Romans 5:15

Verse 15. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift.] The same learned writer, quoted above, continues to observe:- "It is evident that the apostle, in this and the two following verses, is running a parallel, or making a comparison between the offence of Adam and its consequence; and the opposite gift of God and its consequences. And, in these three verses, he shows that the comparison will not hold good in all respects, because the free gift, χαρισμα, bestows blessings far beyond the consequences of the offence, and which, therefore, have no relation to it. And this was necessary, not only to prevent mistakes concerning the consequence of Adam's offence, and the extent of Gospel grace; but it was also necessary to the apostle's main design, which was not only to prove that the grace of the Gospel extends to all men, so far as it takes off the consequence of Adam's offence, [i.e. death, without the promise or probability of a resurrection,] but that it likewise extends to all men, with respect to the surplusage of blessings, in which it stretches far beyond the consequence of Adam's offence. For, the grace that takes off the consequence of Adam's offence, and the grace which abounds beyond it, are both included in the same χαρισμα, or free gift, which should be well observed; for in this, I conceive, lie the connection and sinews of the argument: the free gift, which stands opposed to Adam's offence, and which, I think, was bestowed immediately after the offence; Ge 3:15: The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head. This gift, I say, includes both the grace which exactly answers to the offence, and is that part of the grace which stretches far beyond it. And, if the one part of the gift be freely bestowed on all mankind, as the Jews allow, why not the other? especially, considering that the whole gift stands upon a reason and foundation in excellence and worth, vastly surpassing the malignity and demerit of the offence; and, consequently, capable of producing benefits vastly beyond the sufferings occasioned by the offence. This is the force of the apostle's argument; and therefore, supposing that in the 18th and l9th verses, Ro 5:18; Ro 5:19 literally understood, he compares the consequence of Adam's offence and Christ's obedience, only so far as the one is commensurate to the other, yet his reasoning, Ro 5:15-17, plainly shows that it is his meaning and intention that we should take into his conclusion the whole of the gift, so far as it can reach, to all mankind."

For if, through the offence of one, many be dead] That the οι πολλοι, the many of the apostle here means all mankind needs no proof to any but that person who finds himself qualified to deny that all men are mortal. And if the many, that is, all mankind, have died through the offence of one; certainly, the gift by grace, which abounds unto τουςπολλους, the many, by Christ Jesus, must have reference to every human being. If the consequences of Christ's incarnation and death extend only to a few, or a select number of mankind-which, though they may be considered many in themselves, are few in comparison of the whole human race-then the consequences of Adam's sin have extended only to a few, or to the same select number: and if only many, and not all have fallen, only that many had need of a Redeemer. For it is most evident that the same persons are referred to in both clauses of the verse. If the apostle had believed that the benefits of the death of Christ had extended only to a select number of mankind, he never could have used the language he has done here: though, in the first clause, he might have said, without any qualification of the term, Through the offence of one, MANY are dead; in the 2nd clause, to be consistent with the doctrine of particular redemption, he must have said, The grace of God, and the gift by grace, hath abounded unto SOME. As by the offence of one judgment came upon ALL men to condemnation; so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon SOME to justification, Ro 5:18. As, by one man's disobedience, MANY were made sinners; so, by the obedience of one, shall SOME be made righteous, Ro 5:19. As in Adam ALL die; so, in Christ, shall SOME be made alive, 1Co 15:22. But neither the doctrine nor the thing ever entered the soul of this divinely inspired man.

Hath abounded unto many.] That is, Christ Jesus died for every man; salvation is free for all; saving grace is tendered to every soul; and a measure of the Divine light is actually communicated to every heart, Joh 1:9. And, as the grace is offered, so it may be received; and hence the apostle says, Ro 5:17: They which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by Christ Jesus: and by receiving is undoubtedly meant not only the act of receiving, but retaining and improving the grace which they receive; and, as all may receive, so ALL may improve and retain the grace they do receive; and, consequently, ALL may be eternally saved. But of multitudes Christ still may say, They WILL not come unto me, that they might have life.

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

15. But not] Here, after the parallel of Adam and Christ, is stated the glorious difference of the work of Christ. This occupies Rom_5:15-17.—The difference is, the vastly greater wonder of His Work and its Result.

offence] Lit. stumbling. Our word “offence” comes from the Latin for the same, and is so used here by E. V.

if] Here (as in Rom_5:10,) the “if” nearly = “as.”

of one] Lit. of the one; the one personal Offender in view.

many be dead] Lit. the many died. See on “all have sinned,” (an exact parallel,) Rom_5:12. “The many:”—“many,” in contrast to their one forefather; “the many,” as those in question here. They are, in this case, all mankind.

much more, &c.] Here notice the respect in which Redemption is so far “in excess of” Ruin. Not in respect of numbers affected; because, on any theory, the redeemed are no more numerous than the ruined, who are the whole race. It is in respect of the quality of the cause and the effect. Redemption is a positive exercise of surpassing grace and love, resulting in a glorious and eternal reversal, in the subjects of it, of the previous ruin; indeed, more than a reversal, because it brings with it the exaltation given to the brethren of the Second Adam.—The “much more” here, and in Rom_5:17, is thus q. d., “The fall of the First Adam caused vast results of evil; the work of the far greater Second Adam shall much more cause vast results of good.”

the grace of God] His positive favour; whereas He merely let the law take its course at the Fall.

the gift, &c.] Lit. the gift in the grace of one Man, Jesus Christ. The “grace of Christ” is the loving favour to man shewn by Him in His work. The “gift” which was given “in” (i.e. practically “through,” or “by,”) that grace is the eternal life of the justified.—“The one Man:”—“Man” is emphatic, indicating the Lord’s position as the Second Adam, and, (as this Man is Jesus Christ,) the supreme greatness of the Second Adam.

hath abounded] Lit. did abound unto the many. The reference is to the historic fact of His Work. “The many:”—here again, “many” in contrast to the One-ness of their Head; “the many,” as the persons here in question. These here, (as e.g. Rom_5:13-19 explain,) are the justified. See below on Rom_5:18.—“Abounded:”—the idea is of Divine liberality in mercy, as opposed to the no more than legal justice of the condemnation.

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.

But not as the offence - This is the first point of contrast between the effect of the sin of Adam and of the work of Christ. The word “offence” means properly a fall, where we stumble over anything lying in our way It then means sin in general, or crime Mat 6:14-15; Mat 18:35. Here it means the fall, or first sin of Adam. We use the word “fall” as applied to Adam, to denote his first offence, as being that act by which he fell from an elevated state of obedience and happiness into one of sin and condemnation.

So also - The gift is not in its nature and effects like the offence.

The free gift - The favor, benefit, or good bestowed gratuitously on us. It refers to the favors bestowed in the gospel by Christ. These are free, that is, without merit on our part, and bestowed on the undeserving.

For if ... - The apostle does not labor to prove that this is so. This is not the point of his argument, He assumes that as what was seen and known everywhere. His main point is to show that greater benefits have resulted from the work of the Messiah than evils from the fall of Adam.

Through the offence of one - By the fall of one. This simply concedes the fact that it is so. The apostle does not attempt an explanation of the mode or manner in which it happened. He neither says that it is by imputation, nor by inherent depravity, nor by imitation. Whichever of these modes may be the proper one of accounting for the fact, it is certain that the apostle states neither. His object was, not to explain the manner in which it was done, but to argue from the acknowledged existence of the fact. All that is certainly established from this passage is, that as a certain fact resulting from the transgression of Adam, “many” were “dead.” This simple fact is all that can be proved from this passage. Whether it is to be explained by the doctrine of imputation, is to be a subject of inquiry independent of this passage. Nor have we a right to assume that this teaches the doctrine of the imputation of the sin of Adam to his posterity. For,

The apostle says nothing of it.

(2)That doctrine is nothing but an effort to explain the manner of an event which the apostle Paul did not think it proper to attempt to explain.

(3)That doctrine is in fact no explanation.

It is introducing all additional difficulty. For to say that I am blameworthy, or ill-deserving for a sin in which I had no agency, is no explanation, but is involving me in an additional difficulty still more perplexing, to ascertain how such a doctrine can possibly be just. The way of wisdom would be, doubtless, to rest satisfied with the simple statement of a fact which the apostle has assumed, without attempting to explain it by a philosophical theory. Calvin accords with the above interpretation. “For we do not so perish by his (Adam’s) crime, as if we were ourselves innocent; but Paul ascribes our ruin to him because his sin is the cause of our sin.”

(This is not a fair quotation from Calvin. It leaves us to infer, that the Reformer affirmed, that Adam’s sin is the cause of actual sin in us, on account of which last only we are condemned. Now under the twelfth verse Calvin says, “The inference is plain, that the apostle does not treat of actual sin, for if every person was the cause of his own guilt, why should Paul compare Adam with Christ?” If our author had not stopt short in his quotation, he would have found immediately subjoined, as an explanation: “I call that our sin, which is inbred, and with which we are born.” Our being born with this sin is a proof of our guilt in Adam. But whatever opinion may he formed of Calvin’s general views on this subject, nothing is more certain, than that he did not suppose the apostle treated of actual sin in these passages.

Notwithstanding of the efforts that are made to exclude the doctrine of imputation from this chapter, the full and varied manner in which the apostle expresses it, cannot be evaded. “Through the offence of one many be dead” - “the judgment was by one to condemnation” - “By one man’s offence death reigned by one” - “By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation” - “By one man’s disobedience, many were made sinners,” etc.

It is vain to tell us, as our author does” under each of these clauses respectively, that the apostle simply states the fact, that the sin of Adam has involved the race in condemnation, without adverting to the manner; for Paul does more than state the fact. He intimates that we are involved in condemnation in a way that bears a certain analogy to the manner in which we become righteous. And on this last, he is, without doubt, sufficiently explicited See a former supplementary note.

In Rom 5:18-19 the apostle seems plainly to affirm the manner of the fact “as by the offence of one,” etc., “Even so,” etc. “As by one man’s disobedience,” etc., “so,” etc. There is a resemblance in the manner of the two things compared. It we wish to know how guilt and condemnation come by Adam, we have only to inquire, how righteousness and justification come by Christ. “So,” that is, in this way, not in like manner. It is not in a manner that has merely some likeness, but it is in the very same manner, for although there is a contrast in the things, the one being disobedience and the other obedience, yet there is a perfect identity in the manner. - Haldane.

It is somewhat remarkable, that while our author so frequently affirms, that the apostle states the fact only, he himself should throughout assume the manner. He will not allow the apostle to explain the manner, nor any one who has a different view of it from himself. Yet he tells us, it is not by imputation that we become involved in Adam’s guilt; that people “sin in their own persons, and that therefore they die.” This he affirms to be the apostle’s meaning. And is this not an explanation of the manner. Are we not left to conclude, that from Adam we simply derive a corrupt nature, in consequence of which we sin personally, and therefore die?)

Many - Greek, “The many.” Evidently meaning all; the whole race; Jews and Gentiles. That it means all here is proved in Rom 5:18. If the inquiry be, why the apostle used the word “many” rather than all, we may reply, that the design was to express an antithesis, or contrast to the cause - one offence. One stands opposed to many, rather than to all.

Be dead - See the note on the word “death,” Rom 5:12. The race is under the dark and gloomy reign of death. This is a simple fact which the apostle assumes, and which no man can deny.

Much more - The reason of this “much more” is to be found in the abounding mercy and goodness of God. If a wise, merciful, and good Being has suffered such a train of woes to be introduced by the offence of one, have we not much more reason to expect that his grace will superabound?

The grace of God - The favor or kindness of God We have reason to expect under the administration of God more extensive benefits, than we have ills, flowing from a constitution of things which is the result of his appointment.

And the gift by grace - The gracious gift; the benefits flowing from that grace. This refers to the blessings of salvation.

Which is by one man - Standing in contrast with Adam. His appointment was the result of grace; and as he was constituted to bestow favors, we have reason to expect that they will superabound.

Hath abounded - Has been abundant, or ample; will be more than a counterbalance for the ills which have been introduced by the sin of Adam.

Unto many - Greek, Unto the many. The obvious interpretation of this is, that it is as unlimited as “the many” who are dead. Some have supposed that Adam represented the whole of the human race, and Christ a part, and that “the many” in the two members of the verse refer to the whole of those who were thus represented. But this is to do violence to the passage; and to introduce a theological doctrine to meet a supposed difficulty in the text. The obvious meaning is - one from which we cannot depart without doing violence to the proper laws of interpretation - that “the many” in the two cases are co-extensive; and that as the sin of Adam has involved the race - the many - in death; so the grace of Christ has abounded in reference to the many, to the race. If asked how this can be possible, since all have not been, and will not be savingly benefitted by the work of Christ, we may reply,

(1) That it cannot mean That the benefits of the work of Christ should be literally co-extensive with the results of Adam’s sin, since it is a fact that people have suffered, and do suffer, from the effects of that fall. In order that the Universalist may draw an argument from this, he must show that it was the design of Christ to destroy all the effects of the sin of Adam. But this has not been in fact. Though the favors of that work have abounded, yet people have suffered and died. And though it may still abound to the many, yet some may suffer here, and suffer on the same principle forever.

(2) Though people are indubitably affected by the sin of Adam, as e. g., by being born with a corrupt disposition; with loss of righteousness, with subjection to pain and woe; and with exposure to eternal death; yet there is reason to believe that all those who die in infancy are, through the merits of the Lord Jesus, and by an influence which we cannot explain, changed and prepared for heaven. As nearly half the race die in infancy, therefore there is reason to think that, in regard to this large portion of the human family, the work of Christ has more than repaired the evils of the fall, and introduced them into heaven, and that his grace has thus abounded unto many. In regard to those who live to the period of moral agency, a scheme has been introduced by which the offers of salvation may be made to them, and by which they may be renewed, and pardoned, and saved. The work of Christ, therefore, may have introduced advantages adapted to meet the evils of the fall as man comes into the world; and the original applicability of the one be as extensive as the other. In this way the work of Christ was in its nature suited to abound unto the many.

(3) The intervention of the plan of atonement by the Messiah, prevented the immediate execution of the penalty of the Law, and produced all the benefits to all the race, resulting from the sparing mercy of God. In this respect it was co-extensive with the fall.

(4) He died for all the race, Heb 2:9; 2Co 5:14-15; 1Jo 2:2. Thus, his death, in its adaptation to a great and glorious result, was as extensive as the ruins of the fall.

(5) The offer of salvation is made to all, Rev 22:17; Joh 7:37; Mat 11:28-29; Mar 16:15. Thus, his grace has extended unto the many - to all the race. Provision has been made to meet the evils of the fall; a provision as extensive in its applicability as was the ruin.

(6) More will probably be actually saved by the work of Christ, than will be finally ruined by the fall of Adam. The number of those who shall be saved from all the human race, it is to be believed, will yet be many more than those who shall be lost. The gospel is to spread throughout the world. It is to be evangelized. The millennial glory is to rise upon the earth; and the Saviour is to reign with undivided empire. Taking the race as a whole, there is no reason to think that the number of those who shall be lost, compared with the immense multitudes that shall be saved by the work of Christ, will be more than are the prisoners in a community now, compared with the number of peaceful and virtuous citizens. A medicine may be discovered that shall be said to triumph over disease, though it may have been the fact that thousands have died since its discovery, and thousands yet will not avail themselves of it; yet the medicine shall have the properties of universal triumph; it is adapted to the many; it might be applied by the many; where it is applied, it completely answers the end. Vaccination is adapted to meet the evils of the small-pox everywhere; and when applied, saves people from the ravages of this terrible disease, though thousands may die to whom it is not applied. It is a triumphant remedy. So of the plan of salvation. Thus, though all shall not be saved, yet the sin of Adam shall be counteracted; and grace abounds unto the many. All this fulness of grace the apostle says we have reason to expect from the abounding mercy of God.

