e., during the reign of death all sinned. He quotes, in support, Heb_9:15 : αὶ ἐπὶ τῆ πρώτη διαθήκη παραβάσεις. But this simple and almost trivial idea could have been expressed much more clearly. The interpretation of Thomasius (sub 8) resembles that of Hofmann, except that he takes ῳ̈̈̈ as neuter: beim Vorhandensein welches Verhältnisses. But the preceding words pronounce a fact, not an abstract relation. Comp. Meyer, p. 206.—P. S.]

[68][Hodge makes the whole doctrine and argument of the Apostle to be, “that there are penal evils which come upon men antecedent to any transgressions of their own; and as the infliction of those evils implies a violation of law, it follows that they are regarded and treated as sinners, on the ground of the disobedience of another” (p. 252).—P. S.]

[69][Outside of these two passages in the New Testament, the word, according to Meyer, occurs but once, viz., in Bœckh, Inscript. i. p. 850, A. 35. It means ἐν λόγῳ τιθέναι, λογίζεσθαι, to reckon in, to put to one’s account.—P. S.]

[70][Origen: “Videtur Ap. mortem describere velut tyranni alicujus ingressum.”—P. S.]

[71][Bengel: ”Morti adscribitur REGNUM, ut ROBUR, Heb_2:14. Sane vix ullus rex tot subditos habet, quot vel reges mors abstulit. Immane regnum. Non est Hebraismus. Imperat peccatum: imperat justitia.”—P. S.]

[72][Βασιλεύειν with ἐπί is a Hebraism (מָלַךְ עַל); comp. Luk_1:33; Luk_19:14; 1Sa_8:9; 1Sa_8:11; in classic Greek it rules the genitive or dative. The preposition signifies the persons over whom the sovereignty is exercised. The second ἐπί before τῶ ὁμοιώματι expresses the model to which the act is conformed; comp. ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι, Luk_1:15. The whole phrase corresponds to the Hebrew כִּדְמוּה, and is equivalent to ὁμοίως τῆ παραβάσει. It must not be connected with ἐβασίλευσεν (Chrysostom and Bengel), but, as is usually done, with μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας.—P. S.]

[73][̓Αντίτυπος, ἀντίτυρον (literally, counterblow), is, however, sometimes equivalent to τύπος in the sense of copy (Abbild), as Heb_9:24, ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν; 1Pe_3:21; and Apost. Const. Rom_4:14, where the sacramental bread and wine are called the antitypes of the body and blood of Christ. Comp. Bleek on the Hebrews, vol. iii. p. 591.—P. S.]

[74][Tholuck, p. 246, quotes a remarkable passage from the book, Neve Shalom R. Abraham Ben Isaac (died 1593), which shows perhaps the reflex influence of Paul upon the Rabbinical theology: “The last Adam is the Messiah; He will be higher than. Moses, higher than, the angels who serve Him, and the old sin by which death has been introduced will be abolished by Him, for in His days the dead will rise. This was the Divine intention at the creation of man, that he should be eternal; but sin occasioned death: now the Divine intention is fulfilled by the second Adam, who is the antitype of the first.”—P. S.]

[75][Or, “by the one that sinned,” if we read ἁμαρτήσαντος. See Textual Note6, and Exeg. Note below.—P. S.]

[76][τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι, the reading of Cod. Sin., Lachmann, Alford, and the text. rec. Lange prefers, with Meyer, the reading: ἐν ἑνὶ παραπτώματι, “by one fall.” See Textual Note7, and Exeg. Notes below.—P. S.]

[77][According to Lange’s translation: Aber nicht steht’s (im Sinn der Gleichmaessigkeit Adams und Christi) wie mit dem Sündenfall also mit dem Gnadengut (der persoenlichen Gnadengabe, Christus). Alford translates: But not (in all points) as the act of transgression, so also is the gift of grace.—P. S.]

[78][“Adamus et Christus, secundum rationes contrarias, conveniunt, in positivo; differunt, in comparativo.”—P. S.]

[79] [The Codex Sinaiticus, in the octavo edition of Tischendorf (1865), reads ἁμαρτήσαντος, but this is a correction by a second or third hand. In the original MS. and the large uncial edition the word is broken by the line, and reads, AMAPTH-TOΣ, which may be a mistake for ἁμαρτήματος, as well as for ἁμαρτήσαντος. The absence of the article before ἑνός is in favor of Lange’s preference for ἁμαρτήματος, for Paul always uses the article when ἑνός refers to a person, except in Rom_5:12, where it is first introduced and connected with ἀνθρώπου.—P. S.]

[80] [Meyer: “Es ist damit nicht so, als wenn es δἰ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσ. (wie der Tod durch Adam) verursacht wäre (es ist vielmehr ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων zum δικαίωμα geworden).” Meyer emphasizes the one and many, and supplies simply ἐστί after δώρημα. Similar is the explanation of Rothe, Ewald, Van Hengel.—P. S.]

[81][So also Alford, who supplies τὸ γενόμενον: “And not as (that which took place) by one that sinned, so is the gift.”—P. S.]

[82] [Meyer: ”τὸ κρῖμα ganz allgemein: das Urtheil, welches Gott als Richter fällt. Denn zu was für einem Urtheil dieses in concreto ausgeschlagen ist, sagt erst das folgende εἰς κατάκριμα.”—P. S.]

[83] [This passage affords a striking parallel, and has some bearing on the question whether Paul was acquainted with the works of the great Stagirite (which, from a remote resemblance of style, the mode of close, dialectic reasoning, from Paul’s educational advantages in Tarsus, from his acquaintance with the spirit and working of the Hellenic philosophy, and even with inferior Greek authors, as Aratus and Cleanthes, Act_17:28, Menander, 1Co_15:33, and Epimenides, Tit_1:2, seems to me highly probable). I give it, therefore, in full. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Book v. chap. 10 (according to Bekker’s ed., 2:1135; or chap. 7, in Didot’s and other editions), Aristotle says: “Διαφέρει δὲ τὸ ἀδὶκημα καὶ τὸ ἅδικον και τὸ δικαὶωμα καὶ τὸ δὶκαιον· ἄδικον μὲν γάρ ἐστι τῃ̈ φύσει ἤ τάξει· τὸ αὐτὸ δὲ τοϋτο, ὄταν πραχθῇ, ἀδἰκημά ἐστι, πρ̀ν δὲ πραχθῆναι, οὔπω, ἀλλ̓ ἄδικον. ̔Ομοίως δὲ καὶ δικαίωμα. Kαλεῖται δὲμᾶλλον δικαιοπράγημα τὸ κοινὸν, δικαίωμα δὲ τὁ ἐπανόρθωμα τοῦ ἀδικήματος . “An unjust act differs from the unjust (injustice in the abstract), and so does a just act from the (abstract) just; for a thing is unjust either by nature or by order (ordinance). But the very same thing which) when done, is an unjust act, is not so before it is done, but it is unjust. The same may be said of a just act. But the common term is rather a deed justly done (δικαιοπράγημα); but the correction of an unjust act Just act (δικαίωμα).”—P. S.]

[84] [This is a slight mistake, occasioned by a statement of Tholuck (p. 261 f.). Dr. Rothe regards not Rom_5:17, but Rom_5:16, as a parenthesis (1. c. p. 132), and Rom_5:17 as a corroborative and explanatory reassumption of Rom_5:15, to which it corresponds in all its parts as follows:

Rom_5:15.

εἰ τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι οί πολλοί ἀπέθανον,

πολλῷ μᾶλλον

ἡ κάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἡ δωρεὰ ἐν κάριτι

τῇ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώποὐ Ιησ. κρ. εὶς τ. π. ἐπερίσσευσεν.

Rom_5:17.

ει τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι ὁ θάνατος ἀβασ.;

πολλῷ μᾶλλον

οἱ τὴν περισσείαν τῆς κάριτος κ. τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύης

διὰ τοῦ ενὸς ̓Ιησ. κριστοῦ, κ.τ.λ.—P. S.]

[85] [The Greek is here, like an exclamation, as brief and concise as possible, and cannot be intelligibly rendered without supplying some words. The E. V. supplies, besides the verb came, two nouns, viz., judgment (κρῖμα) and free gift (κάρισμα), from Rom_5:16. Lange supplies παράπτωμα and δικαίωμα from Rom_5:18, and translates: “Demnach also: wie durch den Sündenfall des Einen (ein Sündenfall) auf alle Menschen (kommt) zur Verdammniss, so auch (kommt) durch Eines Rechtfertigungsgut (ein Rechtfertigungsgut) auf alle Menschen hin zur (wirklichen) Rechtfertigung des Lebens (welche Leben ist).” Rothe takes ἐνός in both clauses not in the masculine, but in the neuter gender, and supplies only the verb came: “Wie es durch Eine Uebertretung für alle Menschen zur Verdammniss (kommt), in eben derselben Weise (kommt es) auch durch ein Rechtgenugthuung für alle Menschen zur Rechtfertigung des Lebens.” Meyer: “Wie es also durch Ein Vergehen für alle Menschen zum Verdammungsurtheil (gekommen ist); so ist es auch durch Ein Rechtfertigungsurtheil für alle Menschen zur Rechtfertigung des Lebens (gekommen).” Alford in the same way (except that he gives δικαίωμα a different meaning): “Therefore as by means of one trespass it came (ἐγένετο being supplied) upon all men unto condemnation, so also by means of one righteous act it came upon all men unto justification of life.” Wordsworth likewise takes ἐνός here as neuter, and translates: “Therefore, as through one transgression the sentence was unto all men to condemnation, so through one state of acceptance with God (so he interprets δικαίωμα), the sentence now is unto all men to justification of life.” Ewald most literally: “Also denn—wie durch Einen Fehltritt für alle Menschen zur Verurtheilung, so auch durch Einen Gerechtspruch für alle Menschen zur Rechtfertigung von Leben.”“Dr. Hodge adopts the translation of the E. V., from which he very seldom departs. The new version of the Amer. Bible Union likewise agrees with the E. V. in supplying judgment came, and free gift, but more correctly renders δἰ ἑνὸς παραπτ, through one trespass, and δἰ ἑνὸς δικᾳιώματος, through one righteous act.—P. S.]

[86] [Meyer says: ”ἂρα οὖν is conclusive: demnach nun (accordingly then, so then, therefore now); it is of frequent occurrence in Paul (Rom_7:3; Rom_7:25; Rom_8:12; Rom_9:16; Rom_9:18; Rom_14:12; Rom_14:19; Gal_6:10; Eph_2:19 al.), and, contrary to classical usage (Herm. ad Antig. 628, ad Viger. p. 823), at the beginning of the ‘sentence.” Klotz distinguishes between αρα and οὖν, in that the former “ad internam potius causam spectat,” the latter “magis ad externam.” The ratiocinative force of ἂρα is weaker, and is supported by the collective power of οὖν. See Ellicott on Gal_6:10.—P. S.]

[87] [The antithesis εἰς πάντας, and the analogy of Rom_5:12; Rom_5:15; Rom_5:17; Rom_5:19, where τοῦ ἑνός is masculine, are in favor of Lange’s view, which is also that of the translators of the E. V.; but the absence of the article before ἑνός is almost conclusive against it; for in all the eight cases of this section, where it is indisputably masculine, it has uniformly the article (Rom_5:15, τῷ τοῦ ἑνός παραπτώματι … τῇ τοῦἑνὸς ἀνθρώπον; Rom_5:17, three times; Rom_5:19, twice), except in Rom_5:12, where it is connected with a noun (δἰ ἑνὸζἀνθρώπον), and therefore unnecessary; while in Rom_5:16, where ἐξ ἐνός must be neuter, in opposition to πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων, it is, as here, without the article. The Apostle is therefore quite careful and consistent. The objection that the comparison is between Adam and Christ, rather than between the fall of one and the righteousness of another, does not hold, for it is clearly a comparison of both persons and effects. The E. V. has much obscured the force of this section by omitting the article throughout before εἶς, as also before πολλοί.—P. S.]

[88] [Tholuck quotes here the quaint and pointed remark of Luther: “Wohl setzt Adam seinen Zahn in einen Apfel, aber in Wahrheit setzt er ihn in einen Stachel, welcher ist das göttliche Gebot.” Bengel says that παρά, in παρακοή, very appositely points out the principle of the initial step, which ended in Adam’s fall, namely, the carelessness of his understanding and will, which simultaneously gave way; as the first step towards the capture of a city is remissness on the part of the guards on watch.—P. S.]

[89] [Vulgate: peccatores constituti sunt. So also Calvin. E. V.: were made sinners. Lange translates: als Sünder herausgestellt worden sind, set forth, made to appear (in their real character) as sinners. So also Ewald: als Sünder dargestellt wurden. Meyer and Philippi: “als Sünder hingestellt, in die Kategorie von Sündern versetzt wurden,” set down in the rank, or category, of sinners. Alford (with De Wette): “were made actual sinners by practice, not, ‘were accounted as’ (Grotius, al.); nor ‘became by imputation’ (Beza, Bengel); nor ‘were proved to be’ (Koppe, Reiche, Fritzsche).”—P. S.]

[90] [Meyer refers ὑπακοή, as the opposite of Adam’s παρακοή, specifically to the expiatory death of Christ, which was κατ̔ ἐξοκήν, His obedience to the will of God; Php_2:8. But Lechler, Hofmann, Stuart, Barnes, and others, agree with Lange.—P. S.]

[91] [Philippi doubts the meaning reddere, facere, in the N. T., and insists upon the fundamental meaning (1) to set down, sistere, constituere, hinstellen, einsetzen, and translates: in die Kategorie von Sündern gesetzt werden. But also in this case the setting down or the imputation must be based on the fact that they really are sinners, and so it is taken by Philippi.—P. S.]

[92] [Chrysostom is generally set down as the first advocate of this interpretation, but it should be remembered that he puts the metonymy not in the verb κατεστάθησαν, but in the noun ἁμαρτωλοί, which he makes to mean obnoxious to punishment and condemned to death, καταδεδικασμένοι θανάτω̣. He says that the Apostle designed merely to state the fact, that all became mortal through Adam, but not the why and wherefore. (Hom. x. Tom. ix., p. 523, ed. Bened.) It is unnecessary to prove that ἁμαρτωλός, in the N. T., means a real sinner, and nothing else. Grotius explains Rom_5:19 : “Here again is a metonymy. They were so treated as though they had actually sinned; that is, they were subject to death. So the word ‘sinner’ is used in 1Ki_1:21, and elsewhere.” So also Whitby, one of the best English commentators of the Arminian school.—P. S.]

[93] [Dr. Hodge, though otherwise a strict Calvinist, rejects the realistic Augustinian view of a fall of the whole race in Adam, and yet makes all the descendants of Adam legally responsible for his fall. To maintain this ground of an exclusively forensic imputation, he must resort to this forced interpretation of ἢμαρτον and κατεστάθησαν. “Καθίστημι,” he says (p. 271), “never [!] in the N. T. means to make, in the sense of effecting or causing a person or thing to be in its character or nature other than it was before. Καθιστάναι τινα ἁμαρτωλόν does not mean, to make one sinful, but to set him down as such, to regard or appoint him to be of that class.” [To regard, and to appoint are two very different things.—P. S.] “Thus, when Christ is said to have been ‘constituted the Son of God,’ He was not made Son, but declared to be such.” [But in this passage, Rom_1:4, ὸρισθέντος is used, not κατασταθέντος, and even that means more than declared; see Textual Note5 on p. 56.] “Who constituted thee a ruler or judge?’—i. e., Who appointed thee to that office? So, ‘Whom his lord made ruler.” [These two passages, Mat_24:45; Act_7:35, imply that neither was a ruler before being appointed, and they would lose their force, were we to substitute regarded for constituted.] “When, therefore, the Apostle says that the many were constituted (κατεστάθησαν) sinners by the disobedience of Adam, it cannot mean that the many thereby were rendered sinful, but that his disobedience was the ground of their being placed in the category of sinners. It constituted a good and sufficient reason for so regarding and treating them. The same remark applies, of course, to the other clause of this verse: δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οί πολλοί. This cannot mean, that by the obedience of one the many shall be made holy. It can only mean, that the obedience of Christ was the ground on which the many are to be placed in the category of the righteous—i.e., shall be so regarded and treated. It is not our personal righteousness which makes us righteous, but the imputation of the obedience of Christ. And the sense in which we are here declared to be sinners, is not that we are such personally (which indeed is true), but by the imputation of Adam’s disobedience.” With the same assurance, as in Rom_5:12 (see p. 178), Dr. Hodge claims that this dogmatic eisegesis is the obvious grammatical meaning of the passage, “adopted by commentators of every class, as to theological opinion.” Of all respectable modern commentators, Philippi (a high-church Lutheran) is the only one who apparently favors it by pressing the meaning, to set down, as distinct from reddere, facere, but he does so in the realistic Augustinian sense, which he expressly vindicates in the interpretation of ἢμαρτον (see p. 178). De Wette calls the Socinian interpretation of κατεστάθησαν false, and Meyer insists that the verb means, “die wirkliche Einsetzung in den Sünderstand, wodurch sie zu Sûndern thatsachlich geworden sind, peccatores constituti sunt;” and he quotes Jam_4:4; 2Pe_1:8; Heb_5:1; Heb_8:3; where the metonymic sense is impossible.—P. S.]

[94] [Tholuck, p. Rom 267: “So ergiebt sich denn für das Pass. nicht die Bedeutung: ‘dargestellt werden’ im Sinne von ‘erscheinen ais etwas, was man nicht ist,’ sondern ‘gemacht werden, werden.”—P. S.]

[95] [The latest commentator of Rom. v., Ad. Stölting (Beiträge zur Exegese der Paulinischen Briefe, Göttingen, 1869, p. 40), nearly agrees with Lange in giving the verb a special reference to the judgment. “Κατεστάθησαν,” he says, “hat hier die solenne Bedeutung des Hinstellens vor den Richter, wie ja die richterliche Thätigkeit Gottes auf Adamitischer Seite im Vorhergehenden durch κρῖμα und κατάκριμα auf das klarste bezeichnet ist.”—P. S.]

[96] [The E. V. has much obscured the meaning by omitting the article before many, as if it were antithetical to some, while the many are opposed to the one, ὁ εἶς.—P. S.]

[97] [According to Rothe, l. c. p. 155, Paul meant to suggest the idea of the possibility of the ultimate salvation of all men, but no more. ”Völlig bestimmt und unzwei-deutig will der Apostel nur die reale Möglichkeit der Beseeligung Aller durch Christi δικαίωμα aussagen; allein dabei will er doch zugleich mit völlig bewusster Absicht (und er erreicht diese Absicht durch das γάρ einerseits und durch das zweimalige οἱ πολλοί andrerseits), in dem Leser die bestimmte Varmuthung erregen, dass auch die geschichtliche Verwirklichung jener realen Möglichkeit von ihm mitgemeint sein moge; Aber auch eben nur als Vermuthung, die er durchaus nicht soll aus dem Gebiet der blossen Wahrscheinlichkeit in das der Evidenz hinuberziehen können. Gewiss, die meisterliche Kunst in der Durchführung einer so fein nüancirten Intention ist wohl zu bewundern.”—P. S.]

[98][As προζετέθη, Gal_3:19. Beza: præterea introiit, supervened, came in the way of addition. Meyer: es kam noch daneben ein, viz., in addition to sin, which had already entered into the world, Rom_5:12. Similarly Alford: “came in besides the fact of the many being made sinners, and as a transition-point to the other result.” Hodge: The law was superinduced on a plan already laid, and for a subordinate (?) although necessary purpose.—P. S.]

[99] [The idea of secresy, or surreptitious entrance, is not necessarily implied in παρά (comp. παρεισάγω, παρεισδύω, παρεισφέρω), and must be either derived from the context, as in Gal_2:4 (the only passage in the New Testament where the verb occurs besides our own), or be expressed by λάθρᾳ. In our passage such an idea would be inconsistent with the holy character of the law, the solemn manner of its promulgation, and the Apostle’s reverence for it (Rom_7:12 ff.). From Meyer.—P. S.]

[100] [Rothe, p. 158, translates: nebenbei zwischenein gekommen, it came in incidentally between. He thus combines the idea of the incidental coming in of the law with that of its medial position between Adam and Christ. So Olshausen: “In dem παρεισῆλθεν ist sowohl das mitten inne Treten, als auch das Beiläufige, nicht absolut Nothwendige desselben angedeutet.”—P. S.]

[101] [Estius: “Lex, prohibens peccatum, medio tempore inter Adam et Christum subingressa est.”—P. S.]

[102] [Meyer, who is a philological purist even to occasional pedantry, takes ἲνα here, and everywhere, τελικῶς, and thus seems to justify even the supralapsarian theory of sin. Alford likewise insists on the uniform telic meaning of ἲνα. It undoubtedly denotes the design here, but the mediate, not the ultimate design, as in Rom_5:21.—P. S.]

[103] [The terminology immediate or antecedent, and mediate or consequent imputation, is traced by Turretin (Instit., Pars 1. p. 556, Locus IX. de peccato, Qu. X.) to Joshua de la Place, of Saumure (1596–1655), who was charged with inventing it to evade the force of the synodical decision of Charenton, 1645. Augustine and the Reformers did not use it, and hence there has been some dispute as to the side on which to place them.]

[104][In opposition to Placæus, and in vindication of the decree of the Synod of Charenton, the distinguished Professor Rivet, of Leyden, made a collection of passages on imputation from the Reformed and Lutheran Confessions, and prominent divines, as Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Wolfgang Musculus, Viret, Bucanus, Peter Martyr; Wolleb, Whittaker, Davenant, Zanchius, Olevianus, Ursinus, Pareus, Piscator, L. Crocius, Melanchthon, Chemnitz, Hunnius, and many others (including also Roman Catholics). But these testimonies are to a great extent general, and make no distinction between immediate and mediate imputation. The collection of Rivet is translated in part in the Princeton Review, vol. 11. (1839), pp. 553–579.]

[105] [Turretin (l. c. Pars I. p. 557) defines imputation thus: “Imputatio vel est res alienæ, vel propriæ. Aliquando imputatur nobis id quod nostrum est personaliter, quo sensu Deus imputat peccata peccatoribus, quos propter propria crimina punit, et in bonis dicitur zelus Phineæ illi imputatus ad justitiam (Psa_106:31); aliquando imputatur id quod est extra nos, nec a nobis est præstitum, quomodo justitia Christi dicitur nobis imputari, et peccata nostra ipsi imputantur, licet nec ipse peccatum in se habeat, nec nos justitiam.”]

[106] [The Formula consensus Helvetica, a strongly partisan theological Confession, drawn up in 1675 by Heidegger of Zürich, at the solicitation of Turretin of Geneva, and Gernler of Basel, in opposition partly to the mediate imputationism of La Place, asserts that the imputatio culpæ is not the consequence, but the cause of the propagatio vitiositatis, or the corruptio hereditaria, and condemns the doctrine of those who “sub imputationis mediatæ et consequentis nomine, non imputationem duntaxat primi peccati tollunt, sed hereditariæ etiam corruptionis assertionem gravi periculo objiciunt.” Arts. 10.–12. (in Niemeyer’s Collect., p. 733). The same Confession teaches also a limited atonement, and verbal, even punctual inspiration; but it soon lost all authority. Ebrard (Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, 3. p. 556) calls it, rather too severely, the “ridiculous after-birth of a symbolical book.”]

[107] [Anselm (De conc. virg., 100:7) says we are not condemned because ”we ourselves sinned in Adam, as we did not yet exist, but because we were to descend from him (sed quia de illo fuluri eramus).”]

[108] [Calvin, on Rom_5:17 : “We are condemned for the sin of Adam not by imputation alone, as if the punishment of the sin of another were exacted of us (peccato Adæ non per solam imputationem damnamur, acsi alieni peccati exigeretur a nobis pœna), but we bear its punishment because we are guilty of the sin also (quia et culpæ sumus rei), in so far as our nature, vitiated in him, is held bound with the guilt of iniquity before God (quatenus scilicet et natura nostra in ipso vitiata iniquitatis reatu obstringitur apud Deum).” He then goes on to say, that we are in a different manner restored to salvation by the righteousness of Christ, viz., not because it is in us, but it is freely given to us by gratuitous imputation (gratuitam justitiæ imputationem). Ebrard (Dogmatik, 1., p. 512 f.) and Hodge (on Romans, p. 234) represent Calvin as a mediate imputationist; the former assenting, the latter dissenting. Calvin and the Reformed Confessions draw no line of demarcation between original sin imputed and original sin inherent. Calvin always guards against the supposition that we are condemned by an arbitrary imputation of a foreign act personal to Adam.]

[109] [Ebrard says, 1:100. 1. p. Rom 513: “Bullinger knows of such a reatus only which takes place in consequence of the corruptio or vitiositas, but not of a reatus which is the cause of the innate vitiositas. This would be likewise mediate imputation only. But compare the passages of Bullinger quoted by Rivet, l. c.]

[110] [The aim of Edwards, in his treatise on Original Sin, written against the Arminian, Dr. John Taylor, of Norwich, was to show that it is no absurd or impossible thing for “the race of mankind truly to partake of the sin of the first apostasy, so that this, in reality and propriety, shall become their sin; and therefore the sin of the apostasy is not theirs merely because God imputes it to them, but it is truly and properly theirs (by virtue of a real union between the root and the branches of mankind, established by the Author of the universe), and on that ground God imputes it to them” (Works, 2. p. 559). He says, moreover, that the arguments which prove the depravity of nature, establish also the imputation of Adam’s first sin, and that both are included in the usual conception of original sin. “The first depravity of heart, and the imputation of that sin [of Adam], are both the consequences of that established union [between Adam and his posterity]; but yet in such order, that the evil disposition is first, and the charge of guilt consequent, as it was in the case of Adam himself” (p. 544). Then, in a foot-note, he quotes with approbation a long extract from Stapfer’s Theologia Polemica, to the effect that the mediate and the immediate imputation are inseparable, and that one should never be considered without the other. Dr. Shedd, History of Christian Doctrine, 2. p. 163, seems to hold the same view. Edwards speaks, however, of imputation only incidentally; his main object was to defend the doctrine of native depravity by the theory of identity; i.e., a divinely constituted oneness of Adam and his race, by which his posterity should be born in his moral image, whether good or bad, according to the law that like begets like.]

[111] [The Lutherans held that the imputatio is immediata: in quantum exstitimus adhuc in Adamo (quia Adam representative fuit totum genus humanum); mediata: mediante peccato originali inhærente, in quantum in propriis personis et individualiter consideramur. The first is mediated through the second. Comp. Luthardt, Compendium der Dogmatik, p. 114 (2d ed. 1866).]

[112] [See the different definitions of this fœdus operum from the writings of Cocceius, Witsius, Heidegger, &c., in Heppe’s Dogmatik, pp. 204 ff. It is called fœdus μονόπλευρον, quia unius tantum partis dispositione et promissione constat, as distinct from a fœdus mutuum or δίπλευρον. There is no Scripture proof whatever for such a primal covenant. The solitary passage quoted, Hos_6:7 : “For they” (Ephraim and Judah) “like men” (not, “like Adam”) “have transgressed the covenant,” refers to the Mosaic covenant. Even Turretin (Inst. theol. elenchticæ, Pars I. p. 519, of the Edinb. and N. Y. ed., 1847) admits that it is inconclusive, and may be explained of the inconstancy of men, ”ut dicantur transgressi fœdus sicut homines facere solent, qui sua natura vani, levesque sunt et fidem sæpe fallunt.”]

[113][On the Westminster divines, see Baird, Etohim Revealed, pp. 39 ff., and especially the learned articles of Dr. Landis in the Danville Review for 1861–62.]

[114] [Art. X.: “Sicut Deus fœdus operum cum Adamo inivit non tantum pro ipso, sed etiam in ipso, ut capite et stirpe, cum toto genere humano, … ita Adamus tristi prolapsu, non sibi duntaxat sed toti etiam humano generi, … bona in fœdere promissa perdidit.” Comp. also the passages quoted by Heppe, 1:100. pp. 228 f.]

[115] [Turretin, like Heidegger, holds indeed to a double unity of the race with Adam, a natural or real, and a federal or forensic, but he evidently lays the chief stress upon the latter, and prepares the way for giving up the former. He says (in his Institutes, first published in 1688, Pars I. p. 557, Qu. XI.): ”Adamus duplici vinculo nobiscum junctus est: (1) Naturali, quatenus pater est, et nos ejus filii; (2) Politico ac forensi, quatenus fuit princeps et caput representativum totius generis humani. Fundamentum ergo imputationis non est tantum communio naturalis, quæ nobis cum Adamo intercedit—alias omnia ipsius peccata deberent nobis imputari—sed præcipue moralis et fœderalis, per quam factum est, ut Deus cum illo, ut cum nostro capite, fœdus pepigerit. Unde Adamus se habuit in illo peccato, non ut persona privata, sed ut publica et representativa quæ omnes suos posteros in actione illa repræsentavit, cujus proinde demeritum ad omnes pertinet.” In Qu. XII. he quotes with approbation from Augustine, ”in illo uno multi unus homo erant,” adding, by way of explanation, ”unitate non specifica vel numerica, sed partim unitate originis, quia omnes ex uno sunt sanguine, partim unitate repræsentationis, quia unus omnium personam repræsentabat, ex ordine Dei.” In Qu. XVI., pp. 558 f., he establishes his view from Rom_5:12-14. He says of πάντες ἢμαρτον correctly, that it cannot mean the habit of sin, nor inherent corruption, but actual sin committed in the past (peccatum aliquod actuate, idque præteritum), which can be no other than the sin of Adam itself (quod non potest aliud esse, quam ipsum Adami peccatum); but then he turns it into the meaning of representative sinning: ”Ergo eo peccante censentur el ipsi peccasse.” He proves this from the analogy of Christ: ”In Christo justi constituimur per justitiæ imputationem: ergo et peccatores in Adamo per peccati ipsius impu’ationem” This is precisely the exegesis of Dr. Hodge, except that Turretin translates ἐφ̓ ᾦ, with Augustin, in quo (viz., Adamo), while Hodge, more correctly, takes it as a conjunction.]

