Romans 5:14

Nevertheless - Notwithstanding that sin is not imputed where there is no law, yet death reigned.

Death reigned - People died; they were under the dominion of death in its various melancholy influences. The expression “death reigned” is one that is very striking. It is a representation of death as a monarch; having dominion over all that period, and overall those generations. Under his dark and withering reign people sank down to the grave. We have a similar expression when we represent death as “the king of terrors.” It is a striking and affecting personification, for.

(1) His reign is absolute. He strikes down whom he pleases, and when he pleases.

(2) There is no escape. All must bow to his sceptre, and be humbled beneath his hand,

(3) It is universal. Old and young alike are the subjects of his gloomy empire.

(4) It would be an eternal reign if itwere not for the gospel.

It would shed unmitigated woes upon the earth; and the silent tread of this terrific king would produce only desolation and tears forever.

From Adam to Moses - From the time when God gave one revealed law to Adam, to the time when another revealed Law was given to Moses. This was a period of 2500 years; no inconsiderable portion of the history of the world. Whether people were regarded and treated as sinners then, was a very material inquiry in the argument of the apostle. The fact that they died is alleged by him as full proof that they were sinners; and that sin had therefore scattered extensive and appalling woes among people.

Even over them - Over all those generations. The point or emphasis of the remark here is, that it reigned over those that had sinned under a different economy from that of Adam. This was what rendered it so remarkable; and which showed that the withering curse of sin had been felt in all dispensations, and in all times.

After the similitude ... - In the same way; in like manner. The expression “after the similitude” is an Hebraism, denoting in like manner, or as. The difference between their case and that of Adam was plainly that Adam had a revealed and positive law. They had not. They had only the law of nature, or of tradition. The giving of a law to Adam, and again to the world by Moses, were two great epochs between which no such event had occurred. The race wandered without revelation. The difference contemplated is not that Adam was an actual sinner, and that they had sinned only by imputation. For,

The expression “to sin by imputation” is unintelligible, and conveys no idea. The apostle makes no such distinction, and conveys no such idea. His very object is different. It is to show that they were actual sinners; that they transgressed law; and the proof of this is that they died. It is utterly absurd to suppose that people from the time of Adam to Moses were sinners only by imputation. All history is against it; nor is there the slightest ground of plausibility in such a supposition.

Of Adam’s transgression - When he broke a plain, positive revealed law. This transgression was the open violation of a positive precept; theirs the violation of the laws communicated in a different way; by tradition, reason, conscience, etc. Many commentators have supposed that infants are particularly referred to here. Augustine first suggested this, and he has been followed by many others. But probably in the whole compass of the expositions of the Bible, there is not to be found a more unnatural and forced construction than this. For,

(1) The apostle makes no mention of infants. He does not in the remotest form allude to them by name, or give any intimation that he had reference to them.

(2) The scope of his argument is against it. Did infants only die? Were they the only persons that lived in this long period? His argument is complete without supposing that he referred to them. The question in regard to this long interval was, whether people were sinners? Yes, says the apostle. They died. Death reigned; and this proves that they were sinners. If it should be said that the death of infants would prove that they were sinners also, I answer,

That this was an inference which the apostle does not draw, and for which he is not responsible. It is not affirmed by him. If it did refer to infants, what would it prove? Not that the sin of Adam was imputed, but that they were personally guilty, and transgressors. For this is the only point to which the argument tends.

The apostle here says not one word about imputation. He does not even refer to infants by name; nor does he here introduce at all the doctrine of imputation. All this is mere philosophy introduced to explain difficulties; but whether true or false, whether the theory explains or embarrasses the subject, it is not needful here to inquire.

(3) The very expression here is against the supposition that infants are intended. One form of the doctrine of imputation as held by Edwards, Starter, etc. has been that there was a constituted oneness or personal identity between Adam and his posterity; and that his sin was regarded as truly and properly theirs; and they as personally blameworthy or ill-deserving for it, in the same manner as a man at 40 is answerable for his crime committed at 20. If this doctrine be true, then it is certain that they not only had “sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression,” but had committed the very identical sin, and that they were answerable for it as their own. But this doctrine is now abandoned by all or nearly all who profess to be Calvinists; and as the apostle expressly says that they had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, it cannot be intended here.

(4) The same explanation of the passage is given by interpreters who nevertheless held to the doctrine of imputation. Thus, Calvin says on this passage, “Although this passage is understood commonly of infants, who, being guilty of no actual sin, perish by original depravity, yet I prefer that it should be interpreted generally of those who have not the Law. For this sentiment is connected with the preceding words, where it is said that sin is not imputed where there is no law. For they had not sinned according to the similitude of Adam’s transgression, because they had not as he had the will of God revealed. For the Lord forbid Adam to touch the fruit (of the tree) of the knowledge of good and evil; but to them he gave no command but the testimony of conscience.” Calvin, however, supposes that infants are included in the “universal catalogue” here referred to. Turretine also remarks that the discussion here pertains to all the adults between Adam and Moses. Indeed, it is perfectly manifest that the apostle here has no particular reference to infants; nor would it have ever been supposed, but for the purpose of giving support to the mere philosophy of a theological system.

(According to our author, the disputed clause in Rom 5:14, “even over them,” etc., is to be understood of those who had not sinned against “a revealed or positive law.” Many eminent critics have explained the phrase in the same way, and yet arrived at a very different conclusion from that stated in the commentary, namely, that people die simply on account of actual or personal sin. - Bloomfield Crit. Dig. vol. v. p. 520. There are, however, very strong objections against this interpretation.

1. It is not consistent with the scope of the passage. The apostle had asserted in Rom 5:12, that all die in consequence of the sin of the one man (see the supplementary note). And in Rom 5:13-14 proceeds to prove his position thus: People universally die; they must, therefore, have transgressed some law; not the Law of Moses, for people died before that was in being. Death absolutely reigned between Adam and Moses, even over them who had not broken a revealed law. therefore, people have died, in consequence of the sin of the one man. But in this chain of reasoning there is a link awanting. The conclusion does not follow; for though the persons in question had not broken a positive law, they had yet broken the law of nature, written on the heart, and might, therefore, have been condemned on account of a breach of it, Rom 2:12. But if we explain the clause under discussion, of infants who have not personally sinned like Adam against any law whatever, we ascend at once to the conclusion, that all die on account of Adam’s sin.

2. The particle “even,” καί kai seems to intimate, that a new class different from that before mentioned, or at all events a subdivision of it, is now to be introduced. None of all the multitudes that lived between Adam and Moses, had sinned against a positive or revealed law. To avoid an unmeaningful tautology therefore, some other sense must be attached to the clause. It is vain to affirm that the particle “even” simply lays “emphasis” on the fact, that they die who had not sinned against a positive law, since were we to admit this forced construction, we should still ask, to what purpose is the emphasis? The fact to which it is supposed to draw attention, as has been noticed already, falls short of proving the apostle’s point.

3. Moreover, since “the similitude,” etc. is quite a general expression containing no particular intimation in itself, as to that, in which the likeness consists, we are just as much at liberty to find the resemblance in personal transgression, as others, in transgression against revealed laws. To sin personally is to sin like Adam. Nay, the resemblance in this case is complete; in the other view it is imperfect, scarcely deserving to be called a resemblance at all. For they who have no revealed law, may yet be said to sin like Adam in some very important respects. They sin wilfully and presumptuously against the law written in their hearts, in spite of the remonstrances of conscience, etc. The only difference in fact, lies in the mode or manner of revelation. But if we suppose the likeness to lie in personal sin, we can find a class who have not sinned like Adam in any way whatever. And why this class should be supposed omitted, in an argument to prove that all people die in consequence of Adam’s sin, it is difficult to conceive.

What though infants are not “alluded to by name?” No one has ever asserted it. Had this been the case, there could have been no dispute on the point. To say, however, that the apostle “does not give any intimation that he had reference to infants,” is just a begging of the question, a taking for granted what requires to be proved. Perhaps, as Edwards suggests, “such might be the state of language among Jews and Christians at that day, that the apostle might have no phrase more aptly to express this meaning. The manner in which the epithets personal and actual, are used and applied now in this case, is probably of later date, and more modern use,” p. 312, Orig. Sin.

The learned author of this commentary objects further, to the opinion that infants who have not sinned personally are embraced in the clause under discussion; that “to sin by imputation is unintelligible, and conveys no idea.” It is his own language, and he alone is responsible for it. He tells us also, that “it is utterly absurd, to suppose that people, from the time of Adam to Moses, were sinners only by imputation.” No one ever supposed so, nor does the view, to which he objects, at all involve any such consequence. Again he affirms, “that the scope of the apostle’s argument is against the application of the clause to infants;” and asks, for what purpose we cannot divine: “Did infants only die?” The answer is obvious. No! Death reigned over all who lived from Adam to Moses, even over that class who had not sinned personally. As to the true scope of the passage, and the view that is most consonant to it, enough has been said already.)

Who is the figure - τύπος tupos. “Type.” This word occurs sixteen times in the New Testament, Joh 20:25 (twice); Act 7:43-44; Act 23:25; Rom 5:14; Rom 6:17; 1Co 10:6, 1Co 10:11; Phi 3:17; 1Th 1:7; 2Th 3:9; 1Ti 4:12; Tit 2:7; Heb 8:5; 1Pe 5:3. It properly means,

Any impression, note, or mark, which is made by percussion, or in any way, Joh 20:25, “the print (type) of the nails.”

(2)An effigy or image which is made or formed by any rule; a model, pattern. Act 7:43, “ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of your god Remphan, figures (types) which ye had made.” Act 7:44, “that he should make it (the tabernacle) according to the fashion (type) which he had seen,” Heb 8:5.

(3)A brief argument, or summary, Act 23:25.

(4)A rule of doctrine, or a law or form of doctrine, Rom 6:17.

(5)An example or model to be imitated; an example of what we ought to be, Phi 3:17; 1Th 1:7; 2Th 3:9; 1Ti 4:12; Tit 2:7; 1Pe 5:3; or an example which is to be avoided, an example to warn us, 1Co 10:6, 1Co 10:11.

