Romans 5
Romans 5
3. The Effects of Justification, 5:1–11
Commentators view this section in a wide variety of ways. Black sees it as a transition from the treatment of justification to that of the spiritual life. Boylan regards it as a study of “the fruits of justification”, while others specifically reject this (Godet, e.g., sees it as dealing with the certainty of final salvation for believers). Lloyd-Jones finds in it the key to the understanding of the rest of the letter and speaks of it as teaching that our salvation is “absolute, complete and final”; he titles his treatment of this chapter “Assurance”. Dodd regards 5:1–11 as a summary of the argument to 8:39. Nygren heads it “Free from the Wrath of God”, while Cranfield asserts that peace with God gives the section its unity. Similarly, Käsemann heads it “Paradoxical standing in the peace of God”.
It is not easy to avoid the impression that some students tend to make the passage more definitely a part of a scheme of their own devising than to try to follow Paul’s line of thought. It is not at all obvious that the apostle is following a rigid scheme. But it is clear that he has concluded his basic account of justification and that he is now moving on to the consequences (notice his “Therefore” at the beginning). Justification has results. The justified person has peace and joy, and Paul exults in this. In the process he further emphasizes the importance of the death of the righteous Christ for sinful people. The love of God is behind all this. Paul does not think of God as remote and indifferent but as full of love, and it is from his love that our salvation proceeds.
1Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, wea have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. 3Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
1. Therefore links what follows to the preceding. It is only because of Christ’s work of justification that peace and other blessings follow. For justified see Additional Note D. Through translates ek, which denotes origin. For peace see the note on 1:7. Paul speaks of peace with God, not “the peace of God” (as Phil. 4:7);1 he is not referring to a subjective feeling, but to the objective fact that the justified are no longer enemies of God but are at peace with him (cf. v. 10). The inward peace that follows is very important, but it is not the primary thought here. The justified person is no longer tormented by questions of his relationship with God arising from the fact that he is a sinner. Sinner though he is, he is at peace with God because of what God has done for him. A difficult textual problem arises as to whether we should read “we have peace” or “let us have peace”.2 The context favors the former reading, with its indicatives stating facts (there is no exhortation in the entire passage, vv. 1–11, though cf. n. 8†). But the MSS favor the second reading. Our decision rests on the relative weights we give to the context and the MSS. Most commentators agree that the indicative is the proper reading; they see Paul as pointing out that the justified have peace with God. “Let us have peace” would seem to imply that the justified have a choice whether to have peace or not, and that is un-Pauline. On the whole it seems that there is more to be said for the indicative (if the subjunctive were accepted it would have to be in the sense “Let us enjoy peace”). Justification results in real peace with God, and that for all believers. Gore points out that this involves the destruction of the fancied securities and the false peace that we manufacture, as when we say, “Peace, peace, when there is no peace” (Jer. 6:14; 8:11). Our peace is obtained through our Lord Jesus Christ. That it is Christ who brings us the blessing is the emphasis of this part of the letter (vv. 11, 21; 6:23; 7:25; 8:39; this expression thus appears at the end of each section of the argument.
2. Through Christ we approach God. Most translations speak of our having access, but the noun seems rather to mean “introduction”.3 “The idea is that of introduction to the presence-chamber of the monarch. The rendering ‘access’ is inadequate since it leaves out of sight the fact that we do not come in our own strength but need an ‘introducer’—Christ” (SH). The stress is on Christ’s activity, not ours. The verb is in the perfect tense,4 which points to the ongoing result of a past act. Christ’s bringing us to God has continuing effect (which may be why so many translations favor “access”). Another interesting textual problem has to do with by faith (omitted in RSV), where the evidence for inclusion and exclusion is rather evenly balanced.5 Since the authorities against the reading are fairly strong, and since it is so natural to slip the words in, perhaps we should regard them as a scribal insertion. The sense is not greatly affected, for Paul has just said that justification is by faith. The introduction is into this grace, an uncommon way of using “grace”. It is closely connected with God, and indeed Smart says forthrightly, “ ‘Access to this grace’ is access to God. Grace is not something apart from God, but is God giving himself to us in his graciousness” (cf. GNB, “this experience of God’s grace”).6 We stand translates a perfect tense, used in the sense of the present, and with the thought of a continuing attitude.7 Rejoice translates a verb usually rendered “boast“;8 it carries the thought of giving expression to what is felt and not simply the feeling. Perhaps “exult” (NEB) is as good a translation as any; Barrett says that the word “means a triumphant, rejoicing confidence”. The exultation is based on the hope of the glory of God. Left to ourselves we fall short of God’s glory (3:23), but the work of Christ has altered that. Christ prayed that his followers would see his glory (John 17:24), and the dying Stephen did see the glory (Acts 7:55). The glory is closely connected with Christ (cf. “Christ in you, the hope of glory”, Col. 1:27). It is ongoing, for we are being transformed “from glory to glory” (2 Cor. 3:18), but the consummation is yet to be revealed (Rom. 8:18). See further on 2:7, and for hope on 4:18. On this word Käsemann remarks, it is not “the prospect of what might happen but the prospect of what is already guaranteed” (p. 134). There is a distinctiveness about the Christian hope: “whereas for the English speaker hope might imply doubt, for Paul it implied certainty” (TH; cf. Phillips, “happy certainty“). Some take this expression as coordinate with the immediately preceding: “through whom we have gained introduction … and exult….” But it seems better to link it with the earlier verb, “we have peace … and we exult” (so Murray, Cranfield, and others).9
3. Not only (see on 1:32) is a mark of Paul’s style. it recurs with some frequency when he is piling another argument on to the preceding one. Rejoice (“boast” or “exult” again) is a striking word to use of afflictions, but the attitude (with or without this word) is found often throughout the New Testament (cf. Matt. 5:4, 10–12; Acts 5:41; 14:22; 2 Cor. 12:9–10; 2 Thess. 1:5; 1 Pet. 4:13–14). People generally think of troubles as evils to be endured as gracefully as possible. Paul thinks of them not as simply to be endured, but to be gloried in. Sufferings, or “afflictions” (see on 2:9), is a strong term. It does not refer to minor inconveniences, but to real hardships. No one likes troubles of this kind, but they may be seen as difficulties to be overcome, as ways of opening up new possibilities. One who sees them in this light glories in10 them. Käsemann sees a reference to “the end-time affliction which comes on the Christian as a follower of the messiah Jesus” (p. 134). But this seems an unnecessary limitation and certainly one the text does not justify. Paul is including all the afflictions that come to the Christian. We know is a characteristic appeal to knowledge (see on 2:2). The string of virtues is quite in the Pauline manner (cf. Gal. 5:22–23; Eph. 4:1–3). For perseverance see on 2:7 and for produces on 1:27 (there translated “committed”).