(The “many” in the latter clause of this verse, cannot be regarded as co-extensive with the “many” that are said to be dead through the offence of Adam. Very much is affirmed of the “many to whom grace abounds,” that cannot, “without doing violence to the whole passage,” be applied to all mankind. They are said to “receive the gift of righteousness,” and to “reign in life.” They are actually “constituted righteous,” Rom 5:19 and these things cannot be said of all people in any sense whatever. The only way of explaining the passage, therefore, is to adopt that view which our author has introduced only to condemn, namely, “that Adam represented the whole of the human race, and Christ a part, and that ‘the many in the two members of the verse, refers to the whole of those who were thus represented.”

The same principle of interpretation must be adopted in the parallel passage, “As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.” It would be preposterous to affirm, that “the all” in the latter clause is co-extensive with “the all” in the former. The sense plainly is, that all whom Christ represented should be made alive in him. even as all mankind, or all represented by Adam, had died in him.

It is true indeed that all mankind are in some sense benefitted on account of the atonement of Christ: and our author has enlarged on several things of this nature, which yet fall short of “saving benefit.” But will it be maintained, that the apostle in reality affirms no more than that the many to, whom grace abounds, participate in certain benefits, short of salvation? If so, what becomes of the comparison between Adam and Christ? If “the many” in the one branch of the comparison are only benefitted by Christ in a way that falls short of saving benefit, then “the many” in the other branch must be affected by the fall of Adam only in the same limited way, whereas the apostle affirms that in consequence of it they are really “dead.”

“The principal thing,” says Mr. Scott, “which renders the expositions generally given of these verses perplexed and unsatisfactory, arises from an evident misconception of the apostle’s reasoning, in supposing that Adam and Christ represented exactly the same company; whereas Adam was the surety of the whole human species, as his posterity; Christ, only of that chosen remnant, which has been, or shall be one with him by faith, who alone ‘are counted to him for a generation.’ If we exclusively consider the benefits which believers derive from Christ as compared with the loss sustained in Adam by the human race, we shall then see the passage open most perspicuously and gloriously to our view.” - Commentary, Rom 5:15, Rom 5:19.

But our author does not interpret this passage upon any consistent principle. For “the many” in Rom 5:15, to whom “grace abounded” are obviously the same with those in Rom 5:17, who are said to receive abundance of grace, etc., and yet he interprets the one of all mankind, and the other of believers only. What is asserted in Rom 5:17, he says, “is particularly true of the redeemed, of whom the apostle in this verse is speaking.”)

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

Rom_5:15

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift.

The offence and the free gift

1. The offence originated with man, the free gift in the grace of God.

2. The offence operated necessarily by a just law, the gift is free through Jesus Christ.

3. The offence results in death, the free gift abounds unto everlasting life. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The offence and the free gift

If from the offense of one--so insignificant in its way--there could go forth an action which spread over the whole multitude of mankind, will not the conclusion hold a fortiori that from the grace of God, and the gift through this grace of one man, acting on the opposite side, so powerful and rich as they are, there must result an action, the extension of which shall not be less than that of the offence, and shall, consequently, reach the whole of that multitude? If a very weak spring could inundate a whole meadow, would it not be safe to conclude that a much more abundant spring, if spread over the same space of ground, would not fail to submerge it entirely? (Prof. Godet.)

The first and second Adam compared in reference

I. To the universality of their influence. The first Adam destroyed all, the second has obtained grace for all--with this difference, that in the former case the ruin came inevitably, but the reception of the grace is suspended upon mans free choice.

II. To the intensity of their influence. The first Adam has by one sin given occasion to all sin; the second has by one act of grace expiated all sin--with this difference, that Adams sin in itself was not greater than any other sin, but the grace of Christ outweighs the aggregate guilt of all sin.

III. To the final results of their influence. The first Adam has subjected mankind to the bondage of death, the second confers upon all, who will receive it, dominion in life--with this difference, that the fulness of grace in Christ not only meets the curse in Adam, but far surpasses the grace originally conferred upon man. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Life in Christ contrasted with death in Adam

Note--

I. The intrinsic nature of the things here contrasted; and we shall see that if the one arrangement could be adopted by God, much more likely is it that the other would be also, as being more strictly congenial with all that we know of His glorious character. God might permit us to sin and suffer in Adam, with reference to some future good to come out of it: He might permit it in harmony with His wisdom, holiness, and love; but still He could have no delight in it for its own sake. Yet we find that He has seen it right to permit these things to transpire: how much more, then, may we believe in the arrangement of grace, by which salvation is brought to our ruined race! But how do we know the feelings of the Most High in reference to this matter? What reason have we for supposing that it pleases Him more to give us life in Christ than to see us die in Adam? We take our views from His own word (Exo_34:6-7; Psa_86:5; Psa_86:15; Psa_145:8-9; Eze_18:23; Eze_18:31-32; Eze_33:11; Joh_3:16; Joh_4:16). Say not, then, complainingly that God has permitted you to die in Adam, but rather believe that He delights to give you life in Christ.

II. That grace relates to a larger number of transgressions than did the first condemnation (Rom_5:16). The gift by one is quite unlike the sin by one, inasmuch as in the sin there was but one offence committed, and instantly judgment upon it; whereas, in the matter of the gift by grace, there is forgiveness ensured for many offences. Hitherto, we have been regarding the sin of mankind as one, and in that one sin all men became guilty before God. Let us, then, look at the nature and the number of our offences, all of which need to and can be forgiven through the atoning work of Christ. There are the sins of our ungodly life; there are also our sins since we entered on a godly career. We are daily guilty of omissions of duty, or grievous shortcomings in the mode of fulfilling our obligations. But beyond all this, there are positive faults and evils in the best of us. Yet--blessed be God!--these sins, however numerous, may be all pardoned through the blood of Christ; for the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

III. That grace is essentially a stronger principle than sin (Rom_5:17). Life is more mighty than death. The range of death is limited; it can only ravage that which already exists. But life is a creative power to whose possible achievements we can assign no limits. Death is a negative principle, life a positive one. Death is a condition of the creature, life has its source and fulness in the infinite Creator. Under the domination of death we are made its groaning and unwilling victims; but under the reign of life we are caught up to the throne, and share with gladness in the monarchs might and joy. (T. G. Horton.)

The grace of God

I. Transcends sin.

1. In its origin. Sin proceeds from the offence of one man and destroys many; grace proceeds from God through one man, Jesus Christ, and therefore not only reaches many, but abounds.

2. In its operation. One offence brought condemnation, but grace not only counteracts the effects of that one offence but of many others.

3. In its results. One offence brought death, but grace wherever received not only gives back life, but gives it more abundantly.

II. Is coextensive with sin.

1. It cannot reach further because it presupposes sin.

2. It does reach as far, because the free gift unto justification of life is unto all men, because the many made sinners might also be made righteous.

3. If grace anywhere fails it is not through any limitation of its action, but through the wilful impenitency of man. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Honey from a lion

This text affords many openings for controversy. It can be made to bristle with difficulties. It would be easy to set up a thorn hedge and keep the sheep out of the pasture, or to so pelt each other with the stones as to leave the fruit untasted. I feel more inclined to chime in with that ancient father against whom a clamorous disputant shouted, Hear me! Hear me! No, said the father, I will not hear you, nor shall you hear me, but we will both be quiet and hear what Christ has to say. Note--

I. The appointed way of our salvation is by the free gift of God. Salvation is bestowed--

1. Without regard to any merit, supposed or real. Grace is not a fit gift for the righteous, but for the undeserving. It is according to the nature of God to pity the miserable and forgive the guilty, for He is good, and His mercy endureth forever.

2. Irrespective of any merit which God foresees will be in man. Foresight of the existence of grace cannot be the cause of grace. God Himself does not foresee that there will be any good thing in any man, except what He foresees that He will put there.

3. Without reference to conditions which imply any desert. But I hear one murmur, God will not give grace to men who do not repent and believe. I answer, God gives men grace to repent and believe, and no man does so till first grace is given him. Repentance and faith may be conditions of receiving, but they are not conditions of purchasing, for salvation is without money and without price.

4. Over the head of sin and in the teeth of rebellion, God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, etc. Many of us have been saved by grace of the most abounding and extraordinary sort.

5. Through the one man Jesus Christ. People talk about a one man ministry. I was lost by a one man ministry when father Adam fell in Eden, but I was saved by a one man ministry when Jesus bore my sin in His own body on the tree.

II. It is certain that great evils have come to us by the fall.

1. We have lost the Garden of Eden and all its delights, privileges, and immunities, its communion with God, and its freedom from death.

2. We have been born to a heritage of sorrow.

3. We came into the world with a bias towards evil.

4. We are made liable to death, and are sure to bow our heads beneath the fatal stroke.

5. While we live we know that the sweat of our brow must pay the price of our bread.

6. Our children must be born with pangs and travail.

III. From the fall we infer the more abundant certainty that salvation by grace through Christ Jesus shall come to believers. For--

1. This appears to be more delightful to the heart of God. I can understand that God, having so arranged it that the human race should be regarded as one, should allow the consequences of sin to fall upon succeeding generations of men; but yet I know that He takes no pleasure in the death of any, and finds no delight in afflicting mankind. If God has so arranged it that in the Second Adam men rise and live, it seems to me most gloriously consistent with His gracious nature and infinite love that all who believe in Jesus should be saved through Him.

2. It seems more inevitable that men should be saved by the death of Christ than that men should be lost by the sin of Adam. It might seem possible that, after Adam had sinned, God might have said, Notwithstanding this covenant of works, I will not lay this burden upon the children of Adam; but it is not possible that after the eternal Son of God has become man, and has bowed His head to death, God should say, Yet after all I will not save men for Christs sake.

3. Look at the difference as to the causes of the two effects. Look at the occasion of our ruin--the offence of one--a finite being, who therefore cannot be compared in power with the grace of the infinite God; the sin of a moment, and therefore cannot be compared for force and energy with the everlasting purpose of Divine love. The grace of God is like His nature, omnipotent and unlimited. God is not only gracious to this degree or to that, but He is gracious beyond measure; we read of the exceeding riches of His grace. He is the God of all grace.

4. The difference of the channels by which the evil and the good were severally communicated to us. In each case it was by one, but what a difference in the persons!

(1) Let us not think too little of the head of the human family. Yet what is the first Adam as compared with the Second? He is but of the earth, earthy, but the Second Man is the Lord from heaven. Surely, then, if Adam with that puny hand of his could pull down the house of our humanity, that greater Man, who is also the Son of God, can fully restore us.

(2) Adam commits one fault and spoils us, but Christs achievements are many as the stars of heaven.

(3) Adam did but eat of the forbidden fruit, but Christ died. Is there any comparison between the one act of rebellion in the garden and the matchless deed of superlative obedience upon the Cross of Calvary which crowned a life of service?

5. From the text you may derive a great deal of comfort.

(1) A babe is born into the world amid great anxiety because of its mothers pains; but while these prove how the consequences of the fall are with us (in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children), they also assure us that the Second Adam can abundantly bring us bliss through a second birth.

(2) Inasmuch as we have seen the thorn and the thistle because of one Adam, we may expect to see a blessing on the earth because of the Second Adam. Therefore with unbounded confidence do I believe the promise: Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the briar shall come up the myrtle tree, etc.

(3) Did not the Lord say, In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread? Ought not your labour to be an argument by which your faith shall prove that in Christ Jesus there remaineth a rest for the people of God.

(4) Did the first Adam through his disobedience lift the latch for death? It is surely so. Therefore I believe with the greater assurance that the Second Adam can give life to these dry bones, can awake all these sleepers, and raise them in newness of life.

IV. If from the fall of Adam such great results flow, greater results must flow from the grace of God and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ. Suppose that Adam bad never sinned, and we were unfallen beings, yet our standing would have remained in jeopardy. We have now lost everything in Adam, and so the uncertain tenure has come to an end; but we that have believed have obtained an inheritance which we hold by a title which Satan himself cannot dispute: All things are yours, and ye are Christs, and Christ is Gods. By the great transgression of Adam we lost our life in him; but in Christ we live again with a higher and nobler life. The Lord Jesus has also brought us into a nearer relationship to God than we could have possessed by any other means. We were Gods creatures, but now we are His sons. We have lost paradise, but we shall possess that of which the earthly garden was but a lowly type: we might have eaten of the luscious fruits of Eden, but now we eat of the bread which came down from heaven; we might have heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, but now, like Enoch, we may walk with God after a nobler and closer fashion. We are now capable of a joy which unfallen spirits could not have known--the bliss of pardoned sin. The bonds which bind redeemed ones to their God are the strongest which exist. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The love of God

is a love which gives another love; it is the grace of a Father giving the love of a Brother. (Prof. Godet.)

The advantages accruing to the race from the fall

How common and bitter is the outcry against our first parent for the mischief he entailed on his posterity; and it were well if the complaint ended there, but it glances from Adam to his Creator. Did not God foresee that he would abuse his liberty, and know all the baneful consequences of the act? Why, then, did He permit it? Because He knew that not as the offence, so is the free gift; that the evil resulting from the former was not as the good resulting from the latter, not worthy to be compared with it. If Adam had not fallen--

I. Christ had not died and the world had missed the most amazing display of Gods love. So--

1. There could have been no such thing as faith in God thus loving the world; nor faith in Christ as loving us, and giving Himself for us; nor faith in the Spirit as renewing the image of God in our hearts.

2. The same blank could have been left in our love. We might have loved God as our Creator and Preserver, but we could not have loved Him under the nearest and dearest relation. We might have loved the Son of God as being the brightness of His Fathers glory, but not as having borne our sins. We could not have loved the Spirit as revealing to us the Father and the Son, as opening our eyes and turning us from darkness to light, etc.

3. Nor could we have loved our neighbour to the same extent: If God so loved us we ought to love one another.

II. We had missed the innumerable benefits which flow through our sufferings. Had there been no suffering, a considerable part of religion, and in some respects the most excellent part, could have had no place.

1. Upon this foundation our passive graces are built; yea, the noblest of them--the love which endureth all things. Here is the ground for resignation, for confidence in God, for patience, meekness, gentleness, long suffering, etc.

2. These afford opportunities for doing good which could not otherwise have existed.

III. Heaven would have been less glorious.

1. We should have missed the fruit of those graces which could not have flourished but for our struggle with sin here. Superior nobleness on earth means superior happiness in heaven.

2. We should have missed the reward which will accrue to innumerable good works which could not otherwise have been wrought, such as relief of distress, etc.

3. We should have missed the exceeding and eternal weight of glory which is to be the recompense of our light affliction.