In this place it is evidently applied to the Messiah. The expression “he who was to come” is often used to denote the Messiah. As applied to him, it means that there was in some respects a similarity between the results of the conduct of Adam and the effects of the work of Christ. It does not mean that Adam was constituted or appointed a type of Christ, which would convey no intelligible idea; but that a resemblance may be traced between the effects of Adam’s conduct and the work of Christ. It does not mean that the person of Adam was typical of Christ; but that between the results of his conduct and the work of Christ, there may be instituted a comparison, there may be traced some resemblance. What that is, is stated in the following verses. It is mainly by way of contrast that the comparison is instituted, and may be stated as consisting in the following points of resemblance or contrast.

(1) Contrast.

By the crime of one, many are dead; by the work of the other, grace will much more abound, Rom 5:15. In regard to the acts of the two. In the case of Adam, one offence led on the train of woes; in the case of Christ, his work led to the remission of many offences, Rom 5:16. In regard to the effects. Death reigned by the one; but life much more over the other.

(2) Resemblance. By the disobedience of one, many were made sinners; by the obedience of the other, many shall be made righteous, Rom 5:18-19. It is clear, therefore, that the comparison which is instituted is rather by way of antithesis or contrast, than by direct resemblance. “The main design is to show that greater benefits have resulted from the work of Christ, than evils from the fall of Adam.” A comparison is also instituted between Adam and Christ in 1Co 15:22, 1Co 15:45. The reason is, that Adam was the first of the race; he was the fountain, the head, the father; and the consequences of that first act could be seen everywhere. By a divine constitution the race was so connected with him, that it was made certain that, if he fell, all would come into the world with a nature depraved, and subject to calamity and death, and would be treated as if fallen, and his sin would thus spread crime, and woe, and death everywhere. The evil effects of the apostasy were everywhere seen; and the object of the apostle was to show that the plan of salvation was adapted to meet and more than counterveil the evil effects of the fall. He argued on great and acknowledged facts - that Adam was the first sinner, and that from him, as a fountain, sin and death had flowed through the world. Since the consequences of that sin had been so disastrous and widespread, his design is to show that from the Messiah effects had flowed more beneficent than the former were ruinous.

“In him the tribes of Adam boast.

More blessings than their father lost.”

Watts.

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

Rom 5:14. Nevertheless — Though the law was not yet given by Moses, yet sin was in the world, and was imputed, as appears by this, that death, which is the punishment of sin, was in the world at that time, and reigned — Brought all under its power, from Adam to Moses — As Rom 5:21, and Rom 6:12, even over them, &c. — Not only over them that had sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, but also over infants that had not committed actual sin, as Adam had done, and over others who had not, like him, sinned against an express law. Who is the figure of him that was to come — A lively type of Christ in his public capacity, each of them being a public person, and a federal head of mankind: the one the fountain of sin and death to mankind by his offence, the other of righteousness and life by his free gift. Thus far the apostle shows the agreement between the first and second Adam: afterward he shows the difference between them. The agreement may be summed up thus: As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; so by one man righteousness entered into the world, and life by righteousness. As death passed upon all men, in that all had sinned; so life passed upon all men, (who are in the second Adam by faith,) in that all are justified. And as death, through the sin of the first Adam, reigned even over them who had not sinned after the likeness of Adam’s transgression: so through the righteousness of Christ, even those who have not obeyed after the likeness of his obedience, shall reign in life. We may add, as the sin of Adam, without the sins which we afterward committed, brought us death: so the righteousness of Christ, without the good works which we afterward perform, brings us life, although still every good as well as evil work will receive its due reward.

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

Rom 5:14. Ἑβασίλευσε, reigned) Chrysostom says, πῶς ἐβασίλευσεν; ἐν τῳ ὁμοιώματι τῆς παραβάσεως Ἀδάμ. “How did it reign? in the likeness of Adam’s transgression.” He therefore construed in the likeness with reigned; and no doubt [death] reigned, I say, may be supplied [before the words in the likeness of Adam’s transgression]; comp. Rom 6:5. A reign is ascribed to death, as well as power, Heb 2:14. Scarcely indeed has any sovereign so many subjects, as are the many even kings whom death has taken away. It is an immense kingdom. This is no Hebraism; sin rules; righteousness rules.—ἀπὸ—μέχρι, from—until) The dispensation respecting the whole human race is threefold. 1. Before the law. 2. Under the law. 3. Under grace. Men severally experience the power of that dispensation, chap. 7.—καὶ, even) The particle indicates a species of persons subject to death, whom death might have seemed likely to spare in preference to all others; and so therefore it establishes the universality of death. [Not only against those, he says, who committed many sins after the age of Moses, which were to be reckoned to them according to the law, but even against those, long before, who did not commit such sins—V. g.].—ἐπὶ, over) This is a paradox; death reigned over those who had not sinned. Paul shows an inclination to use such paradoxes in speaking of this mystery, comp. v. 19; 2Co 5:21; Rom 4:5.—τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας, those who had not sinned) All indeed from Adam to Moses have committed sins, although some were virtuous, others profligate; but because they sinned without law, without which sin is not reckoned, they are spoken of as those, who had not sinned: but Adam is spoken of as the one who sinned, Rom 5:16. Observe, if these seven precepts of Noah, were what they are said to be, Paul would have described those who had not sinned, from Adam to Noah, not to Moses.—ὁμοιώματι, in the likeness) As Adam, when he transgressed the law, died, in like manner also they died, who did not transgress, or rather, who did not sin; for Paul varies the words in speaking of Adam, and of all others. This is the conclusion; That men died before the law, is a thing which befell them on account of the similitude of Adam’s transgression; that is. Because the ground on which they stood, and on which Adam stood, [their footing and that of Adam] was one and the same:—they died on account of another guilt, not on account of that, which they themselves had contracted, namely, the guilt which had been contracted by Adam. In fact, the death of many is ascribed directly to the fall of the one, Rom 5:15. Thus it is not denied, that death is the wages of any sin whatever; but it is proved, that the primary cause of death was the first sin. It is this fact, which has brought us to destruction, just as the robber, who has plundered his victim, after having murdered him, is punished for the murder, and yet he did not commit the robbery with impunity, since the punishment of the robbery merged in the punishment of the murder; but, as compared with the greater punishment of murder, it was scarcely taken into account.—Ἀδὰμ, of Adam) In this one verse we have the name of the individual Ἀδὰμ, in all the others, the appellative noun, man. But, while the name of Adam is consigned to oblivion, the name of Jesus Christ is distinctly preached [proclaimed] Rom 5:15; Rom 5:17.—ὅς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος) ὁς for ὁ, which thing, agrees in gender with τύπος: that which was to come, τὸ μέλλον, is in the neuter gender [But Eng. vers., “of Him, that was to come.”] Hence what is said respecting the future, Rom 5:17; Rom 5:19. This paragraph from Rom 5:12 by implication contains the whole comparison of the first and second Adam, so far as they correspond to each other; for what follows refers to the differences between them, and the apodosis should be inferred from the protasis in this manner at Rom 5:12: [As by one man sin entered—and death, etc.], so in like manner by one man righteousness entered into the world and by righteousness life; and so life passed upon all men, because all are justified. And at Rom 5:14, All shall reign in life, after the similitude of Christ, who has rendered all obedience; although those who thus reign have not by themselves fulfilled all righteousness [answering to the words “even over them,” etc., and ‘nevertheless’ in Rom 5:14.] Again Chrysostom says, πῶς τύπος; φησιν. ὅτι ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνος τοῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ, καίτοιγε μὴ φαγοῦσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου, γέγονεν αἴτιος θανάτου τοῦ διὰ τὴν βρῶσιν ἐισαχθέντος. οὕτω καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς τοῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ, καίτοιγε οὐ δικαιοπραγήσασι, γέγονε πρόξενος δικαιοσύνης, ἣν διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ πᾶσιν ἡμῖν ἐχαρίσατο· διὰ τοῦτο ἄνω καὶ κάτω τοῦ ἑνὸς ἔχεται, καὶ συνεχῶς τοῦτο ἐις μέσον φέρει. “How is he a type or figure? because just as that man [Adam] has become the source of death, which was brought in by the eating of the forbidden fruit, to those descended from him, although they had not eaten of the fruit of that tree, so also Christ has become the provider of righteousness to those belonging to Him, although they have not performed what is righteous; and this righteousness He has freely bestowed upon us all by the cross; therefore IN EVERY DIRECTION AND ON ALL OCCASIONS he maintains this One thing, and perpetually brings it into view.” We may farther add; as the sin of Adam, independently of the sins, which we afterwards committed, brought death upon us, so the righteousness of Christ, independently of good works, which are afterwards performed by us, procures for us life; nevertheless, as every sin receives its appropriate punishment, so every good action receives a suitable reward.

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

Rom_5:13, Rom_5:14

For until the law. sin was in the world, etc. These verses are connected by for with Rom_5:12, as introducing the proof of the declaration that death had passed on all men, on account of one man. The proof is this: the infliction of penal evils implies the violation of law; the violation of the law of Moses will not account for the universality of death, because men died before that law was given. Neither is the violation of the law of nature sufficient to explain the fact that all men are subject to death, because even those die who have never broken that law. As, therefore, death supposes transgression, and neither the law of Moses nor the law of nature embraces all the victims of death, it follows that men are subject to penal evils on account of the sin of Adam. It is for the offense of one that many die.