4. Character is NIV’s translation of a word difficult to put into English.11 It indicates the result of being tested, the quality of being approved on the basis of a trial; “the temper of the veteran as opposed to that of the raw recruit” (SH). NEB read “proof that we have stood the test” (cf. Job 23:10). Steadfast endurance leads to the quality of testedness, and this in turn to hope, for the Christian who has been tested has proved God’s faithfulness and will surely hope the more confidently.
5. Hope comes last in Paul’s list, but it was already present at the beginning (v. 2). Here the apostle goes off in a different direction, saying that hope does not disappoint us. He is, of course, speaking of the specifically Christian hope, not human hope in general. His verb is found in Paul in ten of its 13 New Testament occurrences; it usually means “put to shame“. Paul is saying that hope, the genuinely Christian hope, never puts those who have it to shame (cf. Ps. 22:5; 25:3, 20; Isa. 28:16, LXX; 2 Tim. 1:12, etc.). This is because God’s love is poured into their hearts. Paul’s emphasis on love is strangely overlooked; the apostle is often seen as somewhat pugnacious and argumentative, while John, by contrast, is “the apostle of love”. But the word love occurs 75 times in Paul out of a New Testament total of 116 (nine in Romans).12 For this apostle love is supremely important, and he comes back to it again and again. As he does here, Paul often stresses the fact that it is God’s love that motivates believers. While the reference is surely to the love God has for us, we should not overlook the truth that the Spirit’s pouring of God’s love into our hearts is a creative act. It kindles love in us, and love “becomes the moral principle by which we live” (Dodd). Poured out points to abundance (cf. Moffatt, “floods our hearts”).13 This pouring out of God’s love is done “through” the Holy Spirit. The thought is that of an action of the Spirit of God on our human spirits. The Spirit is given (the aorist indicates a single, decisive act), which reminds us that this is not a human achievement or insight. Paul loves to emphasize the divine initiative.14
6. The main thrust of Paul’s argument is clear. He is saying that the death of Christ was on behalf of ungodly people. But the exact words in which he says it are unclear: the textual problem is all but insoluble.15 It seems, however, that the apostle is emphasizing16 that the death of Christ17 took place, not for good people, but for people still sinners. The emphasis is on our unhappy state. We were weak, ungodly sinners (v. 8), and God’s enemies (v. 10). “Weak” (NIV, powerless)18 refers to moral frailty rather than to physical weakness. We were quite powerless to help ourselves (and unable even to understand the things of God, 1 Cor. 2:14, let alone act on them). But God’s love triumphed where human power failed. Paul says that God acted at just the right time.19 This agrees with other expressions that refer to Christ as coming at the consummation of the ages and the like (cf. 1 Cor. 10:11; Gal. 4:4; 1 Tim. 2:6; Tit. 1:3; Heb. 1:2; 9:26). The thought here is that there is nothing precipitate or delayed about God’s action. Theodoret comments that the phrase means “at the appropriate time” (p. 76). Two ways of looking at the time of Christ’s death are combined here: he died at a time when we were still sinners, and at a time that fitted God’s purpose. This second way emphasizes that the atonement was no afterthought. This was the way God always intended to deal with sin; he did it when he chose. Christ died for20 “ungodly people”.21 Despite NIV, there is no article with “ungodly”; Paul is not referring to the ungodly as a class, but to people generally as ungodly. Paul often uses the verb “to die” (42 times in all). His great interests when he uses the term are in the death of Christ for sinners, as here, and in our death to sin. The important references are those to Christ’s death and what it has done for believers.
