Romans 5
LenskiCHAPTER V
PART II
The Righteousness of God Has the Most Blessed Effects, Chapters 5 to 8
Salvation and Life Through Christ, chapter 5
These chapters undoubtedly describe the blessed effects of God’s righteousness through faith, and throughout these effects are described in connection with their cause, Jesus Christ, the substance of our faith. Carefully read chapters 5 to 8 and see how frequently Christ is mentioned in them—“Christ Jesus, our Lord,” closing the whole section (8:39). Only in conjunction with their cause can the effects be properly presented and understood. The more clearly this is seen, the more adequately shall we, too, understand.
When he announced his great theme: The Righteousness of God from Faith to Faith (in 1:17) Paul added from Habakkuk: “The righteous shall live from faith.” From 3:21 to the end of chapter 4 he describes and illustrates this faith and its righteousness; now in chapters 5 to 8 he describes the life that results. He who by grace is led through the golden portal of faith, God’s declaration of righteousness descending upon him as he enters, thereby passes into the divine city of life, and Paul now leads all of us through this wonderful city and shows us all the riches of this blessed life. It is all ours by justification through faith.
Because of the grandness of the theme of this second main part of his letter Paul starts with an advance summary (5:1–5). Here is the cause of all the effects, “our Lord Jesus Christ,” right on the threshold in v. 1. Here also the Holy Spirit meets us (v. 5), the divine Person who mediates these effects, the spiritual life that is ours by the righteousness of faith. See how the Spirit is prominent in chapter 8. Peace, in the sense of salvation, the grace that is ever open to us, joy and hope and tribulation, and the love of God in our hearts, these are mentioned in the advance summary. Chapter 5 treats of this peace of salvation; 6:1–8:17 of the life under grace; 8:18–39 of the hope that shines the brighter amid tribulation like the stars that are made radiant by the night. It should not be so difficult to see that 5:1–5 is the introduction to and the advance summary of 5:6 to 8:39.
In 5:6–21 salvation and life through our Lord Jesus Christ are presented as the first and fundamental effect of our justification by faith: “saved by his life” (v. 10); “eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord” (v. 21). Saved from sin and death and condemnation which were brought by Adam; saved by Christ’s death and reconciliation; saved by this as the gift of pure grace, the gift made ours by justification. See the repetition of “gift” in v. 15–17 (five times): salvation, life, life eternal, all are a gift included in the gift of righteousness. One must see these pivotal terms, these peaks of thought in this chapter in order to catch what Paul conveys; the details will then the more easily find their proper place.
Romans 5:1
1 the death—those receiving;
Romans 5:2
2 did reign—in life shall reign;
Romans 5:3
3 by the fall—the abundance of the grace and of the gift of righteousness;
Romans 5:4
4 of the one—through the One, Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:5
5 “And this hope does not put to shame,” or, as we may also translate, “does not disgrace” by remaining unfulfilled when the hour for fulfillment arrives. All other hopes put to shame; they do not rest on realities. When the time for realization comes, all is vacuum, there are no realities to be realized. The heart that held such false hopes is filled with shame, with everlasting shame. That is putting it mildly, for it is filled with dismay and despair. But the hope that comes about as the result of justification is “hope of the glory of God” (v. 2), and that glory exists, and our hope will, indeed, be realized by that glory.
Note that καυχάομαι and καταισχύνω are opposites, and the latter is used here on that account. When we are glorying we lift our heads and our voices high in holy pride, when we are being put to shame, our heads hang and our voices groan. Thus the negative “not to be put to shame” becomes synonymous with “to glory.”
Paul adds the reason that we are so certain that this our hope will not disappoint us, leave us in the lurch, put us to shame. We cannot agree that the ὅτι clause should be referred back beyond the participle εἰδότες, so that we should read: “But also let us glory because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts,” etc. We here have the reason for the sureness of our hope. Since this hope is subjective, the reason for its sureness must have a subjective side: we ourselves must realize how sure our hope is. But this subjective side must be the reflex of something objective, of something that guarantees the fulfillment of our hope, guarantees it beyond question. This is “the love of God,” objective but made subjectively ours by having been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Ghost, he himself also being no longer outside of us but having been given and now dwelling in our hearts. This love of God filling our hearts, the Spirit who has poured out this love in us, he who is God’s gift to us, guarantee the fulfillment of our hope of the glory of God.
On ἀγάπη see 1:7. “Of God” is the subjective genitive: God’s love for us and not objective: our love for God although the latter has been maintained by some interpreters. How can a loving of God on our part insure the fulfillment of our hope? The fulfillment of our hope cannot be accomplished by us, by our love, but only by God, by his love. To be sure of this fulfillment by his love we must possess that love and we do possess it, it has been poured out in our hearts, and the perfect tense implies that it is now in our hearts. God’s own “Holy Spirit,” the third person of the Godhead, served as the Mediator (διά) who filled our hearts with God’s love. In the economy of the Holy Trinity it is his work to operate upon and within our hearts. Paul’s statement regarding the Spirit is only preliminary, introductory; he intends to tell us much more in chapter 8, which is the fullest commentary on what is said here.
Like the aorist participle “given to us,” the perfect tense “has been poured out” reaches back to the moment referred to in the aorist participle δικαιωθέντες in v. 1, the instant when God declared us righteous. Then the Spirit and the love that at first could work upon our hearts only from the outside actually entered them henceforth to work within them. The Greek καρδία is the center of our being, the seat of the ego, of the personality. Since ΠνεῦμαἍγιον is a person, the article may or may not be used, which is Greek usage throughout where persons are concerned. In the moment of justification we receive the Spirit as a gift. But he enters our hearts by means of the Word which includes the sacrament, the power of which is also the Word.
He does not enter into our heart at will. We realize his presence by the power he exerts in our hearts by means of the Word. The more we hear and absorb that Word, letting it fill and control us, the more the Spirit fills us.
The figure used in “pour out” is that of water. Our dry, arid, lifeless hearts have poured out into them the love of God for us. This may come upon us like a stream or like a rain of living water and change our hearts into fruitful, delightful soil. Again the means is the Word, the sum and substance of which is the love of God, and this love, not as a mere feeling in God toward us, but as actively conveying all the gifts of this love to us by means of the Word. God does not love in words only but in deeds. How much of his love embodied in his gifts is poured out in our hearts depends on the receptivity which the Spirit is able to produce in us.
Let your heart not remain a thimble or a tin cup, let it be a vast lake. The volume of love’s gifts from God through Spirit and Word is unrestrained, the only restraint put upon it is our reluctance, our timidity our lurking thoughts of unbelief, and the like. He who thus knows the love of God and feels its power and its control daily in his very heart through the Spirit, is certain that his hope of the glory of God will never put him to shame. The God who began his work in us will not abandon it or leave it unfinished.
Romans 5:6
6 After this introduction to the whole section (5:6–8:39; see the introductory paragraphs to our chapter) Paul presents the first effect of our being declared righteous, namely salvation and life (5:6–21) through the reconciliation effected by Christ (5:6–11) and the free gift to those who have been declared righteous (5:12–21). The fact that Paul uses the connective “for” should not lead us to think that he is advancing v. 6, etc., as a proof of v. 5. Although in the R. V. v. 6 is printed as a continuation of the paragraph, a break should be made at this verse. “For” reaches into the entire hortation (v. 1–5) which is distinguished as being introductory. Our having peace and all our glorying as people who have been justified is explained (γάρ) by the results of our justification. Enjoying peace and holding our heads high in hope, etc., are subjective results, and these rest on the objective results: 1) on salvation and life through Christ, 2) deliverance from sin (chapter 6), 3) freedom from the law (chapter 7), 4) life in the Spirit (8:1–17), 5) assurance amid tribulation (8:18–39).
All these are objective results of justification, all these underlie the hortation of v. 1–5. This entire section of the epistle is thus a grand unit and is built up in perfect sequence of thought.
For still (at a time) when we were weak, still as to point of time, in behalf of ungodly ones Christ died. Now scarcely in behalf of one righteous will someone die; for in behalf of the good man perhaps someone even has courage (enough) to die. But God commends his own love to us in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died in our behalf. Much more, therefore, having now been declared righteous in connection with his blood, shall we be saved through him from the wrath.
Note the point at which these statements arrive: “having been declared righteous, we shall be saved”: the result of justification is salvation. This is repeated in v. 10, where Paul again writes: “we shall be saved.” This result of justification is due to God’s incomprehensible love, the like of which earth does not show, and to Christ’s vicarious death, which nothing among men ever approached, not even in the case of a single man.
We dispense with printing the changes of the text regarding the two ἔτι used by Paul. One of these changes results in an anacoluthon, another in an unanswered question, and a third cancels one of the two “still.” These suggested emendations of the text indicate that the point which Paul stresses by means of the duplication—and duplications are regularly used for this purpose—was not perceived by some ancient copyists. These emendations lead to a search for what is called “a tolerable sense” which is attained by letting the two adverbs differ (“already”—“still”) and by the way in which these are construed. Both adverbs mean “still,” and the emphasis is so strongly on the first that it is not only placed at the head of the sentence but also receives the second as an apposition, this second being made clearer by an appended phrase: “still—(I mean) still as to point of time” (καιρός to indicate specific time).
This is Greek, and the subject “Christ” is placed forward in the sentence in order to make it at once known that the statement refers to him, that it is he who died. Because it is reserved for the very end, “he died” is also emphatic. If it be asked why the first “still” is not placed after the subject “Christ,” the answer is that it would then lose too much of the emphasis which Paul desired for it. The fact that this “still” does not modify the genitive absolute but is itself explained by it is evident. As the subject is construed with the verb, so is the “still” before this subject. Our versions omit the second “still” and place the first into the genitive absolute: “while we were yet weak,” and they misunderstand the force of κατὰκαιρόν by letting it mean “in due season” and thus disconnecting it from the second “still” which this phrase modifies. What Paul says is this: “Still (= at a time, namely, the time) when we were weak, (I mean:) still as to point of time … Christ died.”
