Romans 5

Romans 5:1

Ambrosiaster: Faith gives us peace with God, not the law. For it reconciles us to God by taking away those sins which had made us God’s enemies. And because the Lord Jesus is the minister of this grace, it is through him that we have peace with God. Faith is greater than the law because the law is our work, whereas faith belongs to God. Furthermore, the law is concerned with our present life, whereas faith is concerned with eternal life. But whoever does not think this way about Christ, as he ought to, will not be able to obtain the rewards of faith, because he does not hold the truth of faith. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

John Chrysostom: What does “Let us have peace” mean? Some say, “Let us not be at variance, through a peevish obstinacy for bringing in the Law.” But to me he seems to be speaking now of our conversation. For after having said much on the subject of faith, he had set it before righteousness which is by works, to prevent any one from supposing what he said was a ground for listlessness, he says, “let us have peace,” that is, let us sin no more, nor go back to our former estate. For this is making war with God. And “how is it possible,” saith one, “to sin no more?” How was the former thing possible? For if when liable for so many sins we were freed from all by Christ, much more shall we be able through Him to abide in the estate wherein we are. For it is not the same thing to receive peace when there had been none, and to keep it when it has been given, since to acquire surely is harder than to keep. Yet nevertheless the more difficult hath been made easy, and carried out into effect. That which is the easier thing then will be what we shall easily succeed in, if we cling to Him who hath wrought even the other for us. — Homily on Romans IX

Origen of Alexandria: It is obvious from this that the apostle is inviting everyone who has understood that he is justified by faith and not by works to that “peace which passes all understanding,” in which the height of perfection consists. But let us investigate further in order to see what the apostle means when he talks about peace, and especially about that peace which is through our Lord Jesus Christ. Peace reigns when nobody complains, nobody disagrees, nobody is hostile and nobody misbehaves. Therefore, we who once were enemies of God, following the devil, that great enemy and tyrant, now, if we have thrown down his weapons and in their place taken up the sign of Christ and the standard of his cross, have peace with God. But this is through our Lord Jesus Christ, who has reconciled us to God through the offering of his blood.Let us therefore have peace, so that the flesh will no longer war with the spirit, nor will the law of God be opposed by the law of our members. Let there not be in us “yes” and “no,” but let us all agree, let us all think alike, let there be no dissension either among ourselves or between us and others outside our ranks, and then we shall have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. But let it most definitely be known that anyone in whom the vice of wickedness is found can never have peace. For as long as he is thinking how he can hurt his neighbor, as long as he seeks after ways of causing harm, his mind will never be at peace. But if you ask me how a righteous man can have peace when he is attacked by the devil, who maintains his wars of temptation, I would say that such a man has greater peace than anyone else.… For the apostle says that we have peace with God knowing full well that war against the devil is a guarantee of peace with God. We shall have even greater peace with God if we continue our active hostility toward the devil and fight against the vices of the flesh. For the apostle James says: “Resist the devil and he will flee from you; draw near to God and he will draw near to you.” You see that James too felt that he was getting closer to God by resisting the devil. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Paul has discussed the point that nobody is justified by works, but all are justified by faith, and he has proved this by the example of Abraham, of whom the Jews claim to be the only children. He has also explained why neither race nor circumcision makes people children of Abraham but only faith, because Abraham was initially justified by faith alone. Now, having concluded this argument, Paul urges both Jews and Gentiles to live at peace, because no one is saved by his own merit, but everyone is saved in the same way, by God’s grace. “Peace with God” means either that both sides should submit to God or that we should have the peace of God and not just the peace of the world. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Tertullian: It is a distinction of dispensations, not of gods. He enjoins those who are justified by faith in Christ and not by the law to have peace with God. With what God? Him whose enemies we have never, in any dispensation, been? Or Him against whom we have rebelled, both in relation to His written law and His law of nature? Now, as peace is only possible towards Him with whom there once was war, we shall be both justified by Him, and to Him also will belong the Christ, in whom we are justified by faith, and through whom alone God’s enemies can ever be reduced to peace. — Against Marcion Book V

Theodoret of Cyrus: Faith has given you forgiveness of sins and made you spotless and righteous by the washing of regeneration. Therefore you ought to keep the peace by which you have been united with God. For when you were still enemies, the only begotten Son of God reconciled you by taking on human flesh and putting sin to death in it. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Thomas Aquinas: After showing the need for Christ’s grace, because without it neither the knowledge of the truth benefited the Gentiles nor circumcision and the Law benefited the Jews unto salvation, the Apostle now begins to extol the power of grace. Concerning this, he does two things. First, he shows what goods we obtain through grace; secondly, from what evils we are freed by it, there [v.12; n. 406] at Therefore as through one man. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he indicates the manner of reaching or the way by which we come to grace; secondly, the good things we obtain through grace, there [v. 2b; n. 384] at And we glory in the hope of glory. 196 In regard to the first he does two things. First, he exhorts to the due use of grace; secondly, he shows us the entrance to grace, there [v. 2; n. 383] at Through whom we have access. 382. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that faith will be reckoned as justice to all who believe in Christ’s resurrection, which is the cause of our justification. Being justified therefore by faith, inasmuch as through faith in the resurrection we participate in its effect, let us have peace with God, namely, by submitting ourselves and obeying him: “Agree with God and be at peace” (Job 22:21); “Who has hardened himself against him and been at peace?” (Job 9:4). And this through our Lord Jesus Christ, who has led us to that peace: “He is our peace” (Ephesians 2:14). 383. Hence he continues: Through whom, namely, Christ, we have access as through a mediator: “One mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5); “Through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father” (Ephesians 2:18). Access, I say, to this grace, i.e., to the state of grace: “Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). In which, i.e., through which grace, we have not only risen from sin but we stand firm and erect in the heavens through love: “Our feet have been standing within your gates, O Jerusalem” (Psalms 122:2); “We have risen and stand upright” (Psalms 20:8). And this through faith, through which we obtain grace, not because faith precedes grace, since it is rather through grace that there is faith: “By grace you have been saved through faith” (Ephesians 2:8), i.e., because the first effect of grace in us is faith. 197 384. Then when he says and glory in the hope of the glory, he indicates the blessings that have come to us through grace. First, he says that through grace we have the glory of hope; secondly, that through grace we have the glory of God, there [v. 11; n. 404] at And not only so. In regard to the first he does three things. First, he shows the greatness of the hope in which we glory; secondly, its vehemence, there [v. 3; n. 386] at And not only so; thirdly, its firmness, there [v. 5; n. 390] at And hope does not confound. 385. The greatness of hope is considered in terms of the greatness of things hoped for. He sets this out when he says, and glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God, i.e., in the fact that we hope to obtain the glory of sons of God. For through Christ’s grace we have received the spirit of sonship (Romans 8:15); “Behold how they have been numbered among the sons of God” (Wis 5:5). But to sons is due the father’s inheritance: “If sons, then heirs” (Romans 8:17). This inheritance is the glory which God has in himself: “Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9). Our hope for this has been given to us by Christ: “We have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and to an inheritance which is incorruptible” (1 Peter 1:3). This glory, which will be completed in us in the future, is in the meantime begun in us through hope: “For in this hope we were saved” (Romans 8:24), “All those who love your name will glory in you” (Psalms 5:11). 386. Then when he says And not only so, he shows the vehemence of this hope. 198 For anyone who vehemently hopes for something endures difficult and bitter things for it, as a sick person who strongly desires health gladly drinks a bitter medicine to be healed by it. Therefore, the sign of the vehement hope we have for Christ is that we not only glory in virtue of our hope of future glory but also in the evils we suffer for it. Hence he says, And not only so, i.e., we not only glory in the hope of glory but we glory also in tribulation, through which we arrive at glory: “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22); “Count it all joy when you meet various trials” (James 1:2). 387. Then he shows the cause when he says, knowing that. Here he mentions four things in order: the first is tribulation, about which he says, tribulation works patience, not in the sense that tribulation is the cause that begets it, but because suffering is the material and occasion for exercising the act of patience: “Be patient in tribulation” (Romans 12:12). 388. Secondly, he mentions the effect of patience when he says, And patience trial: “For gold is tested in the fire and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation” (Sir 2:5). For it is plain that we accept the loss of some thing easily for the sake of another thing we love more. Hence, if a person endures patiently the loss of bodily and temporal goods for the sake of obtaining eternal benefits, this is sufficient proof that such a person loves eternal blessings more than temporal. However, James (1:3) seems to say the opposite: “The trial of your faith produces patience.” 199 The answer is that trial [probatio] can be understood in two ways. In one way, as it takes place in the one tested; then the trial is the very suffering through which a man is tested. Hence, it is the same to say that tribulation produces patience and that tribulation tests patience. In another way, trial is taken for the fact of having been tested. This is the way it is taken here, because if a person endures sufferings patiently, he has been tested. 389. Thirdly, he mentions the third, saying, and trial hope, namely trial brings about hope, because after a person has been tested, hope can be had by himself and by others that he will be admitted to God’s inheritance: “God tested them and found them worthy of himself” (Wis3:5). Therefore, from the first to the last it is clear that suffering paves the way to hope. Hence, if a person rejoices strongly in hope, it, follows that he will glory in his sufferings. 390. Then when he says And hope does not confound, he shows the firmness of such hope. First, he asserts it, saying, Hope, namely, by which we hope for the glory of the sons of God, does not confound, i.e., does not fail, unless the man fails it. For a person is said to be confounded in his hope, when he falls away from the thing he hoped for: “In you, O Lord, have I hoped; let me never be disappointed” (Psalms 31:1); “No one has hoped in the Lord and been disappointed” (Si 2:10). Secondly, at because the charity of God, he presents two arguments for the certainty of hope. The first is based on a gift of the Holy Spirit; the second on the death of Christ, there [v.6; n. 394] at For why did Christ. 200 392. First, therefore, he says: We can be certain that hope does not confound, because the charity of God is poured out in our hearts, through the Holy Spirit who is given to us. The love of God can be taken in two ways: in one way, for the love by which God loves us: “He loved you with an everlasting love” (Jeremiah 31:3); in another way for the love by which we love God: “I am sure that nothing in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God” (Romans 8:39). Both these loves of God are poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. For the Holy Spirit, who is the love of the Father and of the Son, to be given to us is our being brought to participate in the Love who is the Holy Spirit, and by this participation we are made lovers of God. The fact that we love him is a sign that he loves us: “I love those who love me” (Proverbs 8:17); “Not that we loved God but that he first loved us” (1 John 4:10). The love by which he loves us is said to be poured into our hearts, because it is clearly shown in our hearts by the gift of the Holy Spirit sealed in us: “By this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit he has given us” (1 John 3:24). But the love by which we love God is said to be poured into our hearts, because it reaches to the perfecting of all the moral habits and acts of the soul; for, as is stated in 1 Cor 13(:4), “Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful….” 393. Both interpretations of these words lead to the conclusion that hope does not confound. For if they are taken to mean the love of God by which he loves us, it is clear that God does not deny himself to those whom he loves: “He loved his people; all the holy ones were in his hand” (Deuteronomy 33:3). Similarly, if they are taken as referring to the love 201 by which we love God, it is clear that he has prepared eternal goods for those who love him: “He who loves me will be loved by my father and I will love him and manifest myself to him” (John 14:21).

Romans 5:2

Ambrosiaster: It is clear that in Christ we have access to the grace of God. For he is the mediator between God and men, who builds us up by his teaching and gives us the hope of receiving the gift of his grace if we stand in his faith. Therefore, if we stand (because we used to be flat on the floor) we stand as believers, glorying in the hope of the glory which he has promised to us. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

John Chrysostom: If then He hath brought us near to Himself, when we were far off, much more will He keep us now that we are near. And let me beg you to consider how he everywhere sets down these two points; His part, and our part. On His part, however, there be things varied and numerous and diverse. For He died for us, and farther reconciled us, and brought us to Himself, and gave us grace unspeakable. But we brought faith only as our contribution. And so he says, “by faith, unto this grace.” What grace is this? tell me. It is the being counted worthy of the knowledge of God, the being forced from error, the coming to a knowledge of the Truth, the obtaining of all the blessings that come through Baptism. For the end of His bringing us near was that we might receive these gifts. For it was not only that we might have simple remission of sins, that we were reconciled; but that we might receive also countless benefits. Nor did He even pause at these, but promised others, namely, those unutterable blessings that pass understanding alike and language. And this is why he has set them both down also. For by mentioning grace he clearly points at what we have at present received, but by saying, “And we rejoice in hope of the glory of God,” he unveils the whole of things to come. And he had well said, “wherein also we stand.” For this is the nature of God’s grace. It hath no end, it knows no bound, but evermore is on the advance to greater things, which in human things is not the case. — Homily on Romans IX

Origen of Alexandria: How we have access to grace through our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior himself tells us “I am the door,” and “No one comes to the Father except by me.” … This door is the truth, and liars cannot enter in by the door of truth. Again, this door is righteousness, and the unrighteous cannot enter in by it. The Door himself says: “Learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart.” So neither the irascible nor the proud can enter in by the door of humility and gentleness. Therefore, if anyone wants to have access to the grace of God which according to the word of the apostle comes through our Lord Jesus Christ and in which Paul and those like him claim to stand, it is essential that he be cleansed of all the things which we have listed above. Otherwise those who do what is contrary to Christ will not be allowed to go in by that door, which will remain closed and keep out those who are incompatible with him.Why does Paul talk about the hope of glory and not just about the glory itself? After all, Moses saw the glory of God, and so did the people of Israel when God’s house was built. But this glory, which was visible, the apostle Paul dared to claim would pass away … whereas the hope here is of a glory which will never pass away. It is the glory mentioned in Hebrews in connection with Christ: “He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature.” — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: We have drawn near to God, because previously we were far away from him, and we stand, because previously we were flat on our faces. We rejoice in the hope that we shall possess the glory of God’s children. What we hope for is so great that no one would try it on his own, in case it should be regarded as blasphemy, not as hope, and as something which many people think is unbelievable because of its greatness. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 5:3

Ambrosiaster: Since it is through tribulations that we must enter the kingdom of God, Paul teaches that we should rejoice in them. For suffering added to hope increases our reward. Suffering is the measure of how much hope we have, and it testifies to the fact that we deserve the crown we shall inherit. This is why the Lord said: “Blessed are you when they persecute you and say all kinds of evil things against you on account of God’s righteousness. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great.” For to despise present sufferings and hindrances and, for the hope of the future, not to give in to pressure has great merit with God. Therefore one should rejoice in suffering, believing that he will be all the more acceptable to God as he sees himself made stronger in the face of tribulation.Suffering produces endurance as long as it is not the result of weakness or doubt. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: Paul says this in order to lead us gradually to the love of God, which he says that we have by the gift of the Spirit. He shows us that all those things which we might attribute to ourselves ought to be attributed to God, who was pleased to give us his Holy Spirit through grace. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 26

Basil of Caesarea: For those who are well prepared, tribulations are like certain foods and exercises for athletes which lead the contestant on to the inheritance of glory. When we are reviled, we bless; maligned, we entreat; ill-treated, we give thanks; afflicted, we glory in our afflictions. — HOMILY 16

Clement of Alexandria: Divinely, therefore, Paul writes expressly, “Tribulation worketh, patience, and patience experience, and experience hope; and hope maketh not ashamed.” For the patience is on account of the hope in the future. — The Stromata Book 4