In order to the proper understanding of the apostles argument, it should be born in mind that the term death stands for penal evil; not for this or that particular form of it, but for any and every evil judicially indicted for the support of law. Pauls reasoning does not rest upon the mere fact that all men, even infants, are subject to natural death; for this night be accounted for by the violation of the law of Moses, or of the law of nature, or by their inherent native depravity. This covers the whole ground, and may account for the universality of natural death. But no one of these causes, nor all combined, can account for the infliction of all the penal evils to which men are subjected. The great fact in the apostles mind was, that God regards and treats all men, from the first moment of their existence, as out of fellowship with himself, as having forfeited his favor. Instead of entering into communion with them the moment they begin to exist (as he did with Adam,) and forming them by his spirit in his own moral image, he regards them as out of his favor, and withholds the influences of the Spirit. Why is this? Why does God thus deal with the human race? The fact that he does thus deal with them is not denied by any except Pelagians. Why then is it? Here is a form of death which the violation of the law of Moses, the transgression of the law of nature, the existence of innate depravity, separately or combined, are insufficient to account for. Its infliction is antecedent to them all; and yet it is of all evils the essence and the sum. Men begin to exist out of communion with God. This is the fact which no sophistry can get out of the Bible or the history of the world. Paul tells us why it is. It is because we fell in Adam; it is for the one offense of one man that all thus die. The covenant being formed with Adam, not only for himself, but also for his posterity (in other words, Adam having been placed on trial, not for himself only, but also for his race,) his act was, in virtue of this relation, regarded as our act; God withdrew from us as he did from him; in consequence of this withdrawing, we begin to exist in moral darkness, destitute of a disposition to delight in God, and prone to delight in ourselves and the world. The sin of Adam, therefore, ruined us; it was the ground of the withdrawing of the divine favor from the whole race; and the intervention of the Son of God in our salvation is an act of pure, sovereign, and wonderful grace.

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; this is the position to be proved, Rom_5:12. That such is the case is evident, because the infliction of a penalty supposes the violation of law. But such evil was inflicted before the giving of the Mosaic law; it comes on men before the transgression of the law of nature, or even the existence of inherent depravity; it must therefore be for the offense of one man that judgment has come upon all men to condemnation. The wide sense in which the sacred writers used the word death, accounts for the fact that the dissolution of the body (which is one form of the manifestation of the divine displeasure) is not only included in it, but is often the prominent idea.

Until the law. The law here mentioned is evidently the law of Moses. The word ἄχρι is properly rendered until, and not during the continuance of, a sense which the particle has in some passages. Until the law is immediately explained by the words from Adam to Moses. Sin was in the world, i.e. men were sinners, and were so regarded and treated. Sin is not imputed, that is, it is not laid to ones account, and punished. See Rom_4:8, Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity; and the familiar equivalent expressions. His iniquity shall be upon him, Num_15:31; and, He shall bear his iniquity. The word (ἐλλογεῖται) here used, occurs nowhere else in any Greek writer, except in Phm_1:18. The common word for impute is λογίζομαι. When there is no law, μὴ ὄντος νόμου, there not being law. Sin is correlative of law. If there is no law, there can be no sin, as Paul had already taught, Rom_4:15. But if there is no sin without law, there can be no imputation of sin. As, however, sin was imputed, as sin was in the world, as men were sinners, and were so regarded and treated before the law of Moses, it follows that there must be some more comprehensive law in relation to which men were sinners, and in virtue of which they were so regarded and treated. The principle here advanced, and on which the apostles argument rests is, that the infliction of penal evil implies the violation of law. If men were sinners, and were treated as such before the law of Moses, it is certain that there is some other law, for the violation of which sin was imputed to them.

Instead of the interpretation just given, there are several other methods of explaining this verse, which should be noticed. Calvin, Luther, Beza, and not a few of the modern commentators, say that the clause, sin is not imputed when there is no law, means, men do not impute sin to themselves, i.e. do not regard themselves as sinners; do not feel their guilt, when there is no law. To a certain extent, the sentiment thus expressed is true. Paul, in a subsequent chapter, Rom_7:8, says, Without the law, sin was dead; that is, unknown and disregarded. It is true, that ignorance of the law renders the conscience torpid, and that by the clear revelation of the law it is brought to life; so that by the law is the knowledge of sin. If, however, by law, is meant a written law, or a full and authenticated revelation of the will of God as a rule of duty, then it is only comparatively speaking true, that without law (i.e. such a law,) sin is unknown or disregarded. There is another law, as Paul teaches, Rom_2:14, Rom_2:15, written on the heart, in virtue of which men feel themselves to be sinners, and know the righteous judgment of God, by which they are exposed to death; see Rom_1:32. The objections, however, to this interpretation are decisive:

1. In the first place, it is inconsistent with the meaning of the words here used. To impute sin never means to lay sin to heart. The imputation is always made from without, or by another, not by the sinner himself. Tholuck, therefore, calls this interpretation a desperate shift. Noch, he says, ist eine gewalt same Hülfe zu erwähnen die Manche diesem Aussprüche des Apostels zu bringen gesucht haben. Sie haben dem ἐλλογεῖν eine andere Bedeutung beigelegt. Sie haben es in der Bedeutung achten, Rücksicht nehmen genommen.

2. This interpretation proceeds on a wrong assumption of the thing to be proved. It assumes that the apostle designs to prove that all men are in themselves sinners, and for their personal guilt or defilement, are exposed to death. But this, as has been shown, leaves out of view the main idea of Rom_5:12. It is true, that all men are sinners, either in the sense of actual transgressors, or of having a depraved nature, and consequently are exposed to death; but; the specific assertion of Rom_5:12 is, that it was by one man death passed on all men. This, therefore, is the thing to be proved, and not that all men are personally sinners. Of course it is not denied that men are subject to death for their own sins; but that is nothing to the point which the apostle has in hand. His design is to show that there is a form of death, or penal evil, to which men are subject, anterior to any personal transgression or inherent corruption.

3. This interpretation assumes that the apostle is answering an objection which has no force, or refuting an opinion which no one entertained. It supposes that the Jews held that the Gentiles, before the law of Moses, were not sinners, whereas they regarded them as pre-eminently such. It makes the apostle reason thus: All men are sinners. No, objects the Jew, before Moses there was no law, and therefore no sin. Yes, replies Paul, they were sinners, although they were not aware of it. But as no human being believed that men were not sinners before the giving of the Mosaic law, as Paul himself had proved at length that the whole world was guilty before God, as he had expressly taught that the Gentiles, although they had no written law, were a law unto themselves, and that they stood self-condemned in the presence of God, it is unreasonable to suppose that the apostle would stop to refute an objection which has not force enough to be even a cavil.

Paul had before laid down the principle (Rom_4:15), that where there is no law, there is no aggression, which is only another form of saying, sin is not imputed when there is no law. But as sin was imputed before the law of Moses, there must have been some other law, for the violation of which men were condemned. It is that the apostle designs to prove, and not that men were personally sinners; a fact, so far as the heathen were concerned, no Jew denied.

Another interpretation, which is adopted by a large number of commentators and theologians, supposes that the word death is to be understood of natural death alone. The reasoning of the apostle then is, As on account of the sin of one man, all men are condemned to die, so on account of the righteousness of one, all are made partakers of life, Rom_5:12. The proof that all are subject to death on account of the sin of Adam, is given in Rom_5:13, Rom_5:14; The infliction of the specific penalty of death, supposes the violation of a law to which that particular penalty was attached. This could not be the law of Moses, since those die who never violated that law; and, in short, all men die, although they have never broken any express command attended by the sanction of death. The liability of all men, therefore, to this specific form of evil, is to be traced not to their own individual character or conduct, but to the sin of Adam. Some of those who adopt this view of the passage, are consistent enough to carry it through, and make the life which is restored to all by Christ, as here spoken of, to be nothing more than the life of the body, i.e. the resurrection from the dead.‹14› It will be observed, that this interpretation is, as to its main principle, identical with that presented above as correct. That is it assumes that Rom_5:12 teaches that God regarded the act of Adam as the act of the whole race, or in other words, that he subjected all men to punishment on account of his transgression. And it makes Rom_5:13, Rom_5:14, the proof that the subjection of all men to the penal evil here specially in view, to be, not the corruption of their nature, nor their own individual sins, but the sin of Adam. It is, however, founded on two assumptions; the one of which is erroneous, and the other gratuitous. In the first place, it assumes that the death here spoken of is mere natural death, which, as shown above, is contrary both to the scriptural use of the term and to the immediate context. And, secondly, it assumes that the violation of the law of nature could not be justly followed by the death of the body, because that particular form of evil was not threatened as the sanction of that law. But this assumption is gratuitous, and would be as well authorized if made in reference to any other punishment of such transgressions; since no definite specific evil, as the expression of the divine displeasure, was made known to those who had no external revelation. Yet, as Paul says, Rom_1:32, the wicked heathen knew they were worthy of death, i.e. of the effects of the divine displeasure. The particular manner of the exhibition of that displeasure is a matter of indifference. It need hardly be remarked that it is not involved either in this or the commonly received interpretation of this passage, that men, before the time of Moses, were not punishable for their own sins. While this is admitted and asserted by the apostle, he proves that they were punished for Adams sin. No one feels that there is any inconsistency in asserting of the men of this generation, that although responsible to God for their personal transgressions, they are nevertheless born in a state of spiritual death, as a punishment of the sin of our great progenitor. The pains of child birth do not cease to be part of the penalty of the original transgression, although each suffering mother is burdened with the guilt of personal transgression.