7. Paul brings out the unexpected aspect of this death. It is unexpected because no one dies for evil people.22 Very rarely is not quite what Paul is saying. His expression refers to the difficulty of finding someone to do this rather than to the number of occasions when it happens.23 His righteous man is not, of course, a man who has merited his salvation, a man who is righteous for God. He is one who has done what is required of him here on earth. Some people are better than others, and Paul is referring to one of the better ones. It would not be easy to find anyone ready to die24 for even such a person (Moffatt, “Why, a man will hardly die for the just”). Yet this is not altogether impossible. Paul holds out the possibility that for a good man someone might25 be ready to die. It remains a question whether Paul makes a distinction between the righteous man and the good one. But he does not seem to regard them here as synonymous. The righteous or “just” man is the one who keeps the letter of the law; he does what is right. But the good person goes beyond that.26 There is a warmth of good feeling and a generosity about his actions. The language is tentative; Paul is not rating highly the possibility of someone dying for the good man. Yet it might happen. Because it would demand courage, he says that the person would dare to make this sacrifice.
8. But God’s love is greater: Christ did not die for good people, but for sinners. The cross is the means by which God demonstrates27 his love. Paul says that the cross shows us God’s own love. One might expect him to say that the cross shows us the love of Christ. It does that, of course, but own puts the emphasis on the love of the Father (cf. 1 John 4:10). “Christ’s action is God’s action. Christ’s love is God’s love” (Nygren). It would be easy to see the cross as demonstrating the indifference of God, a God who let the innocent Jesus be taken by wicked men, tortured, and crucified while he did nothing. And that would indeed be the case were it not that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). Unless there is a sense in which the Father and Christ are one, it is not the love of God that the cross shows. But because Christ is one with God, Paul can speak of the cross as a demonstration of the love of God. There is no opposition between the Father and the Son in the means of our salvation. And it was while we were still sinners that Christ died. Still points to our state at the time. God did not make some indication that we were ready to amend our lives a precondition of bringing about our salvation. It was for people who had sinned and were still sinners that Christ died.28 There is a spontaneity about God’s love. He loves because of what he is, not because of what we are. There is nothing in sinners to call forth the love of God. But he does love us, as the cross so plainly shows. Christ died for us comes at the end with impressive simplicity. It is a succinct statement of the essence of the Christian message.
9. Paul links this statement to the preceding with “therefore” (which NIV omits).29 Here it is more than a conventional connecting word; it denotes real causal sequence. As in verse 1, we have been justified presents our justification as an accomplished fact. Paul takes that as basic and reasons from it. Justification is by grace (3:24), by faith (3:28), and connected with the resurrection (4:25); it is in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 6:11), in the Spirit (1 Cor. 6:11), in Christ (Gal. 2:17), and here it is by his blood.30 These are all facets of God’s great saving act, and the various ways of expressing it center impressively on the truth that it is all of God (8:33). How much more31 introduces an argument from the greater to the less: if Christ has done the great work of justifying sinners, dying for God’s enemies, he will certainly perform the comparatively simple task of keeping those who are now God’s friends. “We shall be saved” looks to the future, and, indeed, this verb is in the future tense in seven of its eight occurrences in Romans; in this letter Paul is very interested in the future aspect of salvation. Here he speaks of salvation from “the wrath” (see on 1:18; cf. 12:19; 1 Thess. 1:10; NIV inserts God’s quite correctly, but for Paul it was enough to say “the wrath”). Clearly Paul is referring to the wrath to come, the eschatological wrath. Christ’s salvation is effective not only now, but in what lies beyond this life. Believers will not experience the wrath of God then.
10. The “if” construction implies the truth of the supposition, “if, enemies as we were….” Enemies is a strong term; sin had put us completely in the wrong with God (in 11:28 this term is opposed to “beloved”). An enemy is not a person who comes a little bit short of being a friend; it means someone in the opposite camp. Some see the meaning here as man’s hostility to God, but the reference to wrath (v. 9) surely shows that God’s hostility to evil is in view. The wrath and the enmity go together. That sinners are God’s enemies is stated a number of times in the New Testament (11:28; Phil. 3:18; Col. 1:21; Jas. 4:4; cf. Eph. 2:15–16).32 But the state of enmity is not the last word; we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son. Reconciliation is a vivid word, pointing to the making of peace after a quarrel. It is a concept Paul uses a number of times to bring out the significance of the cross (2 Cor. 5:18–20; Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20–22). From this point of view the cross meant doing away with sin, breaking down the barrier that kept God and people apart, and thus the restoration of good relations.33 The reconciliation took place through the death of Christ. Through is not specific; it simply denotes the instrumentality of the death in bringing about the result. Paul is the only New Testament writer to refer in set terms to “the death of Christ” or the like (again in this letter in 6:3, 5, 9; for death see on 1:32). For him it is important that Christ actually died for us and that it was that death of God’s Son (for Son see on 1:3) that dealt with our sins.
But Paul does not dwell on the past. The death and the reconciliation it has brought about are important and he comes back to them often, but he also looks forward to the future. If we have been reconciled, how much more … shall we be saved through his life! (cf. 8:34). Saved is again used with a future reference and with a very full meaning, for it is something that follows from reconciliation. Again there is an eschatological reference. The reconciliation leads to a salvation that never ends. When Christ has done the great work of putting away our sin and bringing about our reconciliation to God, he will certainly go on and bring us salvation through eternity (the thought of the previous verse is repeated). NIV says that we will be saved through his life,34 and this may be the way we should take it. There will then be a reference to the resurrection life. Hodge explains it this way, “If while we were enemies, we were restored to the favour of God by the death of his Son, the fact that he lives will certainly secure our final salvation.”35 But the preposition is often used in the sense “in”, and the meaning may be something like “we shall be saved through sharing in his life” (Goodspeed; cf. Gifford, “as partakers thereof”), or “through His living in us” (Phillips). Our full salvation is achieved “in” Christ’s life, which presumably means that we are in him, and that his life is in us. Certainly our life is bound up with his life (cf. 6:8; John 14:19; Eph. 1:22–23; Heb. 7:25; Rev. 1:18, etc.).