John Chrysostom: Now, consider how great the things to come are, when even at things that seem to be distressful we can be elated; so great is God’s gift, and such a nothing any distastefulness in them! For in the case of external goods, the struggle for them brings trouble and pain and irksomeness along with it; and it is the crowns and rewards that carry the pleasure with them. But in this case it is not so, for the wrestlings have to us no less relish than the rewards. For since there were sundry temptations in those days, and the kingdom existed in hopes, the terrors were at hand, but the good things in expectation, and this unnerved the feebler sort, even before the crowns he gives them the prize now, by saying that we should “glory even in tribulations.” And what he says is not “you should glory,” but we glory, giving them encouragement in his own person. Next since what he had said had an appearance of being strange and paradoxical, if a person who is struggling in famine, and is in chains and torments, and insulted, and abused, ought to glory, he next goes on to confirm it. And (what is more), he says they are worthy of being gloried in, not only for the sake of those things to come, but for the things present in themselves. For tribulations are in their own selves a goodly thing. How so? It is because they anoint us unto patient abiding. Wherefore after saying we glory in tribulations, he has added the reason, in these words, “Knowing that tribulation worketh patience.” — Homily on Romans IX

Origen of Alexandria: The word rejoice is sometimes used positively in Scripture and sometimes negatively.… For if someone rejoices in his wisdom or strength or riches, he is wrong to do so, but if he rejoices in knowing God and in understanding his judgments of mercy and righteousness, he is right to do so. In this case, Paul says that he rejoices in his sufferings, not as an end in themselves but because they lead to various virtues of the soul.… If suffering produces patience and patience is one of the virtues of the soul, then there is no doubt that suffering must be called not evil or neutral but definitely good. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: We glory not only in the hope of glory but also in sufferings which are most salutary, being mindful of the greatness of the reward. We should desire to suffer something for the Lord’s name so that when sufferings come to an end we may obtain an eternal reward for them. For when we consider the reward, we cannot possibly begrudge the effort needed to be worthy of the reward. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Tertullian: But how Paul, an apostle, from being a persecutor, who first of all shed the blood of the church, though afterwards he exchanged the sword for the pen, and turned the dagger into a plough, being first a ravening wolf of Benjamin, then himself supplying food as did Jacob, -how he, (I say, ) speaks in favour of martyrdoms, now to be chosen by himself also, when, rejoicing over the Thessalonians, he says, “So that we glory in you in the churches of God, for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations, in which ye endure a manifestation of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be accounted worthy of His kingdom, for which ye also suffer! As also in his Epistle to the Romans: “And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also, being sure that tribulation worketh patience, and patience experience, and experience hope; and hope maketh not ashamed.” And again: “And if children, then heirs, heirs indeed of God, and joint-heirs with Christ: if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together. — Scorpiace

Romans 5:4

Ambrosiaster: It is clear that if endurance is of the quality we have said, our character will be quite strong. That there should be hope in someone who has been tried and tested is perfectly reasonable. One who is thus made worthy is sure to receive a reward in the kingdom of God. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Clement of Alexandria: “For patience,” he says, “worketh experience, and experience hope: and hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit that is given to us.” — The Stromata Book 2

Clement of Alexandria: Endurance is directed toward future hope. Hope is directed toward the reward and restitution of hope. — The Stromata Book 4

John Chrysostom: Tribulations; that is, are so far from confuting these hopes, that they even prove them. For before the things to come are realized, there is a very great fruit which tribulation hath-patience; and the making of the man that is tried, experienced. And it contributes in some degree too to the things to come, for it gives hope a vigor within us, since there is nothing that so inclines a man to hope for blessings as a good conscience. Now no man that has lived an upright life is unconfiding about things to come, as of those who have been negligent there are many that, feeling the burden of a bad conscience, wish there were neither judgment nor retribution. What then? do our goods lie in hopes? Yes, in hopes-but not mere human hopes, which often slip away, and put him that hoped to shame; when some one, who was expected to patronize him, dies, or is altered though he lives. No such lot is ours: our hope is sure and unmoveable. For He Who hath made the promise ever liveth, and we that are to be the enjoyers of it, even should we die, shall rise again, and there is absolutely nothing which can put us to shame, as having been elated at random, and to no purpose, upon unsound hopes. Having then sufficiently cleared them of all doubtfulness by these words of his, he does not let his discourse pause at the time present, but urges again the time to come, knowing that there were men of weaker character, who looked too for present advantages, and were not satisfied with these mentioned.

“Because the love of God is,” he does not say “given, “but “shed abroad in our hearts,” so showing the profusion of it. That gift then, which is the greatest possible, He hath given; not heaven and earth and sea, but what is more precious than any of these, and hath rendered us Angels from being men, yea sons of God, and brethren of Christ. But what is this gift? The Holy Spirit. Now had He not been willing to present us after our labors with great crowns, He would never have given us such mighty gifts before our labors. But now the warmth of His Love is hence made apparent, that it is not gradually and little by little that He honors us; but He hath shed abroad the full fountain of His blessings, and this too before our struggles. — Homily on Romans IX

Romans 5:5

Ambrosiaster: Hope does not let us down, even though we are considered by evil people to be stupid and naive, because we believe in things which are impossible in this world. For we have in us the pledge of God’s love through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: Who can hurt such a man? Who can subdue him? In prosperity he makes moral progress, and in adversity he learns to know the progress he has made. When he has an abundance of mutable goods he does not put his trust in them, and when they are taken away he gets to know whether or not they have taken him captive. — OF TRUE RELIGION 92

Augustine of Hippo: That God may be loved, the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, not by the free choice whose spring is in ourselves but through the Holy Spirit, who is given to us. — THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER 5.3

Augustine of Hippo: It is through love that we are conformed to God, and being so conformed and made like to him, and set apart from the world, we are no longer confounded by those things which should be subject to us. This is the work of the Holy Spirit. — THE WAY OF LIFE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 1.13.23

Augustine of Hippo: It is not by ourselves but by the Holy Spirit who is given to us that this charity, shown by the apostle to be God’s gift, is the reason why tribulation does not destroy patience but rather gives rise to it. — GRACE AND FREE WILL 18.39

Bede: The law was indeed given through Moses, and there it was determined by a heavenly rule what was to be done and what was to be avoided, but what it commanded was completed only by the grace of Christ. On the one hand, that law was able to point out sin, teaching justice and showing transgressors what they are charged with. On the other hand, the grace of Christ, poured out in the hearts of the faithful through the spirit of charity, brings it about that what the law commanded may be fulfilled. — Homilies on the Gospels 1.2

Oecumenius: It is to be understood that the indwelling of the adorable and thrice-Holy Spirit is found only in our minds and hearts. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Pelagius: The hope of things to come casts out all confusion. This is why the man who is dismayed by Christ’s injunctions lacks hope. The greatness of God’s benefits arouses in us greatness of love, which does not know fear or dismay because it is complete. We also learn how God loves us, because he has not only forgiven us our sins through the death of his Son but also given us the Holy Spirit, who already shows us the glory of things to come. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 5:6

Ambrosiaster: If Christ gave himself up to death at the right time for those who were unbelievers and enemies of God … how much more will he protect us with his help if we believe in him! He died for us in order to obtain life and glory for us. So if he died for his enemies, just think what he will do for his friends! — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Irenaeus: For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” — Against Heresies Book III

John Chrysostom: Now what he says is somewhat of this kind. For if for a virtuous man, no one would hastily choose to die, consider thy Master’s love, when it is not for virtuous men, but for sinners and enemies that He is seen to have been crucified-which he says too after this, “In that, if when we were sinners Christ died for us.” — Homily on Romans IX

Origen of Alexandria: In order to show more fully what power the love which is poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit has, Paul expounds the way we ought to understand it by teaching us that Christ died not for the godly but for the ungodly. For we were ungodly before we turned to God, and Christ died for us before we believed. Undoubtedly he would not have done this unless either he himself or God the Father, who gave up his only begotten Son for the redemption of the ungodly, had superabundant love toward us. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Why did Christ die for us when he had no obligation to do so, if it was not to manifest his love at a time when we were still weighed down with the burden of sin and vice? It was the right time, either because righteousness had virtually disappeared and we were weak, or because it was the end of time, or because Christ was dead for the prophesied three-day period. Paul wants to point out that Christ died for the ungodly in order to commend the grace of Christ by considering his benefits and to show how much we, who have been undeservedly loved, ought to love him, and so that we might see whether anything should be valued more highly than one who is so generous and holy. He neither valued his life above us ungodly people nor withheld the death that was indispensable for us. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Thomas Aquinas: After disclosing that hope is firm, because it is a gift of the Holy Spirit [n. 391], the Apostle now traces its firmness to the death of Christ. First, he asks a question; secondly, a difficulty arises in answering it, there [v. 7; n. 396] at Why, one will hardly; 202 thirdly, he answers the question, there [v. 8; n. 398] at But God shows his love. 395. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that hope does not disappoint. This is obvious to anyone who wonders why, while we were yet weak, Christ died for the ungodly; weak, that is, languishing in sin: “Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I am languishing” (Psalms 6:2). For just as the due harmony of the humors is destroyed by bodily sickness, so by sin the correct order of our affections is removed. Therefore, when we were yet helpless, Christ died for the ungodly: “Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous” (1 Peter 3:18). And this according to the time, i.e., he was to remain dead for a definite time and then rise on the third day: “For as Jonah was three days in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40). Therefore, this is marvelous, if we consider who died; also if we consider for whom he died. But it could not have been so marvelous, if no fruit were to be obtained: “What profit is there in my death, if I go down to the Pit?” (Psalms 30:8). None, if the salvation of the human race does not follow. 396. Then (v. 7) he shows a difficulty on the part of those for whom Christ died, i.e., the ungodly, saying, One will hardly die for the release of a just man rather, “the righteous man perishes and no one lays it to heart” (Isaiah 57:1). That is why I say that one will hardly die though perhaps for a good man one will even dare to die, on account of his zeal for virtue. It is rare, because it is so great; for “no man has greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Yet what Christ did is never done, namely, 203 to die for the just and the unjust. That is why there is reason to wonder why Christ did this. 397. This passage can be interpreted in another way, so that a just man will be one trained in virtue, and a good man one who is innocent. And although according to this the just man would be more excellent than the good man, yet scarcely anyone dies for the just man. The reason is that an innocent person, who is understood as good, seems more worthy of pity on account of his lack of years or of some such thing. But the just person, because he is perfect, lacks any defect that would elicit pity. Therefore, should anyone die for an innocent person, it could be through pity; but to die for a just man requires zeal for virtue, which is found in fewer persons than the emotion of pity. 398. Then when he says But God shows (v. 8), he responds to the foregoing question. First, he sets out his response; Second, he argues from this to what he intends, there [v. 9b; n. 400] at Much more; Third, he shows how this follows of necessity, there [v. 10; n. 401] at For if while we were enemies. 399. He says therefore first. It was asked why Christ died for the ungodly, and the response to this is that, through this, God shows his love for us, i.e., through this he shows that he loves us to the greatest degree, because if while we were still sinners, Christ died for us, and this according to the time, as was explained abound. The very death of Christ shows God’s love for us, because he gave his own son that he should die in making satisfaction for us: “For God so loved the world that he 204 gave his only son” (John 3:16). And so as the love of God the Father for us is shown by the fact that he gives his own Spirit to us, as was said above, so also it is shown by the fact that he gave his son, as is said here. But by the fact that he says shows he indicates a certain immensity of the divine love, which is shown both by his own deed, because he gave his son, and by our condition, because he was not moved to do this by our merits, since we were still sinners: “God who is rich in mercy, on account of the exceedingly great love wherewith he has loved us, while we were still dead in sins, has raised us to life with Christ” (Ephesians 2:4). 400. Then when he says Much more, therefore (v. 9) he concludes what he had intended from the foregoing, saying: If Christ died for us while we were still sinners, much more, therefore, being now justified by his blood, as was said above in chapter 3(:25), “whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith,” through his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath, i.e., from the vengeance of eternal condemnation, which men incur by their sins: “Brood of vipers, who showed you to flee from the wrath to come?” (Matthew 3:7). 401. Then when he says For if while were enemies, he shows the necessity of his conclusion, which proceeds by arguing from the lesser to the greater. And one should observe here two comparisons of lesser to greater, one on our part and one on the part of Christ. On our part he compares enemies to those who are reconciled. For it seems a lesser thing that someone should treat enemies well who are already reconciled. On the part of Christ he compares death to life. For his life is more powerful than his death because, as is said the last chapter of 2Cor (13:4), “He died 205 through weakness,” namely the weakness of our flesh, “but lives through the power of God.” And this is why he says: with reason I concluded that much more, being enlivened, shall we be saved through him. For if while we were still enemies we were reconciled to God, and this by the death of his son, much more now that we are reconciled shall we be saved, and this by his life. 402. Now one should note that a man is said to be an enemy of God in two ways. In one way, because he practices hostility towards God when he resists his commands: “He has run against him with his neck raised up” (Job 15:26). In another way, a man is said to be an enemy of God by the fact that God hates men, not indeed insofar as he made them, because in this regard it says in Wis 11(:25), “You have loved all things, and you have hated nothing of the things you have made”; but insofar as the enemy of man, i.e., the devil, has worked in man—i.e., as regards sin: “Similarly God hates the ungodly” (Wis 14:9), and “The most high hates sinners” (Sir 12:7). 403. Once the cause of enmity, namely, sin, has been removed by Christ, reconciliation through him follows: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19); for our sin was removed through the death of His Son. In this regard it should be noted that Christ’s death can be considered in three ways. First, precisely as a death; and so it is stated in Wisdom (1:13): “God did not make death” in human nature, but it was brought on by sin. Accordingly, Christ’s death, 206 precisely as death, was not so acceptable to God as to be reconciled through it, because “God does not delight in the death of the living” (Wis 1:13). In another way Christ’s death can be considered with emphasis on the action of the killers, which greatly displeased God. Hence St. Peter says against them: “You denied the Holy and Righteous One…and killed the Author of life” (Acts 3:14). From this aspect Christ’s death could not be the cause of reconciliation but rather of indignation. It can be considered in a third way as depending on Christ’s will, which chose to endure death in obedience to the Father: “He became obedient” to the Father “even unto death” (Philippians 2:8) and out of love for men: “Christ loved us and gave himself up for us” (Ephesians 5:2). From this aspect Christ’s death was meritorious and satisfied for our sins; it was accepted by God as sufficient for reconciling all men, even those who killed Christ, some of whom were saved at his prayer: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). 404. Then when he says Not only so (v. 11) he shows what benefits we obtain even now through grace, saying, not only so, i.e., not only in the hope of the glory we expect in the future, but we also rejoice in God, i.e., in being even now united to God by faith and charity: “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord” (2 Corinthians 10:17). And this through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have even now during this life received our reconciliation, so that we have been changed from enemies to friends: “Through him he reconciled to himself all things” (Colossians 1:20). 405. The verse, Not only so, can be connected with the preceding one, so that the sense would be: We shall be saved by his life from sin and punishment; and not only 207 shall we be saved from evils, but shall rejoice in God, i.e., in the fact that we shall be the same in the future with him: “That they may be one in us, even as we are one” (John 17:22).