[116] [Drs. Ridgely, Doddridge, Watts, and Cunningham, of Scotland (in his Historical Theology, Edinb., 1863, vol. i., p. 515, and in his Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, Edinb., 1862, pp. 371 ff.), are counted on this side. Dr. Hodge, of Princeton, is the ablest advocate of immediate forensic imputationism. He states it (on Romans, p. 279) as follows: “The doctrine of imputation is clearly taught in this passage (Rom. v.). This doctrine does not include the idea of a mysterious identity of Adam and his race, nor that of a transfer of the moral turpitude of his sin to his descendants. It does not teach that his offence was personally or properly the sin of all men, or that his act was, in any mysterious sense, the act of his posterity. Neither does it imply, in reference to the righteousness of Christ, that His righteousness becomes personally and inherently ours, or that His moral excellence is in any way transferred from Him to believers. The sin of Adam, therefore, is no ground to us of remorse; and the righteousness of Christ is no ground of self-complacency in those to whom it is imputed. This doctrine merely teaches that, in virtue of the union, representative and natural, between Adam and his posterity, his sin is the ground of their condemnation—that is, of their subjection to penal evils—and that, in virtue of the union between Christ and His people. His righteousness is the ground of their justification. This doctrine is taught almost in so many words in Rom_5:12; Rom_5:15-19. It is so clearly stated, so often repeated or assumed, and so formally proved, that very few commentators of any class fail to acknowledge, in one form or another, that it is the doctrine of the Apostle.” The last is a mistake, as we have shown in the Exeg. Notes. Dr. Hodge’s hostility to the realistic Augustinian view proceeds, I think, from a misunderstanding. He does not distinguish between a virtual or potential, and a personal or individual coëxistence and coägency of the race in Adam. Augustine taught the former only; the latter is impossible and absurd, unless we hold it in the form of preëxistence, which Augustine expressly rejects.]

[117] [Watts, as quoted by Prof. Fisher, l. c. p. 506, naïvely confesses that he would gladly renounce this theory if he could find any other way to vindicate Providence,]

[118] [Comp. Stuart and Barnes on Rom. v.; Prof. Geo. P. Fisher, ”The Princeton Review on the Theology of Dr. N. W. Taylor,” in the New Englander for April, 1868.]

[119] [This idea has found familiar expression in devotional lines such as those of Watts:

“In Christ the tribes of Adam boast

More blessings than their father lost.”

Bishop Ken. (Christian Year, Sunday next before Easter):

“What Adam did amiss,

Turned to our endless bliss;

O happy sin, which to atone,

Drew Filial God to leave his Throne!”

A. L. Hillhouse:

“Earth has a joy unknown in heaven—

The new-born peace of sin forgiven!

Tears of such pure and deep delight,

Ye angels! never dimmed your sight.”]

[120] [Comp., however, my remarks on pp. 178 and 192.]

[121] [Pelagius, in his superficial commentary on Romans, preserved in the works of Jerome and Augustine, explains δἰ ενος ἀνθρώπον: “per unum hominem Evam.”—P. S.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The "wherefore" relates back to Rom 3:19-23 and may be regarded as a continuation of the discussion of the universality of sin, interrupted; Rom 3:24 to Rom 5:11; by the passage on justification and its results.

have sinned

The first sin wrought the moral ruin of the race. The demonstration is simple.

(1) Death is universal (Rom 4:12; Rom 4:14), all die: sinless infants, moral people, religious people, equally with the depraved. For a universal effect there must be a universal cause; that cause is a state of universal sin (Rom 5:12).

(2) But this universal state must have had a cause. It did. The consequence of Adam’s sin was that "the many were made sinners" (Rom 5:19)--"By the offence of one judgment came upon all men unto condemnation" (Rom 5:18).

(3) Personal sins are not meant here. From Adam to Moses death reigned (Rom 5:14), although, there being no law, personal guilt was not imputed (Rom 5:13). Accordingly, from Gen 4:7 to Exo 29:14 the sin-offering is not once mentioned. Then, since physical death from Adam to Moses was not due to the sinful acts of those who die (Rom 5:13), it follows that it was due to a universal sinful state, or nature, and that state is declared to be out inheritance from Adam.

(4) the moral state of fallen man is described in Scripture Gen 6:5; 1Ki 8:46; Psa 14:1-3; Psa 39:5; Jer 17:9; Mat 18:11; Mar 7:20; Mar 7:23; Rom 1:21; Rom 2:1-29; Rom 3:9-19; Rom 7:24; Rom 8:7; Joh 3:6; 1Co 2:14; 2Co 3:14; 2Co 4:4; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 2:1-3; Eph 2:11; Eph 2:12; Eph 4:18-22; Col 1:21; Heb 3:13; Jas 4:14; 1Co 15:22.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. In Christ.

The Sanctification of the Believer; his Deliverance from Sin and the Law; Children and Heirs.

Chapter 5:12-8.

CHAPTER 5:12-21

1. Sin and Death Through the First Adam. (Rom 5:12-14.)

2. In Adam by Nature; in Christ Through Grace(Rom 5:15-21.)

So far the subject of this Epistle has been our sins and how God has dealt with them in the Cross of Christ. The guilt and penalty of the sins of the believer are forever gone. With this section the question of sin itself is taken up and we learn how the justified believer is also sanctified in Christ and as such delivered from the dominion of sin and from the law. Furthermore we learn it also includes that believers are children and heirs of God. To distinguish between sins and sin is important. Sin is that evil principle in us, as fallen creatures, and sins are the fruits which spring from the evil root in us. Sin, the old nature, and how God deals with it in virtue of the redemption of Jesus Christ, is now, first of all, revealed. What we were in Adam and what we are through grace in Christ, how as identified with Christ we may be delivered from the power of indwelling sin, are truths unknown to many believers. Without this knowledge a true Christian experience, such which a believer should constantly enjoy, is impossible. One of the chief reasons why true believers are carried about with divers and strange doctrines, is the ignorance of these great facts of our redemption in Christ as unfolded in this part of Romans. How many others are constantly striving and struggling to lead a spiritual life and fail in it because they know not the great principles of sanctification and deliverance in Christ.

Rom 5:12-14

“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death and thus death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” By one man, the first Adam, sin entered into the world (not sins, but sin). And death followed, which is physical death. “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return,” and this death has passed upon the race because of sin. The margin of the authorized version contains a statement which is responsible for a very unscriptural teaching. The margin states “in whom all have sinned”; upon this it has been taught that the guilt of Adam has been imputed to all. This is not correct. We are not responsible for the sin of Adam nor are we held responsible by God for a sinful nature; we are responsible for the outworking of that nature, that is for our own sins. The wicked dead, those whose sins were not taken away, because they believed not, will not be judged for having had a sinful nature, but solely according to their works (Rev 20:12). Death comes upon us on account of our sins, as it is stated in this verse “death passed upon all men for that all have sinned.

“For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law; nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him to come.” This looks difficult, but it is simple after all. The law was given by Moses; from Adam to Moses there was no law, men were left to conscience, by which they knew good and evil. But death reigned nevertheless from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression. Adam had a commandment which he transgressed, inasmuch as there was no law till Moses, the generations could not sin after the similitude of Adam’s transgression. Sin is lawlessness and not as the faulty translation of 1Jn 3:4 states, “sin is the transgression of the law.” However, sin becomes transgression when there is a law. As there was no law from Adam to Moses, sin was therefore not imputed as transgression. But as they all sinned, death reigned and there is also judgment afterwards for them. The last sentence of Rom 5:14 “who is the figure of Him that was to come” is the important statement which is fully developed in the verses which follow and upon which the whole argument rests.

Rom 5:15-21

The first Adam is the type of the last, Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ. The same comparison is also found in 1Co 15:1-58 “For as all in Adam die, even so all in Christ shall be made alive” (1Co 15:22). This passage has often been used by those who teach the ultimate, universal salvation of the whole race. It has nothing whatever to do with salvation from the penalty of sin, but it applies to the resurrection of the bodies of the redeemed. Here in Romans the contrast is of a different nature. Adam and Christ are viewed as two heads, having each his offspring to whom they communicate something. The first Adam bestows upon his offspring the results of his sin; Christ, the last Adam,* bestows upon those who belong to Him, by personal faith in Him, the blessed consequences of His great work. (Christ is never called the second Adam, but the last Adam, as there will not be another after Him.) A sinful nature and physical death is what we have as the children of the first Adam. In Christ the believer receives a sinless nature, eternal life and glory. In this sense Adam is the figure of Him to come.

The first sentence of Rom 5:15-16 is best put in the form of a question. This helps much in understanding this deep portion of the Epistle. “But shall not the free gift be as the offence?” By the offence of Adam the many died, his offspring has been affected by his Offence. In like manner the grace of God and the gift of Grace, which is by the other Adam, Jesus Christ abounds also to the many. The question asked must therefore be answered in the affirmative. This and the following verses have also been used to teach that there is universal salvation. But it does not mean that. The condition “faith in Christ” must not be lost sight of. We are all in the first Adam by the natural birth; identification with the second Man is only possible by the new birth and that takes Place when a sinner believes on Christ and in His finished work. Those who do not believe are in Adam and are dead in trespasses and sins. “And shall not as by one that has sinned be the gift? For the judgment was of one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification” (Rom 5:16). The sins committed are here in view. Our sin brought judgment. The free gift of justification, on account of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, is blessedly sufficient to deliver from the guilt of many offences. “For if by the offence of one death reigned by the one; much more shall those who receive the abundance of grace, and Of the free gift of righteousness, reign in life by the one, Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:17). The Previous verse spoke of the guilt of sins, which rests upon all those who are in Adam and this guilt is met in Christ by justification. In Rom 5:17 death which reigns in the first man is met by reign of life in Jesus Christ. Those who believe on Him have life now and are delivered from the reign of death. When He comes, the bodies of His Saints will be raised in incorruption and we who remain shall be changed in a moment and be caught up into His Presence without dying. Rom 5:18 in the Authorized version is poorly translated and misleading. “So then as it was by one offence towards all men to condemnation, so by one righteousness towards all men to justification of life.” This blessed contrast between Adam and Christ is made again in Rom 5:19. “For as indeed by the disobedience of the one man (Adam) the many have been constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of the one the many shall be constituted righteous.” Here it is the contrast between Adam’s disobedience and Christ’s obedience. And the obedience of Christ which constitutes all who believe on Him righteous, is not His obedient life, but His obedience in the death of the cross. “But law came in in order that the offence might abound; but where sin abounded grace overabounded, in order that, even as sin has reigned in the power of death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Here for the first time a reason is given why God gave the law. The Epistle to the Galatians will bring the subject of Law and Grace more fully to our attention. Law came in that the offence might abound; it has constituted man a transgressor and in this sense the offence abounds. But grace overabounds. It deals with the transgressions and reigns through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Wonderful and preciously deep contrast! In Adam sin. condemnation and death. In Christ righteousness, justification and eternal life; yea much more, eternal glory. In Adam we have his constitution; in Christ we possess through grace His life and glory.

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Subdivision 1. (Rom 5:12-21.)

Christ our new creation Head.

We begin then with Christ as Head of new creation, in contrastive parallel with Adam and our heritage of evil from our first father’s fall. There are here many questions that have arisen and will arise: it is a much trodden ground of debate and controversy. Happily for us, we have not the responsibility of clearing up all the difficulties of divine government, but only of seeking the meaning of what is here before us. Faith’s part is not to say there are no mysteries, but to wait in quiet confidence for the due time of their revelation. We know in part, and we prophesy in part; but the veil which is ofttimes over the face of His dispensations is not, thank God, therefore over His own face. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not and cannot henceforth be in the darkness, but is Light and in the light.

1. We have first, what is too plain a fact, that sin and death are here. That death is, no one can dispute; that sin is, if any one denies, the common conscience of men will everywhere rebuke him. Sin, too, is something peculiarly man’s own; man has a power for self-debasement which the beast has not, and which can hardly be an acquisition he has made, seeing it is manifestly a degeneracy. It is a principle born with him also, a universal heritage, early and quickly developing. All the evidence we can expect then is in proof of the statement here, that by one man sin entered into the world; while the shadow of it over man, which the beast feels not, confirms the further one that death came in for him as penalty with sin. If geology can appeal to facts which show that death existed before man upon the earth it in no wise touches the truth of this at all. Scripture never asserts that death came in for the beast through sin or through man. Nor does it assert that there was no death in the beginning, which is a mere mistaken inference from the green herb assigned to the living thing for food. The "world" of which the apostle speaks here is doubtless the world of men alone: it is "to all men" that death came through, as he says.

He adds even as to men as the ground of the penalty, "for that all have sinned;" and here the main discussion immediately begins. There are a number of different explanations of these words, but most of them really alter what they would explain. To read "in whom all sinned" is impossible as a translation; nor can one say "all have become sinful," or "all have been treated as sinners:" it is exactly the statement of Rom 3:23, where "all have sinned" speaks of literal, personal sins committed. In complete opposition to the thought of sinning in Adam, nothing can surely be intended but that men have come under the dominion of death on account of their own sins. The contradiction of fact is, of course, the main, if not the only reason why this is not at once accepted. How could this be true of infants? is naturally asked, and might at first sight seem unanswerable. But the passage just now referred to has exactly the same thing to be said of it, but where it is no difficulty at all. If it be a question of salvation, infants cannot be saved as sinners, nor can be justified by faith; yet no one would contend on this account that this could not be God’s way of salvation because it did not take in infants. The apostle speaks there simply of those standing in their own responsibility before God. Infants are therefore understood as excepted, and that applies to both statements. As soon as you can speak of accountability at all this becomes true that all sin; and that shows of course the ruin of the race. Death has come in through the one man Adam, as has been said; and yet not because of any such formal covenant with Adam on behalf of his posterity as many plead, but because through that mysterious oneness of the race which, whatever question may be raised about it, cannot be denied, the fall of Adam did involve the corruption of his posterity. "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" asks Job; and answers himself, "Not one." Thus the "all have sinned" in this place demonstrates the fitness of God’s sentence of death passed upon all. For, if you plead the exception of infants from the penalty on Adam, your exception ought to plead for them as much as to their exemption from the inheritance of corruption, which is a more terrible fact, and from which yet the justice of God does not exempt them. The greater fact of the general corruption proved so sadly as each emerges into the common world of men, implies the parallel fact of death as its accompaniment. But in this very way the consideration of the case of infants may be omitted from the statement before us.

It is thought by many that at this point the apostle breaks off his argument, to introduce a long parenthetical explanation as to the relation of law to sin, and as to the parallel between Adam and Christ, returning to complete his thought in the eighteenth verse. This (which is what we find in the common version, and which has been exchanged in the revised for the worse hypothesis of a mere broken statement which never reaches an orderly conclusion) seems, however, only to derange the true relation of parts to one another as expressed in the structure. The parenthesis seems too long and too important in what it contains, as well as too anticipative of the after-conclusion. The twelfth verse, moreover, is not broken off in the manner supposed. The proper view seems rather, as others have suggested, that the introductory "wherefore," referring clearly to what has gone before, teaches us to look back for the true commencement of that to which the twelfth verse becomes then itself the conclusion; though this is not fully reached without a more explicit disclosure of what was in the apostle’s mind, that Adam was in fact the "figure," or "type, of the One that was to come." For in the gospel upon which he had been dwelling was already announced that principle of the One standing for the many, to which he now explicitly calls attention. We may supply "Wherefore this is" -this coming in of peace and reconciliation through Christ -in the same way "as by one man sin and death entered." This meaning, the words as to Adam, "who is the type of the One that was to come," bring into full day, without there being formally the conclusion.

There is, therefore, no parenthesis here; but the apostle goes on to say that sin existed before law. This the Gentile needed to consider, rather than the Jew, who would easily admit it; but the Gentile might say, "We had not the will of God made known to us, as the Jew had." In fact Paul had spoken to the Athenians of a time of ignorance at which God winked. The law had put sin into account in the way the Gentile had nothing like. Adam in paradise had a law indeed, though a very simple one, and which after his expulsion from the garden could have no further application. From Adam to Moses there was no law. Yet (with one gracious exception only) from Adam to Moses the universal reign of death proved fully the presence of sin which God reckoned to them. Yet there was no law, and therefore no transgression: for where no law is there is no transgression, as has been already said (Rom 4:15). Adam transgressed: he had a limit imposed which he overstepped; but those who had not sinned in the likeness of that open transgression of his, yet died, as he had died: sin universal was proved in the fact of universal death.

In all this the darkness is unrelieved; but it is but the background upon which the glory of divine grace is to be displayed: even from the centre of the darkness now the light shines: this very principle which seems only to have worked ruin, God can transform into one of complete triumph over the evil that has come in. Another Adam shall replace the failed first man, and a fairer creation arise in unfading beauty out of the ruin of the old.

2. A type, by the very fact that it is a type, must be in contrast with its anti-type: the shadow cannot be the perfect image. Here, however, at first sight, the contrast is more evident than the resemblance; and the apostle at the outset emphasizes the contrast. "Not as the offence," he says, so is the gracious gift." In the fact of representation of their respective companies, the two Adams are alike. Each is the head of a race, which stands or falls with its respective head. In the first epistle to the Corinthians (1Co 15:45) these heads are themselves put in contrast with one another: "The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening Spirit." This gives us the key to the respective races with which they are connected: the first is a natural, the last a spiritual race. And so it is said in the epistle to the Hebrews (Heb 2:16), "He taketh not hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham He taketh hold." These the apostle speaks of indeed in this place as His brethren, rather than His seed; as in the present epistle also He is seen as "the Firstborn among many brethren" (Rom 8:29). And because He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one, He is not ashamed to call them brethren" (Heb 2:11).

Here the identity of the Head with the race is affirmed: and in this sense Adam, though the father of all, would also be the firstborn among many brethren. As to the Lord, it is with the seed of Abraham that He is allied; that is, with the family of faith, the spiritually born. And because the children God has given him are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part in the same (ver. 14).

But He is truly also the Last Adam of this spiritual race, Himself the Quickening Spirit to them all, Himself their life; "for as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, so the Son quickeneth whom He will" (Joh 5:21).

Thus here are two Adams, alike in this, yet how unlike! the Adam of the old, and the Adam of the new creation! In connection with the one, spite of the beauty and uprightness in which he first came forth from under the Creator’s hands, his personal history was little more than that of the "offence," the fatal effects of which he transmitted to his seed. With the other comes, not penalty or requirement, but "gift." How great must be the contrast then! If God is inflicting judgment, this must be executed according to the demand of divine righteousness; but here therefore can be no overplus. But if God be giving, what shall limit Him as to the gift He chooses to bestow? Any gift to fallen creatures must be of His grace; but if it be grace upon grace, who shall say Him nay? Has He in fact come in in Christ simply to undo the effect of the fall, and set man where be was before it? Nay, if the offence was disastrous, and the many died, much more has the grace of God and His gift in grace, which is by the One, Jesus Christ, abounded towards many! Innocence has indeed been lost, with the continuance of life on earth, and the Eden paradise; but righteousness and holiness have been gained, eternal life, and the paradise of God! Here is the divine balance-sheet: it would not suit God to have a poorer exhibit; it would not suit Him to have no gain in glory: and this is what the Second Man has toiled for, as the first wrought the shame.

And there is another contrast: one sin committed brought in condemnation; such was the holiness of God, a holiness still unchanged; yet now after many offences having been committed, His gracious gift is of a state of accomplished righteousness.

Again, if the men through whom those diverse effects are wrought are thus in contrast, and if the present effects themselves carry on the contrast, how will the future bring this out in full result! If the work of the one man has brought about the present reign of death, much more shall they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the One Man, Christ. It is not merely that life will reign instead of death, but that the recipients of this grace themselves will reign in an unending life.

Thus we see, all through, that the parallel here is one of contrast, and that Christ having come in to undo the work of the fallen first man, in a grace which, though ever righteous, cannot be measured by righteousness simply, as the judgment is, there must be as the result a plenitude of blessing which shall glorify God where sin has come in to dishonor. Him, and thus shall raise up the fallen creature also to a height far above the level of his original condition. These things are necessary concomitants: God is going to "show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus" (Eph 2:7).

This is indeed directly contrary to some thoughts which have been largely held and thought to be flavored by the well-known phrase used by the apostle Peter in his address to the Jews soon after Pentecost, in which he speaks of a restitution of all things to be brought about at Christ’s reappearing, and "of which" he says, "God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began" (Act 3:21). This has been thought decisive that eternity will be but a final return to what were God’s first thoughts when He created man, and which He could not permit the entrance of sin to set aside. Or else, it is contended, Satan would really have gained a victory in compelling Him to change His plan about Eden and the earth. And this has been carried so far by some that the "new earth" of which the prophets speak has been supposed to be indeed a "Paradise regained," in which generations of men would in the ordinary way of nature but without death, replace one another to all eternity. Adam instead of Christ, is thus made to have been God’s first thought, Christ an expedient when the first man failed; the paradisaic state is unscripturally exalted, and the work of Christ and its consequences really, however unintentionally, degraded. For it should be plain that as the Person is far greater, so His work must be, and so the fruits of it. Where the original creation is taken as the perfection of what was in the mind of Him who created it, Adam is considered to have been a creature made for heaven, to whom it was secured by covenant that he would receive it as the reward of his well-doing; and the ten commandments are carried back some two thousand five hundred years before they were given, to be the measure of what he was required to fulfil. Thus when he failed, Christ is supposed to have taken up the broken contract, and to have gained for us, by his fulfilment of it, what Adam lost.

All this is in complete forgetfulness of what Christ is, and of the work which lay before Him; it is to forget that almost throughout what we have been looking at, the parallel between the two Adams is one of contrast. Here let the pregnant figure of the trespass-offering speak -which is the divine thought of restitution given to us. Plainly, had man in that case fulfilled the law as regards God and his fellow, there need have been, and would have been, no offering at all. If Christ even had taken up Adam’s broken contract to fulfil it, death would have had no place in such work, because death was the penalty of the breach of it. If He could thus have fulfilled the work for Adam, and given to God the obedience in which Adam failed, and in Adam’s behalf, the punishment of the breach of it could not have been required of Him. What was wrong would have been set right without the shedding of blood. But "without shedding of blood is no remission;" and "if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain" (Heb 9:22; Gal 2:21).

But furthermore, in this matter of the trespass-offering, after the injury inflicted had been duly estimated and made up, still restitution in God’s thought of it, was not complete until there had been added to it a "fifth part more." Thus the person who offered the offering did more than could have been required if the trespass had not been committed, and the injured person was now a gainer to that extent. In the trespass-offering two aspects of it are distinguished which would not come together in the ordinary use of it; there was a Godward and a manward side, which in Christ’s fulfilment of it did come together. God and man are both considered as suffering through sin, and are both now gainers through the work of Christ; and this is the "much more" of the apostle in the fifth of Romans, and this is the "fifth part more" of the book of Leviticus.

To see it in anywise, we must have clearly before our eyes the contrast between these two of whom we have been speaking: what did God gain, to speak humanly, by Christ’s work? what could He have gained, at the best, by Adam’s?

What was the first man, Adam?

Not, if we are to take Scripture, a being formed for heaven, but in express contrast with heaven, "of the earth, earthy." If I open Genesis, I find no hope of heaven held out to him there, no idea of being raised above the estate in which he was created. I find no works enjoined, for which be was to be rewarded; one prohibition only of a thing which would have had no moral character attaching to it, had it not been forbidden. Created very good, he was to keep his first estate, not seek a new one. Nor, until sin had made our estate evil, and only with fallen man, do we find a thought of a creature quitting its estate, except as sin. So with "the angels who kept not their first estate," of whom Jude speaks. Not made to toil at working out a righteousness, but to enjoy the bounteous goodness which had provided richly for him, one test of obedience, and of the easiest, was given: if he ate of the tree, he died.

What did God gain by such obedience?

Save as one of the countless creatures He had made, whose happiness bore witness of creating goodness and wisdom -nothing. Had he obeyed, what marvel? Had he obtained witness that he was righteous, it would have been creature-righteousness, not divine. With Eliphaz, we might have asked, Is it gain to God that thou makest thy ways perfect?" And had he been obedient, as angels were, would the fitting reward for it have been a place in glory and at the right hand of God? Would he have inherited all things? Would he have been where Christ as Man is, and have shared what the saints will share, as joint-heirs with Him?

Simple questions, yet needful. For if they are to have adverse answer, after all the plan as shown in Adam must be so far altered; and how much does this imply?

But Adam fell: that wrong was done to God, of which the trespass-offering speaks. Sin had spoiled the old creation, and (again to speak humanly, as we must,) raised the question of God’s character. If He cut off the offenders in righteousness, love would not be shown; if mercy spared them, how could He be holy? Slowly and patiently was the answer given. Christ was that answer. Not simply the taker up of man’s cause. Not the worker out of mere human righteousness. But the brightness of the Father’s glory; the Wisdom and Power of God: the Fulfiller of divine righteousness, and the Revealer of divine Love. The glory of God is in the face of Jesus Christ. There we see it. If the entrance of sin into the world had in anywise raised a question about God, not only are such questions for ever at rest, but the way in which it has been dealt with in the Cross of His Son becomes the very way in which His attributes shine out. Christ is not merely "the Lord our Righteousness," He is the very "Righteousness of God." Could Adam have been that, or wrought it? We are in another sphere altogether, plainly. Inseparably connected with man’s worst wickedness, is the display of God’s righteousness, and not in wrath, but through which He justifies the ungodly.

Thus Christ’s work is different both in its character and results Godward from anything that could be of Adam, asked or had. It was such as the Only-begotten Son in the bosom of the Father alone could accomplish, and must have corresponding results for man also, for here also the "fifth part more" applies. Things are restored, but not to the primitive condition before the fall. They are "made new," in a "new creation," not the old, and whose Head is "the beginning of the creation of God."

3. It is the gain manward of the work of Christ with which the apostle here is occupied; although the Godward side must be disclosed in connection with this; but the point here all the way through is the effect with regard to the many with whom the Head is connected. In the last three verses we had the contrasts between the judgment and the grace; now we have the actual realization, along with the declaration of the sufficiency of Christ’s work for all, which renders all inexcusable who do not receive it. The purpose of the law added at the close shows the earnestness of God’s grace in pressing upon men their need; law being thus a true handmaid to the gospel as is shown elsewhere. The provision for man’s sinful condition is also dwelt upon, which the very idea of an Adam-head implies, a life in Christ, which prepares us for the doctrine of the chapters following, in which this comes to the front in the consideration of practical questions of the deepest interest and importance. It is characteristic of all this second division of Romans that life and nature come up in it, as in the first only actual sins, which are the ground of final judgment, as has already been shown. The conviction of a soul before God is not to be effected by pressing upon him Adam’s sin, or the evil nature which he has thus derived from Adam. These he will turn into pleas in his own favor, rather than against him; and it is in this way that Job actually pleads that one cannot bring a clean thing out of an unclean: humiliated he is by it, but not condemned. On the other hand, spite of such pleas, conscience will bring him in guilty for every actual sin, and from its decision there is no appeal. Whatever man’s nature may be, be, unlike the beast, is responsible to control it morally, and not be controlled by it. In the power of the will, in which lies man’s true manhood, his accountability to God is found as well.

It is when one is converted and the bent of the will is Godward, that the hindrance of a fallen nature is proved in bitter experience. This we shall have to consider in a little while. At present it is only the presence of such a nature that is recognized, along with the parallel communication of a new nature from the new source of life to a believer, the new Adam-Head, the Lord Jesus Christ. Hitherto we have had the fruits of old nature, the actual sins. Now we are to look deeper remembering all the time what we have spoken of as to human accountability being due to something beside nature. We never speak of nature acting indeed, except as implying a certain passivity in the man himself, and not the man in his full manhood energy.

The contrast now is only that necessarily involved in the two heads that are before us; although in the statement of the general bearing of accomplished righteousness "all men" have not the same relation to the Second that they had to the first. This is of them, however, and not of Him; the express purpose of what is said here being to show that it is not from any lack of sufficiency for all that the effect of the work of recovery does not reach to the full extent of the fall. God is not willing that any should perish (2Pe 3:9), and therefore could not leave any without provision made: "as by one offence (the bearing) towards all men was to condemnation, thus also through one accomplished righteousness (the bearing) toward all men is to justification of life." Besides the universal aspect, there is only the last expression that is new. "Justification of life" is not found anywhere else in Scripture, and in itself it may have more than one significance. What is commonly understood by it is "justification to life," -a clearing from charge which entitles the justified man to life instead of the death that would have been his due. This is not unfitted to stand over against condemnation also, though justification alone would sufficiently do this.