“We being weak” = without spiritual life or strength, utterly lost and helpless. It was still that point of time when Christ died. And that made his dying and death altogether one “in behalf of ungodly ones,” which is defined in v. 10 as “enemies.” The term is as strong as possible. It is not merely “sinners” who missed the mark set by the law, and not merely “unrighteous ones” (ἄδικοι) who fail to meet the norm of right embodied in the law, but “ungodly ones,” those utterly hostile to God. The term goes to the root of all sin exactly as it did in 1:18 where Paul describes the damnable condition of the whole world of men (see that passage). Christ died, not for two classes of men, some of them being godly, and the great mass being ungodly, but for one class which comprised all men, comprised all of them as being ungodly.
Paul is here not interested in the mass which remains ungodly, hence he says nothing further about them, i.e., about what God did for them by Christ’s death. His point is that Christ’s vicarious death occurred before all the godliness of the Christians. While we were in our original godlessness Christ died for us. It is the thesis of 3:23 over again: not a bit of difference among men, all did sin (were ungodly). In 3:23 this is said in regard to the way in which they are justified, and in 4:5 it is positively stated that we believe “on him who justifies the ungodly one” (when he is brought to faith). This is also true with regard to justification; it rests wholly on the ransoming of Christ, on his blood (sacrificial death), 3:24, 25.
The vicarious death comes first, it mediates (διά in 3:24) justification by faith. As the latter clears the ungodly who in and of themselves have nothing but ungodliness when for Christ’s sake they are finally justified, so the atoning death, on which this justification rests, is also and altogether a death “for ungodly ones,” including us in our original ungodliness.
The aorist “Christ died” is historical and appears again with emphasis in v. 8. It is true that Paul is addressing the Roman Christians, and that his “we” includes himself, and we may admit that all of them came to faith after Christ had died. Yet Paul’s words are not restricted to these believers, to their ungodliness before they came to faith. The preceding chapter deals with Abraham who was justified exactly as were these Roman believers but was justified a thousand years before Christ died. With him Paul in chapter 4 combines all his seed of the old covenant era who also lived before Christ’s death. That should not be overlooked when discussing chapter 5.
The fact that Christ died for the ungodly applies to all believers from Abraham, yea from Adam, onward. Ungodliness was the characteristic of all of them before they believed, and for them Christ died as he did for us later believers, not as those who would eventually become godly people but as originally being ungodly people. The fact that his death occurred at a specific time in history makes no difference as far as its relation to the ungodliness of even the believers for whom he died is concerned. Rev. 13:8.
It remains to clear up the force of ὑπέρ and its sense here and in all similar passages. Read R. 630–632, and Robertson’s The Minister and his Greek New Testament, the whole of chapter 3. Ὑπέρ does not mean “instead of,” not even “in behalf of”; its original meaning is “over,” but from this meaning are derived the resultant meanings, prominent among them being “instead of,” “in place of.” This meaning is so evident in such a volume of instances in the papyri that the attempt at this date to eliminate this meaning from the allied New Testament passages needs no refutation. Consider only the plain statements of the papyri: a man who is unable to write gets another to write for him, the latter signs his name with ὑπέρ, “in place of” the one for whom he writes. Scores of examples have the meaning “in behalf of” only if this behalf or benefit is “instead of.” Christ died in our stead, ὑπέρ, ἀντί (Matt. 20:28), περί (Matt. 26:28) state this fact from slightly different angles, R. 567. Aside from all the other evidence, ὑπέρ taken by itself forever establishes the fact that Christ’s death was vicarious; he died as our substitute, instead of the ungodly, in their place. Whether we translate freely as we have done above, “in behalf of,” or more briefly “for,” the substitution remains despite all Socinians and all who deny it.
Romans 5:7
7 It is a tremendous fact that Christ died for ungodly ones, tremendous in itself and equally so in what it directly involves concerning the justified (v. 9). What is the highest and the most that is known among men? “Scarcely for one righteous will anyone die.” The future tense is gnomic and refers to any time that may come, R. 876; B.-D. 349, 1. Do you know of such an instance? “One righteous” is the opposite of “ungodly ones,” both are qualitative and hence are minus the article. The contrast is a double one, for it extends to number, the innumerable host against a mere individual. And this is not mere number, for this ungodliness is endlessly multiplied. If one bit of it in one man is abominable, what about the whole world’s ungodliness, this inconceivable mass of abomination?
Still more is implied: Christ could and did die for all the ungodly; his life, laid down, could and did ransom all of them. But if ever some individual should substitute for another, it could be done only for one, for no authority would accept it as being effective for more than one.
“Scarcely will die” means that the scarcity is too rare to be given serious consideration; but “in behalf of the good man perhaps someone even has courage (enough) to die.” Even this occurrence is no more than a “perhaps” and for that reason is expressed by the gnomic present τολμᾷ, “has courage.” To die is to make the supreme self-sacrifice, and the wording implies that everybody would try to get through with less, most of them with far less, that only very, very few would have courage enough to go to the limit. It is correct that Paul now uses the generic or representative article (R. 763): “in behalf of the good” man and not again an anarthrous, merely qualitative term. “One righteous” and “the good man” are not in contrast as “one righteous” is in contrast to “ungodly ones.” “The one good” has a quality that is greater than “anyone righteous.” The latter stops with what is right and may rightly be demanded of him; the former advances beyond this, does more than can be demanded by right, does whatever is good in the sense of beneficial to another person as a mother does for her child, a friend for his friend, a benefactor for his beneficiary.
Scarcely tenable is the view that we here have a neuter: in behalf or for “that which is good” (R. V. margin, also the text of the American Committee). It is also untenable to extend this neuter to the preceding phrase: “in behalf of what is right.” This classic, philosophic use of the neuter would mar the sense. “For a right cause” and “for a certain specific good cause” cannot be used in a comparison with persons, “for ungodly ones” in v. 6. The point at issue is not for what cause someone may be ready to die but for what person.
Romans 5:8
8 Now the contrast with δέ: “But God commends his own love to us in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died in our behalf.” So far does God’s love exceed the utmost limit of human love, so far the self-sacrifice of Christ exceeds the highest height of human readiness for self-sacrifice. We have the three divine Persons together, for this is the love of God that has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit (v. 5), “love” as expounded in 1:7, which see. The emphasis is on the verb and then on the subject, the two are reversed and placed at the extreme ends of the sentence: “Commend doth … God,” no less than commend and no less a person than God himself. The verb means neither “prove” nor “show or exhibit” but, as in 16:1 and already in 3:5 and often elsewhere, “commend,” place in the right (always favorable) light for full acceptance. This commending is done by the Spirit by means of the gospel. The phrase “to us” modifies “commends” and not “his own love” which does not need such a phrase, for “love” means “love to us.”
The ὅτι clause is not causal, as R. 964 designates it, but epexegetical and appositional to “his own love,” the strange reflexive “his own” contrasting with the highest love ever shown among men. In 1034 R. makes ὅτι seem equal to ἐντούτῳὅτι, and we so translate, for this expresses the epexegetical idea in a smooth way. The fact that Christ died for us while we were still sinners, this constitutes God’s own love to us and is the substance of God’s commendation to us. This connection of Christ’s sacrificial death with God’s love involves all that Christ himself (especially in John’s Gospel) tells us about his being sent from God, sent especially so that he might come into the hour of his passion (John 12:23, 27, 28).
It should be carefully noted that in v. 6 and again here in v. 8 Paul says that Christ died for us, i.e., voluntarily, of his own will. It is he who lays down his life without compulsion of any kind, John 10:15, 17, 18, whose meat and drink it was to do his Father’s will and thus to finish his work, John 4:34, and the prayers in Gethsemane. This answers the old and the modern contention that it is morally wrong to make the innocent die for the guilty. It would be wrong to force the innocent to die in this manner; but when the innocent one himself offers himself into death in order to save the guilty, this is the supreme height of nobility, the very acme of self-sacrificing love. It is so regarded even among men and is infinitely more so when the Lamb of God died voluntarily for the ungodly.
The genitive absolute: “we still being sinners” expounds the “we being weak” (lost and helpless in our sins) in v. 6. Christ died “in our behalf,” in our stead, is the same as “in behalf of ungodly ones” in v. 6, but it restricts itself to us believers as being among the ungodly. What has already been said in v. 6 on this point need not be repeated here, yet it should be most carefully noted. Note also that the repetitions of v. 6 in v. 8 most effectively emphasize each of the repeated points.
Romans 5:9
9 But v. 6–8 are only the basis for v. 9. Christ’s voluntary sacrificial death for us while we were in our original ungodliness and sinfulness, this height of God’s love which he commends to us makes Christ the great Mediator of the salvation of all the justified. The supreme result and effect of justification is salvation; it is this through Christ’s death. Because it is supreme, this result of justification is presented first as it should be when a list of results is drawn up. The death of Christ took place for our salvation. Paul implies that when by means of οὖν he now draws his deduction from Christ’s vicarious death in regard to the justified.
Christ died to save the ungodly from the wrath which their ungodliness merits. This object will be attained in us ungodly ones who are already justified in connection with Christ’s blood—there is no doubt about it whatever. The fact that it will be equally attained in all who will yet be justified as we already have been need not be stated.