Romans 5:7

Ambrosiaster: Christ died for the ungodly. Now if someone will hardly die for a righteous man, how can it be that someone should die for ungodly people? And if someone might dare to die for one good man (or not dare, since the phrase is ambiguous), how can it be that someone would dare to die for a multitude of the ungodly? For if someone dares to die for a righteous or good man, it is probably because he has been touched with some sort of pity or been impressed by his good works. But in the case of the ungodly, not only is there no reason to die for them, but there is plenty to move us to tears when we look at them! — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Jerome: In what sense should we take what we read in the Epistle to the Romans: for scarcely for a righteous man will one die; for peradventure for the good man some would even dare to die. (Rom. 5:7) For two heretics, because they do not understand this testimony, being in different errors indeed, but with equal impiety, blaspheme. For Marcion, who makes God the righteous, the Creator of the Law, and of the Prophets; but the good [God] of the Gospel and of the Apostle, and would make Him the Christ, introduces two gods - the one righteous, the other good. And he asserts that for the righteous [God] none, or few, suffered death. However, for Christ’s sake, countless martyrs have existed. Moreover, Arius refers to Christ as just, of whom it was said: Give the king thy judgment, O God, and thy righteousness unto the king’s son (Psalms 72:1); And in the Gospel he himself says of himself: For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son (John 5:22); And, I judge as I hear (ibid. 30). But goodness belongs to God the Father, of whom the Son himself confesses: Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments (Luke 18:19). And since up to this point his blasphemies were able to find crooked paths, he stumbles and falls in the following [paths]. For who dares to die for the Father, and scarcely does anyone die for the Son, when on account of the name of Christ so much blood of martyrs has been shed? Therefore, whoever simply expounds this passage can say that in the old Law, in which there is justice, scarcely a few people were found who shed their own blood. But in the new Testament, in which there is goodness and mercy, innumerable martyrs have existed. But from that which he established, it is possible that someone may even dare to die, and with a measured step balanced the sentence, it should be understood that some who dare to die for the Gospel can be found not to be received in this way; but the meaning of this place should be handled from the higher and lower parts. For Paul said he boasted in tribulations: because tribulation works patience; and patience, probation; and probation, hope; and hope is not confounded (Rom. 5.4-5), which has a certain promise from him because the love of God is poured forth in our hearts, through the Holy Spirit who is given to us (Ibid.): according to what God had said through the Prophet: I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh (Joel 1.28); he marvels at the goodness of Christ, that he wanted to die for the ungodly, weak, and sinners, and to die at an opportune time, about which he says: In a time accepted I have heard thee, and in the day of salvation have I helped thee (Isaias 49.8). And again: Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation (2 Cor. 6:2). When everyone had sinned, they became useless together, there was no one who did good, not even one (Psalms 13.1). Therefore, his incredible goodness and unheard-of mercy, to die for the ungodly, for it is scarcely that someone would die for the just or the good, and he poured out his own blood, with fear of death terrifying all. For it can sometimes be found that someone dares to die for a just and good cause. But the love of God, which he has for us, is most proven by this, that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us, and his life was taken from the earth. And he was led to death for the iniquities of the people; he carried our sins, and his soul was handed over to death, and he was reckoned with the wicked (Isaiah 53); so that he might make us, the ungodly, infirm, and sinners, pious, robust, and just. Some interpret it thus. If he died for us who are impious and sinners, how much more confidently should we not hesitate to lay down our lives for a just and good Christ? Moreover, we do not think that what is just and good is something different or signifies any particular person; but rather a thing which is absolutely just and good, for the sake of which some may find difficulty but at times it can be found, to shed their own blood. — Letter 121, Chapter 7

Pelagius: It is hard to die for a righteous person, because a righteous person is not destined to die.… But perhaps one would die for a good person, so that no harm might come to him. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 5:8

Cyprian: Moreover, we do not prejudge when the Lord is to be the judge; save that if He shall find the repentance of the sinners full and sound, He will then ratify what shall have been here determined by us. If, however, any one should delude us with the pretence of repentance, God, who is not mocked, and who looks into man’s heart, will judge of those things which we have imperfectly looked into, and the Lord will amend the sentence of His servants; while yet, dearest brother, we ought to remember that it is written, “A brother that helpeth a brother shall be exalted; " and that the apostle also has said, “Let all of you severally have regard to yourselves, lest ye also be tempted. Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ; " also that, rebuking the haughty, and breaking down their arrogance, he says in his epistle, “Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall; " and in another place he says, “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth; yea, he shall stand, for God is able to make him stand.” John also proves that Jesus Christ the Lord is our Advocate and Intercessor for our sins, saying, “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Supporter: and He is the propitiation for our sins.” And Paul also, the apostle, in his epistle, has written, “If, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us; much more, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” — Epistle LI

Origen of Alexandria: By saying that Christ died for us while we were yet sinners, Paul gives us hope that we will be saved through him, much more so now that we are cleansed from sin and justified against the wrath which remains for sinners. The One who so loved his enemies that he gave his only Son to die for us will surely be much readier to grant those who have received this gift and been reconciled to him the further gift of eternal life. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: God becomes the object of love when he conveys how much he loves us. For when someone does something without obligation, one demonstrates love in a special way. And what would be less of an obligation than that a master who is without sin should die for his faithless servants, and that the Creator of the universe should be hanged for the sake of his own creatures? Note that when the apostle says that believers in Christ were once sinners he means that now they are no longer sinners, so that they may recall how they ought to behave. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 5:9

Ambrosiaster: Paul says this, because if God allowed his Son to be killed for sinners’ sake, what will he do for those who have been justified except save them from wrath, that is, preserve them unharmed from the deception of Satan so that they will be safe on the day of judgment, when revenge will begin to destroy the wicked. For since the goodness of God does not want anyone to perish, he has shown mercy on those who deserved death in order to increase the honor and glory of those who understand the grace of God. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

John Chrysostom: And what he has said looks indeed like tautology, but it is not to any one who accurately attends to it. Consider then. He wishes to give them reasons for confidence respecting things to come. And first he gives them a sense of shame from the righteous man’s decision, when he says, that he also “was fully persuaded that what God had promised He was able also to perform;” and next from the grace that was given; then from the tribulation, as sufficing to lead us into hopes; and again from the Spirit, whom we have received. Next from death, and from our former viciousness, he maketh this good. And it seems indeed, as I said, that what he had mentioned was one thing, but it is discovered to be two, three, and even many more. First, that “He died:” second, that it was “for the ungodly;” third, that He “reconciled, saved, justified” us, made us immortal, made us sons and heirs. It is not from His Death then only, he says, that we draw strong assertions, but from the gift which was given unto us through His Death. And indeed if He had died only for such creatures as we be, a proof of the greatest love would what He had done be! but when He is seen at once dying, and yielding us a gift, and that such a gift, and to such creatures, what was done casts into shade our highest conceptions, and leads the very dullest on to faith. For there is no one else that will save us, except He Who so loved us when we were sinners, as even to give Himself up for us. Do you see what a ground this topic affords for hope? For before this there were two difficulties in the way of our being saved; our being sinners, and our salvation requiring the Lord’s Death, a thing which was quite incredible before it took place, and required exceeding love for it to take place. But now since this hath come about, the other requisites are easier. For we have become friends, and there is no further need of Death. — Homily on Romans IX

Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius: Therefore (as I had begun to say), when God had determined to send to men a teacher of righteousness, He commanded Him to be born again a second time in the flesh, and to be made in the likeness of man himself, to whom he was about to be a guide, and companion, and teacher. But since God is kind and merciful to His people, He sent Him to those very persons whom He hated, that He might not close the way of salvation against them for ever, but might give them a free opportunity of following God, that they might both gain the reward of life if they should follow Him (which many of them do, and have done), and that they might incur the penalty of death by their fault if they should reject their King. He ordered Him therefore to be born again among them, and of their seed, lest, if He should be born of another nation, they might be able to allege a just excuse from the law for their rejection of Him; and at the same time, that there might be no nation at all under heaven to which the hope of immortality should be denied. — The Divine Institutes Book 4, Chapter XI

Origen of Alexandria: Paul shows by this that neither our faith without Christ’s blood nor Christ’s blood without our faith can justify us. Yet of either of these Christ’s blood justifies us much more than our faith. That is why, in my opinion, having said above that we are justified by faith, Paul now says that we are justified by his blood “much more.” — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: If Christ loved sinners so much, how much more will he now preserve the righteous! We must be careful not to make him unclean by our sinning, as the apostle himself tells the Hebrews. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 5:10

Ambrosiaster: The God who acts on behalf of his enemies will not be able to love his friends any less than that. Therefore if the death of the Savior benefited us while we were still ungodly, how much more will his life do for us who are justified, when he raises us from the dead? — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Basil of Caesarea: There are many passages of this sort, which set forth with clarity and splendor the great, ineffable benevolence of God in freely pardoning our sins and granting us the means and the power of performing righteous acts for the glory of God and his Christ, in the hope of receiving eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. — CONCERNING BAPTISM 1.2

Origen of Alexandria: In saying this Paul shows that there is no substance which is hostile to God, as the Marcionites and Valentinians think, for if something was hostile to God by nature and not simply by will, reconciliation with him would be impossible.…Christ’s death brought death to the enmity which existed between us and God and ushered in reconciliation. For Christ’s resurrection and life brought with it salvation to those who believe, as the apostle said of Christ: “The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.” Christ is said to be dead to sin—not to his own, for he never sinned, but dead to sin in that by his death he put sin to death as well. For he is said to live to God so that we also might live to God and not to ourselves or to our own will, so that at the last we may be saved by his life. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Sinners are enemies because they show contempt. We were enemies in our deeds but not by nature; we have been reconciled in peace, because by nature we have been united in peace. If we have been saved by Christ’s death, how much more shall we glory in his life if we imitate it! — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Theodoret of Cyrus: Once more, Paul calls the Lord Christ “the Son,” who is both God and man. But it is clear, I think, even to the greatest heretics in which nature his suffering took place. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Romans 5:11

Ambrosiaster: Paul teaches us not only that we should thank God, for the salvation and assurance which we have received, but that we should also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, because through his Son the Mediator God has been pleased to call us his friends. Therefore we can rejoice that we have received every blessing through Christ, that through him we have come to know God. As we rejoice in him, let us therefore honor the Son equally with the Father, as he himself bears witness, saying: “That they may honor the Son as they honor the Father.” — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

John Chrysostom: What meaneth the “not only so?” Not only were we saved, he means, but we even glory for this very reason, for which some suppose we ought to hide our faces. For, for us who lived in so great wickedness to be saved, was a very great mark of our being exceedingly beloved by Him that saved us. For it was not by angels or archangels, but by His Only-begotten Son Himself, that He saved us. And so the fact of His saving us, and saving us too when we were in such plight, and doing it by means of His Only-begotten, and not merely by His Only-begotten, but by His Blood, weaves for us endless crowns to glory in. For there is not anything that counts so much in the way of glory and confidence, as the being treated as friends by God, and finding a Friend in Him that loveth us. This it is that maketh the angels glorious, and the principalities and powers. This is greater than the Kingdom, and so Paul placed it above the Kingdom. For this also I count the incorporeal powers blessed, because they love Him, and in all things obey Him. And on this score the Prophet also expressed his admiration at them. “Ye that excel in strength, that fulfil His Word.” And hence too Isaiah extolleth the Seraphim, setting forth their great excellency from their standing near that glory, which is a sign of the greatest love. — Homily on Romans IX

Origen of Alexandria: Paul stresses the “now” in order to indicate that our rejoicing is not merely a future hope but also a present experience. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Not only shall we have eternal life, but through Christ we are promised a certain likeness to divine glory as well. Paul wants to show that Christ suffered so that we who had forsaken God by following Adam might be reconciled to God through Christ. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 5:12

Ambrose of Milan: For death is alike to all, without difference for the poor, without exception for the rich. And so although through the sin of one alone, yet it passed upon all; that we may not refuse to acknowledge Him to be also the Author of death, Whom we do not refuse to acknowledge as the Author of our race; and that, as through one death is ours, so should be also the resurrection; and that we should not refuse the misery, that we may attain to the gift. For, as we read, Christ “is come to save that which was lost,” and “to be Lord both of the dead and living.” In Adam I fell, in Adam I was cast out of Paradise, in Adam I died; how shall the Lord call me back, except He find me in Adam; guilty as I was in him, so now justified in Christ. — On the Decease of His Brother Satyrus, Book 2

Ambrosiaster: Paul said that all have sinned in Adam even though in fact it was Eve who sinned because he was not referring to the particular but to the universal. For it is clear that all have sinned in Adam as though in a lump. For, being corrupted by sin himself, all those whom he fathered were born under sin. For that reason we are all sinners, because we all descend from him. He lost God’s blessing because he transgressed and was made unworthy to eat of the tree of life. For that reason he had to die. Death is the separation of body and soul. There is another death as well, called the second death, which takes place in Gehenna. We do not suffer this death as a result of Adam’s sin, but his fall makes it possible for us to get it by our own sins. Good men were protected from this, as they were only in hell, but they were still not free, because they could not ascend to heaven. They were still bound by the sentence meted out in Adam, the seal of which was broken by the death of Christ. The sentence passed on Adam was that the human body would decompose on earth, but the soul would be bound by the chains of hell until it was released. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: Everyone, even little children, have broken God’s covenant, not indeed in virtue of any personal action but in virtue of mankind’s common origin in that single ancestor in whom all have sinned. — City of God 16.27

Augustine of Hippo: When a man is born, he is already born with death, because he contracts sin from Adam. — TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF John 49.12.2

Augustine of Hippo: If the souls of all men are derived from that one which was breathed into the first man … either the soul of Christ was not derived from that one, since he had no sin of any kind … or, if his soul was derived from that first one, he purified it in taking it for himself, so that he might be born of the virgin and might come to us without any trace of sin, either committed or transmitted. — LETTER 164

Augustine of Hippo: As infants cannot help being descended from Adam, so they cannot help being touched by the same sin, unless they are set free from its guilt by the baptism of Christ. — LETTER 157

Augustine of Hippo: These words clearly teach that original sin is common to all men, regardless of the personal sins of each one. — AGAINST JULIAN 6.20.63

Augustine of Hippo: All men for whom Christ died died in the sin of the first Adam, and all who are baptized into Christ die to sin. — AGAINST JULIAN 6.7.21

Clement of Alexandria: It is probably therefore with reference to the consummation that Salome says: “Until when shall men die?” The Scripture uses the word “man” in two senses, the outward man and the soul, and again of him who is being saved and him who is not; and sin is said to be the death of the soul. That is why the Lord gave a cautious answer - “As long as women bear children,” that is, as long as the desires are active. “Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death came to all men, in that all sinned, and death reigned from Adam to Moses,” says the apostle. By natural necessity in the divine plan death follows birth, and the coming together of soul and body is followed by their dissolution. If birth exists for the sake of learning and knowledge, dissolution leads to the final restoration. — The Stromata Book 3

Cyril of Alexandria: Death entered into the first man, and into the beginnings of our race, because of sin, and very soon it had corrupted the entire race. In addition to this, the serpent who invented sin, after he had conquered Adam because of the latter’s unfaithfulness, opened up a way for himself to enter the mind of man: “They are corrupt … there is none that does good.” Therefore, having turned away from the face of the most holy God, and because the mind of man willingly inclined towards evil from its adolescence, we lived an absurd life, and death the conqueror devoured us accordingly.… For since we have all copied Adam’s transgression and thus have all sinned, we have incurred a penalty equal to his. Yet the world was not without hope, for in the end sin was destroyed, Satan was defeated and death itself was abolished. — EXPLANATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Eusebius of Caesarea: Since the apostle said: “By man death entered into the world,” it was surely essential that the victory over death should be achieved by man as well, and the body of death be shown to be the body of life, and the reign of sin that before ruled in the mortal body be destroyed so that it should no longer serve sin but righteousness. — PROOF OF THE GOSPEL 7.1

Gennadius of Constantinople: Everyone in the following of Adam has died, because they have all inherited their nature from him. But some have died because they themselves have sinned, while others have died only because of Adam’s condemnation—for example, children. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