But "justification attaching to life" introduces an important thought that is not found in the former way of reading it, and which connects moreover with what is soon to follow. If Christ be really another Adam, a life communicated to those who are of His race forms a necessary part of this idea. The Last Adam is thus a "quickening Spirit," a communicator of life in a way transcending all that could be attributed to the first. The life, as the Lord has taught us, is eternal life, and thus we are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. All this we have had fully in the Gospel of John, and need not repeat here what is indeed simple and familiar truth. But this life, in Him who is the Resurrection and the Life, is resurrection life. "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die," He says, speaking of it, "it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit" (Joh 12:24). And so again He speaks of him that believeth in Him as one with death now behind him, and never to know it (Joh 11:26). Thus the life being resurrection life, the virtue of His death is in it for us, and His resurrection is our justification: we have justification attaching to the life we have in Him" justification of life." Brought into a new creation by our part in the Last Adam, His death is our severance from all that judicially attached to us in the old; "if any man be in Christ, (it is) new creation: old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new" (2Co 5:17). Thus the "one accomplished righteousness" has wrought for us.*

{*This "one accomplished righteousness" corresponds to the obedience of One, spoken of just below, and is in contrast with the offense and disobedience of the first Adam. It would seem to include the Lord’s death and resurrection, in which God’s righteousness was declared. It has nothing to do, directly, with our Lord’s own personal righteousness, save as that fitted Him to be the unblemished sacrifice. In His death righteousness in grace toward man was fulfilled and in His resurrection it was proclaimed. -S.R.}

This is its bearing towards all men -most important to be stated to vindicate the grace of God from what men’s unbelief might bring against it. In the actual result the apostle cannot speak any more of "all men," but once more of "the many." "For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were brought into the state of sinners," -there is the sinful state, the heritage of uncleanness derived from the uncleanness of our fallen parents, -"so through the obedience of the One, the many shall be brought into the state of righteous." This last, no doubt, includes both the justification and the life. Notice here that "the obedience of One" brings in the burnt-offering aspect of Christ’s work, the full sweet savor. To stand in Christ is not merely to have our sins put away, nor even (what we have not yet come to) our old man set aside, but it is to be accepted in all the preciousness for God of His obedience.

Thus there is a growing fulness in the statements here. They are not mere repetitions of the same, growing blessed, truth. They go on swelling in an increasing triumph of divine goodness overmastering evil. In the closing strain the law takes its place and acts its part, only apparently to make the tale of sin more disheartening, and yet in the end to make victorious grace manifestly supreme and lift it to its throne of glory. "Law came in by the way that the offence might abound:" -did that need? one might ask; was it not to add difficulty to difficulty -to make greater the distress that it could not relieve? So it would indeed seem, and not only seem, but so it really was: law, as we shall see fully in the argument of the seventh chapter, by its very opposition to the innate evil only arouses it to full activity and communicates to it new strength: "the strength of sin is the law" (1Co 15:56). This was indeed its mission; which if that were all, would be but disaster -a ministration of death and condemnation indeed! (2Co 3:7; 2Co 3:9); but it came in by the way, says the apostle, -to fulfil a temporary purpose, in making manifest the hopeless condition of man apart from grace, when every command on God’s part arouses the hostility of man’s heart against it: "the law entered that the offence might abound"! Yes, but that man learning himself by this, grace may be known as grace, and so received; "that as sin reigned in death, so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord." How suitably the ascription of Lordship to the glorious Conqueror closes this wondrous recital of what we owe to Him! It is this heart-homage to Him which is of the essence of the blessing bestowed. The reign of grace is that in which Christ reigns, and subjects all enemies; the heart entirely subdued to Him, that subjection is its deliverance and freedom.

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 13

CHRIST AND ADAM

Rom_5:12-21

WE approach a paragraph of the Epistle pregnant with mystery. It leads us back to Primal Man, to the Adam of the first brief pages of the Scripture record, to his encounter with the. suggestion to follow himself rather than his Maker, to his sin, and then to the results of that sin in his race. We shall find those results given in terms which certainly we should not have devised a priori. We shall find the Apostle teaching, or rather stating, for he writes as to those who know, that mankind inherits from primal Man, tried and fallen, not only taint but guilt, not only moral hurt but legal fault.

This is "a thing heard in the darkness." It has been said that Holy Scripture "is not a sun, but a lamp." The words may be grievously misused, by undue emphasis on the negative clause; but they convey a sure truth, used aright. Nowhere does the Divine Book undertake to tell us all about everything it contains. It undertakes to tell us truth, and to tell it from God. It undertakes to give us pure light, yea, "to bring life and immortality out into the light,". {2Ti_1:10} But it reminds us that we know "in part," and that even prophecy, even the inspired message, is "in part". {1Co_13:9} It illuminates immensely much, but it leaves yet more to be seen hereafter. It does not yet kindle the whole firmament and the whole landscape like an oriental sun. It sheds its glory upon our Guide, and upon our path.

A passage like this calls for such recollections. It tells us, with the voice of the Apostles Lord, great facts about our own race, and its relations to its primeval Head, such that every individual man has a profound moral and also judicial nexus with the first Man. It does not tell us how those inscrutable but solid facts fit into the whole plan of Gods creative wisdom and moral government. The lamp shines there, upon the edges of a deep ravine beside the road; it does not shine sun-like over the whole mountain land.

As with other mysteries which will meet us later, so with this; we approach it as those who "know in part," and who know that the apostolic Prophet, by no defect of inspiration, but by the limits of the case, "prophesies in part." Thus with awful reverence, with godly fear, and free from the wish to explain away, yet without anxiety lest God should be proved unrighteous, we listen as Paul dictates, and receive his witness about our fall and our guilt in that mysterious "First Father."

We remember also another fact of this case. This paragraph deals only incidentally with Adam; its main theme is Christ. Adam is the illustration; Christ is the subject. We are to be shown in Adam, by contrast, some of "the unsearchable riches of Christ." So that our main attention is called not to the brief outline of the mystery of the Fall, but to the assertions of the related splendour of the Redemption.

St. Paul is drawing again to a close, a cadence. He is about to conclude his exposition of the Way of Acceptance, and to pass its junction with the Way of Holiness. And he shows us here last, in the matter of Justification, this fragment from "the bottoms of the mountains"-the union of the justified with their redeeming Lord as race with Head; the nexus in that respect between them and Him which makes His "righteous act" of such infinite value to them. In the previous paragraph, as we have seen, he has gravitated toward the deeper regions of the blessed subject; he has indicated our connection with the Lords Life as well as with His Merit. Now, recurring to the thought of the Merit, he still tends to the depths of truth, and Christ our Righteousness is lifted before our eyes from those pure depths as not the Propitiation only, but the Propitiation who is also our Covenant-Head, our Second Adam, holding His mighty merits for a new race, bound up with Himself in the bond of real unity.

He "prophesies in part," meanwhile, even in respect of this element of his message. As we saw just above, the fullest explanations of our union with the Lord Christ in His life were reserved by St. Pauls Master for other Letters than this. In the present passage we have not, what probably we should have had if the Epistle had been written five years later, a definite statement of the connection between our Union with Christ in His covenant and our Union with Him in His life; a connection deep, necessary, significant. It is not quite absent from this passage, if we read verses 17, 18 (Rom_5:17-18) aright; but it is not prominent. The main thought is of merit, righteousness, acceptance; of covenant, of law. As we have said, this paragraph is the climax of the Epistle to the Romans as to its doctrine of our peace with God through the merits of His Son. It is enough for the purpose of that subject that it should indicate, and only indicate, the doctrine that His Son is also our Life, our indwelling Cause and Spring of purity and power.

Recollecting thus the scope and the connection of the passage, let us listen to its wording.

On this account, on account of the aspects of our justification and reconciliation "through our Lord Jesus Christ" which he has just presented, it is just as through one man sin entered into the world, the world of man, and, through sin, death, and so to all men death travelled, penetrated, pervaded, inasmuch as all sinned; the Race sinning in its Head, the Nature in its representative Bearer. The facts of human life and death show that sin did thus pervade the race, as to liability, and as to penalty: For until law came sin was in the world: it was present all along, in the ages previous to the great Legislation. But sin is not imputed, is not put down as debt for penalty, where law does not exist, where in no sense in there statute to be obeyed or broken, whether that statute takes articulate expression or not. But death became king, from Adam down to Moses, even over those who did not sin on the model of the transgression of Adam-who is (in the present tense of the plan of God) pattern of the Coming One.

He argues from the fact of death, and from its universality, which implies a universality of liabilty, of guilt. According to the Scriptures, death is essentially penal in the case of man, who was created not to die but to live. How that purpose would have been fulfilled if "the image of God" had not sinned against Him, we do not know. We need not think that. the fulfilment would have violated any natural process; higher processes might have governed the case, in perfect harmony with the surroundings of terrestrial life, till perhaps that life was transfigured, as by a necessary development, into the celestial and immortal. But, however, the record does connect, for man, the fact of death with the fact of sin, offence, transgression. And the fact of death is universal, and so has been from the first. And thus it includes generations most remote from the knowledge of a revealed code. And it includes individuals most incapable of a conscious act of transgression such as Adams was; it includes the heathen, and the infant, and the imbecile. Therefore wherever there is human nature, since Adam fell, there is sin, in its form of guilt. And therefore, in some sense which perhaps only the Supreme Theologian Himself fully knows, but which we can follow a little way, all men offended in the First Man-so favourably conditioned, so gently tested. The guilt contracted by him is possessed also by them. And thus is he "the pattern of the Coming One."

For now the glorious Coming One, the Seed of the Woman, the blessed Lord of the Promise, rises on the view, in His likeness and in His contrast. Writing to Corinth from Macedonia, about a year before, St. Paul had called him {1Co_15:45; 1Co_15:47} "the Second Adam," "the Second Man"; and had drawn in outline the parallel he here elaborates. "In Adam all die; even so in Christ all shall be made alive." It was a thought which he had learned in Judaism, but which his Master had affirmed to him in Christianitiy; and noble indeed and far reaching is its use of it in this exposition of the sinners hope.

But not as the transgression, so the gracious gift. For if, by the transgression of the one, the many, the many affected by it, died, much rather did the grace of God, His benignant action, and the gift, the grant of our acceptance, in the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, ("in His grace," because involved in His benignant action, in His redeeming work) abound unto the many whom it, whom He, affected.

We observe here some of the phrases in detail. "The One"; "the One Man":-"the one," in each case, is related to "themany" involved, in bane or in blessing respectively. "The One Man":-so the Second Adam is designated, not the First. As to the First, "it goes unsaid" that he is man. As to the Second, it is infinitely wonderful, and Of eternal import, that He, as truly, as completely, is one with us, is Man of men. "Much rather did the grace, and the gift, abound":-the thought given here is that while the dread secret of the Fall was solemnly permitted, as good in law, the sequel of the divine counter work was gladly sped by the Lords willing love, and was carried to a glorious overflow, to an altogether unmerited effect, in the present and eternal blessing of the justified. "The many," twice mentioned in this verse, are the whole company which, in each case, stands related to the respective Representative. It is the whole race in the case of the Fall; it is the "many brethren" of the Second Adam in the case of the Reconciliation. The question is not of numerical comparison between the two, but of the numerousness of each host in relation to the oneness of its covenant Head. What the numerousness of the "many brethren" will be we know-and we do not know; for it will be "a great multitude, which no one can number." But that is not in the question here. The emphasis, the "much rather," the "abundance," lies not on the compared numbers, but on the amplitude of the blessing which overflows upon "the many" from the justifying work of the One.

He proceeds, developing the thought. From the act of each Representative, from Adams Fall and Christs Atonement, there issued results of dominion, of royalty. But what was the contrast of the cases! In the Fall, the sin of the One brought upon "the many" judgment, sentence, and the reign of death over them. In the Atonement, the righteousness of the One brought upon "the many" an "abundance," an overflow, a generous largeness and love of acceptance, and the power of life eternal, and a prerogative of royal rule over sin and death; the emancipated captives treading upon their tyrants necks. We follow out the Apostles wording:

And not as through the one who sinned, who fell, so is the gift; our acceptance in our Second Head does not follow the law of mere and strict retribution which appears in our fall in our first Head. (For, he adds in emphatic parenthesis, the judgment did issue, from one transgression, in condemnation, in sentence of death; but the gracious gift issued, from many transgressions, -not indeed as if earned by them, as if caused by them, but as occasioned by them; for this wonderful process of mercy found in our sing, as well as, in our Fall, a reason for the Cross-in a deed of justification.) For if in one transgression, "in" it, as the effect is involved in its cause, death came to reign through the one offender, much rather those who are receiving, in their successive cases and generations, that abundance of the grace just spoken of, and of the free gift of righteousness, of acceptance, shall in life, life eternal, begun now, to end never, reign over their former tyrants through the One, their glorious One, Jesus Christ.

And now he sums up the whole in one comprehensive inference and affirmation. "The One" "the many"; "the One," "the all"; the whole mercy for the all due to the one work of the One; -such is the ground thought all along. It is illustrated by "the one" and "the many" of the Fall, but still so as to throw the real weight of every word not upon the Fall but upon the Acceptance. Here, as throughout this paragraph, we should greatly mistake if we thought that the illustration and the object illustrated were to be pressed, detail by detail, into one mould. To cite an instance to the contrary, we are certainly not to take him to mean that because Adams "many" are not only fallen in him, but actually guilty, therefore Christs "many" are not only accepted in Him, but actually and personally meritorious of acceptance. The whole Epistle negatives that thought. Nor again are we to think, as we ponder ver. 18 (Rom_5:18), that because "the condemnation" was "to all men" in the sense of their being not only condemnable but actually condemned, therefore "the justification of life" was "to all men" in the sense that all mankind are actually justified. Here again the whole Epistle, and the whole message of St. Paul about our acceptance, are on the other side. The provision is for the genus, for man; but the possession is for men-who believe. No; these great details in the parallel need our reverent caution, lest we think peace where there is, and can be, none. The force of the parallel lies in the broader and deeper factors of the two matters. It lies in the mysterious phenomenon of covenant headship, as affecting both our Fall and our Acceptance; in the power upon the many, in each case, of the deed of the One; and then in the magnificent fulness and positiveness of result in the case of our salvation. In our Fall, sin merely worked itself out into doom and death. In our Acceptance, the Judges award is positively crowned and as it were loaded with gifts and treasures. It brings with it, in ways not described here, but amply shown in other Scriptures, a living union with a Head who is our life, and in whom we possess already the powers of heavenly being in their essence. It brings with it not only the approval of the Law, but accession to a throne. The justified sinner is a king already, in his Head, over the power of sin, over the fear of death. And he is on his way to a royalty in the eternal future which shall make him great indeed, great in his Lord.

The absolute dependence of our justification upon the Atoning Act of our Head, and the relation of our Head to us accordingly as our Centre and our Root of blessing, this is the main message of the passage we are tracing. The mystery of our congenital guilt is there, though it is only incidentally there. And after all what is that mystery? It is assuredly a fact. The statement of this paragraph, that the many were "constituted sinners by the disobedience of the one," what is it? It is the Scripture expression, and in some guarded sense the Scripture explanation of a consciousness deep as the awakened soul of man; that I, a member of this homogeneous race, made in Gods image, not only have sinned, but have been a sinful being from my first personal beginning; and that I ought not to be so, and ought never to have been so. It is my calamity, but it is also my accusation. This I cannot explain; but this I know. And to know this, with a knowledge that is not merely speculative but moral, is to be " shut up unto Christ," in a self-despair that can go nowhere else than to Him for acceptance, for peace, for holiness, for power.

Let us translate, as they stand, the closing sentences before us:

Accordingly therefore, as through one transgression there came a result to all men, to condemnation, to sentence of death, so through one deed of righteousness there came a result to all men, (to "all" in the sense we have indicated, so that whoever of mankind receives the acceptance owes it always and wholly to the Act of Christ,) to justification of life, to an acceptance which not only bids the guilty "not die," but opens to the accepted the secret, in Him who is their Sacrifice, of powers which live in Him for them as He is their Life. For as, by the disobedience of the one man, the many, the many of that case, were constituted sinners, constituted guilty of the fall of their nature from God, so that their being sinful is not only their calamity but their sin, so too by the obedience of the One, "not according to their works," that is, to their conduct, past, present, or to come, but "by the obedience of the One," the many, His "many brethren," His Fathers children through faith in Him, shall be, as each comes to Him in all time, and then by the final open proclamation of eternity, constituted righteous, qualified for the acceptance of the holy Judge.

Before he closes this page of his message, and turns the next, he has as it were a parenthetic word to say, indicating a theme to be discussed more largely later. It is the function of the law, the moral place of the preceptive Fiat, in view of this wonderful Acceptance of the guilty. He has suggested the question already, Rom_3:31; he will treat some aspects of it more fully later. But it is urgent here to enquire at least this, Was law a mere anomaly, impossible to put into relation with justifying grace? Might it have been as well out of the way, never heard of in the human world? No, God forbid. One deep purpose of acceptance was to glorify the Law, making the preceptive Will of God as dear to the justified as it is terrible to the guilty.

But now, besides this, it has a function antecedent as well as consequent to justification. Applied as positive precept to the human will in the Fall, what does it do? It does not create sinfulness; God forbid. Not Gods will but the creatures will did that. But it occasions sins declaration of war. It brings out the latent rebellion of the will. It forces the disease to the surface - merciful force, for it shows the sick man his danger, and it gives point to his Physicians words of warning and of hope. It reveals to the criminal his guilt; as it is sometimes found that information of a statutory human penalty awakens a malefactors conscience in the midst of a half-unconscious course of crime. And so it brings out to the opening eyes of the soul the wonder of the remedy in Christ. He sees the Law; he sees himself; and now at last it becomes a profound reality to him to see the Cross. He believes, adores, and loves. The merit of his Lord covers his demerit, as the waters the sea. And he passes from the dread but salutary view of "the reign" of sin over him, in a death he cannot fathom, to submit to "the reign" of grace, in life, in death, forever.

Now law came sideways in; law, in its largest sense, as it affects the fallen, but with a special reference, doubtless, to its articulation at Sinai. It came in "sideways," as to its relation to our acceptance; as a thing which should indirectly promote it, by not causing but occasioning the blessing; that the transgression might abound, that sin, that sins, in the most inclusive sense, might develop the latent evil, and as it were expose it to the work of grace. But where the sin multiplied, in the place, the region, of fallen humanity, there did superabound the grace; with that mighty overflow of the bright ocean of love which we have watched already. That just as our sin came to reign in our death, our penal death, so too might the grace come to reign, having its glorious way against our foes and over us, through righteousness, through the justifying work, to life eternal, which here we have, and which hereafter will receive us into itself, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

"The last words of Mr. Honest were, Grace reigns. So he left the world." Let us walk with the same watchword through the world, till we too, crossing that Jordan, lean with a final simplicity of faith upon "the obedience of the One."

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

5:12 Adam is both the name of the original man, Adam, and a Hebrew word that means “human.” Paul emphasizes the solidarity of Adam with the human race. • sin entered the world: The significance that Paul ascribes to this act, and the parallel that he draws between Adam’s sin and Christ’s act of obedience on the cross, makes clear that Paul views Adam and his sin in the Garden of Eden as historical fact. • everyone sinned: Death is universal because sin is universal. It is not clear when or how everyone sinned, but Paul later attributes the condemnation of all people to the sin of Adam, their representative (5:18). • Jewish tradition is divided on the relationship between Adam’s sin and the sin and death of human beings generally. Some texts emphasize a solidarity between Adam and all other people, as in “when Adam sinned a death was decreed against those who were to be born” (2 Baruch 23:4). Other texts insist that people die because of their own sin: “Adam is, therefore, not the cause, except only for himself, but each of us had become our own Adam” (2 Baruch 54:19).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Rom 5:12. Διὰ τοῦτο, wherefore) This has regard to the whole of the preceding discussion, from which the apostle draws these conclusion concerning sin and righteousness, herein making not so much a digression as a regression. In imitation of Paul’s method, we must treat, in the first place, of actual sin, according to the first and following chapters, and then go back to the source in which sin originated. Paul does not speak altogether expressly of that which theologians call original sin; but, in truth the sin of Adam is sufficient to demonstrate man’s guilt; the very many, and most mournful fruits resulting from it, are sufficient for the demonstration of man’s habitual corruption. And man, in consequence of justification, at length looks back upon, and apprehends the doctrine concerning the origin of evil, and the other things connected with it. This second part, however, is in special connection with the first part of this chapter; comp. the much more, which reigns [Rom 5:17] on both sides [i.e. grace reigning and triumphing abundantly over both original sin and habitual corruption]; Rom 5:9, etc., 15, etc., for the very glorying of believers is exhibited; comp. Rom 5:11 [we glory, or Engl. vers. we joy] with Rom 5:21. The equality, too, of Jews and Gentiles, and consequently of all men, is herein included.—ὥσπερ, as) The Protasis, which the words and so continue; for it is not so also that follows [which would follow, if the apodosis began here]. The apodosis, from a change in the train of thoughts and words, is concealed in what follows.—ἀνθρώπου, man) Why is nothing said of the woman? Ans. 1. Adam had received the commandment. 2. He was not only the Head of his race, but also of Eve. 3. If Adam had not listened to the voice of his wife, not more than one would have sinned. Moreover, why is nothing said of Satan, who is the primary cause of sin? Ans. 1. Satan is opposed to God; Adam to Christ; moreover, here the economy of grace is described as it belongs to Christ, rather than as it belongs to God: therefore, God is once mentioned, Rom 5:15; Satan is never mentioned. 2. What has Satan to do with the grace of Christ?—ἠ ἁμαρτία—ὁ θάνατος, sin—death) These are two distinct evils, which Paul discusses successively at very great length.—εἰς τὸν κόσμον) into this world, which denotes the human race—εἰσῆλθε, entered) began to exist in the world; for it had not previously existed outside of the world.—καὶ διὰ, and by) Therefore, death could not have entered before sin.—καὶ οὕτως) and so, namely, by one man.—εἰς) unto [or upon] all, wholly.—διῆλθεν, passed) when sin once entered, which had not been in the world from the beginning.—ἐφʼ ᾧ) Ἐφʼ ᾧ with the verb ἥμαρτον has the same signification, as διὰ with the genitive, τῆς ἁμαρτίας. The meaning is, through the fact that, or in other words, inasmuch as all have sinned, comp. the ἐφʼ ᾧ, 2Co 5:4, and presently after, the other ἐπὶ, occurring in Rom 5:14.—πάντες) all without exception. The question is not about the particular sin of individuals; but in the sin of Adam all have sinned, as all died in the death of Christ for their salvation, 2Co 5:15. The Targum on Ruth, ch. 4, at the end: על On account of the counsel, which the serpent gave to Eve, all the inhabitants of the earth became subject to death, אתחייבו מותא, Targum on Eccl. ch. 7, at the end. The serpent and Eve made the day of death rush suddenly upon man and upon all the inhabitants of the earth. Sin precedes death; but the universality of death becomes known earlier than the universality of sin. This plan of arrangement is adopted with respect to the four clauses in this verse.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_5:12.[1228] Διὰ τοῦτο] Therefore, because, namely, we have received through Christ the καταλλαγή and the assurance of eternal salvation, Rom_5:11. The assumption that it refers back to the whole discussion from chap. Rom_1:17 (held by many, including Tholuck, Rückert, Reiche, Köllner, Holsten, Picard) is the more unnecessary, the more naturally the idea of the καταλλαγή itself, just treated of, served to suggest the parallel between Adam and Christ, and the διʼ οὗ τὴν καταλλαγὴν ἐλάβομεν in point of fact contains the summary of the whole doctrine of righteousness and salvation from Rom_1:17 onward; consequently there is no ground whatever for departing, as to διὰ τοῦτο, from the connection with what immediately precedes.[1229] This remark also applies in opposition to Hofmann (comp Stölting and Dietzsch), who refers it back to the entire train of ideas embraced in Rom_5:2-11. A recapitulation of this is indeed given in the grand concluding thought of Rom_5:11, that it is Christ to whom we owe the reconciliation. But Hofmann quite arbitrarily supposes Paul in διὰ τοῦτο to have had in view an exhortation to think of Christ conformably to the comparison with Adam, but to have got no further than this comparison.

ὥσπερ] There is here an ἀνανταπόδοτον as in Mat_25:14; and 1Ti_1:3. The comparison alone is expressed, but not the thing compared, which was to have followed in an apodosis corresponding to the ὥσπερ. The illustration, namely, introduced in Rom_5:13-14 of the ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον now rendered it impossible to add the second half of the comparison syntactically belonging to the ὥσπερ, and therefore the Apostle, driven on by the rushing flow of ideas to this point, from which he can no longer revert to the construction with which he started, has no hesitation in dropping the latter (comp generally Buttmanns neut. Gr. p. 331; Kühner, II. 2, p. 1097), and in subsequently bringing in merely the main tenor of what is wanting by the relative clause attached to Ἀδάμ: ὅς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος in Rom_5:14. This ὅς.… μέλλ. is consequently the substitute for the omitted apodosis, which, had it not been supplanted by Rom_5:13-14, would have run somewhat thus: so also through one man has come righteousness, and through righteousness life, and so life has come to all. Calvin, Flacius, Tholuck, Köllner, Baur, Philippi, Stölting, Mangold, Rothe (who however without due ground regards the breaking off as intended from the outset, in order to avoid sanctioning the Apokatastasis) find in ὅς ἐστι τύπ. τ. μέλλ., in v. 14, the resumption and closing of the comparison,[1232] not of course in form, but in substance; compare also Melancthon. According to Rückert, Fritzsche (in his commentary), and de Wette, Paul has come, after Rom_5:13-14, to reflect that the comparison begun involved not merely agreement but also discrepancy, and has accordingly turned aside from the apodosis, which must necessarily have expressed the equivalence, and inserted instead of it the opposition in Rom_5:15. This view is at variance with the entire character of the section, which indeed bears quite especially the stamp of most careful and acute premeditation, but shows no signs of Pauls having been led in the progress of his thought to the opposite of what he had started with. According to Mehring, Rom_5:15, following Rom_5:13-14 (which he parenthesises) is meant to complete the comparison introduced in Rom_5:12, Rom_5:15 being thus taken interrogatively. Against this view, even apart from the inappropriateness of taking it as a question, the ἀλλʼ in Rom_5:15 is decisive. Winer, p. 503 [E. T. 712] (comp Fritzsches Conject. p. 49) finds the epanorthosis in πολλῷ μᾶλλον, Rom_5:15, which is inadmissible, because with ἈΛΛʼ ΟὐΧ in Rom_5:15 there is introduced the antithetical element, consequently something else than the affirmative parallel begun in Rom_5:12. Others have thought that Rom_5:13-17 form a parenthesis, so that in Rom_5:18 the first half of the comparison is resumed, and the second now at length added (Cajetanus, Erasmus Schmid, Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, Heumann, Ch. Schmid, Flatt, and Reiche). Against this view may be urged not only the unprecedented length, but still more the contents of the supposed parenthesis, which in fact already comprehends in itself the parallel under every aspect. In Rom_5:18 f. we have recapitulation, but not resumption. This much applies also against Olshausen and Ewald. Others again have held that Rom_5:12 contains the protasis and the apodosis completely, taking the latter to begin either with καὶ οὕτως (Clericus, Wolf, Glöckler), or even with ΚΑῚ ΔΙΆ (Erasmus, Beza, Benecke), both of which views however are at variance with the parallel between Adam and Christ which rules the whole of what follows, and are thus in the light of the connection erroneous, although the former by no means required a trajection (ΚΑῚ ΟὝΤΩς for ΟὝΤΩ ΚΑΊ). While all the expositors hitherto quoted have taken ὭΣΠΕΡ as the beginning of the first member of the parallel, others again have thought that it introduces the second half of the comparison. So, following Elsner and others, Koppe, who after διὰ τοῦτο conceives ἘΛΆΒΟΜΕΝ ΚΑΤΑΛΛΑΓῊΝ ΔΙʼ ΑὐΤΟῦ supplied from Rom_5:11; so also Umbreit and Th. Schott (for this reason, because we ΣΩΘΗΣΌΜΕΘΑ ἘΝ Τῇ ΖΩῇ ΑὐΤΟῦ, Christ comes by way of contrast to stand just as did Adam). Similarly Märcker, who attaches ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦΤΟ to Rom_5:11. These expositions are incorrect, because the universality of the Adamite ruin, brought out by ὥσπερ Κ.Τ.Λ[1234], has no point of comparison in the supplied protasis (the explanation is illogical); in Gal_3:6 the case is different. Notwithstanding van Hengel (comp Jatho) thinks that he removes all difficulty by supplying ἐστί after διὰ τοῦτο; while Dietzsch, anticipating what follows, suggests the supplying after διὰ τοῦτο: through one man life has come into the world.

διʼ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου through one man, that is, διʼ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος, Rom_5:16. A single man brought upon all sin and death; a single man also righteousness and life. The causal relation is based on the fact that sin, which previously had no existence whatever in the world, only began to exist in the world (on earth) by means of the first fall.[1236] Eve, so far as the matter itself is concerned (Sir_25:14; 2Co_11:3; 1Ti_2:14; Barnab. Ep. 12), might as well as adam, be regarded as the εἷς ἄνθρ.; the latter, because he sinned as the first man, the former, of whom Pelagius explained it, because she committed the first transgression. Here however, because Pauls object is to compare the One man, who as the bringer of salvation has become the beginner of the new humanity, with the One man who as beginner of the old humanity became so destructive, in which collective reference (comp Hofmanns Schriftbew. I. p. 474) the woman recedes into the background, he has to derive the entrance of sin into the world from Adam, whom he has in view in διʼ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπον. Comp 1Co_15:21 f., 45 f. This is also the common form of Rabbinical teaching. See Eisenmengers entdeckt. Judenth. II. p. 81 f.

ἡ ἁμαρτία] not: sinfulness, habitus peccandi (Koppe, Schott, Flatt, Usteri, Olshausen), which the word never means; not original sin (Calvin, Flacius, and others following Augustine); but also not merely actual sin in abstracto (Fritzsche: nam ante primum facinus patratum nullum erat facinus), but rather what sin is according to its idea and essence (comp Hofmann and Stölting), consequently the determination of the conduct in antagonism to God, conceived however as a force, as a real power working and manifesting itselfexercising its dominionin all cases of concrete sin (comp Rom_5:21; Rom_6:12; Rom_6:14; Rom_7:8-9; Rom_7:17 al[1241]). This moral mode of being in antagonism to God became existent in the human world through the fall of Adam; produced death, and spread death over all. Thus our verse itself describes the ἁμαρτία as a real objective power, and in so doing admits only of this explanation. Compare the not substantially different explanation of Philippi, according to which the actual sin of the world is meant as having come into the world potentialiter through Adam; also Rothe, who conceives it to refer to sin as a principle, but as active; and Dietzsch.

