SIN AND GRACE IN THEIR SECOND ANTITHESIS (AS IN THEIR SECOND POTENCY): ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL EFFECTS IN HUMAN NATURE, AND IN NATURE IN GENERAL. THE SINFUL CORRUPTION OF THE WORLD, PROCEEDING FROM ADAM, AND INHERITED IN COMMON BY ALL MEN, AND THE LIFE OF CHRIST AS THE INWARD LIVING PRINCIPLE OF THE NEW BIRTH TO NEW LIFE IN INDIVIDUAL BELIEVERS, IN ALL MANKIND, AND IN THE WHOLE CREATED WORLD. (THE PRINCIPLE OF DEATH IN SIN, AND THE PRINCIPLE OF THE NEW LIFE; AS WELL AS THE GLORIFICATION OF THE NEW LIFE, AND OF ALL NATURE, IN RIGHTEOUSNESS.)
s Rom_5:12 to Rom_8:39
First Section.—Adam’s sin as the powerful principle of death, and God’s grace in Christ as the more powerful principle of the new life, in the nature of individual men, and in mankind collectively. The law as the direct medium of the complete manifestation of sin for the indirect mediation of the completed and glorious revelation of grace.
Rom_5:12-21
12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that [
ἐö
̓
ᾧ
, i.e., on the ground that, because] 13all have [omithave] sinned: ([omit parenthesis] For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law [where the law is not]. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned [those that sinned not] after the similitude [likeness] of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure [a type] of him that was to come [the coming one, i.e., the second Adam]. 15But not as the offence [fall, transgression], so also is the free gift: for if through the offence [transgression] of [the] one [the] many be dead [died], much more [did] the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man [the gift by the grace of the one man], Jesus Christ, hath abounded [abound] unto [the] many. 16And not as it was [omitit was] by [the] one that sinned,so [omitso] is the gift: for the judgment was [came] by [
ἐî
, of] one (fall) to condemnation, but the free gift is [came] of many offences [falls, transgressions] unto justification [
äéêáßùìá
, sentence of acquittal, righteous decree, or, righteous act]. 17For if by one man’s offence [by one transgression, or, by the transgression of the one] death reigned by [through the] one; much more they which [who] receive [the] abundance of [the] grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by [the] one, Jesus Christ.) 18[omit parenthesis.] Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life [So then, as through the transgression of one, or, one transgression, it came upon all men to condemnation; so also through the
äéêáéþìáôïò
, righteous act of one, or, one righteous act, it came upon all men unto justification of life].19For as by one man’s disobedience [through the disobedience of the one man] [the] many were made [constituted] sinners, so [also,
ïὕôùò êáß
] by the obedience of [the] one shall [the] many be made [constituted] righteous. 20Moreover the law entered [came in besides], that the offence [transgression] might abound [multiply]. But where sin abounded [multiplied], grace did much more [exceedingly] abound: 21That as sin hath [omit hath] reigned unto [
ἐí
, in] death, even so [so also] might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by [through] Jesus Christ our Lord.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
[Special Literature on Rom_5:12-21.—S. J. Baumgarten, De imputatione peccati Adamitici posteris facta, 1742. S. Schott, Opuscula, i. p. 313 sqq. C. F. Schmid, Ueber Röm. Rom_5:12ff., in the Tübing. Zeitschrift for 1830, No. IV. p. 161 ff. (A very able and sound discussion. Comp. the same author’s Bibl. Theologie des N. T., vol. ii. pp. 256–262.) Rich. Rothe (died 1868), Neuer Versuch einer Auslegung der Paulin. Stelle Röm. Rom_5:12-21, Wittenberg, 1836. (A masterpiece of exegetical acuteness and finesse.) I. Chr. K. v. Hofmann, Der Schriftbeweis, 2d ed., Nördlingen, 1857, vol. i. pp. 524–541. Jul. Müller, Christl. Lehre von der Sünde, vol. ii. p. 407 ff., 472 ff., 3d Germ. ed., 1849. H. Ewald, Adam und Christus, Röm. Rom_5:12-21, in his Jahrbücher für bibl. Wissenschaft, ii. p. 166 ff. Timothy Dwight (of Yale College), Princeton Exegesis. A Review of Dr. Hodge’s Commentary on Rom_5:12-19, in the New Englander for July, 1868, pp. 551–603. (Polemical against Hodge). A. Stölting, Beiträge zur Exegese der Paulin. Briefe, Gött., 1869, pp. 1–42. Reiche, Olshausen, Tholuck, Stuart, Hodge, and Forbes, are most full, though widely divergent, in the exposition of this passage, which many regard as the most difficult in the whole Bible.—P. S.]