John Chrysostom: As the best physicians always take great pains to discover the source of diseases, and go to the very fountain of the mischief, so doth the blessed Paul also. Hence after having said that we were justified, and having shown it from the Patriarch, and from the Spirit, and from the dying of Christ (for He would not have died unless He intended to justify), he next confirms from other sources also what he had at such length demonstrated. And he confirms his proposition from things opposite, that is, from death and sin. How, and in what way? He enquires whence death came in, and how it prevailed. How then did death come in and prevail? “Through the sin of one.” But what means, “for that all have sinned?” This; he having once fallen, even they that had not eaten of the tree did from him, all of them, become mortal. — Homily on Romans X

Oecumenius: So that no one can accuse God of injustice, in that we all die because of the fall of Adam, Paul adds: “and so all have sinned.” Adam is the origin and the cause of the fact that we have all sinned in imitation of him. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Origen of Alexandria: Perhaps someone will object that the woman sinned before the man and even that the serpent sinned before her … and elsewhere the apostle says: “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived.” … How is it then that sin seems to have come in through one man rather than through one woman?… Here the apostle sticks to the order of nature, and thus when he speaks about sin, because of which death has passed to all men, he attributes the line of human descent, which has succumbed to this death because of sin, not to the woman but to the man. For the descent is not reckoned from the woman but from the man, as the apostle says elsewhere: “For man was not made from woman but woman from man.”In this context the word world is to be understood either as the place in which people live or as the earthly and corporeal life in which death has its location. It is to this world, that is, to this earthly life, that the saints say that they are crucified and dead. The death which entered through sin is without doubt that death of which the prophet speaks when he says: “The soul which sins shall surely die.” One might rightly say that our bodily death is a shadow of this death. For whenever a soul dies, the body is obliged to follow suit, like a shadow. Now if someone objects that the Savior did not sin, nor did his soul die because of sin, yet nevertheless his body suffered death, we would answer that the Savior, although he did not himself sin, nevertheless by the assumption of human flesh is said to have become sin. As a result, although he owed his death to nothing else, nor was he bound to anything outside himself, yet for our salvation he voluntarily took on this shadow as part of his incarnation. As he himself said: “I have power to lay my soul down, and I have power to take it again.” … The apostle stated most categorically that the death of sin has passed to all men because all have sinned.… Therefore even if you say that Abel was righteous, still he cannot be excused, for all have sinned, including him. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Just as through Adam sin came at a time when it did not yet exist, so through Christ righteousness was recovered at a time when it survived in almost nobody. And just as through Adam’s sin death came in, so through Christ’s righteousness life was regained. As long as people sin as Adam sinned they die. Death did not pass on to Abraham and Isaac, of whom the Lord says: “They all live to him.” But here Paul says that all are dead because in a multitude of sinners no exception is made for a few righteous.… Or perhaps we should understand that death passed on to all who lived in a human and not in a heavenly manner. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Prudentius: Such was the soul’s first state. Created pure Through sordid union with the flesh it fell Into iniquity; stained by Adam’s sin, It tainted all the race from him derived, And infant souls inherit at their birth The first man’s sin; no one is sinless born. — THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST, LINES 909-15

Theodoret of Cyrus: St. Paul says that when Adam sinned he became mortal because of it and passed both on to his descendants. Thus death came to all men, in that all sinned. But each person receives the sentence of death not because of the sin of his first ancestor but because of his own sin. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Thomas Aquinas: After indicating the benefits we obtained through Christ’s grace [n. 381], the Apostle now indicates the evils from which we were set free. And concerning this he does three things. First, he shows that through Christ’s grace we have been freed from the slavery of sin; secondly, from the slavery of the Law, in chapter 7, there [n. 518] Or do you not know, brothers; thirdly, from condemnation, in chapter 8, there [n. 595] at There is therefore now no condemnation. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that by Christ’s grace we are set free from original sin; secondly, that we are shielded against future sins, there [c. 6; n. 468] at What therefore shall we say. In regard to the first be does two things: first, he deals with the history of sin; 208 secondly, of grace destroying sin, there [v. 15; n. 430] at But the gift is not like the trespass. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he sets forth the origin of sin; second, he manifests it, there [v. 13; n. 421] at Sin was indeed in the world. Concerning the first, he does two things: first, he sets forth the origin of sin; secondly, its universality, there [v. 12b; n. 417] at And so death passed. In regard the first he does two things: first, he shows the origin of sin; secondly, the origin of death, there [v. 12b; n. 416] at And through sin death. 407. First, therefore, he says that we have been reconciled through Christ. For reconciliation came into the world from Christ, as sin came into the world through one man, namely, Adam: “As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). Here it should be noted that the Pelagian heretics, who denied the existence of original sin in infants, claim that these words of the Apostle must be understood of actual sin which, according to them, entered this world through Adam, inasmuch as all sinners imitate Adam: “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant” (Hosea 6:7). But, as Augustine says against them, if the Apostle were speaking of the entrance of actual sin, he would not have said that sin entered this world through a man but rather through the devil, whom sinners imitate: “Through the devil’s envy death entered the world” (Wis 2:24). 209 Therefore, the interpretation is that sin entered this world through Adam not only by imitation but also by propagation, i.e., by a vitiated origin of the flesh in accordance with Eph (2:3): “We were by nature children of wrath” and Psalms 51 (v.5): “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity.” 408. But it seems impossible that sin be passed from one person to another through carnal origin. For sin exists in the rational soul, which is not passed on by carnal origin, not only because the intellect is not the act of any body and so cannot be caused by the power of bodily seed, as the Philosopher says in Generation of Animals, but also because the rational soul, being a subsistent reality (inasmuch as it can perform certain acts without using the body and is not destroyed when the body is destroyed), is not produced in virtue of the body’s being produced (unlike other forms which cannot subsist of themselves), but is caused by God. Therefore, it seems to follow that sin, too, which is an accident of the soul, cannot be passed on by carnal origin. The reasonable answer seems to be that although the soul is not in the seed, nevertheless there is in it a power disposing the body to receive the soul which, when it is infused into the body, is also adapted to it in its own way for the reason that everything received by something exists in it according to a mode of the recipient. That is why children resemble parents not only in bodily defects, as a leper begets a leprous child and a person with gout a gouty child, but also in defects of the soul, as an irascible parent begets irascible children and mad parents mad offspring. For although the foot subject to gout or the soul subject to anger and madness are not in the seed, nevertheless in the seed is a power which forms the bodily members and disposes them for the soul. 210 409. Yet a difficulty remains, because defects traced to a vitiated source do not involve guilt. For they are not deserving of punishment but rather of pity, as the Philosopher says of one born blind or in any other way defective. The reason is that it is the character of guilt that it be voluntary and in the power of the one to whom the guilt is imputed. Consequently, if any defect in us arose through origin from the first parent, it does not seem to carry with it the nature of guilt but of punishment. Therefore, it must be admitted that as actual sin is a person’s sin, because it is committed through the will of the person sinning, so original sin is the sin of the nature committed through the will of the source of human nature. 410. For it must be remembered that just as the various members of the body are the parts of one human person, so all men are parts and, as it were, members of human nature. Hence Porphyry says that by sharing in the same species many men are one man. Furthermore, the act of sin performed by a member, say the hand or the foot, does not carry the notion of guilt from the hand’s or foot’s will but from the whole person’s will, from which as from a source the movement of sin is passed to the several members. Similarly, from the will of Adam, who was the source of human nature, the total disorder of that nature carries the notion of guilt in all who obtain that nature precisely as susceptible to guilt. And just as an actual sin, which is a sin of the person, is drawn to the several members by an act of the person, so original sin is drawn to each man by an act of the nature, namely, generation. Accordingly, just as human nature is obtained through generation, so, too, by generation is passed on the defect it acquired from the sin of the first parent. 211 This defect is a lack of original justice divinely conferred on the first parent not only in his role as a definite person but also as the source of human nature – a justice that was to be passed along with human nature to his descendants. Consequently, the loss of this original justice through sin was passed on to his descendants. It is this loss that has the aspect of guilt in his descendants for the reason given. That is why it is said that in the progression of original sin a person infected the nature, namely, Adam sinning vitiated human nature; but later in others the vitiated nature affects the person in the sense that to the offspring is imputed as guilt this vitiated state of nature on account of the first parent’s will, as explained above. 411. From this it is clear that although the first sin of the first parent is passed on to the descendants by generation, nevertheless his other sins, or even those of other men, are not passed on to their children, because it was only through the first sin that the good of nature, originally intended to be passed on by generation, was lost. Through all later sins the good of personal grace is lost, which does not pass on to one’s descendants. This also explains why, although Adam’s sin was removed by his repentance: “She delivered him from his transgression” (Wis 10:2), nevertheless his repentance could not remove the sin of descendants, because his repentance was performed by a personal act, which did not extend beyond him personally. 412. Consequently, there is but one sole original sin, because the defect following upon the first sin is the only one passed on to the descendants. Therefore, the Apostle is careful to say that through one man sin came into the world, and not “sins,” which he would have said, if he were speaking of actual sin. 212 But sometimes it is said in the plural: “And in sins did my mother conceive me” (Psalms 51:7) because it contains many sins virtually, insofar as the corruption of bodily desire [fomes] inclines one to many sins. 413. It seems, however, that original sin entered this world not through one man, namely, Adam, but through one woman, namely, Eve, who was the first to sin “From a woman sin had its beginning and because of her we all die” (Si 25:24). This is answered in a gloss in two ways: in one way, because the custom of Scripture is to present genealogies not through the woman but through the men. Hence, the Apostle in giving, as it were, the genealogy of sin makes no mention of the woman but only of the man. In another way, because the woman was taken from the man; consequently, what is true of the woman is attributed to the man. But this can be explained in another and better way, namely, that since original sin is passed on along with the nature, as has been said, then just as the nature is passed on by the active power of the man, while the woman furnishes the matter, so too original sin. Hence, if Adam had not sinned, but Eve only, sin would not have been passed on to their descendants. For Christ did not contract original sin, because he took his flesh from the woman alone without male seed. 415. Augustine uses these words from the apostle Paul to respond to the heretic Julian, who asked: “The who is born does not sin, the who begot him does not sin, the one who bore him does not sin; through what crack, therefore, in such a garrison of innocence do you suppose sin has entered?” But Augustine responds: “Why do you seek 213 22 Augustine, De Nuptiis et Conc., book 2, ch 28. a crack when you have a wide open gate? For according to the Apostle, sin entered into this world through one man.“22 416. Then he touches on the entry of death into this world when he says, and death through sin entered this world: “Ungodliness purchases death” (Wis 1:12). However, it seems that death does not arise from sin but from nature, being due to the presence of matter. For the human body is composed of contrary elements and, therefore, is corruptible of its very nature. The answer is that human nature can be considered in two ways: in one way according to its structural principles, and then death is natural. Hence Seneca says that death is natural not penal for man. In another way man’s nature can be considered in the light of what divine providence had supplied it through original justice. This justice was a state in which man’s mind was under God, the lower powers of the soul under the mind, the body under the soul, and all external things under man, with the result that as long as man’s mind remained under God, the lower powers would remain subject to reason, and the body to the soul by receiving life from it without interruption, and external things to man in the sense that all things would serve man, who would never experience any harm from them. Divine providence planned this for man on account of the worth of the rational soul, which, being incorruptible, deserved an incorruptible body. But because the body, which is composed of contrary elements, served as an instrument for the senses, and such a body could not in virtue of its nature be incorruptible, the divine power furnished which was lacking to human nature by giving the soul the power to maintain the body 214 incorruptible, just as a worker in metal might give the iron, from which he makes a sword, the power never to become rusty. Thus, therefore, after man’s mind was turned from God through sin, he lost the strength to control the lower powers as well as the body and external things. Consequently, he became subject to death from intrinsic sources and to violence from external sources. 417. Then when he says and so death passed (v. 12c) he shows the universality of this process in regard both to death and to sin, but in reverse order. For above he treated first of the entry of sin, which is the cause of death’s entry; but now he deals first with the universality of death as with something more obvious. Hence he says, and so death or the sin of the first parent, spread to all, because men merit the necessity of dying on account of a vitiated origin: “We must all die” (2 Samuel 14:14); “What man can live and never see death?” (Psalms 89:48). 418. Then he touches on the universality of sin when he says, because [in whom] all men sinned. According to Augustine this can be understood in two ways: in one way, in whom, i.e., in the first man, or in which, namely, in that sin; because while he was sinning, all sinned in a sense, inasmuch as all men were in him as in their first origin. 419. But since Christ derived his origin from Adam (Luke 3:23 ff), it seems that even he sinned in Adam’s sin. Augustine’s answer in On Genesis is that Christ was not in Adam as completely as we were, for we were in him according to bodily substance and according to seed. But Christ was in him in the first way only. 215 Some who interpreted these words incorrectly supposed that the entire substance of all human bodies, which is required for a true human nature, was actually in Adam and that in virtue of a multiplication traced to God’s power, something taken from Adam was increased to form such a quantity of bodies. But this is far-fetched, because it explains the works of nature by a miracle. Indeed, it is obvious that the human body, even though it is required for the integrity of human nature, corrupts and becomes a corpse. Hence it is better to say that, because everything generable is corruptible and vice versa, the matter which was present under some form other than human before a man is begotten, received the form proper to human flesh. Accordingly, not everything in our bodies that belongs to the integrity of human nature was in Adam actually, but only according to origin in the way that an effect is present in its active principle. According to this, therefore, there are in human generation the bodily material, which the woman proffers, and an active force, which is in the male’s seed; both are derived originally from Adam as their first principle. Hence, they are said to have been in him according to seed and according to bodily substance, inasmuch as both came forth from him. But in Christ’s generation there was the bodily substance which he obtained from the virgin; in place of the male seed was the Holy Spirit’s active power, which is not derived from Adam. Consequently, Christ was not in Adam according to his seedly power, but only according to bodily substance. Thus, therefore, we not only receive sin from Adam and contract it; we also derive human nature from him as from an active principle – which amounts to being in him according to seedly power. But this is not true of Christ, as has been stated. 216 420. Finally, it seems that original sin does not pass on to all, because the baptized are cleansed of original sin. Hence, it seems that they cannot transmit to their descendents something they do not have. The answer is that through baptism a man is freed from original sin as far as the mind is concerned, but the infection of sin remains as far as the flesh is concerned. Hence the Apostle says below (7:22): “I serve the law of God with my mind, but the law of sin with my flesh.” But man does not beget children with the mind but with the flesh; consequently, he does not transmit the new life of Christ but the old life of Adam.

Romans 5:13

Ambrosiaster: Before the law was given, men thought that they could sin with impunity before God but not before other men. For the natural law, of which they were well aware, had not completely lost its force, so that they knew not to do to others what they did not want to suffer themselves. For sin was certainly not unknown among men at that time.How is it then that sin was not imputed, when there was no law? Was it all right to sin, if the law was absent? There had always been a natural law, and it was not unknown, but at that time it was thought to be the only law, and it did not make men guilty before God. For it was not then known that God would judge the human race, and for that reason sin was not imputed, almost as if it did not exist in God’s sight and that God did not care about it. But when the law was given through Moses, it became clear that God did care about human affairs and that in the future wrongdoers would not escape without punishment, as they had done up to then. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: Paul said this in opposition to those who thought that sin could be taken away through the law. He says that sins were made apparent by the law, not abolished. He says not that there was no sin but only that it was not counted. Once the law was given, sin was not taken away, but it began to be counted. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 27-28

Cyril of Alexandria: The law of Moses was the power constraining the weakness of sinners. It proved to be not the answer to sin but rather a provocation to wrath. For it was necessary for transgressors to undergo the punishments prescribed by the law, and wherever there was transgression, there was also sin. So if sin brought death in its wake, it may undoubtedly be said that death, having been born of sin, was strengthened by this very thing. But when sin was taken away death was also weakened, and it disappeared along with its parent. Therefore there was death in the world until the coming of the law. For as long as the law was valid, the crime of transgression could be laid against those who had fallen, but once the law was removed, the accusation of transgression disappeared as well. Therefore when the guilt ceased, death also came to an end. — EXPLANATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Diodorus of Tarsus: Sin was in the world before the law of Moses came, and it was counted, though not according to that law. Rather it was counted according to the law of nature, by which we have learned to distinguish good and evil. This was the law of which Paul spoke above. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

John Chrysostom: The phrase “till the Law” some think he used of the time before the giving of the Law-that of Abel, for instance, or of Noah, or of Abraham-till Moses was born. What was the sin in those days, at this rate? some say he means that in Paradise. For hitherto it was not done away, (he would say,) but the fruit of it was yet in vigor. For it had borne that death whereof all partake, which prevailed and lorded over us. Why then does he proceed, “But sin is not imputed when there is no law?” It was by way of objection from the Jews, say they who have spoken on our side, that he laid this position down.