On εἰς τ. κόσμον, which applies to the earth as the dwelling-place of mankind (for in the universe generally sin, the devil, was already in existence), comp Wis_2:24; Wis_14:14; 2Jn_1:7; Clem. Cor. I. 3; Heb_10:5. Undoubtedly sin by its entrance into the world came into human nature (Rothe), but this is not asserted here, however decisively our passage stands opposed to the error of Flacius, that man is in any way as respects his essential nature ἁμαρτία.[1243]

The mode in which the fall took place (through the devil, Joh_8:44; 2Co_11:3) did not here concern the Apostle, who has only to do with the mischievous effect of it, namely, that it brought ἁμαρτία into the world, etc.

ΚΑῚ ΔΙᾺ Τ. ἉΜΑΡΤ. Ὁ ΘΆΝΑΤΟς] scil. ΕἸς Τ. ΚΌΣΜΟΝ ΕἸΣῆΛΘΕ. The ΘΆΝΑΤΟς is physical death (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Augustine, Calovius, Reiche, Fritzsche, Maier, van Hengel, Klöpper, Weiss, and many others), viewed as the separation of the soul from the body and its transference to Hades (not as citation before Gods judgment, Mehring), with which however the conception of the φθορά and ΜΑΤΑΙΌΤΗς of the ΚΤΊΣΙς in ch. 8, very different from the ΘΆΝΑΤΟς of men, must not be mixed up (as by Dietzsch), which would involve a blending of dissimilar ideas. The interpretation of bodily death is rendered certain by Rom_5:14 as well as by the considerations, that the text gives no hint of departure from the primary sense of the word; that the reference to Gen_2:17; Gen_3:19 could not be mistaken by any reader; and that on the basis of Genesis it was a universal and undoubted assumption both in the Jewish and Christian consciousness, that mortality was caused by Adams sin. See Wis_2:24; Joh_8:44; 1Co_15:21; Wetstein and Schoettgen, in loc[1244]; and Eisenmengers entdeckt. Judenthum, II. p. 81 f. Compare, respecting Eve, Sir_25:24. Had Paul taken θάνατος in another sense therefore, he must of necessity have definitely indicated it, in order to be understood.[1245] This is decisive not only against the Pelagian interpretation of spiritual death, which Picard has repeated, but also against every combination whateverwhether complete (see especially Philippi and Stölting), or partialof bodily, moral (comp ΝΕΚΡΌς, Mat_8:22), and eternal death (Schmid, Tholuck, Köllner, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Olshausen, Reithmayr; Rückert undecidedly); or the whole collective evil, which is the consequence of sin, as Umbreit and Ewald explain it; compare Hofmann: all that runs counter to the life that proceeds from God, whether as an occurrence, which puts an end to the life wrought by God, or as a mode of existence setting in with such occurrence. As regards especially the inclusion of the idea of moral death (the opposite of the spiritual ζωή), the words ΘΆΝΑΤΟς and ἈΠΟΘΝΉΣΚΕΙΝ are never used by Paul in this sense; not even in Rom_7:10 (see in loc[1247]), or in 2Co_2:16; 2Co_7:10, where he is speaking of eternal death.[1248] The reference to spiritual death is by no means rendered necessary by the contrast of δικαιοσ. ζωῆς in Rom_5:18, comp Rom_5:21; since in fact the death brought into the world by Adam, although physical, might be contrasted not merely in a Rabbinical fashion, but also generally in itself, with the ΖΩΉ that has come through Christ; for to this ΖΩΉ belongs also the life of the glorified body, and it is a life not again subject to death.

καὶ οὕτως] and in such manner, i.e. in symmetrical correspondence with this connection between the sin that entered by one man and the death occasioned by it. Fuller explanation is then given, by the ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, respecting the emphatically prefixed ΕἸς ΠΆΝΤΑς, to whom death, as the effect of that first sin of the One, had penetrated. Since ΟὝΤΩς sums up the state of the case previously expressed (comp e.g. 1Co_14:25; 1Th_4:17) any further generalization of its reference can only be arbitrary (Stölting: through sin). Even the explanation: in virtue of the causal connection between sin and death (Philippi and many others) is too general. The οὕτως, in fact, recapitulates the historical state of the case just presented, so far as it specifies the mode in which death has come to all, namely, in this way, that the One sinned and thereby brought into the world the death, which consequently became the lot of all.

διῆλθεν] came throughout (Luk_5:15). This is the progress of the εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθε in its extension to all individuals, ΕἸς ΠΆΝΤΑς ἈΝΘΡΏΠ., which in contrast to the ΔΙʼ ἙΝῸς ἈΝΘΡ. is put forward with emphasis as the main element of the further description, wherein moreover ΔΙῆΛΘΕΝ, correlative to the ΕἸΣῆΛΘΕ, has likewise emphasis. On ΔΙΈΡΧΕΣΘΑΙ ΕἼς ΤΙΝΑ comp Plut. Alcib. 2. Compare also ἐπί τινα in Eze_5:17 and Psa_88:16. More frequent in classic authors with the simple accusative, as in Luk_19:1.

ἘΦʼ ᾯ ΠΆΝΤΕς ἭΜΑΡΤΟΝ]

[1252] on the ground of the fact that, i.e. because, all sinned, namely (and for this the momentary sense of the aorist is appropriate[1253]) when through the One sin entered into the world. Because, when Adam sinned, all men sinned in and with him, the representative of entire humanity (not: exemplo Adami, Pelagius; comp Erasmus, Paraphr.), death, which came into the world through the sin that had come into it, has been extended to all in virtue of this causal connection between the sin that had come into existence through Adam and death. All became mortal through Adams fall, because this having sinned on the part of Adam was a having sinned on the part of all; consequently τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπέθανον, Rom_5:15. Thus it is certainly on the ground of Adam that all die (ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνήσκουσιν, 1Co_15:22), because, namely, when Adam sinned, all sinned, all as ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν (Rom_5:19), and consequently the death that came in through his sin can spare none. But it is in a linguistic point of view erroneous, according to the traditional Catholic interpretation after the example of Origen, the Vulgate, and Augustine (Estius, Cornelius à Lapide, Klee; not Stengel, Reithmayr, Bisping, and Maier; but revived by Aberle), to take ἐφʼ ᾧ as equivalent to ἐν ᾧ, in quo scil. Adamo, as also Beza, Erasmus Schmid, and others do; compare Irenaeus, Haer. 5.16, 3. The thought which this exposition yields (omnes ille unus homo fuerunt, Augustine) is essentially correct, but it was an error to derive it from ἐφʼ ᾧ, since it is rather to be derived from πάντες ἥμαρτον, and hence also it is but arbitrarily explained by the sensuous notion of all men having been in the loins (Heb_7:9-10) of Adam (Origen, Ambrosiaster, Augustine). Chrysostom gives in general the proper sense, though without definitely indicating how he took the ἐφʼ ᾧ: τί δέ ἐστιν ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον; ἐκείνου πεσόντος καὶ οἱ μὴ φαγόντες ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου γεγόνασιν ἐξ ἐκείνου πάντες θνητοί. So also substantially Theophylact, though explaining, with Photius, ἐφʼ ᾧ as equivalent to ἐπὶ τᾧ Ἀδάμ. The right view is taken by Bengel (quia omnes peccarunt.… Adamo peccante); Koppe (ipso actu, quo peccavit Adamus), Olshausen, Philippi, Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 126, 369, and Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 590, III. p. 308 f.; comp also Klöpper.[1256] The objection that in this way the essential definition is arbitrarily supplied (Tholuck, Hofmann, Stölting, Dietzsch, and others) is incorrect; for what is maintained is simply that more precise definition of ἥμαρτον, for which the immediate connection has necessarily prepared the way, and therefore no person, from an unprejudiced point of view, can speak of an abortive product of perplexity impelling to arbitrariness (Hofmann). Nor is our view at variance with the meaning of ΟὝΤΩς (as Ernesti objects), since from the point of view of death having been occasioned by Adams sin (ΟὝΤΩς) the universality of death finds its explanation in the very fact, that Adams sin was the sin of all. Aptly (as against Dietzsch) Bengel compares 2Co_5:14 : εἰ εἷς ὐπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανε, ἄρα οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον (namely, Christo moriente); see on that passage. Others, and indeed most modern expositors (including Reiche, Rückert, Tholuck, Fritzsche, de Wette, Maier, Baur, Ewald, Umbreit, van Hengel, Mehring, Hofmann, Stölting, Thomasius, Mangold, and others,) have interpreted ἥμαρτον of individual sins, following Theodoret: οὐ γὰρ διὰ τὴν τοῦ προπάτορος ἁμαρτίαν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν οἰκείαν ἕκαστος δέχεται τοῦ θανάτου τὸν ὅρον. Compare Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 263; Märcker l.c[1257] p. 19. But the taking the words thus of the universal having actually sinned as cause of the universal death (see other variations further on) must be rejected for the simple reason, that the proposition would not even be true;[1258] and because the view, that the death of individuals is the consequence of their own actual sins, would be inappropriate to the entire parallel between Adam and Christ, nay even contradictory to it. For as the sin of Adam brought death to all (consequently not their own self-committed sin), so did the obedience of Christ (not their own virtue) bring life to all. Comp 1Co_15:22. This objective relation corresponding to the comparison remains undisturbed in the case of our exposition alone, inasmuch as ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντ. ἥμαρτ. shows how the sin of Adam necessarily brought death to all. To explain ἥμαρτον again, as is done by many, and still by Picard and Aberle: they were sinful, by which is meant original sin (Calvin, Flacius, Melancthon in the Enarr.: omnes habent peccatum, scilicet pravitatem propagatam et reatum), or to import even the idea poenam luere (Grotius), is to disregard linguistic usage; for ἥμαρτον means they have sinned, and nothing more. This is acknowledged by Julius Müller (v. d. Sünde, II. p. 416 ff. ed. 5), who however professes to find in ἐφʼ ᾧ π. ἥμ. only an accessory reason for the preceding, and that in the sense: as then all would besides have well deserved this severe fate for themselves by their actual sins. Incorrectly, because ἐφ ᾧ does not mean as then or as then also (i.e. ὡς καί); because the statement of the reason is by no means made apparent as in any way merely secondary and subjective, as Neander and Messner have rationalised it, but on the contrary is set down as the single, complete and objective ground; because its alleged purport would exercise an alien and disturbing effect on the whole development of doctrine in the passage; and because the sense assigned to the simple ἥμαρτον (this severe fate they would have all moreover well merited) is purely fanciful. Ernesti takes ἐφʼ ᾧ not of the objective ground, but as specifying the ground of thinking so, i.e. the subjective ground of cognition: about which there can be no doubt, in so far as all have in point of fact sinned; this he holds to be the logical ground for the οὔτες κ.τ.λ[1260] But, as there is no precedent of usage for this interpretation of ἘΦʼ ᾯ (Php_3:12 is unjustifiably adduced), Ernesti is compelled to unite with ἘΦʼ ᾯ Rom_5:13-14 in an untenable way. See on Rom_5:13 f., remark 1, and Philippi, Glaubensl. III. p. 222 ff. ed. 2.

Respecting ἐφʼ ᾧ, which is quite identical with ἘΦʼ ΟἿς, we have next to observe as follows: It is equivalent to ἘΠῚ ΤΟΎΤῼ ὍΤΙ, and means on the ground of the fact that, consequently in real sense propterea quod,[1261] because (dieweil, Luther), of the causa antegressa (not finalis), as also Thomas Magister and Favorinus have explained it as equivalent to διότι. So in the N. T. at 2Co_5:4 and Php_3:12. Comp Theophilus, a[1263] Autol. ii. 40, ed. Wolf: ἘΦʼ ᾯ ΟὐΚ ἼΣΧΥΣΕ ΘΑΝΑΤῶΣΑΙ ΑὐΤΟΎς (because he was unable to put them to death), Diod. Sic. xix. 98: ἐφ ᾧ.… τὸ μὲν μεῖζον καλοῦσι ταῦρον, τὸ δὲ ἔλασσου μόσχον (because they call the greater a bull, etc.); just so ἐφʼ οἷς, Plut. de Pyth. orac. 29. Favorinus quotes the examples: ἐφʼ ᾧ τὴν κλοπὴν ΕἸΡΓΆΣΩ, and ἘΦʼ ΟἿς ΤῸΝ ΝΌΜΟΝ Οὐ ΤΗΡΕῖς, ΚΟΛΑΣΘΉΣΗ. Thomas Magister cites the example from Synesius ep. 73: ἐφʼ ᾧ Γεννάδιον ἔγραψεν (propterea quod Gennadium accusasset, comp Herm. a[1265] Viger. p. 710). Another example from Synesius (in Devarius, ed. Klotz, p. 88) is: ἘΦʼ ΟἿς ΓᾺΡ ΣΕΚΟῦΝΔΟΝ Εὖ ἘΠΟΊΗΣΑς (on the ground of this, that, i.e. because thou hast done well to Secundus) ἡμᾶς ἐτίμησας, καὶ ἐφʼ οἷς οὕτω γράφων τιμᾷς, ἐξηρτήσω σαυτοῦ κ. ἐποίησας εἶναι σούς. See further Josephus, Antt. i. 1, 4 : ὁ ὄφις συνδιαιτώμενος τῷ τε Ἀδάμῳ καὶ τῇ γυναικὶ φθονερῶς εἶχεν, ἐφʼ οἷς (propterea quod) αὐτοὺς εὐδαιμονήσειν ᾤετω πεπεισμένους τοῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ παραγγέλμασι. Antt. xvi. 8, 2 : καὶ τὸ δικαίως αὐτοὶ παθεῖν, ἐφʼ οἷς ἀλλήλους ἠδίκησαν, προλαμβάνοντες μόνον. Rothe (followed by Schmid, bibl. Thol. p. 260) has taken it as: under the more definite condition, that (ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὥστε), so that individual sins are the consequence of the diffusion of death through Adams sin over mankind. But this view is wholly without precedent in the usus loquendi, for the very frequent use of ἘΦʼ ᾯ, under the condition, that (usually with the infinitive or future indicative), is both in idea and in practice something quite different; see Kühner, II. 2, p. 1006. Of a similar nature are rather such passages as Dem. 518, 26: ἓν γὰρ μηδέν ἐστιν, ἐφʼ ᾧ τῶν πεπραγμένων οὐ δίκαιος ὤν ἀπολωλέναι φανήσεται (upon the ground of which he will not seem worthy, etc.); de cor. 114 (twice); as well as the very current use of ἐπὶ τούτῳ, propterea (Xen. Mem. i. 2, 61), of ἐπʼ αὐτῷ τούτῳ, for this very reason (Dem. 578, 26; Xen. Cyr. ii. 3, 10), etc.; and further, such expressions as ἐπὶ μιᾷ δή ποτε δίκῃ πληγὰς ἔλαβον (Xen. Cyr. i. 3, 16), where ἐπί with the dative specifies the ground (Kühner, II. 1, p. 436). Ewald formerly (Jahrb. II. p. 171), rejecting the second ὁ θάνατος, explained: and thus there penetrated to all men that, whereunto all sinned, namely death, which, according to Gen_2:17, was imposed as punishment on sin, so that whosoever sinned, sinned so that he had to die, a fate which he might know beforehand. In this way the ἐφʼ ᾧ would (with Schmid and Glöckler, also Umbreit) be taken of the causa finalis (Xen. Cyr. viii. 8, 24: οὐδέ γε δρεπανηφόροις ἔτι χρῶνται, ἐφʼ ᾧ Κῦρος αὐτὰ ἐποιήσατο, iii. 3, 36, ὙΠΟΜΙΜΝΉΣΚΕΙΝ, ἘΦʼ ΟἿς ΤΕ ἘΤΡΕΦΌΜΕΘΑ, Thuc. i. 134, 1, al[1266]; and see especially Wis_2:23), and the subject of ΔΙῆΛΘΕΝ (ΤΟῦΤΟ) would be implied in it. But, apart from the genuineness of Ὁ ΘΆΝΑΤΟς, which must be defended, there still remains, even with the explanation of ἘΦʼ ᾯ as final, so long as ἭΜΑΡΤΟΝ is explained of individual actual sins, the question behind as to the truth of the proposition, since not all, who die, have actually sinned; and indeed the view of the death of all having been caused by the actual sins of all is incompatible with what follows.[1267] See also Ernesti, p. 192 ff.; comp his Ethik. d. Ap. P. p. 16 f. Moreover the telic form of expression itself would have to be taken only in an improper sense, instead of that of the necessary, but on the part of the subjects not intended, result, somewhat after the idea of fate, as in Herod. i. 68: ἐπὶ κακῷ ἀνθρώπου σίδηρος ἀνεύρηται. Subsequently (in his Sendschr. d. Ap. P.) Ewald, retaining the second ὁ θάνατος, has assumed for ἐφʼ ᾧ the signification, so far as (so also Tholuck and van Hengel); holding that by the limiting phrase so far as they all sinned, death is thus set forth the more definitely as the result of sin, so that ἐφʼ ᾧ corresponds to the previous οὕτως. But even granting the not proved limiting signification of ἐφʼ ᾧ (which ἐφʼ ὅσον elsewhere has, Rom_9:13), there still remain with this interpretation also the insurmountable difficulties as to the sense, which present themselves against the reference of ἥμαρτον to the individual sins. Hofmann (comp also his Schriftbew. I. p. 529 f.) refers ἐφʼ ᾧ to ὁ θάνατος, so that it is equivalent to οὗ παρόντος: amidst the presence of death; making the emphasis to lie on the preposition, and the sense to be: death was present at the sinning of all those to whom it has penetrated; and it has not been invariably brought about and introduced only through their sinning, nor always only for each individual who sinned. Thus ἐπί might be justified, not indeed in a temporal sense (which it has among poets and later prose writers only in proper statements of time, as in Homer, Il. viii. 529, ἐπὶ νυκτί), but perhaps in the sense of the prevailing circumstance, like the German bei [with, amidst]

[1270] (see Kühner, II. 1, p. 434). But apart from the special tenor of the thought, which we are expected to extract from the bare ἐφʼ ᾧ, and which Paul might so easily have conveyed more precisely (possibly by ἐφʼ ᾧ ἤδη παρόντι, or οὗ ἤδη παρόντος), this artificial exposition has decidedly against it the fact that the words ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον must necessarily contain the argumentative modal information concerning the preceding proposition κ. οὔτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάν. διῆλθεν, which they in fact contain only when our view is taken.[1271] They must solve the enigma which is involved in the momentous οὕτως of that clause; and this enigma is solved only by the statement of the reason: because all sinned, so that the θανάσιμος ἁμαρτία of Adam was the sin of all. Against Hofmann, compare Philippis Glaubensl. III. p. 221 f. ed. 2.

[1228] See Schott (on vv. 1214) in his Opusc. I. p. 313 ff.; Borg, Diss. 1839; Finkh in the Tüb. Zeitschr. 1830, 1, p. 126 ff.; Schmid in the same, 4, p. 161 ff.; Rothe, neuer Versuch e. Auslegung d. paul. Stelle v. 1221, Wittemb. 1836; J. Müller, v. d. Sünde, II. p. 481, ed. 5; Aberle in the theol. Quartalschr. 1854, p. 455 ff.; Ewald, Adam u. Christus Rom. v. 1221, in the Jahrb. f. bibl. Wissensch. II. p. 166 ff.; Picard, Essai exégét. sur Rom. v. 12 ff. Strassb. 1861; Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 526 ff.; Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, II. p. 184 ff.; Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 412 ff.; Stölting, l.c. p. 19 ff.; Klöpper in the Stud. u. Krit. 1869, p. 496 ff.; Dietzsch, Adam u. Christus Rom. v. 12 ff., Bonn 1871. Compare also Lechlers apost. Zeit. p. 102 ff.

[1229] The close junction with ver. 11 is maintained also by Klöpper, who unsuitably however defines the aim of the section, vv. 1221, to be, to guard the readers against a timid littleness of faith, as though, notwithstanding justification, they were still with reference to the future of judgment not sure and certain of escaping the divine wrath; a timid mind might see in the tribulations anticipations of that wrath, etc. But how far does the entire confession of vv. 111 stand elevated above all such littleness of faith! In the whole connection this finds no place whatever, and receives therefore in vv. 1221 not the slightest mention or reference.

[1232] The objection of Dietzsch, p. 43, that τύπος asserts nothing real regarding the second member of the comparison, is unsatisfactory, since Paul is just intending to bring forward a very definite special statement regarding the typical relation which he now merely expresses in general terms.

[1234] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1236] Not merely came to light as known sin (Schleiermacher, Usteri). See Lechler, p. 104.

[1241] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1243] Compare Holsten, zum Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 418: who thinks that the unholiness lying dormant in human nature first entered actually into the visible world as a reality in the transgression of Adam; also Baur, neut. Theol. p. 191, according to whom the principle of sin, that from the beginning had been immanent in man, only came forth actually in the παράβασις of the first parent. In this way sin would not have come into the world, but must have been in the world already before the fall, only not having yet attained to objective manifestation.

[1244] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1245] This remark holds also against Mau in Pelts theol. Mitarb. 1838, 2, who understands the form of life after the dissolution of the earthly life.

[1247] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1248] In 2Ti_1:10 θάνατος is used in the sense of eternal death, which Christ (by His work of atonement) has done away; the opposite of it is ζωή καὶ ἀφθαρσία, which He has brought to light by His gospel. Not less is Eph_2:1 to be explained as meaning eternal death.

[1252] The most complete critical comparison of the various expositions of these words may be seen in Dietzsch, p. 50 ff.

[1253] Hofmann erroneously holds (Schriftbew. l.c.) that the imperfect must have been used. What is meant is in fact the same act, which in Adams sin is done by all, not another contemporaneous act. Comp. 2Co_5:15. It is mere empty arbitrariness in Thomasius l.c. p. 316, to say that our explanation is grammatically unjustifiable. Why so? Stölting (comp. Dietzsch) objects to it that then ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν must also be taken in the momentary sense. But this by no means follows, since ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντ. ἥμ. is a special relative clause. Nevertheless even that ὁ θάνατ. διῆλθ. is not something gradually developing itself, but a thing done in and with the sin of the One man. This One has sinned and has become liable to death, and thereby all have become mortal, because Adams sin was the sin of all.

[1256] Who, although avoiding the direct expression of our interpretation, nevertheless in substance arrives at the same meaning, p. 505: All however sinned, because Adams sin penetrated to them, inasmuch as God punished the fault of Adam so thoroughly that his sin became shared by all his descendants. For Klöpper properly explains the ἐφʼ ᾧ. defining the relation as imputation of Adams sin to all.

[1257] .c. loco citato or laudato.

[1258] Namely, in respect to the many millions of children who have not yet sinned. The reply made to this, that Paul has had in view only those capable of sin (Castalio, Wetstein, Fritzsche and others) is least of all applicable in the very case of this Apostle and of the present acutely and thoroughly considered disquisition, and just as little is an appeal to the disposition to sin (Tholuck) which children have (Paul says plainly ἤμαρτον). This way out of the difficulty issues in an exegetical self-deception.He who seeks to get rid of the question regarding children must declare that it is not here raised, since the passage treats of the human race as a whole (comp. Ewald, Jahrb. VI. p. 132, also Mangold, p. 118 f.). This would suffice, were the question merely of universal sinfulness; for in such a case Paul could just as properly have said πάντες ἥμαρτον here, with self-evident reference to all capable of sin, as in Rom_3:23. But the question here is the connection between the sin of all and the dying of all, in which case there emerges no self-evident limitation, because all, even those still incapable of peccatum actuale, must die. Thus the question as to children still remains, and is only disposed of by not taking ἥμαρτον in the sense of having individually sinned; comp. Dietzsch, p. 57 f. This also applies against Stölting, according to whom Paul wishes to show that sin works death in the case of all sinners without exception.

[1260] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1261] Baur also, II. p. 202 (comp. his neutest. Theol. p. 138), approves the rendering because, but foists on this because the sense: which has as its presupposition. Thus it should be understood, he thinks, also in 2Co_5:4 and Php_3:12; and thus Paul proves from the universality of death the universality of sin. See, in opposition to this logical inversion, Ernesti, p. 212 ff.

[1263] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1265] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1266] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1267] Along with which it may be observed that there is the less warrant for mentally supplying, in the contrasted propositions on the side of salvation, a condition corresponding to the ἐφʼ ᾧ π. ἥμαρτ. (Mangold; ἐὰν πάντες πιστεύσωσιν, which is implicitly involved in λαμβάνοντες, ver. 17), the more essential this antitypical element would be.

[1270] So also Dietzsch has taken it, in substantial harmony with Hofmann, less artificially, but not more tenably: amidst the presence of death. He thinks that the Apostle desires to emphasise the view that death, originating from the One, is and prevails in the world, quite apart from the sinning of individuals; that independently of this, and prior to it, the universal dominion of death springing from Adam is already in existence. But with what strange obscurity would Paul in that case have expressed this simple and clear idea! How unwarranted it is to attach to his positive expression the negative signification (apart from, independently of)! With just as little warrant we should have to attach to the πάντες, since in no case could it include the children who have not yet sinned, a limitation of meaning, which yet it is utterly incapable of bearing after the εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους just said. The exposition of Dietzsch, no less than that of Hofmann, is a laboriously far-fetched and mistaken evasion of the proposition clearly laid down by Paul: because they all sinned, namely, when through one man sin came into the world and death through sin.

[1271] This applies equally against the similar exposition of Thomasius (Chr. Pers. u. Werk. I. p. 316 f.), amidst the presence of which relation (ᾧ as neuter). As if previously a relation had been expressed, and not a concrete historical fact! Weisse took ἐφʼ ᾧ even as although,a linguistic impossibility, which Finckh also presents.

REMARK 1. The Rabbinical writers also derived universal mortality from the fall of Adam, who represented the entire race in such a way that, when Adam sinned, all sinned. See the passages in Ammon, Opusc. nov. p. 72 ff. Even perfectly righteous persons are comprehensi sub poena mortis (R. Bechai in Cad hackemach f. 5, 4). It may reasonably be assumed therefore that the doctrine of the Apostle had, in the first instance, its historical roots in his Jewish (comp Sir_25:23; Wis_2:23 f.; Rom_14:14) and especially his Rabbinical training, and was held by him even prior to his conversion; and that in his Christian enlightenment he saw no reason for abandoning the proposition, which on the contrary he adopted into the system of his Christian views, and justified by continuing to assert for it in the development of the divine plan of redemption the place which is here assigned to it, as even Christ Himself traces death back to the fall (Joh_8:44). Comp 1Co_15:22 : ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνήσκουσιν, on which our passage affords the authentic commentary. We may add that, when Maimonides is combating (More Nevoch. iii. 24) the illusion that God arbitrarily decrees punishments, there has been wrongly found in the dogmatic proposition adduced by him, non est mors sine peccato, neque castigatio sine iniquitate, the reverse of the above doctrine (see especially Fritzsche, p. 294). The latter is on the contrary presupposed by it.

REMARK 2. That Adam was created immortal, our passage does not affirm, and 1Co_15:47 contains the opposite. But not as if Paul had conceived the first man as by his nature sinful, and had represented to himself sin as a necessary natural quality of the σάρξ (so anew Hausrath, neut. Zeitgesch. II. p. 470), but thus: if Adam had not sinned in consequence of his self-determination of antagonism to God, he would have become immortal through eating of the tree of life in Paradise (Gen_3:22). As he has sinned, however, the consequence thereof necessarily was death, not only for himself, seeing that he had to leave Paradise, but for all his posterity likewise.[1274] From this consequence, which the sin of Adam had for all, it results, in virtue of the necessary causal connection primevally ordained by God between sin and death, by reasoning back ab effectu ad causam, that the fall of Adam was the collective fall of the entire race, in so far as in fact all forfeited Paradise and therewith incurred death.

If ἐφʼ ᾦ πάντες ἥμαρτον be explained in the sense of individual actual sins, and at the same time the untenableness of the explanation of Hofmann and Dietzsch be recognised, it becomes impossible by any expedients, such as that of Rothe, I. p. 314, ed. Schenkel, to harmonize the view in our passage with that expressed in 1Co_15:47; but, if it be referred to the fall of Adam, every semblance of contradiction vanishes.

[1274] Comp. Jul. Müller, dogmat. Abhandl. 1870, p. 89 f. Schultz, alttest. Theol. I. p. 394.

Rom_5:12-19. Parallel drawn between the salvation in Christ and the ruin that has come through Adam.

Εἰπὼν, ὅτι ἐδικαίωσεν ἡμᾶς ὁ Χριστὸς, ἀνατ ρέχει ἐπὶ τὴν ῥίζαν τοῦ κακοῦ, τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὸν θάνατον, καὶ δείκνυσιν ὅτι ταῦτα τὰ δύο διʼ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, τοῦ Αδὰμ, εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον.… καὶ αὖ διʼ ἑνὸς ἀνῃρέθησαν ἀνθρώπου, τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Theophylact; comp Chrysostom, who compares the Apostle here with the physician who penetrates to the source of the evil. Thus the perfect objectivity of the salvation, which man has simply to receive, but in no way to earn, and of which the Apostle has been treating since chap. Rom_1:17, is, by way of a grand conclusion for the section, set forth afresh in fullest light, and represented in its deepest and most comprehensive connection with the history of the world. The whole μυστήριον of the divine plan of salvation and its history is still to be unfolded before the eyes of the reader ere the moral results that are associated with it are developed in chap. 6.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 5:12-21 . The treatment of the righteousness of God, as a Divine gift to sinners in Jesus Christ, is now complete, and the Apostle might have passed on to his treatment of the new life (chaps. 6 8). But he introduces at this point a digression in which a comparison which in most points is rather a contrast is made between Adam and Christ. Up to this point he has spoken of Christ alone, and the truth of what he has said rests upon its own evidence; it is not affected in the least by any difficulty we may have in adapting what he says of Adam to our knowledge or ignorance of human origins. The general truth he teaches here is that there is a real unity of the human race, on the one hand in sin and death, on the other in righteousness and life; in the former aspect the race is summed up in Adam; in the latter, in Christ. It is a distinction, apparently, between the two, that the unity in Adam is natural, having a physical basis in the organic connection of all men through all generations; whereas the unity in Christ is spiritual, being dependent upon faith. Yet this distinction is not specially in view in the passage, which rather treats Adam and Christ in an objective way, the transition (morally) from Adam’s doom to that of man being only mediated by the words πάντες ἥμαρτον in Rom 5:12 , and the connection between Christ and the new humanity by οἱ τὴν περισσείαν τῆς χάριτος λαμβάνοντες in vet. 17.