IV. Our salvation would have been less secure. Unless in Adam all had died, every man must have personally answered for himself, and, as a consequence, if he had once sinned there would have been no possibility of his rising again. Now who would wish to hazard eternity on one stake? But under the economy of redemption if we fall we may rise again. Conclusion: See, then, how little reason there is to repine at the fall of our first parents, since here from we may derive such unspeakable advantages. If God had decreed that millions should suffer in hell because Adam sinned it would have been a different matter; but on the contrary, He has decreed that every man may be a gainer by it, and no man can be a loser but through his own choice. (J. Wesley, M. A.)

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

Rom 5:15-16. But not as the offence, &c. — The apostle now describes the difference between Adam and Christ, and that much more directly and expressly than the agreement between them. Now, the fall and the free gift differ, 1st, In amplitude, Rom 5:15; Romans 2 d, He, from whom sin came, and He from whom the free gift came, (termed also the gift of righteousness,) differ in power, Rom 5:16; Romans 3 d, The reason of both is subjoined, Rom 5:17; Romans 4 th, This premised, the offence and the free gift are compared with regard to their effect, Rom 5:18. And with regard to their cause, Rom 5:19. Not as the offence — The sin of Adam, and the misery that follows upon it; so also is the free gift — The benefit that arises to us from the obedience of Christ; that is, there is not a perfect equality and proportion between the evil that comes through Adam, and the benefit that comes by Christ: they are not equal in their influence and efficacy. For if through the offence of one many be dead — If the transgression of one mere man was effectual to bring down death, condemnation, and wrath upon all his posterity, or natural seed; much more the grace of God — His love and favour; and the gift — The salvation; by grace, which is by one man — Who, however, is God as well as man; even Jesus Christ — The divinely-commissioned and anointed Saviour; hath abounded unto many — Is more abundantly efficacious to procure reconciliation, pardon, righteousness, and life, for all that will accept them, and become his spiritual seed. The apostle’s design here is to compare Adam’s sin and Christ’s obedience, in respect of their virtue and efficacy, and to show that the efficacy of Christ’s obedience must needs be much more abundant than that of Adam’s sin. And not, &c. — As there is a difference in respect of the persons from whom these effects are derived, and the advantage is on the side of Christ; so there is a difference also in respect of the extent of the efficacy of their acts: thus, one sin brought condemnation; the mischief arose from one offence: here not only that one sin, but also many sins, — yea, all the sins of believers, — are pardoned, and their nature is renewed: so that the benefit exceeds the mischief. For the judgment — The guilt which exposed to judgment; was by one — Namely, by one offence; to Adam’s condemnation — Occasioning the sentence of death to be passed upon him, which, by consequence, overwhelmed his posterity: but the free gift — To χαρισμα, the gift of grace, is of many offences — Extends to the pardon not only of that original sin, but of all other personal and actual sins; unto justification — Unto the purchasing of it for all men, notwithstanding their many offences, and the conferring of it upon all the truly penitent that believe in Christ.

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

5:15 Paul uses the word many in contrast with one. Many does not always mean all, but it can include all people if the context suggests it. Clearly, the many who suffer death because of Adam includes everyone (see 5:12), but Paul makes it clear elsewhere that the many who receive the gift of forgiveness through Jesus Christ, sadly, does not include everyone (see 11:1-5).

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

Rom 5:15. Ἀλλʼ οὐχ, but not) Adam and Christ, according to contrary aspects [regarded from contrary points of view], agree in the positive [absolutely], differ in the comparative [in the degree]. Paul first intimates their agreement, Rom 5:12-14, expressing the protasis, whilst leaving the apodosis, meanwhile, to be understood. Then next, he much more directly and expressly describes the difference: moreover, the offence and the gift differ; 1. In extent, Rom 5:15; Romans 2. That self-same man from whom sin was derived, and this self-same Person, from whom the gift was derived, differ in power, Rom 5:16; and those two members are connected by anaphora [i.e., repeating at the beginning, the same words] not as, [at the beginning of both] Rom 5:15-16, and the aetiology in Rom 5:17 [cause assigned; on aetiology, and anaphora, endix] comprehends both. Finally, when he has previously stated this difference, in the way of προθεραπεία [endix; Anticipatory, precaution against misunderstanding], he introduces and follows up by protasis and apodosis the comparison itself, viewed in the relation of effect, Rom 5:18, and in the relation of cause, Rom 5:19.—τὸ παραπτώμα—τὸ χάρισμα, the offence—the gift) The antitheses in this passage are to be observed with the utmost care, from which the proper signification of the words of the apostle is best gathered. Presently after, in this verse, and then in Rom 5:17, the gift is expressed by synonymous terms.—οἱ πολλοὶ, the many) this includes in its signification all, for the article has a meaning relative to all, Rom 5:12, comp. 1Co 10:17.—ἡ χάρις, grace) Grace and the gift differ, Rom 5:17; Eph 3:7. Grace is opposed to the offence; the gift is opposed to the words, they are dead, and it is the gift of life. The Papists hold that as grace, which is a gift, and what follows grace, as they define it, they do not consider as a gift, but as merit. But all is without money or price of ours [the whole, from first to last, is of grace, not of debt or merit of ours].—ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ, in the grace of Christ) see Mat 3:17; Luk 2:14; Luk 2:40; Luk 2:52; Joh 1:14; Joh 1:16-17; Gal 1:6; Eph 1:5-7. The grace of God is the grace of Christ, conferred by the Father upon Christ, that it may flow from Him to us.—τῇ τοῦ) Articles most forcible, Col 1:19: τῇ especially, is very providently [to guard against mistake] added; for if it were wanting, any one, in my opinion, might suppose that the words of one, depended on the word gift, rather than on grace. As it is, [the τῇ being used] it is evident that the grace of God, and the grace of Jesus Christ, are the things predicated; comp. similarly, Rom 8:35; Rom 8:39, concerning love [the attribution of it, both to God and to Christ, as here].—ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, of one man) Paul (more than the other apostles, who had seen Him before His passion) gladly and purposely calls Jesus man, in this His work, as man for man, 1Co 15:21; 1Ti 2:5. Can the human nature of Christ be excluded from the office of Mediator? When Paul in this verse calls Christ man, he does not give that appellation to Adam; and Rom 5:19, where he gives it to Adam, he does not bestow it upon Christ (comp. Heb 12:18, note). The reason is, doubtless, this, both Adam and Christ do not sustain our manhood at the same time; and either Adam rendered himself unworthy of the name of man; or the name of man is scarcely sufficiently worthy of Christ. Moreover, Christ is generally denominated from His human nature, when the question is about bringing men to God, Heb 2:6, etc.: from His Divine nature, when the subject under discussion is the coming of the Saviour to us, and the protection which He affords us, against our enemies, Tit 2:13. No mention is here made of the Mother of God; and if her conception was necessarily immaculate, she must have had no father, but only a mother, like Him, to whom she gave birth. [Cohel. or Ecc 7:29.]

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

Rom_5:15. But not as is the trespass, so also is the gift of grace. Although Adam and Christ as the heads of the old and new humanity are typical parallels, how different nevertheless are the two facts, by which the former and the latter stand to one another in the relation of type and antitype (on the one side the παράπτωμα, on the other the χάρισμα)different, namely (εἰ γὰρ κ.τ.λ[1304]), by the opposite effects[1305] issuing from those two facts, on which that typical character is based. The question is not as to the different measure of efficacious power, for this extends alike in both cases from one to all; but as to the different specific kind of effect; there death, here the rich grace of Godthe latter the more undoubted and certain (πολλῷ μᾶλλον), as coming after that deadly effect, which the παράπτωμα had. For if (εἰ purely hypothetical) through the trespass of one the many died, much more has the grace of God and the gift by grace of the one man Jesus Christ become abundant to the many. On τὸ παράπτωμα comp Wis_10:1. The contrast is τὸ χάρισμα, the work of grace, i.e. the atoning and justifying act of the divine grace in Christ,[1307] comp Rom_5:17 ff.

ΟἹ ΠΟΛΛΟΊ] the many, namely, according to Rom_5:12 (comp Rom_5:18), the collective posterity of Adam. It is in substance certainly identical with πάντες, to which Mehring reverts; but the contrast to the εἷς becomes more palpable and stronger by the designation of the collective mass as ΟἹ ΠΟΛΛΟΊ. Grotius erroneously says: fere omnes, excepto Enocho, which is against Rom_5:12; Rom_5:18. Such a unique, miraculous exception is not taken into consideration at all in this mode of looking at humanity as such on a great scale. Erroneous also is the view of Dietzsch, following Beck, that οἱ πολλοί and then ΤΟῪς ΠΟΛΛΟΎς divide mankind into two classes, of which the one continues in Adamite corruption (?) while the other is in Christ raised above sin and death. This theory breaks down even on the historical aorist ἀπέθανον and its, according to Rom_5:12, necessary reference to the physical death which was given with Adams death-bringing fall for all, so that they collectively (including also the subsequent believers) became liable to death through this παράπτωμα. See on Rom_5:12. It is moreover clear from our passage that for the explanation of the death of men Paul did not regard their individual sin as the causa efficiens, or even as merely medians; and it is a meaning gratuitously introduced, when it is explained: the many sinned and found death, like the one Adam, (Ewald, Jahrb. II., van Hengel and others).

πολλῷ μᾶλλον] as in Rom_5:9, of the logical plus, i.e. of the degree of the evidence as enhanced through the contents of the protasis, multo potius. If Adams fall has had so bad an universal consequence, much less can it be doubted that, etc. For God far rather allows His goodness to prevail than His severity; this is the presupposition on which the conclusion rests. Chrysostom has correctly interpreted π. μᾶλλ. in the logical sense (ΠΟΛΛῷ ΓᾺΡ ΤΟῦΤΟ ΕὐΛΟΓΏΤΕΡΟΝ), as does also Theodoret, and recently Fritzsche, Philippi, Tholuck (who however takes in the quantitative plus as well), van Hengel, Mangold, and Klöpper. The quantitative view (Theophylact: οὐ τοσοῦτον μόνον, φησὶν, ὠφέλησεν ὁ ΧΡΙΣΤῸς, ὍΣΟΝ ἜΒΛΑΨΕΝ Ὁ ἈΔΆΜ; also Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Calovius and others; and in modern times Rückert, Reiche, Köllner, Rothe, Nielsen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Maier, Hofmann, and Dietzsch) is opposed to the analogy of Rom_5:17-18; and has also against it the consideration, that the measure of punishment of the παράπτωμα (viz. the death of all) was already quantitatively the greatest possible, was absolute, and therefore the measure of the grace, while just as absolute (εἰς τοὺς πολλούς), is not greater still than that measure of punishment, but only stands out against the dark background of the latter all the more evidently in its rich fulness.[1310]

ἡ χάρις τ. Θεοῦ κ. ἡ δωρεά] the former, the grace of God, richly turned towards the many, is the principle of the latter (ἡ δωρεά = τό χάρισμα in Rom_5:15, the gift of justification). The δωρεά is to be understood κατʼ ἐξοχήν, without supplying τοῦ Θεοῦ; but the discourse keeps apart with solemn emphasis what is cause and what is effect.

ἐν χάριτι.… Χριστοῦ is not with many expositors (including Rothe, Tholuck, Baumgarten-Crusius, Philippi, Mehring, Hofmann, and Dietzsch) to be joined with ἡ δωρεά (the gift, which is procured through the grace of Christ), but with Fritzsche, Rückert, Ewald, van Hengel, and others, to be connected with ἐπερίσσευσε (has become abundant through the grace of Christ)a construction which is decisively supported, not indeed by the absence of the article, since ἡ δωρεά ἐν χάριτι might be conjoined so as to form one idea, but by the reason, that only with this connection the τῷ.… παραπτώματι in the protasis has its necessary, strictly correspondent, correlative in the apodosis. The divine grace and the gift have abounded to the many through the grace of Christ, just as the many died through the fall of Adam. The χάρις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ isas the genitive-relation naturally suggests of itself, and as is rendered obviously certain by the analogy of ἡ χάρις τ. Θεοῦthe grace of Jesus Christ, in virtue of which He found Himself moved to accomplish the ἱλαστήριον, in accordance with the Fathers decree, and thereby to procure for men the divine grace and the δωρεά. It is not therefore the favour in which Christ stood with God (Luther, 1545); nor the grace of God received in the fellowship of Christ (van Hengel); nor is it the steadily continued, earthly and heavenly, redeeming efficacy of Christs grace (Rothe, Dietzsch). Comp Act_15:11, 2Co_8:9; Gal_1:6; Tit_3:6; 2Co_12:8; 2Co_13:13. The designation of Christ: τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ʼΙ. Χ., is occasioned by the contrast with the one man Adam. Comp 1Co_15:21; 1Ti_2:5. To describe the divine glory of this One man (Col_1:19) did not fall within the Apostles present purpose; but it was known to the reader, and is presupposed in His χάρις (Joh_1:14).

τῇ τοῦ] articuli nervosissimi, Bengel

εἰς τοὺς πολλούς] belongs to ἐπερίσσ. The πολλοί are likewise here, just as previously, all mankind (comp πάντας ἀνθρώπους, Rom_5:18). To this multitude has the grace of God, etc., been plentifully imparted (εἰς τ. π. ἐπερίσσευσε, comp 2Co_1:5), namely, from the objective point of view, in so far as Christs act of redemption has acquired for all the divine grace and gift, although the subjective reception of it is conditioned by faith. See on Rom_5:18. The expression ἐπερίσσευσε (he does not say merely ἐγένετο, or some such word) is the echo of his own blessed experience.

[1304] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1305] This contrast forbids the taking ἀλλʼ οὐκ.… χάρισμα interrogatively (Mehring and earlier expositors), and so getting rid of the negation.

[1307] The unhappy and happy consequences respectively of the παράπτωμα and the χάρισμα are not included in these conceptions themselves (in opposition to Dietzsch). Nor is παράπτωμα to be so distinguished from παράβασις, that the former connotes the unhappy consequences (Grotius, Dietzsch). On the contrary, the expressions are popular synonyms, only according to different figures, like fall (not falling away) and trespass. Comp. on παράπτ. Eze_14:13; Eze_15:8; Eze_18:24; Eze_18:26; Eze_3:20; Rom_4:25; Rom_11:11; 2Co_5:19; Gal_6:1; Eph_2:1 et al.

[1310] The way would have been logically prepared for the quantitative plus by the hypothetical protasis only in the event of that which was predicated being in the two clauses of a similar (not opposite) kind; in the event therefore of its having been possible to affirm a salutariness of the παράπτωμα in the protasis. Comp. Rom_11:12; 2Co_3:9; 2Co_3:11; Heb_9:13 f., Heb_12:9; Heb_12:25. The main objection which Dietzsch (following Rothe) raises against the interpretation of the logical plus, on the ground that we have here two historical realities before us, is by no means tenable. For even in the case of two facts which have taken place, the one may be corroborated and inferred from the other, namely, as respects its certainty and necessity. If the one has taken place, it is by so much the more evident that the other also has taken place. The historical reality of the one leaves all the less room for doubt as to that of the other. The second does not in this case require to be something still future, especially if it be an occurrence, which does not fall within the range of sensuous perception.

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

Rom 5:15 . At this point the parallel of Adam and Christ becomes a contrast: not as the παράπτωμα (the word implies the Fall), so also is the χάρισμα (the gift which is freely provided for sinners in the Gospel, i.e. , a Divine righteousness and life). οἱ πολλοὶ means “all,” but presents the “all” as a great number. πολλῷ μᾶλλον : the idea underlying the inference is that God delights in mercy; if under His administration one man’s offence could have such far-reaching consequences, much more reasonably may we feel sure of the universal influence of one Man’s righteous achievement. This idea is the keynote of the whole chapter: see Rom 5:9-10 ; Rom 5:17 . ἡ δωρεὰ ἐν χάριτι is to be construed together: to repeat the article before ἐν χάριτι is not essential, and ἡ δωρεὰ is awkward standing alone. God’s χάρις is shown in the gift of His Son, Christ’s in His undertaking in obedience to the Father the painful work of our salvation. εἰς τοὺς πολλοὺς like οἱ πολλοὶ is not opposed to “all,” but to “one”: it is indeed equivalent to “all,” and signifies that the “all” are not few. The world is the subject of redemption; if the race suffered through the first Adam, much more may be argue that what has been done by the Second will benefit the race. ἐπερίσσευσεν : the word is prompted by Paul’s own experience: the blessedness of the Christian life far outwent the misery of the life under condemnation.

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

A certain superiority of action is ascribed to Christ’s work as compared with Adam’s, in these three verses. What object does the apostle propose to gain by this demonstration? Why interrupt in this way the statement of the parity between the two works begun Rom 5:12? It has been thought that Paul is simply gratifying a want of his heart by displaying in the outset the infinite superiority of the second work over the first, that he may not compromise its dignity by abandoning himself without reserve to the idea of equality. But whatever overflow of feeling there may be in St. Paul, it is always regulated, as we have seen, by the demands of logic. We think, therefore, that these three verses, which are among the most difficult of the New Testament, will not be understood till we succeed in making them a necessary link in the argument.

It may be said that the sagacity of commentators has exhausted itself on this passage. While Morus holds that from Rom 5:15-19 the apostle merely repeats the same thing five times over in different words; while Rückert supposes that Paul himself was not quite sure of his own thoughts, Rothe and Meyer find in these verses traces of the most profound meditation and mathematical precision. Notwithstanding the favorable judgment of the latter, it must be confessed that the considerable variety of expositions proposed to explain the course and gradation of the thoughts seem still to justify to some extent the complaints of the former. Tholuck finds in Rom 5:15 a contrast of quantity between the two works, and in Rom 5:16-17 a contrast of quality (the contrast between right and grace). Ewald thinks that the contrast of Rom 5:15 bears on the thing itself (a sad effect and a happy effect—this would be the quality), that of Rom 5:16 on the number and kind of the persons interested (one sinner condemmed, thousands justified); then he passes on to Rom 5:17 with the simple remark: “to conclude,” and yet there is a for. Meyer and Holsten find in Rom 5:15 the contrast of effects (death and the gift of grace), in Rom 5:16 a numerical contrast, as Ewald does, and in Rom 5:17 the seal put on the contrast of Rom 5:16 by the certainty of the future life. Dietzsch finds the gradation from Rom 5:15 to Rom 5:16 in the transition from the idea of grace to that of the re-establishment of holiness in pardoned believers; so he understands the δικαίωμα of Rom 5:16. Reuss sees in Rom 5:15 the contrast between just recompense and free grace (a contrast of quality), in Rom 5:16 that between a single sinner and a whole multitude of sinners (a contrast of quantity), and in Rom 5:17, finally, one as to the degree of certainty (a logical gradation). Hodge finds in Rom 5:15 the contrast between the more mysterious character of condemnation and the more intelligible character of pardon in Christ (a contrast evidently imported into the text), and in Rom 5:15 the idea of Christ’s delivering us from a culpability greater still than that of Adam’s sin—that is to say, besides that of Adam, He takes away what we have added to it ourselves; finally, in Rom 5:17, he finds this gradation, that not only does Christ save us from death, but He introduces us into a state of positive and eternal felicity.

After all this, one needs a certain measure of courage to enter this double labyrinth, the study of the text and that of the exegetical interpretations.

We have seen that the apostle’s argument aims at proving the parity between the two works. This is the idea of Rom 5:12 (even as...death...upon all...), as well as of Rom 5:18 which completes it (so...on all to justification of life). From this connection between Rom 5:12 and Rom 5:18 it follows that the development of the superiority of action belonging to Christ’s work, Rom 5:15-17, must be a logical means of demonstrating the equality of extension and result, which forms the contents of the conclusion expressed in Rom 5:18-19. The relation between the first proposition of Rom 5:15 and the first of Rom 5:16 leads us to expect two contrasts, the first expounded in Rom 5:15, the second in Rom 5:16-17.

Vv. 15. “But not as the offence, so is the act of grace. For if through the offence of one the many be dead, much rather the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto the many.”

What the apostle here compares is not, as some have thought, the abundance of the effects, but rather the degree of extension belonging to the two works; for the emphasis is on the term the many, of the two sides of the parallel; and this degree of extension he measures very logically according to the degree of abundance in the factors—a degree indicated on the one side by the subordinate clause of the first proposition: through the offence of one, on the other by the subject of the second: the grace of God, and the gift through this grace of one man. From the contrast between these factors it is easy to arrive at this conclusion: If from the first factor, so insignificant in a way—the offence of one!—there could go forth an action which spread over the whole multitude of mankind, will not the conclusion hold a fortiori that from the two factors acting on the opposite side, so powerful and rich as they are, there must result an action, the extension of which shall not be less than that of the first factor, and shall consequently also reach the whole of that multitude? Such is the general idea of this verse. It may be illustrated by a figure. If a very weak spring could inundate a whole meadow, would it not be safe to conclude that a much more abundant spring, if it spread over the same space of ground, would not fail to submerge it entirely?

The term παράπτωμα, fall, offence, is not synonymous with παράβασις, transgression. It is applied, Eph 1:7; Eph 2:1, to the sin of the Gentiles. It has something extenuating in its meaning; it is, as it were, a mere false step. Such is the active principle in the first case. On the other hand, it is the χάρισμα, the act of grace, whose contents Paul will state in the double subject of the principal proposition. Some commentators have taken this first proposition of Rom 5:15 interrogatively. But the construction of the sentence does not lead naturally to the idea of an interrogation. And what is still more strongly opposed to this explanation is, that the sentence so understood would express the development of an analogy, while the rest of the verse states a difference. The two parallel members present a common term: οἱ πολλοί, literally, the many. This term has often been ill understood, or badly rendered; so when Oltramare translates by the majority in the first proposition, and a greater number in the second, which gives rise to more than one kind of ambiguity. Ostervald translates: many, which is as far from being exact. By this form Paul denotes, just as much as he would have done by the pronoun all, the totality of the human race. This is proved by the article οἱ, the, which he prefixes for the very purpose of indicating the idea of a totality to πολλοί, many. Only this term many is chosen with the view of establishing the contrast to the one from whom the influence went forth. All would be opposed to some, and not to one. It would not be suitable here. Paul will return to it at Rom 5:18. He is dealing in Rom 5:15 with the possibility of the action of one on many. We have sought to render the meaning of this οἱ πολλοί, by translating: the many (the multitude). — An offence of one, says the apostle, sufficed to bring about the death of this multitude. This expression confirms the sense which we have given of the last clause of Rom 5:12; it is clearly through Adam’s sin, and not through their own, that men die. This fact, established by the demonstration of Rom 5:13-14, serves as a point of support for the conclusion drawn in the following proposition. — The term χάρισμα, act of grace, used in opening the verse, combined the two ideas which Paul now distinguishes: the grace of God and the gift by which it is manifested, Jesus Christ. Grace is the first source of salvation. The richness of this source, which is no other than the infinite love of God Himself, at once contrasts with the weakness of the opposite factor, the offence of one. But how much more striking is the contrast, when to the love of God we add the gift whereby this love is displayed! Comp. Joh 3:16. The substantive ἡ δωρεά, the gift, denotes not the thing given (δώρημα, Rom 5:16), but the act of giving, which is more directly related to the idea of grace. — Commentators differ as to the grammatical relation of ἐν χάριτι, in (or by) the grace of the one man. Meyer and others make these words depend on the verb ἐπερίσσευσεν: “The gift flowed over through the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ.” But the expression: the gift, can hardly remain without an explanatory clause. And the idea: through the grace, connected with the verb overflowed, weakens the meaning of the clause instead of strengthening it. For it diverts the thought from the essential word: unto the many. Meyer alleges that there must be in the second member a counterpart to the words: through the offence of one, in the first, and that this counterpart can only be found in these: through the grace of the one, Jesus Christ. He thus misses one of the greatest beauties of our verse

I mean the reversal of construction introduced by the apostle in passing from the subordinate to the principal proposition; there, the intransitive form: By...many are dead;here, the active form: the grace of God, and the gift...have abounded to the many. In the first case, there was a disagreeable accident involuntarily experienced: the many fell stricken with death; in the second, on the contrary, they are the objects of a double personal action put forth in their behalf. In reality, then, the counterpart of the expression: through the offence of one, is found in the second member, but as the subject, and no longer as a simple phrase. We shall again find a similar change of construction in Rom 5:17. Comp. also 2Co 3:9. The clause ἐν χάριτι is therefore the qualification of the word the gift: “the gift consisting in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ.” The love of God is a love which gives another love; it is the grace of a father giving the love of a brother. The absence of the article between δωρεά and ἐν χάριτι is explained by the intimate relation subsisting between these two substantives, which express, so to speak, a single notion. The idea of the grace of Christ is developed in all its richness, 2Co 8:9: “Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though He was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.” This relation of solidarity and fraternity between Christ and us is strongly brought out by the phrase: of the one man, ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου. Comp. the similar expressions, 1Co 15:21: “By man (δἰ ἀνθρώπου) came death, and by man (δἰ ἀνθρώπου) the resurrection of the dead;” and 1Ti 2:5 : “There is one Mediator...the man Christ Jesus.” The incarnation has had for its effect to raise the whole human race to the rank of His family. The adjective ἑνός, of one, is prefixed to contrast Christ, as well as Adam, with the many. And after these accumulated descriptions, all calculated to display the greatness of the gift of divine grace, there is at length pronounced the name which in the history of mankind is the only one that can figure side by side with that of Adam: Jesus Christ. Comp. Joh 1:17, where this name, long delayed, is proclaimed at last with special solemnity (in contrast to Moses); and Joh 17:3, where it is joined, as here, with the name of God, to describe the source of salvation and the supreme object of faith. What must have been the impression produced by the appearance of Jesus on His contemporaries, when, only twenty odd years after His death, He could be put with the avowal of the entire church—for the apostle evidently reckons on the absolute assent of his readers—on a parallel with the father of the first humanity! The clause εἰς τοὺς πολλούς is placed immediately before the verb, because it is on this idea that the emphasis rests. — ᾿Επερίσσευσεν, abounded; it might be translated: overflowed. This verb properly denotes the outflow of a liquid lapping over a vessel more than filled. Christ is the vessel filled with grace, whence salvation overflows on the many. The aorist indicates an already accomplished fact; the subject, then, is not a future grace, but the work of justification expounded from Rom 3:21. If Adam’s offence was sufficiently influential to tell in the form of death on the whole multitude of the race, much more should a grace like that of God, and a gift like that of Jesus, be capable of acting on the same circle of persons! The superiority of abundance in the factors of Christ’s work thus establishes an a fortiori conclusion in the view of the apostle in favor of the equality of extent belonging to the two works here compared. Hence it follows that the πολλῷ μᾶλλον, much rather, should be understood in the logical sense: much more certainly, and not in the quantitative sense: much more abundantly (as is the opinion of Er., Calv., Rück., Rothe, Hofm., and Dietzs.). Chrysostom, Meyer, and Philippi have been led to the same view as ours. The apostle is not at all concerned to demonstrate that there is more grace in Christ than there was of death in Adam. What he wishes to prove is, that if a slight cause could bring sentence of death on all mankind, this same mankind will experience in its entirety the salutary effect of a much more powerful cause. The idea of superabundant quantity (more richly) is not in πολλῷ μᾶλλον, as has been thought by so many interpreters, misled by the relation between this adverb and the verb ἐπερίσσευσε, abounded. It is merely indicated as a premiss of the argument in the double subject of the second proposition (the grace of God and the gift of Christ); at the most, a sort of involuntary indication of it may be seen in the meaning of the verb ἐπερίσσευσε, abounded. — We have already seen the logical sense of πολλῷ μᾶλλον in Rom 5:9-10 of our chapter. It is found perhaps also in 2Co 3:7; 2Co 3:9; 2Co 3:11.

The reasoning is extremely bold; it is as if one were to argue thus: Adam’s offence has reached down to me, having had the power of subjecting me to death; how much more certainly will the grace of God and the grace of Christ combined have the power of reaching to me to save me!

A second difference is evidently announced in the first words of Rom 5:16; the end of Rom 5:16 is intended to expound it, and Rom 5:17 to demonstrate it.

Vv. 16. “And the gift is not as by one that sinned:for the judgment is by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of the offences of many unto justification.”

Most expositors hold with us that the apostle is here expounding a second contrast between Adam’s work and Christ’s; only it should be remarked that the form of Rom 5:16 is very different from that of Rom 5:15. We no longer find here the a fortiori argument there indicated by the πολλῷ μᾶλλον, much rather, while, strange to say, this same form of reasoning reappears in Rom 5:17, which is thus presented as a stronger reproduction of the argument of Rom 5:15. This difference between Rom 5:16; Rom 5:15, and this quite peculiar relation between Rom 5:17; Rom 5:15, prevent us from regarding Rom 5:16 as a second argument entirely parallel to that of Rom 5:15, so as then to make Rom 5:17 the conclusion of both. Hofmann is so well aware of this that he refuses to see in the first words of Rom 5:16 the announcement of a second contrast, and has connected them directly with the close of Rom 5:15. In fact, he uniformly supplies in the three propositions of Rom 5:16 the verb and the regimen: abounded unto many, of Rom 5:15: “And the gift did not abound unto the many, as in that case in which the imputation took place through one who had sinned; for judgment abounded from one to many in condemnation, and the gift of grace abounded from one to many in justification.” It is obvious how such an ellipsis thrice repeated burdens and embarrasses the course of the argument. What of truth there is in this view is that the gift mentioned in Rom 5:16 is no other than that referred to in the words of Rom 5:15 : ἡ δωρεὰ ἐν χάριτι..., the gift by grace of..., and that consequently the second contrast, Rom 5:16-17, should be regarded as serving to bring out a particular aspect of the general contrast pointed out in Rom 5:15. The καί, and, at the beginning of the verse is thus equivalent to a sort of nota-bene: “And mark well this circumstance”...An objection might be made to the πολλῷ μᾶλλον, much more certainly, of Rom 5:15. One might say: True, the factors acting on Christ’s part (15b) are infinitely more abundant than the weak and solitary factor acting on Adam’s part (15a); but, on the other hand, was not the work to be wrought on Christ’s part much more considerable than that accomplished in Adam! If the source was richer, the void to be filled was deeper: In Adam a single actual sinner—all the rest playing only an unconscious and purely passive part; in Christ, on the contrary, a multitude of sinners to be justified, equally conscious and responsible with the first, having all voluntarily added their own contingent of sins to the original transgression. Undoubtedly, answers the apostle; but in the matter of salvation the part of those interested is also quite different. In the one case they were passively and collectively subjected to the sentence of death; here, we have to do with beings who lay hold individually and personally of the sentence which justifies them. There, a single and solitary condemnation, which embraces them all through the deed of one; here, a justification, collective also, but appropriated by each individually, which is transformed into as many personal justifications as there are believing sinners, and which cannot fail to establish the kingdom of life more firmly still than the kingdom of death was founded on the condemnation of all in Adam. This antithesis established as a fact in Rom 5:16, is demonstrated in Rom 5:17 by an a fortiori argument, entirely similar to that of Rom 5:15.

Nothing more is to be understood in the first proposition than the verb γίνεται, comes about: “And the gift does not come about by one sinner” (as the condemnation had done). Some have supposed a more extensive ellipsis: “The gift did not come about by one (as the condemnation had done), by one sinner.” But this ellipsis is unnecessary, and even impairs somewhat the meaning of the contrast, for the words: by one who sinned, depend directly on the verb: does not come about. The reading ἁμαρτήματος (“by one sin”), though supported by the ancient versions, is a correction, the origin of which is easily understood; it is borrowed from the ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων which follows, understood in the sense of: of many sins. The idea of one sin seemed to contrast better than the idea of one sinner with the expression thus understood. The contrast which Paul has now in view certainly demands the Received reading. With “the offence of one,” Rom 5:15, he has contrasted the grace of God and of Jesus Christ in its double fulness. Now, with the one sinner, in the first case, he contrasts the multitude of sinners who are the objects of justification in the second. What a difference between the power of the spark which sets fire to the forest by lighting a withered branch, and the power of the instrument which extinguishes the conflagration at the moment when every tree is on fire, and makes them all live again!

The substantive δώρημα denotes the concrete gift, the blessing bestowed; here it is the gift of justification by Christ, as described Rom 3:21 to Rom 5:11.

The two propositions develop the contrast announced (for). The term τὸ κρῖμα properly signifies: the judicial act, the sentence pronounced, in opposition to χάρισμα, the act of grace (in the second proposition).

The clause ἐξ ἑνός, of one, indicates the point of departure for this judicial act, the material on which it operated. This one is not neuter (one offence), but masculine, agreeably to the reading ἁμαρτήσαντος: the one who had committed the act of sin, and whose sin had become the object of judgment. It is on the word ἐξ ἑνός that the emphasis lies. Its counterpart in the second proposition is ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων, which may be translated either by: of many sins, or by making πολλῶν a pronoun and a complement: of the sins of many. In the former case, each of those numerous offences must be regarded as the summary indication of the fall of a particular individual, in opposition to one sinner. But in the second the contrast is clearer: the plurality of individuals is exactly expressed by the pronoun πολλῶν, of many. Dietzsch denies that this last construction is possible. But it is found very probably in Luk 2:35 (ἐκ πολλῶν καρδιῶν, of the hearts of many) and 2Co 1:11.

As the preposition ἐκ relates to the matter of the judgment, εἰς denotes the result in which it issues: “to condemnation.” The reference is to the sentence of death pronounced on mankind because of one who had sinned; for this one contained in him the entire race.

The antithesis to this κἀτάκριμα, sentence of condemnation, appears in δικαίωμα, which must be translated by sentence of justification. This meaning arises from the contrast itself, as well as from the meaning of the words δικαιοῦν and δικαιοσύνη (justify, righteousness) throughout this part of the Epistle, and with St. Paul generally. Only the question may be asked, whether the apostle has in view here the justification granted to the sinner at the very hour of his believing, or justification in the absolute sense, as it will be pronounced in the day of judgment (Rom 2:13). Two reasons seem to us to decide in favor of the second alternative—1. The passage,Rom 5:1-11, in which the final sentence of acquittal is represented as the indispensable complement of the righteousness of faith, this becoming eternally valid only by means of the former. 2. Rom 5:17, which is connected by for with Rom 5:16, and the second part of which refers to the most distant future (the reign in life). Hence we must conclude that the term δικαίωμα, sentence of justification, also embraces that supreme sentence of acquittal whereby we shall conclusively escape from wrath (Rom 5:9-10). This parallel between Adam and Christ manifestly assumes the whole doctrine of justification from Rom 3:21, including the final passage on the justification to come,Rom 5:1-11. The absolute meaning which we here give to δικαίωμα, is thus in keeping with the position of the whole passage. Dietzsch is certainly mistaken in applying this word δικαίωμα to the sanctification of the sinner by the Holy Spirit. It is nevertheless true that if we extend the meaning of this term to the final justification, on entering upon glory, it involves the work of sanctification as finished (see on Rom 5:9-10). But this does not in the least modify the sense of the word itself (a justificatory sentence), as appears from the meaning of the word δικαιοῦν and from the context (in contrast to κατάκριμα, a condemnatory sentence).

It is unnecessary to refute the divergent constructions proposed by Rothe and Dietzsch, according to which τὸ μέν and τὸ δέ are taken as the subjects of the two propositions having κρῖμα and χάρισμα either as predicates (Rothe), or in apposition (Dietzsch).

It has often been thought that the emphasis in this verse was on the idea of the contrast between the nature of the two results: condemnation and justification. It is not so. The real contrast indicated by the Greek construction is that between ἐξ ἑνός, one (who sinned), and ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων, the sins of many. There, by a judicial act, condemnation goes forth from one sinner; here, by the act of grace, from the offences of a multitude, there proceeds a justification.

We come now to the most difficult point of the whole passage: the relation of Rom 5:17 to what precedes, and the exposition of the verse itself.

Vv. 17. “For if by the one man’s offence death reigned by this one; much rather they who receive the superabundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by the one, Jesus Christ.”

The for beginning this verse has been the torture of expositors, for it seems as if it should rather be therefore, since this verse appears to give the conclusion to be drawn from the difference indicated in Rom 5:16. Meyer seeks to get over the difficulty of the for by making it bear on the idea of δικαίωμα, Rom 5:16, and finding in the certainty of the future reign (end of Rom 5:17) the joyful confirmation of the grace of justification (Rom 5:16); Philippi almost the same: “The justified shall reign in life (Rom 5:17), which proves that they are really justified (Rom 5:16).” But is it logical to argue from a future and hoped-for event to demonstrate the certainty of a present fact? Is not justification at least as certain as the future reign of the justified? Hofmann here alleges a forced turn in the dialectic. According to him, Rom 5:17 does not prove the fact alleged in Rom 5:16, but the reasoning of Rom 5:17 is intended to demonstrate that the second part of Rom 5:16 (from τὸ μὲν γὰρ..., for the judgment..., to the end) has really proved the truth of the first (καὶ οὐχ ὡς..., and the gift did not come about as by...). The meaning he holds to be: “I have good reason to say that it is not so with the judgment...as with the gift of grace...; for if...(Rom 5:17).” Dietzsch rightly answers that the demonstration given in Rom 5:16 would be very weak if it needed to be propped with the complicated reasoning of Rom 5:17. Dietzsch himself, starting from his sense of δικαίωμα, the restoration of holiness, Rom 5:16, thus understands the argument: “This holiness will be really restored in believers; for, according to the divine promises, they are one day to enter into the kingdom of life (Rom 5:17), which cannot take place without holiness.” Everything is erroneous in this explanation—1. The meaning of δικαίωμα; 2. The intervention of the divine promises, of which there has been no mention in the context; 3. The idea of sanctification, which is out of place in this passage. Rothe has given up in despair the attempt to discover a logical connection between Rom 5:17; Rom 5:16. He has accordingly attempted to refer the for of Rom 5:17 to the argument of Rom 5:15, making Rom 5:16 a sort of parenthesis. There is something seductive about this solution. We have already seen in Rom 5:9-10 of this chapter, two verses which followed one another, both beginning with for, and the second of which was merely the repetition (reinforced with some new elements) of the first, and so its confirmation. It might therefore be supposed that it is the same in this case, only with the difference that Rom 5:16 would be inserted in order to enunciate those new elements which are to play a part in Rom 5:17. So it was that, following the path opened by Rothe, we long flattered ourselves that we had solved the difficulty. Yet we have been obliged to abandon this solution by the following considerations:—1. Can the for of Rom 5:17, after the insertion of a new contrast specially announced, Rom 5:16 a, and expounded, Rom 5:16 b, be purely and simply parallel to the for of Rom 5:15? 2. How happens it that in Rom 5:17 there is no further mention of the many, nor consequently of the extent of the two works, but solely of the equality of the effect produced (on the one side a reign of death, on the other a reign in life), and specially, that instead of the past ἐπερίσσευσεν (Rom 5:15), we are all at once transported into the future by the words: they shall reign (end of Rom 5:17)? Finally—and we long held to this idea also—the for of Rom 5:17 might be taken to refer to the affirmation (Rom 5:15 a, 16a) of the two differences: “It is not with the offence as with the gift...(Rom 5:15 a);” “the gift did not come about...(Rom 5:16 a).” But the second part of Rom 5:16 would thus be sacrificed; now it is too important to be only a parenthesis. We must therefore revert to the attempt of Meyer and Philippi, which consists in connecting the for with Rom 5:16; this is, besides, the only probable supposition; only we must seek to justify, better than they have done, the logical relation established by this for. And that does not seem to us impossible if what we have observed regarding the meaning of δικαίωμα, the sentence of justification, Rom 5:16, be borne in mind. The parallel between Christ and Adam strikes its roots into the whole previous doctrine regarding the righteousness of faith, Rom 3:21 to Rom 5:11; witness the wherefore (Rom 5:12). Now Paul had demonstrated,Rom 5:1-11, that once justified by the death of Christ, all the more may we be certain of being saved and glorified by His life. It is this very idea which forms the basis of the second part of Rom 5:17, which thus contains the paraphrase of the term δικαίωμα, sentence of justification, at the end of Rom 5:16. The relation between Rom 5:16-17 is therefore as follows: Two facts are set forth in Rom 5:16 parallel to one another: one sinner, the object of the act of condemnation; a multitude of sinners, the objects of the act of justification. The reality of the first of these facts was demonstrated by Rom 5:12-14. It remained to demonstrate that of the second. This is the object to which Rom 5:17 is devoted. The mode of reasoning is as follows: The apostle starts (Rom 5:17 a) from the first fact as certain, and by means of it he infers (Rom 5:17 b) the still more certain reality of the second. Rom 5:17 has thus its logical place between the two propositions of Rom 5:16 to prove by the first the truth of the second. Not only so. But in reproducing Rom 5:16 a in the first proposition of Rom 5:17 a, he combines with Rom 5:16 a the contents of the first proposition of Rom 5:15 (15a); and in reproducing, in the conclusion Rom 5:17 b, the second proposition of Rom 5:16 (16b), he combines with it the contents of the second proposition of Rom 5:15 (15b), and that in order to give double force to the a fortiori reasoning whereby from the premiss he reaches the conclusion; in other words, Rom 5:16 a, supported by Rom 5:15 a, serves him as a premiss in Rom 5:17 a to reach the conclusion Rom 5:17 b, containing Rom 5:16 b combined with Rom 5:15 b by a double a fortiori. The meaning of this masterly logic, simpler than would have been thought possible, is as follows: If a weak cause, the single sin (15a) of one sinner (Rom 5:16 a), passively endured, could bring about the death of every man (Rom 5:17 a), much more certainly shall the more powerful cause (Rom 5:16 b), assimilated by each one personally (Rom 5:16 b), produce in him an effect not inferior to the effect produced by the first cause (Rom 5:17 b). If a weak deleterious cause passively endured by me has been able to produce my death, a life-giving cause much more powerful, which I actively appropriate to myself, will far more certainly give me life.

We thus apprehend at the same time the relation between Rom 5:16-17 and Rom 5:15. Rom 5:15 relates to the two circles influenced; they must cover one another perfectly (the many, of the two sides); for the more powerful cause cannot have extended less widely than the weaker. In Rom 5:16-17 the subject is the result obtained in every individual belonging to the many in the direction either of death or of life. The second of these effects (life) cannot be less real than the first (death), for it has been produced by a cause more powerful and individually appropriated. Rom 5:15: as many individuals; Rom 5:16-17: as much effect produced in each one. Let us now enter upon the detailed study of this verse, in which the apostle has succeeded in combining with the argument which he was following the full riches of the antithesis already contained in Rom 5:15-16.

In the first clause there is a difference of reading. Instead of: by one man’s offence, some Greco-Latin copyists have written: by one offence, or again: by the one single offence. This reading, opposed to that of the two other families, and also of the Peshitto, can only be regarded as an erroneous correction. The idea of one (sinner) has been rejected, because it seemed to involve a repetition when taken with the immediately following words: by this one. But it has been overlooked that the terms: by one man’s offence, are intended to reproduce the idea of the first proposition of Rom 5:15, as the words: by this one, reproduce the idea of the ἐξ ἑνός, of one, in the first proposition of Rom 5:16. These expressions have something extenuating about them: only one act, only one actor. The apostle means to contrast the weakness of these causes with the greatness of the result: a reign of death established in the world. We see a whole race of slaves with their heads passively bent, through the solitary deed of one, under the pitiless sceptre of death. The words: by one, are added as by an after-thought, in order to emphasize the passivity of the individuals subjected to this order of things. The apostle does not here mention, as in Rom 5:15, the many, in opposition to this one. He has not in view the extent of the reign of death, but the part played by the individuals in relation to this tragical situation. He sees them all as it were absorbed in the one being who has acted for all.

The expression: death reigned, denotes a firmly established order of things against which, for individuals, there is no possibility of resistance. Nothing more desperate in appearance than this great historical fact of the reign of death, and yet it is this very fact which becomes in the eyes of the apostle a principle of the most powerful encouragement and the most glorious hope. For this terrible reign of death, established on the weak foundation of a single sin and a single sinner, may serve as a measure to establish the greater certainty of the reign of life which will come to light among the justified by the freely accepted gift of God. Such is the idea of the second part of the verse. Instead of this impersonal multitude involved in the act, and thereby in the condemnation of a single sinner, Paul contemplates a plurality of distinct individuals appropriating to themselves, consciously and freely, the fulness of the gift of righteousness; and he asks himself, with a tone of triumph, whether a glorious reign of life will not spring up under similar conditions more certainly still than the sinister reign of death established itself on the weak foundation which he has just mentioned.

The salient expression in this second part of the verse is the οἱ λαμβάνοντες, they who receive (literally, the receivers or accepters). The verb λαμβάνειν may signify to take, to lay hold of, or again: to receive (more or less passively). As it here evidently denotes the act of faith, it expresses the idea of a taking in possession resting on a free acceptance (see on Rom 1:17). The form of the present participle is variously explained. According to Philippi, it denotes the continuousness of the acceptance of salvation by believers during the whole period of grace. Meyer and others take the present as referring to the epoch now in progress, as the intermediate station between the natural order of things and the future kingdom. But what have these two ideas to do with Paul’s intention in the context? It seems to me that this present is rather that of moral condition relatively to the state which ought logically to arise from it. Whoever joins the number of those accepters, shall reign in life.

The definite article οἱ, the, presents all these accepters as distinct persons, individually capable of accepting or rejecting what must decide their lot. It is no longer that undistinguished mass which had disobeyed and perished in one. Here we meet again those πολλοί, the many sinners, mentioned in Rom 5:16, who, under the burden of their personal offences, have accepted for themselves the act of grace, and shall become individually the objects of the δικαίωμα, the sentence of justification. It is to be remarked that even in Rom 5:16 the article has ceased to be prefixed to the word πολλῶν (many; not “the many”), and that Paul does not even speak of πολλοί, many. The accepters are not the totality of men condemned to die; Paul does not even say that they are necessarily numerous. His thought here is arrested by each of them, whatever shall be their number. In this fact, taken by itself, of individual acceptance, on the side of grace there is a complete difference of position as compared with the passivity of the individuals on the opposite side. It is a first difference fitted to establish an a fortiori conclusion. But there is another fact, which combines with it the infinitely greater power of the cause, on the same side. The apostle had already remarked it in Rom 5:15: the grace of God, and the gift of Jesus Christ. It is easy to see the connection of the expressions used with those of 15b: And first: τὴν περισσείαν, the abundance, which reproduces the idea of the verb ἐπερίσσευσε, hath abounded; then τῆς χάριτος, of the grace, which goes back upon the double grace of God and of the one man Jesus Christ; finally, the term δωρεά, the gift, which appears in both verses. The complement τῆς δικαιοσύνης, of righteousness, is alone added here, because the subject in question is the gift accepted by faith and transformed into individual righteousness. The destination (Rom 5:15) has become possession. Thus the thought of the apostle is clear: as the term οἱ λαμβάνοντες, the receivers, forms an antithesis to διὰ τοῦ ἑνός, by this one, so the expressions: the abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, form an antithesis to the: by the offence of one. Not only, then, is there on this side individual appropriation (Rom 5:16), but this appropriation rests on a more powerful cause (Rom 5:15).

Thus is seen the justice of the observation: that in this Rom 5:17 there are designedly combined to establish a double a fortiori, the two previously described contrasts: “If a weak objective cause, without personal appropriation on the part of those interested, has been able to establish a reign of death, with stronger reason should it be certain that a still more powerful objective cause, and one individually appropriated, will be capable of establishing a glorious reign of life.” Περισσεία: abundance, or more strictly superabundance, so that the superfluity flows over; χάριτος, of grace, applies at one and the same time, according to Rom 5:15, to the love of God and to that of Jesus Christ. The gift of righteousness is that justification objectively realized in Christ for the many (mankind), and apprehended by the faith of every receiver. When the empty vessel of the human heart has once become filled by faith with this fulness of grace and righteousness, the sinner is raised to the place of a king in life. This last expression also forms an antithesis to an analogous one in the first proposition: death reigned. But the apostle has too lively a conviction of spiritual realities to say here: life shall reign. Death reigns; it is a tyrant. But life does not reign; it has not subjects; it makes kings. Besides Paul transforms his construction, as he had already done with a similar intention in Rom 5:15. This change admirably suits the thought of the context. Instead of the sombre state of things which bears sway as a reign of death, it is here the individuals themselves who, after having personally appropriated righteousness, reign personally in the luminous domain of life. Comp. on this reign what Paul said, Rom 4:13, of the inheritance of the world; then the καυχώμενοι, glorying, Rom 5:11; finally, Rom 8:17.

The clause ἐν ζωῇ, in life, does not denote a period, as when we say: in eternal life. If the word life were taken in this sense, it would undoubtedly be defined by the article τῇ. The preposition ἐν must not be taken in the instrumental sense, as in Rom 5:10 (by life). Contrasted as it is to this: reign of death, the expression denotes the mode or nature of the reign of believers. A new, holy, inexhaustible, and victorious vitality will pervade those receivers of righteousness, and make them so many kings. If the collective condemnation could make each of them a subject of death, the conclusion therefrom should be that their individual justification will make each of them a king in life.

The meaning of πολλῷ μᾶλλον, much more, is, as in Rom 5:15, purely logical: much more certainly. Unquestionably there is no doubt that there is a greater abundance of life in Christ than there was of death-power in Adam. But this is not what the apostle says here. He is not aiming to establish either a contrast of quality (between life and death) or a contrast of quantity (more of life than of death). It is a higher degree of certainty which he enunciates and demonstrates. Justified, we shall reign still more certainly in Christ, than as condemned we are dead in Adam. Our future glory is more certain even than our death; for a more powerful cause, and one individually assimilated, will make us live still more certainly than the weak unappropriated cause could make us die.

There remains a last word which, put at the close of this rich and complicated period, has peculiar solemnity: by the one, Jesus Christ. Τοῦ ἑνός, the one, is a pronoun, and not an adjective: the only one, opposed to the other only one. The name Jesus Christ is in apposition: “by the one who is Jesus Christ.” These final words remind us that He has been the sole instrument of the divine love, and that if the receivers have a righteousness to appropriate, it is solely that which He has acquired for them.

Again, at this point (Rom 5:15-16) the reasoning of the apostle is amazingly bold. It is as if a justified sinner dared to find in the very power of the miserable lust which dragged him into evil, the irrefragable proof of the power which will more certainly still be exercised over him by the grace of God and of Jesus Christ, to save him and raise him to the throne.

Let us sum up this passage, unique as it is of its kind.

Vv. 15 demonstrates the universal destination of justification in Christ. The argument runs thus: If a cause so weak as Adam’s single offence could influence a circle so vast as that of the entire multitude of mankind, with greater reason must a far richer cause (the double grace of God and of Jesus Christ) extend its action over this same multitude.

It is the universalism of the gospel, the εἰς πάντας, for all..., of Rom 3:22, proved by the very universality of death.

Vv. 16 and 17 demonstrate the full reality and quickening efficacy of the personal application which every beliver makes of the justification obtained by Christ. Affirmed in Rom 5:16, this individual efficacy is proved in Rom 5:17: One single agent, serving as the instrument of a very weak cause, could bring about the death of so many individuals who had not personally taken part in his act. Consequently, and much more certainly, will each of those same individuals, by personally appropriating a force far superior in action to the preceding, become thereby a possessor of life.

Here is the individualism of the gospel, the ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας, upon all that believe, of Rom 3:22, fully established by the very fact of their individual death in Adam.

We have thus reached the complete demonstration of these two words πάντι and τῷ (πιστεύοντι), all and every (believer), which are the essential characteristics of Paul’s gospel, according to Rom 1:16.

As the argument of Rom 5:12-14 was a necessary logical premiss to that of Rom 5:15-17, the latter was a no less indispensable premiss for the conclusion finally drawn by the apostle, Rom 5:18-19. In fact to be entitled to affirm, as he does in these two verses, the universality of justification in Christ as the counterpart of the universality of death in Adam, he must prove, first, that all men died in Adam and not through their own deed—such are the contents of Rom 5:12-14; then, that from this universal and individual death in Adam there followed a fortiori the certainty of the universal destination, and of the individual application of justification in Christ—such are the contents of Rom 5:15-17. It remains only to draw this conclusion: all (as to destination) and each (by faith) are justified in Christ (Rom 5:18); this conclusion is at the same time the second and long-delayed part of the comparison begun in Rom 5:12. The apostle could not state it till he had logically acquired the right to do so.

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

Rom_5:15

But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. The cases, although parallel, are not precisely alike. In the first place, it is far more consistent with our views of the character of God, that many should be benefited by the merit of one man, than that they should suffer for the sin of one. If the latter has happened, much more may we expect the former to occur. The attentive reader of this passage will perceive constantly increasing evidence that the design of the apostle is not to show that the blessings procured by Christ are greater than the evils caused by Adam; but to illustrate and confirm the prominent doctrine of the epistle, that we are justified on the ground of the righteousness of Christ. This is obvious from the sentiment of this verse, If we die for the sin of Adam, much more may we live through the righteousness of Christ. But not as the offense, etc. Ἀλλ ̓ οὐχ ὡς τὸ παράπτωμα, οὕτω κὰι τὸ χάρισμα, a singularly concise expression, which however the context renders sufficiently plain. Παράπτωμα from παραπίπτω (to fall,) means fall, and χάρισμα, an act of grace or gracious gift, which is explained by ἡ δωρεά in this verse, τὸ δώρημα in Rom_5:16, and ἡ δωρεὰ τῆς δικαιοσύνη) (the gift of righteousness,) in Rom_5:17. The meaning therefore is, that the fall is not like the gracious restoration. The reason why the one is not like the other, is stated in what follows, so that γάρ has its appropriate force: They are not alike, for if by the offense of one many be dead. The dative παραπτώματι expresses the ground or reason. The offense of one was the ground or reason of the many dying; and as death is a penalty, it must be the judicial ground of their death, which is the very thing asserted in Rom_5:12, and proved in Rom_5:13, Rom_5:14. Many be dead; the words are οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπέθανον, the many died, the aorist ἀπέθανον cannot mean be dead. By the many are intended all mankind, οἱ πολλοὶ and πάντες being interchanged throughout the context. They are called the many because they are many, and for the sake of the antithesis to the one. The many died for the offense of one; the sentence of death passed on all for his offense. The same idea is presented in 1Co_15:22.

It is here, therefore, expressly asserted that the sin of Adam was the cause of all his posterity being subjected to death, that is, to penal evil. But it may still be asked whether it was the occasional or the immediate cause. That is, whether the apostle means to say that the sin of Adam was the occasion of all men being placed in such circumstances that they all sin, and thus incur death; or that by being the cause of the corruption of their nature, it is thus indirectly the cause of their condemnation; or whether he is to be understood as saying that his sin is the direct judicial ground or reason for the infliction of penal evil. It has been frequently said that this is all theory, philosophy, system. etc. But any one may see that it is a mere exegetical question what is the meaning of a given phrase? Does the dative here express the occasional cause, or the ground or reason of the result attributed to the offense of one man? It is a mere question of fact; the fact is all, and there is neither theory nor philosophy involved in the matter. If Paul says that the offense of one is the ground and reason of the many being subject to death, he says all that the advocates of the doctrine of imputation say. That this is the strict exegetical meaning of the passage appears from the following reasons:

1. That such may be the force and meaning of the words as they here stand, no one can pretend to doubt. That is, no one can deny that the dative case can express the ground or reason as well as the occasion of a thing.

2. This interpretation is not only possible, and in strict accordance with the meaning of the words, but it is demanded, in this connection, by the plainest rules of exposition; because the sentiment expressed by these words is confessedly the same as that taught in those which follow; and they, as will appear in the sequel, will not bear the opposite interpretation.

3. It is demanded by the whole design and drift of the passage. The very point of the comparison is, that as the righteousness of Christ, and not our own works, is the ground of our justification, so the sin of Adam, antecedently to any sins of our own, is the ground of the infliction of certain penal evils. If the latter be denied, the very point of the analogy between Christ and Adam is destroyed.

4. This interpretation is so plainly the correct and natural one, that it is, as shown above, freely admitted by the most strenuous opponents of the doctrine which it teaches.

Much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, faith abounded unto many. Had Paul been studious of uniformity in the structure of his sentences, this clause would have been differently worded: If by the offense of one many die, much more by the free gift of one shall many live. The meaning is the same. The force of the passage lies in the words much more. The idea is not that the grace is more abundant and efficacious than the offense and its consequences: this idea is expressed in Rom_5:20; but, if the one dispensation has occurred, much more may the other; if we die for one, much more may we live by another. The πολλῷ μᾶλλον does not express a higher degree of efficacy, but of evidence or certainty: If the one thing has happened, much more certainly may the other be relied upon. The first clause of the verse may be thus interpreted, the grace of God, even the gift by grace; so that the latter phrase is explanatory of the former. If they are to be distinguished, the first refers to the cause, viz. the grace of God; and the second to the result, viz. the gift by grace, i.e. the gracious or free gift, viz. the gift of righteousness, as explained in Rom_5:17. Which is by one man, Jesus Christ; that is, which comes to us through Christ. This free gift is of course the opposite of what comes upon us for the sake of Adam. Guilt and condemnation come from him; righteousness and consequent acceptance from Jesus Christ. What is here called the free gift is, in Rom_5:17, called the gift of righteousness. Hath abounded unto many, εἰς τοὺς πολλούς, unto the many; that is, has been freely and abundantly bestowed on the many. Whether the many, in this clause, is coextensive numerically with the many in the other, will be considered under Rom_5:18.

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

Adam and Christ are compared together in this respect, that both of them do give and yield to theirs, that which is their own: but herein first they differ, that Adam by nature hath spread his fault to the destruction of many, but Christ’s obedience hath by grace overflowed many.

That is, Adam.

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

But--"Yet," "Howbeit."

not as the offence--"trespass."

so also is the free gift--or "the gracious gift," "the gift of grace." The two cases present points of contrast as well as resemblance.

For if, &c.--rather, "For if through the offense of the one the many died (that is, in that one man's first sin), much more did the grace of God, and the free gift by grace, even that of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many." By "the many" is meant the mass of mankind represented respectively by Adam and Christ, as opposed, not to few, but to "the one" who represented them. By "the free gift" is meant (as in Rom 5:17) the glorious gift of justifying righteousness; this is expressly distinguished from "the grace of God," as the effect from the cause; and both are said to "abound" towards us in Christ--in what sense will appear in Rom 5:16-17. And the "much more," of the one case than the other, does not mean that we get much more of good by Christ than of evil by Adam (for it is not a case of quantity at all); but that we have much more reason to expect, or it is much more agreeable to our ideas of God, that the many should be benefited by the merit of one, than that they should suffer for the sin of one; and if the latter has happened, much more may we assure ourselves of the former [PHILIPPI, HODGE].

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

15. But not as the offense, etc. Now follows the rectifying or the completion of the comparison already introduced. The Apostle does not, however, very minutely state the points of difference between Christ and Adam, but he obviates errors into which we might otherwise easily fall, and what is needful for an explanation we shall add. Though he mentions oftentimes a difference, yet there are none of these repetitions in which there is not a want of a corresponding clause, or in which there is not at least an ellipsis. Such instances are indeed defects in a discourse; but they are not prejudicial to the majesty of that celestial wisdom which is taught us by the Apostle; it has, on the contrary, so happened through the providence of God, that the highest mysteries have been delivered to us in the garb of an humble style, in order that our faith may not depend on the potency of human eloquence, but on the efficacious working of the Spirit alone.

He does not indeed even now expressly supply the deficiency of the former sentence, but simply teaches us, that there is a greater measure of grace procured by Christ, than of condemnation introduced by the first man. What some think, that the Apostle carries on here a chain of reasoning, I know not whether it will be deemed by all sufficiently evident. It may indeed be justly inferred, that since the fall of Adam had such an effect as to produce the ruin of many, much more efficacious is the grace of God to the benefit of many; inasmuch as it is admitted, that Christ is much more powerful to save, than Adam was to destroy. But as they cannot be disproved, who wish to take the passage without this inference, I am willing that they should choose either of these views; though what next follows cannot be deemed an inference, yet it is of the same meaning. It is hence probable, that Paul rectifies, or by way of exception modifies, what he had said of the likeness between Christ and Adam.

But observe, that a larger number (plures) are not here contrasted with many (multis,) for he speaks not of the number of men: but as the sin of Adam has destroyed many, he draws this conclusion, — that the righteousness of Christ will be no less efficacious to save many.

When he says, by the offense of one, etc., understand him as meaning this, — that corruption has from him descended to us: for we perish not through his fault, as though we were blameless; but as his sin is the cause of our sin, Paul ascribes to him our ruin: our sin I call that which is implanted in us, and with which we are born.

The grace of God and the gift of God through grace, etc. Grace is properly set in opposition to offense; the gift which proceeds from grace, to death. Hence grace means the free goodness of God or gratuitous love, of which he has given us a proof in Christ, that he might relieve our misery: and gift is the fruit of this mercy, and hath come to us, even the reconciliation by which we have obtained life and salvation, righteousness, newness of life, and every other blessing. We hence see how absurdly the schoolmen have defined grace, who have taught that it is nothing else but a quality infused into the hearts of men: for grace, properly speaking, is in God; and what is in us is the effect of grace. And he says, that it is by one man; for the Father has made him the fountain out of whose fullness all must draw. And thus he teaches us, that not even the least drop of life can be found out of Christ, — that there is no other remedy for our poverty and want, than what he conveys to us from his own abundance.

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.

(15) Now comes the statement of the contrast which extends over the next five verses. The points of difference are thrown into relief by the points of resemblance. These may be, perhaps, best presented by the subjoined scheme:—

Persons of the action.One man, Adam.One Man, Christ.The action.One act of trespass.One act of obedience.Character of the action viewed in its relation to the Fall and Salvation of man.The great initial trespass or breach of the law of God.The great accomplished work of grace, or the gift of righteousness.Persons affected by the action.All mankind.All mankind.Proximate effect of the action.Influx of many transgressions.Clearing away of many transgressions.Ulterior effect of the action.Death.Life.The offence.—Perhaps rather, trespass, to bring out the latent antithesis to the obedience of Christ. (Ellicott.)

One . . . many.—Substitute throughout this passage, “the one,” “the many.” By “the many,” is meant “mankind generally,” “all men.” Dr. Lightfoot quotes Bentley on the importance of this change: “By this accurate version some hurtful mistakes about partial redemption and absolute reprobation had been happily prevented. Our English readers had then seen what several of the Fathers saw and testified, that the many, in an antithesis to the one, are equivalent to all in Rom_5:12, and comprehend the whole multitude, the entire species of mankind, exclusive only of the one.” “In other words,” Dr. Lightfoot adds, “the benefits of Christ’s obedience extend to all men potentially. It is only human self-will which places limits to its operation.”

Much more.—Because God is much more ready to exercise mercy and love than severity, to pardon than to punish.

The grace of God, and the gift by grace.—The grace of God is the moving cause, its result is the gift (of righteousness, Rom_5:17) imputed by His gracious act to the many.

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

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift,.... By "the offence", or "fall", as the word signifies, is meant the first sin of Adam; by which he offended God, and fell from that estate in which he was created, and all his posterity with him; and by the "free gift" is meant, the righteousness of Christ, which justifies from that, and all other offences: now, though there is a great likeness between Adam and Christ; both are men, the first Adam is called "the one man", and so is the second Adam Jesus Christ; partly for the sake of the comparison between him and the first, and also to express the truth of his human nature; and because the Redeemer ought to be a man, though not a mere man; both are sole authors of what they convey to their respective offspring, Adam of sin, Christ of righteousness; both convey single things, Adam only one sin, not more, for when he had committed one sin, he broke the covenant made with him and his posterity, and so ceased in after acts to be a representative of them; Christ conveys his righteousness, or obedience to the law, without any additional works of righteousness of ours to complete it; and both convey what they do, "to all" their respective offspring: yet there is a dissimilitude between them, as to the manner of conveyance and the effects thereof; the offence or sin of Adam is conveyed in a natural way, or by natural generation, to all who descend from him in that manner; the righteousness of Christ is conveyed in a way of grace, to his spiritual seed: hence it is called, not only the "free gift", but "the grace of God, and the gift by grace", which is "by one man, Jesus Christ"; because of the grace of the Father, in fixing and settling the method of justification, by the righteousness of his Son; in sending him to work out one, that would be satisfying to law and justice; and in his gracious acceptation of it, on the behalf of his people, and the imputation of it to them; and because of the grace of the Son in becoming man, in being made under the law, yea, made sin and a curse, in order to bring in an everlasting righteousness; and because of the grace of the Spirit, in revealing and applying it, and working faith to receive it; for as the righteousness itself is a free grace gift, bestowed upon unworthy persons, so is faith likewise, by which it is laid hold on and embraced: and as there is a disagreement in the manner of conveying these things, so likewise in the effects they have upon the persons to whom they are conveyed; and the apostle argues from the influence and effect the one has, to the far greater and better influence and effect the other has:

for if through the offence of one many be dead; as all Adam's posterity are, not only subject to a corporeal death, but involved in a moral or spiritual, and liable to an eternal one, through the imputation of guilt, and the derivation of a corrupt nature from him: then

much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many; that is, the righteousness of Christ, in which the grace of God is so illustrious, is much more effectual to the giving of life to all his seed and offspring; not barely such a life as Adam had in innocence, and which he lost by the offence, but a spiritual and an eternal one; which sheds the exuberance of this grace, which secures and adjudges to a better life than what was lost by the fall.

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

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Ver. 15. Many be dead] Many is here put for all, as all for many, 1Ti 2:3.

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.

But not as the offence, so also is the gift, or the benefits which mankind receive by their Redeemer, Jesus Christ. For St. Paul here shews that the graces which Christ came to bestow upon men, and offers to all, are much greater than the evils which the sin of one man, Adam, caused. 1. Because, if by the offence of that one man, Adam, many, i.e. all died by original sin that descended from Adam, (the blessed Virgin mother by a special privilege being always excepted) much more that grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many,[3] the comparison does not imply that more in number receive the grace of Christ, than were infected with sin; but that they who receive the graces which are offered to all, receive greater benefits than were the damages caused by the sin of Adam. For the judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation, or so as to make all guilty of one sin, that is, of original sin; and for other actual sins, men committed them by their own proper will; whereas the grace of Christ justifies men from many sins; that is, also from all sins which they have committed by their own malice. 2. Because by it, that is, by the offence of one man, death reigned in the world, and made all men liable to damnation; yet now by the incarnation of Christ, (which would not have been, had not Adam sinned) all they who are justified by the grace of their Redeemer, have Christ God and man for their head: he is become the head of that same mystical body which is his Church: they are exalted to the dignity of being the brothers of Christ, the Son of God; they are made joint heirs with him of the kingdom of heaven, and so by the grace of Christ have a greater dignity in this world, and shall be exalted to a greater and more eminent degree of glory in the kingdom of his glory for all eternity; which hath given occasion to the Church, in her liturgy, to cry out, as it were with a transport of joy, O happy fault, which hath procured us such and so great a Redeemer! See St. John Chrysostom,[4] hom. x. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Abundavit in plures; Greek eis tous pollous, in multos; so that it wis not to be taken comparatively for more, but absolutely for many, or for all; because all here are many, as in other places.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift: q.d. But yet the resemblance betwixt the first and Second Adam is not so exact as to admit of no difference; differences there are, but they are to great advantage on Christ’s part: e.g. Compare Adam’s sin and Christ’s obedience, in respect of their efficacy and virtue, and you will find a great difference.

For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many: the obedience of Christ (which is the product of his grace and favour) is much more powerful to justification and salvation, than the sin of Adam was to condemnation. If the transgression of mere man was able to pull down death and wrath upon all his natural seed, then the obedience of one, which is God as well as man, will much more abundantly avail to procure pardon and life for all his spiritual seed. He doth not give the pre-eminence unto the grace of Christ in respect of the number, but of the more powerful efficacy and virtue.

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

15. Offence… gift—In QUALITY the former is evil, the latter is good. Much more then, a fortiori, should the latter abound rather than the former.

Grace—The divine cause.

Gift—The divine effect.

Many— Literally, the many, that is, the mass of mankind.

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

Vers. 15-17. But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died (not, be dead, as in the Authorized Version. Observe also the articles before "one" and "many"), much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded unto the many. And not as through one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was of one (ex enov) unto condemnation, but the free gift is of (ek) many offences unto justification. For if by the offence of the one death reigned through the one, much more they which receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. The purport of these verses is (while keeping up the view of condemnation and justification being both derived to all from one) to show how the effects of the latter for good far transcend those of the former for evil. It is not easy, however, to explain the apostle"s exact intention in the contrasts which he draws. He seems to have written, after his manner, full of ideas which he did not linger to arrange in clear form. In ver. 15 the contrast between "trespass" (paraptwma) and "free gift" (carisma) seems to be the leading idea. The suggesting thought seems to be If (as has been shown) one man"s trespass had such far-reaching effects, much more must the grace of God (displayed also in One) have no less far-reaching effects. God"s grace must be more powerful than man"s trespass. And it is here asserted that it was so. The much more (pollw mallon) is best taken (as it must be in ver. 17) in a logical, not a quantitative sense; i.e. as enforcing the conclusion, not as intensifying the verb "abounded." So far the effects are not distinctly contrasted in respect to their extent; all that is implied in this verse is that both reach to the many (oi polloi), i.e. the whole human race collectively; unless, indeed, the verb eperisseuse implies excess of effect. It is to be observed that the phrase oi polloi does not here mean, as is usual in classical Greek, the greater part, but the multitude, mankind being regarded collectively. It depends, however, on the writer"s mental horizon whether the phrase, taken by itself, is to be understood as comprehending all. The consideration is of importance in the case before us. On the one hand, it may be contended that, in the first clause of the verse, "the many" must mean all, for that undoubtedly all died (cf. ver. 12, eiv pantav anyrwpouv o yanatov dihlyen), and that consequently all must be intended also in the second clause. So also in ver. 19, where it is said that dikaioi katastayhsontai oi polloi . And it may be said, further, that the drift of the whole argument requires the view of the effects of the redemption being at least coextensive with the effects of the fall. But, on the other hand, it is argued that St. Paul would not have used the phrase oi polloi in vers. 15 and 19 instead of pantev as in vers. 12 and 18, unless he had intended some difference of meaning, and that he varied his expression in order to avoid the necessary inference that all would be saved in fact. Certainly he teaches that the redemption is available and intended for all, as in ver. 18 where it is said to be eiv pantav anyrwpouv, eiv dikaiwsin ; and this, it may be said, is enough to satisfy the view of its effects (i.e. in purpose and potentially) being coextensive with the effects of the fall But it does not seem to follow that man"s resistance to grace might not come in as a bar to the entire fulfilment of the Divine purpose; and hence these passages cannot be pressed as conclusive for the doctrine of universal final salvation. But in vers. 16, 17 (to be taken together, ver. 16 being introduced by kai , so as to suggest a new idea, and ver. 17 being connected with it by gar) the extent to which grace thus abounded, so as to transcend the effects of the original transgression, is distinctly set forth. The thought of these verses may, perhaps, be expressed otherwise, thus: The one trespass of the one original transgressor did indeed render all mankind liable to condemnation; but the free gift in Christ annulled the effect, not only of that one trespass, but also of all subsequent trespasses of mankind; an immense debt, accumulating through the ages of human history, in addition to the original debt, was by that one free grant obliterated. And further, while the original trespass introduced a temporary reign of death, the free gift of righteousness introduced life, in which the partakers of the gift themselves triumphant over Death, who reigned before shall reign; and, as in ver. 15 the idea was that God"s grace must be more powerful than man"s sin, so here it is implied that life in Christ must be more powerful than death in Adam. Life means here (as elsewhere when the life in Christ is spoken of) more than the present life in the flesh more than the life breathed into. man when he first "became (egeneto eiv ) a living soul". (1Co_15:45) It means the higher life imparted by "the last Adam," who "became a quickening Spirit"; (1Co_15:45) eternal life with God, in the life of Christ risen, swallowing up mortality. (2Co_5:4; cf. also Joh_11:25) Thus the "free gift" not only reverses the far-reaching effects of the original transgression, but even transcends what is intimated in Genesis as given to man in Paradise before his fall.

The next two verses (18, 19), introduced by ara oun , are a summing up of what has been already said or implied.

Vers. 15-17. The abounding life.

It is evident that all are condemned, because death reigns; and it is proved that the condemnation of all is through the sin of one, because even where no express law is, there is death. But we have hope in Christ. Is our hope valid? Does the justification through Christ reach over as wide a range as the condemnation through Adam? And is the consequent life to prevail coextensively with the death? The argument here is to prove the certainty of each coextension.

I AN ABOUNDING GRACE.

1. The originating cause of the condemnation was the

(1) severity of God;

(2) working because of trespass a trespass which was (literally) a fall through weakness;

(3) and working, for one trespass, death to all.

2. The originating cause of the justification is the

(1) grace of God;

(2) working by a gift of grace viz. Christ; and by the grace of this Christ a love unto death;

(3) and working because many trespasses call forth compassion. Surely, "not as the trespass, so also is the free gift.

II AN INDIVIDUAL APPROPRIATION OF THE ABOUNDING GRACE,

1. The participation in the sentence of condemnation was passive on the part of the many, for the sin of one the unchoosing heirs of a sad inheritance.

2. The participation in the decree of life is active on the part of many, for the sacrifice of the One they "receive" the grace of righteousness, laying hold of it by the voluntary activity of faith.

Infinite love is the fount of our life; and Jesus Christ, a Man, is he in whom all fulness dwells. The certainty is irrefragable. Do we make it ours? "As many as received him". T.F.L. (Joh_1:12)

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

Yet not - St. Paul now describes the difference between Adam and Christ; and that much more directly and expressly than the agreement between them. Now the fall and the free gift differ,

1. In amplitude, ver. 15.

2. He from whom sin came, and He from whom the free gift came, termed also "the gift of righteousness," differ in power, ver. 16.

3. The reason of both is subjoined, ver. 17.

4. This premised, the offense and the free gift are compared, with regard to their effect, ver. 18, and with regard to their cause, ver. 19.

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

one many

the one the many died.

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

Parallelism and contrast:

v. 15. But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

v. 16. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift; for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification.

v. 17. For if by one man’s offense death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

The apostle here explains his statement as to Adam’s being a type of Christ. But not as the offense, the transgression, so also is the gift of grace, the gift which is freely provided for sinners in the Gospel, in its effects upon men. The emphasis upon righteousness and life, in which the salvation in Christ consists, is brought very strongly by the apostle. The fall is not like the gracious restoration. It is true, of course, that through the fall of the one, of Adam, the many, all the other people in the world, have become subject to death and have died; but, on the other hand, it is true, also, that the grace of God and the gift in the grace of the one man Jesus Christ has much more, much more certainly, abounded to those same people, the many. The regrettable mistake, the transgression of the one man indeed had evil, terrible consequences, but the blessings procured by Christ are infinitely greater than the evils caused by Adam. And not only that, but the grace of God and that gift which is expressed in, consists in, the grace of the one man Jesus Christ, by which we have salvation, is much more certainly to be relied upon. The one thing has indeed happened—condemnation is come upon all men; but the other fact has such indubitable evidence on its side that we can safely place our trust in it in life and death. And closely connected with this thought is another: Not as through one that sinned the gift. On the side of the type, Adam, that which was done, which came upon all men, was occasioned by the one person that sinned. On the other side, in the antitype, in the gift of Christ, the same condition does not obtain. The sentence of condemnation which passed on all men for the sake of Adam was for one offense of one man, whereas we are justified by Christ for many offenses. For the judgment is from one man unto a sentence of condemnation, but the gift of grace from the trespasses of many unto a condition of righteousness, a judgment of justification. God judged the people, all men, and His finding has resulted in a sentence of condemnation on account of the one man, Adam. Since the sin of Adam has been imputed to all men, therefore the curse of sin, death, resulted as the consequence of the condemnatory sentence upon sin. On the other hand, the gift of grace has resulted in the condition of righteousness from the trespasses of many. That was the former condition of the many, of all men: they were in trespasses and sins, Eph 2:1. But that condition has now been left behind, and they have entered into a new, a different status, that of imputed righteousness, of justification, not only is the one transgression of Adam, which was imputed to them all, forgiven, but they are absolved from all their individual sins and transgressions, they have been pronounced just. This fact, that we are justified through Christ not only from the guilt of Adam’s first sin, but from our own innumerable transgressions, receives further confirmation: For if, through the trespass of one, death has reigned through the one, much more, much sooner, much more certainly, those that receive the abundance of the grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ. On the one hand we have the type: Through the one man, Adam, through his offense or trespass, it has come to pass that death now has sovereign power on earth; his offense was the cause of death’s coming upon all men, his sin was the ground of the sentence of condemnation, which has been passed upon all mankind. But now, on the other hand, if this is really the case, therefore the other will happen all the more certainly, namely, that we shall reign in life. Eternal life is deliverance, liberty; it elevates those that receive it to a position of authority and dominion, 1Co 4:8; 1Co 6:2-3; 2Ti 2:12. This right and authority is transmitted to us because me receive by faith the abundance of the grace and of the gift of righteousness. The grace of God has abounded toward us, we receive it richly and daily; and it is the source of the gift of righteousness, righteousness itself being the gift offered and received. And all this is ours through Jesus Christ, for He it is that merited life for us, that has prepared the fullness of righteousness for us. And the dominion of life is much more certain than the dominion of death. Christ has not only repaired the damage inflicted by Adam, but also justified all men from their individual transgressions; and therefore it is much more certain that they that receive this incomparable gift and blessing of righteousness will reign in life than that the sin of the one has brought death to all the children of men. There is only one thing more certain to the believer, that has been justified through the merits of Christ, than the fact that he must die, and that is the fact that he will live and reign with Christ, in the life which is his by the free gift of God.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The apostle having noted the parity and resemblance between Christ and Adam in the foregoing verses; here he observes the disparity and difference betwixt them, and that in several advantageous particulars:

1. He compares the sin of Adam with the obedience of Christ, and shews that the sin of the one was not so pernicious, as the obedience of the other was beneficial; Christ’s obedience being more powerful to justification and salvation, than Adam’s sin was to death and condemnation: For if the transgression of Adam, who was but a mere man, was able to pull down death and wrath upon all his natural seed; then the obedience of Christ who is God as well as man, will be much more available to procure pardon and life to all his spiritual seed.

2. There is a further observable difference betwixt Adam and Christ, as in respect of their person, so in respect of their acts, and extent of their acts. Thus Adam by one act of sin brought death, that is, the sentence of death upon the whole world (all mankind becoming subject to mortality for that one sin of his;) but it is many sins of many men, which Christ doth deliver from, in the free gift of our justification; absolving us, not only from that one fault, but from all other faults and offences whatsoever.

Learn hence, That the obedience of Christ extends itself not only to the pardon of original sin in Adam, but to all personal and actual sins whatsoever.

3. The apostle shews the difference betwixt them two, that is, the first and second Adam, as in respect of the effects and consequences of their acts; if by means of one man, and by one offence of that man, the whole race of mankind became subject to death, then much more shall reign with him in glory.

From the whole, note, The infinite wisdom, transcendant grace, and rich mercy of God to a miserable world, in providing a salve as large as the sore, a remedy as extensive as the malady, a sovereign antidote in the blood of the second Adam, to expel the poison and malignity of the sin of the first Adam.

Oh happy they! who having received from the first Adam corruption for corruption, have received from the second Adam grace for grace.

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

15. “Not as the offense so is also the free gift; for if by the offense of one many died, much more the grace of God and the gift in the grace of the one man Jesus Christ abounded unto the many.” We have here the Greek phrase “the many,” in both cases used in a superlative sense. The simple meaning is, all died in Adam and all live in Christ (1Co 15:22), i. e., all died seminally in Adam and all live personally in Christ. When?

“Except every one be born from above (not again) he can not see the kingdom of God” (Joh 3:5).

Here we see the absolute necessity of the new life on the part of every human being who shall enter God’s kingdom. “He tasted death for every one” (Heb 2:9), not “every man” as E. V. Christ not only certifies that all infants are in the kingdom, but holds them up as paragon members (Matthew 18). The prodigal son was born in his Father’s house, i. e., in the kingdom of God. Hence all are born there, as humanity is uniform.

Then when do we pass out of Adam into Christ? The moment soul and body united constitute personality, i. e., in the prenatal state, we are “born from above,” before we are born physically. The fall of Adam is seminal and the redemption of Christ personal. Hence all are fallen in Adam and redeemed in Christ. The death penalty of Adam’s transgression is physical, spiritual and eternal.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift . [Thus far Paul has told us that Adam is the source of sin, condemnation and death, and that he is a type of Christ. In this fifteenth verse he qualifies the relation of type and antitype by a statement that their resemblance does not hold good in all respects, for the sin of Adam is not like the free gift of Christ when he offered himself upon the cross. Not only do these two acts differ in their very essence, one being the perfection of self-indulgence, with power to kill, and the other the perfection of self-sacrifice, with power to make alive; but, as might be expected, there is a world-wide difference, both as to the results, and as to the range or scope, and the certainty of the results. With these thoughts Paul now concerns himself.] For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many . [If Adam's one act of sin brought death upon the race, so that all men die because of his act, much more did the goodness or favor of God and the gift of life by the goodness or favor of one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many. We are here informed that the result of the sacrificial act of Christ fully reversed and nullified the effects of the act of Adam, and that it did even much more. The effect, in other words, had in all points as wide a range, and in some points a much wider range, than that of Adam's act. Without explaining how it is as wide-reaching as Adam's act, the apostle presses on to tell in what respects the act of Christ is wider. But, to avoid misunderstanding, we should pause to see how Christ's act equaled and nullified Adam's act. Adam, as progenitorial head of the race ( 1Ti_2:13 ; 1Co_11:8 ), involved, by his sin, all the race in natural death--death without any hope of a resurrection, much less of immortality. Christ, as creative head of the race, by his righteousness redeemed all from this natural death by accomplishing for all the resurrection of the dead. So far, the act of Christ merely cancels the act of Adam. If the act of Christ had had no wider effectiveness than this, it would have been insufficient for man's needs. It would doubtless have sufficed for infants, and others whom immaturity and mental incapacity rendered incapable of individual sin, but it would have fallen short of the needs of those who, in addition to their sin in Adam, had other sins of their own for which to answer. The hope of the world lies, therefore, in the "much more" which Paul states. Again, we should notice that if we had only Adam's sin to answer for, then the teaching of this passage would establish the doctrine of universal salvation, for Christ's act completely counteracted Adam's act. But there are other sins besides that first one committed by Adam, and other punishments besides natural death. It is in its dealings with those that the range of Christ's act exceeds that of Adam, and it is here also that salvation becomes limited. The resurrection (which nullifies the effect of Adam's act), though a form of justification precedes the hour of judgment, and hence can not be final justification, for the latter is the product of the judgment. Moreover, the resurrection which Christ effects, as federal creative head of the race, does not depend upon faith; for all, the believing and the unbelieving, the just and the unjust, have part in it. But the justification which comes after that resurrection depends upon other relations and provisions. In administering this final justification, Christ stands as the federal regenerative head (the headship which peculiarly pertains to the church, and not to the race-- Eph_1:22-23 ), and bestows it upon that part of the race which has been regenerated by faith. This headship, therefore, is conditional, and the salvation which depends upon it is not universal, but conditioned on faith. To illustrate by a figure, there are two doors which we must pass in order to inherit eternal life. The first is natural death. This door was closed for all by Adam, and opened for all by Christ. The second is the judgment. This door was closed for all having capacity to sin by their own individual sins, and opened by Christ for those who shall be justified through belief in him. Therefore, in teaching that Christ leads all through the first door, Paul has not taught universal salvation, for true, complete salvation lies beyond the second door. Justification from the sin of Adam is one thing, and final justification from our own sins is quite another.]

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.

15–19. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. While Adam is a type of Christ, there is a great difference. One kills, the other makes alive. “If through the sins of the one the many (the world of mankind) died,” through the gracious gift of God, through one man, Jesus Christ, life has been given to the many. All will be raised at the last day.

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.

15. τὸ χάρισμα here is the gift of justification offered in Christ; in range this has as large an effect as the fall; but in quality it is far greater, as it leads to life, the other to death. This conclusion is not fully stated till Rom 5:17.

εἰ γάρ τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς κ.τ.λ., the fall of one man led to the death of all (note, not to the sin). οἱ πολλοὶ. denominate πάντες in contrast to ὁ εἶς; cf. Lft, ad loc[136] There are two steps omitted here; Adam’s fall lead to his death, death thus introduced spread because all sinned. So, ultimately, it was owing to one man’s sin that the many died. Similarly, in the parallel clause, the individual condition of faith and the actual result (ζωὴ) are omitted.

[136] ad loc. ad locum

ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ, the favour of GOD. ἡ δωρεὰ, His generous giving, emphasises χάρις; and then this χάρις is further described as the favour of the Ascended Lord, the one Man (cf. 2Co 13:14; 2Co 8:9), to bring out the parallel. The words express the attitude of GOD to sinning man—His love in all its fulness; not the effect of that love.

ἐπερίσσευσεν, ‘superabounded’—in its very nature as an act of infinite love, and, as will be shown presently, in its effects. But here the nature of the act alone is in question. If its effects were in question, the aorist would scarcely stand.

εἰς τοὺς πολλοὺς, with ἐπερίσσευσεν, abounded in fact, as shown in its effects; what those effects were is then expressed, generally in δώρημα, δικαίωμα specifically (17 f.) by ἐν ζωῇ βας., and both expressions united in (18) δικαίωσιν ζωῆς.

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.

15-17.] Though Adam and Christ correspond as opposites, yet there is a remarkable difference, which makes the free gift of grace much more eminent than the transgression and its consequences, and enhances the certainty of its end being accomplished. But not (in all points) as the act of transgression (of Adam, as the cause inducing sin and death on his race), so also is the gift of grace (i.e. justification: not a direct contrast, as ὑπακοή in ver. 19: the Apostle has more in mind here the consequence of the παραπτ., and to that opposes the χάρισμα. De W.).

15. εἰ γὰρ κ.τ.λ.] Distinction the first, in Degree:—and in the form of a hypothetical inference ‘a minori ad majus.’ For if by the transgression of the one (man) the many (have) died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift abound in (by means of) the grace of the one man Jesus Christ towards the many. (1) The first question regards πολλῷ μᾶλλον. Is it the ‘a fortiori’ of logical inference, or is it to be joined with ἐπερίσσευσεν as quantitative, describing the degree of abounding? Chrys. (πολλῷ γὰρ τοῦτο εὐλογώτερον), Grot., Fritz., Thol., adopt the former, and provided only the same thing is said here as in ver. 17, the usage there would decide it to be so: for there it cannot be quantitative. But I believe that not to be so. Here, the question is of abounding, a matter of degree, there, of reigning, a matter of fact. Here (ver. 16) the contrast is between the judgment, coming of one sinner, to condemnation, and the free gift, of (see note below) many offences, to justification. So that I think the quantitative sense the better, and join πολλῷ μᾶλλον with ἐπερίσσευσεν, in the sense of much more abundant (rich in diffusion) was the gift, &c. (2) χάρις, not the grace working in men, here, but the grace which is in, and flows from, God. (3) ἐν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ …, not to be joined (Thol.) with ἡ δωρεά, as if it were ἡ ἐνχάρ. (which would be allowable), but with ἐπερίσς. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (His self-offering love, see 2Co 8:9) is the medium by which the free gift is imparted to men. (4) The aorist ἐπερίσς. should here be kept to its indefinite historical sense, and not rendered as a perfect, however true the fact expressed may be: both are treated of here as events, their time of happening and present reference not being regarded.

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

15. παράπτωμα: lit. ‘a slip or fall sideways,’ ‘a false step,’ ‘a lapse’: hence metaph. in a sense not very dissimilar to ἁμαρτημα (which is prop. ‘missing a mark’). It is however appropriate that παράπτ. should be used for a ‘fall’ or first deflection from uprightness, just as ἁμάρτ. is used of the failure of efforts towards recovery. On the word see Trench, Syn. p. 237 f.

τοῦ ἑνός: ‘the one man,’ i. e. Adam.

οἱ πολλοί: ‘the many,’ practically = πάντας ver. 12; πάντας ἀνθρώπους in ver. 18, ‘all mankind.’ It is very misleading to translate as AV., ignoring the article, if ‘through the offence of one, many be dead, by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.’ Redemption like the Fall proceeds not from any chance member of the human race, and its effects extend not only to ‘many’ but to ‘all’—to ‘all,’ that is potentially, if they embrace the redemption which is offered them.

See Bentley, quoted by Lft. On Revision, p. 97, ‘By this accurate version some hurtful mistakes about partial redemption and absolute reprobation had been happily prevented. Our English readers had then seen, what several of the Fathers saw and testified, that οἱ πολλοί, the many, in an antithesis to the one, are equivalent to πάντες, all, in ver. 12, and comprehend the whole multitude, the entire species of mankind, exclusive only of the one.’

πολλῷ μᾶλλον. What we know of the character of God as displayed in Christ makes us more certain of the good result than of the evil.

ἡ δωρεά is more fully defined below (ver. 17) as ἡ δωρεὰ τῆς δικαιοσύνης: the gift is the condition of righteousness into which the sinner enters. δωρεά, ‘boon,’ like δῶρον contrasted with δόμα, is reserved for the highest and best gifts; so Philo, Leg. Alleg. iii. 70 ἔμφασιν μεγέθους τελείων ἀγαθῶν δηλοῦσιν (Lft. Rev. p. 77); comp. also the ascending scale of expression in Jas 1:17.

ἐν χάριτι goes closely with ἡ δωρεά. In classical Greek we should have had the art. ἡ ἐν χάριτι, but in Hellenistic Greek a qualifying phrase is attached to a subst. without repetition of the art. Mey., however and some others (including Lid.) separate ἐν χάριτι from ἡ δωρεά and connect it with ἐπερίσσευσε.

χάρις is more often applied to God the Father, and is exhibited in the whole scheme of salvation. As applied to Christ it is (1) that active favour towards mankind which moved Him to intervene for their salvation (cf. esp. 2Co 8:9) (2) the same active favour shown to the individual by the Father and the Son conjointly (Rom 1:7 q. v.).

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

Of one [του ενος] . Rev., correctly, the one - Adam. So the many. Much more. Some explain of the quality of the cause and effect : that as the fall of Adam caused vast evil, the work of the far greater Christ shall much more cause great results of good. This is true; but the argument seems to turn rather on the question of certainty. "The character of God is such, from a christian point of view, that the comparison gives a much more certain basis for belief, in what is gained through the second Adam, than in the certainties of sin and death through the first Adam" (Schaff and Riddle).

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.