The deduction made by πολλῷμᾶλλον, “how much more,” is a majori ad minus, from the greater, from Christ’s death for us sinners plus our justification in connection with his blood (death), to the less, to our being saved through him from the wrath. After both Christ’s atoning death for us sinners and God’s justification of us in connection with that death have been accomplished, it is impossible that our being saved from wrath by God should not follow. This will be only the final step of the great divine acts. “Shall be saved” (passive) means by God. Thus Paul combined these fundamental two already in 3:24: “being declared righteous through the ransoming, the one in connection with Christ Jesus.”
It seems artificial to call ἐν instrumental, for Christ’s blood is not an instrument that is used in the forensic act of declaring us righteous. The dogmaticians call Christ’s blood the causa meritoria of our justification, which is to the point. Ἐν is to be understood in its original meaning: “in connection with.” In his act God takes Christ’s blood into consideration and our faith relies on the atoning power of that blood. And Paul writes “his blood” and not “his death” although he has twice written that Christ died for us. “Death” does not necessarily denote sacrifice, for most deaths take place without the shedding of blood. “Blood” is specifically used to denote a sacrificial death (C.-K. 83 c), and Christ died by shedding his blood, he could not have died another kind of death.
In regard to “shall be saved” compare the noun “salvation” which is explained in 1:16. “Shall be saved from the wrath” has been called negative over against “hope of the glory of God” in v. 2 which is positive. But this is only partly true, only as far as “wrath” and “glory” are concerned. “Shall be saved” is repeated and thus emphasized in v. 10 and is there used with a positive phrase. The Biblical conception of being saved contains the negative idea: to be saved from something, and the strongest positive idea: by the saving act to be placed into the condition of absolute security. “Salvation” thus has chiefly this positive idea and is constantly combined with “life.”
We regard the future tense as referring to the last day, as expounding our hope of glory mentioned in v. 2. “From the wrath” is like 2:5, its final manifestation in the judgment. The hope of those justified in connection with Christ’s blood is sure and will not put to shame: “we shall be saved”; this tense is unqualified, categorical, and rests on Christ’s death in our stead and on God’s justifying act in connection with the blood of that death.
Romans 5:10
10 So important is all this that Paul restates it in other words in order to explain it more fully; γάρ, as so often, means, “let me explain more fully.” For if, while being enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, as having been reconciled, shall we be saved in connection with his life; and not only that but also boasting in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom now we did receive the reconciliation.
“We being enemies” is only another expression for the “we being weak” used in v. 6, and the “we being sinners” in v. 8, and all that was said in regard to these two genitive absolutes applies here regarding the nominative participial modification. This determines the transitive, active sense of ἔχθροι, a term that is never used in the passive sense in the New Testament (C.-K. 460). This point is so important because of the verb “we were reconciled to God,” which is misinterpreted when “enemies” are understood to be people to whom God is an enemy and not people who are enemies to God. Reconciliation is then taken to mean that God gave up his enmity toward us whereas it signifies that through Christ’s death God changed our status. By our enmity, our sin, our ungodliness (all are synonymous) we had gotten ourselves into the desperate status that deserved nothing from God but wrath, penalty, damnation, and unless God did something to change this our status, it would compel him to treat us thus. By means of Christ’s death (διά) God changed this into an utterly different status, one that despite our enmity, etc., enabled him to go on commending to us his love, this very love that changed our status, this love that impelled Christ to die for us hostile enemies of God.
God always loved the world (John 3:16). It was this love which dated from all eternity that caused him to give his Son into death for the ungodly world (v. 8). God needed no reconciliation, nothing to change him, for God is love—why should he change? The whole trouble was with us, with what we had made ourselves (enemies), with the state into which we had placed ourselves (sin, godlessness). The view is inadequate that, as it so often happens in the case of men, so it happened in the case of God and of us, that we had mutually fallen out with each other, and that reconciliation was completely one-sided, even doubly so: we were wrong, we alone; a change had to take place in our case, and we could not make it ourselves, God had to make it. It took the sacrificial death of his Son to do it.
Here is another passage in the writings of Paul which contradicts the modernistic assertion that Paul never called Christ God’s Son (see 1:3). “We, being enemies, were reconciled to God through the death of his Son.” This verb is the second passive, the agent is God: “we were reconciled by God to God.” 2 Cor. 5:18, 19 has the active which puts the agent beyond question, for it twice states: “God reconciled us (the world) to himself.” In καταλάσσεινκατά is perfective, and the root of the verb is ἄλλος: “to make thoroughly other.” The agent is always God, the objects are always men; thus in the passive this object is merely the grammatical subject on whom the action terminates, and God remains the agent. Never is it said that we or that Christ reconcile God, make him thoroughly other. He was never or needed to be made other.
“Being enemies, we were reconciled to God.” This is the objective act. It wrought a change with or upon these enemies, not within them. It as yet did not turn their enmity into friendship, did not make the world the kingdom. It changed the unredeemed into the redeemed world. The instant Christ died the whole world of sinners was changed completely. It was now a world for whose sin atonement had been made and no longer a world with unatoned sins. Let us note right here that, whereas Christ died 1, 900 years ago, his death was ever effective (Rev. 13:8). His atonement and the reckoning are valid for the universe of men. Even all the damned in hell were thus reconciled to God. Not as men who were never reconciled are they damned but as men who spurned God’s reconciliation through Christ.
The objective act effected through Christ for the whole world as a unit is to be followed by the subjective act in each individual, which is not again effected through Christ but through “the ministry of reconciliation,” “the Word of the reconciliation” calling to us: “Be ye reconciled to God!” 2 Cor. 5:18–21. This is a second and a different act. It, too, is wrought by God but now makes the individual other by changing his enmity into faith. In v. 11 Paul states it thus: “We received the reconciliation,” i.e., received it by faith. Receiving the objective reconciliation through Christ in faith is the personal reconciliation of the individual spoken of in 2 Cor. 5:18–21. Note that in this passage v. 19 speaks of personal reconciliation, for the two participles “reconciling” and “not reckoning” are iterative and are not aorists. In regard to “universal justification,” etc., see the remarks in connection with 1:17.
The condition is one of reality: “if we were reconciled,” if God did so much for us when we were enemies of his. This, of course, is the reality apart from the way in which Paul may speak of it; here he speaks of it as a reality, one that all his readers accept as such. He continues to speak only of his readers (Christians) including himself. This restriction is due to the fact that God did much more for the Christians than to reconcile them to himself while they were enemies of his as all the world was. By thus failing to mention the other enemies Paul in no way implies that reconciliation was not made equally for them. The deduction is again a majori ad minus, from the greater, the death of God’s Son and the reconciliation of us his enemies through that death, to the less, the final saving of us, the reconciled ones, in connection with Christ’s life.
Paul uses the same word: σωθησόμεθα, “shall be saved,” the same passive. Reconciled by God, declared righteous by God, saved by God—God is the agent throughout, a point not to be overlooked. The repetition of “shall be saved” intends to say that salvation is the great result of justification, the result because our justification has back of it Christ’s death which reconciles us sinners and enemies to God.
This result is so certain because it was the very reason that Christ died for us, the very purpose for which God reconciled us to himself by Christ’s death and sacrificial blood. In v. 9 we have our justification in connection with Christ’s blood; here in v. 10 we have the great addition that this blood and death effected our reconciliation, which enabled God to justify us. The full basis of our justification is thus revealed, thereby making the final result, our salvation, overwhelmingly certain. On this immense ground rests our “hope of the glory of God” in which we boast with hearts elate (v. 2).
Among the additions contained in v. 10 is the startling one that we shall be saved “in connection with his (Christ’s) life.” This phrase is usually taken to be the counterpart to “through the death of his Son,” but “in” and “through” do not agree. It is the counterpart to the phrase occurring in v. 9: “in connection with his blood.” The idea that “death” and “life” are counterparts overlooks the fact that it is the “blood” shed in connection with that death which made it effective. Note what was said regarding “blood” in v. 9.
The very difference between the blood of all other sacrifices and the blood of Christ’s sacrifice was this: they died and remained dead, he died and was raised again. He laid down his life and then took it up again, John 10:18. For this reason Paul says: “the death of his Son.” Read Heb. 7:23–28; 9:25, 26; 10:11, 12. The blood of all those animal sacrifices, as their very repetition showed, could not really take away sins, could only symbolize and typify the blood of the Son. Their blood let the life depart, and that was all; it would have been useless to bring back their life, for neither it nor the blood which was spilled could do ought but typify. The blood of the Son of God, shed once, brought about eternal atonement, effected it in the Holy of Holies in heaven (Heb. 9:24).
Because the Son’s blood availed, he was raised from death, yea, himself arose. As our salvation lies in his blood, so it lies equally in his life. Salvation itself means life, deliverance from death; by atoning for our sin the Son’s death and blood destroyed death so that he arose to glory in life, that even as he lives we shall live also.
Both times “we shall be saved” refers to the last day, to the consummation of our hope, to the final completion of our salvation. The fact that we are already saved the moment we are justified is thereby not denied. 1 John 3:2.
Romans 5:11
11 A bit of interesting grammar centers in Paul’s continuation with the participle καυχὡμενοι instead of with a finite verb. Most commentators make it parallel the preceding participle “having been reconciled” and thus supply “shall be saved.” Some substantivize both participles as though Paul had used articles with them, which he did not do. Read R. 1132, etc., noting 1134. This is the independent participle, a Greek idiom found in the papyri. It is used like a finite verb in wholly independent sentences and even among indicatives as though it were one of them. The translation is: “and not only that (we shall thus be saved) but we also continue to boast,” etc., just as Paul bids us do on the basis of our hope in v. 2. C.-K. 468, 2 omits our passage but covers the subject though somewhat timidly.
In addition to the fact that we shall be saved as described, yea, because of this fact we glory in God through our Lord Jesus Christ (1:1, 4), glory continually (present tense), “through whom now we did receive the reconciliation,” the one just described. The relative clause refers back to all that has been said. “Now,” placed forward, is emphatic. We do not wait until the last day to have this reconciliation made ours, we received it now, now the moment we were justified. God gave it to us; by faith we received it.
Καταλλαγή is the noun derived from the verb “were reconciled.” “The reconciliation” (this making other, putting into a new status) which is effective for the whole world of sinners by changing their status from unredeemed to redeemed men does not save any of them until it is bestowed individually and received individually. Unbelief rejects the reconciliation and thus perishes despite it. The reconciliation is there, but unbelief turns from it and thus is not justified on the basis of it but causes the blood of Christ to be shed in vain. This is tragedy, indeed. But we who by faith clasped this reconciliation to our hearts were justified because of it, sing praises to God, and all our exultation is made possible “through our Lord Jesus Christ,” through whom God reconciled us to himself.
Romans 5:12
12 Verses 12–21 complete the thought of v. 6–11. In v. 5–11 Paul speaks only of us, of the justified, of those who by faith embrace the reconciliation. More must be said, namely what Christ did for the whole world of sinners. Hence there is not a “we” in the whole paragraph; all is objective, all is historical. Again we see that Paul is a theologian of fact and one who sees all the facts and especially the basic ones which escape superficial theologians and those who theorize and philosophize. Paul sees these basic facts in their factual relation; revelation enlightens him, inspiration guides his every word.
He has spoken of us as being originally weak (helpless), sinners, enemies (v. 6, 8, 10), and that by being justified through Christ we attain salvation. Much more must be said in order to put this into the true light. Adam’s sin killed our entire race—made death reign supreme. That is the real fact in regard to sin. So terrible was the damage that Christ more than made good, so that by the most wondrous gift (“gift” five times in v. 15–17) “grace might reign through righteousness unto life eternal through him, Jesus Christ, our Lord” (v. 21). In v. 6–11 it is salvation, in v. 12–21 it is life that is presented as the result of justification; the two are one.
Starting with himself and the Romans in v. 6–11, Paul in v. 12–21 sweeps through the world age, from Adam to the last day, from one border of eternity to the other, Christ being in the center. This is theology, indeed. With a sure hand fact is placed beside fact, and the one paragraph is enough. Where save in Holy Writ is there a paragraph to compare with this? The detailed discussion on various points must not be allowed to confuse the student, must not dim his vision of the immensity which Paul here causes to tower before him.
We do not make a main division of the epistle at v. 12. The connective διὰτοῦτο points to a close connection and argues against making a main division at this point. We also part company with those who regard v. 12–21 as no more than “a historical illustration: Adam and Christ.” This paragraph completes the one that precedes and is essential for its completion; v. 6–21 are a unit.
Because of this, just as through one man the sin came into the world, and through the sin the death, even so the death went through to all men since all did sin.
The A. V. shows how v. 12–18 are commonly understood, for it puts all of v. 13–17 into a parenthesis. R. 438 speaks for all interpreters of this class when he says that v. 12 is “one of the most striking anacolutha in Paul’s Epistles, where the apodosis to the ὥσπερ clause is wanting.” And he adds: “In v. 18 a new comparison is drawn in complete form.” Some think that in v. 18 Paul states what he intended to say in v. 12 but broke off saying because he felt that he must first bring the explanations offered in v. 13–17; so, when in v. 18 he again got to the point, he started in a new way. Some find hints of what Paul broke off saying scattered through v. 13–17 and assure us that the anacoluthon is thus in a way filled out. And then we are told about the “rapidity” with which Paul’s mind worked, how “thoughts crowded upon him,” and the like. Zahn states that even διὰτοῦτο is not completed: “Because of this.” What is or what happens due to this cause is not stated.
If Paul wrote the “striking anacoluthon” here attributed to him he wrote a rather confusing sentence. He then began his thought in v. 12 long before he was ready for it. He then, on later reading his own words as he surely did, would certainly have recast them, at least the first sentence. The very rapidity with which his mind worked would have made him order his thoughts aright in the first place. We dissent from the statement of B.-D. 458, that, while anacolutha are permissible as long as the sense is not injured, “Paul, as it seems, not infrequently transgressed this boundary.”
The subject of the anacolutha found in the New Testament calls for a new treatment in the grammars and on the part of the exegetes. Where an anacoluthon is employed by Paul, it is used for a recognizable and a definite purpose. He uses anacolutha as a legitimate means for a legitimate end. An anacoluthon is used to express what a sentence in its ordinary form cannot express. There is a reason for each. And the reason is not looseness in thought or in grammar.
There is no anacoluthon in v. 12, for ὥσπερ is completed with perfect grammatical regularity by καὶοὕτως: “just as—even so.” Verse 12 is Paul’s complete preliminary statement on the universality of sin and death, a universality that was not merely empirical but actually original, not one that spread like an infection which made more and more sound people sick until no sound ones are now left, but one that poisoned the original source and so doomed all in advance. With διὰτοῦτο Paul connects two facts: the fact that reconciliation was made for us and that we received it by faith when we were weak (utterly prostrated by sin), sinners, enemies of God (three times Paul states it, v. 6, 8, 10), which fact, Paul says, is the plainest evidence for the existence of the other and further fact that by their very entrance into the world sin and death reached all men—the way in which they entered left no possibility of escape for any man. This second fact is so plain διὰτοῦτο, “for this very reason,” that when God established reconciliation he established it for sinners and found none who were not sinners, and when he had us Christians receive this reconciliation by faith we were sinners and, we may add, are even now sinners despite our faith.
Διὰτοῦτο is exactly like ὅτι in Luke 7:47; it introduces the evidential and not the causative reason. The woman’s sins were remitted because she loved much, her loving was the evidence, the proof and not the causa efficiens. One fact does not need to produce the other in order to prove it; its mere existence is the evidence and thus the reason that the other also exists and has existed. God would not have provided his reconciliation for sinners and nothing but sinners if by the very nature of their entrance sin and death had not penetrated to all men; if sin and death had failed to reach some men, these at least would not have needed the reconciliation.
“Just as—even so” emphasizes the manner, and for this reason καί, “even,” is added to οὕτως. If the sin had entered into the world in a different manner, it would have been a question whether it and its consequence, the death, could have gone through to all men. But it came into the world “through one man,” and automatically, by the one stroke of coming thus, the death that came with the sin “went through to all men.” This is not a progressive present tense: “even so the death goes through to all men”; this is the historical aorist “went through,” it is a mate to the other aorist “came into the world.” All of it was done by Adam’s one act in the Garden of Eden.
“The death went through to all men.” But what about the sin through which the death first came into the world? Did only the death go through to all men? Ah, no; Paul at once adds: “since all did sin.” This aorist is identical with the two preceding ones, the three are historical, the three indicate what happened in Eden. “All” means the whole human race. None had been born when the events recorded by these three aorists happened; millions included in this “all” have yet not been born. But Paul writes: “all did sin.” It will not do, then, to quote 9:11 (and John 9:2) and to say that no man can sin before he is born and to assert on the strength of this that Paul cannot say that all sinned in Adam’s first sin. It will not do to conclude that this one aorist differs from the others, is constative (as R. 833 makes it), and only summarizes the actual sins of all men.
When Paul wrote, we were not yet born; even now all our sins have not yet been committed, to say nothing about all those individuals who have as yet not been born. Yet the death “went through to all men,” did it when the sin came into the world, and the death did this through the one sin. Somehow, whether we are able to explain it or not, right there in Eden the death went through to all of us although we were then unborn, and it went through only because in some fatal way all the unborn “did sin” through Adam, through his one sin. Paul states the simple fact. The history of the whole race to this date corroborates the fact. Untrue is any philosophy or any interpretation of Bible passages that denies this fact.
This settles the force of ἐφʼ ᾧ. As in the classics, like the plural ἐφʼ οἶς, and as in the two other places where the phrase appears, 2 Cor. 5:4; Phil. 3:12, the meaning is: darum dass, weil, B.-D. 235; = ἐπὶτούτῳὅτι, 294, 4; R. 604 the same; “for the reason that, because,” Abbott-Smith, Lexicon 166, etc., B.-P. 447, and many others. “Because all did sin” there in Eden, right then and there the death reached all men. Considered one of the cruces interpretum, much ink has been used in an effort to interpret this simple phrase which is a mere conjunction. It never means “in whom” (Origin, Vulgate: in quo, sc., Adamo peccante); nor as the Catholic exegesis would have it: in lumbis Adami, the whole race in the loins of Adam, physically or ideally in Adam as the representative. Another turn is given the phrase so as to have it mean: “under which condition,” letting Paul say that in Adam’s case it was first sin and then death but in the case of all men it was death first and then their life of sinning (Zahn’s view).
Eve sinned first and then Adam. In 1 Tim. 2:14 Paul makes a point of this. Yet not until Adam fell did the sin and the death enter into the world. Eve was herself derived from Adam. The entire human race is of one blood and not of two (Acts 17:26). The fatal act that involved the race was Adam’s. The answer to the hypothetical question as to what would have happened if Eve alone had sinned, if Adam had not followed her in sin, is that “every well-trained ass keeps off the hypothetical ice to avoid breaking a leg.”
Paul writes “the sin” and “the death,” both have the article. It is true that in the Greek abstract nouns may or may not have an article. In English we may say: “sin entered—death went through,” for, unlike the Greek and the German, our English seldom has the article with abstracts. Yet the meaning of the Greek word is not the same whether it be used with or without the article. Here “the sin,” and “the death” are these destructive powers, the abstract nouns almost personify; it is not merely “sin” and “death” in general.
13, 14) For until law sin was in the world although sin is not charged up while there is no law; nevertheless, the death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin after the similitude of the transgression of Adam—he who is type of the One to come.
When the most distinctive feature of a piece of the early history of mankind is observed, it shows strikingly how through Adam’s first sin the death went through to all men. “Until law” tersely brings out the characteristic mark of this period of history; it was devoid of “law,” of anything in the nature of law. We must omit the article. This period extended from Adam until Moses. It ended with the law that was given through Moses; then at last there was “law,” something that had that quality. Neither Adam nor Moses are included; for Moses died after there was law, and all those living between him and Adam are described as “not having sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam.” Adam’s sin was “the transgression” of a specific command of God, παράβασις (see 2:23; 4:15, 25). Between Adam and Moses no such command, nothing like “law,” existed. It is a fact, one that easily escapes a reader of the history of the early patriarchs unless he carefully reflects; but once it is pointed out, we all see this strange fact: there was no divine command or law between Adam and Moses.
Yet “sin was in the world.” There is no article, “sin” as such, all kinds of sin. After “the sin” as a deadly power came in through Adam’s transgression, its presence appeared everywhere: “sin (of all kinds) was in the world,” everywhere. The absence of law made no difference whatever. The fact that men had no law such as the specific command which Adam had, that thus these earliest ancients “did not sin after the similitude of Adam” who transgressed a specific command of God, in no way prevented them from sinning, yea, and from dying as well. “The death” that came into the world through that one sin of Adam’s and thereby went through to all men who should be born, that death “reigned” like an absolute monarch also “from Adam until Moses” and needed no law whatever to do so, for Adam’s sin had stricken all his descendants, “sin” was here.
Abel was killed by his own brother. The history of every one of those ancients ends with wayyamoth, “and he died.” That refers to physical death but it includes what we call spiritual and finally eternal death unless by grace these latter two were removed by faith in “the One to come,” a type of whom Adam was. These are the facts that stand out in the story of Genesis “from Adam to Moses.” All were weak (utterly helpless), sinners, enemies (v. 6, 8, 10) even then and were to be saved only through Christ, only through the reconciliation God would effect through him (v. 9, 10). This reconciliation, made for sinners only, is the grand evidence for the sin of all, and all the facts “from Adam to Moses” agree.
Here Paul goes to the very bottom, not alone of sin and death, but equally of the reconciliation, this reconciliation which was made for nothing but sin and for none but sinners. Adam’s one transgression filled the whole world with sin and death so that salvation depended wholly and alone on a reconciliation made for sinners.
The value of this presentation of the facts which are so dire on the one hand, so blessed on the other, lies in its exhaustiveness, in its reach backward to Adam’s fatal act. All that is otherwise said in the Scriptures about the deadliness of the guilt of sin in general and of any one sin committed in the course of time finds its ultimate explanation here. Adam’s one sin is the fount of death for all men, was so the moment it was committed before any men were born.
When Paul says “sin was in the world” even prior to law, “although (δέ) sin is not charged up while there is no law” he intends to say that sin and its consequent death are not dependent on law. What law is for he tells us presently (v. 20, 21). Here he removes the idea that Adam’s descendants should have a specific commandment (law) such as Adam had and thus “be charged up” just as he was in order to be sinners and thus subject to death. No; sin was in the world even during that period when no law such as the command given to Adam existed; sin was there as sin although “men did not sin after (ἐπί, on the basis of) the similitude of Adam.” We might after a fashion introduce 2:14, etc., and say that, like the Gentiles, those ancients were “law to themselves.” But we must not forget that a comparison is here made with Adam who did not transgress merely such law as was written in his heart but a direct command of God given him in so many words. There lies the difference. And that is what “charge up” means: when one transgresses a command of law, that law charges this up as a transgression.
In other words, law shows the gravity of sin, shows it as transgression, charges it up as such. This is one of its functions. But death reigns through sin just the same whether some code of law or some specific command does this charging up or not.
The test of obedience to which Adam was put was made exceedingly easy for him when God gave him a direct command instead of leaving him to such law as was written in his heart. Of course, he transgressed also the latter. In the story of Adam, however, it is the former that is prominent. He was charged with the transgression of that one direct law given to him, which also precipitated the whole calamity. Whether those who suffered that calamity sinned in the same way or not made no difference. They sinned in Adam, and the death reigned over them. Even saying that they sinned ἀνόμως (2:12), against the law in their hearts, like the Gentiles of later days makes no difference, for Paul here brings out what lies back of even that, the sin and the death coming into the world through Adam, reaching all men even before they were born.
So deep was the calamity, so profound the tragedy; and the evidence appears in the remedy and the rescue which God prepared, the reconciliation he effected through his Son (v. 10). The two correspond, had to correspond: “the One to come” (literally, “he about to be”) had to be as he indeed was the antitype of Adam, had to be a second Adam in order to save (v. 9, 10) those who had been plunged into sin and death by the first Adam, all of whom were sinners, all under death’s reign. Here we have another demonstrative relative like those found in 2:29; 3:8, 30; ὅς, “he is the One who” is type, etc. Adam’s fatal act typifies Christ’s act of deliverance in a certain vital way. The latter had to undo the former, and it is thus that Adam typifies Christ. Paul now presents the entire correspondence.
It is so vital because it goes to the bottom of both sin and deliverance from sin. All else that is said in the Scriptures regarding either or both rests on what is here revealed as the absolute bottom. All of our teaching ought to go back to this essential paragraph in Paul’s epistle.
Romans 5:15
15 But not as the fall thus, too, the gracious gift. For if by the fall of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift in connection with the grace of the one man Jesus Christ abound for the many. And not as through one having done a sin (so) the gift. For the judgment from one—a verdict of condemnation; but the gracious gift from many falls—a verdict of justification. For if by the fall of the one the death reigned through the one, how much more shall those receiving the abundance of the grace and of the gift of the righteousness reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
This passage plus v. 18 is the despair of the translator because of the series of nouns ending in -μα, each of which denotes the accomplished result of an act (-σις denotes only the action itself). How can one, when translating into English, distinguish between ἡδωρεά and τὸδώρημα both of which are used? In v. 14 παράβασις is Adam’s act of transgression while in v. 15, etc., παράπτωμα is “the fall” as the result of his act of having fallen. The same is true with regard to the other -μα forms (R. 151; B.-D. 109, 2). B.-D. 488, 3 states that Paul did not seek a rhyme in these words; but the further remark that such repetitions “belong to the deliciae of the Hellenist artists of style” leaves the wrong impression that Paul imitated them. But Paul does not imitate, these terms expressing a result are essential for the thought, which presents results throughout. Again we note that Paul presents the facts and lets them speak for themselves.
After saying that Adam is “type of the One coming,” Paul does not pedantically detail the points in which Adam is typical of Christ. Those points of likeness are at once combined with the points of difference; for the type is always exceeded by the antitype. For this reason Christ is prefigured by so many types, and even when all of these are taken together, they only foreshadow his greatness. The likeness consists in this: one man is the source of sin, death, condemnation—one man the source of righteousness and life. Again one act is the evil source—one act the good source. These are opposites but have this likeness.
But there is great excess and thus unlikeness on the side of the antitype. For, in the first place: “not as the fall so, too, the gracious gift”—two words ending in -μα: “the fall as the result of Adam’s falling—the charisma, the gracious gift, as the result of Christ’s work for us.” There is a difference already in these two terms; for Adam destroyed himself and all others, Christ wrought his gracious gift only for others, he did not need anything for himself, it was a gift to us.
But the difference which Paul makes prominent by means of “for,” a difference which lies also in the two terms used, is the fact that Christ did far more than to restore the state of man before the fall, he at once brought the full consummation, for the attainment of which Adam had been created. Not again was there to be a testing, such a one as Adam had failed to pass, but Christ won for him and for all of us the full reign of life everlasting, the status gloriae as the dogmaticians call it (v. 17). This, however, is a charisma so great that Paul presents it step by step and does not attempt to present all of it in one statement. He says, first of all, that this charisma “did abound,” went far beyond the damage done by Adam.
He, therefore, restates both the fall and the charisma so that the excess of the latter looms up before us. He uses the condition of reality and thus puts the fact of the charisma and its great excess in comparison with the fact of the fall and its dire result so that his readers may think about these facts. In v. 17 he repeats the “if” with the second step of this comparison. The sum of v. 12–14 is the fact that “by the fall of the one the many died.” The dative is one of means. By his fall Adam brought down death upon himself and upon his entire race. In the last analysis that fall did this; everything that followed this fall of Adam’s was only its result. In v. 12 Paul has already said “all men”; these he now calls “the many” in order to make the contrast with “the one” stand out the more.
The term τὸπαράπτωμα is not a mild term. C.-K. 922 shows that in the New Testament the word is used in the opposite sense even in Gal. 6:1. It excludes all excuse, it brings out the full gravity of the act that constitutes “the fall.” It is often used by Paul in connection with deliverance, and instead of bringing out the possibility of deliverance the word brings out only the greatness and the mighty significance of the deliverance: so terrible is the inexcusable fall, hence so astounding is it that there is deliverance from it at all. M.-M. 489 sidestep the issue: “We do not propose to define the word in its New Testament occurrences from these (outside) instances” although this is the point at issue. For a false contrast is here introduced, namely that “the fall” was a mild, inadvertent slip on Adam’s part while Christ’s act was a deliberate, purposeful proceeding. The opposite is true: so grave was the inexcusable fall of Adam that it killed all men so that hope of deliverance seemed gone forever. Whatever the mild sense of “fall” as found in the papyri and elsewhere may be, only the gravest sense applies in the New Testament.
Πολλῷμᾶλλον is used already in v. 10 and = “much more” (literally, “with or by much more”). See how τὸχάρισμα is expanded in order to show how immensely it exceeds Adam’s fall and the damage it wrought; it is described as “the grace of God and the gift in connection with grace of the one man Jesus Christ.” This repeats 3:24, which see for both χάρις and δωρεά. “Grace” is repeated, “the grace of God” bestowed by him, and “grace of the one man Christ Jesus,” both are pure unmerited favor. See how the one man is here united with God in the bestowal of this exceeding grace. Jesus Christ is here called “the one man” because only by his death and blood (v. 9, 10) could grace (reconciliation) be bestowed on fallen man. In v. 10 this one man is called God’s Son. A mere man’s grace would have amounted to nothing.
But the grace of “the one man” who was “the Son of God,” that was the duplicate of God’s own grace which sent this one man to bestow “the gift in grace.” Grace is always transitive; it is not a mere feeling but a power that reaches out to save the guilty who deserve only death, the divine hand that holds this gift. “Jesus Christ” is used as in 1:1. The word for “gift” means one that is wholly gratis, given for nothing; the word used in v. 16 goes farther.
Both this double grace and this gift of grace “did abound for the many,” exceeded by a great deal the fall and the death caused by the fall. For this was the grace of God and of Christ, thus as great as God whom none equals. And the gift connected with this grace was the full expression of this grace of God, as great as the grace that bestowed it. When they are thus set side by side: the fall and what it did and this grace and what it then did, the vast excess of the latter looms up before us. Each is focused in one man. This produces type and antitpye, but what a vast difference!
Both aorists are historical: “did die” when Adam fell, “did abound” when Christ shed his blood and died (v. 9, 10). Both aorists state facts. There is no need to reach back to eternity in the case of the latter (Rev. 13:8), for when Paul wrote, the fulfillment had become historical. The human cause, Adam’s fall, was exceeded by the divine cause, grace; the human effect, that the many died, was exceeded by the divine effect, the gift for the many. A strange turn of thought is introduced when we are told that the divine is “more certain” than the human. But Paul is not discussing certainty and its opposite, uncertainty or doubt. “For the many” refers to the same “many” who died, and εἰς is stronger than the dative: the grace and the gift were extended “unto” them in their abounding.
All were reconciled to God through Christ. We need not repeat what we have said in v. 10, namely that “unto the many” does not imply that all men were personally justified when the grace and the gift reconciled them to God.
Romans 5:16
16 Once more we have the difference between type and antitype and it carries us a step farther: “And not as through one having done a sin (so) the gift.” The aorist ἁμαρτήσαντος refers to Adam’s one act of sin. The word used here is not again ἡδωρεά but an advance upon it: τὸδώρημα, a word that it is impossible to translate exactly for lack of an English word denoting a gift combined with its result and effect (this is the force of -μα). In v. 15 “the gift” is connected with “the grace,” its source; it is so abounding when it is viewed from the standpoint of its source as the free bestowal, ἡδωρεά. But it is equally great and exceeding when it is τὸδώρημα. To bring this out adequately Paul does not at once again start with “if” as he did in v. 15 but places a preliminary statement before the “if.” For the gift in its full result, the reigning through Christ in heaven, is not effective in all of “the many” for whom grace intended it but only in “those receiving the abundance of the grace and of the gift of the righteousness,” receiving it by faith.
Γάρ at first elucidates only the resultant verdicts as such apart from the persons involved in them: “For the judgment from one—a verdict of condemnation; but the gracious gift from many falls—a verdict of justification.” There are no verbs in v. 16. Paul wants none, and our versions do their readers a disservice by inserting verbs. This may prove dangerous. The danger begins right here and reaches its climax in v. 18, where many make their exegesis depend on the verbs which they insert, verbs that Paul did not write, verbs that Paul wants omitted.
We have no less than five nouns ending in -μα, every one expressing action with its result. It is unfortunately impossible to translate them so that the reader sees this force of the five nouns. Let us convey as much as we can: τὸκρῖμα, the judgment result—κατάκριμα, an adverse judgment result (these two are mates)—τὸχάρισμα, the gracious gift result—πολλὰπαραπτώματα, many falls with their results—δικαίωμα, the acquittal result. The two ἐκ are likewise idiomatic Greek. It is so difficult to translate them into English, especially the second. Both denote source but as in a court of law when verdicts are drawn “from” proved crimes.
The two εἰς are simpler and introduce predicate nominatives (on which see B.-D. 157, 5; 145; 207; R. 481, etc.). There is no need to call them Hebraistic; Deissmann, Light, etc., 157, 5: “not Semitic but popular Hellenistic Greek.” In our passage the two εἰς phrases may be translated with simple predicate nominatives. The play between ἐκ and εἰς is merely incidental.
In v. 15 Paul states what Adam’s fall itself did: it killed the many. Here Paul advances to what God did with regard to Adam’s sin: he issued a verdict. And this verdict was an adverse verdict, a condemnation! What else could it be? Note that ἐξἑνός continues διʼ ἑνὸςἁμαρτήσαντος. The one man, his one act of sin, the judgment resulting in an adverse verdict.
Now “the gracious gift,” again τὸχάρισμα which v. 15 describes as “the grace of God and the gift in connection with the grace of the one man Jesus Christ.” This—O wonder of wonders!—the exact opposite, “a verdict of justification.” What makes this so astounding is ἐκπολλῶνπαραπτωμάτων, this blessed acquittal right “out of many falls,” not only Adam’s fall but the fall of all the rest as well. Instead of more condemnatory verdicts like the one on Adam’s sin which damned all other men with Adam, there is a verdict which is the very opposite.
There is no need to translate as though it were the masculine: “out of falls of many men,” as though the masculine were required by the previous “out of one man”; for we should then have only “out of many men.” Nor is ἐξἑνός neuter: “out of one fall or act of sin.” In v. 15 Paul used “fall” with reference to Adam alone, and in v. 16 he added “having done a sin,” for by that act of sin he fell. Now Paul uses “many falls,” for in and with Adam all men fell, the whole human race crashed, fell, died (v. 15). And here παραπτώματα are to be understood in the same serious, fatal sense as noted in v. 15.
There is much dispute regarding the meaning of δικαίωμα. We restrict ourselves to the essentials. It is undoubtedly the exact opposite of κατάκριμα. Both terms express a result. Both express the action of the divine Judge when he pronounces his verdict, once declaring guilty, another time declaring righteous, but both times the result of the verdict is included. C.-K. 331, Recht-fertigungsakt, “act of declaring righteous,” is too much like δικαίωσις (v. 18) which denotes only the act.
Add the result to the act, and we have the meaning. As the adverse verdict establishes condemnation as its permanent result, so the verdict declaring righteous establishes righteousness as its permanent result. Zahn’s treatment of the subject is clear, also in the statement that this word came to be used in a favorable sense and no longer in a neutral sense such as κρῖμα has.
Some consider only the words “one” and “many,” and although the former is masculine and the latter neuter, they posit an extensive excess of the result of the gift over the result of the sin: either that all men were delivered, or that, in addition to Adam’s sin, all other sins were made good by Christ. But Paul writes a masculine and secondly a neuter and thereby on his part excludes a direct comparison between the two.
There is not a difference of extent but a difference of opposite results: Once a verdict of condemnation, then a verdict of justification. And the two ἐκ make them arise out of the same source in God’s court. More than that. In order to intensify these opposites Paul takes only the one man as the source of the verdict of condemnation but all the falls of that one man and of all other men as the source of the justifying verdict. The fact that God pronounces a verdict of condemnation on Adam’s sin is as natural and as right as it can be; we accept it without further thought, as a matter of course. But it sounds impossible, incredible that God should pronounce a verdict that is the direct opposite, a verdict of acquittal and righteousness, when he has before him all the falls of all men.
All of them cry for nothing but repetitions of the damnatory verdict pronounced on Adam; that damnatory verdict damned not him alone but all men together with him. Yet there is a second verdict that annuls the first. Impossible and yet a fact; incredible and yet true! We know the solution—Christ Jesus (v. 6–11).
The fact that the condemnatory verdict damned all men is beyond question after considering v. 12–15. The fact that the justifying verdict does not justify all men ought to be equally beyond question in view of v. 17 and of all that Paul has said regarding justification by faith alone. In spite of this δικαίωμα is thought to imply a world absolution in the sense of the personal forgiveness of sins to every individual man in the world. It is the same mistake as that committed in connection with the reconciliation discussed in v. 10, which see. All men were indeed reconciled to God, and it is possible to call this universal or world justification, but never in the sense of absolving every individual sinner of his sins before faith and without faith, never in the sense of abolishing the personal justification which God pronounces only the instant he kindles faith. The fact that δικαίωμα refers only to the latter, is pronounced only on believers, v. 17 shows as does all the rest of this epistle and all that the entire Scripture teaches regarding justification by faith alone.
Romans 5:17
17 As in v. 15 εἰγάρ expounds, so it does also here, for certainly the amazing statement that a verdict of justification is in any way or manner drawn “out of many falls” needs explanation even for Christians who know the secret—they expect it to be told. The condition is one of reality, and what was said about this condition in v. 15 applies also here. Paul speaks of it as a fact that by the fall of the one the death reigned as absolute monarch through the one. This repeats the statements about death in v. 12 and v. 15, save that it emphasizes “the one” (Adam) by repetition, first by a dative of means respecting Adam’s fall, then with διά, making Adam the mediator of death. This reign of death was the result of the verdict of condemnation; the fact that it was a reign over all men has already been stated.