[Introductory Remarks.—This section is difficult in proportion to its depth, grandeur, and world-historical comprehensiveness. Only a mind of the very highest order—to say nothing of inspiration—could conceive such vast thoughts, and compress them within so few words. The beginning, the middle, and the end of history, are here brought together in their representative moral powers and principles. Paul deals with religious truths and facts, which are much broader and deeper than the afterthoughts of our logic and theology, and cannot be squeezed into the narrow limits of particular schools and schemes. The exegesis of this part of the Romans began in earnest with Augustine, in his contest with the Pelagian heresy; it was resumed in the Reformation period, and carried further, philologically and doctrinally, in the present century, but is by no means exhausted, and puts exegetical skill again and again to the severest test. Every line bears the marks of theological controversy about original sin, free agency, imputation, limited atonement, universal salvation, and other questions which will occupy the human mind to the end of the world. The section is not a mere episode, but a progress in the argument from the doctrine of justification to the broader doctrine of a life-union of the believer with Christ, which prepares the way for the doctrine of sanctification, in chap. 6., and glorification, in chap. viii. Like a skilful physician, the Apostle goes not only to the root and fountain-head of the evil, but also to the root and fountain head of the cure. In bold antithetical contrasts, and on the basis of a vital, organic union of humanity, both in the order of fallen nature and the order of redeeming grace, he presents the history of the fall by the first, and the redemption by the second Adam. Adam and Christ are the two representative heads of the whole race, the one the natural, the other the supernatural: from the one, the power of sin and the power of death have proceeded upon all men through their participation in his fall; from the other, righteousness and life have come upon all on condition of faith, or a living apprehension of Christ. But the gain by the redemption greatly surpasses the loss by the fall. The main stress lies on the idea of life in its progress from Christ to the believer. The same parallelism between the first and second Adam, but with exclusive reference to the contrast of death and the resurrection, occurs in 1Co_15:21-22; 1Co_15:45-48, which should be kept in view. It is impossible to understand this section from the standpoint of a mechanical and atomistic conception of humanity and of sin, such as Pelagianism and cognate systems maintain. On the surface, all things appear separate and isolated; in the hidden roots, they are united. It is characteristic of all deep thinking, to go back to principles and general ideas. Paul evidently views the human race as an organic unit. Adam and Christ sustain to it a central and universal relation, similar to that which the fountain sustains to the river, or the root to the tree and its branches. Adam was not merely an individual, but the natural head of the human family, and his transgression was not an isolated act, but affected the whole race which sprung from his loins; just as the character of the tree will determine the character of its branches and fruits. So it is with Christ. He calls himself emphatically the (not a) Son of Man, the universal, normal, absolute Man, the representative head of regenerate humanity, which is from heaven, heavenly, as Adam’s fallen humanity is “of the earth, earthy” (1Co_15:47-48). Both were tried and tempted by the devil, the one in the garden of innocence, the other in the desert; but the one succumbed, and dragged his posterity into the ruin of the fall; while the other conquered, and became the author of righteousness and life to all who embrace Him. Christ has gained far more for us than Adam lost—namely, eternal reunion with God, in the place of the temporary union of untried innocence. The resurrection of humanity in Christ is the glorious solution of the dark tragedy of the disastrous fall of humanity in Adam. In view of the greater merit of Christ and the paradise in heaven, we may reverently and thankfully rejoice in the guilt of Adam and the loss of his paradise on earth—always, of course, detesting the blasphemous maxim: Let us do evil, that good may come. It is God’s infinite wisdom and mercy alone which overrule the wrath of man for His own glory.—P. S.]
Meyer inscribes this section: The drawing of a parallel between salvation in Christ and the ruin produced by Adam. But this does not do justice to the context of the section. Tholuck adopts Bengel’s view: “Respicit totam tractationem superiorem, ex qua hœc infert apostolus, non tam digressionem faciens quam regressum de peccato et de justitia.” [Bengel continues: ”In imitation of Paul’s method, we should treat first of actual sin (chaps. Rom_1:3.), and then go back to the source in which sin originated.” Philippi also regards this section as a comparative or contrastive retrospect and comprehensive conclusion; De Wette and Rothe as an episode.—P. S.] We differ from all these, and refer to our division of the Epistle, and to the superscription here.
1. The principle of sin and death become immanent (hereditary) in humanity (Rom_5:12-14).
2. The opposing principle of the gift of grace and of the new life made immanent (spiritually hereditary) in humanity (Rom_5:15-19).
3. The coöperation of the law for the finished revelation of sin and for the communication of the finished revelation of the grace of justification (Rom_5:20-21).
1. Arrangement of the first paragraph, Rom_5:12-14.
(a.) Sin and death, proceeding from Adam’s
ðáñÜâáóéò
upon all, under the form of an ethical appropriation by all (Rom_5:12).
(b.) Death as revealer of the improperly apprehended sin, from Adam to Moses, or to the law (not by the law, Rom_5:13-14).
2. The second paragraph, Rom_5:15-19.
(a.) The actually manifested contrast in the effects of the two principles, (aa.) The contrast between the natural and actual effects, according to their quantitative extension to persons; or the contrast in its personal relation (Rom_5:15). (bb.) The contrast between the positive effects, according to the qualitative intensity of judgment and justification; or, the contrast in its essential relation (Rom_5:16).
(b). The contrast in the potential and prospective effects of the two principles. (aa.) The contrast between the enslavemment of all personal life by impersonal (merely personified) death, and the future glory of the pardoned, immortal, and reigning personalities in the new life (Rom_5:17, at the same time a proof for Rom_5:16). (bb.) The contrast in all its ideal magnitude: One condemnation came upon all men, because of the power of the fall of one man; so, by the righteousness of one, can all men attain to the justification of life (that is, not merely of faith, Rom_5:18).