11. With another not only (see on 1:32) Paul piles on an additional consideration. He brings out the further riches of the Christian life and reinforces his opening with but also. As in verses 2 and 3, his thought of “boasting” or “exulting”, this time exulting in God through whom the reconciliation comes.36 That we exult in37 God reminds us of the central place of God in Christian living, and the qualification through our Lord Jesus Christ of the significance of the work of our Savior. It is only on account of what he has done that we can exult in God. The expression brings out something of the spontaneous exuberance of the Christian life.38 The final words are important: through whom we have now received reconciliation. Denney points out that the Greek term for reconciliation differs from its English and German equivalents, for they both imply that peace with God has actually been achieved, whereas “The work of reconciliation, in the sense of the New Testament, is a work which is finished, and which we must conceive to be finished, before the gospel is preached.”39 The noun incidentally is confined to Paul in the New Testament (twice each in Romans and 2 Corinthians).40
4. Solidarity in Adam and in Christ, 5:12–21
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Paul enters a detailed (and difficult) comparison of Adam and Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 15:22, 45–49). In dealing with the first man he is concerned not so much with the creation of Adam as with his first sin and the calamitous consequences that followed. All mankind is affected by what Adam did. Over against that Paul sets the saving work of Christ. Just as Adam was the head of a race of sinners, so Christ is the head of a new race, the redeemed people of God. The argument is very condensed,41 and in all translations and comments we must allow for the possibility that Paul’s meaning may at some point be other than we think. But we must not exaggerate this. The main lines of the argument are clear. It is an important section, and indeed Nygren calls it “the point where all the lines of (Paul’s) thinking converge, both those of the preceding chapters and those of the chapters that follow.”42 The construction of the whole is not straightforward. Paul begins to compare Adam and Christ in verse 12, but breaks off his sentence at the end of that verse to explain the pattern of sin and death (vv. 13–14). He makes it clear that there are profound dissimilarities between Christ and Adam (vv. 15–17), and in verse 18 he returns to complete succinctly the thought of the unfinished sentence of verse 12. To this he adds an explanation (v. 19) and a little section on the law (vv. 20–21). There is an objectivity to this section that we should not miss. In verses 1–11 and again in 6:1–9 the pronoun “we” is constant, but in 5:12–21 there is not one “we”. Paul is concentrating on objective facts, irrespective of our participation.
12. This verse begins a new section, linked to the preceding with a Therefore. Immediately we encounter disagreement. Barrett discovers only “a loose relation” with the preceding and Käsemann refers to “the break in thought” (p. 146), whereas Lenski speaks of “a close connection” and Boylan sees what follows as “an inference from the section, vv. 1–11”. We should take Paul’s Therefore seriously. He is linking this new section to the preceding. It is because of the reconciliation Christ has brought about that the evil Adam introduced into the world has been overcome, and more than overcome (cf. v. 20). Had it not been for the pervasive evil our first father brought into the world, there would have been no need and no place for reconciliation. It is possible to see Therefore as referring to verse 11, to verses 1–11, or to the whole long passage from 1:18 on. Whichever way we take it (and there is much to be said for the simpler view that it depends on v. 11), it is the conclusion of the foregoing argument. A problem arises from the fact that Paul begins to say something on the basis of the reconciliation we have received, but he never gets around to completing his sentence.43 KJV marks the construction by putting verses 13–17 in brackets; this perhaps makes the grammatical construction too complicated; it is probably better to think that Paul simply leaves his sentence unfinished. But, however we take it, it is only in verse 18 that we have the completion of the thought that Paul starts here.
Paul says that sin entered the world through one man. He does not name him until verse 14, but there is no doubt that he is referring to Adam.44 He emphasizes his point by putting “as through one man” first in the clause. This one man, and indeed one evil deed of this one man, is very important and underlies the whole discussion. Twelve times in verses 12–19 we have the word one; repeatedly Paul refers to one man Adam (and to one sin of that one man), and opposes to him (and to it) the one man Jesus Christ (and his one work of grace). The one man and his sin and the one Savior and his salvation are critical to the discussion. Sin entered the world (which incidentally implies that sin existed before Adam). With the personification we see sin as a mighty force of evil which used Adam as its instrument. The world is, of course, the world of people, the human race, not the physical earth. Death (see on 1:32; this is one of Paul’s characteristic connections of death and sin) is also personified, and seen as using sin as its point of entry. It is sin that brought death. This presents a problem to modern people, for death seems inevitable for bodies constituted like ours, sin or no sin.45 Some argue accordingly that Paul means spiritual death, not physical death (in vv. 17 and 21 “death” is opposed to eternal life). The warning to Adam ran, “in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Gen. 2:17, RSV), but in the sense of physical death Adam did not die “in the day” that he ate, nor for many years afterward. It is therefore suggested that a spiritual penalty is meant (cf. 6:23; Eph. 2:1). To this it is objected that no one would understand from the language used that the writers of Genesis and Romans were referring to anything other than death in the ordinary physical sense (cf. Gifford, “That death must here be understood in its primary sense as the death of the body, is clear from the connexion with v.14, where no other meaning is admissible”). Perhaps the best way to understand both passages is to see a reference to both kinds of death. Physical death is in mind, but not physical death in itself; it is physical death as the sign and symbol of spiritual death.
The consequence of Adam’s sin and the death that it brought into the world is that death came46 to all men. That the emphasis is on the fact that the whole race is involved is seen partly from the position of all (it is first in its clause in the Greek), and partly from the inclusion of men (the word all would have been sufficient). Adam was one man and he did one act. But the result spread to all his posterity.47 Paul moves on to the point that all sinned (cf. 3:9, 23–24). The Greek construction is difficult.48 It is not surprising accordingly that interpretations vary. Many have taken Paul to mean that Adam’s sin in some way brought the penalty of death not only on himself but on all his posterity. All sinned in this case means “all sinned in Adam”; “Adam’s sin is the sin of all”.49 Such a view is not wildly popular in our highly individualistic age, but many remind us that we stand in solidarity with the entire race and this is something we must keep in view.50 A second explanation is that of Calvin; he maintains that Adam “corrupted, vitiated, depraved, and ruined our nature…. We have, therefore, all sinned, because we are all imbued with natural corruption.” Essentially the same point of view may be expressed in terms more acceptable today; we all sin, but our sin is the result of tendencies we inherit.51 Such views recognize the fact that we are sinful and that we are punished because we are sinful, but they trace the origin of our sinfulness to our human nature. The older forms of this view saw that human nature as changed for the worse by what Adam did (original sin).52 The main objection to this is that Paul says nothing about a corrupt nature or sinful tendencies; such views read something into the text. A third view puts the emphasis on the unqualified statement, all sinned. This must, its adherents maintain, refer to an individual activity; we all follow Adam’s example, but our sin is our own. This was put in a memorable phrase by an ancient writer, “each of us has been the Adam of his own soul” (2 Bar. 54:19). Cranfield argues for the meaning “men’s sinning in their own persons but as a result of the corrupt nature inherited from Adam”, which combines the second and third views. Some variant of the view that we have all actively committed sin of our own and that this is blameworthy is most widely held today.53 This appeals to modern people and it is, of course, true, but whether it is what Paul means is quite another thing. It ignores the language he uses. The aorist points to one act,54 the act of Adam; we would expect the present or the imperfect if the apostle were thinking of the continuing sins of all people. Paul says that all sinned in Adam, not in imitating him (cf. Bruce). And it ignores the context with its strong insistence on the sin of one man (not all of us) as the cause of the trouble.
Consider the fivefold repetition of this truth: “many died by the trespass of the one” (v. 15), “the judgment followed one sin” (v. 16), “by the trespass of the one man, death reigned” (v. 17), “the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men” (v. 18), “through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners” (v. 19; this last statement is especially significant). All this does not mean that we have simply followed Adam’s example. The apostle’s tremendous emphasis surely forces us to some variant of the first view, that all the race is somehow caught up in Adam’s sin.55 Throughout this whole passage what Adam did and what Christ did are steadily held over against each other. Now salvation in Christ does not mean that we merit salvation by living good lives; rather, what Christ has done is significant. Just so, death in Adam does not mean that we are being punished for our own evil deeds; it is what Adam has done that is significant. This does not mean that our sinful nature or our many actual sins are unimportant to Paul. Nor does it mean that he is indifferent to the importance of individual responsibility.56 It simply means that these things are not what he is talking about here.57 He is concerned with what Adam did and its results. He is saying that Adam’s sin involved us all in a situation of sin and death from which there is no escape other than in Christ. We should perhaps notice a somewhat similar statement about Christ, “one died for all, and therefore all died” (2 Cor. 5:14). At this point Paul is laying down the opposite of this: Adam’s sin meant that he and all his posterity died.
13. Paul breaks off his construction and proceeds in a different direction. But what he says is connected with the preceding, and he links it up with for. He can say what he has just said, for there was sin even before58 the law was given: even before there was any such thing as formal law there was sin. It is usually held that law here means the law of Moses (cf. “from Adam to Moses” in v. 14), but NEB makes it general, “before there was law”; this is a possible but unlikely interpretation. Paul puts it in the form sin was in the world, keeping up his personification of sin. But before the law there was a difference, for sin is not reckoned or imputed59 where there is no law. One cannot be a lawbreaker if there is no law to break (cf. 4:15). Despite this sin was indeed present in the world. This has been interpreted in two ways. It is possible to take it (as Hendriksen does) in the sense that it shows that there is a more comprehensive law than that of Moses. There is a law written on people’s hearts (2:15). On biblical premises it can scarcely be denied that sin was reckoned to people and punished in the period between Adam and Moses, as the flood narrative, to name no other, plainly shows (Gen. 6:5–7, 12–13). The other is to point out that Paul is emphasizing what Adam did; he may thus mean that it was that one sin that brought death to all.60 It is objected that this requires the insertion of the words “in Adam”; to leave them out is to leave out what is crucial. Neither view can be said to be proved or to be impossible given our present state of knowledge, but perhaps the context points to the second.
14. Nevertheless is a strong adversative.61 Far from sin not being imputed, death reigned. Death is personified and regarded as supreme over mankind from the time of creation right up to the time of the giving of the law. Death was just as potent in the absence of that law as in its presence. There is an impressive absoluteness about reigned. Death’s sovereignty was complete. Even introduces a clause that shows that there were no exceptions. Those who had not sinned in the way Adam did were yet under death’s dominion. Those who did not62 sin by breaking a command as did Adam is a trifle free as a translation, for Paul says something like “even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression.”63 There are two possibilities.64 Paul may mean, “they sinned, but their sin was not the same kind of sin as that of Adam. They did not break a direct command of God as he did; they sinned against the law within their hearts (2:15).” Harrisville explains, “the law is not needed to prove that sin is everywhere”; “law there must have been, before Sinai”. The other possibility may be put this way, “they were not law-breakers, for there was no law to break; they died because of Adam’s sin” (cf. NEB, “in the absence of law no reckoning is kept of sin”; Hodge holds that the meaning in verse 12 and here is “men are subject to death on account of the sin of Adam”).65 Either way he is saying that it is not necessary to be an exact imitator of Adam to be a sinner in Adam’s likeness (see on 1:23). His sin had effects on the totality of mankind. Adam’s successors sinned (see on 2:12). They sinned in their own way certainly, but they still sinned; they were the authentic descendants of Adam. Adam is spoken of66 as a pattern (or “type”)67 of the one to come. He was the first man and thus the head of the race. We must not press this to mean that Adam was the decisive person and that Christ conformed to the pattern Adam had laid down. Always for Paul Christ is the decisive one. Paul starts from Christ’s saving work and sees a similar pattern in Adam. Christ initiated the new race, the race of the redeemed, just as Adam was the head of the old race, the race of sinners. Christ is here called the one to come, which may be a messianic title (so Nygren).68 But the expression is unusual, and this must remain uncertain.
15. Paul launches into a sustained comparison of the work of Christ with that of Adam. Our first father brought disaster on all his progeny, but Christ procured the supreme blessing.69 Paul finds many points of direct contrast. He has just said that Adam is a type of Christ, and his But is a strong adversative. While Adam foreshadows Christ in many ways, we must also be aware of some significant differences. Indeed, the whole treatment is largely on the basis of contrasts between the two. First comes a firm negative: not as the trespass70 is the grace gift,71 a term which puts some emphasis on the freeness of the gift. The form of the conditional implies that the condition has been fulfilled, “If, as is the case—.” By the trespass of the one appears first for emphasis; the significant thing about Adam was his transgression. The one (NIV has supplied man) clearly means Adam, but he is not named after verse 14. There is not the slightest doubt that he is constantly in mind, but his name is not used. The result of the trespass of that one man was that the many died, which states the case with impressive simplicity. The many can mean any of a number of things, such as “the majority” or “a great number”; it takes its meaning from its context. Here it signifies the totality of mankind. This way of putting it forms an effective contrast with the one. The effect of Adam’s sin, then, was disaster. It meant death for everyone.
The work of Christ is introduced with another how much more construction. It is far greater than anything with which it can be compared. That work is summed up in the word grace, grace which connects in the first instance with God and in the second with Christ.72 With grace Paul couples the gift that came by the grace of the one man. The word gift73 signifies freeness and in the New Testament is used only of God’s good gifts to mankind. The freeness is emphasized by the link with grace. This gift came from the one man, which makes it clear that the saving work was accomplished by Christ alone. The many corresponds to the same expression at the beginning of the verse. Just as what Adam did had effects on a great number, so also with Christ. His gift is said to overflow,74 a word that indicates abundance, a keynote of this chapter. Adam did his descendants a grievous wrong, but Christ gave his people an abundant gift. He not only reversed the effects of Adam’s sin, but brought an abundance of positive blessings: he brought a whole new life (cf. v. 21).
16. This verse introduces a fourfold contrast: the gift is set over against “one having sinned”, judgment against the gift, one sin against many trespasses, and condemnation against justification. The one man’s sin is related to Adam by the use of the participle, which draws attention to the sinful activity (“through one man having sinned”) rather more than does the noun (as NIV, RSV, etc.). In contrast stands the gift75 (NIV adds of God, but Paul does not stay to append any qualification). Sin is not the last word, for the gift alters the sinner’s entire situation. It points to the freeness of salvation; the believer is not required to strive heroically against Adam’s legacy as the price of acceptance with God. The second contrast sets judgment, the result of one man’s having sinned, over against the gift. People (Adam or any other) cannot sin with impunity. Sin always leads to judgment. But over against that76 stands grace (the gift this time is “the grace gift”);77 God is not defeated by sin. Paul’s third contrast sets the one sin78 over against many trespasses. The one sin was the direct cause of the judgment; it led to disaster. The many trespasses were not the direct cause of the blessing, but simply the occasion that called forth the divine mercy (see CBSC).79 Finally, condemnation80 contrasts with justification81 (see on 1:32). The one sin of Adam had as its end result condemnation for all the race, but Christ’s act of justification was also far-reaching. It was concerned with more than the one sin of Adam. The believer finds pardon not only for the one sin he shares in Adam, but for all his other sins as well.
17. Again we have a conditional clause implying that the condition has been fulfilled, “If, as is the case….” The thought of verse 14 is taken up again, that death reigned82 through what Adam did. Death is supreme—no one escapes its rule (“the world is a place of cemeteries” [Lloyd-Jones, p. 261]). Barth comments, “Though the sentence of death was not pronounced at any moment in time, yet, like the sword of Damocles, it is suspended over our heads at every moment.” It is linked with Adam in two ways: it is by the trespass83 of the one man and it is through that one man. Both expressions drive us back to that one sin of that one man. That is Paul’s concern throughout this section of his argument. He is not saying that death reigned over us all because we all sinned; he is saying that death reigned over us all because Adam sinned.84
Then he moves on to his main interest with another how much more construction. The condemnation was according to strict justice; sin got what it deserved—death. But that is not the way it is with grace. You cannot measure grace or work it out in terms of strict justice or equivalence. Grace is superlative generosity. Grace is overflowing abundance. We might have expected the contrast to center on Christ, but instead Paul speaks of what grace and righteousness and life mean to those who receive them. He leaves to the end his statement that all this comes through the one man, Jesus Christ. Believers are in the first instance those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace, where abundant provision translates an unusual word,85 one that emphasizes the generosity of God’s provision (cf. Goodspeed, “God’s overflowing mercy”). God’s grace is never given with niggardly hand (cf. v. 15). Perhaps we should notice that Paul says simply, “the abundance of the grace and of the free gift”, but NIV and some other translations insert God’s. There is no doubt that it is God’s grace, but Paul does not stop to say so. JB paraphrases grace by translating, “the free gift that he does not deserve”.
With grace Paul links the gift of righteousness.86 That righteousness is a gift (for this word see the note on v. 15) shows plainly that Paul is thinking of it as a status, a standing; the term is forensic. We often use the word to denote an ethical quality, but such a quality cannot be given. It must be earned by righteous deeds. What Christ did for sinners was to obtain right standing before God. The result of this gift is that the recipients reign in life, a significant expression, for Paul has twice spoken of death as reigning (vv. 14, 17). Lagrange comments on the unexpectedness of this (the slaves of death becoming kings!). Death’s reign is certainly part of the story, but it is not the whole story. Ultimately it is believers who will reign, not death. As the opposite of death reigning we might expect Paul to speak of life reigning, but he says that believers will reign,87 though it is true that they will reign in life,88 the very opposite of all that death stands for.89 The thought is completed with the reminder that this will take place through the one man, Jesus Christ. Again there is the stress on one, and again we are reminded that salvation is not our own work, nor is it the work of Jesus Christ assisted from some other source. It is the one who brings about this abundant salvation; the one referring to salvation is just as significant as the same expression referring to condemnation.
18. Paul returns to the thought he began in v. 12 but broke off, and this time he completes it. He begins with Consequently,90 a term that stresses the logical sequence. Paul does not say the result (that is NIV’s interpolation), but “just as [cf. v. 12] through one lapse” or “through the lapse of one”. Competent support can be found for either of these ways of taking it. Perhaps the former is the more natural, and it is supported by the fact that one lacks the article (as in v. 16, though there the construction is somewhat different); it has it in verses 15 and 17. The latter is argued from the context. Throughout this entire section Paul has been opposing the one man Adam to the one man Christ, and he is not yet done with this (see v. 19). In the end it is not possible to produce a convincing reason for preferring one of these ways of taking it to the other. This is not really surprising, for Paul is referring to the one act of the one man in both cases, and he moves easily from the one act to the one man and vice versa.
The construction after this is very difficult. The problem is that Paul has written a verbless sentence, and it is not obvious how (or whether) he wants us to complete it. Most translations supply verbs to make a respectable English sentence (as RSV, “led to”, and NIV, the result … was). But it is possible to take it as a kind of exclamation: “As through one lapse for condemnation for all men, so through one justifying sentence for justification of life for all men!” Whichever way we take it, the writer moves from the one man (or the one act) to the result, condemnation for all men.91 So also introduces the clause, giving us exact correspondence (and which is lacking in v. 12). There is a problem with the word translated one act of righteousness. It is the word that is translated “justification” in verse 16, and it normally refers to a pronouncement of some kind, not an action.92 But most translators and commentators accept a meaning like that of NIV (e.g., NEB, JB, Murray), largely, it would seem, because they see the word as giving an exact antithesis to one trespass, even though in doing so they give the same word two different translations (v. 16 and here). We are faced with a choice between an inexact antithesis and using the word in two different senses in the same passage without explanation (cf. Parry). It seems better to retain consistency both in the way the word is used generally and in the way it is used in verse 16 (so SH, Lenski, and others). “Sentence of justification” or “justificatory sentence” (Godet, Gifford) suits the present context admirably, while the word has the meaning “righteous act” rarely if at all.
Another ambiguity has to do with Paul’s use of one, which may qualify the word we have been discussing (one act, NIV, SH), or mean “of one man” (cf. RSV, Leenhardt). As was the case earlier in the verse, it is not possible to be certain which we should understand. Justification93 is followed in the Greek by the genitive “of life”, i.e., it is justification that leads to life.94 The word is thus not being used in a negative way; it means more than not imputing sin. It is the positive concept of issuing in life. Clearly this is the life that is elsewhere called “eternal life” (as in v. 21); it is the abundant life proper to the age to come, and not merely release from a sentence of death. For all men of course means “for all those in Christ”.