Now the exposition of the other verdict. This verdict applies only to “those receiving the abundance of the grace and of the gift of righteousness,” only to believers. Their description recalls 3:24, for the three terms used are the same: grace, gratuitous gift, righteousness (= being declared righteous in 3:24). What this passive participle used in 3:24 states by making God the agent and believers the recipients, the active participle “those receiving” repeats here, they being the recipients, God the giver.
But now note what “much more” emphasizes. The condemnatory verdict was quid pro quo, it decreed the exact equivalent, just what the fall deserved, no more, no less, as comports with perfect justice. It is altogether different with regard to the justifying verdict pronounced on believers; it lets them receive “the abundance of the grace and of the gratuitous gift of righteousness.” Here there is no measuring out of equivalents, no care that there shall not be too much or too little; here is unrestrained abundance. It is “the grace of God and gift in connection with grace of the one man Jesus Christ,” explained in v. 15. Yet here the verb ἐπερίσσευσε, “did abound,” is replaced by the noun ἡπερισσεία, “the abundance,” the overflowing measure of “the grace” (the one already mentioned in v. 15) and of “the gift” (also mentioned there and with the identical word—a different one is used in v. 16). And now the appositional genitive “of righteousness” defines what “the gift” is, the righteousness of 1:17, and of 3:21, 22, the status of righteousness produced by the verdict of righteousness (δικαίωμα, v. 16), by the act of declaring it (δικαίωσις, v. 18), “God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ on all those believing,” 3:22.
The present participle “those receiving” is iterative: one by one throughout the ages in reiteration. The fact that this receiving is accomplished by faith need not be repeated after all that Paul has said regarding faith in 3:21–4:25.
But this receiving is only the means to the real and the ultimate end: “in life shall they reign through the One, Jesus Christ.” “In life” is emphatic because it is placed before the verb. “The righteous shall live out of faith,” 1:17. Eternal life is the goal of justification. In v. 9, 10 we twice have “shall be saved”; so here we twice have “life” (v. 17, 18). Salvation and life are the same concept. Here they refer to heaven. “In life” = sphere, all heaven is life. But note the contrast with “the death.” All men died in Adam, “the death” with its power reigned over them. The justified are not only freed from that death but are transferred into life eternal, they attain the goal which Adam was to attain, the goal for which all of us were created. What an excess over death!
Paul does not say that “the life shall reign over us” as he says “the death reigned.” Paul states the divine realities as they are. Here is the excess: death reigned—one king; all believers shall reign—many kings. Still more: we were subjects, we shall be rulers. Crowns are laid up for us, 2 Tim. 4:8. Recall all the passages that speak of a crown. We shall sit with Christ in his throne. He shall be King of kings, we shall be kings. In heaven we shall not be subjects but “shall reign.” See the author’s little volume Kings and Priests.
And now comes the essential phrase: “through the One, Jesus Christ,” διά to designate him as Mediator. “The One,” the antitype of “the one” (Adam). The latter is placed at the start, his one sin made death king; Christ is placed with the heavenly consummation, our royal reign in life. Already in v. 15 Christ is united with grace. “Much more” is here again considered to mean “much more certainly”; see the remarks on “much more” in v. 15. Was there any doubt about death’s reign? The excess is not subjective but objective, it does not lie in our personal certainty or assurance but in the immensity of our deliverance. Though our faith be weak, “much more” than death ever reigned shall we reign, and much more than Adam lost for us we receive through Christ. We append the parallels of the phrasing which is so masterly in every detail:
Romans 5:18
18 We now reach the summation. It is presented as a final deduction by means of ἄραοὖν, an expression that is repeatedly used by Paul. Although ἄρα, “fittingly,” “accordingly” (denoting some sort of correspondence between sentences or clauses), is always postpositive in the classics, as it is used by Paul it merely strengthens οὗν.
Accordingly then, as through one’s fall—for all men a verdict of condemnation; so also through One’s verdict of justification—for all men a declaring righteous to life. For as through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners, thus also through the obedience of the One the many shall be constituted righteous.
We disagree with those who think that every time verbs are omitted they must be supplied, and that the omissions are due to an imitation of colloquial speech, and the like (B.-D. 481). Paul wanted no verbs, the sense of v. 18 does not depend on verbs. Yet some supply verbs, two “came” (our versions), and some make the verbs decisive in determining the sense. Even the aorist tense is stressed by those who think that world justification came on all men and obviated a justification “out of or through faith,” save that faith must accept that world justification.
The meaning of the first clause is simple: “through the mediation of one man’s fall—for all men a verdict of condemnation.” After what has been said we need little further explanation. We have two terms expressing a result; these were explained as such in v. 16 when we considered the terms ending in -μα. And εἰςκατάκριμα is used for the predicate nominative exactly as it was in v. 16. In the second clause we have the exact counterpart and no longer an excess since this has been exhausted in v. 15–17. Whereas we twice had: “not as” (v. 15, 16) we now have the positive: “as” followed by “thus also.” Only the likeness is now stated and no more: “through one’s verdict of justification—for all men a declaring righteous to life,” ζωῆς is the objective genitive “to life,” R. 500. Here εἰςδικαίωσιν is once more used for the predicate nominative.
These four εἰς (two in v. 16, two in v. 18) are simple predicate nominatives; they should not, therefore, be translated “to” or “unto.” In v. 16 the two predicates with εἰς appear beside two ἐκ phrases, but this is merely incidental even as in v. 18 the two predicates with εἰς appear beside two other εἰς, which are mere substitutes for datives, one being the dative of disadvantage: “for all men” condemnation, the other that of advantage: “for all men” a declaring righteous. On εἰς for the dative compare R. 594.
Δικαίωμα as used here and in v. 16 must be identical in force. It is a term expressing result as explained in conjunction with four other terms in -μα in v. 16; while δικαίωσις with the -σις suffix denotes only the action (cf., R. 151 on these suffixes). Thus the latter = a declaring righteous (action); the former = a declaring righteous and thereby placing into a permanent relation or state even as the declaration stands permanently (result). We have no English counterparts. Thus one side is like the other (“as—so also”): 1) through one’s fall (with its result)—for all men a verdict of condemnation (with its result); 2) through One’s verdict of acquittal (with its result)—for all men an acquitting (a term expressing action) to life. Christ’s δικαίωμα is the acquittal of Christ himself, this acquittal as a permanent result.
Three times the Father made a formal declaration from heaven. In Acts 3:14 Jesus is called “the Holy One and the Righteous One.” His acquittal he achieved in his human nature, but not for a benefit it brought to him but for the benefit it brought to men.
“For all men δικαίωσιςζωῆς.” The difference in the terms is marked: not for all men as for Christ δικαίωμα, a justifying verdict as the finished and permanent result, but δικαίωσις, the action of declaring righteous, the action that is repeated in every case in which “the gift of the righteousness is received” (v. 17) by faith. Adam’s fall (result, παράπτωμα) = for all men κατάκριμα, finished condemnation, a result, not merely κατάκρισις, condemning action that occurs in a succession of cases; Christ’s δικαίωμα, finished result like Adam’s παράπτωμα = for all men, not also δικαίωμα, finished result, but δικαίωσις, justifying action that occurs in a succession of cases. Paul has used no less than five terms ending in -μα and expressing a result, two of them repeatedly with reference to Adam. Does that not make the one term ending in -σις which he now uses stand out with its distinctive and different meaning? And has he not prepared for it by the iterative present participle οἱλαμβάνοντες: “those receiving the abundance of the grace and of the gift of the righteousness,” receiving this righteousness one by one when they are brought to receive it by faith?
Δικαίωσις has the very same sense which it had in 4:25, the action of God when he declares righteous in personal justification, even as the whole of 3:21 to 4:25 deals with this action alone. If a world justification were intended, the word employed would have to be δικαίωμα. Paul even adds ζωῆς, for this justifying action admits “to life” everlasting, which only those receive who “receive the gift of the righteousness” by faith although Christ won it for all men.
We are sorry to note that C.-K. fails to distinguish clearly between δικαίωμα with its result and δικαιωσις with its action. R. 151 does so. The commentators differ. We have an example of such a differing when we are told that in v. 16 δικαίωμα means a verdict because it is there opposed to κατάκριμα which denotes a verdict; while here in v. 18 δικαίωμα cannot mean a verdict since it is opposed to Adam’s παράπτωμα which is not a verdict. But in v. 18 as in v. 16 κατάκριμα precedes, and Christ’s δικαίωμα is placed in opposition to that. Adam’s fall is not its opposite but the condemnation of all men resulting from that fall.
How could a fall be the opposite of a resulting justification? In v. 18 the arrangement is purposely chiastic so as to bring together as closely as possible κατάκριμα and δικαίωμα. We, therefore, reject the view that in v. 16 the word means rechtfertigendes Urteil, “justifying judgment,” but in v. 18 gerechte Tat, “just deed.” L. in v. 16, Gerechtsprechung (an action only and not even result), in v. 18, Rechtstat. We are pointed to “the obedience of the One” mentioned in v. 19 as establishing the claim that Christ’s δικαίωμα in v. 18 must be his “right deed.” This is as unacceptable as the contrast with Adam’s fall. For in v. 19 Paul goes back of judgments to what called forth these judgments: Adam’s disobedience making many sinners, Christ’s obedience making many righteous. We must distinguish between the verdicts and the ground on which the verdicts were pronounced.
Romans 5:19
19 The very point of Paul’s adding his explanation with a γάρ is to indicate on what the two contrasted verdicts rest, the κατάκριμα and the δικαίωμα of v. 18. And here again it is “even as—thus also,” which stresses only the likeness and not the differences. Through the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted sinners, were “set down” as sinners. The moment that one act of disobedience on Adam’s part was committed it placed the many, none of whom were as yet born, in the position of sinners. Thus the universal result, the verdict of condemnation. The fact that the many, after they had been born, were sinners also because they themselves sinned many sins is irrelevant here where the ultimate cause of the condemnatory verdict is presented. Note the emphasis in the Greek: “sinners were constituted the many.”