Rom 5:12 . διὰ τοῦτο refers to that whole conception of Christ’s relation to the human race which is expounded in chaps. Rom 3:21 to Rom 5:11 . But as this is summed up in Rom 5:1-11 , and even in the last words of Rom 5:11 (through Him we received the reconciliation) the grammatical reference may be to these words only. ὥσπερ : the sentence beginning thus is not finished; cf. Mat 25:14 . There is a virtual apodosis in the last clause of Rom 5:14 : ὅς ἐστιν τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος ; the natural conclusion would have been, “so also by one man righteousness entered into the world, and life by righteousness”. Cf. Winer, p. 712 f. By the entrance of sin into the world is not meant that sin began to be, but that sin as a power entered into that sphere in which man lives. Sin, by Divine appointment, brought death in its train, also as an objective power; the two things were inseparably connected, and consequently death extended over all men (for διῆλθεν , cf. Ps. 87:17, Eze 5:17 ) ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον . The connection of sin and death was a commonplace of Jewish teaching, resting apparently on a literal interpretation of Gen 3 Cf. Sap. Rom 2:23 f. ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐπʼ ἀφθαρσίᾳ … φθόνῳ δὲ διαβόλου θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον . Cf. also Sir 25:24 , Rom 6:23 , 1Co 15:56 . Paul no doubt uses death to convey various shades of meaning in different places, but he does not explicitly distinguish different senses of the word; and it is probably misleading rather than helpful to say that in one sentence (here, for example) “physical” death is meant, and in another (chap. Rom 7:24 , e.g. ) “spiritual” death. The analysis is foreign to his mode of thinking. All that “death” conveys to the mind entered into the world through sin. The words ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἡμαρτον , in which the πάντες resumes πάντας of the preceding clause, give the explanation of the universality of death: it rests upon the universality of sin. ἐφʼ ᾧ means propterea quod as in 2Co 5:4 and perhaps in Phi 3:12 . Winer, 491. But in what sense is the universality of sin to be understood? In other words, what precisely is meant by πάντες ἥμαρτον ? Many interpreters take the aorist rigorously, and render: because all sinned, i.e. , in the sin of Adam. Omnes peccarunt, Adamo peccante (Bengel). This is supported by an appeal to 2Co 5:14 , εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν · ἄρα οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον : the death of one was the death of all; so here, the sin of one was the sin of all. It seems to me a final objection to this (grammatically quite sound) interpretation, that it really makes the words ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον meaningless. They are evidently meant to explain how the death which came into the world through Adam’s sin obtained its universal sway, and the reason is that the sin of which death is the consequence was also universally prevalent. The sense in which this was so has been already proved in chap. 3, and the aorist is therefore to be taken as in Rom 3:23 : see note there. Because all men were, in point of fact, sinners, the death which is inseparable from sin extended over all. To drag in the case of infants to refute this; on the ground that πάντες ἥμαρτον does not apply to them (unless in the sense that they sinned in Adam) is to misconceive the situation: to Paul’s mind the world consists of persons capable of sinning and of being saved. The case of those in whom the moral consciousness, or indeed any consciousness whatever, has not yet awakened, is simply to be disregarded. We know, and can know, nothing about it. Nothing has been more pernicious in theology than the determination to define sin in such a way that in all its damning import the definition should be applicable to “infants”; it is to this we owe the moral atrocities that have disfigured most creeds, and in great part the idea of baptismal regeneration, which is an irrational unethical miracle, invented fry men to get over a puzzle of their own making.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12–21. This state depends upon a living relation of mankind to Christ, analogous to the natural relation to Adam, and as universal as that is. So it comes to pass that there is a parallel between the natural state of man and his new condition: by one who was man the sin which has been shown to be universal entered into man’s world, and this sin was the cause of man’s death, extending to all men because all actually sinned; (13) for that sin was in the world just in the degree that law was (sin not being reckoned without law) (14) is proved by the fact that death held supreme sway from Adam to Moses, even though the men of that time sinned not, as Adam did, against a positive external command (but only by falling away from the inner standard of well-doing which they had from GOD). [So far Adam is connected with men merely as the first sinner; their state was due to their own sins, and those not quite like Adam’s sin.] Now Adam is a type of Him that was to come. (15) There is a parallel between the transgression of Adam, and the gift of GOD in Christ; but only a qualified parallel: (α) it was the fall of the single man that led to the death of all, a human origin; the gift is the free favour of GOD in giving what He does give to all in the single man, and that man Jesus Christ, the Ascended Son. (16) Again (β) the effect of GOD’s gift is out of all proportion to the result which followed upon one man’s having sinned; for while the judgment of GOD followed upon one sin and involved condemnation, the gift of GOD follows upon many sins and involves acquittal of all. (17) For it is obvious that the sway of death established by one man’s sin, and through his action, is far more than overthrown by the kingship realised in life by the help of the one (man) Jesus Christ, which they will gain who accept the superabundance of the favour of GOD and His generous gift of righteousness (there is far more than a restoration of what was lost). (18) With these qualifications then the parallel may be stated: As one man’s transgression so affected all men as to bring them under GOD’s condemnation, so also one man’s enacted righteousness affects all men so as to bring them into a state of justification which involves life; for just as the disobedience of the one man was the means whereby all were put into the condition of sinners, so also the obedience of one man will bring all into the condition of righteous men (if, as has been shown, they exercise faith). (20) Now law, whether pre-Mosaic or Mosaic, was imported into man’s experience to multiply the fall; but where the acts and state of sin were thus multiplied, the favour of GOD was shown in still greater abundance in order that, in antithesis to the reign gained by sin in the state of death, the favour of GOD might gain sovereignty in a state of righteousness leading to life eternal by the aid and working of Jesus Christ our Lord.

This is perhaps the most condensed passage in all S. Paul’s writings. It is consequently almost impossible to give an interpretation with confidence. The fundamental thought appears to be to establish the universal range of the power of the Gospel, as answering to the universal range of sin and man’s need. The universality is then based in each case on the relation of the whole race to one man. As regards sin, its universality is related, in a way which must be called obscure, to the connexion of the race with Adam; their humanity is derived from him; and his fall has its results in them; this seems rather to be concluded from the observed fact that all came under the sentence of death pronounced on him for his fall, than upon any theory that in some sense they sinned in him; they died (15, 17) because of his sin, but also they sinned themselves; it was the death rather than the sin that they inherited, and individually they justified, so to speak, the verdict of death by their own sin. What they inherited was a nature liable to death; they made it, each for himself, a sinful nature. Note that it is not said that men sinned in Adam or because Adam sinned; but that man died because Adam sinned; death established the mastery thus initiated because men also sinned. At last the vicious series was broken: one Man broke the universal practice of sin, enacted righteousness and by so doing brought within the reach of all men justification, as GOD’s free gift, and a power to realise that justification in their own lives, a power which brings life because it is His own life imparted to them. Thus is the sovereignty of the favour of GOD established instead of the sovereignty of sin and death. The relation to the one Man, in this case, is a relation of imparted life, as in the former case it is a relation of entailed death. In each case the entail is realised for each person by his own act: in the first case, by an act of sin; in the second case, by an act of faith. The Second Adam broke the entail by the fact that He did not sin (Rom 5:18); and that condition He imparts by communication of His own life. See Additional Note, p. 210.

The analysis of the structure is this: the anacoluthon in Rom 5:12 is due to the interruption of the intended statement of the universality of χάρις and ζωή, by the expansion of the thought of the sway of death. The completion of the original idea is then undertaken in Rom 5:15-17, but only by noting certain qualifications of the parallel which is to be drawn; then, Rom 5:18 f., the parallel is finally stated.

διὰ τοῦτο. The Christian state being as described in Rom 5:1-11, it follows that GOD’s act in the Gospel has a universal range.

δι’ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία κ.τ.λ. Adam’s sin, by the mere fact, brought sin into the world of created humanity; sin was no longer a possibility but a fact.

καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμ. ὁ θάνατος, the death we know: death as we know it came into man’s experience by the act of Adam. The question is not raised, still less answered, whether without sin man’s nature would have been liable to death; S. Paul is dealing with our experience of death and its natural associations, alike for Jew and Gentile, as the destruction of life and separation from GOD. It was sin which gave death this character, and this character, reinforced by the sins of men, led to the tyranny of death over the human spirit. It appears therefore that S. Paul is not distinguishing between physical and moral death, but regarding death as a fact in its full significance in relation to the whole nature of man. See p. 218.

καὶ οὕτως. καὶ is the simple conj. and the clause is part of the ὥσπερ sentence, not the apodosis; that would require οὕτως καὶ.

ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν. The primary stress is on the universality of death, initiated by one sin, reinforced by sin in every man. The universality of sin has already been argued. The order throws stress on εἰς π. ἀ. The aorists are ‘constative,’ they “represent a whole action simply as having occurred without distinguishing any steps in its progress”; Moulton, p. 109.

ἐφ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον. These words must be taken strictly; the range of death included all men because all sinned. The death, which received its character from Adam’s sin, retained its character because each and every man in turn sinned. All principles of interpretation require us to take sin here in the same sense as in ch. Rom 1:18 f. There it is clear that sin involves conscious neglect of knowledge of GOD and His Will, in however elementary a degree. It is an individual act against light. To suppose that ἐν Ἀδάμ is to be supplied, is to suppose that the most critical point of the argument is unexpressed. ἐφ ᾧ = ‘on the ground that’; cf. 2Co 5:4; Blass, p. 137.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12. διὰ τοῦτο: points to the logical connexion with what precedes. It has been argued, at somewhat disproportionate length, whether this refers to ver. 11 only (Fricke, De Mente dogmatica loci Paulini ad Rom 5:12 sq., Lipsiae, 1880, Mey., Philippi, Beet), or to vv. 9-11 (Fri.), or to vv. 1-11 (Rothe, Hofmann), or to the whole discussion from 1:17 onwards (Beng., Schott, Reiche, Rückert). We cannot lay down so precisely how much was consciously present to the mind of the Apostle. But as the leading idea of the whole section is the comparison of the train of consequences flowing from the Fall of Adam with the train of consequences flowing from the Justifying Act of Christ, it seems natural to include at least as much as contains a brief outline of that work, i. e. as far as vv. 1-11.

That being so, we cannot with Fricke infer from ver. 11 that St. Paul only wishes to compare the result of death in the one case with that of life in the other. Fricke, however, is right in saying that his object is not to inquire into the origin of death or sin. The origin of both is assumed, not propounded as anything new. This is important for the understanding of the bearings of the passage. All turns on this, that the effects of Adam’s Fall were transmitted to his descendants; but St. Paul nowhere says how they were transmitted; nor does he even define in precise terms what is transmitted. He seems, however, to mean (1) the liability to sin, (2) the liability to die as the punishment of sin.

ὥσπερ. The structure of the paragraph introduced by this word (to the end of ver. 14) is broken in a manner very characteristic of St. Paul. He begins the sentence as if he intended it to run: ὥσπερ διʼ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθε, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος … οὕτω καὶ διʼ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ δικαιοσύνη εἰσῆλθε, καὶ διὰ τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἡ ζωή. But the words διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος bring up the subject which St. Paul is intending to raise, viz. the connexion of sin and death with the Fall of Adam: he goes off upon this, and when he has discussed it sufficiently for his purpose, he does not return to the form of sentence which he had originally planned, but he attaches the clause comparing Christ to Adam by a relative (ὅς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος) to the end of his digression: and so what should have been the main apodosis of the whole paragraph becomes merely subordinate. It is a want of finish in style due to eagerness and intensity of thought; but the meaning is quite clear. Compare the construction of 2:16; 3:8, 26.

ἡ ἁμαρτία: Sin, as so often, is personified: it is a malignant force let loose among mankind: see the fuller note at the end of the chapter.

εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθε: a phrase which, though it reminds us specially of St. John (Joh 1:9, Joh 1:10; Joh 3:17, Joh 3:19; Joh 6:14; Joh 9:5, Joh 9:39; Joh 10:36, &c.), is not peculiar to him (cf. 1Ti 1:15; Heb 10:5). St. John and the author of Heb. apply it to the personal incarnation of the Logos; here it is applied to the impersonal self-diffusion of evil.

ὁ θάνατος. Some have taken this to mean ‘eternal death,’ chiefly on the ground of vv. 17, 21, where it seems to be opposed to ‘eternal life.’ Oltr. is the most strenuous supporter of this view. But it is far simpler and better to take it of ‘physical death’: because (1) this is clearly the sense of ver. 14; (2) it is the sense of Gen 2:17; Gen 3:19; to which St. Paul is evidently alluding. It seems probable that even in vv. 17, 21, the idea is in the first instance physical. But St. Paul does not draw the marked distinction that we do between this life and the life to come. The mention of death in any sense is enough to suggest the contrast of life in all its senses. The Apostle’s argument is that the gift of life and the benefits wrought by Christ are altogether wider in their range than the penalty of Adam’s sin; ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν ἡ χάρις is the keynote of the passage. It is not necessary that the two sides of the antithesis should exactly correspond. In each particular the scale weighs heavily in favour of the Christian.

The Western text (D E F G, &c.) omits this word altogether. Aug. makes the subject of the vb. not death but sin: he makes it a charge against the Pelagians that they understood in the second place ὁ θάνατος.

διῆλθεν: contains the force of distribution; ‘made its way to each individual member of the race’: καθάπερ τις κλῆρος πατρὸς διαβὰς ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐγγόνους (‘like a father’s inheritance divided among his children’), Euthym.-Zig.

ἐφʼ ᾧ Though this expression has been much fought over there can now be little doubt that the true rendering is ‘because’ (1) Orig. followed by the Latin commentators Aug. and Amdrstr. took the rel. as masc. with antecedent Ἀδάμ: ‘in whom,’ i. e. ‘in Adam.’ But in that case (i) ἐπί would not be the right preposition; (ii) ᾧ would be too far removed from its antecedent. (2) Some Greeks quoted by Photius also took the rel. as masc. with antecedent θάνατος: ‘in which,’ i. e. ‘in death,’ which is even more impossible. (3) Some moderns, taking ᾧ as neut. and the whole phrase as equivalent to a conjunction, have tried to get out of it other meanings than ‘because.’ So (i) ‘in like manner as’ (‘all died, just as all sinned’), Rothe, De Wette; (ii) (= ἐφʼ ὅσον) ‘in proportion as,’ ‘in so far as’ (‘all died, in so far as all sinned’), Ewald, Tholuck (ed. 1856) and others. But the Greek will not bear either of these senses. (4) ᾧ is rightly taken as neut., and the phrase ἐφʼ ᾧ as conj. = ‘because’ (‘for that’ AV. and RV.) by Theodrt; Phot. Euthym.-Zig. and the mass of modern commentators. This is in agreement with Greek usage and is alone satisfactory.

ἐφʼ ᾧ in classical writers more often means ‘on condition that’: cf. Thuc. i.113 σπονδὰς ποιησάμενοι ἐφʼ ᾧ τοὺς ἅνδρας κομιοῦνται, ‘on condition of getting back their prisoners,’ &c. The plural ἐφʼ οἷς is more common, as in ἀνθʼ ὧν, ἐξ ὦν, διʼ ὧν. In N. T. the phrase occurs three times, always as it would seem = propterea quod, ‘because’: cf. 2Co 5:4 στενάζομεν βαρούμενοι· ἐφʼ ᾦ οὐ θέλομεν ἐκδύσασθαι κ.τ.λ.; Php 3:12 ἐφʼ ᾧ καὶ κατελήφθην ὑπὸ Χ. Ἰ. (where ‘seeing that’ or ‘because’ appears to be the more probable rendering). So Phavorinus (d. 1537; a lexicographer of the Renaissance period, who incorporated the contents of older works, but here seems to be inventing his examples) ἐφʼ ᾧ ἀντὶ τοῦ διότι λέγουσιν Ἀττικοί, οἷον ἐφʼ ᾧ τὴν κλοπὴν εἰργάσω (‘because you committed the theft’) κ.τ.λ.

ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον. Here lies the crux of this difficult passage. In what sense did ‘all sin’? (1) Many, including even Meyer, though explaining ἐφʼ ᾧ as neut. rather than masc., yet give to the sentence as a whole a meaning practically equivalent to that which it has if the antecedent of ᾧ is Ἀδάμ. Bengel has given this classical expression: omnes peccarunt, Adamo peccante, ‘all sinned implicitly in the sin of Adam,’ his sin involved theirs. The objection is that the words supplied are far too important to be left to be understood. If St. Paul had meant this, why did he not say so? The insertion of ἐν Ἀδάμ would have removed all ambiguity. (2) The Greek commentators for the most part supply nothing, but take ἥμαρτον in its usual sense: ‘all sinned in their own persons, and on their own initiative.’ So Euthym.-Zig.: διότι πάντες ἥμαρτον ἀκολουθήσαντες τῷ προπάτορι κατά γε τὸ ἁμαρτῆσαι. The objection to this is that it destroys the parallelism between Adam and Christ: besides, St. Paul goes on to show in the same breath that they could not sin in the same way that Adam did. Sin implies law; but Adam’s descendants had no law. (3) It is possible however to take ἥμαρτον in its ordinary sense without severing the connexion between Adam and his posterity. If they sinned, their sin was due in part to tendencies inherited from Adam. So practically Stuart, Fricke, Weiss, &c. There still remains the difficulty as to the connexion of this clause with what follows: see the next note.

It is a further argument in favour of the view taken above that a very similar sequence of thought is found in 4 Ezra. Immediately after laying down that the sin of Adam’s descendants is due to that malignitas radicis which they inherit from their forefather (see the passage quoted in full below), the writer goes on to describe this sin as a repetition of Adam’s due to the fact that they too had within them the cor malignum as he had: Et deliquerunt qui habitabant civitatem, in omnibus facientes sicut fecit Adam et omnes generationes eius, utebantur enim et ipsi corde maligno (4 Ezra 3:25 f.). Other passages may be quoted both from 4 Ezra and from Apoc. Baruch. which lay stress at once on the inherited tendency to sin and on the freedom of choice in those who give way to it: see the fuller note below.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Third Section.

Twelfth Passage (5:12-21). The Universality of Salvation in Christ proved by the Universality of Death in Adam.

Justification by faith had just been expounded; the historical foundation on which it rested, its harmony with the Israelitish revelation, the certainty of its enduring to the end—all these points had been illustrated; and the major part of the theme, Rom 3:21-22, was thus developed. One idea remains still, and that the most important of all, which was expressed in the theme in the striking words: εἰς πάντας καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας, for all and upon all who believe. Universalism was the peculiar character of Paul’s gospel; justification by faith, the subject of exposition thus far, was its necessary condition. To omit expressly developing this decisive feature would have been to leave the fruit ungathered after laboriously cultivating the tree. The apostle could not commit such a mistake. He performs this final task in the last piece, the very peculiar nature of which suffices to demonstrate its importance.

Commentators have understood the idea and object of the passage in various ways. According to Baur and his school, as well as several other commentators, the apostle has in view the Jewish-Christianity reigning in the Roman Church. He wishes at once to refute and gain it, either by expounding a conception of history in which the law finds no more place (Baur), or by proving that salvation, like condemnation, depends in no degree on the conduct of individuals and their works, but solely on an objective standard, on the unconditional and absolute appointment of God (Holsten). But this piece does not answer exactly either to the one or other of these two views. The observation made in Rom 5:20 on the secondary part played by the law, cannot express the intention of the entire piece. This remark, rendered indispensable in this universal survey by the important place filled by the Mosaic law in the religious history of mankind, is thrown out too much by the way to allow of its concentrating upon itself the interest of so vast an exposition. The other view, that of the absolute determinism which Holsten ascribes to St. Paul, would no doubt serve to cut by the roots the system of justification by works; but it would be one of those remedies which destroy the suffering by killing the sufferer. For determinism excludes human merit only by suppressing moral liberty and responsibility. It is not so that Paul proceeds. In any case, it is easy to see that the apostle’s direct aim in this piece is not to exclude legal righteousness; he has done with this idea. It is the universality of the Christian salvation which he wishes to demonstrate. Ewald, Dietzsch, and Gess rightly advance the striking difference which there is between the argument of the Epistle to the Galatians and the teaching of the Epistle to the Romans. In the former, where Paul is attacking Jewish-Christianity, his argument starts from the theocratic history, from Abraham; in the latter, which expounds the relation of the gospel to human nature, Jewish and Gentile, the argument starts from general history, from Adam, the father of all mankind. From the very beginning of the Epistle the point of view is universal (Gentiles, chap. 1; Jews, chap. 2).

Very many commentators hold the opinion that the apostle’s purpose is to ascend to the source of the two currents, whether of condemnation and death, or of justification and life, which sway the life of mankind; or, as Dietzsch puts it, to the very powers which determine present facts, the lot of individuals. The practical aim of this investigation would thus be that indicated by Chrysostom in the words: “As the best physicians turn their whole attention to find out the root of maladies, and thus reach the very source of the evil, so it is that Paul acts.” Every reader would thus be invited by the passage to break the bond of oneness (solidarity) which naturally unites him to the head of lost humanity, and to contract by faith the new bond whereby he can have fellowship with the head of justified humanity. This view is the most widely spread, and we do not conceal from ourselves the measure of truth which it contains. But two difficulties arrest us when we attempt to make this idea the key to the whole passage. It is perfectly obvious from Rom 5:12 that the apostle is rather concerned with the origin of death than with that of sin, and that he mentions the latter only to reach the former. It is also to the fact of death that he returns most frequently in the course of this piece, comp. Rom 5:15-18; Rom 5:21. Would it be so if his direct aim were to ascend to sin, the source of evil? Then we find him nowhere insisting on the gravity of sin and on the necessity of faith for salvation. No exhortation to the reader to form a personal union with the new Adam reveals this directly practical intention which is ascribed to him, especially by Hofmann and Th. Schott. We are therefore forced to conclude that we are not yet on the right track.

Rothe starts from the idea that the first part of chap. 5 has already begun the exposition of sanctification as the fruit of justification by faith, an exposition which continues in chap. 6 The passage from Rom 5:12-21 would thus be a simple episode intended to prove that as men became sinners in common by the sin of one, so they can only become saints in common—that is to say, in Christ. The piece would thus treat of the moral assimilation, either of corruption or holiness, by individual men. Such is also the opinion of Lange and Schaff, who make chap. Rom 5:12 begin the part of the Epistle relating to moral regeneration by the appropriation of the holy life of the new Adam (vi.-viii.). There is certainly mention of sanctification in the passage,Rom 5:1-11; we grant this to Rothe (comp. Rom 5:9-10 : by Him; by His life), but, as we have seen, only in relation to final justification, which rests on the continuance of the action of the living Christ in the justified soul. As to the subject of sanctification thus announced beforehand, it is not actually treated till chap. 6. The relations to 6-8 are no doubt real and profound. Lange proves them perfectly. But it is exaggerating their scope to make them a reason for detaching the passage Rom 5:12-21 from the preceding context, in order to make it the preface to the doctrine of sanctification. The dominant ideas in the passage are not those of sin and of the new life; they are only, as we shall see, those of condemnation and justification, which had been the subject of the whole preceding part. This piece must therefore be regarded as its conclusion.

By the first term of the comparison (our common condemnation in Adam) this parallel certainly recalls the whole section of the ὀργή, wrath, Rom 1:18 to Rom 3:20, as by the second (common salvation in Christ) it recalls the subject of the second section, the righteousness of faith, Rom 3:21 to Rom 5:11. But this resemblance is far from exhausting the connection of this piece with all that precedes. The two terms of comparison, Adam and Christ, are not only put in juxtaposition with one another; they are put in logical connection, and it is in this living relation that the true idea of the piece is contained. With a boldness of thought which it is scarcely possible to imagine, Paul discovers, in the extension and power of the mysterious condemnation pronounced in Adam, the divine measure of the extension and power of the salvation bestowed in Christ, so that the very intensity of the effects of the fall becomes transformed, in his skilful hands, into an irresistible demonstration of the greatness of salvation. And this final piece is thus found to be at one and the same moment the counterpart of the first section (condemnation) and the crowning of the second (justification).

The following parallel falls, as it were, of itself into four distinct paragraphs:

1. Rom 5:12-14: the universal diffusion of death by the deed of one man.

2. Rom 5:15-17: the superiority of the factors acting in Christ’s work over the corresponding factor in the work of Adam.

3. Rom 5:18-19: the certainty of equality in respect of extension and effect between the second work and the first.

4. Rom 5:20-21: the indication of the true part played by the law between these two universals of death and righteousness.

Exegesis has been led more and more to the grouping which we have just indicated (see Dietzsch, and especially Hodge), though the idea of those four paragraphs and their logical relation are still very variously understood.

Vv. 12. “Wherefore, even as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned;”

The logical connection between this piece and the preceding is expressed by διὰ τοῦτο, wherefore. Some, like Meyer, make this expression refer solely to the last words of Rom 5:11: we have received the reconciliation. But we have seen that this incidental proposition, which the context itself did not require, was added there with the view of recapitulating the whole previous section, before and with the view of passing to the following passage. The very term καταλλαγή, reconciliation, which contains an allusion to the name ὀργή, wrath, is chosen so as to remind us not only of the second section (that of justification), but also of the first (that of condemnation); so that in reality to say that the wherefore refers to the last proposition of Rom 5:11 is to admit, with Tholuck, Rückert, Holsten, etc., that it bears on all the preceding context from Rom 1:17 : “Since, condemned as we all were, we have found reconciliation in Christ, there is therefore between our relation to Him and our relation to the head of natural humanity the following resemblance.” Hofmann and Schott make the wherefore refer to the piece Rom 5:1-11 only: “On account of this assurance of final salvation which we possess in Christ”...According to Hofmann, the verb which is wanting should contain an exhortation to realize holiness (the contents of Rom 8:1 et seq.), an exhortation judged to correspond with that of the alleged ἐχωμεν, let us have, of Rom 5:1. This is all pure romance. Schott derives the verb more naturally from the preceding: “Wherefore we shall be saved by Him alone (Rom 5:9-10), as we perished by Adam”...(But see below).

The ὥσπερ, even as, has been construed grammatically in a multitude of ways.

1. It has been thought that the principal proposition (the verb of the wherefore) had been forgotten by the apostle, distracted as he was by the host of thoughts which presented themselves successively to his mind (see Rückert and Hofmann for example). I hope our readers are convinced that such an explanation, or rather absence of explanation, is impossible. We have had sufficient proof hitherto that the apostle did not compose without having fully taken account of what he meant to say.

2. The main correlative proposition is supposed to be understood; requiring to be inferred from what precedes. De Wette adduces in this sense Mat 25:14, where we find an even as, to which there is no corresponding principal clause, and which depends simply on the preceding sentence. Lange almost in the same way derives the understood verb from Rom 5:11 : “Wherefore we have reconciliation by Christ, as by one sin and death came upon all;” Umbreit and Schott, from Rom 5:10 : “We shall be saved by Christ, as we perished in Adam;” van Hengel simply understands the verb: “Wherefore it is the same in Christ as it was in Adam.” Dietzsch fills up the ellipsis by taking the verb from what follows: “Wherefore life came by a man, in the same way as by a man sin and death came.” De Wette’s explanation breaks down under the wherefore, which distinguishes our passage from the one quoted. In the other views the question arises, How in a didactic piece so severely composed, the apostle, instead of making such an ellipsis and holding the mind of the reader in suspense to the end as he does without satisfying him after all, did not simply write like this: διὰ τοῦτο ἐγένετο ἐν Χριστῷ ὥσπερ....“Wherefore it is the same in Christ as in Adam”...

3. The principal verb on which ὥσπερ depends is sought in the words which follow; Erasmus and Beza, in the clause: “and death by sin,” giving to καί the meaning of also. Taken rigorously, the construction would be admissible, though it would have been more correct to write οὕτως καί, or to put the καί after the clause (thus also, or by sin also); but this meaning is absolutely excluded by the fact that Paul does not think of comparing the entrance of sin with that of death. It is evident that when he wrote the as, he had in view as the second term of the comparison the entrance of justification and life by Christ. A similar reason is also opposed to the explanation of those who, like Wolf, find the principal point in the more remote words: “and so death passed upon all.” Paul has as little thought of comparing the mode in which death entered with that of its diffusion. Besides, this would have required οὕτως καί, and not καὶ οὕτως.

4. A more generally admitted explanation is that of Calvin (Thol., Philip., Mey., Holst.), who finds the principal point indicated, at least so far as the sense goes, at the close of Rom 5:14, in the words: “who is the type of Him that was to come.” The meaning of these words is to this effect: “Even as,...so by a new Adam, of whom he was the type, justification came on mankind.” We must hold on this view that the explanation interposed in Rom 5:13-14 led Paul away from finishing the construction begun in Rom 5:12. But it would be a strange style to give the principal proposition, which the reader was expecting after the as of Rom 5:12, in the form of this incidental proposition: who is the type of Him that was to come. Then in what immediately follows, Rom 5:15, Paul does not expound this idea of the equality between Adam and Christ, which had been announced by the as, and which in its substance the last proposition of Rom 5:14 was meant to recall. He explains, on the contrary, the difference between the two terms of comparison, so that he only raises (end of Rom 5:14) the idea of equality to abandon it at the same instant (Rom 5:15-17); what an unnatural proceeding!—5. We pass rapidly over the hypotheses of Mehring and Winer, who seek the chief clause, the former in the first proposition of Rom 5:15 by taking it interrogatively, the latter in the second proposition of the same verse; two equally impossible attempts, since Rom 5:15 a cannot be an interrogation (see below), and since Rom 5:15 b can only correspond to the subordinate proposition which precedes in the same verse: “for if”—etc.

There is only one explanation admissible, that of Grotius, Bengel, Flatt, best defended by Hodge, who finds the principal clause in Rom 5:18. It is there, indeed, that we have the close of the comparison begun in Rom 5:12 in the form of equality. Vv.13 and 14 have been an explanation required by the last words of Rom 5:12, one of those digressions which, in our modern fashion, we put in a note. Rom 5:15-17 have been brought in by the expression: “type of Him that was to come” (end of Rom 5:14), which demanded an immediate modification or restriction, so that it is not till Rom 5:18 that the apostle is free to finish the comparison he has begun. The proof that in Rom 5:18 Paul at length resumes the idea of Rom 5:12, is found in these two characteristic features: (a) the ἅρα οὖν, so therefore, which indicates the resuming of a previously expressed idea; (b) the reappearance of the contrast between one and all (εἶς and πάντες), which was that of Rom 5:12, but which had been dropped in the interval for the contrast between one and many (εἶς and οἱ πολλοί, Rom 5:15-17). As to the idea, it is evident that Rom 5:18 logically completes Rom 5:12. The words: as by one fall condemnation came upon all men, reproduce the idea, even as, etc., of Rom 5:12; and the following: so also by one righteousness justification of life came upon all, are manifestly the long delayed second term of the comparison. As to the end of Rom 5:14, in which so many commentators have found the principal idea, it was simply a way of announcing to the reader this second part of the comparison, which was to be still further prefaced (Rom 5:15-17) before being enunciated (Rom 5:18).

Vv. 12 describes the entrance of death into the world. The emphasis is on the words: by one man. Adam is here characterized not merely as the first of sinners, but as the one who laid human life open to the power of sin. If Paul does not speak of Eve, as in 2Co 11:3, et al., it is because the fall of the race was not necessarily bound up with that of the woman. Adam alone was the true representative of mankind still included in him at that time.

The term sin should be taken here in its greatest generality. The apostle is not speaking specially of sin either as a tendency or an act, either as an individual act or as a collective fact; but of the principle of revolt whereby the human will rises against the divine in all its different forms and manifestations. Holsten sees in sin an objective power controlling human existence even in Adam. But from the Bible standpoint sin exists only in the will. It has no place in objective existence and outside the will of the creature. Julius Müller reaches a result almost the same by starting from an opposite point of view; according to him, the will of individual men has been corrupted by a free transgression previously to their earthly existence. On both of these views the apostle should have said: sin appeared with or in the first man; but not: sin entered by him. The word entered indicates the introduction of a principle till then external to the world, and the word by throws back the responsibility of the event on him who, as it were, pierced the dike through which the irruption took place; comp. the term disobedience, Rom 5:19.

The word κόσμος, the world, evidently denotes here, as in Joh 3:16, et al., only the domain of human existence. Paul certainly holds, with Scripture, the previous existence of evil in a superhuman sphere.

Assuredly no subsequent transgression is comparable to this. It created a state of things here below which subsequent sins only served to confirm. If the question is asked, how a being created good could perpetrate such an act, we answer that a decision like this does not necessarily suppose the existence of evil in its author. There is in moral life not only a conflict between good and evil, but also between good and good, lower good and higher good. The act of eating the fruit of the tree on which the prohibition rested, was not at all illegitimate in itself. It became guilty only through the prohibition. Man therefore found himself placed—and such was the necessary condition of the moral development through which he had to pass—between the inclination to eat, an inclination innocent in itself, but intended to be sacrificed, and the positively good divine order. At the instigation of an already existing power of revolt, man drew from the depths of his liberty a decision whereby he adhered to the inclination rather than to the divine will, and thus created in his whole race, still identified with his person, the permanent proclivity to prefer inclination to obligation. As all the race would have perished with him if he had perished, it was all seized in him with the spirit of revolt to which in that hour he had adhered. We are nowhere told, however, that his descendants are individually responsible for this diseased tendency. It is in proportion as each individual voluntarily resigns himself to it that he becomes personally responsible for it.

But was it compatible with divine perfection to let this succession of generations, stained with an original vice, come into the world? God certainly might have annihilated the perverted race in its head, and replaced it by a new one; but this would have been to confess Himself vanquished by the adversary. He might, on the contrary, accept it such as sin had made it, and leave it to develop in the natural way, holding it in His power to recover it; and this would be to gain a victory on the field of battle where He seemed to have been conquered. Conscience says to which of these two courses God must give the preference, and Scripture teaches us which He has in in reality preferred.

But the point which Paul has in view in this declaration is not the origin of sin, but that of death. And hence he passes immediately, understanding the same verb as before, to the second fact: and death by sin. It would have been wholly different had he meant to begin here to treat the subject of sanctification; he would in that case have at least stopped for a moment at this grave fact of the introduction of sin. If sin is not mentioned by him except by way of transition to death, this is because he is still on the subject of justification, the corresponding fact to which is condemnation, that is to say, death. Death is the monument of a divine condemnation, which has fallen on mankind.

The term death is used by Scripture in three senses—1. Physical death, or the separation of soul and body; in consequence of this separation from its life principle, the body is given over to dissolution. 2. Spiritual death, or the separation of the soul from God; in consequence of this separation from its principle of life, the soul becomes corrupt in its lusts (Eph 4:22). 3. Eternal death, or the second death; this is in the human being the consummation of his separation from God by the separation of the soul from the spirit, the soul’s faculty for the divine. The soul and body then deprived of this superior principle, the native element of the soul, become the prey of the worm which dieth not (Mar 9:43-48). Of these three meanings, the last does not suit this passage; for the second death does not begin till the judgment. The second is equally inapplicable, because the idea of death would then be compounded with that of sin, which is distinguished from it in this very passage. There remains, therefore, only the first meaning. It is confirmed, besides, by the obvious allusion to the narrative of Genesis (Rom 2:17, Rom 3:19), as well as by the explanation contained in the following verses (13 and 14), where the word death is evidently taken in its strict sense. We should add, however, that death, even when taken simply as physical death, always implies an abnormal state in relation to God, a state which, if it continues and develops, cannot fail to draw after it fatal consequences to man.

What, according to the apostle’s view, is the relation between sin and death contained in the preposition διά, by, which he uses a second time? It might be said that death is simply the natural consequence of sin, since, God being the source of moral and physical life, once the bond is broken between Him and man, man must die. But in Rom 5:16 the apostle makes death the consequence of sin through a positive sentence, which proves that if we have to do here with a natural consequence, it is one which is also willed. It is true, two objections may be urged against this opinion, which makes death a consequence of sin. The first is what Paul himself says, 1Co 15:42, that our earthly body is sown in corruption, weakness, and dishonor, and that because it is psychical. A little further on, 1Co 15:47, alluding to Gen 3:19, he adds that the first man is of the earth, earthy, which seems to make the dissolution of his body a natural consequence of his nature. The second objection is this: Long before the creation of man, the existence of death is proved in the domain of animal life. Now the body of man belongs to the great sum total of animal organization, of which he is the crown; and therefore the law of death must already have extended to man, independently of sin. Paul’s words in the Epistle to the Corinthians, as well as those of Genesis, the sense of which he reproduces, prove beyond doubt the natural possibility of death, but not its necessity. If man had remained united to God, his body, naturally subject to dissolution, might have been gloriously transformed, without passing through death and dissolution. The notion of the tree of life, as usually explained, means nothing else. This privilege of an immediate transformation will belong to the believers who shall be alive at the time of our Lord’s return (1Co 15:51-52); and it was probably this kind of transformation that was on the point of taking effect in the person of the Lord Himself at the time of His transfiguration. This privilege, intended for holy men, was withdrawn from guilty man; such was the sentence which gave him over to dissolution. It is stated in the words: “Thou art dust (that is to say, thou canst die), and to dust shalt thou return (that is to say, thou shalt in fact die).” The reign of death over the animals likewise proves only this: that it was in the natural condition of man to terminate in dissolution. Remaining on the level of animalism by the preference given by him to inclination over moral obligation, man continued subject to this law. But had he risen by an act of moral liberty above the animal, he would not have had to share its lot (see also on Rom 8:19-22).

From the origin of sin, and of death by sin, the apostle passes to a third idea: the diffusion of death. Once entered among mankind, death took hold of all the beings composing the race. The two prepositions εἰς (into) and διά (through) in the two verbs εἰσῆλθεν and διῆλθεν, indicate exactly this connection between entrance and propagation. As poison once swallowed penetrates to all parts of the body, so it happened in Adam, in whom the whole race was virtually contained; in him the tendency to dissolution victoriously asserted itself over all the individuals that were to come, so that every one of them was born dying. The word οὕτως, so, may be explained in three ways: either it repeats, as Dietzsch, Hofm. think, the notion: by one man: “death, after having entered by one, spread in the same manner (by this one).” Or, as is held by Meyer and Philippi, this so alludes to the relation of cause and effect, which has just been pointed out between sin and death: “and so, by reason of this connection between sin and death, death passed on all,” which assumes as a premiss the understood idea that sin also extended to all. Or, finally, is it not more natural to explain the word so by the connection between the two verbs? “And once entered, it gained by its very entrance the power of passing on all.” The threshold crossed, the enemy could strike immediately all the inmates of the house. What mode would have presented the opposite of that characterized by the so, if death had reached each man individually by a door which he himself had opened? The all is expressly emphasized in contrast to one, because in this contrast between one and all there is concentrated the idea of the whole passage. The Greco-Latin MSS. here omit ὁ θάνατος, death. In this case we must either take the verb διῆλθεν in an impersonal sense: “and so it (this connection between sin and death) happened to all;” or, what would be preferable, take the whole following proposition as the subject: “and so there passed on all, that in consequence of which, or in virtue of which, all have sinned.” Both of these constructions are obviously forced. It is probable that the omission of ὁ θάνατος has arisen, as van Hengel well suggests, from the fact that the whole of the verse was connected with sin; the words: and death by sin, being consequently regarded merely as incidental or parenthetical, and so there was given as a subject to διῆλθε, ἡ ἁμαρτία, sin, of the first proposition.

But why does Paul add the last words: ἐφ᾿ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, which we have translated by: for that all have sinned? They seem to contradict the idea expressed in the first part of the verse, and to ascribe the death of each man not to the sin of Adam, but to his own. The numerous explanations which have been given of these words may, it seems to us, be reduced to three principal heads; they amount in fact to one or other of these three ideas—1. The death of individual men results wholly from their own sins. 2. The death of individual men results partly from Adam’s sin and partly from their own sins. 3. The death of all individual men arises solely from Adam’s sin.

Let us begin with the study of the form ἐφ᾿ ᾧ. In the New Testament it is found in the local sense (Luk 5:25); in the moral sense, it is applied either to the object: ἐφ᾿ ᾧ πάρει, “with what object art thou here?” or to the determining cause of the action or feeling; so without doubt 2Co 5:4 : ἐφ᾿ ᾧ οὐ θέλομεν ἐκδύσασθαι, for that we would not be unclothed, but clothed upon;” probably also Php 3:12 : ἐφ᾿ ᾦ καὶ κατελήφθην, “I seek to apprehend, because that also I have been apprehended;” perhaps also Php 4:10 : ἐφ᾿ ᾧ καὶ ἐφρονεῖτε, “(I say so), because that ye also thought;” but this ἐφ᾿ ᾧ may also be understood as a pronoun connected with what precedes: “as regards what concerns me, with which ye were also occupied.” It is easy to see, in fact, that the phrase may have two different meanings, according as we take it as pronominal or conjunctive. In the former case, it bears on what precedes: on account of, or in view of which, that is to say, of the idea just expressed (propterea). In the second, it bears on what follows: because, or in view of the fact that, that is to say, of the idea just about to be enunciated (propterea quod). The difference is analogous to that of διό and διότι. We shall have need, as will appear, of all these meanings in the study of the following phrase.

The first explanation is that which makes the apostle explain the death of all by the individual sin of all. This is the meaning adopted by Calvin, Melanchthon, and several others, particularly by Reuss. The latter expresses himself thus: “No question here of the imputation of Adam’s sin or hereditary sin; these are scholastic theses. All have been visited with the same punishment as Adam, therefore they must all have merited it like him.” The idea would thus be that all men die in consequence of their individual sins. There are three reasons which render this explanation impossible—1. The καὶ οὕτως, and so, evidently signifies that each individual dies in consequence of the entrance of sin, and therefore of death, into this world by one Man 1:2. This idea would be in contradiction to the very aim of the whole passage, which is to make the death of all rest on Adam, even as the righteousness of all rests on Christ. 3. The death of infants would be inexplicable on this interpretation; for they have certainly not brought death on themselves by their individual sins. Calvin, Tholuck, and others on this account apply the ἥμαρτον, have sinned, not to particular acts, but to the evil disposition: have become sinners, which might be said also of infants who have died without actual sins. But the verb ἁμαρτάνειν cannot have this meaning. It always denotes sin as an act, not as a state. Paul would have said: ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἐγενήθησαν, or, as in Rom 5:19: ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν. Mangold alleges that Paul did not take account of infants when he expressed himself thus, and that he meant only to speak of mankind, so far as they really sin. But Paul is not explaining the death of this or that individual; he is explaining the fact of death in itself. If there are examples of death, and that in great number, which do not come under the explanation he gives, it is not enough to say that he does not take account of them; his explanation must be declared insufficient.

A second class of commentators seek to modify the preceding and evidently inadmissible explanation; they give a restricted or determinate sense to ἐφ᾿ ᾧ, making it signify: seeing that besides, or on this condition that, or in so far as; so Julius Müller, Rothe, Ewald. The object of all these attempts is to get at this idea: that the diffusion of death in the world, in consequence of Adam’s sin, took place only on a certain condition, and on account of a subsidiary cause, the particular sins committed by each man. There is on this view a personal act of appropriation in the matter of death, as there is one, namely faith, in the matter of salvation. But such a meaning of ἐφ᾿ ᾧ cannot be demonstrated; it would have required ἐφ᾿ ὅσον, or some other phrase. Then this meaning is opposed to Rom 5:16, which directly contrasts condemnation as a thing which has come by one, with the gift of grace as applying to the sins of the many. Besides, would it be possible for Paul to seek to establish no logical relation between these two causes, the one principal, the other secondary, and to content himself with putting them in juxtaposition, notwithstanding their apparent contradiction?

The third class of interpretations may be divided into two groups—1. Those which take ἐφ᾿ ᾧ as a relative pronoun. So Hofmann, who makes θάνατος (death, in the physical and moral sense) the antecedent, and gives to ἐπί and ἐφ᾿ ᾧ the temporal sense: “during the existence, or in the presence of which (death) all have sinned”—that is to say, that when all individual men sinned, the reign of death was already established here below, which proves clearly that it was so not in consequence of our particular sins, but on account of Adam’s sin. Dietzsch interprets almost in the same way as Hofmann, only he sets aside the temporal meaning of ἐπί, to substitute for it the notion of the condition on which, or the state of things in which, the fact takes place. The same relation of the ἐφ᾿ ᾧ to θάνατος is followed by Gess, except that he understands the word θάνατος of spiritual death, sin: “Upon all (spiritual) death has come, on the ground of which all individual men have consequently committed sin.” We omit other less comprehensible shades. But why have recourse to this form of expression ἐφ᾿ ᾧ, which has usually a quite different sense in Paul, and not say simply, if such was his meaning, that death here below preceded individual sins, and consequently is not their effect? Besides, the fact itself, here ascribed to the apostle, is not strictly true. For the first death on the earth, that of Abel, was certainly preceded by a multitude of particular sins. In Gess’s explanation the idea is much simpler: “In Adam death came upon all, moral corruption, as a consequence of which all since have sinned individually.” But this idea lies without the context; for Paul, as we have seen, is not treating here of the origin of sin, but of the origin of death, and of death taken in the physical sense. Death appears here as the visible proof of the invisible judgment which hangs over mankind. Rom 5:13-14, as well as 15 and 17, leave no doubt on this head. In this way it would seem to us simpler to give to ἐφ᾿ ᾧ the neuter sense: on which, in consequence of which, all have sinned. Only this meaning of ἐφ᾿ ᾧ would be, we fear, without precedent. 2. The second mode of interpretation in this third class takes the ἐφ᾿ ᾧ as a conjunctive phrase: for that, and connects it with the idea following: all have sinned. How sinned? Through this one man who introduced sin. So Bengel: quia omnes, ADAMO PECCANTE peccaverunt. It must be allowed that the thought of the δἰ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπον, by one man, which begins the verse, so controls the mind of the apostle that he does not count it necessary expressly to repeat it. This meaning is in harmony with the best established use of the ἐφ᾿ ᾧ in the New Testament (see above) and in the classics (see Meyer). And the idea expressed in this proposition thus understood, appears again without doubt in the first part of Rom 5:15: “through the offence of one many be dead;” and in that of Rom 5:17 : “by one man’s offence death reigned by one;” comp. 1Co 15:22 : “as in Adam all die.” No doubt it is objected that the essential idea in this case: “in Adam,” is omitted; but we think we have accounted for the omission. And we find, as Bengel has already remarked, a somewhat similar ellipsis in the analogous though not parallel passage, 2Co 5:15 : “If one died for all, then all died;” understand: in him.

True, the question is asked, if it is possible that the eternal lot of a free and intelligent person should be made dependent on an act in which he has taken no part with will and conscience. Assuredly not; but there is no question here about the eternal lot of individuals. Paul is speaking here above all of physical death. Nothing of all that passes in the domain in which we have Adam for our father can be decisive for our eternal lot. The solidarity of individuals with the head of the first humanity does not extend beyond the domain of natural life. What belongs to the higher life of man, his spiritual and eternal existence, is not a matter of species, but of the individual.

The Vulgate has admitted an interpretation of this passage, set in circulation by Origen and spread by Augustine, which, in a way grammatically false, yet comes to the same result as ours. ᾿Εφ᾿ ᾧ is taken in the sense of ἐν ᾧ: “in whom” (Adam). But ἐπί cannot have the meaning of ἐν, and even if ᾧ were a relative pronoun here, it would neither refer to Adam, who has not been named, nor to one man, from which it is separated by so many intermediate propositions.

The most impenetrable mystery in the life of nature is the relation between the individual and the species. Now to this domain belongs the problem raised by the words: “for that (in this one man) all have sinned.” Adam received the unique mission to represent the whole species concentrated in a single individual. Such a phenomenon cannot be repeated, at least in the domain of nature. The relation of each of us to that man, the incarnation of the species itself, has nothing in common with the relation which we have to sustain to any other man. In the revelation of salvation given to the apostle this mysterious connection was assumed, but not explained. For it belongs to a sphere on which the revealing ray does not fall. And therefore it is that in the two following verses the apostle thinks it necessary to demonstrate the reality of the fact which he had just announced: the death of all through the sin of one. We shall see that the meaning of these two verses comes out only when we approach them with the explanation just given of the last words of Rom 5:12; this will be the best proof of its truth.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_5:12-21

Analysis

I. Scope of the passage. The design of this section is the illustration of the doctrine of the justification of sinners on the ground of the righteousness of Christ, by a reference to the condemnation of men for the sin of Adam. That such is its design is evident,

1. From the context. Paul has been engaged from the beginning of the Epistle in inculcating one main idea, viz., that the ground of the sinners acceptance with God is not in himself, but the merit of Christ. And in the preceding verses he had said, we are justified by his blood, Rom_5:9; by his death we are restored to the divine favor, Rom_5:10; and through him, i.e., by one man, we have received reconciliation, that is, are pardoned and justified, Rom_5:11. As this idea of mens being regarded and treated, not according to their own merit, but the merit of another, is contrary to the common mode of thinking among men, and especially contrary to their self-righteous efforts to obtain the divine favor, the apostle illustrates and enforces it by an appeal to the great analogous fact in the history of the world.

2. From an inspection of Rom_5:12, Rom_5:18, Rom_5:19, which contain the whole point and substance of the comparison, Rom_5:13-17 are virtually a parenthesis; and Rom_5:20, Rom_5:21, contain two remarks, merely incidental to the discussion. Rom_5:12, Rom_5:18, Rom_5:19, must therefore contain the main idea of the passage. In the 12th, only one side of the comparison is stated; but in Rom_5:18, Rom_5:19, it is resumed and carried out: As by the offense of one all are condemned, so by the righteousness of one all are justified. This, almost in the words of the apostle, is the simple meaning of Rom_5:18, Rom_5:19, and makes the point of the comparison and scope of the passage perfectly clear.

3. The design of the passage must be that on which all its parts bear, the point towards which they all converge. The course of the argument, as will appear in the sequel, bears so uniformly and lucidly on the point just stated, that the attempt to make it bear on any other involves the whole passage in confusion. All that the apostle says tends to the illustration of his declaration, As we are condemned on account of what Adam did, we are justified on account of what Christ did. The illustration of this point, therefore, must be the design and scope of the whole.

It is frequently and confidently said that the design of the passage is to exalt our views of the blessings procured by Christ, by showing that they are greater than the evils occasioned by the fall. But this is not only improbable, but impossible.

1. Because the superabounding of the grace of the gospel is not expressly stated until Rom_5:20. That is, not until the whole discussion is ended; and it is introduced there merely incidentally, as involved in the apostles answer to an objection to his argument, implied in the question, For what purpose did the law enter? Is it possible that the main design of a passage should be disclosed only in the reply to an incidental objection? The pith and point of the discussion would be just what they are now, had no such objection been suggested or answered; yet, if this view of the subject is correct, had the objection not been presented, the main design of the passage would have been unexpressed and undiscoverable.

2. The idea of the superiority of the blessings procured by Christ to the evils occasioned by Adam, although first expressly stated in Rom_5:20, is alluded to and implied in Rom_5:16, Rom_5:17. But these verses, it is admitted, belong to a parenthesis. It is conceded on all hands, that Rom_5:13, Rom_5:14, are designed to confirm the statement of Rom_5:12, and that Rom_5:15-17, are subordinate to the last clause of Rom_5:14, and contain an illustration of its meaning. It is therefore not only admitted, but frequently and freely asserted, that Rom_5:12, Rom_5:18, Rom_5:19, contain the point and substance of the whole passage, Rom_5:13-17 being a parenthesis.

Yet, in Rom_5:12, Rom_5:18, Rom_5:19, the super abounding of the grace Christ is not even hinted. Can the main design of a passage be contained in a parenthesis, and not in the passage itself? The very nature of a parenthesis is, that it contains something which may be left out of a passage, and leave the sense entire. But can the main design and scope of an author be left out, and his meaning be left complete! If not, it is impossible that an idea, contained only in a parenthesis should be the main design of the passage. The idea is in itself true and important, but the mistake consists in exalting a corollary into the scope and object of the whole discussion. The confusion and mistake in the exposition of a passage, consequent on an entire misapprehension of its design, may be readily imagined.

II. The connection. The design of the passage being the illustration of the doctrine of justification by the righteousness of Christ, previously established, the connection is natural and obvious: Wherefore, as by one man we have been brought under condemnation, so by one man we are brought into a state of justification and life. The wherefore (διὰ τοῦτο) is consequently to be taken as illative, or marking an inference from the whole of the previous part of the epistle, and especially from the preceding verses. Wherefore we are justified by the righteousness of one man, even as we were brought into condemnation by the sin of one man. It would seem that only a misapprehension of the design of the passage, or an unwillingness to admit it, could have led to the numerous forced and unauthorized explanations of these words. Some render them moreover; others, in respect to this, etc.

III. The course of the argument. As the point to be illustrated is the justification of sinners on the ground of the righteousness of Christ, and the source of illustration is the fall of all men in Adam, the passage begins with a statement of this latter truth: As on account of one man, death has passed on all men; so on account of one, etc., Rom_5:12. Before carrying out the comparison, however, the apostle stops to establish his position that all men are condemned on account of the sin of Adam. His proof is this: The infliction of a penalty implies the transgression of a law, since sin is not imputed where there is no law, Rom_5:13. All mankind are subject to death or penal evils; therefore all men are regarded as transgressors of a law, Rom_5:13. This law or covenant, which brings death on all men, is not the law of Moses, because multitudes died before that was given, Rom_5:14. Nor is it the law of nature written upon the heart, since multitudes die who have never violated even that law, Rom_5:14. Therefore, as neither of these laws is sufficiently extensive to embrace all the subjects of the penalty, we must conclude that men are subject to death on account of Adam; that is, it is for the offense of one that many die, Rom_5:13, Rom_5:14. Adam is, therefore, a type of Christ. As to this important point, there is a striking analogy between the fall and redemption. We are condemned in Adam, and we are justified in Christ. But the cases are not completely parallel. In the first place, the former dispensation is much more mysterious than the latter; for if by the offense of one many die, much more by the righteousness of one shall many live, Rom_5:15. In the second place, the benefits of the one dispensation far exceed the evils of the other. For the condemnation was for one offense; the justification is from many. Christ saves us from much more than the guilt of Adams sin, Rom_5:16. In the third place, Christ not only saves us from death, that is, not only frees us from the evils consequent on our own and Adams sin, but introduces us into a state of positive and eternal blessedness, Rom_5:17. Or this verse may be considered as an amplification of the sentiment of Rom_5:15.

Having thus limited and illustrated the analogy between Adam and Christ, the apostle resumes and carries the comparison fully out: Therefore, as on account of one man all men are condemned; so on account of one, all are justified, Rom_5:18. For, as through the disobedience of one, many are regarded and treated as sinners; so through the righteousness of one many are regarded and treated as righteous, Rom_5:19. This then is the sense of the passage men are condemned for the sin of one man, and justified for the righteousness of another. If men are thus justified by the obedience of Christ, for what purpose is the law? It entered that sin might abound, i.e. that men might see how much it abounded; since by the law is the knowledge of sin. The law has its use, although men are not justified by their own obedience to it, Rom_5:20. As the law discloses, and even aggravates the dreadful triumphs of sin reigning, in union with death, over the human family, the gospel displays the far more effectual and extensive triumphs of grace through Jesus Christ our Lord, Rom_5:21.

According to this view of the passage it consists of five parts. The first, contained in Rom_5:12, presents the first member of the comparison between Christ and Adam. The second contains the proof of the position assumed in Rom_5:12, and embraces Rom_5:13, Rom_5:14, which are therefore subordinate to Rom_5:12. Adam, therefore, is a type of Christ. The third, embracing Rom_5:15-17, is a commentary on this declaration, by which it is at once illustrated and limited. The fourth, in Rom_5:18, Rom_5:19, resumes and carries out the comparison commenced in Rom_5:12. The fifth forms the conclusion of the chapter, and contains a statement of the design and effect of the law, and of the results of the gospel, suggested by the preceding comparison, Rom_5:20, Rom_5:21.

Commentary

Rom_5:12

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, etc. The force of διὰ τοῦτο, wherefore, has already been pointed out, when speaking of the connection of this passage with the preceding: It follows, from what has been said of the method of justification that as by one man all became sinners so by one are all constituted righteous. This passage, therefore, is the summation of all that has gone before. As (ὥσπερ), obviously indicates a comparison or parallel. There is however no corresponding clause beginning with so, to complete the sentence. Examples of similar incomplete comparisons may be found in Mat_25:14, with ὥσπερ, and in 1Ti_1:3, with καθώς. It is however so obvious that the illustration begun in this verse is resumed, and fully stated in Rom_5:18, Rom_5:19, that the vast majority of commentators agree that we must seek in those verses the clause which answers to this verse. The other explanations are unnecessary or unsatisfactory.

1. Some say that this verse is complete in itself, As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, so also death passed on all men, because all sinned. The two insuperable objections to this explanation are, first, that it does violence to the words. It makes the apostle say what he does not say. It makes καὶ οὕτως, and so, to mean the same with οὕτω καί, so also, which is impossible. And secondly, it is inconsistent with the whole design and argument of the passage. Instead of having a comparison between Christ and Adam, the comparison would be between Adam and other men: As he sinned and died, so they sinned and died.

2. Others say, that we find in the last clause of Rom_5:14, in substance, although not in form, the apodosis of this clause: As by one man sin entered into the world, so Adam is the type of Christ. But this is obviously inconsistent with the wording and connection of the clause in Rom_5:18.

3. De Wette proposes, after Cocceius, Elsner, and a few others, to make the ὥσπερ of this verse introduce not the first, but the second member of the comparison, the first being to be supplied in thought, or borrowed from what precedes: We receive righteousness and life through Christ, as by one man sin entered into the world; or, Wherefore Christ stands in a relation to mankind analogous to that of Adam, as by one man, etc.

But it is plain that no reader could imagine that Paul intended so essential a member of the comparison to be conjectured or framed from the preceding discussion. He does not leave his readers to supply one half of a sentence; he himself completes it in Rom_5:18.

By one man sin entered into the world, δι ̓ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, κ. τ. λ. These words clearly declare a causal relation between the one man, Adam, and the entrance of sin into the world. Benecke, who has revived the doctrine of the preexistence of souls, supposes that Adam was the leader of the spirits who in the preexistent state sinned, and were condemned to be born as men. Adam was therefore the cause of sin entering into the world, because he was the author of this ante-mundane apostasy. The Pelagian theory is, that Adam was the mere occasional cause of men becoming sinners. He was the first sinner, and others followed his example. Or, according to another form of the same general idea, his sin was the occasion of Gods giving men up to sin. There was no real connection, either natural or judicial, between Adams sin and the sinfulness of his posterity; but God determined that if the first man sinned, all other men should. This was a divine constitution, without there being any causal connection between the two events. Others again say that Adam was the efficient cause of the sinfulness of his race. He deteriorated either physically or morally the nature which he transmitted to his posterity. He was therefore, in the same sense, the cause of the sinfulness of the race, that a father who impairs his constitution is the cause of the feebleness of his children. Others push this idea one step farther, and say that Adam was the race. He was not only a man, but man. The whole race was in him, so that his act was the act of humanity. It was as much and as truly ours as his. Others say that the causal relation expressed by these words is that which exists between sin and punishment. It was the judicial cause or reason. All these views must come up at every step in the interpretation of this whole passage, for the explanation of each particular clause must be determined by the nature of the relation which is assumed to exist between Adam and his posterity. All that need be said here is, that the choice between these several explanations is not determined by the mere meaning of the words. All they assert is, that Adam was the cause of all men becoming sinners; but whether he was the occasional, the efficient, or, so to speak, the judicial cause, can only be determined by the nature of the case, the analogy of Scripture, and the context. One thing is clear Adam was the cause of sin in a sense analogous to that in which Christ is the cause of righteousness.

Sin entered into the world. It is hardly necessary to remark, that κόσμος does not here mean the universe. Sin existed before the fall of Adam. It can only mean the world of mankind. Sin entered the world; it invaded the race. There is a personification here of sin, as afterwards of death. Both are represented as hostile and evil powers, which obtained dominion over man. By the words εἰσῆλθε εἰς τὸν κόσμον, much more is meant than that sin began to be in the world. It means that the world, κόσμος, mankind, became sinners; because this clause is explained by saying, all sinned. The entrance of sin is made the ground of the universality of death, and therefore all were involved in the sin whose entrance is mentioned. The word ἁμαρτία means,

1. Actual sin (ἁμάρτημας), an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God. In the plural form especially, ἁμαρτία means actual sin. Hence the expressions, this sin, respect of persons is sin, etc.

2. Sinful principle or disposition; an immanent state of the mind, as in Rom_7:8, Rom_7:9, Rom_7:17, Rom_7:23.

3. Both ideas are united, as when it is said, the sting of death is sin, an offering for sin. This comprehensive sense of the word is perhaps the most common.

4. It often means the guilt of sin as distinguished from sin itself, as when it is said, he shall bear his sin, or, the son shall not bear the sin of his father; or when Christ is said to bear our sin, and, to take away sin by the sacrifice of himself, etc. In this passage, when it is said sin entered into the world, the meaning may be, actual sin commenced its course, men began to sin. Or the meaning is, depravity, corruption of nature invaded the world, men became corrupt. This is the interpretation given to the words by a large class of commentators, ancient and modern.

So Calvin, Istud peccare est corruptos esse et vitiatos. Illa enim naturalis pravitas, quam e matris utero afferimus, tametsi non ita cito fructus suos edit, peccatum est coram Deo, ejus ultionem meretur. Atque hoc est peccatum quod vocant originale. So also Olshausen, who says it means habitus peccandi, that inward principle of which individual sins are the expression or manifestation. Tholuck gives the same interpretation: a new, abiding, corrupting element, he says, was introduced into the organism of the world. De Wettes explanation amounts to the same thing: Sünde als herrschende Macht (sin as a ruling power entered the world), partly as a principle or disposition, which, according to Rom_7:8, slumbers in every mans breast, and reveals itself in the general conduct of men, and partly as a sinful condition, such as Paul had described in the opening chapters of this epistle. Rückert, Köllner, Bretschneider, and most moderns, unite with the older expositors in this interpretation. Or ἁμαρτία may here have the third signification mentioned above, and sin entered into the world, mean that men became guilty, i.e. exposed to condemnation. The objection to these several interpretations is, that each by itself is too limited. All three, taken collectively, are correct. Sin entered into the world, means men became sinners, or, as the apostle expresses it in Rom_5:19, they were constituted sinners. This includes guilt, depravity, and actual transgression. The sinfulness of that estate into which man fell (that is, the sin which Adam brought upon the world), consists in the guilt of Adams first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.

And death by sin; that is, death entered the world, men became subject to death, διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας by means of sin. Sin was the cause of death; not the mere occasional cause, not the efficient cause, but the ground or reason of its infliction. This passage, therefore, teaches that death is a penal evil, and not a consequence of the original constitution of man. Paul, in 1Co_15:40-50, appears to teach a contrary doctrine, for he there says that Adams body, as formed from the earth, was earthy, and therefore corruptible. It was flesh and blood, which cannot inherit the kingdom of God. It must be changed, so that this corruptible put on in corruption, before we can be fitted for immortality. These representations, however, are not inconsistent. It is clear, from Gen_2:17; Gen_3:19, that had Adam never sinned, he would never have died; but it does not follow that he would never have been changed. Paul says of believers, we shall not all die, but we shall all be changed, 1Co_15:51. The penal character of death, therefore, which is so prominently presented in Scripture, or that death in the case of every moral creature is assumed to be evidence of sin, is perfectly consistent with what the apostle says of the σῶμα ψυχικόν (the natural body), and of its unsuitableness for an immortal existence. It is plain that θάνατος here includes the idea of natural death, as it does in the original threatening made to our first parents. In neither case, however, is this its whole meaning. This is admitted by a majority of the modern commentators not only by such writers as Tholuck, Olshausen, and Philippi, but by others of a different class, as De Wette, Köllner, and Rückert. That the death here spoken of includes all penal evil, death spiritual and eternal, as well as the dissolution of the body, is evident,

1. From the consideration that it is said to be the consequence of sin. It must, therefore, mean that death which the Scriptures elsewhere speak of as the consequence and punishment of transgression.

2. Because this is the common and favorite term with the sacred writers, from first to last, for the penal consequences of sin. Gen_2:17, In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die, i.e. thou shalt become subject to the punishment due to sin; Eze_18:4, The soul that sinneth, it shall die; Rom_6:23, The wages of sin is death; Rom_8:13, If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die. Such passages are altogether too numerous to be quoted, or even referred to; see as further examples, Rom_1:32; Rom_7:5; Jam_1:15; Rev_20:14, etc.

3. From the constant opposition between the terms life and death, throughout the Scriptures; the former standing for the rewards of the righteous, the latter for the punishment of the wicked. Thus, in Gen_2:17, life was promised to our first parents as the reward of obedience; and death threatened as the punishment of disobedience. See Deu_30:15, I have set before thee life and death; Jer_21:8; Pro_11:19; Psa_36:9; Mat_25:46 : Joh_3:15; 2Co_2:16, etc.

4. From the opposition in this passage between the life which is by Christ, and the death which is by Adam, Rom_5:15, Rom_5:17, Rom_5:21, Sin reigns unto death, grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life. As, however, natural death is a part, and the most obvious part of the penal evils of sin, it no doubt was prominent in the apostles mind, as appears from Rom_5:13, Rom_5:14. Death, therefore, in this passage, means the evil, and any evil which is inflicted in punishment of sin.

And so death passed on all men. That is, as death is the necessary consequence of sin, death (διῆλθε) passed through, reached to all men, because all sinned. Death is universal, because sin is universal. As Adam brought sin on all men, he brought death on all. That this is the true interpretation of this clause, or that καὶ οὕτως; means demzufolge, consequently, hence it happens, is admitted by almost all modern commentators. As already remarked, the interpretation which assumes that καὶ οὕτως is to be rendered so also, is entirely inadmissible,

1. Because it is inconsistent with their meaning. As it is impossible that and so should mean so also, it is no less impossible that was καὶ οὕτως; should mean the same as οὕτω καί. Compare Rom_5:18, Rom_5:19; 1Co_11:12; 1Co_12:12; 1Co_15:22. This interpretation, therefore, does violence to the language.

2. It is no less inconsistent with the context. It is not Pauls design to teach the inseparable connection between sin and death, by saying, As Adam sinned, and therefore died, so also all die, because all sin. His purpose is to teach the connection between Adams sin and the death of all men: It was by one man that men became sinners, and hence all men die. As all were involved in his sin, all are involved in his death.

3. The comparison carried through this whole paragraph is not between Adam and his posterity, but between Adam and Christ; and therefore καὶ οὕτως cannot possibly refer to the ὥσπερ at the beginning of the verse, as has been already shown.

For that all have sinned, ἐφ ̓ ῷ πάντες ἣμαρτον. The words ἐφ ̓ ᾧ are rendered in the Vulgate, in quo (in whom), and are so understood by many of the older interpreters, not only in the Romish Church, where the Vulgate is of authority, but also by many Calvinists and Arminians. The objections to this interpretation are,

1. It is not in accordance with the meaning of the words as used elsewhere. It is inconsistent with the proper force of ἐπί (on, upon,) which is not equivalent with ἐν (in,) and no less inconsistent with the use of ἐφ ̓ ᾧ in combination, which, in 2Co_5:4, means, as here, because; in Phi_3:12, for which cause; and in Phi_4:10, for which. In other places where it occurs, it means on which, as a bed, Mar_2:4; Luk_5:25; or as a place, Act_7:33.

2. The proper meaning of the words is, ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὃτι, on account of this, or that.

3. The structure of the sentence is opposed to this explanation. The antecedent ἀνθρώπου is too far separated from the relative ᾧ; almost the whole verse intervenes between them.

4. This interpretation is altogether unnecessary. The ordinary and natural force of the words expresses a perfectly good sense: All men die, because all sinned. So Calvin, quadoquidem, Luther, dieweil, and all the moderns, except a few of the Romanists. Sin brought death, death has come on all, because sin came on all; ἐφ ̓ ᾧ must therefore necessarily be taken as a conjunction. Philippi.

As to the important words πάντες ἣμαρτον, rendered in our version all have sinned, we find that several interpretations already referred to as growing out of the different views of the nature of man and of the plan of salvation. First, on the assumption that all sin consists in the voluntary transgression of known law, and on the further assumption that one man cannot, in any legitimate sense, be said to sin in another, a large class of commentators, from Pelagius down, say these words can only mean that all have sinned in their own persons. Death has passed on all men, because all have actually sinned personally. This interpretation, although consistent with the signification of the verb ἁμαρτάνω, is, by the almost unanimous judgment of the Church, utterly inadmissible.

1. It is inconsistent with the force of the tense. The aorist (ἥμαρτον) does not mean do sin, nor have sinned, nor are accustomed to sin. It is the simple historical tense, expressing momentary action in past time. All sinned, i.e., sinned in Adam, sinned through or by one man. Omnes peccârunt, peccante Adamo. This is the literal, simple force of the words.

2. It is also incompatible with the design of this verse, to make ἣμαρτον refer to the personal sins of men. As so often remarked, the design is to show that Adams sin, not our own, is the cause of death.

3. Rom_5:13, Rom_5:14, are intended to prove what is asserted in Rom_5:12; but they do not prove that all men personally sin, but the very reverse.

4. This interpretation destroys the analogy between Adam and Christ. It would make the apostle teach, that as all men die because they personally sin, so all men live because they are personally and inherently righteous. This is contrary not only to this whole passage, but to all Pauls teaching, and to the whole gospel.

5. This interpretation is not only thus inconsistent with the force of the tense in which the verb ἁμαρτάνω is here used, with the design of the verse, with the apostles argument, and the analogy between Christ and Adam, but it makes the apostle assert what is not true. It is not true that all die because all personally sin; death is more extensive than personal transgression. This is a fact of experience, and is asserted by the apostle in what follows. This interpretation, therefore, brings the sacred writer into conflict with the truth. Candid expositors admit this.

They say Pauls argument is founded on a false assumption, and proves nothing. Even Meyer, one of the most dignified and able of the modern German commentators, who often defends the sacred writers from the aspersions of irreverent expositors, is obliged to admit that in this case Paul forgot himself, and teaches what is not true. The question, he says, how Paul could write ἐφ ̓ ᾧ πάντες ἣμαρτον (since all sinned,) when children die, although they have not sinned, can only be answered by admitting that he did not think of this necessary exception. For, on the one hand, πάντες must have the same extent of meaning as the previous εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, and on the other hand, the death of innocent children is proof positive that death is not in all men the consequence of individual sin; and hence, moreover, the whole doctrine that death is by divine constitution due to sin, is overthrown. An interpretation which makes the apostle teach what is not true, needs no further refutation.

A second large class of commentators, as they make ἁμαρτία, in the former clause of the verse, to mean corruption, translate ἐφ ̓ ᾧ πάντες ἣμαρτον, because all are corrupt. Adam having defiled his own nature by sin, that depraved nature was transmitted to all his posterity, and therefore all die because they are thus inherently corrupt. We have already seen that this is Calvins interpretation of these words: Nempe, inquit, quoniam omnes peccavimus. Porro istud peccare est corruptos esse et vitiatos. In this view several of the modern commentators concur. According to this interpretation, the doctrine of the apostle is, that the inherent, hereditary corruption of nature derived from Adam, is the ground or reason why all die. This is what is called mediate imputation; or the doctrine that not the sin of Adam, but inherent depravity derived from him, is the ground of the condemnation of his race. Although Calvin gives this interpretation of the passage on which this theory is founded, it is not to be inferred that he was an advocate of that theory. He frequently and clearly discriminates between inherent depravity as a ground of condemnation and the sin of Adam as distinct, and says that we are exposed to death, not solely for the one, but also for the other. He lived in a day when the imputation of Adams sin was made, by the theologians of the Romish Church, so prominent as to leave inherent depravity almost entirely out of view. The whole tendency of the Reformers, therefore, was to go to the opposite extreme. Every theology is a gradual growth. It cost the Church ages of controversy, before the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Person of Christ were wrought out and definitively settled. In like manner, the Theology of the Reformation was a growth. It was not the reproduction of the theology of any class of the school men, nor of Augustine as a whole. It was the gathering up and systematizing of the teachings of the Scriptures, and of the faith of the Church as founded on Scripture. That this should be done without any admixture of foreign elements, or as perfectly at the first attempt, as in the course of successive subsequent efforts, would have been a miracle. That it was done as perfectly as it was, is due, under God, to the fact that the Reformers were men endowed with minds of the very highest order, and filled with the Spirit of Christ. Still it is only in obedience to an established law, that the theology of the Reformation appears in a purer form in the writers of the seventeenth, than in those of the sixteenth century. We need not then be surprised that inconsistencies appear in the writings of Luther and Calvin, which are not reproduced in those of Hutter or Turrettin.

In opposition to the interpretation which makes πάντες ἣμαρτον mean all became corrupt, it is obvious to object,

1. That it is contrary to the simple meaning of the words. In no case has ἁμαρτάνω the sense here assigned to it.

2. It supposes that the corresponding phrase, sin entered into the world, means men became depraved, which, as we have seen, is not the true or adequate meaning.

3. It is inconsistent with the apostles argument. Rom_5:13, Rom_5:14, are designed to prove, and do prove, that all men sinned in Adam; but do not prove, and cannot be made to prove, that all men are inherently corrupt.

4. It vitiates the whole analogy between Christ and Adam, and therefore saps the very foundation of the gospel. That doctrine on which the hope of Gods people, either implicitly or explicitly, has ever been founded is, that the righteousness of Christ as something out of themselves, something distinguished from any act or subjective state of theirs, is the ground of their justification. They know that there is nothing in them on which they dare for a moment rely, as the reason why God should accept and pardon them. It is therefore the essential part of the analogy between Christ and Adam, the very truth which the apostle designs to set forth, that the sin of Adam, as distinguished from any act of ours, and from inherent corruption as derived from him, is the ground of our condemnation. If this be denied, then the other great truth must be denied, and our own subjective righteousness be made the ground of our justification; which is to subvert the gospel.

5. This interpretation is inconsistent with the true meaning of Rom_5:15-19, and with the often repeated and explicit declaration of the apostle, that the sin of Adam was the ground of our condemnation. Although, therefore, it is true that our nature was corrupted in Adam, and has been transmitted to us in a depraved state, yet that hereditary corruption is not here represented as the ground of our condemnation, any more than the holiness which believers derive from Christ is the ground of their justification.

A third class of interpreters, especially those of the later mystical school, understand the apostle to assert that all men sinned actually in Adam; that his act was not merely representatively or putatively their act, but theirs in the strict and proper sense of the term. He being not simply a man as one among many, but the man in whom humanity was concentrated as a generic life, his act as an act of that generic humanity was the act of all the individuals in whom human nature subsequently developed itself. But,

1. In the first place, the proposition all men sinned actually in Adam, has no meaning. To say that in Adam all die, conveys a distinct idea; but to say that all actually expired in Adam, conveys no idea at all. It has no sense. Even on the extremist realistic assumption that humanity as such is an entity, the act of Adam was not the act of all men. His act may have vitiated his generic nature, not only for his own person, but for his posterity; but this a very different thing from his act being their act. His sin was an intelligent act of self-determination; but an act of rational self-determination is a personal act. Unless, therefore, all men as persons existed in Adam, it is impossible that they acted his act. To say that a man acted thousands of years before his personality began, does not rise even to the dignity of a contradiction; it has no meaning at all. It is a monstrous evil to make the Bible contradict the common sense and common consciousness of men. This is to make God contradict himself.

2. It is hardly necessary to add, that this interpretation is inconsistent with the whole drift and design of the passage, and with the often repeated assertion of the apostle, that for the offense of one man (not of all men), the judgment came on all men to condemnation. If we all actually sinned in Adam, so that his act was strictly ours, then we all obeyed in Christ, and his righteousness and death were strictly our own acts; which again is not only unscriptural, but impossible.

The fourth class of interpreters, including commentators of every grade of orthodoxy, agree in saying that what is meant is, that all sinned in Adam as their head and representative. Such was the relation, natural and federal, between him and his posterity, that his act was putatively their act. That is, it was the judicial ground or reason why death passed on all men. In other words, they were regarded and treated as sinners on account of his sin. In support of this interpretation, it may be urged,

1. That it is the simple meaning of the words. It has already been remarked, that the aorist ἣμαρτον does not mean are sinful, or have sinned, but simply sinned. All sinned when Adam sinned. They sinned in him. But the only possible way in which all men can be said to have sinned in Adam, is putatively. His act, for some good and proper reason, was regarded as their act, just as the act of an agent is regarded as the act of his principal, or the act of a representative as that of his constituents. The act of the one legally binds the others. It is, in the eye of law and justice, their act.

2. This is sustained by the analogy of Scripture. Paul says, in Adam all died. This cannot possibly be understood to mean that all men expired when Adam died. It can only mean that when Adam incurred the sentence of death for himself, he incurred it also for us. In like manner we are said to die in Christ; we were crucified with him, we rose with him, we are now sitting with him in heavenly places. All this obviously means, that as Christ was the head and representative of his people, all that he did in that character, they are regarded as having done. The rationalistic and the mystical interpretations of such passages are only different modes of philosophizing away the meaning of Scripture the one having what is called common sense, and the other pantheism as its basis.

3. The common interpretation of this passage may, in another form, be shown to be in accordance with scriptural usage. As remarked above, ἁμαρτία sometimes means guilt, and the phrase sin entered into the world, may mean men become guilty; and ἁμαρτάνω at times means to contract guilt; or, as Wahl in his Lexicon defines its peccati culpam sustineo; equivalent to ἁμαρτωλὸς κατεστάθην. He refers to the use of חָמָא, in Gen_44:32, a passage which the lxx ἡμαρτηκὼς ἔσομαι; the Vulgate, peccati reus ero; Luther, will ich die Schuld tragen; and the English, I shall bear the blame. So in Gen_43:9, Judah says to his father, If I bring him not back, I will bear the blame (literally, I will sin) all my days. In 1Ki_1:21, Bathsheba says to David, (according to the Hebrew), I and my son Solomon shall be sinners, where the lxx translates, ἐσόμεθα ἐγὼ καὶ Σαλομὼν ὁ υἱός μου ἁμαρτωλοί, the sense of the passage being, as correctly expressed in our version, I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders. To sin therefore, or to be a sinner may, in Scriptural language, mean to be counted an offender, that is, to be regarded and treated as such. When, therefore, the apostle says that all men sinned in Adam, it is in accordance not only with the nature of the case, but with scriptural usage, to understand him to mean that we are regarded and treated as sinners on his account. His sin was the reason why death came upon all men. Of course all that is meant by this is the universally recognized distinction between the signification and the sense of a word. Πάντες ἥμαρτον signifies all sinned, and it can signify nothing else; just as πάντες ἀπέθανον, 2Co_5:15, signifies all died. But when you ask in what sense all died in Christ, or all sinned in Adam, the question is to be answered from the nature of the case and the analogy of Scripture. We did not all literally and actually die in Christ, neither did we all actually sin in Adam. The death of Christ, however, was legally and effectively our death; and the sin of Adam was legally and effectively our sin.

4. It is almost universally conceded that this 12th verse contains the first member of a comparison which, in Rom_5:18, Rom_5:19, is resumed and carried out. But in those verses it is distinctly taught that judgment came on all men on account of the offense of one man. This therefore is Pauls own interpretation of what he meant when he said all sinned. They sinned in Adam. His sin was regarded as theirs.

5. This interpretation is demanded by the connection of this verse with those immediately following. Rom_5:13, Rom_5:14, introduced by for, are confessedly designed to prove the assertion of Rom_5:12. If that assertion is, all men are regarded as sinners on account of Adam, the meaning and pertinency of these verses are clear. But if Rom_5:12 asserts merely that all men are sinners, then Rom_5:13, Rom_5:14 must be regarded as proving that men were sinners before the time of Moses a point which no one denied, and no one doubted, and which is here entirely foreign to the apostles object. Or if πάντες ἥμαρτον be made to mean all became corrupt, the objection still remains. The passage does not prove what it is designed to prove. Rom_5:13, Rom_5:14, therefore, present insuperable difficulties, if we assign any other meaning than that just given to Rom_5:12.

6. What Rom_5:12 is thus made to assert, and Rom_5:13, Rom_5:14 to prove, is in Rom_5:15-19, assumed as proved, and is employed in illustration of the great truth to be established: For if through the offense of one many be dead, Rom_5:15. But where it is said, or where proved, that the many die for the offense of one, if not in Rom_5:12, and Rom_5:13, Rom_5:14? So in all the other verses. This idea, therefore, must be contained in Rom_5:12, if any consistency is to be maintained between the several parts of the apostles argument.

7. This interpretation is required by the whole scope of the passage, and drift of the argument. The scope of the passage, as shown above, is to illustrate the doctrine of justification on the ground of the righteousness of Christ, by a reference to the condemnation of men for the sin of Adam. The analogy is destroyed, the very point of the comparison fails, if anything in us be assumed as the ground of the infliction of the penal evils of which the apostle is here speaking. That we have corrupt natures, and are personally sinners, and therefore liable to other and further inflictions, is indeed true, but nothing to the point. In like manner it is true that we are sanctified by our union with Christ, and thus fitted for heaven; but these ideas are out of place when speaking of justification. It is to illustrate that doctrine, or the idea of imputed righteousness, that this whole passage is devoted; and, therefore, the idea of imputed sin must be contained in the other part of the comparison, unless the whole be a failure. Not only does the scope of the passage demand this view, but it is only thus that the argument of the apostle can be consistently carried through. We die on account of Adams sin, Rom_5:12; this is true, because on no other ground can the universality of death be accounted for, Rom_5:13, Rom_5:14. But if we all die on Adams account, how much more shall we live on account of Christ! Rom_5:15. Adam indeed brings upon us the evil inflicted for the first great violation of the covenant, but Christ saves us from all our numberless sins, Rom_5:16. As, therefore, for the offense of one we are condemned, so for the righteousness of one we are justified, Rom_5:18. As on account of the disobedience of one we are treated as sinners, so on account of the obedience of one we are treated as righteous, Rom_5:19. The inconsistency and confusion consequent upon attempting to carry either of the other interpretations through, must be obvious to any attentive reader of such attempts.

8. The doctrine which the verse thus explained teaches, is one of the plainest truths of the Scriptures and of experience. Is it not a revealed fact above all contradiction, and sustained by the whole history of the world, that the sin of Adam altered the relation in which our race stood to God? Did not that sin of itself, and independently of anything in us, or done by us, bring evil on the world? In other words, did we not fall when Adam fell? The principle involved in this great transaction is explicitly and frequently asserted in the word of God, and runs through all the dispensations of his providence. He solemnly declares himself to be a God who visits the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, and upon the childrens children unto the third and fourth generation. And so he does. The curse of Canaan fell on his posterity; the Egyptians perished for the sins of Pharaoh; the Moabites and Amalekites were destroyed for the transgressions of their fathers; the leprosy of Naaman was to cleave to Gehazi, and to his seed for ever; the blood of all the prophets was exacted, says our Lord, of the men of his generation. We must become not only infidels but atheists, if we deny that God deals thus with men, not merely as individuals, but as communities and on the principle of imputation. The apostasy of our race in Adam, therefore, and the imputation of his sin to his posterity, although the most signal of the illustrations of this principle, is only one among thousands of a like kind.

9. The doctrine of the imputation of Adams sin, or that on account of that sin all men are regarded and treated as sinners, was a common Jewish doctrine at the time of the apostle as well as at a later period. He employs the same mode of expression on the subject, which the Jews were accustomed to use. They could not have failed, therefore, to understand him as meaning to convey by these expressions the ideas usually connected with them. And such, therefore, if the apostle wished to be understood, must have been his intention; see the Targum on Rth_4:22, On account of the counsel given to Eve (and her eating the fruit,) all the inhabitants of the world were constituted guilty of death. R. Moses of Trana, Beth Elohim, fol. 105, i.e. With the same sin with which Adam sinned, sinned the whole world. Many such passages are to be found in the pages of Wetstein, Schoettgen, Eisenmenger, Tholuck, and other collectors and commentators. Meyer therefore admits that such was undeniably the doctrine of the Jews. On this point, Knapp, in his Theological Lectures (German edition, page 29,) says, In the Mosaic account of the fall, and in the Old Testament generally, the imputation of Adams sin is not mentioned under the term imputation, although the doctrine is contained therein. But in the writings of the Talmudists and Rabbins, and earlier in the Chaldee Paraphrases of the Old Testament, we find the following position asserted in express words, that the descendants of Adam would have been punished with death (of the body) on account of his sin, although they themselves had committed no sin. On the next page he remarks, We find this doctrine most clearly in the New Testament, in Rom_5:12, etc. The modern philosophers and theologians found here much which was inconsistent with their philosophical systems. Hence many explained and refined on the passage, until the idea of imputation was entirely excluded. They forgot, however, that Paul used the very words and expressions in common use on the subject at that time among the Jews, and that his immediate readers could not have understood him otherwise than as teaching this doctrine. And he immediately goes on to show, that unless we are determined to do violence to the words of the apostle, we must admit that he represents all men as subject to death on account of the sin of Adam. This is a theologian who did not himself admit the doctrine.

It may be well to remark, that this interpretation, so far from being the offspring of theological prejudice, or fondness for any special theory, is so obviously the true and simple meaning of the passage required by the context, that it has the sanction of theologians of every grade and class of doctrine. Calvinists, Arminians, Lutherans, and Rationalists, agree in its support. Thus Storr, one of the most accurate of philological interpreters, explains the last words of the verse in the manner stated above: By one man all are subject to death, because all are regarded and treated as sinners, i.e. because all lie under the sentence of condemnation. The phrase, all have sinned, Rom_5:12, he says is equivalent to all are constituted sinners, Rom_5:19; which latter expression he renders, sie werden als Sünder angesehen und behandelt, that is, they were regarded and treated as sinners; see his Commentary on Hebrews, pp. 636, 640, etc. (Flatt renders these words in precisely the same manner.) The Rationalist, Ammon, also considers the apostle as teaching, that on account of the sin of Adam all men are subject to death; see Excursus C. to Koppes Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Zachariae, in his Biblische Theologie, Vol. 6., p. 128, has an excellent exposition of this whole passage. The question of the imputation of Adams sin, he says, is this, whether God regarded the act of Adam as the act of all men, or, which is the same thing, whether he has subjected them all to punishment on account of this single act. This, he maintains, the apostle asserts and proves. On this verse he remarks: The question is not here immediately about the propagation of a corrupted nature to all men, and of the personal sins committed by all men, but of universal guilt (Strafwürdigkeit, liability to punishment,) in the sight of God, which has come upon all men; and which Paul, in the sequel, does not rest on the personal sins of men, but only on the offense of one man, Adam, v. 16. Neither the corruption of nature, nor the actual sins of men, and their liability on account of them, is either questioned or denied, but the simple statement is, that on account of the sin of Adam, all men are treated as sinners. Zachariae, it must be remembered, was not a Calvinist, but one of the modern and moderate theologians of Göttingen. Whitby, the great advocate of Arminianism, says on these words: It is not true that death came upon all men, for that, or because all have sinned. [He contends for the rendering, in whom.] For the apostle directly here asserts the contrary, viz., that the death and the condemnation to it, which befell all man, was for the sin of Adam only; for here it is expressly said, that by the sin of one man many died; that the sentence was from one, and by one man sinning to condemnation; and that by the sin of one, death reigned by one. Therefore, the apostle doth expressly teach us that this death, this condemnation to it, came not upon us for the sin of all, but only for the sin of one, i.e., of that one Adam, in whom all men die, 1Co_15:22. Dr. Wordsworth, Canon of Westminster, in his recent edition of the New Testament, says, in his comment on this verse: Observe the aorist tense, ἥμαρτον, they all sinned; that is, at a particular time, And when was that? Doubtless at the fall. All men sinned in Adams sin. All fell in his fall. Philippi says: We must supply in thought to ἥμαρτον, ἐν Ἀδάμ, or more precisely, Adamo peccante. Non agitur de peccato singulorum, says Bengel, omnes peccârunt, Adamo peccante. Such extracts might be indefinitely multiplied from the most varied sources. However these commentators may differ in other points, they almost all agree in the general idea, which is the sum of the whole passage, that the sin of Adam, and not their own individual actual transgressions, is the ground and reason of the subjection of all men to the penal evils here spoken of. With what plausibility can an interpretation, commanding the assent of men so various, be ascribed to theory or philosophy, or love of a particular theological system? May not its rejection with more probability be attributed, as is done by Knapp, to theological prejudice? Certain it is, at least, that the objections against it are almost exclusively of a philosophical or theological, rather than of an exegetical or philological character.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

From Adam, in whom all have sinned, both guiltiness and death (which is the punishment of the guiltiness) came upon all.