In saying, that “till the Law sin was in the world,” what he seems to me to mean is this, that after the Law was given the sin resulting from the transgression of it prevailed, and prevailed too so long as the Law existed. For sin, he says, can have no existence if there be no law. If then it was this sin, he means, from the transgression of the Law that brought forth death, how was it that all before the Law died? For if it is in sin that death hath its origin, but when there is no law, sin is not imputed, how came death to prevail? From whence it is clear, that it was not this sin, the transgression, that is, of the Law, but that of Adam’s disobedience, which marred all things. Now what is the proof of this? The fact that even before the Law all died: for “death reigned” he says, “from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned.” — Homily on Romans X

Oecumenius: When Paul uses the word sin here he is thinking primarily of the transgression of the law of Moses and its commandments, e.g., circumcision, sabbath observance, the food laws, etc. Nevertheless, sin in general already existed in human nature, and it was counted. By this I mean things like murder, robbery, child abuse and so on.… For there was a law of nature which covered things like that. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Pelagius: The law came to punish sin. Before it came, sinners enjoyed at least the length of this present life with less restraint. Sin indeed existed before the law, but it was not counted as sin because natural knowledge had been almost wiped out. How did death reign, if sin was not counted? You have to understand here that it was not counted “for the time being.” — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Theodore of Mopsuestia: The coming of the law did not remove sin. On the contrary, even though the law was observed and kept by men, sin continued to increase and the law could do nothing to stop it.… So far was the law from being the cure for sin that Paul even says that there would not have been sin at all had there been no law! By “law” Paul means the discernment which comes by both the natural law and the law of Moses. For without this discernment, nobody would be able to call sin by its name, since there would be no way of knowing the difference between good and evil. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Theodoret of Cyrus: Paul is not, as some think, accusing those who lived before the law but rather everyone together. When he says “before the law” he does not mean before the law began but before the law came to an end, because as long as the law was in control, sin retained its force. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Thomas Aquinas: After tracing the origin of sin and death and their entry into the world [n. 406], the Apostle now clarifies what he has said. First, he explains his statement; secondly, he clarifies the comparison he suggested (in v. 12), when he said: “as sin…so death”; thirdly, he explains it, there [v. 14b; n. 429] at who is a figure of the one who was come. 217 Now he had stated that sin and death passed on to all men. Here, in line with Augustine’s exposition [n. 418], he intends to explain this by the fact that sin remained even under the Law, implying that it was unable to expel it. In regard to this he does two things: first, he explains his statement as far as sin is concerned; secondly, as far as death is concerned [v. 14; n. 424]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that sin existed under the Law; secondly, what the Law did in regard to sin [v. 13b; n. 423]. 422. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that all have sinned in Adam, because even the Law did not take away sin. Before [until] the law, i.e., even under the Law, sin was in the world. This can be understood of the natural law and the Law of Moses; similarly, for actual sin and original sin. For original sin was in the child until the law of nature, i.e., until he reached the use of reason through which man adverts to these laws: “In sins did my mother conceive me” (Psalms 51:5). Nor does this sin pass away with the coming of the natural law in a man; rather, it grows through the addition of actual sin, because, as stated in Ec (7:20): “There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.” But if we understand it of the Law of Moses, then the statement that sin was in the world until the Law can be understood not only of original sin but also of actual, because both sins continued in the world before the Law and under the Law: “Who can say, ‘I have made my heart clean?’” (Proverbs 20:9). 218 423. But although the Law did not remove sin, it produced knowledge of sin which previously was not recognized. Hence he continues, but sin was not imputed. This is obvious, if it is understood of the natural law. For although original sin is in the child before the natural law and is counted against him by God, it was not imputed to him by men. But if it be understood of the Law of Moses, it is clear that some actual sins were not imputed before the Law, as those which are specifically forbidden by the Law, which men did not regard as sins; for example, “You shall not covet” (Exodus 20:17). But certain sins were imputed, inasmuch as they were against the law of nature. Hence, Joseph is sent to prison on a charge of adultery (Genesis 39:11 ff). 424. Then he deals with death, saying: Although sins were not imputed before the Law, yet death, i.e., spiritual, i.e., sin or eternal damnation, of which it is written: “The death of the wicked is very evil” (Psalms 34:21), reigned, i.e., exercised its power over men, by bringing them to damnation, from Adam through whom sin entered the world, to Moses, under whom the Law was given: “The law was given through Moses” (John 1:17), not only over those who sinned actually, but even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who sinned actually: “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me” (Hosea 6:7), because even the children incurred damnation. 425. Under this sense it is also possible to understand bodily death, through which is shown the presence of sin, even when it was not imputed. As if to say: Sin indeed was not imputed before the Law, but we know that it existed, because death reigned, i.e., bodily, first by bringing suffering, such as hunger, thirst and sickness, and finally by 219 destroying life, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, i.e., even over children who committed no actual sins, because even they suffered bodily death before and after the Law: “What man can live and never see death?” (Psalms 89:48). 426. Ambrose explained these words in another way, namely, of actual sin only, and of the Mosaic Law. According to him these words were written to explain that sin entered this world through the first parent and passed on to everyone. For until the law, i.e., before the Law of Moses, sin was in the world, namely, actual sin. For men sinned against the law of nature in manifold ways. Hence, it is said in Gen (13:13): “The men of Sodom were the wickedest.” But sin was not imputed when there was no law, not as though it was not imputed as something to be punished by men, since there are records of men being punished for sin before the time of the Law (Gen c. 39 & 40); but it was not considered as something to be punished by God. For at that time men did not believe that God would punish or reward men’s actions: “Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see” (Job 22:14). But after the Law was given by God, it was recognized that sins are imputed by God for punishment and not only by men. Consequently, because men did not believe that they would be punished by God for their sins, they sinned freely and without restraint, whenever they did not fear human judgment. Hence he adds: But death, i.e., sin, reigned, i.e., exercised its power in every way, from Adam to Moses excluded. For when the Law was given through Moses, it began to weaken the reign of sin, inculcating fear of divine judgment: “Oh, that they had such a mind as this always, to fear me and keep my commandments” (Deuteronomy 5:28). Sin reigned, I say, until Moses, not over all but over those who sinned in the likeness of Adam. 220 For Ambrose says that not is not found in the ancient manuscripts; hence, he believes it was added by corrupters. Adam, indeed, believed the devil’s promise more than God’s threat, as is clear in Gen (c.3); in a way, then, he preferred to devil to God. Therefore, idolaters sin in the likeness of Adam’s sin, because they abandon the worship of God to venerate the devil. Over such, therefore, death, i.e., sin, reigned completely, because it possessed them entirely. But there were true worshippers of God before the Law; yet even if they sinned, sin did not reign over them, because it did not separate them totally from God. Rather, they sinned under God, i.e., under faith in the one God, if they sinned mortally, or under charity, if they sinned venially. 427. From both these interpretations a third can he obtained which seems more in accord with the Apostle’s intention. For he had said (v. 12) that “through one man sin entered this world”; but because sin is a transgression of the divine law, it might seem that this would not be true during the time before the Law, especially since he had stated in (4:l5): “Where there is no law, there is no transgression. Consequently, one might suppose that sin entered the world not through a man hut through the Law. To exclude this he says, until the law, i.e., the time before the Law, sin was in the world, both original and actual, but it was not recognized as something to be punished by God. And this is what he adds, but sin was not imputed, namely, as something against God, since the law, i.e., divinely given, did not exist. 428. For there were certain persons, as the Philosopher says in Ethics V (ch. 10), who believed that nothing is just by nature and, consequently, nothing unjust, but only because there is a human law. According to this, a sin was not imputed as being contrary to God, especially original sin, since it was not known. 221 But the error of this opinion is shown by the effect, because bodily death reigned from Adam, through whom original sin entered the world, until Moses, under whom the Law was given. Consequently, since death is the effect of sin, especially original, it is clear that before the Law there was original sin in the world. But lest anyone suppose that they died on account of actual sins, he excludes this, when he says that it reigned even over those who did not sin by their own act, namely, children and the just who did not sin mortally, but did sin in the first man, as has been stated. Therefore, he adds, in the likeness of Adam’s sin, inasmuch as they contracted the likeness of that sin through their origin along with the likeness of nature. As if to say: The fact that they died without personal sin shows that the likeness of Adam’s sin had been spread in them in virtue of origin. And this is what the Apostle intends to convey, namely, that original sin entered the world through Adam. 429. Then (v.14b) he explains the likeness which was understood in the adverb, “as” [sicut] (v. 12). Hence he says, who, namely, Adam, was a type, i.e., a figure, of the one who was to come, i.e., of Christ, although in an opposite way. For just as sin and death entered the world through Adam, so justice and life entered through Christ: “The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven” (1 Corinthians 15:47). There are other likenesses between Christ and Adam, namely, that just as Adam’s body was formed without intercourse, so Christ’s body from the Virgin. Again, just as the woman was taken from the side of the sleeping Adam, so from the side of the sleeping Christ flowed blood and water (John 19:34), which signify the sacraments by which the Church was formed.

Romans 5:14

Acacius of Caesarea: Paul said this in order to contradict those who thought that the Genesis story of the fall applied to nobody but Adam himself. For here he says that all have sinned, even if not exactly in the same way as Adam, and that the Genesis account applies to all men. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Ambrosiaster: Although sin was not imputed before the law of Moses was given, death nevertheless reigned in the supremacy of its own seizure of power, knowing those who were bound to it. Therefore death reigned in the security of its dominion both over those who for a time escaped punishment and over those who suffered punishment for their evil deeds. Death claimed everyone as its own, because whoever sins is the servant of sin. Imagining they would get away with it, people sinned all the more and were more prone to wrongdoing because the world abetted it as if it were legal. Because of all this Satan rejoiced, knowing that he was secure in his possession of man, who because of Adam’s sin had been abandoned by God. Thus it was that death reigned.Some Greek manuscripts say that death reigned even in those who had not sinned in the way that Adam had. If this is true, it is because Satan’s jealousy was such that death, that is, dissolution, held sway over even those who did not sin.… Here there is a textual difference between the Latin version and some of the Greek manuscripts. The Latin says that death reigned over those whose sins were like the sin of Adam, but some Greek manuscripts say that death reigned even over those whose sins were not like Adam’s. Which of the two readings is the correct one? What has happened is that somebody who could not win his argument altered the words of the text in order to make them say what he wanted them to say, so that not argument but textual authority would determine the issue. However, it is known that there were Latin-speakers who translated ancient Greek manuscripts which preserved an uncorrupted version from earlier times. But once these problems were raised by heretics and schismatics who were upsetting the harmony of the church, many things were altered so that the biblical text might conform to what people wanted. Thus even the Greeks have different readings in their manuscripts. I consider the correct reading to be the one which reason, history and authority all retain. For the reading of the modern Latin manuscripts is also found in Tertullian, Victorinus and Cyprian. Thus it was in Judea that the destruction of the kingdom of death began, since God was made known in Judea. But now death is being destroyed daily in every nation, since many who once were sons of the devil have become sons of God. Therefore, death did not reign in everyone but only in those who sinned in the same way that Adam had sinned. Adam was the type of the one who was to come, because even then God had secretly decided to redeem Adam’s sin through the one Christ, as it says in John’s Apocalypse: “The Lamb of God which was slain before the foundation of the world.” — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES.”

Augustine of Hippo: This can be understood in two ways: either “in the likeness of Adam’s transgression, death reigned,” or (as surely it must be read) “death reigned over even those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression but sinned before the law was given.” Thus those who received the law may be understood to have sinned in the likeness of Adam’s transgression, because Adam also sinned after having received a law to obey…. Adam is the type of the one who was to come but in reverse, for as death came through Adam, so life came through our Lord.

Augustine of Hippo: Adam is the type of Christ but in reverse, because the good done by Christ to the regenerated is greater than the harm done by Adam to his descendants. — LETTER 157

Cyril of Jerusalem: Paul’s meaning is that, although Moses was a righteous and admirable man, the death sentence promulgated upon Adam reached him as well, and also those who came after, even though neither he nor they copied the sin of Adam in disobediently eating of the tree. — Catechetical Lecture 15.31

Diodorus of Tarsus: Adam was a type of Christ not with respect to his sin or his righteousness—in this respect the two men were opposites—but with respect to the effects of what he did. For just as Adam’s sin spread to all men, so Christ’s life also spread to all men. Adam was also a type of Christ in another respect. For just as he was the head of Eve, in that he was her husband, so also Christ, being its bridegroom, is the head of the church. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Hippolytus of Rome: When, therefore, according to these (heretics), the entire world and super-mundane entities were finished, and (when) nothing exists labouring under deficiency, there still remains in the (conglomeration of) all germs the third Sonship, which had been left behind in the Seed to confer benefits and receive them. And it must needs be that the Sonship which had been left behind ought likewise to be revealed and reinstated above. And His place should be above the Conterminous Spirit, near the refined and imitative Sonship and the Non-Existent One. But this would be in accordance with what has been written, he says: “And the creation itself groaneth together, and travaileth in pain together, waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God.” Now, we who are spiritual are sons, he says, who have been left here to arrange, and mould, and rectify, and complete the souls which, according to nature, are so constituted as to continue in this quarter of the universe. “Sin, then, reigned from Adam unto Moses,” as it has been written. For the Great Archon exercised dominion and possesses an empire with limits extending as far as the firmament. And He imagines Himself alone to be God, and that there exists nothing above Him, for (the reason that) all things have been guarded by unrevealed Siope. This, he says, is the mystery which has not been made known to former generations; but in those days the Great Archon, the Ogdoad, was King and Lord, as it seemed, of the universe. But (in reality) the Hebdomad was king and lord of this quarter of the universe, and the Ogdoad is Arrhetus, whereas the Hebdomad is Rhetus. This, he says, is the Archon of the Hebdomad, who has spoken to Moses, and says: “I am the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and I have not manifested unto them the name of God” (for so they wish that it had been written)-that is, the God, Arrhetus, Archon of the Ogdoad. All the prophets, therefore, who were before the Saviour uttered their predictions, he says, from this source (of inspiration). Since, therefore, it was requisite, he says, that we should be revealed as the children of God, in expectation of whose manifestation, he says, the creation habitually groans and travails in pain, the Gospel came into the world, and passed through every Principality, and Power, and Dominion, and every Name that is named. And (the Gospel) came in reality, though nothing descended from above; nor did the blessed Sonship retire from that Inconceivable, and Blessed, (and) Non-Existent God. Nay, (far from it;) for as Indian naphtha, when lighted merely from a considerably long distance, nevertheless attracts fire (towards it), so from below, from the formlessness of the conglomeration (of all germs), the powers pass upwards as far as the Sonship. For, according to the illustration of the Indian naphtha, the Son of the Great Archon of the Ogdoad, as if he were some (sort of) naphtha, apprehends and seizes conceptions from the Blessed Sonship, whose place of habitation is situated after that of the Conterminous (Spirit). For the power of the Sonship which is in the midst of the Holy Spirit, (that is,) in, the midst of the (Conterminous) Spirit, shares the flowing and rushing thoughts of the Sonship with the Son of the Great Archon. — Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies Book VII