We usually say that Adam’s sin was imputed to all men even as Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believers. This may serve with regard to Adam’s sin. Paul simply states the fact as a fact: “were constituted sinners,” aorist. We have no further explanation. The evidence for the fact, however, is overwhelming: all men die, the verdict of condemnation rests on all. Compare the remarks on v. 12.
The counterpart is: “through the obedience of the One the many shall be constituted righteous.” The wording is almost an exact parallel, even the emphasis is the Same: “righteous shall be constituted the many.” Note that the suffix -η appears in compound nomina actionis (B.-D. 109), thus παρακοή is the action of disobeying, ὑπακοή, the action of obeying. The fact that Adam’s was a single act and Christ’s an action that continued through his whole life (obedientia activa et passiva) until he cried: “It is finished!” on the cross should not cause confusion. One step off a precipice constitutes the fall that kills. Negatives are like that. Christ, on the other hand, had to finish his work in order to attain its goal and result. Positives are like that.
But Paul has finished his discussion of the main differences in v. 15–17 and in v. 18, 19 dwells only on the likeness. When we now say that Christ’s righteousness is also imputed to us we have 4:3, etc., to substantiate that fact, the verb “to reckon.”
There are no verbs in v. 18. Some commentators insert two aorists: “came.” In v. 19 Paul uses verbs: “were constituted” and “shall be constituted.” The former is the historical aorist; why not also the latter? Those who insert two historical aorists in v. 18 need two such aorists in v. 19, for v. 19 explains (γάρ) v. 18. But Paul used the future! These commentators then regard this as a logical future which expresses what automatically followed Christ’s obedience. In this way this future is referred back to the past.
Constituting the many righteous logically followed Christ’s obedience; but his act is as historically in the past as is the act of constituting the many sinners. Was that not also logically future to Adam’s obedience? Why, then, in one instance the historical fact and in the other this “logical” verb instead of the historical fact? There is no satisfactory answer.
This logical future is stressed especially by those who take Paul’s words to mean that all men were justified, pardoned, forgiven more than 1, 900 years ago, so that no act of God’s justifying the individual believer in the instant of faith follows. We have shown the untenableness of this opinion in v. 10, 16, 18, and already in 1:17. Here it alters the future tense in order to maintain itself. This future indicates the historical fact in its progress. The many “shall be constituted righteous” all along as they receive the abundance of the grace and the gift of the righteousness, receive it (iterative present) when they are brought to faith. Κατασταθήσονται agrees with οἱλαμβάνοντες, the iterative present that continues until the last sinner receives the righteousness.
“Shall be constituted righteous” = shall receive the gift of righteousness = all that Paul has said regarding personal justification = in particular 3:24: δικαιούμενοι, “being declared righteous.” Nowhere in the Bible is any man constituted or declared righteous “without faith, before faith.” With this future tense, which must agree with the aorist that precedes since both are historical, agrees δικαίωσις in v. 18 (4:25), action, action that repeats itself in the case of every believer and not a term expressing a result that states what is finished down to the complete effect.
But does Paul not twice use “the many” after he has twice used “all men” in v. 18? Let us see. In v. 17 we read “those receiving” (believers). In v. 18 we read: “for all men,” and not merely: “all men.” So here, as in v. 16 where one is pointedly used, many is placed in contrast with this one. What Christ obtained for all men, all men do not receive (v. 18). “The many” with reference to whom the aorist is used are determined by that aorist, “the many” with reference to whom the future tense is used are limited by that tense. These tenses decide the issue.
Christ’s obedience will never constitute an unbeliever who spurns this vicarious obedience δίκαιος, “righteous,” declared so by the eternal Judge. Some date the future tense at the last day, but no believer who receives the gift of righteousness needs to wait so long a time.
All skeptics and all rationalists have ever argued against the facts here (v. 12–19) presented by Paul, these facts that stand out everywhere in Scripture. Luther puts it drastically: The idea of damning the whole world because one man bit into an apple! Equally: The idea of taking a lot of men to heaven because one man once died on the cross! Dogmatics and Apologetics have long ago made a crushing and a detailed reply. Sin and death have one source—Adam; righteousness and life also have one source—the second Adam, Christ. If not—what then? Yes, what then? Only the rationalistic arguments of the moralists, all of whom Paul has crushed already in chapter 2.
Romans 5:20
20 One question remains, that regarding “law,” touched upon in v. 13, 14, where Paul states how late it came and how death reigned during the entire age before there was law. Now law came in besides so that the fall increased. But where the sin increased, the grace superabounded; so that, as the sin in the death did reign, so also the grace did reign through righteousness to life eternal through Jesus Christ, our Lord.
Paul is here not answering an objector, this imaginary character who has been introduced at several previous points. This is plain instruction for Christians regarding the place of law and regarding the activity of law. And Paul speaks of “law” in general, for the word is minus the article. In this connection 2:12–27 should not be forgotten, for there Paul carefully uses both “law” and “the Law.” Most certainly the Mosaic law comes under the category of “law” and is here included; v. 14 states when it came in. But other “law” also came in. It was less perfect, indeed, than that of Moses but it had a similar effect. More important is the definition of “law” which should not be conceived as being a mere set of formulated decrees, a code, but as a power that effects something (C.-K. 752, etc.).
This power “came in besides.” The idea of furtiveness which is sometimes connected with παρά is absent here. “Law” never sneaks in. The preposition in the verb refers to the sin and the death which v. 12 tells us “came in.” If they had not come about, “law” would never have come in; yet when they came in, law “came in besides.” R. 998 makes ἵνα consecutive; see the discussion regarding ἵνα in 3:19. Paul has been discussing results and not purposes, he has even used terms expressing results (words with the suffix -μα), has one of them right here. So we regard ἵνα and the following as indicating a result, not: “in order that the fall should increase,” but: “so that the fall increased.” We also refuse to make τὸπαράπτωμα something different from what it twice means in v. 15 and twice in v. 17, 18: Adam’s fall. Law increased this fall. How?
The next clause explains: “the sin increased,” the sin that came into the world through one man (v. 12). Because of its very nature law increased the fall, for it not only intensified sin as transgression (παράβασις, 4:15, also used in 5:14), it multiplied sin, its very prohibitions provoked transgressions. Compare 7:13, and 3:20; “through law sin’s realization.”
On which side did law belong when it came in? On the side of Adam’s fall, on the side of sin. Moreover, since it came in later beside the sin and the death that had already come in, law was secondary in regard to them. Without them it would never have had a place. Thus its function, too, is secondary. It only increased what was already there, it brought nothing new, nothing like “the grace.” And for this reason Paul writes “law” without the article but “the fall,” “the sin” twice, “the death,” “the grace” twice, all with definite articles.
So this is what law did. But whereas it increased the sin, “the grace superabounded.” On “grace” see 1:7 and 3:24. The rescuing power not only equaled the damning power, it towered vastly above it. All of the aorists plus also the aorist subjunctives state facts. “The grace” includes not only the divine attribute but also all that this attribute wrought in and through Christ and all that it now works: τὸχάρισμα (v. 15, 16, “gracious gift”), ἡδωρεά (v. 15, 17, “gratis gift”), τὸδώρημα (v. 16, “gift result”), δικαίωμα (v. 16, “justification result”). “The grace” indeed superabounded! For this reason the unbelief which rejects this mighty grace is so damnable.
Romans 5:21
21 The ἵνα is again consecutive; it states not merely God’s intention but this intention as to its final result. The grace superabounded “so that, as the sin in the death did reign, so also the grace did reign (the sin being unable to stop it) through righteousness,” etc. In v. 14 and 17 Paul said that “the death reigned.” Now he combines: “the sin in the death reigned,” for the sin is the power in the death. The sin did not reign instead of the death but reigned in the death and in its reign. The repetition intends to bring out the full power and the terror of that reign. The emphasis is on the verb which is placed forward: “reign did the sin in the death.”
But its territory was invaded. And now the emphasis is on the subject: “the grace did reign,” the grace despite that deadly reign of the sin. In v. 17 Paul writes regarding the believers: “in life shall they reign.” Here is the reason for that statement: the grace has already reigned, is now reigning with blessed power, yea is reigning in us. One of the διά states the means, the other the Mediator of this reign of God’s grace. “Through righteousness to life eternal,” the righteousness of 1:17 and of 3:21, 22 which is ours by the declaration pronouncing us righteous for Christ’s sake. The goal of this righteousness is “life eternal” (“in life,” v. 17), i.e., eternal blessedness. Here Paul combines these two cardinal terms: “righteousness to life eternal.” The great and the most essential effect of righteousness (justification by faith) is eternal life, see the caption and the introduction to this chapter.
Twice, in v. 9, 10, we read, “shall be saved,” and now “life eternal” after “life” in v. 17. These are the pivotal points that must be recognized as such.
This whole effect of justification is presented as being mediated through Christ. Verse 1 starts with διάτοῦΚυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ; follow his name On through until it now closes the chapter: “through Jesus Christ, our Lord.” Here is the great Mediator and his whole work, his obedience, his death and blood, his reconciliation which mediates our justification and its effect: Salvation and Life Eternal.
Who but an inspired writer could put such a volume of saving truth into twenty-one short verses?
R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.
L Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Dritter Band. Die Briefe des Apostels Paulus. 1. An die Roemer. D. Hans Lietzmann. 2. Auflage.
C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.
B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neu-gearbeitete Aufiage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.
B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.
M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.
rn.