As the effort to make these verses prove that all men are actual sinners fails of giving them any satisfactory sense, so the interpretation which assumes that they are designed to prove inherent, hereditary depravity, is no less untenable. If ἐφ ̓ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, in Rom_5:12, means, Death has passed on all, because all are tainted with the hereditary corruption derived from Adam, then the argument in Rom_5:13, Rom_5:14, must stand thus: All men are by nature corrupt, for as sin is not imputed when there is no law, the death of all men cannot be accounted for on the ground of their actual sins; therefore, since those die who have never sinned, as Adam did, against a positive law, they must be subject to death for their innate depravity. But, so far as this argument assumes that men, before the time of Moses, were not justly subject to death for their actual sins, it is contrary to truth, and to the express teaching of the apostle. Yet this is the form in which it is generally presented. And if it only means that actual sin will not account for the absolute universality of death, since those die who have never committed any actual transgression, the argument is still detective. Innate depravity being universal, may account for the universality of natural death; but θάνατος; includes much more than natural death. What is to account for spiritual death? Why are men born dead in sin? This is the very thing to be accounted for. The fact is not its own solution. Pauls argument is, that they are so born on account of Adams sin. It is another objection to this interpretation, that it destroys he analogy between Christ and Adam, and therefore is inconsistent with the great design of the whole passage. Pauls object is to show, that as we are justified by the righteousness of Christ as something out of ourselves, so we are condemned for the sin of Adam as something out of ourselves. To make him teach that we are condemned for our inherent depravity, to the exclusion of Adams sin, necessitates his teaching that we are justified for our inherent goodness, which destroys all hope of heaven. There is no interpretation of this passage consistent with the meaning of the words, the nature of the argument, the design of the context, and the analogy of Scripture, but the one given above, as commonly received. Köllner complains that Pauls argument is very confused. This he accounts for by assuming that the apostle had two theories in his mind. The one, that men die for their own sins; the other, that they die for the sin of Adam. His natural feelings led him to adopt the former, and he accordingly says, in Rom_5:12, Death passed on all men, because all have sinned. But as the Jewish doctrine of his age, that men were condemned for the sin of Adam, afforded such an admirable illustration of his doctrine of salvation through the merit of Christ, the apostle, says Köllner, could not help availing himself of it. Thus he has the two theories mixed up together, asserting sometimes the one, and sometimes the other. To those who reverence the Scriptures as the word of God, it is assuredly a strong argument in favor of the common interpretation of the passage, that it saves the sacred writer from such aspersions. It is better to admit the doctrine of imputation, than to make the apostle contradict himself.

Rom_5:14

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses. That is, men were subject to death before the law of Moses was given, and consequently not on account of violating it. There must be some other ground, therefore, of their exposure to death. Nevertheless (ἀλλά), the clause thus introduced stands in opposition to the preceding clause, οὐκ ἐλλογεῖται. That is, although sin is not imputed when there is no law, nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses. Death reigned, i.e., had undisputed, rightful sway. Men were justly subject to his power, and therefore were sinners.

Even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression. Instead of connecting ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι, as is usually done with μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας, Chrysostom connects them with ἐβασίλευσεν. The sense would then be, death reigned after the similitude of Adams transgression, even over those who had not sinned. That is, death reigned over those who had not personally sinned, just as it reigned over Adam. This interpretation is adopted by Bengel, who says, Quòd homines ante legem mortui sunt, id accidit eis super similitudine transgressionis Adam, i.e., quia illorum eadem atque Adami transgredientis ratio fuit: mortui sunt, propter alium reatum, non propter eum, quem ipsi per se contraxere, id est, propter reatum ab Adamo contractum. Although the sense thus expressed is good, and suited to the context, the construction is evidently forced. It is much more natural to take the words as they stand. Death reigned over a class of persons who had not sinned as Adam had. The question is, What is the point of dissimilarity to which the apostle here refers? Some say it is, that Adam violated a positive command to which the sanction of death was expressly added, and that those referred to did not. The principal objections to this interpretation are,

1. That it destroys the distinction between the two classes of persons here alluded to. It makes Paul, in effect, reason thus: Death reigned over those who had not violated any positive law, even over those who had not violated any positive law. It is obvious that the first clause of the verse describes a general class, and the second clause, which is distinguished from the first by the word even, only a portion of that class. All men who died from Adam to Moses, died without violating a positive command. The class, therefore, which is distinguished from them, must be contrasted with Adam on some other ground than that which is common to the whole.

2. This interpretation is inconsistent with the context, because it involves us in all the difficulties specified above, attending the sense which it requires us to put upon Rom_5:13, Rom_5:14, and their connection with Rom_5:12. We must suppose these verses designed to prove that all men are sinners, which, as just shown, is at variance with the context, with the obvious meaning of Rom_5:12, with the scope of the passage, and the drift of the argument.

Or we must adopt the interpretation of those who confine the word death to the dissolution of the body, and make the apostle argue to show that this particular evil is to be referred not to the personal sins of men, but to the sin of Adam. Or we are driven to some other unsatisfactory view of the passage. In short, these verses, when the clause in question is thus explained, present insuperable difficulties.

Others understand the difference between Adam and those intended to be described in this clause, to be, that Adam sinned personally and actually the others did not. In favor of this view it may be argued,

1. That the words evidently admit of this interpretation as naturally as of the other. Paul simply says, the persons referred to did not sin as Adam did. Whether he means that they did not sin at all; that they were not sinners in the ordinary sense of that term; or that they had not sinned against the same kind of law, depends on the context, and is not determined by the mere form of expression.

2. If Rom_5:12 teaches that men are subject to death on account of the sin of Adam, if this is the doctrine of the whole passage, and if, as is admitted, Rom_5:13, Rom_5:14 are designed to prove the assertion of Rom_5:12, then is it necessary that the apostle should show that death comes on those who have no personal or actual sins to answer for.

This he does: Death reigns not only over those who have never broken any positive law, but even over those who have never sinned as Adam did; that is, who have never in their own persons violated any law, by which their exposure to death can be accounted for. All the arguments, therefore, which go to establish the interpretation given above of Rom_5:12, or the correctness of the exhibition of the course of the apostles argument, and the design of the whole passage, bear with all their force in support of the view here given of this clause. The opposite interpretation, as was attempted to be proved above, rests on a false exegesis of Rom_5:12, and a false view of the context. Almost all the objections to this interpretation, being founded on misapprehension, are answered by the mere statement of the case. The simple doctrine and argument of the apostle is, that there are penal evils which come upon men antecedent to any transgressions of their own; and as the infliction of these evils implies a violation of law, it follows that they are regarded and treated as sinners, on the ground of the disobedience of another. In other words, it was by the offense of one man that judgment came on all men to condemnation. It is of course not implied in this statement or argument, that men are not now, or were not from Adam to Moses, punishable for their own sins, but simply that they are subject to penal evils, which cannot be accounted for on the ground of their personal transgressions, or their hereditary depravity. This statement, which contains the whole doctrine of imputation, is so obviously contained in the argument of the apostle, and stands out so conspicuously in the Bible, and is so fully established by the history of the world, that it is frequently and freely admitted by the great majority of commentators.

Who is a figure of him that was to come, τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος. Πῶς τύπος; φήσιν? ὃτι ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνος τοῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ, καίτοιγε μὴ φαγοῦσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου, γέγονεν αἴτιος θανάτου τοῦ διὰ τὴν βρῶσιν εἰσαχθέντος, οὕτω καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς τοῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ, καίτοιγε οὐ δικαιοπραγήσασι, γέγονε πρόξενος δικαιοσύνης, ἥν διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ πᾶσιν ἡμῖν ἐχαρίσατο? διὰ τοῦτο ἄνω καὶ κάτω τοῦ ἐνὸς ἔχεται, καὶ συνεχῶς τοῦτο εἰς μέσον φέρει. Chrysostom. How a type? he says: because as he was the cause of the death introduced by eating (the forbidden fruit,) to all who are of him, although they did not eat of the tree; so also Christ, to those who are of him, though they have not wrought righteousness, is become the procurer of the righteousness which, by means of the cross, he graciously gives to us all; on this account he first and last makes the one so prominent, continually bringing it forward. This is an interesting passage coming from a source so different from the Augustinian school of theology. Every essential point of the common Calvinistic interpretation is fully stated. Adam is the cause of death coming on all independently of any transgressions of their own; as Christ is the author of justification without our own works. And the many, in the one clause, are all who are of Adam; and the many, in the other, those who are of Christ.

The word rendered figure, τύπος, from τύπτω (to strike,) means a print, or impression made by a blow; as in Joh_20:25, τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων, the print of the nails. In a wider sense it means a figure or form, literally, as when spoken of an image, Act_7:43, or figuratively when used of a doctrine, Rom_6:17. More commonly in the Scriptures it means either a model after which anything is to be made, Heb_8:5, or an example to be followed, Phi_3:17, as ye have us for an example, καθὼς ἔχετε τύπον ἡμᾶς. Besides these, so to speak secular meanings, it has the religious sense of type, a designed prefiguration or counterpart; either historically, as the Passover was a type or significant commemoration of the passing over, by the destroying angel, of the habitations of the Hebrews in Egypt; or prophetically, as the sacrifices of the Old Testament were types of the great sacrifice of the Lamb of God. A type, therefore, in the religious sense of the term, is not a mere historical parallel or incidental resemblance between persons or events, but a designed resemblance the one being intended to prefigure or to commemorate the other. It is in this sense that Adam was the type of Christ. The resemblance between them was not casual. It was predetermined, and entered into the whole plan of God. As Adam was the head and representative of his race, whose destiny was suspended on his conduct, so Christ is the head and representative of his people. As the sin of the one was the ground of our condemnation, so the righteousness of the other is the ground of our justification. This relation between Adam and the Messiah was recognized by the Jews, who called their expected deliverer, תֶאְדָם הָאַהֲרוֹן, the last Adam, as Paul also calls him in 1Co_15:45, ὁ ἔσχατος Αδάμ. Adam was the type, τοῦ μέλλοντος, either of the Adam who was to come, or simply of the one to come. The Old Testament system was preparatory and prophetic. The people under its influence were looking forward to the accomplishment of the promises made to their father. The Messianic period on which their hopes were fixed was called the world or age to come, and the Messiah himself was ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ μέλλων, the one coming‹15›.

As Paul commenced this section with the design of instituting this comparison between Christ and Adam, and interrupted himself to prove, in Rom_5:13, Rom_5:14, that Adam was really the representative of his race, or that all men are subject to death for his offense; and having, at the close of Rom_5:14, announced the fact of this resemblance by calling Adam a type of Christ, he again stops to limit and explain this declaration by pointing out the real nature of the analogy. This he does principally by showing, m Rom_5:15-17, the particulars in which the comparison does not hold. In Rom_5:18, Rom_5:19, which are a resumption of the sentiment of Rom_5:12, he states the grand point of their agreement.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But that this Law was not that universal Law, and that death did not proceed from any actual sin of everyone particularly, it appeareth hereby, that the very infants which neither could ever know nor transgress that natural Law, are notwithstanding dead as well as Adam.

Our infants.

Not after that sort as they sin that are of more years, following their lusts: but yet the whole posterity was corrupt in Adam, when as he wittingly and willingly sinned.

Now the first Adam answereth the latter, who is Christ, as it is afterward declared.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression--But who are they?--a much contested question. Infants (say some), who being guiltless of actual sin, may be said not to have sinned in the way that Adam did [AUGUSTINE, BEZA, HODGE]. But why should infants be specially connected with the period "from Adam to Moses," since they die alike in every period? And if the apostle meant to express here the death of infants, why has he done it so enigmatically? Besides, the death of infants is comprehended in the universal mortality on account of the first sin, so emphatically expressed in Rom 5:12; what need then to specify it here? and why, if not necessary, should we presume it to be meant here, unless the language unmistakably point to it--which it certainly does not? The meaning then must be, that "death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not, like Adam, transgressed against a positive commandment, threatening death to the disobedient." (So most interpreters). In this case, the particle "even," instead of specifying one particular class of those who lived "from Adam to Moses" (as the other interpretation supposes), merely explains what it was that made the case of those who died from Adam to Moses worthy of special notice--namely, that "though unlike Adam and all since Moses, those who lived between the two had no positive threatening of death for transgression, nevertheless, death reigned even over them."

who is the figure--or, "a type."

of him that was to come--Christ. "This clause is inserted on the first mention of the name "Adam," the one man of whom he is speaking, to recall the purpose for which he is treating of him, as the figure of Christ" [ALFORD]. The point of analogy intended here is plainly the public character which both sustained, neither of the two being regarded in the divine procedure towards men as mere individual men, but both alike as representative men. (Some take the proper supplement here to be "Him [that is] to come"; understanding the apostle to speak from his own time, and to refer to Christ's second coming [FRITZSCHE, DE WETTE, ALFORD]. But this is unnatural, since the analogy of the second Adam to the first has been in full development ever since "God exalted Him to be a Prince and a Saviour," and it will only remain to be consummated at His second coming. The simple meaning is, as nearly all interpreters agree, that Adam is a type of Him who was to come after him in the same public character, and so to be "the second Adam").

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 14. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses] This supposes, as Dr. Taylor very properly observes:-

1. That sin was in the world from Adam to Moses.

2. That law was not in the world from Adam to Moses during the space of about 2500 years; for, after Adam's transgression, that law was abrogated; and, from that time, men were either under the general covenant of grace given to Adam or Noah, or under that which was specially made with Abraham.

3. That, therefore, the sins committed were not imputed unto them to death, for they did not sin after the similitude of Adam's transgression; that is, they did not, like him, transgress a law, or rule of action, to which death, as the penalty, was annexed. And yet-

4. Death reigned over mankind during the period between Adam and Moses; therefore men did not die for their own transgressions, but in consequence of Adam's one transgression.

Who is the figure of him that was to come.] Adam was the figure, τυπος, the type, pattern, or resemblance of him who was to come; i.e. of the Messiah. The correspondence between them appears in the following particulars:-

1. Through him, as its spring and fountain, sin became diffused through the world, so that every man comes into the world with sinful propensities: for by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, Ro 5:12. Through Christ, as its spring and fountain, righteousness becomes diffused through the earth; so that every man is made partaker of a principle of grace and truth; for he is the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world, Joh 1:9.

2. As in Adam all die; so in Christ shall all be made alive, 1Co 15:22. For, since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead, 1Co 15:21.

3. As in or through Adam guilt came upon all men, so, through Christ, the free gift comes upon all men unto justification of life, Ro 5:18. These alone seem to be the instances in which a similitude exists between Adam and Christ.

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

14. Even over them, etc. Though this passage is commonly understood of infants, who being guilty of no actual sin, die through original sin, I yet prefer to regard it as referring to all those who sinned without the law; for this verse is to be connected with the preceding clause, which says, that those who were without the law did not impute sin to themselves. Hence they sinned not after the similitude of Adam’s transgression; for they had not, like him, the will of God made known to them by a certain oracle: for the Lord had forbidden Adam to touch the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; but to them he had given no command besides the testimony of conscience. The Apostle then intended to imply, that it did not happen through the difference between Adam and his posterity that they were exempt from condemnation. Infants are at the same time included in their number.

Who is a type of him who was to come. This sentence is put instead of a second clause; for we see that one part only of the comparison is expressed, the other is omitted — an instance of what is called anacoluthon You are then to take the meaning as though it was said, “as by one man sin entered into the whole world, and death through sin, so by one man righteousness returned, and life through righteousness.” But in saying that Adam bore a resemblance to Christ, there is nothing incongruous; for some likeness often appears in things wholly contrary. As then we are all lost through Adam’s sin, so we are restored through Christ’s righteousness: hence he calls Adam not inaptly the type of Christ. But observe, that Adam is not, said to be the type of sin, nor Christ the type of righteousness, as though they led the way only by their example, but that the one is contrasted with the other. Observe this, lest you should foolishly go astray with Origen, and be involved in a pernicious error; for he reasoned philosophically and profanely on the corruption of mankind, and not only diminished the grace of Christ, but nearly obliterated it altogether. The less excusable is Erasmus, who labors much in palliating a notion so grossly delirious.

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.

(14) After the similitude of Adam’s transgression—i.e., “in direct defiance of divine command.” They had not incurred just punishment as Adam had, and yet they died. Why? Because of Adam’s sin, the effects of which extended to them all, just in the same way as the effects of the death of Christ extend to all.

Who is the figure.—Better, type. There is thus hinted at the parallelism which was omitted in Rom_5:12. Adam was the type of Christ, his sin and its effects the type of Christ’s death and its effects. No doubt the way in which this point is introduced is, in a mere rhetorical sense, faulty. St. Paul was, however, much above caring for rhetoric. And beside, it must be remembered that he wrote by dictation, and, probably, never revised what the amanuensis had written. This fact has very rightly been insisted on by Dr. Vaughan (Preface to Third Edition, p. 22), “We must picture to ourselves in reading this profound Epistle to the Romans a man full of thought, his hands, perhaps, occupied at the moment in stitching at the tent-cloth, dictating one clause at a time to the obscure Tertius beside him, stopping only to give time for the writing, never looking it over, never, perhaps, hearing it read over, at last taking the style into his hand to add the last few words of affectionate benediction.”

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14. reigned] See below, on Rom_5:21. The idea is of unquestioned dominion.

after the similitude, &c.] i.e. by conscious transgression of express precepts. The phrase thus exactly meets the case of infant-death, and also includes all other cases, supposed possible, in which no distinct violation of then-known law was traceable.

the figure] Lit. a figure. The word “type,” (derived from the Gr. word used here,) expresses the meaning exactly. Adam so sinned that his sons, even irrespective of personal sins, died—a penal death. Christ, the last Adam, so lived and suffered that his “brethren,” irrespective of personal merit, live, with the life of the justified.

him that was to come] Christ; mysteriously foretold from the first as “to come.” A sentence is quoted from the Rabbis: “The last Adam is Messiah.”—Observe that the doctrine of the imputed guilt of the First Sin is distinctly found in Judaic literature. As Meyer says on Rom_5:12, (Germ. ed., p. 241,) it probably was a part of the Apostle’s belief before his conversion, but one “which he found, in his Christian enlightenment, no reason to reject;” on the contrary, he incorporated it as an integral part of his Gospel-teaching.—(And this he did, let us add, as the commissioned messenger of the Truth.)

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.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,.... Though the law of Moses was not yet given, death exerted itself, and extended its dominion over all the sons and daughters of Adam, during the interval between Adam and Moses; which clearly shows that sin was in the world, and that there must be a law in being, which that was a transgression of: death is represented as a king, as sin and Satan sometimes are; and indeed, death reigns by sin, and Satan both by sin and death; their empires rise, stand, and fall together. So Bildad calls death "the king of terrors", Job 18:14; and a very formidable and powerful king he is; his dominion is very large, his power uncontrollable, and the dread of him very great, especially to Christless sinners. The Jews say (b), that at the resurrection the world will be renewed, and will not be as at the first, when , "death reigned in the world"; referring to the same period of time the apostle here does. The subjects of his government were not only adult persons, who had been guilty of many actual transgressions, but he reigned

even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. This does not exclude the dominion of death over such who had sinned after the likeness of Adam, but rather confirms its power over them; nor does it intend adult Gentiles, who did not sin in the same manner, nor against the same law, as Adam did; but it designs infants, not yet guilty of actual sin; and therefore since death reigns over them, who only holds and exercises his dominion by virtue of sin, it follows, that they must have original sin in them; the guilt of Adam's transgression must be imputed to them, and the corruption of nature, from him, derived unto them, or it could not reign over them. A child of a year old, the Jewish doctors (c) say, has not tasted the taste of sin, that is, has not committed actual sin; and observe (d), that young children die on account of the sins of their parents: but the true reason of their dying is here suggested by the apostle; which is the transgression of Adam:

who is the figure of him that was to come; meaning, either his posterity that were to come out of his loins, whose figure, type, and representative he was; or rather Christ, who is sometimes called , "he that was to come"; and the Arabic version reads the words thus, "who was a type of Adam that was expected"; that is, of Christ the second Adam, that was expected to come, according to the promise and prophecy: of him the first Adam was a type, in his human nature, in the formation and quality of it; as the first Adam was made by God of the virgin earth, the second Adam was born of a virgin; as the first, so the second Adam was pure, holy, upright, and wise; in his office, as Lord of the world, head of the woman, priest in his house, and prophet to his posterity; in his marriage with Eve, a figure of the church; but in nothing more clearly than in his being a covenant head to all his offspring: and this is what the apostle chiefly designs, since he runs the parallel between them on this account in the following verses; showing, that as the one conveyed sin and death to all his seed, so the other communicates righteousness and life to all that belong to him. So the Jews say (e), that by Adam is intimated the righteous branch, the Messiah; and that , "the secret of Adam is the secret of the Messiah".

(b) Tzeror Hammor, fol. 96. 1. (c) T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 22. 2. (d) Massecheth Calah, fol. 17. 2. (e) R. Abraham Seba, Tzeror Hammor, fol. 2. 3. & 3. 1.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Ver. 14. Death reigned] From the reign of death, he concludes the reign of sin. Infants are no innocents; the first sheet or blanket wherein they are covered is woven of sin, shame, blood, and filth, Eze 16:4-6.

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.

He proceeds to prove his assertion in the foregoing verse, that sin was in the world before the law, because

death, which is the wages of sin, did reign, and had power over all mankind, from Adam to Moses, which was about two thousand five hundred years.

Even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression; i.e. over very infants, that had not actually sinned as Adam did. But though infants did not sin like Adam, yet they sinned in Adam; the guilt of his sin was imputed to them, else death could have had no power over them. Infants (as one saith) are not altogether innocents; the very first sheet or blanket wherewith they are covered is woven of sin and shame, of blood and filth, Eze 16:4,6.

Who is the figure of him that was to come; of his offspring, (so some), which came of him in after times; his posterity (as before) was represented in his person: but others better expound it of Christ, who is the Second Adam; and of whom Adam was a figure or type, not in respect of such things as were personal to either of them, but of that which by them redounded to others. The first Adam was the original of man’s natural and earthly being; the Second Adam, of his spiritual and heavenly. By the first, sin and death came into the world; by the Second, righteousness and life.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

14. Nevertheless, death reigned—The previous verse assumed that there was sin during the patriarchate; this verse proves it from the existence of death. That death implies sin he assumes from the account of the fall in Genesis. Changing the order of the steps of the apostle’s reasoning in these two verses, we arrange it thus: During the patriarchate there was death, therefore sin, therefore law. The inference is, if that period is covered by death, sin, and law, it is included in the parallel ruin from Adam and redemption by Christ; and the Messiah and justification must not be monopolized by Judaism.

Sinned after… Adam’s transgression—Referring not to infants, but to all who lived during the patriarchate. They did not, like Adam, (nor like the Jews,) transgress a revealed law, but only the inner law written on the heart. (See note Rom_2:14.)

Paul now specifies three particulars of the antithesis, namely, the quality, the number, and the results, showing in each the excess of the good in Christ over the evil in Adam.

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

Death reigned - And how vast is his kingdom! Scarce can we find any king who has as many subjects, as are the kings whom he hath conquered. Even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression - Even over infants who had never sinned, as Adam did, in their own persons; and over others who had not, like him, sinned against an express law. Who is the figure of him that was to come - Each of them being a public person, and a federal head of mankind. The one, the fountain of sin and death to mankind by his offense; the other, of righteousness and life by his free gift. Thus far the apostle shows the agreement between the first and second Adam: afterward he shows the differences between them. The agreement may be summed up thus: As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; so by one man righteousness entered into the world, and life by righteousness. As death passed upon all men, in that all had sinned; so life passed upon all men, (who are in the second Adam by faith,) in that all are justified. And as death through the sin of the first Adam reigned even over them who had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression; so through the righteousness of Christ, even those who have not obeyed, after the likeness of his obedience, shall reign in life. We may add, As the sin of Adam, without the sins which we afterwards committed, brought us death; so the righteousness of Christ, without the good works which we afterwards perform, brings us life: although still every good, as well as evil, work, will receive its due reward.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Adam to Moses

Broadly, the contrast is: Adam: sin, death; Christ: righteousness, life. Adam drew down into his ruin the old creation Rom 8:19-22 of which he was lord and head. Christ brings into moral unity with God, and into eternal life, the new creation of which he is Lord and Head. Eph 1:22; Eph 1:23. Even the animal and material creation, cursed for man’s sake. Gen 3:17 will be delivered by Christ.; Isa 11:6-9; Rom 8:19-22.

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

The apostle had asserted, That sin was in the world before the written law of Moses; here he proves it thus: "Death, the wages of sin, did reign in the world, and had power over all mankind from Adam to Moses; therefore sin was in the world from Adam to Moses." By them that have not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, infants are generally understood; the guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to them, else death could have no power over them.

The argument runs thus: Death is a punishment of sin, but infants die who never sinned actually, therefore they die for Adam’s sin: Sin brought mortality into their nature, and the wages of sin is death: They brought a sinful nature into the world with them, which God gave the Jews of old an intimation of, by appointing the sacrament of circumcision signifying that infants brought something into the world with them, which was early to be cut off; he also signifies the same to us Christians, by appointing the ordinance of baptism for children, which he calls the laver of regeneration: Now, a laver supposes uncleanness; what is pure, needs no laver.

Learn hence, That infants, as soon as they live, have in them the seeds of death: Sin is the seed of death, the principle of corruption. God doth infants no wrong when they die: their death is of themselves, for they have the seeds of death in themselves. All death is the wages of sin, and therefore can be no injustice to the sinner; thus death reigned form Adam to Moses, yea, even to this day; and, like an insatiable tyrant, will continue to reign and slay universally, and beyond number, from the infant to the aged, from the dunghill to the throne, sparing neither age nor sex, neither great nor small, neither sacred nor profane.

From whence to the end of the chapter, the apostle enters upon a comparison betwixt Adam and Christ, whom he here calls a figure or resemblance of him that was to come, that is, of Christ. As Adam was the root of sin and death to all his natural seed, so Christ is the root of holiness and life to all his spiritual seed.

As by the first Adam, sin, and by sin death came upon all men; so by the second Adam came righteousness, and by righteousness life on all believers. As the fist Adam merited death, so the second Adam life for all his offspring: Thus, Adam was the figure of him that was to come.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come . [The comparison opened in Rom_5:12 is carried through various contrasts and correlations until it closes, as modified by the intervening verses, in Rom_5:18 . Adding to Rom_5:12 the modifications which appear in Rom_5:18 ; and skipping the intervening correlations, that we may get the connection, and have the central thought clearly before us, we would paraphrase thus: Now, since Christ is the source of justification and all its benefits, we submit to you a comparison between him and Adam, who is the source of condemnation and all its hardships, thus: As through the act of the one man, Adam, sin entered into the world, and as through this one sin death also entered, so that for this one sin the sentence of death passed upon us all, even so through the one act of the one, Christ (viz.: his suffering on the cross), the free gift of being accounted righteous came unto all men to justify them (i. e., to release them from the sentence of death which came upon them by Adam's sin), that they might live. Such is the central thought of the remainder of this chapter. But we have anticipated the full comparison, and the reader must bear in mind, in the perusal of what follows, that Paul is working it out, and does not complete it until Rom_5:18 . With Rom_5:13 Paul enters on a proof that all sinned in Adam, and incurred the death penalty by reason of his sin as their federal head, and not by reason of their own individual sins. To understand his argument, we must remember that God gave a law of life and death to Adam, and then refrained from giving any law like it until the days of Moses. The law of Moses was also one of life and death. It provided that those who kept it should live, and that those who failed to keep it should die. But as none kept it, it became a general law, involving all under it in the condemnation of death. It is clear, therefore, that Adam died for his own sin, and equally clear that those who lived under the Mosaic law might have died for their own sin as well as for Adam's sin. But for whose sin did those die who lived in the twenty-five centuries between Adam and Moses? Clearly they died for the sin committed by Adam, their head. Keeping these things before us, we follow Paul's reasoning thus: It is clear that men die because they sinned in Adam, their federal head, and not because they committed sin in their individual capacity; for though it is true that the people living in the world from the days of Adam until the giving of the law committed sin, yet where there is no law condemning to death (and there was none such in those days) sin is not imputed so as to incur the sentence of death. Therefore, in this absence of law, the people of that day would have lived in spite of their own individual sins; nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not broken any law having a death penalty attached to it, as did Adam, who, in his representative capacity as head of the race, was a figure or a type of the coming Christ, who was also to be manifested as a representative head of the race. It may be noted here that some, by reason of their gross wickedness, may have been specially punished by death, as, for instance, those who were obliterated by the deluge, or those who were burned in the flames of Sodom, etc., and also it may be observed that murderers should suffer death for their sin (Gen 9:6). But there was no general law involving all in the death penalty, and such special instances in no way weakened Paul's argument, for these, indeed, died by special dispensation of providence, on account of their peculiar wickedness; but they would have died just the same, under the decree passed upon Adam, if they had never been guilty of this peculiar wickedness, just as all others died who were not thus guilty. In other words, individual guilt did not bring the death sentence, for it already rested on all; it only brought a sudden, summary and peculiar mode of death upon these particular sinners, so as to stamp them as abnormally wicked.]

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.

14. Death reigned from Adam to Moses. None could escape his universal dominion. He reigned, (1) although law had not come; (2) and those over whom he reigned had not repeated Adam's sin. (3) Unconscious infants could not have sinned against natural law. Hence the inference is that all had sinned in Adam. Hence, again, Adam is a representative man, a representative of all the race, a figure of him that was to come. A type of Christ, likewise a representative of all the race. Through the one all have sinned; through the other all are made righteous, as far as the sin in Adam is involved.

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.

Nevertheless, death

"Even though what I have just said is true, death" or "There was no written law from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, but death." (See: Romans 5:13)

death ruled from Adam until Moses

Paul is speaking of death as if it were a king who ruled. AT: "people continued to die from the time of Adam until the time of Moses as a consequence of their sin" (See: Personification and Metaphor)

even over those who did not sin like Adam's disobedience

"even people whose sins were different from Adam's continue to die"

who is a pattern of him who was to come

Adam was a pattern of Christ, who appeared much later. He had much in common with him.

For if by the trespass of one the many died

Here "one" refers to Adam. AT: "For if by one man's sin, many died" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

how much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound for the many

Here "grace" refers to God's free gift that he made available to everyone through Jesus Christ. AT: "even more through the man Jesus Christ, who died for us all, did God kindly offer us this gift of everlasting life, although we do not deserve it" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

translationWords

Adam

Moses

disobey

gift

trespass

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

14. ἐβασίλευσεν, the ‘constative aorist’; Moulton, p. 109.

ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ μἐχρι Μωυσέως, in the interval between Adam, who sinned against positive law, and Moses who delivered positive law. In the case of Adam and of those who lived under the Mosaic law there could be no doubt that πάντες ἥμαρτον.

ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμ. It is noticeable that as sinners men are here distinguished from Adam: their sin was of a different kind; but still it was sin, action against light, though the light came in a different way, that is, through the inner experience of the knowledge of GOD; Rom 1:18 f.

ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμ. τ. π. Ἀ. The dominant fact in the sin of Adam was that he acted in spite of a positive command: other men acted in spite of the inner light.

ὅς ἐστιν τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος. τοῦ μέλλοντος = ‘of Him who was to come.’ Adam is typical of Christ in his natural relation to men. The words introduce the parallel now to be stated: tr. ‘and he is a type,’ etc.; and so there is a parallel in the relations, but a parallel with qualifications. So ἀλλά, not γάρ, follows.

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.

14.] But (notwithstanding the last assertion that sin is not fully reckoned where the law is not) death reigned (was a power to which all succumbed) from Adam to Moses (μέχρι Μωυς. = ἄχρι νόμου above): i.e. although the full ἐλλογισμός of sin did not take place between Adam and Moses, the universality of death is a proof that all sinned,—for death is the consequence of sin:—in confirmation of ver. 12.

καὶ ἐπὶ τ. μὴ ἁμ.] even (notwithstanding the different degrees of sin and guilt out of, and under, the law) over those who sinned not according to the similitude (reff.) of the transgression of Adam. (1) ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμ. belongs to ἁμαρτ. and not to ἐβασίλευσεν (as Chrys., Theophyl., Bengel, Elsn., al.),—for that would bring in, in the words τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας, an absolute contradiction to ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, by asserting that there were some who did not sin. (2) The emphasis lies on παράβασις, as distinguished from ἁμαρτία. Photius (in De W.),—ὁ μὲν (Ἀδ.) ὡρισμένην κ. νομοθετηθεῖσαν ἐντολὴν παρέβη κ. ἥμαρτεν· οἱ δὲ ἡμάρτανον τὸν αὐτοδίδακτον τῆς φύσεως λόγον ἐνυβρίζοντες. They all sinned: but had not, like Adam, transgressed a positive revealed command. (3) There is no reference here, as some Commentators (Beza, al.) have supposed, to the case of children and idiots,—nor (as Grot., Wetst.) to those who lived pious lives. The aim is to prove, that the seed of sin planted in the race by the one man Adam, has sprung up and borne fruit in all, so as to bring them under death;—death temporal, and spiritual;—of these, some have sinned without the law, i.e. not as Adam did, and as those after Moses did: and though sin is not formally reckoned against them, death, the consequence of sin, reigned, as matter of historical fact, over them also. It is most important to the clear understanding of this weighty passage to bear in mind, that the first member of the comparison, as far as it extends, is this: ‘As by Adam’s transgression, of which we are by descent inheritors, we have become (not by imputation merely, but by propensity) sinners, and have thus incurred death, so &c.’ … (see below).

ὅς ἐστιν τύπος τ. μέλλ.] who is a figure (or type: not thus used by LXX, see Umbreit’s note) of the future (Adam [the second Adam, viz. Christ]). This clause is inserted on the first mention of the name Adam, the one man of whom he has been speaking, to recall the purpose for which he is treating of him,—as the figure (ref.) of Christ. τοῦ μέλλ., not ‘qui futurus erat,’ as Beza [and E. V.], Reiche; but spoken from the Apostle’s present standing, ‘who is to come.’ The fulfilment of the type will then take place completely, when, as 1Co 15:22, ἐν τῷ χριστῷ πάντες ζωοποιηθήσονται. Still less, with Koppe, can ὅς be taken by attr. for ὅ, and τοῦ μέλλοντος be interpreted ‘of that which is to come,’ viz. life and salvation: see 1Co 15:45.

Many suppose these words ὅς ἐστ. τύπ. τ. μέλλ. to be the apodosis of ver. 12: but see there.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14. ἐβασίλευσεν ὁ θάνατος. St. Paul appeals to the universal prevalence of death, which is personified, as sin had been just before, under the figure of a grim tyrant, in proof of the mischief wrought by Adam’s Fall. Nothing but the Fall could account for that universal prevalence. Sin and death had their beginnings together, and they were propagated side by side.

On the certainty and universality of Death, regarded as a penalty, comp. Seneca, Nat. Quaest. ii.59 Eodem citius tardiusve veniendum est … In omnes constitutum est capitale supplicium et quidem constitutione iustissima. nam quod magnum solet esse solatium extrema passuris, quorum eadem causa et sors eadem est. Similarly Philo speaks of τὸν συμφυᾶ νεκρὸν ἡμῶν, τὸ σῶμα (De Gigant. 3; ed. Mang. i.264). Elsewhere he goes a step further and asserts ὅτι παντὶ γεννητῷ … συμφυὲς τὸ ἁμαρτάνειν. For parallels in 4 Ezra and Apoc. Baruch. see below.

ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας. A number of authorities, mostly Latin Fathers, but including also the important margin of Cod. 67 with three other cursives, the first hand of d, and the Greek of Orig. at least once, omit the negative, making the reign of death extend only over those who had sinned after the likeness of Adam. So Orig.-lat. (Rufinus) repeatedly and expressly, Latin MSS. known to Aug., the ‘older Latin MSS.’ according to Ambrstr. and Sedulius. The comment of Ambrstr. is interesting as showing a certain grasp of critical principles, though it was difficult for any one in those days to have sufficient command of MSS. to know the real state of the evidence. Ambrstr. prefers in this case the evidence of the Latin MSS., because those with which he is acquainted are older than the Greek, and represent, as he thinks, an older form of text. He claims that this form has the support of Tertullian, Cyprian and Victorinus—a statement which we are not at present able to verify. He accounts for the Greek reading by the usual theory of heretical corruption. There is a similar question of the insertion or omission of a negative in Rom 4:19 (q.v.), Gal 2:5. In two out of the three cases the Western text omits the negative, but in ch. 4:19 it inserts it.

τύπος (τύπτω): (1) the ‘impression’ left by a sharp blow (τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων Joh 20:25), in particular the ‘stamp’ struck by a die; (2) inasmuch as such a stamp bears the figure on the face of the die, ‘copy,’ ‘figure,’ or ‘representation’; (3) by a common transition from effect to cause, ‘mould,’ ‘pattern,’ ‘exemplar’; (4) hence in the special sense of the word type, which we have adopted from the Greek of the N. T., ‘an event or person in history corresponding in certain characteristic features to another event or person.’ That which comes first in order of time is properly the type, that which comes afterwards the antitype (ἀντίτυπος 1Pe 3:21). These correspondences form a part of the Divine economy of revelation: see esp. Cheyne, Isaiah,ii. 170 ff. (Essay III, ‘On the Christian Element in the Book of Isaiah’).

τοῦ μέλλοντος. (1) The entirely personal nature of the whole comparison prevents us from taking τοῦ μέλλ. as neut. = ‘that which was to come’ (Beng., Oltramare). If St. Paul had intended this, he would have written τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. (2) Neither is it probable that we have here a direct allusion to the Rabbinical designation of the Messiah as ὁ δεύτερος or ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδάμ (1Co 15:45, 1Co 15:47). If St. Paul had intended this, he would have written τοῦ μέλλοντος Ἀδάμ. (3) The context makes it clear enough who is intended The first representative of the human race as such prefigured its second Great Representative, whose coming lay in the future: this is sufficiently brought out by the expression ‘of Him who was to be.’ ὁ μέλλων thus approximates in meaning to ὁ ἐρχόμενος (Mat 11:3; Luk 7:19; Heb 10:37), which however appears not to have been, as it is sometimes regarded, a standing designation for the Messiah* In any case τοῦ μέλλοντος = ‘Him who was to come’ when Adam fell, not ‘who is (still) to come’ (Fri. De W.).

The Effects of Adam’s Fall in Jewish Theology

Three points come out clearly in these verses: (1) the Fall of Adam brought death not only to Adam himself but to his descendants; (2) the Fall of Adam also brought sin and the tendency to sin; (3) and yet in spite of this the individual does not lose his responsibility. All three propositions receive some partial illustration from Jewish sources, though the Talmud does not seem to have had any consistent doctrine on the subject. Dr. Edersheim says expressly: ‘So far as their opinions can be gathered from their writings the great doctrines of Original Sin and of the sinfulness of our whole nature, were not held by the ancient Rabbis’ (Life and Times, &c. i. 165). Still there are approximations, especially in the writings on which we have drawn so freely already, the Fourth Book of Ezra and the Apocalypse of Baruch.

(1) The evidence is strongest as to the connexion between Adam’s sin and the introduction of death. ‘There were,’ says Dr. Edersheim, ‘two divergent opinions—the one ascribing death to personal, the other to Adam’s guilt’ (op. cit. i. 166). It is however allowed that the latter view greatly preponderated. Traces of it are found as far back as the Sapiential Books: e.g. Wisd. 2:23 f. ὁ Θεὸς ἔκτισεν τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐπʼ ἀφθαρσίᾳ … φθόνῳ δὲ διαβόλου θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, where we note the occurrence of St. Paul’s phrase; Ecclus. 25:24 [33] διʼ αὐτὴν (sc. τὴν γυναῖκα) ἀποθνήσκομεν πάντες. The doctrine is also abundantly recognized in 4 Ezra and Apoc. Baruch.: 4 Ezr 3:7 et huic (sc. Adamo) mandasti diligere viam tuam, et praeterivit eam; et statim instituisti in eum mortem et in nationibus ( = generationibus) eius: Apoc. Baruch. xvii. 3 (Adam) mortem attulit et abscidit annos eorum qui ab eo geniti fuerunt: ibid. xxiii. 4 Quando peccavit Adam et decreta fuit mors contra eos qui gignerentur.