(c.) The contrast in the final effects disclosed by the gospel. By the effect of one man’s disobedience, the many are represented in the light of the gospel as sinners exposed to the judgment; finally, by the obedience of one, the many are to be represented as righteous in the judgment (Rom_5:19).
3. Third paragraph, Rom_5:20-21.
The law is designed to effect directly the developing process of sin to historical completion, in order to effect indirectly that revelation of grace which far preponderates over the development of sin (Rom_5:20-21).
First Paragraph (Rom_5:12-14)
The principle of sin and death in humanity
Rom_5:12. Wherefore [
Äéὰôïῦôï
]. Rückert, Köllner [Tholuck, Reiche, Stuart], &c., refer
äéὰ ôïῦôï
to the entire discussion from Rom_1:17; Rothe, to the previous section, Rom_5:1-11, which he claims to treat of holiness; Tholuck, to Rom_5:11; Rom_5:10; Rom_5:9, &c.; Meyer, to Rom_5:11 alone. We refer it merely to
ἐëÜâïìåí
in the previous verse. The verb
ëáìâÜíåéí
does not denote, in the New Testament, a passive reception, but an ethical, religious, and moral appropriation; for example, Joh_1:12. And this is here the point of comparison between Rom_5:11-12.
Because this point has been overlooked, an incredible amount of vexation has been produced in reference to the presumed anacoluthon, or
ἀíáíôáðüäïôïí
[an incomplete sentence, a protasis without an apodosis]. Conjectures [concerning the construction or the apodosis corresponding to
ὥóðåñ
, like as]:
1. According to Calvin, Tholuck, Philippi, and others, the conclusion is indicated in the words
ὅò ἐóôé ôýðïò ôïῦ ìÝëëïíôïò
, Rom_5:14. [Meyer also regards the clause: ”who is a type of the future (Adam),” as a substitute for the apodosis, which was swept away by the current of ideas in Rom_5:13-14.—P. S.]
2. According to Rückert, Fritzsche, and De Wette [?], Paul dropped the comparison between Adam and Christ after enumerating the points of analogy, because their dissimilarity occurred to his mind (Rom_5:15). De Wette translates Rom_5:12 : Therefore (is it) as by one man, &c. According to Origen, Bengel [Rothe], and others, the Apostle designedly suppresses the conclusion. [Bengel says simply: ”Apodosis, variata oratione, latet in seq.,” is concealed in what follows. But Rothe holds that Paul designedly omitted the apodosis, to prevent the illegitimate doctrinal inference of a universal salvation. See below.—P. S.]
3. According to Grotius, [E. V., Stuart, Barnes, Hodge], &c., Rom_5:13-17 are parenthetical; and the conclusion follows in Rom_5:18. [Against this construction may be urged, with Meyer, the unexampled length and importance of the supposed parenthesis, and that Rom_5:18 is not so much a reassumption as a recapitulation.—P. S.]
4. According to Clericus, Wolf, and others, the conclusion is already in Rom_5:12, and begins with
êáὶ ïὕôùò
[as if this could be synonymous with
ïὕôù êáß
, so also, which is impossible.—P. S.]; according to Erasmus, Beza, and others, it begins with
êáὶ äéÜ
[which makes
äéὰ ôïῦôï
superfluous, and sets aside the comparison between Adam and Christ.—P. S.]
5. The proper view is the one defended by Koppe, in harmony with [Cocceius] Elsner, and others. The apodosis begins as a comparative statement with
ἕóðåñ
, since
ἐëÜâïìåí êáôáëëáãὴí äἰ áὐôïῦ
is brought over from Rom_5:11. [In other words,
ὥóðåñ
introduces the second member of the comparison, while the first must be supplied from Rom_5:11 in this way: Therefore (we received and appropriated the reconciliation through Christ in the same manner) as by one man sin entered into the world, &c.—P. S.] Tholuck remarks, that then we do not know exactly what to do with the comparison. But the comparison is contained in the already indicated conception of the ethical appropriation of the principle of the reconciliation on one hand, as of the principle of sin and death on the other. The antithesis, more fully extended, is the following:
Äéὰ ôïῦôï ἐëÜâõìåí ôὴí êáôáëëáãὴí
,
ἐö
̓
ὧ ðåðéóôåýêáìåí
—
ὥóðåñäἰ ἑíὸò ἀíèñþðïõ ἡ ἁìáñôßá åἰò ôὸí êïóìïíåἰæῆëèåí êáὶ äéὰ ôῆò ἁìáñôßáò ὁ èÜíáôïæã
,
êáὶ ïὕôùò ὁ èÜíáôïò åἰò ðÜíôáò ἀíèñþðïõò äéῆãèåí
,
ἐøὧ ðÜíôåò ἥìáñôïí
. It is very plain that, without the conception of
ëáìâÜíåéí
, the whole of the following antitheses would appear as a series of blind natural necessities; see Book of Wis_1:16; Wis_2:24, and the explanation of
ἐø
̓
ὧ
, which follows below. Rothe thinks that the Apostle’s supposed anacoluthon was even premeditated—according to the idea of Origen—in order to conceal the doctrine of the apocatastasis which might be deduced from the protasis. See thereon Tholuck, p. 215.