Jerome: In the transgression of Adam we have all through sin been cast out of paradise. The apostle teaches that even in us who were to come later Adam had fallen. In Christ therefore, in the heavenly Adam, we believe that we who through the sin of the first Adam have fallen from paradise now through the righteousness of the second Adam are to return to paradise. — HOMILIES ON THE Psalms 66

Methodius of Olympus: But the females to be preserved alive. For the devil, ruling

Origen of Alexandria: It seems to me that Paul’s description of death and its power may be compared to the entry of a tyrant who wants to usurp the authority of the legitimate ruler and after seizing the entrance to the kingdom by the treachery of the gatekeeper then tries to get public opinion on his side. To a great extent he succeeds in this and can therefore claim that the kingdom belongs to him. It was during the rule of this tyrant that Moses, a leader chosen by the legitimate ruler, was sent to the occupied peoples in order to revoke the laws of the civil administration and teach them to follow the laws of the true king.… This leader did all he could to deliver at least some people from the control of sin and death, and in the end he managed to form a nation composed of those who chose to associate with him. At the command of the king, he instituted sacrifices which were to be offered with a certain solemnity, as was only fitting, and by which their sins would be forgiven. And so at last a part of the human race began to be set free from the rule of sin and death.…Many manuscripts read that death reigned over even those whose sin was not like that of Adam. If this reading is correct, then it may be said that it refers to that death which has kept souls in hell, and we would understand that even the saints have passed away because of this law of death, even though they were not subject to the law of sin. Therefore it may be said that Christ descended into hell not only in order to show that he could not be held by death but also that he might liberate those who found themselves there not because of the sin of transgression but merely because of their mortal condition.… What did Paul mean when he said that Adam was a type of the one who was to come? Was he speaking of some future man who had not yet come when he was writing, or was he thinking about Christ, who would have been in the future from Adam’s point of view but was already in the past when Paul was writing? I do not know how Adam can be regarded as a type of Christ, unless it is by contrast.… I think it is better to say that Paul understood Adam as a type of Christ’s second coming. Thus just as death has taken control of this age because of the one Adam, and the entire human race has been subjected to mortality, so in the coming age life will reign through Christ, and the entire human race will be blessed with immortality. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: This may mean that as long as there was no one who distinguished between the righteous and the unrighteous, death imagined that it was Lord over all. Or else it may mean that death reigned not only over those who, like Adam, broke a commandment—like the sons of Noah who were ordered not to eat the life in the blood or the sons of Abraham, on whom circumcision was imposed—but over those who, lacking the commandment, showed contempt for the law of nature. Adam was a type of Christ either because he was made by God without sexual intercourse, just as Christ was born of a virgin by the aid of the Holy Spirit, or he was an antithetical type, that is, as Adam was the source of sin so Christ is the source of righteousness. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Theodore of Mopsuestia: Death came to all men not because they committed the same sin as Adam but because they sinned.… Death is not just the punishment for one particular sin; it is the punishment for every sin. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Romans 5:15

Ambrosiaster: Paul said that Adam was a type of Christ, but in order to assure us that they were not alike in substance, he says that the gift is not like the trespass. The only similarity between them is that just as one man sinned, so one man put things right.If by the trespass of one man many have died by imitating his transgression, how much more has the grace of God and his gift abounded in those who flee to him for refuge! For there are more who have received grace than who have died because of Adam’s trespass. From this it is clear that Paul was not talking about ordinary death, which is common to us all, since everybody dies but not everybody receives grace. Death does not reign in everyone. It only reigns in those who have died because of the sin of Adam, who have sinned by a transgression like his. Paul is talking only about these when he says that although many have died because of Adam’s sin, many more have received grace.… For both to those who sinned in a way similar to Adam and to those who did not sin in that way but who were nevertheless confined to hell because of God’s judgment on Adam’s sin, the grace of God has abounded by the descent of the Savior to hell, granting pardon to all and leading them up to heaven in triumph. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: The gift excels in two ways: first, because grace abounds much more in that it bestows eternal life even though death reigns in the temporal sphere because of the death of Adam, and second, because by the condemnation of one sin the death of many came about through Adam, whereas by the forgiveness of many sins through our Lord Jesus Christ grace has been given for eternal life. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 29

Diodorus of Tarsus: At first sight it may seem that this verse contradicts what Paul said [in verse 12] above, for there he spoke of death having come to all humanity, whereas here he says only that many have died. In fact there is no contradiction, because death, although it came upon all because we have all sinned, came only to test and to try everyone. Death does not destroy all sinners automatically but only those who persist in their sins. By saying that “many died” Paul shows merely that many turned out to be unrepentant in their sins. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

John Chrysostom: For what he says is somewhat of this kind. If sin had so extensive effects, and the sin of one man too; how can grace, and that the grace of God, not the Father only, but also the Son, do otherwise than be the more abundant of the two? For the latter is far the more reasonable supposition. For that one man should be punished on account of another does not seem to be much in accordance with reason. But for one to be saved on account of another is at once more suitable and more reasonable. If then the former took place, much more may the latter. Hence he has shown from these grounds the likelihood and reasonableness of it. For when the former had been made good, this would then be readily admitted. — Homily on Romans X

Oecumenius: Christ’s obedience was greater than Adam’s disobedience in the following sense. Death, which originated with the sin of Adam, had our cooperation in the sins which we all committed, and so it was able to gain control over us. For if men had remained free of all wrongdoing, death would not have been in control. But the grace of Christ has come to us all without our cooperation and shows that the grace of the resurrection is such that not only believers, who glory in their faith, will be resurrected, but also unbelievers, both Jews and Greeks. Something which works in us against our will is therefore obviously greater than something which works in us with our cooperation. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Origen of Alexandria: It makes no difference that Paul said [in verse 12] that sin spread to all, whereas here he says that the grace and gift of God have abounded for many. In Paul’s usage, all and many are almost synonymous.… Yet Paul refrains from saying that all will benefit from the free grace of God, because if men had the assurance that they would be saved, they would not fear God and turn away from evil.[In this verse] Paul starts to explain how Adam may be regarded as a type of Christ. Any close similarity between them is obviously absurd, which is why he insists that “the free gift is not like the trespass.” … The judgment on Adam was that through his one sin condemnation came to all men. But in sharp contrast to this, through Christ justification is given to all for the many sins in which the entire human race is bound up. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: The gift is not like the trespass, because one must not give equal value to the type as to the original. Righteousness had more power to bring to life than sin had to put to death. Adam killed only himself and his descendants, whereas Christ freed both those who were then in the body and also succeeding generations. Those who oppose the idea of the transmission of sin try to attack it as follows: “If Adam’s sin harmed even those who were not sinners, then Christ’s righteousness must help even those who are not believers. For Paul says that people are saved through Christ in the same way or to an even greater degree than they had previously perished through Adam.” Secondly, they say: “If baptism washes away that ancient sin, those who are born of two baptized parents should not have that sin, for they could not have passed on to their children what they did not possess themselves. Besides, if the soul does not exist by transmission, but only the flesh, then only the flesh carries the transmission of sin and it alone deserves punishment.” Declaring it to be unjust that a soul which is born today, not from the lump of Adam, bears so ancient a sin belonging to another, these people say that on no account should it be accepted that God, who forgives a man his own sins, imputes to him the sins of someone else. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Theodoret of Cyrus: Paul calls Jesus a man in this passage in order to underline the parallel with Adam, for just as death came through one man, so the cure for death came through one man as well. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Thomas Aquinas: After discussing the entry of sin into this world, the Apostle treats of the history of grace, which abolishes sin. And concerning this he does two things. First, he shows how the grace of Christ removed sin, which entered the world through one man; secondly, how it removed sin, which superabounded with the coming of the Law [v. 20; n. 448]. 223 In showing how Christ’s grace removed the sin introduced into the world by Adam, he compares Christ’s grace to Adam’s sin, stating that Christ’s grace can accomplish more good than Adam’s sin accomplishes evil. And concerning this he does two things. First, he compares the causes, namely, Christ’s grace, with Adam’s sin; secondly, he compares their effects [v. 16; n. 435]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he gives the comparison; secondly, he clarifies it [v. 15b; n. 432]. 431. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that Adam is the type of the one who was to come, but not like the trespass is the free gift. As if to say: the efficacy of Adam’s trespass must not be considered the equal of Christ’s gift. The reason is that sin came from the weakness of the human will, but grace comes from the immensity of the divine goodness, which excels the human will, especially in its weakness. Therefore, the power of grace exceeds every sin; consequently, David said: “Have mercy on me, O God, according to thy abundant mercy” (Psalms 51:1). For this reason Cain’s attitude is justly reproved: “My sin is too great to merit pardon” (Genesis 4:13). 432. Then (v.15b) he explains what he had said, namely, that the gift of grace exceeds Adam’s trespass, saying, if through one man’s trespass, namely, Adam’s, many died, i.e., if sin and death passed on to many others, because it passed on to all who sinned in him, much more have the grace of God and the free gift, where the “and” serves to explicate. Or, grace of God refers to the remission of sin as above (3:24): “Justified by his grace as a gift”; but gift refers to the blessings over and above the remission of sins, as 224 in Psalms 67 (v.19): “The Lord gave gifts to men.” Much more, I say, have the grace and gifts abounded for many. For the more potent something is, the more it can extend to a greater number. But the fact of death, which was Adam’s sin, extended to many. Hence, he says significantly that by the trespass of one many have died. For death is the argument for original sin, as stated above, for God said to Adam: “In the day that you eat of it, you shall die” (Genesis 2:17). God’s grace, which is stronger, extends much more abundantly to many: “Who brings many sons to glory” (Hebrews 2:10). 433. It should be noted that he says, abounded, because God’s grace reached many not only to erase the sin incurred from Adam but also to remove actual sins and to bestow many other blessings: “God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance” (2 Corinthians 9:8). For just as sin abounded from one man to many through the first suggestion of the devil, so God’s grace abounded to many through one man. Hence, he says, in the grace, i.e., through the grace, of that one man Jesus Christ. For grace is poured out by God upon many, in order that we might receive it through Christ, in whom every fullness of grace is found; “From his fullness have we all received, grace upon grace” (John 1:16). 434. This is how the text should be read according to Augustine’s interpretation, such that the word “many” is not taken comparatively but absolutely. So Augustine would have it that the comparison points to this, that if the sin of the one man Adam spread to many, much more will the grace of the one man Christ spread to many. But according to Ambrose the word “many” should be taken comparatively, so that the meaning is that by the sin, i.e., the actual sin, of one man, namely Adam, many, 225 not all, died by the death of sin, namely by imitating the sin of Adam by idolatry, as was explained above [n. 426]. Wisdom 13(:10) says of idolaters: “They are unhappy, and their hope is among the dead.” And much more has the grace of God abounded unto many, namely more than in the idolaters who sinned in the likeness of Adam, because not only their sins are taken away by the grace of Christ but also the sins of those who persevered in the faith of the one God: “He will put away our iniquities: and he will cast all our sins into the bottom of the sea” (Micah 7:19). 435. Then when he says, and the free gift, he compares Christ’s grace to Adam’s sin as regards the effect, because not only does each affect many, but Christ’s grace had a greater effect than Adam’s sin. And concerning this he does three things. First, he states his proposition; secondly, he clarifies it [v. 16b; n. 437]; thirdly, he proves it [v. 17; n. 438]. 436. First, therefore, he says: Not only does Christ’s grace more abound for many than Adam’s sin, but it produces a greater effect in them. And this is what he says: The free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. As if to say: Not as great an effect comes to many through the one sin of Adam as comes to many through the gift of Christ’s grace. For the effect of a stronger cause is stronger. Hence, since it has been established that grace is stronger than Adam’s sin, it follows that it produces a greater effect. 437. Then (v.16b) he clarifies what he has said: For the judgment, i.e., God’s punishment, following one trespass, i.e., the sin of the first parent, brought condemnation on all men, because they sinned in his sin, as stated above (v.12): “Death spread to all 226 men because all men sinned.” But the free gift, which is given through Christ, following many trespasses, i.e., following not only that one original sin but also many actual sins, brings justification, i.e., comp1ete cleansing: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified” (1 Corinthians 6:11). 438. Then when he says, If, because of one man’s trespass, he proves what he has said, namely, that Christ’s grace passes from many sins to righteousness. First, he proves this from something later; secondly, from something earlier [v. 19; n. 445]. 439. In regard to the first it should be noted that in the foregoing comparison the Apostle does not posit things that correspond, i.e., things of the same class. For on the side of sin he posits condemnation, which pertains to punishment, while on the side of grace he posits justification, which does not pertain to reward but to the state of merit. Consequently, in stating that sin brings condemnation the Apostle intends to show that grace brings justification. He uses this argument: As the condemnation of death proceeds from the first parent’s sin, so the kingdom of life proceeds from Christ’s grace. 440. For these two correspond uniformly, but no one can attain to the kingdom of life save by justice. Therefore, men are justified by Christ’s grace. First, he lays down the premises; secondly, he draws the conclusion [n. 442]. 441. He states the first premise when he says, If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, because it was stated above (v.12): “Sin came into the world through one man and death through sin,” much more will those reign in life, namely, eternal, through the one man Jesus Christ, who says (John 10:10): “I came that 227 they may have life, and have it abundantly,” by sharing in the eternity of life, the abundance being designated here by “kingdom.” Hence, it is stated in Rev (20:4) that they will reign with Christ a thousand years, i.e., eternally. The minor premise is presented in the words, those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of justice. As if to say: Men cannot attain to the kingdom of life except by receiving this. Here Christ’s grace is referred to the remission of sin, which no merits can anticipate and, therefore, is due entirely to grace: “If it is from works, it is no longer by grace” (Romans 11:6). Gift refers to the gifts by which men are advanced in blessings: “He gave gifts with royal liberality” (Esther 2:18). Justice refers to upright actions: “Whom God made our righteousness” (1 Corinthians 1:30). 442. Then when he says, Therefore as one man’s trespass, he draws the intended conclusion which states the same thing as stated earlier, namely, that as by the sin of one man, Adam, the divine judgment led all men born of him according to the flesh to death, so by the righteous of one, namely, Christ, divine grace passed to all men, leading to acquittal and life for all men. 443. But this seems false, since not all men are justified by Christ, although all men die through Adam. To answer this it must be noted that just as all men born according to the flesh from Adam incur condemnation through his sin, so all men who are reborn spiritually through Christ obtain the justification of life, because, as stated in Jn (3:5): “Unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” 228 Although it can be said that Christ’s justification passes on to justify all men in the sense that it is capable of doing so, although de facto it passes only to believers. Hence, it is stated in 1 Tim (4:10): “He is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.” 444. From what is said here we should gather that as no one dies except through Adam’s sin, so no one is justified except through Christ’s righteousness; and this is brought about through faith in him “The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (Romans 3:22). But the men who believe in him are not only those who lived after the resurrection but even those who lived before. For as we believe in him as one who was born and suffered, so they believed in him as one who would be born and suffer. Hence, our faith and theirs is the same: “Having the same spirit of faith…we too believe and so we speak” (2 Corinthians 4:13). Thus it is that the grace of Christ redounds to the justification of many by appeal to something later, namely to the reign of life. 445. Then the Apostle proves the same thing from something prior, when he says, For as by one man’s disobedience. For causes are similar to their effects. But the disobedience of the first parent, which bears the character of unrighteousness, made men sinners and unrighteous. Therefore, the obedience of Christ, which bears the character of righteousness, made them righteous. And this is what he stated previously, namely, that grace proceeds forth into all men unto justification (v.16). 229 446. But there seems to be some problem about the statement that by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, i.e., all who are born from his seed. For his first sin seems to have been pride rather than disobedience, as is stated in Sir (10:13): “The beginning of every sin is pride.” In answer it must be noted that the same writer says in 10(:21), “The beginning of pride makes men separate themselves from God,” because the first step of pride consists in a man’s not willing to be subject to God’s precepts, which pertains to disobedience. Hence, man’s first sin seems to have been disobedience, not as far as the outward action was concerned but in regard to the inner movement of pride, by which be wills to go against the divine command. Hence, the Lord reproves his disobedience: “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it, cursed is the ground…in your work. In you labor you shall eat from it all the days of your life” (Genesis 3:17). On the other hand Christ’s obedience consisted in accepting death for our salvation in accordance with the Father’s command: “He became obedient unto death” (Philippians 2:8). This, of course, does not contradict the statement that Christ died out of love for us (Ephesians 5:2), because the obedience proceeded from the love he had for the Father and for us. 447. And one should not that by obedience and disobedience he proves that through one man we were made sinners and through one man we were justified, because legal justice, which is the ensemble of all virtues, is recognizable in observing the precepts of the law, which pertains to the notion of obedience. But legal injustice, which 230 is the ensemble of all wickedness, is recognizable in transgressing the precepts of the law, which pertains to the notion of disobedience. Consequently, it is fittingly stated that by obedience men were made just and by disobedience sinners.