By Adam, who is compared with Christ, like to him in this, that both of them make those who are theirs, partakers of that they have into: but they are unlike in this, that Adam deriveth sin into them that are his, even of nature, and that to death: but Christ maketh them that are his, partakers of his righteousness by grace, and that unto life.

By sin is meant that disease which is ours by inheritance, and men commonly call it original sin: for so he useth to call that sin in the singular number, whereas, if he speaks of the fruits of it, he useth the plural number, calling them sins.

That is, in Adam.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

12 Wherefore as, etc. He now begins to enlarge on the same doctrine, by comparing with it what is of an opposite character. For since Christ came to redeem us from the calamity into which Adam had fallen, and had precipitated all his posterity with him, we cannot see with so much clearness what we have in Christ, as by having what we have lost in Adam set before us, though all things on both sides are not similar: hence Paul subjoins an exception, which we shall notice in its place; and we shall also point out any other difference that may occur. The incompleteness of the sentence sometimes renders it obscure, as when the second clause, which answers to the former, is not expressed. But we shall endeavor to make both plain when we come to those parts.

Sin entered into the world, etc. Observe the order which he keeps here; for he says, that sin preceded, and that from sin death followed. There are indeed some who contend, that we are so lost through Adam’s sin, as though we perished through no fault of our own, but only, because he had sinned for us. But Paul distinctly affirms, that sin extends to all who suffer its punishment: and this he afterwards more fully declares, when subsequently he assigns a reason why all the posterity of Adam are subject to the dominion of death; and it is even this — because we have all, he says, sinned. But to sin in this case, is to become corrupt and vicious; for the natural depravity which we bring, from our mother’s womb, though it brings not forth immediately its own fruits, is yet sin before God, and deserves his vengeance: and this is that sin which they call original. For as Adam at his creation had received for us as well as for himself the gifts of God’s favor, so by falling away from the Lord, he in himself corrupted, vitiated, depraved, and ruined our nature; for having been divested of God’s likeness, he could not have generated seed but what was like himself. Hence we have all sinned; for we are all imbued with natural corruption, and so are become sinful and wicked. Frivolous then was the gloss, by which formerly the Pelagians endeavored to elude the words of Paul, and held, that sin descended by imitation from Adam to the whole human race; for Christ would in this case become only the exemplar and not the cause of righteousness. Besides, we may easily conclude, that he speaks not here of actual sin; for if everyone for himself contracted guilt, why did Paul form a comparison between Adam and Christ? It then follows that our innate and hereditary depravity is what is here referred to.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(12) Wherefore.—The train of thought which follows is suggested by the mention which had just been made of atonement, reconciliation. We see here another instance of the Apostle’s fondness for transcendental theology, and for the development of the deeper mysteries of God’s dealings with man. The rapidity with which ideas of this kind throng into his brain is such as to break the even flow and structure of his sentence.

As by one man.—This clause, “As by one man sin and death entered,” ought to have been answered by “So by one Man grace and life entered.” But a difficulty occurs at the very outset. How can it really be said that sin and death entered by Adam? For sin does not exist without law, and the law did not come in till Moses. And yet we have proof that sin must have been there; for death, its consequence, prevailed all through this period in which law was still wanting. The fact was, the sin which then prevailed, and had such wide and disastrous effects, was Adam’s. So that it is strictly legitimate to compare his fall with the act of redemption. It is strictly true to say that by one man sin and death entered into the world, as life and grace entered by another. In either case the consequence was that of one man’s act.

For that all have sinned.—.Rather, for that, or because, all sinned—i.e., not by their own individual act, but implicitly in Adam’s transgression. They were summed up, and included in him as the head and representative of the race.

(12-21) Contrast between the reign of death introduced by the sin of Adam, and the reign of life introduced by the atonement of Christ.

The sequence is, first sin, then death. Now, the death which passed over mankind had its origin in Adam’s sin. Strictly speaking, there could be no individual sin till there was a law to be broken. But in the interval between Adam and Moses, i.e., before the institution of law, death prevailed, over the world. which was a proof that there was sin somewhere. The solution is, that the sin in question was not the individual guilt of individual transgressors, but the single transgression of Adam. Here, then, is the contrast. The single sin of the one man, Adam, brought death upon all mankind; the single act of the one Redeemer cleared away many offences—also for all men. Under the old dispensation law entered in to intensify the evil; but, in like manner, under the new, grace has come in to enhance and multiply the benefit. Thus the remedial system and the condemnatory system are co-extensive, the one over against the other, and the first entirely cancels the second.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world,.... The design of these words, and of the following, is to show how men came to be in the condition before described, as "ungodly", Rom 5:6, "sinners", Rom 5:8, and "enemies", Rom 5:10; and to express the love of Christ in the redemption of them; and the largeness of God's grace to all sorts of men: the connection of them is with Rom 5:11, by which it appears that the saints have not only an expiation of sin by the blood of Christ, but a perfect righteousness, by which they are justified in the sight of God; and the manner how they came at it, or this becomes theirs, together with the necessity of their having such an one, are here declared: by the "one man" is meant Adam the first man, and parent of mankind, who is mentioned by name in Rom 5:14; sin which came by him designs a single sin, and not many, even the first sin of Adam, which goes by different names, as "sin" here, "transgression", Rom 5:14, the "offence" or "fall", Rom 5:15, "disobedience", Rom 5:19, and whatever was the first step or motive to it, which led to it, whether pride, unbelief, or concupiscence, it was finished by eating the forbidden fruit; and is called sin emphatically, because it contained all sin in it, was attended with aggravating circumstances, and followed with dismal consequences. Hence may be learnt the origin of moral evil among men, which comes not from God, but man; of this it is said, that it "entered into the world"; not the world above, there sin entered by the devil; but the world below, and it first entered into paradise, and then passed through the whole world; it entered into men by the snares of Satan, and by him it enters into all the inhabitants of the world; into all men that descend from him by ordinary generation, and that so powerfully that there is no stopping of it. It has entered by him, not by imitation, for it has entered into such as never sinned after the similitude of his transgression, infants, or otherwise death could not have entered into them, and into such who never heard of it, as the Heathens; besides, sin entered as death did, which was not by imitation but imputation, for all men are reckoned dead in Adam, being accounted sinners in him; add to this, that in the same way Christ's righteousness comes upon us, which is by imputation, Adam's sin enters into us, or becomes ours; upon which death follows,

and death by sin; that is, death has entered into the world of men by sin, by the first sin of the first man; not only corporeal death, but a spiritual or moral one, man, in consequence of this, becoming "dead in sin", deprived of righteousness, and averse, and impotent to all that is good; and also an eternal death, to which he is liable; for "the wages of sin is death", Rom 6:23; even eternal death: all mankind are in a legal sense dead, the sentence of condemnation and death immediately passed on Adam as soon as he had sinned, and upon all his posterity;

and so death passed upon all men; the reason of which was,

for that, or because "in him"

all have sinned: all men were naturally and seminally in him; as he was the common parent of mankind, he had all human nature in him, and was also the covenant head, and representative of all his posterity; so that they were in him both naturally and federally, and so "sinned in him"; and fell with him by his first transgression into condemnation and death. The ancient Jews, and some of the modern ones, have said many things agreeably to the apostle's doctrine of original sin; they own the imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin to his posterity to condemnation and death;

"through the sin of the first man (say they (g)) , "thou art dead"; for he brought death into the world:''

nothing is more frequently said by them than that Adam and Eve, through the evil counsel of the serpent, , "were the cause of death to themselves and to all the world" (h); and that through the eating of the fruit of the tree, , "all the inhabitants of the earth became guilty of death" (i): and that this was not merely a corporeal death, they gather from the doubling of the word in the threatening, "in dying thou shalt die", Gen 2:17 (margin);

"this doubled death, say they (k), without doubt is the punishment of their body by itself, , and also of the "soul by itself".''

They speak of some righteous persons who died, not for any sin of their own, but purely on the account of Adam's sin; as Benjamin the son of Jacob, Amram the father of Moses, and Jesse the father of David, and Chileab the son of David (l), to these may be added Joshua the son of Nun, and Zelophehad and Levi: the corruption and pollution of human nature through the sin of Adam is clearly expressed by them;

"when Adam sinned, (say they (m),) he "drew upon him a defiled power, , "and defiled himself and all the people of the "world".''

Again (n),

"this vitiosity which comes from the sin and infection of our first parents, has invaded both faculties of the rational soul, the understanding by which we apprehend, and the will by which we desire.''

This corruption of nature they call , "the evil imagination", which, they say (o), is planted in a man's heart at the time of his birth; and others say (p) that it is in him before he is born: hence Philo the Jew says (q), that , "to sin is connatural", to every man that is born, even though a good man; and talks (r) of , "evil that is born with us", and of (s) , "spots that are of necessity born with" every mortal man. And so his countrymen (t) often speak of it as natural and inseparable to men; yea, they represent Adam as the root and head of mankind, in whom the whole world and all human nature sinned: descanting on those words, "as one that lieth upon the top of a mast", Pro 23:34;

"this (say they (u)) is the first man who was "an head to all the children of men": for by means of wine death was inflicted on him, and he was the cause of bringing the sorrows of death into the world.''

And in another place, speaking of Adam, they say (w), that

"he was , "the root of the creation", or "of the men of the world"; and death was inflicted upon him and on his seed, because he sinned one sin in eating of the tree.''

And it is observed,

"that , the "He" demonstrative is not prefixed in Scripture to proper names, which yet is to the word "Adam"; the reason is, (say they (x),) because in Adam all his posterity are pointed at, and the whole human species designed.''

Again, they observe (y), that

"the end of man is to die, of which this is the reason, because , "mankind" has sinned; that is, the nature of which he is composed, or in other words, Adam and Eve have sinned.''

Once more (z).

"when he (Adam) sinned, , "all the whole world sinned", and his sin we bear;''

and (a) that

"the whole congregation of Israel have need of atonement for the sin of the first Adam, for he was , reckoned as the whole congregation;''

which exactly tallies with the apostle's assertion in this text.

(When this commentary was written, it was generally accepted that all the fossils in the rocks were laid down by Noah's world wide flood and that the universe was about 6000 years old. Since that time, science has postualated that life evolved over billions of years and that the fossils are a result of this evolutionary process. If you accept the Bible as your authority you cannot accept the theory of evolution in any form. Firstly, the biblical chronology restricts the age of the universe to about 6000 years. Secondly, in order to get fossils, animals must die. This verse tells us that sin, not evolution, is the cause of death. Death and suffering did not exist until after Adam sinned. Hence before Adam sinned, no animal died and it would be impossible for any fossils to form. Before the fall, all animals ate plants, not other animals Gen 1:30. Paul tells us in Rom 8:20 that Adam's sin subjected all of creation to the curse, not just mankind. See Gill on Rom 6:23. See Gill (Editor's note) on "Ex 20:11". Editor)

(g) Debarim Rabba, sect. 9. fol. 244. 2. (h) Zohar in Gen. fol. 27. 1, 2, 3, 4. & 36. 3. 4. & 37. 2. & 46. 4. & 54. 3. & 67. 3. & 86. 1. & 98. 1. in Exod. fol. 106. 1. & 127. 2. in Lev. fol. 46. 2. 3. Bemidbar Rabba, fol. 225. 3. Caphtor, fol. 37. 2. (i) Targum in Ruth iv. 22. & in Eccles. vii. 29. (k) R. Joseph Albo in Sepher lkkarim, l. 4. c. 41. (l) T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 55. 2. Bava Bathra, fol. 17. 1. Zohar in Gen. fol. 36. 4. & Imre Binah in ib. & 44. 4. & lmre Binah in ib. & Numb. fol. 83. 2. (m) Zohar in Gen. fol. 37. 1. (n) Menasseh ben Israel Praefat. ad lib. de Fragilitate Humana. (o) Aben Ezra in Psal. li. 5. Abraham Seba in Tzeror Hammor, fol. 14, 3. 4. (p) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 91. 2. Bereshit Rabba, fol. 30. 1. (q) De Vita Mosis, p. 675. (r) De Praemiis, p. 920. (s) De Nomin. Mutat. p. 1051. (t) Kimchi in Psal. li. 5. Menah ben Israel de Fragilitate, par. 1. p. 2. (u) Bemidhar Rabba, fol. 198. 3. (w) Caphtor, fol. 102. 1. (x) Menasseh ben Israel de cermino Vitae, c. 3. sect. 8. p. 198. (y) En Jaacob, par. 1. fol. 19. 4. (z) Zohar in Lev fol. 46. 2. R. Menachem Rakanati apud Voisin. Obs. in Pugionem Fidei, p. 590. (a) Zohar in Gen. fol. 76. 3. & 36. 3.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Ver. 12. As by one man] Yet Anabaptists deny original sin, as did also the Pelagians of old, confuted by Augustine. Egranus, a German preacher, said (as Melancthon reporteth) that original sin is a mere fiction of Augustine and other divines; and that, because there was no such word found in the Scriptures. (Joh. Manl.) Papists say that original sin is the smallest of all sins, not deserving any more of God’s wrath, than only a want of his beatifical presence; and that, too, without any pain or sorrow of mind from the apprehension of so great a loss. There have been among us that have said, that original sin is not forbidden by the law. Directly, indeed, and immediately it is not; but forbidden it is, because cursed and condemned by the law. In original sin is a tacit consent (eminently) to all actual sin. And some understand this text of all sin, both original and actual.

And so death, passed upon all men] As a sentence of death on a condemned malefactor; or, as those diseases that are called by physicians corruptio totius substantiae; or as the rot overrunneth the whole flock, διηλθεν.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

As by one man...in whom [2] all have sinned. That is, in which man all sinned, (not in which death all sinned) as it must be the construction by the Greek text: so that these words are a clear proof of original sin against the Pelagian heretics, as St. Augustine often brings them. Nor does St. John Chrysostom deny original sin, though in this place he expounds it that all by Adam’s sin were made guilty of death and punishments. But how could they deserve these, had they not sinned in Adam? (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

In quo omnes peccaverunt, Greek: eph o pantes emarton. If it agreed with sin, in the Greek it must have been Greek: eph es.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

From this verse to the end of the chapter, the apostle makes a large comparison between the first and Second Adam, which he joins to what he had said by the causal particle wherefore: q.d. Seeing things are as I have already said, it is evident, that what was lost by Adam is restored by Christ. This verse seems to be lame and imperfect; the reddition is wanting in the comparison; for unto this,

as by one man sin entered into the world, there should be added, so by Christ, &c. But the reddition, or second part of the comparison, is suspended, by reason of a long parenthesis intervening to Rom 5:18,19, where the apostle sets down both parts of the comparison.

By one man: viz. Adam.

Objection. Eve first sinned, 1Ti 2:14.

Answer. He is not showing the order how sin first entered into the world, but how it was propagated to mankind. Therefore he mentions the man, because he is the head of the woman, and the covenant was made with him: or, man may be used collectively, both for man and woman; as when God said: Let us make man, & c.

Sin; it is to be understood of our first parents’ actual sin, in eating the forbidden fruit; this alone was it that affected their posterity, and made them sinners, Rom 5:19.

Entered into the world; understand the inhabitants of the world; the thing containing, by a usual metonomy, is put for the thing contained.

And death by sin; as the due reward thereof.

Death here may be taken in its full latitude, for temporal, spiritual, and eternal death.

And so death passed upon all men; seized upon all, of all sorts, infants as well as others.

For that all have sinned; others read it thus, in which all have sinned, i.e. in which one man; and so it is a full proof that Adam was a public person, and that in him all his posterity sinned and fell. He was our representative, and we were all in him, as a town or county in a parliament man; and although we chose him not, yet God chose for us.

The words εφ’ w are rendered in which, in other places, and the preposition επι is put for εν; see Mar 2:4; Heb 9:10; and if our translation be retained, it is much to the same sense; for if such die as never committed any actual sin themselves, (as infants do), then it will follow that they sinned in this one man, in whose loins they were: as Levi is said to have paid tithes in Abraham’s loins, Heb 7:9.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Therefore - This refers to all the preceding discourse; from which the apostle infers what follows. He does not therefore properly make a digression, but returns to speak again of sin and of righteousness. As by one man - Adam; who is mentioned, and not Eve, as being the representative of mankind. Sin entered into the world - Actual sin, and its consequence, a sinful nature. And death - With all its attendants. It entered into the world when it entered into being; for till then it did not exist. By sin - Therefore it could not enter before sin. Even so - Namely, by one man. In that - So the word is used also, 2 Cor. v, 4. All sinned - In Adam. These words assign the reason why death came upon all men; infants themselves not excepted, in that all sinned.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The First and the Second Adam.

Death the consequence of sin:

v. 12. Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

v. 13. (for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

v. 14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come.

The apostle here introduces an extended comparison between the salvation which we owe to Christ, and the calamity of Adam’s transgression with its results. Very emphatically he opens this section: Wherefore, or, because. From the facts which he has adduced regarding the method of justification, it follows that as by one man all became sinners, so by one all are constituted righteous. By one man, through Adam, who followed Eve in eating the forbidden fruit, sin came into the world. Sin is every transgression of the divine Law, when the works, thoughts, and desires of men miss their object, do not conform to the will of God. By the disobedience of Adam sin came into the world, it made its appearance in the world, it began to exist. And through sin death came. The disobedience of Adam bore bitter fruits: first, he was the cause of sin, he brought it to mankind, he was instrumental in having it invade the race; and therefore, by means of sin, men became subject to death. Adam sinned, and the consequence, the punishment of his sin, was death; the death of Adam was the beginning of human mortality. On the day that Adam ate of the forbidden fruit began the performance of the threatened disaster, the execution of the sentence of death; from that hour the germ of death was in his nature, his body was a mortal body, and it was only a question of time when it would return to dust. And thus, in this manner, death passed through to all men, reached all, because all sinned. Death is universal because sin is universal; all men, even by their conception and birth, are subject to death; their entire life is a course which has death as its object. So absolutely is man subject to death, from the very first moment of conception, that St. Paul makes the statement only of death that it has passed through to all men. And this is true because all sinned, sinned in Adam, sinned through or by that one man. Not as though they all had actually, in the person of their progenitor, performed that first transgression of the command of God, but that through his disobedience all men are regarded and treated as sinners by God. On account of the disobedience of Adam, God looks upon them all as sinners; God has imputed to all men the sin of Adam. It is a principle which runs through all the great dispensations of Providence: posterity, natural and federal, bears the blame(Canaan, Gehazi, Moabites and Amalekites, etc.). As a proof for the statement just made, Paul introduces a historical fact. He refers to the time before the Law, before the Law was formally given, written, and codified. At that time sin was nevertheless in the world, people did transgress the holy will of God. But sin is not charged to the transgressor’s account in the absence of a definite law, it is not entered on the debit side by God as a transgression of a divine commandment. See chap. 4:15. And yet death ruled in the human race, had absolute kingly authority from Adam to Moses, during the entire interval, even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam. There was unrestrained sovereignty and tyranny of death with regard to all men, not only those that had never broken any positive, codified law, but also those that had never in their own persons violated any individual command, by which their sentence of death could be accounted for. Paul thus plainly teaches that the sinners of the first period of the world, before Moses, became subject to death on account of the one transgression of Adam. Death came upon them before they had committed positive sins of their own; but as the punishment of death implies a violation of law, it follows that God regarded and treated them as sinners on the ground of Adam’s disobedience. This is true at all times. The one transgression of Adam was the cause that brought about the death of all men. It is true indeed that every sin merits death, even if it has not become a conscious transgression of the divine Law, even if it exists only in the innermost desire of the heart which is contrary to the holiness of God. But it is true also that the disobedience of Adam, which drew down upon him the curse of death, is so thoroughly imputed to all men that they are actually born into death. But this same death God now uses to punish individual sins and sinfulness. Of Adam the apostle finally says: Who is the impression, the figure, the type of Him that was to come. The first Adam is a prophetical type, 1Co 10:6-11, of the Adam that was to come, of Christ. The resemblance between the two is not casual, but predetermined. The sin of the first Adam was the ground of our condemnation; the righteousness of the second Adam is the ground of our justification.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The doctrine of original sin is not more difficult to be understood, than it is necessary to be known: the apostle here declares the manner how sin and death entered the world, namely, by the fall of Adam the first man: By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin.

Note, 1. An unhappy parent; namely, Adam: By him sin entered into the world.

2. An unhappy posterity; namely, the whole world, proceeding from and coming out of the loins of Adam, in whom all have sinned.

3. An unhappy portion; sin and death: Sin entered by Adam, and death entered by sin. This was the legacy which Adam left to all his posterity.

Now the sad and mournful truth which the scripture contains, is this: "That our first parent, by his transgression, hath entailed a miserable inheritance, an unhappy portion of sin and death upon all posterity." Adam’s sin becomes ours.

1. By meritorious imputation: God treated with him not as a private person, but as caput gentis, as the root and parent of all mankind.

Hence a comparison is often made between the first and second Adam; the grace of the one, with the sin of the other: the life conveyed by the one, and the death transmitted by the other.

By Adam we were cast, by Christ we were cleared; cursed in Adam, crowned in Christ. Now this comparison would be wholly insignificant, if Adam had not been looked upon as the representative of us all.

2. The sin of Adam is derived to us by way of inhesion: We have received from him a depravity of nature, and evil disposition, a propension to all mischief, and aversion to all good.

The sin of Adam transmitted to us, doth not only cause guilt upon our persons, but filth upon our natures; not only lay a charge to us, but throws a stain upon us.

3. We make Adam’s sin our own by imitation, by treading in the steps of his disobedience. Every sin we commit in defiance of the threatenings of God, is a justifying of Adam’s rebellion against God; and accordingly, we die by our own folly, as well as by his fall; our destruction is of ourselves, by our actual rebellions; and we shall at the great day charge our sin and misery upon ourselves, not on God, but on Satan, not on instruments, not on our first parents.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12. “Therefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, so death came upon all men, in that all sinned.” Not “have sinned” as E. V., which would involve personal responsibility, condemning the infants; but “sinned,” the imperfect tense, does not involve personality, but simply implies that all sinned seminally in Adam when he fell, as all were in him, the only one created, including all humanity in all ages.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sin :--

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

12–14. Wherefore. The section which now follows is one of the most difficult in the Bible to explain clearly in the compass of a few words. It opens up one of the profoundest questions of theology. The “wherefore” refers to the reconciliation (atonement) of Christ spoken of in verse 11. Christ's work of atonement and the effect of Adam's sins are contrasted. As by one man's sin. By the sin of Adam. Thus sin entered into the world. The world of mankind is meant. Death by sin. Death was led in by sin. Had there been no sin, there had been no death. “The tree of life stood in the midst of the garden.” So death passed upon all men. As the result of one man's sin. For that all have sinned. The personal sins of responsible persons are not now spoken of, but all the race sinned in Adam, its representative, infants, idiots, and all. Hence all die.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul explains why death happened even before God gave the law to Moses.

through one man sin entered ... death entered through sin

Paul describes sin as a dangerous thing that came into the world through the actions of "one man," Adam. This sin then became an opening through which death, pictured here as another dangerous thing, also came into the world. (See: Personification)

For until the law, sin was in the world

This means that the people sinned before God gave the law. AT: "People in the world sinned before God gave his law to Moses" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law

This means that God did not charge the people with sinning before he gave the law. AT: "but God recorded no sin against the law before he gave the law" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

translationWords

sin

world

die

law

law, laws

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

12-8:39.] The Power of God (ch. 1:16) is set forth as freeing from the dominion of sin and death, and issuing in salvation.

12-19.] The bringing in of reconciliation and life by Christ in its analogy to the bringing in of sin and death by Adam.

12.] This verse is one of acknowledged difficulty. The two questions meeting us directly are (1) To what does διὰ τοῦτο refer? (2) ὥσπερ, ‘like as,’ may introduce the first member of a comparison, the second being to be discovered; or may introduce the second, the first having to be discovered. I shall endeavour to answer both questions in connexion. (1) I conceive διὰ τοῦτο to refer to that blessed state of confidence and hope just described: ‘on this account,’ here meaning, ‘quæ cum ita sint:’ ‘this state of things, thus brought about, will justify the following analogy.’ Thus we must take ὥσπερ, either (α) as beginning the comparison, and then supply, ‘so by Christ in His Resurrection came justification into the world, and by justification, life;’ or (β) as concluding the comparison, and supply before it, ‘it was,’ or ‘Christ wrought.’ This latter method seems to me far the best. For none of the endeavours of Commentators to supply the second limb of the comparison from the following verses have succeeded: and we can hardly suppose such an ellipsis, when the next following comparison (ver. 16) is rather a weakening than a strengthening the analogy. We have example of this use of ὥσπερ, in Mat 25:14, and of καθώς, Gal 3:6.

Consequently (the method of God’s procedure in introducing life by righteousness resembled the introduction of death by sin: ‘it was’) like as by one man (the Apostle regards the man as involving generic succession and transmitting the corrupt seed of sin, not the woman: but when he speaks of the personal share which each had in the transgression, 1Ti 2:14, he says, ‘Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression’) sin (as a power ruling over mankind, see ch. 3:9, and ver. 21,—partly as a principle which exists in us all, and developes itself in our conduct, partly as a state in which we are involved; but the idea here must not be confined (Calv.) to original sin, as it reaches much wider, to sin both original and actual: nor to the habit of sinning (as Olsh.): nor is it merely the propensity to sin (as Röthe): nor is sin personified merely as in ch. 7:8, 11) entered into the world (not ‘esse cœpit,’ ‘primum commissa est,’ as Reiche, Fritz., and Meyer: but literally,—‘entered into,’ ‘gained access into,’ the moral world,—for sin involves moral responsibility. So Gal 3:23, πρὸ τοῦ δὲ ἐθλεῖν τὴν πίστιν, ‘before the faith came in’), and by means of sin (as the appointed penalty for sin, Gen 2:17; Gen 3:19) death (primarily, but not only, physical death: as ἁμαρτία, so θάνατος, is general, including the lesser in the greater, i.e. spiritual and eternal death. See ch. 6:16, 21; 7:10; 8:6; 2Co 7:10), and thus (by this entering in of sin and death; i. e, in fact, by this connexion of sin and death, as appears by ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαμτον) death (whether ὁ θάν. be genuine or not, death is the subject of διῆλθεν) extended to all men (see reff. De W. well says that πάντ. ἀνθρ. differs from κόσμον, as the concrete part from the abstract whole, and διέρχ. from εἰσέρχεσθαι, as the going from house to house differs from the entering a town.

Obs., that although the subject of διῆλθεν is plainly only death, not sin and death, yet the spreading of sin over all men is taken for granted, partly in the οὕτως, partly in the following clause), because (ἐφʼ ᾧ, lit. of close juxtaposition: and so ‘on ground of,’ ‘on condition that,’ which meaning, if rightly applied, suits the case in hand. Life depended on a certain condition, viz. obedience: Death on another, viz. disobedience. Mankind have disobeyed; the condition of Death’s entrance and diffusion has been fulfilled: Death extended to all men, as a consequence of the fact, that,—posito, that, = because, all have sinned.

Orig., Aug., Beza, and Estius render it as Vulg., ‘in quo’ (Adam): Chrys., Theophyl., Œ, Elsner, ‘propter quem:’ Grot., ‘per quem’) all sinned (see ch. 3:23:—not ‘were sinful,’ or ‘were born in sin,’ as Calvin would restrict the meaning: sin, as above remarked, is here, throughout, both original and actual: in the seed, as planted in the nature by the sin of our forefather: and in the fruit, as developed by each conscious responsible individual in his own practice. So that Calvin’s argument,—‘hic non agi de actuali peccato, colligere promptum est: quia si reatum quisque sibi arcesseret, quorsum conferret Paulus Adam cum Christo?’ does not apply, and the objection is answered by Paul himself, where he says, distinguishing between the παράπτωμα and the χάρισμα below, vv. 15, 16, τὸ δὲ χάρισμα ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων εἰς δικαίωμα. The παράπτωμα was not only that of one, the original cause of the entry of sin, but the often repeated sins of individual men:—nor, ‘suffered the punishment of sin,’ as Grot. and Chrys., θνητοὶ γεγόνασι).

Observe how entirely this assertion of the Apostle contradicts the Pelagian or individualistic view of men, that each is a separate creation from God, existing solely on his own exclusive responsibility,—and affirms the Augustinian or traducian view, that all are evolved by God’s appointment from an original stock, and though individually responsible, are generically involved in the corruption and condemnation of their original.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Wherefore as. As [ωσπερ] begins the first member of a comparison. The second member is not expressed, but is checked by the illustration introduced in vers. 13, 14, and the apostle, in his flow of thought, drops the construction with which he started, and brings in the main tenor of what is wanting by "Adam who is the type," etc. (ver. 14).

Entered into. As a principle till then external to the world.

Passed upon [διηλθεν εφ] . Lit., came throughout upon. The preposition dia denotes spreading, propagation, as eijv into denoted entrance.

For that [εφ ω] On the ground of the fact that.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.