[I cannot bring my mind to adopt Dr. Lange’s construction, which evades a grammatical difficulty only to give room for a more serious logical one, and mars the beauty and completeness of the analogy. It seems to me that the most natural solution of the difficulty is either (1) to take
ὥóðåñ
elliptically: ”This is therefore like the case when;” comp. Mat_25:14 :
ὥóðåñ ãὰñ ἄíèñùðïò
, as a man going abroad, where
ὥóðåñ
neither has, nor necessarily requires, a corresponding
ïὕôùò
(see Textual Note in the Amer. edition of Lange on Matthew, p. 442); Gal_3:6; 1Ti_1:3, where
êáèþò
, and Mar_13:34, where
ὡò
is used elliptically; or (2) to assume an intentional anacoluthon (comp. Winer, Gramm., p. 527 ff., on the two kinds of anacolutha, involuntary and intentional). I prefer the latter solution. The complete antithesis would read thus: ”As (
ὥóðåñ
) by one man (Adam) sin (
ἡ ἁìáñôßá
) entered into the world, and death (
ὁ èáíáôïò
) through sin, and thus death extended (
äéῆëèåí
) to all men, inasmuch as all sinned (
ἥìáñôïí
): so also (
ïὕôùæêáß
) by one man, Jesus Christ, righteousness (
ἡ äéêáéïóýíç
) entered into the world, and life (
ἡ æùÞ
) through righteousness, and thus life shall extend (
äéåëåýóåôáé
) to all men, inasmuch as (on condition that) all shall believe (
ðéóôåýóïíôáé
).” We might also supply, after the second ”righteousness”: ”in order that all, being justified by faith, may be saved.” Rothe (p. 61) supplies as the last clause of the apodosis:
ἐø
̓
ὧ ðÜíôåò äßêáéïé êáôáóôáèÞóïíôáé
; Philippi:
ἐø
̓
ὧ ðÜíôåò äßêáéùèã
́
óïíôáé
. But these are unessential differences. The great points of comparison are: (1) Sin and death, as a principle and power, proceeding from Adam; righteousness and life, as a counteracting and conquering principle and power, proceeding from Christ, upon the whole human race. (2) Death passing upon all men by participation in the sin of Adam; life passing upon all men by participation in the righteousness of Christ. But the analogy is not absolute; for (1) the participation in Adam’s sin is universal in fact, while the participation in the righteousness of Christ, though this righteousness is equally universal in power and intention, is limited in fact to believers; in other words, all are sinners, but not all are believers; all men are one with Adam, but not all are one with Christ (hence the past tense
êáôåóôÜèçóáí
in the case of the
ἁìáñôùëïß
, but the future
êáôáóôáèÞóïíôáé
in the case of the
äßêáéïé
, Rom_5:19). (2) What Christ gained for us is far greater (
ðïëëῶ ìᾶëëïí ἐðåñßóóåõóåí
, Rom_5:15, comp.
ôὴí ðåñéóóåßáí ôῆò êÜñéôïò
, Rom_5:17, and
ὑðåñåðåñßóóåõóåí ἡ êÜñéò
, Rom_5:20) than what was lost by Adam. Paul, therefore, in the rush of ideas suggested by the parallel, intentionally suspends the apodosis, to make first some explanatory and qualifying statements in regard to the difference in the mode, extent, and quality of the effects proceeding respectively from Adam and Christ, and then, after hinting at the second member of the comparison, at the close of Rom_5:14, he brings out the double parallel of similarity and dissimilarity in full as a conclusion, Rom_5:18-19; Rom_5:21. The whole section, as Meyer justly remarks, bears the impress of the most studied and acute premeditation; and this must apply also to the apparent grammatical irregularity in the absence of the apodosis. The Apostle might have spared the commentators a great deal of trouble, if he had, according to the ordinary rules of composition, first stated the comparison in full, and then given the explanations and qualifications; but such grammatical difficulties in the Scriptures are generally overruled for a profounder investigation and elucidaton of the sense.—P. S.]
As by one man [
ὥæðåñ äé
’
ἑíὸò ἀíèñþðïõ
, ”by one man, single and singular in his position, and so presented as the
ñýðïò ôïῦ ìÝëëïíôïò
, the type of the one greater man;” Webster and Wilkinson.—P. S.] Not by his guilt (Meyer) [
äἰἑíὸò ἁìáñôÞóáíôïò
, Rom_5:16], which would by no means suit the antithesis: Christ. But rather by one man, as the human principle, as the historical cause. The one man is Adam, as representative of the first human pair in their unity. The sin of Eve (Sir_25:24; 2Co_11:3; 1Ti_2:14) did not fully decide concerning the future of the human race, because Adam was the head. It was with his sin that the sin of Eve was consummated as the guilt of the first man [and acquired its full power over posterity]. Therefore Adam is meant as the head, as the principle, and not merely with regard to propagation. [Webster and Wilkinson: ”Adam, not Eve, is charged with the primal sin, as he received the command direct from God, and his sin was without excuse. Here, only the guilt of the transgression is in view; in 2Co_11:3; 1Ti_2:14, the mode, instrument, and process.” Bengel assigns three reasons for the omission of Eve: (1) Adam had received the commandment; (2) He was not only the head of his race, but also of Eve; (3) if Adam had not obeyed his wife, one only would have sinned. The omission of the mention of Satan, the primary cause of sin (comp. Gen. iii.; Joh_8:44; 2Co_11:3), he accounts for because (1) Satan is opposed to God, Adam to Christ, whose economy of grace is here described; (2) Satan has nothing to do with the grace of Christ. It should be remembered, also, as Forbes remarks, that in Genesis the very name of Adam, with the article prefixed (
çָàָãָí
, the Adam, the man), is treated as an appellative more than as a proper name, and that, in Gen_1:27, it includes generically both sexes: ”So God created Adam (in Hebrew) in his own image, in the image of God created he him: male and female created he them;” comp. Gen_5:1-2. It was man, or human nature which we have in common with him, that was put on trial in Adam. Paul draws a parallel between Adam and Christ, but never between Eve and Mary. The latter analogy is an unjustifiable inference, first hinted at by Irenæus, and more fully developed by Roman Catholic divines, and became a fruitful source of Mariolatry, which virtually makes the human mother of Christ the fountain of the Christian salvation.—P. S.]