(2) We are warned (by Dr. Edersheim in Sp. Comm. Apocr. ad loc.) not to identify the statement of Ecclus. 25:24 [33] ἀπὸ γυναικὸς ἀρχὴ ἁμαρτίας with the N. T. doctrine of Original Sin: still it points in that direction; we have just seen that the writer deduces from Eve the death of all mankind, and in like manner he also seems to deduce from her (ἀπὸ γυν.) the initium peccandi. More explicit are 4 Ezra 3:21 f. Cor enim malignum baiulans primus Adam transgressus et victus est, sed et omnes qui de eo nati sunt: et facta est permanens infirmitas, et lex cum corde populi, cum malignitate radicis; et discessit quod bonum est, et mansit maiignum: ibid. iv. 30 Quoniam granum seminis mali seminatum est in corde Adam ab initio, et quantum impietatis generavit usque nunc, et generat usque dum veniat area: ibid. vii. 48 (118) O tu quid fecisti Adam? Si enim tu peccasti, non est factus solius tuus casus, sed et nostrum qui ex te advenimus.

(3) And yet along with all this we have the explicit assertion of responsibility on the part of all who sin. This appears in the passage quoted above on ver. 12 (ad fin.). To the same effect are 4 Ezr. 8:59 f. Non enim Altissimus voluit hominem disperdi, sed ipsi qui creati sunt coinquinaverunt nomen eius qui fecit eos: ibid. ix. 11 qui fastidierunt legem meam cum adhuc erant habentes libertatem. But the classical passage is Apoc. Baruch. liv. 15, 19 Si enim Adam prior peccavit, et attulit mortem super omnes immaturam; sed etiam illi qui ex eo nati sunt, unusquisque ex eis praeparavit animae suae tormentum futurum: et iterum unusquisque ex eis elegit sibi gloriam futurum … Non est ergo Adam causa, nisi animae suae tantum; nos vero unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam.

The teaching of these passages does not really conflict with that of the Talmud. The latter is thus summarized by Weber (Altsyn. Theol. p. 216): ‘By the Fall man came under a curse, is guilty of death, and his right relation to God is rendered difficult. More than this cannot be said. Sin, to which the bent and leaning had already been planted in man by creation, had become a fact; the “evil impulse” ( = cor malignum) gained the mastery over mankind, who can only resist it by the greatest efforts; before the Fall it had had power over him, but no such ascendancy (Uebermacht).’ Hence when the same writer says a little further on that according to the Rabbis ‘there is such a thing as transmission of guilt, but not such a thing as transmission of sin (Es gibt eine Erbschuld, aber keine Erbsünde),’ the negative proposition is due chiefly to the clearness with which the Rabbis (like Apoc. Baruch.) insist upon free-will and direct individual responsibility.

It seems to us a mistake to place the teaching of St. Paul in too marked opposition to this. There is no fundamental inconsistency between his views and those of his contemporaries. He does not indeed either affirm or deny the existence of the cor malignum before the Fall, nor does he use such explicit language as nos vero unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam: on the other hand he does define more exactly than the Rabbis the nature of human responsibility both under the Law (ch. 7:7 ff.) and without it (2:12-15). But here, as elsewhere in dealing with this mysterious subject (see p. 267 below), he practically contents himself with leaving the two complementary truths side by side. Man inherits his nature; and yet he must not be allowed to shift responsibility from himself: there is that within him by virtue of which he is free to choose; and on that freedom of choice he must stand or fall.

ADAM AND CHRIST

5:15-21. So far the parallelism: but note also the contrast. How superior the Work of Christ! (1) How different in quality: the one act all sin, the other act all bounty or grace! (ver. 15). (2) How different in quantity, or mode of working: one act tainting the whole race with sin, and a multitude of sins collected together in one only to be forgiven! (ver. 16). (3) How different and surpassing in its whole character and consequences: a reign of Death and a reign of Life! (ver. 17). Summarizing: Adam’s Fall brought sin: Law increased it: but the Work of Grace has cancelled, and more than cancelled, the effect of Law (vv. 18-21).

15In both cases there is a transmission of effects: but there the resemblance ends. In all else the false step (or Fall, as we call it) of Adam and the free gift of God’s bounty are most unlike. The fall of that one representative man entailed death upon the many members of the race to which he belonged. Can we then be surprised if an act of such different quality—the free unearned favour of God, and the gift of righteousness bestowed through the kindness of that other Representative Man, Jesus Messiah—should have not only cancelled the effect of the Fall, but also brought further blessings to the whole race? 16There is a second difference between this boon bestowed through Christ and the ill effects of one man’s sinning. The sentence pronounced upon Adam took its rise in the act of a single man, and had for its result a sweeping verdict of condemnation. But the gift bestowed by God inverts this procedure. It took its rise in many faults, and it had for its result a verdict declaring sinners righteous. 17Yet once more. Through the single fault of the one man Adam the tyrant Death began its reign through that one sole agency. Much more then shall the Christian recipients of that overflowing kindness and of the inestimable gift of righteousness—much more shall they also reign, not in death but in life, through the sole agency of Jesus Messiah.

18To sum up. On one side we have the cause, a single Fall; and the effect, extending to all men, condemnation. On the other side we have as cause, a single absolving act; and as effect, also extending to all, a like process of absolution, carrying with it life. 19For as through the disobedience of the one man Adam all mankind were placed in the class and condition of ‘sinners,’ so through the obedience (shown in His Death upon the Cross) of the one man, Christ, the whole multitude of believers shall be placed in the class and condition of ‘righteous.’ 20 Then Law came in, as a sort of ‘afterthought,’ a secondary and subordinate stage, in the Divine plan, causing the indefinite multiplication of sins which, like the lapse or fall of Adam, were breaches of express command. Multiplied indeed they were, but only with the result of calling forth a still more abundant stream of pardoning grace. 21Hitherto Sin has sat enthroned in a kingdom of the dead; its subjects have been sunk in moral and spiritual death. But this has been permitted only in order that the Grace or Goodwill of God might also set up its throne over a people fitted for its sway by the gift of righteousness, and therefore destined not for death but for eternal life—through the mediation of Jesus Messiah, our Lord.

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

Vv. 14. ᾿Αλλά: and nevertheless; a strongly emphasized contrast to the idea of non-imputation (Rom 5:13).

The word reign denotes a power firmly established, resting on the immovable foundation of the divine sentence pronounced over the whole race. Death cannot denote more here than the loss of life in the ordinary sense of the word. There is no reference either to spiritual death (sin, Gess), or to the sufferings and infirmities of life (Hodge), but simply to the fact that between Adam and Moses men died though there was no law. This imputation of Adam’s sin, as the cause of death to every individual man, would be absolutely incomprehensible and incompatible with the justice of God, if it passed beyond the domain of natural life marked off by the mysterious relation between the individual and the species. The sequel will show that as soon as we rise to the domain of spiritual life, the individual is no longer dependent on this solidarity of the species, but that he holds his eternal destiny in his own hands.

The words: “also, or (even) over them that had not sinned,” are taken by Meyer as referring to a part only of the men who lived between Adam and Moses, those, namely, who did not enjoy the positive revelations granted during this period, the Noachian commandments, for example, Gen 9:1-17. Thus understood, Paul reminds us of the fact that the men of that time who were without those precepts were, as well as their contemporaries who enjoyed such light, subjected to death. But the whole passage, on the contrary, implies the absence of all positive law which could have been violated between Adam and Moses; consequently, the phrase: “even over them who sinned not,” etc., embraces the whole human species from Adam to Moses without distinction; mankind during this interval are contrasted with Adam on the one hand, and with the people of Israel from Moses on the other. All these who were not under conditions of a capitally penal kind (Rom 5:13) died nevertheless.

The words: “after the resemblance of Adam’s transgression,” are certainly not dependent, as the old Greek expositors thought, on the word reigned: “death reigned on the ground of a sin similar to that of Adam.” This sense leaves the words: even over them that sinned not, without any reasonable explanation. We must therefore bring this clause under καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας, in this sense: “even over them that did not sin after the fashion of Adam’s sin,” that is to say, by transgressing as he did, a positive prohibition.

Hofmann insists on the strict meaning of the word which Paul uses, ὁμοίωμα, the object like (differing from ὁμοιότης, the resemblance), and, taking the genitive παραβάσεως as a subjective genitive, he explains: according to the form which was that of...or on the type presented by the transgression of...To render this shade into English, we must translate, not after the resemblance, but after the fashion of Adam’s transgression.

From this whole argument it appeared that Adam had been the sole author of the reign of death, and herein precisely was he the counterpart of Him who was to come to be the sole principle of life here below. Thus it is easy to understand why the apostle, after explaining the origin of death, closes with these words, appropriately introducing the statement of the other member of the parallel: who is the type of the Adam that was to come. It is improper, with Bengel, to give to the participle μέλλοντος the neuter sense: of that which was to come (by regarding the masculine ὅς as a case of attraction from τύπος). The word Adam, immediately preceding, more naturally leads us to make μέλλων a masculine. One might more easily, with Hofmann, regard this participle as a masculine substantive: Him who should come, in the sense in which the Messiah is called the ἐρχόμενος, the coming one. The meaning is not essentially different. If the Rabbinical sayings in which the Messiah is designated as the second or the last Adam were older than the seventh century of our era (Targum of the Psalms), or the sixteenth (Nevé schalom), it might be inferred from these passages that the description of the Messiah as the Adam to come was already received in the Jewish schools, and that the phrase of the apostle is a reference to this received notion. But it is quite possible that these sayings themselves were influenced by the texts of the New Testament. So Renan says positively: “In the Talmudic writings Adam ha-rischôn simply denotes the first man, Adam. Paul creates Ha-adam ha-aharôn by antithesis.” We must certainly set aside De Wette’s idea, which applies the phrase: the future Adam, to Christ’s final advent. The term μέλλων, future, is related to the time of the first Adam, not to the time when the apostle writes.

The word type denotes in Scripture language (1Co 10:11) an event, or a person realizing a law of the kingdom of God which will be realized afterward in a more complete and striking manner in a corresponding future event or person. Adam is the type of the Messiah, inasmuch as, to quote Ewald, “each of them draws after him all mankind,” so that “from what the one was to humanity we may infer what the other is to it” (Hofmann).

This proposition is a sort of provisional apodosis to the even as of Rom 5:12. It reminds the reader of the comparison which has been begun, and keeps the thought present to his mind till the comparison can be finished and grammatically completed by the true principal clause (Rom 5:18).

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.