19. We have seen that Paul quite often does not balance his antithesis perfectly; therefore, we should notice that here he does, beautifully. His just as (see on v. 12) is balanced by so also, and each member of the following clause corresponds to a similar member in the other. This time Adam’s sin is called disobedience,95 which brings out a salient feature of the wrong he did. His sin was voluntary. The verb were made96 presents problems. It does not mean that sinless people were compelled to become sinners, but rather that Adam’s sin constituted them as sinners. They were born as members of a race already separated from God. Sinners (see on 3:7) is in an emphatic position: it is as nothing less than sinners that the many are reckoned. The many comes last in both clauses, thus standing each time in strong contrast to one. Though the words translated the many are identical in the two places, the meaning is not the same. The first time the many points to the entire human race; all were caught up in the effects of Adam’s sin. But Paul does not hold that all are to be saved (2:12); moreover, “his entire presentation of salvation has emphasized the fact that justification is granted only on the basis of faith” (Harrison). The second time he is referring to the many who believe. All people insofar as they relate to Adam are sinners and insofar as they relate to Christ are righteous. For obedience see the comment on 1:5. Christ’s saving work is done in obedience to the Father (Heb. 10:7) and thus stands in stark contrast to Adam’s disobedience. Similarly, righteous contrasts with sinners.97 Christ’s saving work effectively cancels out Adam’s destructive sin. We might have expected the aorist tense again, but Paul has the future. He may be thinking of the eschatological aspect of salvation (cf. Gal. 5:5), or, with Murray, “this act of God’s grace is being continually exercised and will continue to be exercised throughout future generations of mankind” (cf. Denney, “it is not then [i.e., on Judgment Day], but when they believe in Christ, that men are constituted” as righteous).
20. As we come to the climax, interestingly there is no mention of Adam. Throughout this paragraph Paul has been stressing the contrast between Adam and Christ, and he has offered many points to back up his contention that there is such typology that Adam is to be studied seriously. But his real interest has been in Christ, not Adam. Now he concentrates on his Savior and ceases to refer to Adam. It is somewhat unexpected that he brings in a reference to law, but between Adam and Christ stood Moses, revered by the Jews and often seen as the most significant figure among the sons of men because of his giving of the law. This was so important in Jewish religion and in the Old Testament that Christians as well as Jews regarded as Scripture that it had to be seen in its proper place in God’s great scheme of salvation.98 Law,99 says Paul, was added, the verb showing that it held no primary place.100 Its purpose101 was that the trespass might increase.102It was not concerned with preventing sin (it was too late for that). Nor was it concerned with preventing sin (it was too weak for that). The law can only condemn (4:15). It was concerned with showing sin for what it is, and it certainly showed magnificently that there was much sin (cf. 3:19–20). Notice the singular; Paul does not say that the “trespasses” increased; it is what sin essentially is that the law magnified.103 JB misses this with its rendering “it was to multiply the opportunities for falling”. Trespass has been used consistently of Adam’s sin (vv. 15, 17, 18), and the word may be chosen as a way of bringing out the continuity between his sin and that of his descendants. The increase of sin, however, is not the last word. But is adversative; it sets the following in contrast. Where sin increased pretty well equates trespass with sin. Paul is not concerned with minor distinctions among grades of evil. The important thing is at the end of the clause—grace increased all the more, or perhaps we should say, “grace superabounded”.104 Paul can never be accused of minimizing the seriousness of sin, but he does not lose an opportunity of stressing the victory of grace. Grace is so much more effective than evil.
21. So that introduces a clause of purpose (as in v. 20). The purpose of the superabundant grace was to replace the reign of sin. Sin reigned105 in death is an impressive statement of the power of both sin and death. In both cases Paul is saying that sin involves us in a situation where we are not dominant but subordinate. We cannot break free from sin, so sin reigns. We cannot escape death, so death reigns. Death is perhaps more obviously the tyrant, and sin’s reign can be said to be in death (a rare expression, only here in Paul, though cf. 2 Cor. 11:23). The mention of eternal life in the second half of the verse indicates that we should understand death here as spiritual as well as physical. So also introduces the corresponding thought. The exact antithesis would be “… so also righteousness should reign in life”. But it is not our righteousness (imputed or imparted) that has the power, but God’s grace, and through righteousness expresses the means grace employs to overthrow the reign of death. It is God’s purpose that not sin but grace should be the ruler, and grace reigns through righteousness. This may mean that grace reigns when God makes people right with himself, when he imputes righteousness to believers, that righteousness which is by faith. Or possibly the thought is that by grace the believer lives righteously here and now and this manifests the triumph of grace over sin. The former is more likely in view of the whole context and particularly because Paul goes on to refer to eternal life. Grace triumphs when God imputes righteousness and this leads to eternal life, the end or aim of it all. Paul rounds off the argument by reminding his readers that it all comes about through Jesus Christ our Lord. This has been the dominant idea throughout the whole discussion, and it makes a fitting ending. Nygren points out that this last word is no formality: “in this kingdom of God, the reign of life, Jesus is ‘Lord’ ” (p. 229).