Romans 5:16

Ambrosiaster: There is an obvious difference between the fact that those who have sinned in imitation of Adam’s transgression have been condemned and the fact that the grace of God in Christ has justified men not from one trespass but from many sins, giving them forgiveness of sins. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: This is the difference: in Adam one sin was condemned, but by the Lord many sins have been forgiven. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 29

Diodorus of Tarsus: Paul wants to say that it was because of Adam’s sin, although it was only one, that God condemned many, on account of the fact that they copied Adam. But the grace of the Lord was measured not according to that one sin but according to the many sins which all had committed. Thus Christ transformed many sins into righteousness. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

John Chrysostom: And what is this that he is speaking of? It is that sin had power to bring in death and condemnation; but grace did not do away that one sin only, but also those that followed after in its train. Lest then the words “as” and “so” might seem to make the measure of the blessings and the evils equal, and that you might not think, upon hearing of Adam, that it was only that sin which he had brought in which was done away with, he says that it was from many offences that an indemnity was brought about. How is this plain? Because after the numberless sins committed after that in paradise, the matter issued in justification. But where righteousness is, there of necessity follows by all means life, and the countless blessings, as does death where sin was. For righteousness is more than life, since it is even the root of life. That there were several goods then brought in, and that it was not that sin only that was taken away, but all the rest along with it, he points out when he says, that “the gift was of many offences unto justification.” In which a proof is necessarily included, that death was also torn up by the roots. — Homily on Romans X

Pelagius: The effect of the gift is greater than that of the sin. From the sin of one righteous man came the judgment of death. Adam never came across all the righteousness which he destroyed, but Christ discharged the sins of many by his grace. Adam was only the model for sin, but Christ both forgave sins freely and gave an example of righteousness. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Theodore of Mopsuestia: There is one great difference between Adam’s sin and God’s gift in Christ. Adam’s sin brought punishment on all those who came after him, and so they died. But the free gift is different. For not only did it take effect in the case of those who came afterward; it also took away the sins of those who had gone before. It is therefore much greater, because where sin harmed those who came after, grace rescued not only those who came after but those who had transgressed before as well. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Romans 5:17

Ambrosiaster: Paul says that death reigned, not that it is now reigning. Those who understand the limits of the law—what the future judgment of God will be—have been delivered from its control. Death reigned, because without the revelation of the law there was no fear of God on earth. But the higher meaning is that, since death reigned from Adam to Moses over those who sinned according to the transgression of Adam, how much more will grace reign by the abundance of God’s gift of life through the one Jesus Christ. For if death reigned, why should grace not reign even more, since it has justified far more people than the number over whom death reigned? — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: “Much more will those reign” pertains to eternal life; “those who receive the abundance of grace” pertains to the forgiveness of many sins. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 29

Irenaeus: Concurring with these statements, Paul, speaking to the Romans, declares: “Much more they who receive abundance of grace and righteousness for — Against Heresies Book III

John Chrysostom: What he says, amounts to this nearly. What armed death against the world? The one man’s eating from the tree only. If then death attained so great power from one offence, when it is found that certain received a grace and righteousness out of all proportion to that sin, how shall they still be liable to death? And for this cause, he does not here say “grace,” but “superabundance of grace.” For it was not as much as we must have to do away the sin only, that we received of His grace, but even far more. For we were at once freed from punishment, and put off all iniquity, and were also born again from above and rose again with the old man buried, and were redeemed, justified, led up to adoption, sanctified, made brothers of the Only-begotten, and joint heirs and of one Body with Him, and counted for His Flesh, and even as a Body with the Head, so were we united unto Him! All these things then Paul calls a “superabundance” of grace, showing that what we received was not a medicine only to countervail the wound, but even health, and comeliness, and honor, and glory and dignities far transcending our natural state. — Homily on Romans X

Origen of Alexandria: Not only will death cease to reign in those who receive the abundance of grace, but two additional benefits will be given to them. First, Christ will reign in them by his life, and second, they will reign along with Christ. …It must be noted that Paul speaks of the abundance of grace, because it is not possible for someone who has received only one grace, i.e., who has pleased God in only one thing, to enter the kingdom of heaven.… Grace is multiplied and abounds if our conversation is always seasoned with salt and our work is done with the grace of humility and simplicity, and if all that we do is done to the glory of God. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Righteousness is given through baptism and is not gained by merit. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Theodore of Mopsuestia: Paul shows just how superior grace is to sin, because while death, which came into the world by the sin of Adam, held full sway, the enjoyment of the gift of grace through Christ has been given to us, through which we shall be raised from the dead and in righteousness cease to sin. But we have not yet received it fully; it does not yet hold full sway. We are still waiting for the life to come, even though we now enjoy it in part. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Romans 5:18

Acacius of Caesarea: Paul does not mean by this that because one man sinned everybody else had to pay the price for it even though they had not committed the sin, for that would be unjust. Rather he says that from its beginning in Adam humanity derived both its existence and its sinfulness. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Ambrosiaster: Some people think that because the condemnation was universal, the acquittal will also be universal. But this is not so, because not everyone believes. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: Here Paul returns to his original argument, interrupted [from verse 12]. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 29

Augustine of Hippo: No one is born without the intervention of carnal concupiscence, which is inherited from the first man, who is Adam, and no one is reborn without the intervention of spiritual grace, which is given by the second man, who is Christ. — LETTER 187.31

Augustine of Hippo: God wants all those to whom grace comes through the righteousness of the One unto justification of life to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. — AGAINST JULIAN 4.8.42

Cyril of Alexandria: What has Adam’s guilt got to do with us? Why are we held responsible for his sin when we were not even born when he committed it? Did not God say: “The parents will not die for the children, nor the children for the parents, but the soul which has sinned, it shall die.” How then shall we defend this doctrine? The soul, I say, which has sinned, it shall die. We have become sinners because of Adam’s disobedience in the following manner.… After he fell into sin and surrendered to corruption, impure lusts invaded the nature of his flesh, and at the same time the evil law of our members was born. For our nature contracted the disease of sin because of the disobedience of one man, that is, Adam, and thus many became sinners. This was not because they sinned along with Adam, because they did not then exist, but because they had the same nature as Adam, which fell under the law of sin. Thus, just as human nature acquired the weakness of corruption in Adam because of disobedience, and evil desires invaded it, so the same nature was later set free by Christ, who was obedient to God the Father and did not commit sin. — EXPLANATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Diodorus of Tarsus: What was Adam’s sin? Disobedience. What was Christ’s righteousness? Obedience, by which he obeyed the Father in his incarnation and in his suffering for mankind, as the apostle says: “Being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.” Thus obedience overcame disobedience and the worse was condemned by the better. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Jerome: I know certain men for whom the king of Nineveh, (who is the last to hear the proclamation and who descends from his throne, and forgoes the ornaments of his former vices and dressed in sackcloth sits on the ground, he is not content with his own conversion, preaches penitence to others with his leaders, saying, “let the men and beasts, big and small of size, be tortured by hunger, let them put on sackcloth, condemn their former sins and betake themselves without reservation to penitence!) is the symbol of the devil, who at the end of the world, (because no spiritual creature that is made reasoning by God will perish), will descend from his pride and do penitence and will be restored to his former position. To support this opinion they use this example of Daniel in which Nebuchadnezzar after seven years of penitence is returned to his former reign. [Dan. 4:24, 29, 33] But because this idea is not in the Holy Scripture and since it completely destroys the fear of God, (for men will slide easily into vices if they believe that even the devil, the creator of wickedness and the source of all sins, can be saved if he does penitence), we must eradicate this from our spirits. Let us remember though that the sinners in the Gospel are sent to the eternal fire [Mt. 25:41], which is prepared for the devil and his angels, about whom is said, “their worm will not die and their fire will not be extinguished” [Is. 66:24]… Moreover if all spiritual creatures are equal and if they raise themselves up by their virtues to heaven, or by their vices take themselves to the depths, then after a long circuit and infinite centuries, if all are returned to their original state with the same worthiness to all conflicting, what difference will there be between the virgin and the prostitute? What distinction will there be between the mother of the Lord and (it is wicked to say) the victims of public pleasures? Will Gabriel be like the devil? Will the apostles be as demons? Will the prophets be as pseudoprophets? Martyrs as their persecutors? Imagine all that you will, increase by two-fold the years and the time, take infinite time for torture: if the end for all is the same, all the past is then nothing, for what is of importance to us is not what we are at any given moment, but what we will be forever more. — Commentary on Jonah, Chapter 3, Verses 6-9

John Chrysostom: And he insists again upon it, showing that the second was greater than the first, he wants again here also further confirmation of these. For, before, he had said that if one man’s sin slew all, much more will the grace of One have the power to save. After that he shows that it was not that sin only that was done away by the grace, but all the rest too, and that it was not that the sins were done away only, but that righteousness was given. And Christ did not merely do the same amount of good that Adam did of harm, but far more and greater good. — Homily on Romans X

Pelagius: Death reigned, but so also grace reigned through justification. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 5:19

Ambrosiaster: Many sinned by following Adam, but not all. Likewise, many are justified by faith in Christ, but not all. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: This is the figure of the future Adam. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 29

Irenaeus: For as by the disobedience of the one man who was originally moulded from virgin soil, the many were made sinners. For as by one man’s disobedience sin entered, and death obtained — Against Heresies Book III

John Chrysostom: What he says seems indeed to involve no small question: but if any one attends to it diligently, this too will admit of an easy solution. What then is the question? It is the saying that through the offence of one many were made sinners. For the fact that when he had sinned and become mortal, those who were of him should be so also, is nothing unlikely. But how would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner? For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner. What then does the word “sinners” mean here? To me it seems to mean liable to punishment and condemned to death. Now that by Adam’s death we all became mortals, he had shown clearly and at large. But the question now is, for what purpose was this done? But this he does not go on to add: for it contributed nothing to his present object.

We are so far from taking any harm from this death and condemnation, if we be sober-minded, that we are the gainers even by having become mortal, first, because it is not an immortal body in which we sin; secondly, because we get numberless grounds for being religious. For to be moderate, and to be temperate, and to be subdued, and to keep ourselves clear of all wickedness, is what death by its presence and by its being expected persuades us to. But following with these, or rather even before these, it hath introduced other greater blessings besides. For it is from hence that the crowns of the martyrs come, and the rewards of the Apostles. — Homily on Romans X

Origen of Alexandria: Why does Paul say that many were made sinners and not that all were when it is clear that all have sinned, as he has just said himself? It is one thing to sin and another to be a sinner. A sinner is someone who, as a result of much sinning, has got into the habit and, I would dare say, the enjoyment of it. In the same way, a righteous person is not someone who has done one or two acts of righteousness but rather someone who has become accustomed to acting righteously and has righteousness in him by habit. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Just as by the example of Adam’s disobedience many sinned, so many are also justified by Christ’s obedience. Great therefore is the crime of disobedience, which kills so many. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Severian of Gabala: Notice that when Paul talks about sin and righteousness he uses the word many, for not everyone sinned before the coming of the law, nor has everyone who has received grace been justified—for “many are called, but few are chosen.” But when he talks about the death and resurrection of the body, he uses the word all. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Theodoret of Cyrus: Note that Paul says “many” and “not all,” for we find some among the ancients who did not sin, e.g., Abel, Enoch, Melchizedek, the patriarchs and those who succeeded in keeping the law. On the other hand, after the coming of grace, there were many who continued to embrace an unrighteous and wicked life. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Romans 5:20

Ambrose of Milan: Wherefore, seeing that wickedness had increased, that innocence had decayed, that there was no one that did good, no, not one; the Lord came in order to form anew, nay to augment, the grace of nature; that where sin had abounded, grace might much more abound. — Letter 45, To Sabinus

Ambrose of Milan: Sin abounded by the Law because by the Law is the knowledge of sin, and thus it began to be injurious to me to know that which through infirmity I could not avoid; it is good to foreknow in order to avoid, but if I cannot avoid, to have known was injurious. Thus the effect of the Law was changed to me into its opposite, yet by the very increase of sin it became useful to me, because I was humbled. Wherefore David also said, It is good for me that I have been humbled. — Letter 73, To Irenaeus

Ambrosiaster: An objector might say: “If the law merely served to increase sin, it should never have been given. If there was less sin before the law came, there was no need of the law.” Obviously the law was necessary to show that sins, which many thought they could get away with, actually counted before God and so that people might know what they ought to avoid.How could the law have increased sin, when it warns people not to sin?… The law began to show an abundance of sins, and the more it forbade them the more people committed them. That is why it is said that the law was given so that sin might increase.… In order to nullify the pride of Satan, who rejoiced in his victory over man, the just and merciful God decreed that his Son would come to forgive every sin, so that there would be more happiness from the gift of grace than there had been sorrow from the coming of sin.… Therefore grace abounded more than sin. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: By this Paul has clearly indicated that the Jews did not know by what dispensation the law had been given. It was not given in order to bring life, for grace brings life through faith, but the law was given to show with what great and tight chains those who thought they could fulfill all righteousness in their own strength were bound. So sin abounded, both because desire grew more ardent in the light of the prohibition and because the crime of trespass affected those who sinned against the law. Whoever considers the second of the four states of man will understand this. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 30

Augustine of Hippo: Prohibition increased lust. It made it unconquered so that transgression might be added, which did not exist without the law, although there was sin. — On Continence 3.7

Augustine of Hippo: Grace means that good works are now performed by those who had earlier done evil; it does not make them continue in evil in the belief that good will be given to them in return. — GRACE AND FREE WILL 22.44

Cyril of Alexandria: The law entered in so that the many-sided nature of the fall of those who were under the law might be made clear. Nobody could ever be made righteous because of the weakness of human nature. Rather, everyone condemned themselves by their own crimes of transgression. The law came as the revealer of our common weakness, so that the human race would appear even more clearly to need the aid of the medicine of Christ. — EXPLANATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Diodorus of Tarsus: Paul does not mean that the law increased the incidence of sin but rather that once it was given it uncovered sin and showed that it was more widespread than people had thought. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Irenaeus: All therefore speak falsely who disallow his (Adam’s) salvation, shutting themselves out from life for ever, in that they do not believe that the sheep which had perished has been found. For if it has not been found, the whole human race is still held in a state of perdition. False, therefore, is that man who first started this idea, or rather, this ignorance and blindness-Tatian. This man entangled himself with all the heretics. This dogma, however, has been invented by himself, in order that, by introducing something new, independently of the rest, and by speaking vanity, he might acquire for himself hearers void of faith, affecting to be esteemed a teacher, and endeavouring from time to time to employ sayings of this kind often made use of by Paul: “In Adam we all die;” ignorant, however, that “where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” — Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3

John Chrysostom: Since then he had shown that the world was condemned from Adam, but from Christ was saved and freed from condemnation, he now seasonably enters upon the discussion of the Law, here again undermining the high notions of it. For it was so far from doing any good, he means, or from being any way helpful, but the disorder was only increased by its having come in. But the particle “that” again does not assign the cause, but the result. For the purpose of its being given was not “in order that” it might abound, for it was given to diminish and destroy the offence. But it resulted the opposite way, not owing to the nature of the Law, but owing to the listlessness of those who received it. But why did he not say the Law was given, but “the Law entered by the way?” It was to show that the need of it was temporary, and not absolute or imperative. And this he says also to the Galatians, showing the very same thing another way. “For before faith came,” he says, “we were kept under the Law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.” And so it was not for itself, but for another, that it kept the flock. For since the Jews were somewhat gross-minded, and enervated, and indifferent to the gifts themselves, this was why the Law was given, that it might convict them the more, and clearly teach them their own condition, and by increasing the accusation might the more repress them.