Sin. [
ἡ ἁìáñôßá
. The definite article before
ἁìáñôßá
, and also before
èÜíáôïò
, denotes sin and death as a power or principle which controls man and reveals itself in hereditary corruption, and in every form of actual sin. So
ἡ äéêáéïóýí
̓
ç
, which corresponds to it as its opposite, Rom_5:17; Rom_5:21, is not a single righteous act, but the power of good as a state and as a working principle. Sin is personified as a fearful tyrant, who acquired universal dominion over the human race; he ”reigns in death,” Rom_5:21; ”works death in us,” Rom_7:13; ”lords it over us,” Rom_6:14; ”works all manner of concupiscence,” Rom_7:8; ”deceives and slays” the sinner, Rom_7:11, &c. In all these cases the force of the definite article can be rendered in German, but in English, on the contrary, the absence of the article has the force of generalizing, not so much, its far as I know, from any rule of grammar, as from usage, and perhaps for euphony’s sake.—P. S.] In what sense? Explanations: 1. Original sin, or natural depravity (Augustine, Calvin); 2. Sinfulness [Sündhaftigkeit, habitus peccandi], (Koppe, Olshausen [also Webster and Wilkinson: sinfulness personified; a sinful disposition, our sinful nature; Rom_6:12; Rom_6:14]); 3. Actual sin (Limborch, Fritzsche); 4. Sin as a ruling power (Meyer [De Wette], Tholuck), or better as a principle (Rothe). Philippi, on the contrary, understands sin as the unity of propensity and deed, as also Aret., Schmid, J. Müller. But sin, as an individual deed, is expressed by
ἐö
̓
ὧ
,, &c. It is therefore the principial or fundamental power (die principielle Macht) of sin as the mother of death (Jam_1:15). [The Apostle very carefully, throughout this whole section, distinguishes between
ἁìáñôßá
, as the generic idea, and
ðáñÜâáóéò
and
ðáñÜðôùìá
, as a concrete act, the transgression of a law; compare Rom_5:12-13; Rom_5:20-21, with 15, 16, 17, 18. By the
ðáñÜðôùìá
of Adam the
ἁìáñôßá
entered into the human world, and this
ἁìáñôéá
again became the fruitful mother of the innumerable
ðáñáðôþìáôá
of his descendants.—P. S.]
Entered into the world. [
åἰò ôὸì êüóìïíåἰóῆëèåí
; comp. the Book of Wisdom ii. .24 (in explanation of Gen. iii.):
öèüíù äéâüëïõ èÜíáôïò åἰóῆëèåí åἰò ôὸí êüóìïí
. Sin
åἰæῆëïùå
, came in; death
äéῆëèå
, passed through; the Mosaic law
ðáñåéæῆëèå
(Rom_5:20), came in by the side, or between.] Limborch: a popular personification. On the excessive personification of sin and death in Fritzsche, see Tholuck, p. 219.—Into the world. Not merely into the human world (Meyer), or into human nature (Rothe), but as ruin and destructive power in the whole sphere of humanity in general (see Rom_8:20). It is plain that the human sphere of the world alone is assumed here (according to Abelard: in hanc partem mundi sc. terrenam, in qua homines habitant), as Tholuck remarks, from the fact that, ”according to the Apostle’s conviction, evil was already in existence in another world.” [Comp. 1Co_11:3; Gen. iii.; Book of Wis_2:24; Joh_8:44.—P. S.] The expression indicates not only the tendency to sin and death in human nature (Rothe), but also the propagation of sin (Augustine); because the
êüóìïò
is a conjunction of things, and means an organic connection. The words
äéῆëèåí
and
ἐö
̓
ὧ
refer to the individual and ethical appropriation of sin which is in the
êüóìïò
since Adam’s fall.
Death (namely, entered into the world). Explanations: 1. Physical death (Chrysostom, Augustine, Calov., Meyer. Reference to Gen_2:17; Gen_3:19); 2. Spiritual death (Pelagius); 3. Physical, spiritual, and eternal death; or the collected evil result of sin (Olshausen, De Wette, Tholuck [Philippi, Schmid, Jon. Edwards, Alford, Stuart, Hodge]). This is no doubt correct, for physical death in itself has no biblical and ethical significance (see Rom_8:6; 1Co_15:56; Jam_1:15).
[The Bible uniformly connects sin and death as cause and effect; comp. Gen_2:17; Eze_18:4 (”The soul that sinneth, it shall die”); Jer_31:30; Jer_6:16; Jer_6:21; Jer_6:24; Rom_7:10; Rom_8:13; Jam_1:15, &c. ”Jeder Sündenfall,” says Dr. Nitzsch, ”ist ein Todesfall, und jeder Fortschritt in der Sünde ein neues Sterben.” Without sin, there would be neither spiritual nor physical death. This was symbolically intimated by the tree of life in paradise, of which fallen man was forbidden to eat, ”lest he live for ever.” Adam, if he had not sinned, might have passed to higher forms of life, but without a violent separation of body and soul, without being ”unclothed,” but by being ”clothed upon” (2Co_5:2-4), or, in the beautiful figure of the Rabbins, ”by a kiss of the Almighty.” Death and life are very deep and comprehensive terms in the Scriptures, and the connection must decide whether all, or which of the meanings are exclusively or prominently kept in view. There are three kinds of death: (1) The death of the soul (1Jn_3:14; comp. Mat_8:22; Eph_2:1), which is properly the first and immediate effect of sin, since sin is a separation of the soul from God, the fountain of life; (2) The death of the body (Rom_5:10; Mat_20:18; Mat_26:66; Joh_11:4; Joh_11:13; Act_13:28; Php_1:20; Php_2:8), which is the culmination and end of all physical malady and evil in this world; (3) the eternal death of soul and body (Rom_1:32; 2Co_3:16; 2Co_7:10; Jam_5:20; 1Jn_5:16), which is also called the second death,
ὁ èÜíáôïò ὁ äåýôåñïò
(in the Rev_2:11; Rev_20:6; Rev_20:14; Rev_21:8). In our passage (as also Rom_7:21; Rom_7:23; Rom_7:5; 2Ti_1:10),
ὁ èÜíáôïò
is as comprehensive as
ἡ ἁìáñôßá
, its cause, and as
ἡ æùÞ
, its opposite. It embraces all physical and moral evil, as the penal consequence of sin; it is death temporal and spiritual, viewed as, one united power and principle ruling over the human race. That the Apostle meant physical death, is clear from Rom_5:14, and from his unmistakable reference to Gen_2:17; Gen_3:3; Gen_3:19; while from Rom_5:17-18; Rom_5:21, we may infer that he had also in mind spiritual and eternal death, as the contrast to eternal life,
æùὴ áἰþíéïò
, in which the Scripture idea of life culminates, as the idea of death culminates in eternal damnation. Ewald has an excellent note on this passage (Die Sendschreiben des Ap. Paulus, p. 373): ”Paul knew that, notwithstanding the words Gen_2:17, Adam did not literally die immediately after his sin; consequently he must mean by death that entire inner corruption (jenes ganze innere Verderben) by which even the physical death only becomes true death; just as, on the other hand, he ascribes true life to the genuine Christians even now before the resurrection of the body. All this is so well founded in his constant use of language, that it needs no explanation.” Comp. also the remarks of Philippi in loc., and Cremer, Bibl. Theol. Wörterbuch, sub
èÜíáôïò
, p. Rom 232: ”Daher ist Tod zusammenfassender Ausdruch für die gesammte gerichtliche Consequenz der Sünde,Rom_5:12; Rom_5:14; Rom_5:17; Rom_5:21; Rom_6:16; Jam_5:20, in welchem alles durch die Sünde bedingte Uebel sich concentrirt, synon. Verderben,
ἀðþëåéá
.”—P. S.]
And so (death) passed upon all men. The second
èÜíáôïò
was left out probably because
äéῆëèåì
would be referred equally to sin and death. But both are comprehended in the
èÜíáôïò
in its spiritual character. The
äéÝñêåóèáé
denotes the extension, the universal progress; though a germ-like development is not contained in the word, but in the thing itself. [
ïὕôùò
(demzufolge, dergestalt, consequently) connects the universal reign of death, chronologically and logically, with the universal reign of sin, as its preceding cause. Some make
êáὶïὕôùò
, and thus, equivalent, by transposition, to
ïὕôù êáß
, so also, and regard this as the apodosis of the first clause of the twelfth verse; but this is entirely ungrammatical, and inconsistent with the main object of this section, which is to draw a parallel, not between Adam and his posterity, or sin and death, but between Adam and Christ.—
åἰò ðÜíôáò ἀíèñþðïõò
, upon, all men, is equivalent to the preceding
êüóìïò
, but differs from it ”as the concrete parts from the abstract whole; and
äéÝñêåóèáé
differs from
åἰæÝñêåóèáé
as the going from house to house differs from entering a town;” De Wette. Luther well translates
äéῆëèåí
: ist durchgedrungen, passed through and pervaded, as a destructive and desolating power.—P. S.]
In such a manner that [solcherweise dass, or, on the ground that; better: inasmuch as].
ἐö
̓
ᾧ
(=
ἐö
̓
ïἷò
) is as much as
ἐðὶ ôïýôù ὅôé
. It can therefore mean here: on the ground that;
äéüôé
, propter ea quod (Meyer); under the supposition that (Baur); on condition that (Rothe); in conformity with it, that. Tholuck [p. 234] favors the meaning because, with reference to 2Co_5:4; Php_3:12; yet he makes the because relative, and translates, so far as they all.
[It is almost unanimously agreed now, that
ἐö
̓
ὧ
, for which the Greeks generally use the plural,
ἐö
̓ (propter ea quod), has here the sense of a conjunction, and that
ὧ
is the neuter, not the masculine to be referred back either to
åἷò ἅíèñùðïò
(with Augustine, some Roman Catholics, older Lutherans and Calvinists), or to
èÜíáôïò
(with Glöckler, Hofmann). It can mean neither in quo,
ἐí ὧ
(Augustine), nor per quem,
äἰ ïὗ
(Grotius), nor propter quem or cum quo,
äἰ ὅí
or
óῦí ὧ
(Chrysostom, Theophylact, (Œcumenius, Elsner). But it must be resolved either into
ἐðὶ ôïýôù ὥóôå
, ea conditions ut, ea ratione ut, unter der Voraussetzung, unter der näheren Bestimmtheit dass, on the presupposition, on the definite ground that, on condition that (so Rothe, in a learned and subtle discussion, 1. c. pp. 17–38, and Schmid, Bibl. Theol. des N . T., 2:260 f.); or into
ἐðὶ ôïýôù ὅôé
=
äéüôé
(Thomas Magister and Phavorinus:
ἐö ὧ
,
ἀíôὶ ôïῦ äéüôé
), propter id quod, auf Grund dessen dass, darum dass, weil, on this account that, because; comp. 2Co_5:4; Php_3:12, and classical passages quoted by Meyer, p. 204 f. (so Fritzsche, Rom. 1. 299 sq., Meyer, Tholuck, Philippi, Winer, Gramm., p. 368, who are followed, without further discussion, by Alford, Webster and Wilkinson, Stuart and Hodge). The latter explanation gives the plain sense, that the universal reign of death is caused by universal sin; while Rothe’s explanation conveys the more subtle idea that the actual sin of individuals is a consequence of the same proceeding by which death, through Adam’s sin, passed upon all men, or that the sin of Adam has caused the sin of all others in inseparable connection with death. I prefer the translation, so far as, inasmuch as, which gives good sense in all the Pauline passages (2Co_5:4 :
ἐö
̓
ὧ ïὐ èÝëïìåí ἐêäýóáóèáé
,
ἀëë
̓
ἐðåíäýóáóèáé
; Php_3:12 :
ἐö
̓
ὧ êáὶ êáôåëÞöèçí
). It is not so much a causal, as a qualifying and conditioning conjunction (a relative or modified
ὅôé
), which in our passage shows more clearly the connection of death with sin. It implies that a moral participation of all men in the sin of Adam is the medium or cause of their death; just as faith on our part is the moral condition of our participation in Christ’s life. It is unfavorable to the doctrine of a gratuitous imputation. The legal act of imputation is not arbitrary and unconditioned, but rests on a moral ground and an objective reality.—P. S.]
[All sinned (not, have sinned, E. V.),
ðÜíôåò ἥìáñôïí
. The aor. II. presents the sinning of all as a historical fact, or a momentary action of the past; comp.
ἀðÝèáíïí
, in Rom_5:15;
ïἱ ðÜíôåæἀðÝèáíïí
, 2Co_5:14; and especially Rom_3:23, where precisely the same phrase occurs: ”all sinned,” as in one act (in Adam), and consequently became sinners (comp. Textual Note5, p. 128). Some take the aorist in the sense of the perfect
ἡìáñôÞêáóé
=
ὑö
̓
ἁìáñôßáí åἰóß
; but the aorist was chosen with reference to the past event of Adam’s fall, which was at the same time virtually the fall of the human race as represented by him, and germinally contained in him. ‘
ÁìáñôÜíåéí
cannot mean: to be, or, to become sinful (=
ἁìáñôùëὸí åἶíáé
, or,
ãßãíåóèáé
), although this is the necessary result of the first sinful act; still less, to suffer the punishment of sin; but it means real, actual sinning. In what sense? The choice in the following list lies between interpretations (4) and (5), which are both equally consistent with the natural grammatical sense of
ἥìáñôïí
; while the other interpretations are more or less strained or false.—P. S.]
Explanations of
ðÜíôåò ἡìáñôïí
:
(1) In quo, namely, in Adam, the whole race sinned. (Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Augustine [Beza, Brenz, Bucer, Este, Erasmus Schmid], and, as probably ”the last among Protestant expositors” [?], Benjamin Carpzov, 1758). The supposition here is the organic unity of the human race.
(2) Because all have become sinful [vitiati sunt, peccatores facti sunt]—that is, sinners by original sin (Calvin, Melanchthon, Flatt).
(3) Metonymically, because all have been punished as sinners, or are involved in the consequences of the fall (Chrysostom, Grotius, Arminians and Socinians [and Calvinists of the Federal school, Macknight, Hodge]).
(4) Some supply even Adamo peccante after
ἐö
̓
ὧ
(Pareus, and others; Bengel, Olshausen, &c.). Philippi, p. Rom 179: ”We must mentally supply
ἐí
̓
ÁäÜì
, or more specifically; Adamo peccante, to
ἥìáñôïí
.” Meyer, likewise, ”because all sinned when Adam sinned, in and with him!” 1Co_15:22 [
ἐí ôῶ
̓
ÁäÜì ðÜíôåò ἀðïèíÞóêïõóéí
] has been alleged as proof of this.
(5) The expression must be understood of the personal sins of individuals (Reiche, Rückert, De Wette, Tholuck [Fritzsche, Baur, Van Hengel, Stuart], and others). Meyer calls this interpretation false in view of the many millions of children who have not yet sinned [i.e., committed actual transgression]. Tholuck refers to the disposition of children to sin [which, however, is inconsistent with
ἧìáñôïí
.—P. S.]. But he who finds no difficulty in conceiving that children sinned in Adam, should find less difficulty in thinking that they sinned in the womb of their mother, and least difficulty in sinking their individuality in the solidarity of their sinful ancestry. Meyer objects further, that the view that the death of individuals is the result of their personal sins, would vitiate and even contradict the whole parallel between Adam and Christ. “For as the sin of Adam brought death to all (therefore not their self-committed sin), so the obedience of Christ (not their own virtue) brought life to all (comp. 1Co_15:22).” Thus an absolute natural necessity prevailed on both sides! The proper consideration of the parallel, on the contrary, leads to this conclusion: As in the actual appropriation of the merits of Christ a personal ethical appropriation takes place by faith, so in the actual sharing in the guilt of Adam does an ethical participation by unbelief take place (see Rom_11:32). It is a great error to imagine that, in order to avoid the Pelagian heresy, we must cast ourselves into the arms of the Augustinian theory, and do violence to the plain text. This is done by Beza, Calvin, Philippi, and Meyer, though by each in a different way.
(6) The
ἐö
̓
ὧ
is understood as causa finalis: unto which, viz., death or punishment; thus making
ἐðß
to mark the end, or consequence, to which sinning came. (Venema, Schmid, Glöckler, and Ewald [formerly, not now].) Meyer observes, that this telic view implies a necessary, though not intended effect, in accordance with the idea of fate.
(7) Hofmann: Under whose (death’s) dominion they sinned. This view might be better supported by the thought in Heb_2:15, than by the language in Heb_9:15. Yet it is untenable.
(8) Thomasius: Under which relation (namely, that sin and death came into the world by one man) all sinned, &c.
It is evident that the most of these explanations are attempts, from doctrinal considerations, to avoid the idea of individual personal guilt, and by this means a relation, clear enough in itself, is obscured. The Apostle’s assumption is, the priority of sin in relation to death, and the causal connection of the two. Accordingly, the meaning is, since sin came into the world as an abnormal ethical principle, death came into the world with it as the corresponding abnormal physiological principle. Therefore the propagation of the abnormal principle of death presupposes the preceding propagation of the principle of sin in the real sinning of all. It arises from the unity and solidarity of humanity, that certain cases—for example, children born dead, or dying [and idiots]—do not here come into consideration. The definition of the
ἐö
̓
ὧ
, under the presupposition that, is therefore the most natural. In view of the death of innocent children, we may assume different degrees of guilt and death: “in proportion as,” or “in what measure, they all sinned.”
Rom_5:13. For until the law, &c. [
Ἄêñéãὰñ íüìïõ
,—i.e., from Adam to the Mosaic legislation, comp. Rom_5:14—
ἁìáñôßá ἦí ἐí êüóìù
. Alford: “How, consistently with Rom_4:15, could all men sin, before the law? This is now explained.” But Rom_4:15 is too far off, and treats of
ðáñÜâáóéò
, not of
ἁìáñôßá
.
ãÜï
connects this verse with
ðÜíôåò ἥìáñôïí
, Rom_5:12.—P. S.] The Apostle did not need to show first that the death of all was grounded in Adam’s sin (Meyer); this he could presuppose from Jewish and Christian knowledge. But he proves rather that the actual extension of death took place always under the supposition of preceding sin in the world. Therefore his first proposition: Even in the period between Adam and Moses, sin was universal in the world. It was indeed not imputed, not placed directly in the light of the conscious judgment of God, because the law, as the rule of conduct and the accuser, was not yet present. But, indirectly, its presence was made manifest by its effect, the despotic government of death; although a transgression in such a definite way as that committed by Adam could not occur in the period designated (notwithstanding many analogies: Cain, the Cainites, Ham, Ishmael, Esau). Even the transgression again made manifest by the Mosaic law does not remove the great antagonism by which, in principle, sin and death proceeded from Adam, the type of Christ, the antitype, from whom, in principle, righteousness and life proceded. Meyer supposes the Apostle to say: “The death of individuals, which passed also upon those who have not sinned, as Adam did, against a positive commandment, cannot be derived from sin committed before the law, because, the law not being present, the imputation was wanting [absolutely?]; and the conclusion which Paul draws therefrom, is, that it is by Adam’s sin (not by individual sins) that death has been produced” (!). Now, how does this agree with the history of the Deluge, and of Sodom and Gomorrah? Here, definite death is everywhere traced to definite offences. Tholuck’s view of the connection [p. 238 ff.] is similar to Meyer’s. The most of the later commentators, on