“But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.”

He does not say did abound, but “did much more abound.” For it was not remission from punishment only that He gave us, but that from sins, and life also. As if any were not merely to free a man with a fever from his disease, but to give him also beauty, and strength, and rank; or again, were not to give one an hungered nourishment only, but were to put him in possession of great riches, and were to set him in the highest authority. And how did sin abound? some will say. The Law gave countless commands. Now since they transgressed them all, transgression became more abundant. Do you see what a great difference there is between grace and the Law? For the one became an addition to the condemnation, but the other, a further abundance of gifts. — Homily on Romans X

Origen of Alexandria: What Paul means here is that after the natural law had already been established—the law which he calls the law of the mind, which assents to the law of God—another law arose, the law of our members, which promotes the lusts of the flesh and leads men captive, inclining them to desire and excesses, so that sin may abound in them.…Grace abounded all the more, because not only does it absolve us from the sins which we have already committed, it protects us against sinning in the future. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: The amount of sin has been revealed so that the greatness of grace might be known and so that we might pay back a corresponding debt of love. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Theodoret of Cyrus: Paul says that “the law came in” because he wants to show that God did not leave earlier generations destitute of his providence. But he also gave the law to the Jews, so that by their zeal and dedication to godliness they could act as a light to the other nations. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Thomas Aquinas: After showing that through the gift of grace that sin is removed, which entered this world through Adam [n. 430], the Apostle now shows that through Christ’s grace is taken away the sin that increased when the Law came. Concerning this he does two things. First, he mentions the increase of sin through the Law; secondly, the absolution of sin through Christ’s grace, there [v.20b; n. 464] at And where sin abounded. 449. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that through the obedience of one man many are made just. However, it was not the Law that could achieve this; rather, the law entered in secretly [subintravit] that sin might abound. 450. Two problems arise from these statements of the Apostle. 231 First, from the statement that the Law subintravit, i.e., entered secretly, “after original and actual sin or after the natural law,” as the Gloss says. For the Law did not come in secretly but was given openly, in accord with John 18(:20), “I have not spoken in secret.” The answer is that although the legislation had been given openly, the mysteries of the Law were hidden, especially in regard to God’s intention in promulgating the Law, which would point out sin without healing it: “Who has known the mind of the Lord?” (Rom 11: 34). It can also be said that the Law sub-intravit, i.e., entered into the middle, so to speak, between man’s sin and the gift of Christ’s grace, each of which he had said above passed from one [man] to many. 451. The second problem arises from the statement that the Law came in that sin might abound. For this would seem to make increase of sin the purpose of the Law; consequently, the Law would be evil, because a thing whose purpose is evil is itself evil. But this is contrary to the statement in 1 Tim 1(:8), “We know that the law is good.” 452. A Gloss answers this in three ways [cf. n. 459, 460]. First, that the word that [ut] should be taken as indicating not a causal connection but a mere sequence. For the Law was not given in order that sins might increase; rather, the Law, as far as in it lay, forbade sin: “I have laid up thy word in my heart, that I might not sin against thee” (Psalms 119:11). But, once the Law was given, increase of sin followed in two ways [cf. n. 458]. 232 453. In one way, as to the number of sins. For although the Law pointed out sin, it did not take away desire for sin [concupiscentia]. Indeed, when someone is forbidden what he desires, he burns with a stronger desire for it, as a torrent flows with greater force against an obstacle erected against it and finally breaks it. 454. There can be three reasons for this. First, because when something is subject to a man’s power he does not consider it anything great, whereas he perceives a thing beyond his power as great. But a prohibition against something desired puts that thing, as it were, beyond man’s power; consequently, the desire for it increases as long as it is prohibited. The second reason is that internal affections, when they are kept within and permitted no outlet, burn the more strongly within. This is clear in sorrow and anger which, when they are kept within, continually increase; but if they are given any kind of release outwardly, their vigor is dissipated. But a prohibition, since it threatens a penalty, compels man not to give outward expression to his desire, so that, being kept within, it burns more vigorously. The third reason is that anything not forbidden is regarded as something possible to do any time it pleases us; therefore, even when the opportunity is present, we often avoid doing it. But when something is forbidden, it is measured as something not capable of being ours at just any time; therefore, when the opportunity arises to obtain it without fear of punishment, we are readier to seize it. 455. These, then are the reasons why in the face of the Law, which forbade acts of concupiscence and yet did not mitigate that concupiscence, the concupiscence itself leads men more feverishly toward sin. Hence, it is stated in Ezekiel 5(:5), “This is Jerusalem; I 233 have set her in the center of the nations, with countries round about her. She wickedly rebelled against my ordinances more than the nations, and against my statutes more than the countries round about her.” 456. But according to this it seems that every human law, which of course does not confer grace to lessen concupiscence, would make sin increase. However, that seems to be against the lawgiver’s intention, because his aim is to make the citizen good, as the Philosopher says in Ethics II. The answer is that the intention of human law is one thing and that of divine law another. For human law is subject to human judgment, which is concerned with external acts; but the divine law is subject to divine judgment, which is concerned with the inward movement of the heart, as is said in 1 Sam 16(:7), “Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart.” Accordingly, human law achieves its aim when by means of prohibitions and threats of punishment it prevents external sinful acts, even though the inward concupiscence increases more. But as far as the divine law is concerned, it imputes as sin even the inward evil desires, which increase when the law forbids them without destroying them. 457. Yet it should be noted, as the Philosopher says in Ethics X, that although a legal prohibition restrains the ill disposed from outward sins by the fear of punishment, it nevertheless guides the well disposed through love of virtue. Now that good disposition is present to a certain extent by nature, although its perfection is achieved only by grace. Consequently, even after the Old Law had been given, sin did not increase in all but in the majority. But some, guided by the law’s prohibitions and further strengthened by 234 grace, reached the heights of virtue: “Let us now praise glorious men…men great in virtue” (Sir 44:1). 458. Secondly [n. 453], with the coming of the Law sin abounded as far as the weight of guilt was concerned. For sin was more grievous when it became a transgression not only of the law of nature but also of the written law. Hence it was said above in 4(:15) that where there was no law there was no transgression. 459. A second answer [n. 452] is that the word that [ut] can be taken causally but in the sense that the Apostle is speaking of sin’s increase as far as our knowledge of it is concerned. As if to say: Law entered in secretly that sin might abound, i.e., that sin might be more abundantly known, according to the manner of speaking whereby something is said to come to pass when it is recognized. Hence, he said above (3:20) that through the law comes knowledge of sin. 460. The third answer also takes that [ut] in a causal sense, but not as meaning that increase of sin is the goal of the Law’s entering in, but what results from sin’s increase, namely, man’s humiliation. For after the Law came in, sin abounded, as was said in the first explanation. The consequence of this increase of sin was that man, recognizing his weakness, was humbled. For the proud man, presuming on his own strength, said: “There is no lack of doers, but of commanders,” in accord with Exodus 24(:7), “All that the Lord has spoken we will do and will be obedient.” But when, after the Law had been given, the number of sins increased, men recognized how weak they were in observing the Law: “Man is weak and short-lived, with little understanding of judgment and laws” (Wis 9:5). 235 Therefore, God’s intention in giving the Law is not aimed at increasing sin but at man’s humility, for the sake of which he permitted sin to abound. Accordingly, because this [purpose] was hidden, he says that the law entered in secretly. 461. Since we are dealing with the Law and the end of the Law, two things propose themselves for consideration. First, the number of senses of the word “law”; secondly, what is the end of the law [n. 463]. In regard to the first it should be noted that “law,” taken one way, names the entire scripture of the Old Testament; for example, John 15(:25) says, “It is to fulfill the word that is written in the law, that now they have sin and hated both me and my Father,” when this was written in a Psalm [24:19]. But sometimes the “law” refers to the five books of Moses, in accord with Deuteronomy 33(:4), “Moses commanded us a law.” Thirdly, the precepts of the Decalogue are called the “law”: “I will give you the tables of stone, with the law and commandment, which I have written for their instruction” (Exodus 24:12). Fourthly, the entire content of the ceremonial precepts is called the “law,” as in Hebrews 10(:1), “Since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come.” Fifthly, any definite ceremonial precept is called a “law,” as in Lev (7:11): “This is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings.” But in this section of the epistle, the Apostle takes “law” in a general way, i.e., as referring to the total doctrine of the Mosaic Law, namely, the moral and ceremonial precepts, because through the ceremonies of the Law grace was not given help man fulfill the precepts and to reduce concupiscences. 463. In regard to the end of the Law it should be noted that among the Jewish people, as among every people, there were three kinds of men: the adamant, i.e., sinners 236 and rebels, the proficient and the perfect. With respect to the adamant the Law was given as a scourge both as to the moral precepts to whose observance they were compelled by threats of punishment, as is evident from Leviticus 2, and as to the ceremonial precepts, which were multiplied to prevent them from cultivating alien gods: “With a strong hand and outstretched arm, and with anger poured out I will rule over you” (Ezekiel 20:34). For the proficient, who are called the ordinary people [mediocres], the Law was a pedagogue: “The law was our pedagogue in Christ” (Galatians 3:24). It was so with respect to the ceremonial precepts, by which they were restrained in divine worship, and with respect to the moral precepts, by which they were advanced toward justice. For the perfect the Law regarding ceremonies was a sign: “I gave them my Sabbaths, as a sign between me and them, that they might know that I the Lord sanctify them” (Ezekiel 20:12); the Law regarding morals acted as a consolation, as expressed below (7:22); “I delight in the law of God.” 464. Then when he says where sin abounded, he shows how increase of sin was taken away by grace. First, he sets out that grace abounded; secondly, the effect of abounding grace, there [n. 467] at that as sin has abounded. 465. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that with the coming of the Law sin abounded. But this was no obstacle to the divine plan for the salvation of the Jews and of the whole human race, because where sin abounded, namely, in the human race and especially among the Jews, grace superabounded, namely, the grace of Christ forgiving sins: “God is powerful to make every grace abound in you” (2 Corinthians 9:8). 237 466. Two reasons can be given for what is said here. One is based on the effect of grace. For just as the enormity of a disease is not cured except by a strong and effective medicine, so an abundant grace was required to heal the abundance of sins: “Many sins are forgiven her, for she loved much” (Luke 7:47). The other reason is based on the attitude of the sinner. Some, realizing the enormity of their sins, give way to despair and contempt: “When wickedness comes, contempt comes also” (Proverbs 18:3); others by the help of divine grace are humbled when they consider their sins and so obtain a greater grace: “Their infirmities were multiplied; afterwards they made haste” (Psalms 16:4). 467. Then when he says That as sin has reigned unto death, he shows the effect of abounding grace, an effect that corresponds by way of opposition to that of sin. That as sin, introduced by the first man and abounding through the Law, has reigned, i.e., obtained complete dominion over men, and this until it brought them unto death both temporal and eternal: “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23) - grace also, i.e., God’s, might reign, i.e., rule entirely in us, by justice, which it produces in us: “They are justified by his grace” (Romans 3:24). And this until it brings us to eternal life: “The free gift of God is eternal life” (Romans 6:23). And all of this is through Jesus Christ our Lord, who is the giver of grace: “Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17); he is justice: “Whom God made our righteousness” (1 Corinthians 1:30); and he is the giver of eternal life: “I give them eternal life” (John 10:28).

Romans 5:21

Ambrosiaster: Sin reigned when it saw that it was driving sinners into death, in which it rejoiced, in much the same way as grace will reign in those who obey God. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

John Chrysostom: This he says to show that the latter ranks as a king, the former, death, as a soldier, being marshalled under the latter, and armed by it. If then the latter (i.e. sin) armed death, it is plain enough that the righteousness destructive hereof, which by grace was introduced, not only disarms death, but even destroys it, and undoes entirely the dominion thereof, in that it is the greatest of the two, as being brought in not by man and the devil, but by God and grace, and leading our life unto a goodlier estate, and to blessings unlimited. For of it there will never be any end (to give you a view of its superiority from this also). For the other cast us out of our present life, but grace, when it came, gave us not the present life, but the immortal and eternal one. But for all these things Christ is our voucher. Doubt not then for thy life if thou hast righteousness, for righteousness is greater than life as being mother of it. — Homily on Romans X

Origen of Alexandria: Paul shows that there are two kingdoms in man. In one of these, sin has taken control and leads to death. In the other, grace reigns through righteousness and leads to life. For it is grace which expels and ejects sin from its kingdom, i.e., from our members. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Just as the reign of sin was established through contempt for the law, so also the reign of grace is established through the forgiveness of many sinners and thereafter through the doing of righteousness without ceasing. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Tertullian: " Whose grace, if not of that God from whom also came the law? Unless it be, forsooth, that the Creator intercalated His law for the mere purpose of producing some employment for the grace of a rival god, an enemy to Himself (I had almost said, a god unknown to Him), “that as sin had” in His own dispensation “reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto (eternal) life by Jesus Christ,” His own antagonist! For this (I suppose it was, that) the law of the Creator had “concluded all under sin,” and had brought in “all the world as guilty (before God),” and had “stopped every mouth,” so that none could glory through it, in order that grace might be maintained to the glory of the Christ, not of the Creator, but of Marcion! I may here anticipate a remark about the substance of Christ, in the prospect of a question which will now turn up. — Against Marcion Book V

Tertullian: " By a figure we die in our baptism, but in a reality we rise again in the flesh, even as Christ did, “that, as sin has reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness unto life eternal, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” But how so, unless equally in the flesh? For where the death is, there too must be the life after the death, because also the life was first there, where the death subsequently was. — On the Resurrection of the Flesh

Theodore of Mopsuestia: Paul says that just as sin once ruled us even against our will, because we were so used to it, so now our zeal for God reigns and will reign in us forever. Since we have been made worthy of eternal life through the resurrection and live in true and certain righteousness, we shall no longer be receptive to sin. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH