O O o
VERSE 10. For if, ivhen ive were yet enemies, we were recon ciled £0 Crod l>ij the death of his 8on, &c. This verse contains nearly the same idea as ver. 9, presented in a different form. The word enemies is applied to men not only as descriptive of their moral character, but also of the relation in which they stand to God as the objects of his displeasure. There is not only a wicked opposition of the sinner to God, but a holy opposition of God to the sinner. The preceding verse presents the former of these ideas, arid this verse the latter most promi nently. There it is said, 'though sinners, we are justified;' and here, 'though enemies, we are reconciled.' The word l%& pol has the same passive sense in xi. 28. And this is the principal difference between the two verses. To be reconciled to God, in such connections, docs not mean to have our enmity to God removed, but his enmity to us taken out of the way, to have him rendered propitious, or his righteous justice satisfied. This is evident, 1. Because the reconciliation is ascribed to the death of Christ, or his blood, ver. 9. But, according to the constant representations of Scripture, the death of Christ is a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, or to propitiate the favour of God, and not immediately a means of sanctification. The former is its direct object, the latter an incidental result. This is the very idea of a sacrifice. The most liberal commentators, that is, those least bound by any theological system, admit this to be the doctrine of Scripture, and of this particular passage.
Thus Meyer: " Christi Tod tilgte nicht die Feindschaft der Menschen gegen Gott;" that is, uThe death of Christ does not remove the enmity of men towards God, but as that which secures the favour of God, it removes his enmity towards men, whence the removal of our enmity towards him follows as a con sequence." So also Ruckert: uThe reconciled here can only be God, whose wrath towards sinners is appeased by the death of his Son. On man's part nothing has happened; no internal change, no step towards God: all this follows as the conse quence of the reconciliation here spoken of." De AVette also says, that "x«r«//«^' must mean the removal of the wrath of God, and consequently the reconciliation is of God to man, which not only here, but in iii. 25, '1 Cor. v. IS, 10, Col. i. "21, Eph. ii. 16, is referred to the atoning death of Christ." '2. The
object of the verse is to present us as enemies, or the objects of God's displeasure. 'If while we were the objects of the divine displeasure,' says the apostle, 'that displeasure has been removed, or God propitiated by the death of his Son, how much more shall we be saved,' &e. That is, if God has been reconciled to us, he will save us. •). This is the proper mean ing of the word, 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. See also Matt. v. 24, " First go and be reconciled to thy brother," i. e. go and appease his anger, or remove the ground of his displeasure; compare Hob. ii. IT, " He is a priest to make reconciliation (s^ TO DAoxsad-cu) for the sins of the people." It is the appropriate business of a priest to propitiate God, and not to reform men. See also 1 Sam. xxix. 4: ''Wherewith should he reconcile himself (oca).- Xa^fJirat) to his master? should it not be with the heads of these men?" Eph. ii. 16, "That he might reconcile (dnoxaraUd^r/) both unto God by the cross," not remove their enmity to God, but secure for them his favour and access to the Father, ver. 18. The verbs y.o-auAaaM, ota/Jdoaio, and dxoxaTaAAaaaco, are used interchangeably. The main idea, of course, as expressed by, to change, is slightly modified by the force of the several prepositions with which it is combined — to change xaz<i in relation to, otd between, 6.716 from. The three verbs, however, are all used to express the idea of reconciliation, i. e. changing the relation of parties at enmity, so that they are at peace. Whether this reconciliation is effected by the propitiation of the justly offended party, or by a change of feeling in the offender, or both, depends on the connection. 4. The context obviously requires this sense here. "Being reconciled by the death of his Son," evidently corresponds to the phrase, " Being justified by his blood," The latter cannot mean that our feelings towards God are changed, but is admitted to express the idea that we are forgiven and restored to the divine favour. Such therefore must be the meaning of the former. Besides, it is the object of the apostle to illustrate the greatness and frecness of the love of God, from the un worthiness of its objects. While sinners, we are justified; while enemies, we are reconciled. To make the passage mean, that when enemies we laid aside our enmity, and became the friends of God. would be to make it contradict the very assertion and design of the apostle.
We shall be saved by his life. This rather unusual mode of expression was doubtless adopted for the sake of its correspond ence to the words, by It Is death, in the preceding clause, arid is a striking example of Paul's fondness for such antithetical con structions; see chap. iv. 25, Gal. iii. 3, 2 Cor. iii. 6. The mean ing is obvious: 'If while we were enemies, we were restored to the favour of God by the death of his Son, the fact that he lives will certainly secure our final salvation.' 1. His life is a pledge and security for the life of all his people; see John xiv. 19, "Because I live, ye shall live also;" Horn. viii. 11, 1 Cor. xv. 23. 2. He is able to save to the uttermost, "because he ever lives to make intercession for us," Ileb. vii. 25, &c. 3. At his resurrection, all power in heaven and earth was com mitted to his hands, Matt, xxviii. 18; and this power he exer cises for the salvation of his people; Eph. i. 22, ' He is head over all things, for the benefit of his Church;' Rev. i. 18, Heb. ii. 10, 1 Cor. xv. 25, &c.; see also the passages cited on the last clause of ver. 9. There is, therefore, most abundant ground for confidence for the final blessedness of believers, not only in the amazing love of God, by which, though sinners and enemies, they have been justified and reconciled by the death of his Son, but also in the consideration that this same Saviour that died for them still lives, and ever lives to sanctify, protect, and save them.
VERSE 11. yot only so, but we rejoice in G-od, tJirowjh our Lord Jesus Christ; o?j [JLOVOV os, d//// '/.at 7.u:jy^'on.i^of. lv ~<u Ozw.. There are three ways of explaining the participle xay^wvej/or; the one is to make it antithetical to xaTaHafSVTSZi ' 11()t only reconciled, but exulting in God, shall we be saved.' But this is not only an unnatural form of expression, but in VCT. 0, xaraMaj'Si'TSZ is not a qualification of ffco&qaojjisd-a. The moan ing is not, 'We shall be saved reconciled,' but, ' Since wo are reconciled we shall be saved.' Another interpretation supplies the verb from the preceding clause, 'Not <>nlv -hall we bo saved, but saved rejoicing in God.' The best sense is obtained by supplying i<rti.iy after the participle, as is assumed in the English version, and advocated by the majority of commenta tors:; We shall not only be ultimately saved, but wo now glory in God.' The benefits of redemption are not all future. It is not only deliverance from future wrath, but the jov and irlory of the present favour and love of (rod, that we owe to Jesus Christ. Thus the Vulgate, which renders '/.(Viywnzw. as;i verb, (wd et gloriamurj) as does Luther, •• \Vir riihmen uns audi Gottes. ' A\ o glory in (rod through »ur Lord >f>x>t* (1/>/-/*f. That is, it is to him that we are indebted for this jo\- in <i"d as our (I o-l and portion. T//r»>!>/// >•"//<, /n we Inn*,- now received atoneiiit'iit. This is the reason \vliy wo owe our present u'loi'Ving in (rod to Christ; it is because ho has secured our recon ciliation. The word rendered by our translators, atonement, is XdLTfJL/JMfT], the derivative of %o.Ta)3AG(no, proj'x-i'lv I'onderod in the context, as elsewhere, to reconcile. The proper rondonnir, therefore, of the noun would be reconciliation: 'Through whom we have received reconciliation, that is, have boon reconciled.' This verse therefore brings us back to ver. 2. There it is said, 'Having peace with God, we rejoice in hope of his glory;' and here, 'Being reconciled, we glory or rejoice in God.' Salvation is begun on earth.
1. Peace with God is the result of that system of religion which alone, by providing at once for the satisfaction of divine justice and the sanctification of the human heart, is suited to the character of God and the nature of man. All history shows that no system other than the gospel has ever produced this peace, vcr. 1.
2. All the peculiar blessings of redemption are inseparably connected with and grow out of each other. Those who are jus tified have peace with God, access to his presence, joy under the most adverse circumstances, assurance of God's love, and cer tainty of final salvation; see the whole section, and compare chap. viii. 30.
8. The Holy Ghost has intimate access to the human soul, controlling its exercises, exciting its emotions, and leading it into the knowledge of the truth, ver. 5.
4. The assurance of hope is founded on the consciousness of pious affections, and the Avitness of the Holy Spirit; and is a grace to which believers may and ought to attain, vs. 4, 5.
5. The perseverance of the saints is to be attributed not to the strength of their love to God, nor to anything else in them selves, but solely to the free and infinite love of God in Christ Jesus. The praise is therefore no more due to them, than com mendation to a helpless infant for its mother's sleepless care. "Can a woman forget her sucking child," &c., vs. 6 — 10.
7. The primary object of the death of Christ was to render God propitious, to satisfy his justice, and not to influence human conduct, or display the divine character, for the sake of the moral effect of that exhibition. Among its infinitely diversified results, all of which were designed, some of the most important, no doubt, are the sanctification of men, the display of the divine perfections, the prevention of sin, the happiness of the universe, &c. But the object of a sacrifice, as such, is to propitiate, vs. 9, 10, Heb. ii. 17.
8. All we have or hope for, we owe to Jesus Christ — peace, communion with God, joy, hope, eternal life; see the whole section and the whole Bible.
1. If we are the genuine children of God, we have peace of conscience, a sense of God's favour, and freedom of access to his throne. We endure afflictions with patience. Instead of making us distrustful of our heavenly Father, they afford us new proofs of his love, and strengthen our hope of his mercy. And we shall have also, more or less of the assurance of God's love, by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, vs. 1 — 5.
2. None of these fruits of reconciliation with God can be ob tained until the spirit of self-righteousness and self-dependence is removed. They are secured through faith, and by Christ Jesus, and not by our own works or merit, ver. 1, &c.
3. The hope of the hypocrite is like a spider's web; the hope of the believer is an anchor to his soul, sure and stead fast, ver. 5.
4. Assurance of the love of God never produces self-com placency or pride: but always humility, self-abasement, wonder, gratitude, and praise. The believer sees that the mysterious fountain of this love is in the divine mind; it is not in himself, who is ungodly and a sinner, vs. 8 — 10.
5. As the love of God in the gift of his Son, and the love of Christ in dying for us, are the peculiar characteristics of the gospel, no one can be a true Christian on whom these truths do not exert a governing influence, vs. 0, 10; compare 2 Cor. v. 14.
I. Scope of the passage. The design of this section is tho illustration of the doctrine of the justification of sinners on the ground of the righteousness of Christ, by a reference to tho condemnation of men for the sin of Adam. That such is its design is evident, 1. From the context. Paul has been engaged from the beginning of the epistle in inculcating one main idea. viz. that the ground of the sinner's acceptance with God is not in himself, but the merit of Christ. And in the preceding verses lie had said, "we are justified by his blood," ver. 9: by his death we are restored to the divine favour, ver. 10; and through him, i. e. by one man, we have received reconciliation, that is, are pardoned and justified, ver. 11. As this idea of men's beino- regarded and treated, not according to their own merit, but the merit of another, is contrary to the common mode of thinking among men, and especially contrary to their selfrighteous efforts to obtain the divine favour, the apostle illus trates and enforces it by an appeal to the great analogous fact in the history of the world. 2. From an inspection of vs. 12, 18, 19, which contain the whole point and substance of the comparison. Verses 13 — IT are virtually a parenthesis; and vs. 20, 21, contain two remarks, merely incidental to the dis cussion. Verses 12, 18, 19, must therefore contain the main idea of the passage. In the 12th, only one side of the com parison is stated; but in vs. 18, 19, it is resumed and carried out: 'As by the offence of one all are condemned, so by the righteousness of one all arc justified.' This, almost in the words of the apostle, is the simple meaning of vs. 18, 19, and makes the point of the comparison and scope of the passage perfectly clear. 3. The design of the passage must be that on which all its parts bear, the point towards which they all converge. The course of the argument, as will appear in the sequel, bears so uniformly and lucidly on the point just stated, that the attempt to make it bear on any other involves the whole passage in confusion. All that the apostle says tends to the illustration of his declaration, 'As' we are condemned on account of what Adam did, we are justified on account of what Christ did.' The illustration of this point, therefore, must be the design and scope of the whole.
It is frequently and confidently said that the design of the passage is to exalt our views of the blessings procured by Christ, by showing that they are greater than the evils occa sioned by the fall. But this is not only improbable, but impos sible. 1. Because the super abounding of the grace of the gospel is not expressly stated until ver. 20. That is, not until the whole discussion is ended; and it is introduced there merely incidentally, as involved in the apostle's answer to an objection Lo his argument, implied in the question, ' For what purpose did the law enter?' Is it possible that the main design of a passage should be disclosed only in the reply to an incidental objection? The pith and point of the discussion would be just what they are now, had no such objection been suggested or answered; yet, if this view of the subject is correct, had the objection not been presented, the main design of the passage would have been unexpressed and undiscoverable. 2. The idea of the superiority of the blessings procured by Christ to the evils.occasioned by Adam, although first expressly stated in ver. 20, is alluded to and implied in vs. 1G, 17. But these verses, it is admitted, belong to a parenthesis. It is conceded on all hands, that vs. lo, 14, are designed to confirm the statement of ver. 12, and that vs. L~> — IT, are subordinate to the last clause of ver. 14, and contain an illustration of its meaning. It is therefore not only admitted, but frequently and freely asserted, that vs. 12, 18, 19, contain the point and substance of the whole passage, vs. lo — IT being a parenthesis. Yet, in vs. 12, IS, 19, the superabounding of the grace of Christ is not even hinted. Can the main design of a passage be contained in a parenthesis, and not in the passage itself? The very nature of a parenthesis is, that it contains something which mav be left out of a passage, and leave the sense entire. ]>ut can the main design and scope of an author be left out, and his meaning be left complete? If not, it is impossible that an idea contained only in a parenthesis should be the main design of the passage. The idea is in itself true and important, but the mistake consists in exalting a corol lary into the scope and object of the whole discussion. The confusion and mistake in the exposition of a passage, conse quent on an entire misapprehension of its design, may be readily imagined.
II. Tin1 connection. The design of the passage being the illustration of the doctrine of justification by the righteousness of Christ, previously established, the connection is natural and obvious: ' WHEREFORE, as by one man we have been brought under condemnation, so by one man we are brought into a state of justification and life.' The wherefore (o:a rovro) is conse quently to be taken as illative, or marking an inference from the whole of the previous part of the epistle, and especially from the preceding verses. ' WJierefore we are justified by the righteousness of one man, even as we were brought into con demnation by the sin of one man.' It would seem that only a misapprehension of the design of the passage, or an unwilling ness to admit it, could have led to the numerous forced and unauthorized explanations of these words. Some render them moreover; others, in respect to this, &c.
III. The course of the argument. As the point to be illus trated is the justification of sinners on the ground of the right eousness of Christ, and the source of illustration is the fall of all men in Adam, the passage begins with a statement of this latter truth: 'As on account of one man, death has passed on all men; so on account of one,' £c., ver. 12. Before carrying out the comparison, however, the apostle stops to establish his position, that all men arc condemned on account of the sin of Adam. His proof is this: The infliction of a penalty implies the transgression of a law, since sin is not imputed where there is no law, ver. 13. All mankind are subject to death or penal evils; therefore all men are regarded as transgressors of a law. ver. 13. This law or covenant, which brings death on all men, is not the law of Moses, because multitudes died before that was given, ver. 14. Nor is it the law of nature written upon the heart, since multitudes die who have never violated even that law, ver. 14. Therefore, as neither of these laws is sufficiently extensive to embrace all the subjects of the penalty, we must conclude that men are subject to death on account of Adam; that is, it is for the offence of one that many die, vs. 13, 14. Adam is, therefore, a type of Christ. As to this important point, there is a striking analogy between the fall and redemp tion. We are condemned in Adam, and we are justified in Christ. But the cases are not completely parallel. In the first place, the former dispensation is much more mysterious than the hitter; for if by the offence of one many die, MUCH MORE by the righteousness of one shall many live, ver. 15. In the second place, the benefits of the one dispensation far exceed the evils of the other. For the condemnation was for one offence; the justification is from many. Christ saves us from much more than the guilt of Adam's sin, ver. 16. In the third place, Christ not only saves us from death, that is, not only frees us from the evils consequent on our own and Adam's sin, but introduces us into a state of positive and eternal blessedness, ver. 17. Or this verse may be considered as an amplification of the sentiment of ver. 15.
Having thus limited and illustrated the analogy between Adam and Christ, the apostle resumes and carries the compari son fully out: 'THEREFORE, as on account of one man all mer are condemned; so on account of one, all are justified,' ver. 18. 'For, as through the disobedience of one. many arc regarded and treated as sinners; so through the righteousness of one many are regarded and treated as righteous,' ver. 1!>. This then is the sense of the passage — men are condemned for the sin of one man, and justified for the righteousness of another. If men are thus justified by the obedience of Christ, for what purpose is the law'.' 'It entered that sin might abound,' i.e. that men might see how much it abounded; since by the law is the knowledge of sin. The law has its use, although men arc not justified by their own obedience to it, ver. 20. As the law dis closes, and even aggravates the dreadful triumphs of sin reign ing, in union with death, over the human family, the irospel displays the far more effectual and extensive triumphs of irraco through Jesus Christ our Lord, ver. 21.
According to this vi-cw of the passage it consists of five parts. The first, contained in ver. 12, presents the first member of tho comparison between Christ and Adam. The second contains the proof of the position assumed in ver. 12, and embraces vs. I-'}, 14, which are therefore subordinate to ver. 12. A<l<tm, thcrefnrc, w a ti/pe of Christ. The third, embracing vs. 1 ") — 17, is a commentary on this declaration, by which it is at once illustrated and limited. The fourth, in vs. IS, 1!), resumes and carries out the comparison commenced in ver. 12. Tho fifth forms the conclusion of the chapter, and contains a statement of the design and effect of the law, and of the results of the gospel, suggested by the preceding comparison, vs. 20, 21.
VERSE 12, WJicrcfore, as?>>/ one man sin entered into the
has already been pointed out, when speaking of the connection of this passage with the preceding: ' It follows, from what has been said jf the method of justification, that as by one man all became sinners, so by one are all constituted righteous.' This passage, therefore, is the summation of all that has gone before. As (ubffxef),) obviously indicates a comparison or parallel. There is however no corresponding clause beginning with so, to com plete the sentence. Examples of similar incomplete compari sons may be found in Matt. xxv. 14, with (JUG-SO, and in 1 Tim. i. 3, with xd&co^. It is however so obvious that the illustration begun in this verse is resumed, and fully stated in vs. 18, 19, that the vast majority of commentators agree that we must seek in those verses the clause which answers to this verse. The other explanations are unnecessary or unsatisfactory. 1. Some say that this verse is complete in itself, 'As by one man sin entered into the world, arid death by sin, so also death passed on all men, because all sinned.' The two insuperable objections to this explanation are, first, that it does violence to the words. It makes the apostle say what he does not say. It makes xat oi)T(o~, and so, to mean the same with O^JTCO xa.t, so also, which is impossible. And secondly, it is inconsistent with the whole design and argument of the passage. Instead of having a com parison between Christ and Adam, the comparison would be between Adam and other men: 'As he sinned and died, so they sinned and died.' 2. Others say, that we find in the last clause of ver. 1-4, in substance, although not in form, the apodosis of this clause: 'As by one man sin entered into the world, so Adam is the type of Christ.' But this is obviously inconsistent with the wording and connection of the clause in vcr. 18. 3. De Wcttc proposes, after Cocceius, Eisner, and a few others, to make the <JJG-ZD of this verse introduce not the first, but the second member of the comparison, the first being to be supplied in thought, or borrowed from what precedes: ' We receive right eousness and life through Christ, as by one man sin entered into the world;' or, 'Wherefore Christ stands in a relation to man kind analogous to that of Adam, as by one man,' &c. But it is plain that no reader could imagine that Paul intended so essen tial a member of the comparison to be conjectured or framed from the preceding discussion. He does not leave his readers to supply one half of 'a sentence; he himself completes it in x.r.X. These words clearly declare a causal relation between the one man, Adam, and the entrance of sin into the world. Benecke, who has revived the doctrine of the preexistence of souls, supposes that Adam was the leader of the spirits who in the preexistent state sinned, and were condemned to be born as men. Adam was therefore the cause of sin entering into the world, because he was the author of this ante-mundane apos tasy. The Pelagian theory is, that Adam was the mere occa sional cause of men becoming sinners. lie was the first sinner, and others followed his example. Or, according to another form of the same general idea, his sin was the occasion of (Jod's giving men up to sin. There was no real connection, cither j natural or judicial, between Adam's sin and the sint'uiiic^s of his posterity; but God determined that if the first man sinned, all other men should. This was a divine constitution, without there being /iny causal connection between the two events. Others again sav that. Adam was the eilicient cause of the sinfulness of his race. lie deteriorated either physically or morally the nature which he transmitted to his posterity, lie was therefore, in the same sense, the cause of the sinfulness of the race, that a father who impairs his constitution is the cause of the feebleness of his children. Others push this idea one step farther, and sav that Adam was the race. He was not only a man, but man. The whole race was in him. so that his act was the act of humanity. It was as mm-h and as truly ours as his. Others sav that the causal relation expressed bv th<-se words is that which exists between sin and punishment. It was the judicial cause or reason. All these views must come up at every step in the interpretation of this whole passage, for the explanation of each particular clause must be determined by the nature of the relation which is assumed to exist between Adam and his posterity. All that need be said here is, that the choice between these several explanations is not determined by the mere meaning of the words. All they assert is, that Adam was the cause of all men becoming sinners; but whether he was the occasional, the efficient, or, so to speak, the judicial cause, can only be determined by the nature of the case, the anahgy of Scripture, and the context. One thing is clear —
J Adam was the cause of sin in a sense analogous to that in which! Christ is the cause of righteousness.
Sin entered into the ivorld. It is hardly necessary to remark, (that xoff/jtoz does not here mean the universe. Sin existed jbefore the fall of Adam. It can only mean the world of manjkind. Sin entered the world; it invaded the race. There is a personification here of sin, as afterwards of death. Both are represented as hostile and evil powers, which obtained dominion over man. By the words eloyj}? s/c rov xoapoy, much more is meant than that sin began to be in the world. It means that the world, x6<r/jio$, mankind became sinners; because this clause is explained by saying, all sinned. The entrance of sin is made the ground of the universality of death, and therefore all were involved in the sin whose entrance is mentioned. The word a/tao-la means, 1. Actual sin, (fy^or^ua,) an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God. In the plural form especially, d-tmo-cia means actual sin. Hence the expressions, "this sin," "respect of persons is sin," &c. 2. Sinful principle or disposition; an immanent state of the mind, as in Rom. vii. 8, 9, 17, 23. 3. Both ideas are united, as when it is said, "the sting of death is sin," "an offering for sin." This comprehensive sense of the word is perhaps the most common. 4. It often means the guilt of sin as distinguished from sin itself, as when it is said, "he shall bear his sin," or, "the son shall not bear the sin of his father;" or when Christ is said "to bear our sin," and, "to take away sin by the sacri fice of himself," &c. In this passage, when it is said "sin entered into the world," the meaning may be, actual sin com menced its course, men began to sin. Or the meaiiino- is, depravity, corruption of nature invaded the world, men became corrupt. This is the interpretation given to the words by a large class of commentators, ancient and modern. So Calvin,
" Istud peccare est corruptos esse et vitiatos. Ilia enim naturalis pravitas, quam e matris utero afferimus, tametsi non it a, cito fructus suos edit, pcccatum est coram Deo, ejus ultionem meretur. Atque hoc est peccatum quod vocant originale." So
also Olshausen, who says it means habitus peccandi, that inward principle of which individual sins are the expression or manifest ation. Tholuck gives the same interpretation: a new, abiding corrupting element, he says, was introduced into the organism of the world. De Wette's explanation amounts to the same thing: " Siinde als herrschende Macht, (sin as a ruling power entered the world,) partly as a principle or disposition, which, according to vii. 8, slumbers in every man's breast, and reveals itself in the general conduct of men, and partly as a sinful condition, such as Paul had described in the opening chapters of this epistle." Riickert, Kollner, Bretschneider, and most moderns, unite with the older expositors in this interpretation.- Or 6L/jLa.(jria may here have the third signification mentioned! above, and "sin entered into the world," mean that men became| guilty, i. e. exposed to condemnation. The objection to these several interpretations is, that each by itself is too limited. All three, taken collectively, are correct. " Sin entered into the world," means "men became sinners," or, as the apostle expresses it in ver. 19, "they were constituted sinners." This includes guilt, depravity, and actual transgression. " The sin-
fulness of that estate into which man fell, (that is, the sin which Adarn brought upon the world,) consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin; together with all actual transgressions which pro ceed from it."
And death ly sin; that is, death entered the world, men became subject to death, oca TY^ 6.imoT:a^, % moans of sin. Sin was the cause of death; not the mere occasional cause, not the etlicient cause, but the ground or reason of its infliction. This passage, therefore, teaches that death is a penal evil, and not a consequence of the original constitution of man. Paul, in 1 Cor. xv. 40 — 50, appears to teach a contrary doctrine, for he there says that Adam's body, as formed from the earth, was earthy, and therefore corruptible. It was flesh and blood, | which cannot inherit the kingdom of God. It must be changed, so that this corruptible put on incorruption, before we can be fitted for immortality. These representations, however, are not inconsistent. It is clear, from Gen. ii. IT, iii. 10, that had Adam never sinned, he would never have died; but it does not follow that he would never have been changed. Paul says of believers, "we shall not all die, but we shall all be changed,'1
1 Cor. xv. 51. The penal character of death, therefore, which is so prominently presented in Scripture, or that death in the case of every moral creature is assumed to be evidence of sin, is per fectly consistent with what the apostle says of the aw pa (f»jyf/.6i> (the natural body,) and of its unsuitablcness for an immortal existence. It is plain that $<£varoc here includes the idea of natural death, as it does in the original threatening made to our first parents. In neither case, however, is this its whole meaning. This is admitted by a majority of the modern com mentators — not only by such writers as Tholuck, Olshausen, and Philippi, but by others of a different class, as DC Wette, iKollner, and Ruckert. That the death here spoken of includes all penal evil, death spiritual and eternal, as well as the disso lution of the body, is evident, 1. From the consideration that it is said to be the consequence of sin. It must, therefore, mean that death which the Scriptures elsewhere speak of as the (consequence and punishment of transgression. 2. Because this is the common and favourite term with the sacred writers, from first to last, for the penal consequences of sin. Gen. ii. 17, '"In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die," i. e. thou shalt become subject to the punishment due to sin; Ezek. xviii. 4, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die;" Rom. vi. 23, "The wages of sin is death;" chap. viii. 13, "If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die." Such passages are altogether too numerous to be quoted, or even referred to; see, as further examples, Roni. i. 32, vii. 5, James i. 15, Rev. xx. 14, &c. 3. From the constant opposition between the terms life and death, throughout the Scriptures; the. former standing for the ^ rewards of the righteous, the latter for the punishment of the wicked. Thus, in Gen. ii. 17. life was promised to our first parents as the reward of obedience; and death threatened as the punishment of disobedience. See Deut. xxx. 15, " I have set before thee life and death;" Jer. xxi. 8, Prov. xi. 11), Ps. xxxvi. 9, Matt. xxv. 46, John iii. 15, 2 Cor. ii. 16, &c. 4. From the opposition in this passage between the life which is by Christ, and the death which is by Adam, vs. 15, 17, 21, * Sin reigns unto death, grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life.' As, however, natural death is a part, and the most obvious part of the penal evils of sin, it no doubt was prominent in the apostle's mind, as appears from vs. 13, 14. Death, therefore, in this passage, means the evil, ami any evil which is inflicted in punishment of sin.
And so death passed, on all 'tncn. That is, as death is the necessary consequence of sin, death (or^///£j passed through, reached to all men, because all sinned. Death is universal, '^cau.se sin is universal. As Adam brought sin on all men, he brought death on all. That this is the true interpretation of this clause, or that y.al U'JTO>^ means demzufolge, consequently, he nee it liappens, is admitted by almost all modern commenta tors. As already remarked, the interpretation which assumes that tut o%T(oz i's to be rendered s<> «!*<>, is entirely inadmissible, 1. Because it is inconsistent with their meaning. As it is impos sible that and so should mean xn ^/x^, it is no less impossible that '/v.c u'j~u)~ should mean the same as o'j~o) '/.</.:. Compare vs. 18, 10, 1 Cor. xi. 12, xii. 12, xv. 22. This interpretation therefore does violence to the language. 2. It is no le-s incon sistent with the context. It is not Paul's design to teach the inseparable connection between sin and death, by >aying. -Ax Adam sinned, and therefore died, so also all die, because all sin.' His purpose is to teach the connection between Adam's sin and the death of all men: 'It was l>>/ one nian that men became sinners, and hence all men die.' As all were involved in his sin. all are involved in his death. •). The comparison carried through this while paragraph is not. between Adam and his posterity, but between Adam and Christ; and therefore xa.1 o'j7(o^ cannot possibly refer to the w<i~in at the beginning of the verse, as lias been already shown.
For that all hace sintK'd, sc' (v ~n.^~i^ 7jii.fJ.OToy. The words i(p <j) are rendered in the Vulgate, in yun, (in whom,) and are so understood by many of the older interpreters, not only in the [Romish Church, where the Vulgate is of authority, but also by! many Calvinists and Arminians. The objections to this inter pretation are, 1. It is not in accordance with the meaning of the words as used elsewhere. It is inconsistent with the proper force of Irrr (on, upon.) which is not equivalent with iv (in,) and no less inconsistent with the use of l^ w in combination, which, in 2 Cor. v. 4, means, as here, l>eenu>«'; in Philip, iii. 12, for wldcli cause; and in Philip, iv. 10, for ivhich. In other
/places where it occurs, it means on which, as a bed, Mark ii. 4. jLuke v. 25, or as a place, Acts. vii. 33. 2. The proper mean- '.ing of the words is, s~c TO'JTCU OZY, on account of tJtis, or that. 1 3. The structure of the sentence is opposed to this explanation. The antecedent av&ptoTtoo is too far separated from the relative w; almost the whole verse intervenes between them. 4. This interpretation is altogether unnecessary. The ordinary and natural force of the words expresses a perfectly good sense: 'All men die, because all sinned.' So Calvin, quandoquidem, Luther, die'iveil, and all the moderns, except a few of the Romanists. " Sin brought death, death has come on all, because sin came on all; l<f>* w must therefore necessarily be taken as a conjunction." PJdlippi.
As to the important words Travrsc yfjiaprou, rendered in our version all have sinned, we find the several interpretations already referred to as growing out of the different views of the nature of man and of the plan of salvation. First, on the assump tion that all sin consists in the voluntary transgression of known law, and on the further assumption that one man cannot, in any legitimate sense, be said to sin in another, a large class of com mentators, from Pelagius down, say these words can only mean that all have sinned in their own persons. Death has passed on all men, because all have actually sinned personally. This interpretation, although consistent with the signification of the verb faimprdvcO) is, by the almost unanimous judgment of the Church, utterly inadmissible. 1. It is inconsistent with the
! force of the tense. The aorist (rj/jtaprou) does not mean do sin, nor have sinned, nor are accustomed to sin. It is the simple historical tense, expressing momentary action in past time. All i sinned, i. e. sinned in Adam, sinned through or by one man. '" Omnes peccarunt, peccante Adamo." This is the literal, j simple force of the words. 2. It is also incompatible with the; design of this verse, to make yjuaorov refer to the personal sins of men. As so often remarked, the design is to show that Adam's sin, not our own, is the cause of death. 3. Verses 13, 14, are intended to prove what is asserted in ver. 12; but fjiey do not prove that all men personally sin, but the very reverse. 4. This interpretation destroys the analogy between Adam and Christ. It would make the apostle teach, that as all men die because they personally sin, so all men live because they are personally and inherently righteous. This is contrary not only to this whole passage, but to all Paul's teaching, and] to the whole gospel. 5. This interpretation is not only thus' inconsistent with the force of the tense in which the verb htmo-d^to is here used, with the design of the verse, with the apostle's argument, and the analogy between Christ and Adam, but it makes the apostle assert what is not true. It is not true ' that all die because all personally sin; death is more exten sive than personal transgression. This is a fact of experience, and is asserted by the apostle in what follows. This interpre-j tation, therefore, brings the sacred writer into conflict with thej truth. Candid expositors admit this. They say Paul's argu ment is founded on a false assumption, and proves nothing. Even Mever, one of the most dignilied and able of the modern German commentators, who often defends the sacred writers from the aspersions of irreverent expositors, is obliged to admit that in this case Paul for<>'ot himself, and teaches what is not
true. "The question," he says, "how Paul could write l^ w rrrLrsc '^/MpTou (since all sinned,} when children die, although they have not sinned, can only be answered by admitting that he did not think of this necessary exception. For, on the one hand, ~di/~=z must have the same extent of meaning as the pro- ' vious £:~ -<L-<j.^ d],')-ii<t)-(>')~, and on the other hand, the death of innocent children is proof positive that death is not in all men the consequence of individual >in; and hence, moreover, the whole doctrine that death is by divine constitution due to sin, is overthrown." An interpretation which makes the apostlo)
teach what is not true, needs no further refutation.
A second large class of commentators, as they make &fjia/)Tla9t in the former clause of the verse, to mean corruption, translate ky w ~dvzz- 7j<moi:ov, because all are corrupt. Adam having! denied his own nature by sin, that depraved nature was trans mitted to all his posterity, and therefore all die because they are thus inherently corrupt. We have already seen that this is Calvin's interpretation of these words: "Nempe, inquit, quoniarn omnes peccavirnus. Porro istud peccare est corruptoa ' esse et vitiates." In this view several of the modern commenta tors concur. According to this interpretation, the doctrine of the apostle is, that the inherent, hereditary corruption of nature: derived from Adam, is the ground or reason why all die. This jis what is called mediate imputation; or the doctrine that not,jthe sin of Adam, but inherent depravity derived from him, is lithe ground of the condemnation of his race. Although Calvin gives this interpretation of the passage on which this theory is founded, it is not to be inferred that he was an advocate of that theory. lie frequently and clearly discriminates between inhe rent depravity as a ground of condemnation and the sin of Adam as distinct, and says that we are exposed to death, not 'solely for the one, but also for the other. He lived in a day when the imputation of Adam's sin was made, by the theolo gians of the Romish Church, so prominent as to leave inherent depravity almost entirely out of view. The whole tendency of the Reformers, therefore, was to go to the opposite extreme. Every theology is a gradual growth. It cost the Church ages:lof controversy, before the doctrines of the Trinity and of the ' Person of Christ were wrought out and definitively settled. In like manner, the Theology of the Reformation was a growth. It was not the reproduction of the theology of any class of the schoolmen, nor of Augustin as a wdiole. It was the gathering up and systematizing of the teachings of the Scriptures, arid of the faith of the Church as founded on Scripture. That this should be done without any admixture of foreign elements, or as perfectly at the first attempt, as in the course of successive subsequent efforts, wrould have been a miracle. That it was done as perfectly as it was, is due, under God, to the fact that the Reformers were men endowed with minds of the very highest, order, and filled with the Spirit of Christ. Still it is only in obedience to an established law, that the theology of the Re formation appears in a purer form in the writers of the seven teenth, than in those of the sixteenth century. We need not then be surprised that inconsistencies appear in the writings of Luther and Calvin, which are not reproduced in those of Hutter or Turrettin.
In opposition to the interpretation which makes ^avrec 2j/mf>Tov mean all became corrupt, it is obvious to object, 1. That it is contrary to the simple meaning of the words. In no case has 8.[m()T<iva) the sense here assigned to it. 2. It supposes that the corresponding phrase, " sin entered Into the world," means "men became depraved," which, as we have seen, is not the true or adequate meaning. 8. It is inconsistent with the apostle's argument. Verses 13, 14, are designed to prove, andf do prove, that all men sinned in Adam: but do not prove, and cannot be made to prove, that all men are inherently corrupt. 4. It vitiates the whole analogy between Christ and Adam, and therefore saps the very foundation of the gospel. That doc trine on which the hope of God's people, either implicitly or explicitly, has ever been founded is, that the righteousness of Christ as something out of themselves, something distinguished from any act or subjective state of theirs, is the ground of their justification. They know that there is nothing in them on which thev dare for a moment rely, as the reason why (i«»d should accept and pardon them. It is therefore the essential part of the analogy between Christ and Adam, the very truth) which the apostle designs to set forth, that the sin of Adam, as;l distinguished from any act of ours, and from inherent corrup)r tion as derived from him, is the ground of our condemnation./ If this be denied, then the other great truth must be denied,] and our own subjective righteousness be made the ground off our justification: which is to subvert the gospel, o. This interpre:ation is inconsistent with the true meaning of vs. 1 "> — 1!), and with the often repeated and explicit declaration of the apostle, that the sin of Adam was the ground of our condemna tion. Although, therefore, it is true that our nature was cor- ''• rupted in Adam, and has been transmitted to us in a depraved; state, yet that hereditary corruption is not here represented as the ground of our condemnation, any more than the holiness/ which believers derive from Christ is the ground of their justi-j fication.
A third class of interpreters, especially those of the later, mystical school, understand the apostle to assert that all men sinned actually in Adam; that his act was not merely repre sentatively or putatively their act, but theirs in the strict and! proper sense of the term. He being not simply a man as one' among many, but t/n- man in whom humanity was concentrated as a generic life, his act as an act of that generic humanity wa.s the act of all the individuals in whom human nature subsequently developed itself. But, 1. In the first place, the pro* position, "all men sinned actually in Adam," has no meaning. To say that "in Adam all die," conveys a distinct idea; but to say that "all actually expired in Adam," conveys no idea at all. It has no sense. Even on the extrcrnest realistic assump tion that humanity as such is an entity, the act of Adam was not the act of all men. His act may have vitiated his generic nature, not only for his own person, but for his posterity; but this is a very different thing from his act being their act. His sin was an intelligent act of self-determination; but an act of rational self-determination is a personal act. Unless, there fore, all men as persons existed in Adam, it is impossible that they acted his act. To say that a man acted thousands of years before his personality began, does not rise even to the dignity of a contradiction; it has no meaning at all. It is a monstrous evil to make the Bible contradict the common sense and com mon consciousness of men. This is to make God contradict himself. 2, It is hardly necessary to add, that this interpreta tion is inconsistent with the whole drift and design of ihe pas sage, and with the often repeated assertion of the apostle, that for the offence of one man (not of all men.) the judgment came on all men to condemnation. If we all actually sinned in Adam, so that his act was strictly ours, then we all obeyed in Christ, and his righteousness and death were strictly our own acts; which again is not only unscriptural, but impossible.
The fourth class of interpreters, including commentators of every grade of orthodoxy, agree in saying that what is meant is, that all sinned in Adam as their head and representative. ( Such was the relation, natural and federal, between him and his posterity, that his act was putatively their act. That is, it was •the judicial ground or reason why death passed on all men. In other words, they were regarded and treated as sinners on account of his sin. In support of this interpretation, it may be urged, 1. That it is the simple meaning of the words. It has already been remarked, that the aorist y/y/orov does not mean are sinful, or have sinned, but simply sinned. All sinned when Adam sinned. They sinned in him. But the only possible way in which all men can be said to have sinned in Adam, is putatively. Hi? act, for some good and proper reason, was regarded as their act, just as the act of an agent is regarded asf the act of his principal, or the act of a representative as that' of his constituents. The act of the one legally binds the others., It is, in the eye of law and justice, their act. 2. This is sustained by the analogy of Scripture. Paul says, "in Adam all died."j This cannot possibly be understood to mean that all men ex pired when Adam died. It can only mean that when Adam incurred the sentence of death for himself, he incurred it also for us. In like manner we arc said to die in Christ; we "were crucified with him," we "rose with him," we are now " sitting
. with him in heavenly places." All this obviously moans, that as Christ was the head and representative of his people, all that he did in that character, they are regarded as having done. The rationalistic and the mystical interpretations of such pas sages arc only different modes of philosophizing away the meaning of Scripture — the one having what is called "common sense," and the other pantheism, as its basis. •>. The common. interpretation of this passage may, in another form, be shown to lie in accordance with scriptural usage. As remarked above, (\>ui.( >-'.<!. sometimes me;nis i/tri/f. and the phrase "sin entered into the world." may mean men became guilty; and fafiaoTdvio at times means in <'<>)itr<i<'t guilt; or, as Wahl in his Lexicon defines it. pcccciti culpam sustineo; equivalent to 6.tw.riTcoXb$ xaTeffTd&TjV. ]f(> refers to the use of x-n, in (Jen. xliv. -}'2, a passage which the LXX. renders jjuaftryxcbz ZfwtL'u; the Yultrate, pi'i'i-'iti reus ero; Luther, "will ich die Schuhl trairen;"..ml the English, /.«/,//// /</-///• tin' llaine. So in (Jen. xliii. H, Judah says to his father, "If I bring him not back, I will bear the blame (literally. / //'///,v/>/) all my days." In 1 Kings I i. 21, Bathsheba says to David, (according to the Hebrew.) "land my son Solomon shall be sinners," where the LXX. translates, Iff6/j.s&a i't'(l) '/-"— 2-ukoficov o 'j'.o~ no'j d.iia.oTcoXot^ the sense of the passage being, as correctlv expressed in our version, "land my son Solomon shall be counted offenders." To sin, therefore, or to be a sinner may, in scriptural language, j mean to be counted an nff'rinler, that is, be regarded and treated' as such. When, therefore, the apostle says that all men sinned i in Adam, it is in accordance not only with the nature of the 1 case, but with scriptural usage, to understand him to mean that '
I we are regarded and treated as sinners on his account. His sin was the reason why death came upon all men. Of course all that is meant by this is the universally recognized distinction between the signification and the sense of a word, //dvrsc yuafjTov signifies "all sinned," and it can signify nothir.g else; just as;ra>z-£c d~£$«vov, 2 Cor. v. 15, signifies "all died." But when you ask in what sense all died in Christ, or all sinned in 'Adam, the question is to be answered from the nature of the.case and the analogy of Scripture. We did not all literally and actually die in Christ, neither did we all actually sin in Adam. The death of Christ, however, was legally and effectively our death; and the sin of Adam was legally and effectively our sin. 4. It is almost universally conceded that this 12th verse con- ' tains the first member of a comparison which, in vs. 18, 19, is resumed and carried out. But in those verses it is distinctly taught that 'judgment came on all men on account of the /offence of one man.' This therefore is Paul's own interpreta tion of what lie meant when he said "all sinned." They sinned in Adam. His sin was regarded as theirs. 5. This interpreta tion is demanded by the connection of this verse with those immediately following. Verses 13, 14, introduced by for, aro confessedly designed to prove the assertion of ver. 12. If that assertion is, 'all men are regarded as sinners on account of Adam,' the meaning and pertinency of these verses are clear. But if ver. 12 asserts merely that all men are sinners, then vs. 13, 14 must be regarded as proving that men were sinners before the time of Moses — a point which no one denied, and no one doubted, and which is here entirely foreign to the apostle's object. Or if ravrsc ^««/>rov be made to mean all became cor rupt, the objection still remains. The passage does not prove what it is designed to prove. Verses 13, 14, therefore, present insuperable difficulties, if we assign any other meaning than that just given to ver. 12. 6. What ver. 12 is thus made to assert, arid vs. 13, 14 to prove, is in vs. 15 — 19, assumed as proved, and is employed in illustration of the great truth to be established: "Foil IF through the offence of one many be dead," ver. 15. But where is it said, or where proved, that the many die for the offence of one, if not in ver. 12 and vs. 13, 14? So h all the other verses. This idea, therefore, must be con- tainecl in vcr. 12, if any consistency is to bo maintained between the several parts of the apostle's argument. 7. This interpre tation is required by the whole scope of the passage and drift of the argument. The scope of the passage, as shown above,, is to illustrate the doctrine of justification on the ground of the' righteousness of Christ, by a reference to the condemnation of men for the sin of Adam. The analogy is destroyed, the very point of the comparison fails, if anything in us be assumed as; the ground of th° infliction of the penal evils of which the apostle is here speaking. That we have corrupt natures, aixd] are personally sinners, and therefore liable to other and further! inflictions, is indeed true, but nothing to the point. In like manner, it is true that we are sanctified by our union with Christ, and thus fitted for heaven; but these ideas are out of, place when speaking of justification. It is to illustrate that doctrine, or the idea of imputed righteousness, that this whole passage is devoted; ami, therefore, the idea of i/n}mted xin must be contained in the other part of the comparison, unless thet whole be a failure. Not onlv does the scone of the passage demand this view, but it is only thus that the argument of the/ apostle can be consistently carried through. We die on account of Adam's sin, ver. 12; this is true, because on no other ground can the universality of <lt'<it1i be accounted for, vs. lo, 14. But if we all die on Adam's account, how much more shall we live on account ot Christ! ver. 1">. Adam indeed brings upon us the evil inflicted for the first great violation of the covenant, but Christ saves us from all our numberless sins, ver. 1(5. As, therefore, for the offence of one we art1 condemned, so for the righteousness of one we are justified, ver. IS. As on account of the disobedience of one we are treated as sinners, so on account oi the obedience of one we are treated as righteous, ver. 11'. The inconsistency and confusion consequent upon attempting to carry either of the other interpretations through, must be obvious to any attentive reader of such attempts. 8. The doctrine which the verse thus explained teaches, is one of the plainest truths of the Scriptures and of experience. Is it not a revealed fact, above all contradiction, and sustained by the whole history of the world, that the sin of Adam altered the relation in which our race stood to God? Did not that sin of itself, and independently of anything in us, or done by us, bring evil on the world? In other words, did we not fall when Adam fell? The principle involved in this great transaction is explicitly and frequently asserted in the word of God, and runs through all the dispensations of his providence. lie solemnly declares himself to be a God who "visits the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and fourth generation." And so he does. The curse of Canaan fell on his posterity; the Egyptians perished for the sins of Pharaoh; the Moabites and Amalekites were destroyed for the transgressions of their fathers; the leprosy of Naaman was to cleave to Gchazi, and "to his seed for ever;" the blood of all the prophets was exacted, says our Lord, of the men of his generation. We must become not only infidels but atheists, if we <tcny that God thus deals with men, not merely as individuals, but as communities and on the principle of limputation. The apostacy of our race in Adam, therefore, and the imputation of his sin to his posterity, although the most signal of the illustrations of this principle, is only one among
'thousands of a like kind. 9. The doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin, or that on account of that sin all men are regarded and treated as sinners, was a common Jewish doctrine at the time of the apostle, as well as at a later period. lie employs the same mode of expression on the subject, which the Jews were accustomed to use. They could not have failed, therefore, to understand him as meaning to convey by these expressions the ideas usually connected with them. And such, therefore, if the apostle wished to be understood, must have been his intention; see the Targum on Ruth iv. 22, "On account of the counsel given to Eve (and her eating the fruit,) all the inhabitants of the world were constituted guilty of death." R. Moses of Trana, Beth Elohim, fol. 105, i. e. "With the same sin with which Adam sinned, sinned the whole world." Many such passages are to be found in the pages of Wetstein, Schccttgen, Eisenmenger, Tholuck, and other collectors and commentators. Meyer therefore admits that such was unde niably the doctrine of the Jews. On this point, Knapp, in his Tlieological Lectures (German edition, page 29,) says, '-'In the
Mosaic account of the fall, and in the Old Testament generally, the imputation of Adam's sin is not mentioned under the term imputation, although the doctrine is contained therein." 'But in the writings of the Talmudists and Rabbins, and earlier in the Chaldee Paraphrases of the Old Testament, we find the fol lowing position asserted in express words, ' that the descendants of Adam would have been punished with death (of the body) on account of his sin, although they themselves had committed no sin.' ' On the next page he remarks, "We find this doctrine most clearly in the New Testament, in Rom. v. 12, &c. The moderr. philosophers and theologians found here much which was inconsistent with their philosophical systems. Hence many explained and refined on the passage, until the idea of imputa tion was entirely excluded. They forgot, however, that Paul used the very words and expressions in common use on this subject at that time among the Jews, and that his immediate readers could not have understood him otherwise than as teach ing this doctrine." And he immediately goes on to show, that
unless we1 are determined to do violence to the words of the apostle, we mu-t admit that he represents all men as subject to death on account of the sin of Adam. This is a theologian who did not himself admit the doctrine.
It may be well to remark, that this interpretation, so far from being the offspring of theological prejudice, or fondness for any special theory, is so obviously the true and simple1 meaning of the passage required by the context, that it lifts the sanction of theologians of every grade and class of doctrine. Calvinists, Arminians, Lutherans, and Rationalists, agree in its support. Thus Storr, one of the most accurate of philological interpreters, explain- the last words of the verse in the manner stated above: '• l>y one man all are subject to death, because all are regarded and treated as sinner^, i. e. because all lie under the sentence of condemnation." The phrase, all have sinnc.d, ver. 12, he says is equivalent to all arc constituted sin ners, ver. ID; which latter expression he renders, "sie werden als Sunder angesehen und behandelt," that is, they were regarded and treated as sinners; see his Commentary on Hebrews, pp. GoO, 040, &c. (Flatt renders these words in pre cisely the same manner.) The Rationalist, Ammon, also con siders the apostle as teaching, that on account of the sin of
Adam all men arc subject to death; see Excursus C. to Koppe's Commentary on the Epistle to the 'Romans. Zacharite, in his Biblische Theologie, Vol. VI., p. 128, has an excellent exposi tion of this whole passage. The question of the imputation of Adam's sin, he says, is this, "whether God regarded the act of Adam as the act of all men, or, which is the same thing, whether he has subjected them all to punishment, on account of this single act." This, he maintains, the apostle asserts and proves. On this verse he remarks: " The question is not here
immediately about the propagation of a corrupted nature to all men, and of the personal sins committed by all men, but of universal guilt (Strafwurdig~keit, liability to punishment,) in the sight of God, which has come upon all men; and which Paul, in the sequel, does not rest on the personal sins of men, but only on the offence of one man, Adam, ver. 16." Neither the
corruption of nature, nor the actual sins of men, and their liability on account of them, is either questioned or denied, but the simple statement is, that, on account of the sin of Adam, all men are treated as sinners. Zacharioe, it must be remembered, was not a Calvinist, but one of the modern and moderate theo logians of Gottingcn. Whitby, the great advocate of Armini-
anism, says, on these words: "It is not true that death came upon all men, for that, or because all have sinned. [He con tends for the rendering, in whom.'] For the apostle directly here asserts the contrary, viz. that the death, and the condem nation to it, which befell all men, was for the sin of Adam only; for here it is expressly said, that by the sin of one man many died; that the sentence was from one, and by one man sinning to condemnation; and that by the sin of one, death reigned by one. Therefore, the apostle doth expressly teach us that this death, this condemnation to it, came not upon us for the sin of all, but only for the sin of one, i, e. of that one Adam, in whom all men die, 1 Cor. xv. 22." Dr. Wordsworth, Canon of
Westminster, in his recent edition of the New Testament, says, in his comment on this verse: " Observe the aorist tense,
yuuoToy, they all sinned; that is, at a particular time. And when was that? Doubtless, at the fall. All men sinned in Adam's sin. All fell in his fall." Philippi says: " We must supply in thought to r^aoro^^ iv 'Aod/j., or more precisely,
Adamo pcccantt. <Non agitur do peccato singulorum,' says Bengel, 'omnes pe:carunt, Adamo pcccante.' ' Such extracts
might be indefinitely multiplied from the most varied sources. However tlic.se commentators may differ in other points, they almost all agree in the general idea, which is the sum of the whole passage, that the sin of Adam, and not their own indi vidual actual transgressions, is the ground and reason of the subjection of all men to the penal evils here spoken of. With what plausibility can an interpretation, commanding the assent of men so various, be ascribed to theory or philosophy, or love of a particular the*.- logical system? May not its rejection with more probability be attributed as is done by Knapp. to theo logical prejudice? Certain it is, at least, that the objections against it are almost exclusively of a philosophical or theologi cal rather than of an exegetical or philological character.
YERSKS 13, 14. Fur until fJt<> luv, x//t WKX in t/ic. world, &c. These verses are connected \>y for with ver. 1~, as introducing the proof of the declaration that death had passed on all men, on account of one man. The proof is this: the infliction of penal evils implies the violation of law; the violation of the law of Moses will not account for the universality of death, because men died before that law was given. Neither is the violation of the hnv of nature sunVient to explain the fact that all men are subject to death, because even those die who have never broken that law. As. therefore, death supposes transgression, and neither the law of Moses nor the law of nature embraces all the victims of death, it follows that men are subject to penal evils on account of the sin of Adam. It is for the offence of one that many die.
In order to the proper understanding of the apostle's argu ment, it should be borne in mind that the term death stands for penal evil; not for this or that particular form of it, but for any and every evil judicially inflicted for the support of law. Paul's reasoning does not rest upon the mere fact that all men, even infants, are subject to natural death; for this might be accounted for by the violation of the law of Moses, or of the law of nature, or by their inherent native depravity. This covers the whole ground, and may account for the universality of natural death. But no one of these causes, nor all combined.
can account for the infliction of all the penal evils to which men are subjected. The great fact in the apostle's mind was, that God regards and treats all men, from the first moment of their existence, as out of fellowship with himself, as having forfeited his favour. Instead of entering into communion with them the moment they begin to exist (as he did with Adam,) and forming them by his Spirit in his own moral image, he regards them as out of his favour, and withholds the influences of the Spirit. Why is this? Why does God thus deal with the human race? The fact that he does thus deal with them is not denied by any except Pelagians. Why then is it? Here is a form of death which the violation of the law of Moses, the transgression of the law of nature, the existence of innate depravity, separately 01 combined, are insufficient to account for. Its infliction is ante cedent to them all; and yet it is of all evils the essence and the sum. Men begin to exist out of communion with God. This is the fact which no sophistry can get out of the Bible or the his tory of the world. Paul tells us why it is. It is because we fell in Adam; it is for the one offence of ONE MAX that all thus die. The covenant being formed with Adam, not only for him self, but also for his posterity, (in other words, Adam having been placed on trial, not for himself only, but also for his race,) his act was, in virtue of this relation, regarded as our act; God withdrew from us as he did from him; in consequence of this withdrawing, we begin to exist in moral darkness, destitute of a disposition to delight in God, and prone to delight in ourselves and the world. The sin of Adam, therefore, ruined us; it was the ground of the withdrawing of the divine favour from the whole race; and the intervention of the Son of God for our sal vation is an act of pure, sovereign, and wonderful grace.
Whatever obscurity, therefore, rests upon this passage, arises from taking the word death in the narrow sense in which it is commonly used among men. If taken in its scriptural sense, the whole argument is plain and conclusive. Let penal evil be sub stituted for the word death, and the argument will stand thus: 'All men are subject to penal evils on account of one man; this is the position to be proved, ver. 1:2. That such is the case is evident, because the infliction of a penalty supposes the viola tion of law. But such evil was inflicted before the giving of the
Mosaic law; it comes on men before the tiansgression of the law of nature, or even the existence of inherent depravity; it must therefore be for the offence of one man that judgment has come upon all men to condemnation.' The wide sense in which the sacred writers use the word death, accounts for the fact that the dissolution of the body (which is one form of the manifesta tion of the divine displeasure) is not only included in it, but is often the prominent idea.
Until the law. The law here mentioned is evidently the law of Moses. The word d^ot is properly rendered until, and not during the continuance of, a sense which the particle has in some passages. Until the law is immediately explained by the words from Adam to Muses. Sin w<ts in the world, i. e. men were sinners, and were so regarded and treated. Sin in nut imputed^ that is, it is not laid to one's account, and punished. See iv. S, —Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity;" and the familiar equivalent expressions, ''His iniquity shall be upon him," Numb. xv. ol; and, "lie shall bear his iniquity." The word (s//<>j'£?:v/.') here used, occurs nowhere else in any Greek writer, except in Philemon 18. The common word for impute is Aoy^ow/.!. Wlien there is no law, ftTj o>ro~ bopou, there not leimj l<uv. Sin is correlative of law. If there is no law, there can be no sin, as Paul had already taught, iv. 15. But if there is no sin without law, there can be no imputation of sin. As, however, sin was imputed, as sin was in the world, as men were sinners, and were so regarded and treated before the law of Moses, it follows that there must be some more comprehensive law in relation to which men were sinners, and in virtue of which they were so regarded and treated. The principle here advanced, and on which the apos tle's argument rests is. that the infliction of penal evil implies the violation of law. If men were sinners, and were treated as such before the law of Moses, it is certain that there is some other law, for the violation of which sin was imputed to them.
Instead of the interpretation just given, there are several other methods of explaining this verse, which should be noticed. Calvin, Luther, Be/a, and not a few of the modern commenta tors, say that the clause, sin is not imputed when tJtere is no law, means, men do not impute sin to themselves, i. e. do not regard themselves as sinners; do not feel their guilt, when there is no law. To a certain extent, the sentiment thus expressed is true. Paul, in a subsequent chapter, vii. 8, says, "Without the law, sin was dead;" that is, unknown and disregarded. It is true, that ignorance of the law renders the conscience torpid, and that by the clear revelation of the law it is brought to life; so that by the law is the knowledge of sin. If, however, by law, is meant a written law, or a full and authenticated revela tion of the will of Clod as a rule of duty, then it is only com paratively speaking true, that without law ( i. e. such a law,) sin is unknown or disregarded. There is another law, as Paul teaches, ii. 14, 1 ">, written on the heart, in virtue of which men feel themselves to be sinners, and know the righteous judgment of God, by which they are exposed to death; see i. 82. The objections, however, to this interpretation are decisive: 1. In the first place, it is inconsistent with the meaning of the words here used. "To impute sin" never means to lay sin to heart. The imputation is always made from without, or by another, not by the sinner himself. Tholuck, therefore, calls this interpreta
tion " a desperate shift." '• Xoch," ho says, " ist cine gewaltsamc Hiilfe zu crwiihnen die Blanche dicsem Ausspruclic des Apostcls /AI bringen gesucht baben. Sic baben dem eXXoyelv eine anclerc I>edeutung beigelegt. Sie baben es in der Bedeutung achtcn, Jt>h-k*i<.'Jit itclnneti genommen." 2. This interpre
tation proceeds on a wrong assumption of the thing to be proved. It assumes that the apostle designs to prove that all men are in themselves sinners, and for their personal guilt or defilement, are exposed to death. But this, as has been shown, leaves out of view the main idea of ver. 12. It is true, that all men are sinners, either in the sense of actual transgressors, or of having a depraved nature, and consequently are exposed to death; but the specific assertion of ver. 12 is, that it was BY OXE MAX death passed on all men. This, therefore, is the thing to be proved, and not that all men are personally sinners. Of course it is not denied that men are subject to death for their own sins; but that is nothing to the point which the apostle has in hand. His design is to show that there is a form of death, or penal evil, to which men are subject, anterior to any personal transgression or inherent corruption. 3. This interpretation assumes that the apostle is answering an objection which has no force, or refuting an opinion which no one entertained. It supposes that the Jews held that the Gentiles, before the law of Moses, were not sinners, whereas they regarded them as pre eminently such. It makes the apostle reason thus: 'All men are sinners. No,' objects the Jew, 'before Moses there was no law, and therefore no sin. Yes,' replies Paul, 'they were sin ners, although they were not aware of it.' P>ut as no human being believed that men were not sinners before the giving of the Mosaic law, as Paul himself had proved at length that the whole world was guilty before God, as he had expressly taught that the Gentiles, although they had no written law, were a law unto themselves, and that they stood self-condemned in the pre sence of God, it is unreasonable to suppose that the apostle would stop to refute an objection which has not ioree enough to be even a cavil. Paul had before laid down the principle (iv. l'~>.) that where there is no law, then,- is no transgression, which is only another form of saying, "sin is not imputed when there is no law.'' ]>ut as sin was imputed before the law of Moses, there must have been some other law, for the violation of which men were condemned. It is that the apostle designs to prove, and not that men were personally sinners; a fact, so far as the heathen were concerned, no Jew denied.
Another interpretation, which is adopted by a large number of commentators and theologians, supposes that the word death is to be understood of natural death alone. The reasoning of the apostle then is. 'As on account of the sin of one man. all men are condemned to die, so on account of the righteousness of one, all are made partakers of life,' ver. 12. The proof that all are subject to death on account of the sin of Adam, is given in vs. lo, 14: 'The infliction of the specific penalty of death, supposes the violation of a law to which that particular penalty was attached. This could not be the law of Moses, since those die who never violated that law; and, in short, all men die, although they have never broken any express command attended by the sanction of death. The liability of all men, therefore, to this specific form of evil, is to be traced not to their own indi vidual character or conduct, but to the sin of Adam.' Some of those who adopt this view of the passage, are consistent enough to carry it through, and make the life which is restored to all by Christ, as here spoken of, to be nothing more than the life of the body, i. e. the resurrection from the dead.* It will be observed, that this interpretation is, as to its main principle, identical with that presented above as correct. That is, it assumes that ver. 12 teaches that God regarded the act of Adam as the act of the whole race, or, in other words, that he sub jected all men to punishment on account of his transgression. And it makes vs. 18, 14, the proof that the subjection of all men to the penal evil here specially in view, to be, not the cor ruption of their nature, nor their own individual sins, but the sin of Adam. It is, however, founded on two assumptions; the one of which is erroneous, and the other gratuitous. In the first place, it assumes that the death here spoken of is mere natural death, which, as shown above, is contrary fyoth to the scriptural use of the term and to the immediate context. And, secondly, it assumes that the violation of the law of nature could not be justly followed by the death of the body, because that particular form of evil was not threatened as the sanction of that law. But this assumption is gratuitous, and would be as well authorized if made in reference to any othci punishment of such transgressions; since no definite specific evil, as the expression of the divine displeasure, was made known to those who had no external revelation. Yet, as Paul says, Horn. i. 3'2, the wicked heathen knew they were worthy of death, i. e. of the effects of the divine displeasure. The particular manner of the exhibition of that displeasure is a matter of indifference. It need hardly be remarked, that it is not involved either in this or the commonly received interpretation of this passage, that men, before the time of Moses, were not punishable for their own sins. While this is admitted and asserted by the apostle, he proves that they were punished for Adam's sin. No one feels that there is any inconsistency in asserting of the men of this generation, that although responsible to God for their per sonal transgressions, they are nevertheless born in a state of spiritual death, as a punishment of the sin of our great progenitor. The pains of child-birth do not cease to be part of the penalty of the original transgression, although each * See Whitby on this passage.
As the effort to make these verses prove that all men are actual sinner* fails of giving them any satisfactory sense, so the interpretation which assumes that they are designed to prove inherent, hereditary depravity, is no less untenable. If i(f w ~d^-^ rjfJLapTov, in vcr. 12, means, • Death has passed on all, because all are tainted ivitJi the hereditary corruption derived from Adam,' then the argument in vs. lo, 14, must stand thus: 'All men are by nature corrupt, for as sin is not imputed when there is no law, the death of all men cannot bo accounted for on the ground of their actual sins; therefore, since those die who have never sinned, as Adam did, against a positive law, they must be subject to death for their innate depravity.' But, so far as this argument assumes that men, before the time of Moses, were not justly subject to death for their actual sins, it is contrary to truth, and to the express teaching of the apostle. Yet this is the form in which it is generally presented. And if it only means that actual sin will not account for the absolute universality of death, since those die who have never committed any actual transgression, the argument is still defective. Innate depravity being universal, may account for the universality of natural death; but thi^d-o^ includes much more than natural death. What is to account for spiritual death'.'' Why are men born dead in sin? This is the very tiling to be accounted for. The fact is not its own solution. Paul's argument is, that they are so born on account of Adam's sin. It is another objection to this interpretation, that it destroys the analogy between Christ and Adam, and therefore is inconsistent with the great design of the whole passage. Paul's object is to show, that as we are justified by the righteousness of Christ as something out of ourselves, so we are condemned for the sin of Adam as some thing out of ourselves. To make him teach that we are con demned for our inherent depravity, to the exclusion of Adam's sin, necessitates his teaching that we are justified for our inhe rent goodness, which destroys all hope of heaven. There is no interpretation of this passage consistent with the meaning of the words, the nature of the argument, the design of the context, and tho analogy of Scripture, but the one given above, as commonly received. Kollner complains that Paul's argument is very confused. This he accounts for by assuming that the apostle had two theories in his mind. The one, that men die for their own sins; the other, that they die for the sin of Adam. His natural feelings led him to adopt the former, and he accord ingly says, in vcr. 12, "Death passed on all men, because all have sinned." But as the Jewish doctrine of his age, that men were condemned for the sin of Adam, afforded such an admira ble illustration of his doctrine of salvation through the merit of Christ, the apostle, says Kollner, could not help availing himself of it. Thus he has the two theories mixed up together, asserting sometimes the one, and sometimes the other. To those who reverence the Scriptures as the word of God, it is assuredly a strong argument in favour of the common interpretation of the passage, that it saves the sacred writer from such asper sions. It is better to admit the doctrine of imputation, than to make the apostle contradict himself.
VERSE 14. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses. That is, men were subject to death before the law of Moses was given, and consequently not on account of violating it. There must be some other ground, therefore, of their exposure to death. Neverthelesss, («//«,) the clause thus introduced stands in opposition to the preceding clause, G'JX £//o^s?r^. That is, 1 although sin is not imputed when there is no law, nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses.' Death reiyned* i. e. had undisputed, rightful sway. Men were justly subject to his power, and therefore were sinners.
Even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression. Instead of connecting l~l rw buououarc, as is usually done, with JJ.TJ ^ua^r/^auTe^, Chrysostorn connects them with i^aaihuff^. The sense would then be, 'death reigned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, even over those who had not sinned.' That is, death reigned over those who had not personally sinned, just as it reigned over Adam. This interpretation is adopted by Bengcl, who says, " Quod
homines ante legcm mortui sunt, id accidit eis super similitudine transarcssionis Adam, i. e. quia illorum eadem atque Adami transgredientis ratio fuit: mortui sunt, propter alium reatum, non propter eum, quern ipsi per se contraxere, id est, propter
reatum ab Adamo contractum." Although the sense thus
expressed is good, and suited to the context, the construction is evidently forced. It is much more natural to take the words as they stand. Death reigned over a class of persons who had not sinned as Adam had. The question is. What is the point of dissimilarity to which the apostle here refers? Some say it is, that Adam violated a positive command to which the sanction of death was expressly added, and that those referred to did not. The principal objections to this interpretation are, 1. That it destroys the distinction between the two classes of persons here alluded to. It makes Paul, in effect, reason thus: 'Death reigned over those who had not violated any positive law, even over those who had not violated any positive law.' It is obvi ous that the first clause of the verse describes a general class, and the second clause, which is distinguished from the first by the word crcn, only a portion of that class. All men who died from Adam to Moses, died without violating a positive com mand. The class, therefore, which is distinguished from them, must be contrasted with Adam on some other ground than that which is common to the whole. 2. This interpretation is incon sistent with the context, because it involves us in all the diffi culties specified above, attending the sense which it requires us to put upon vs. 1-], 14, and their connection with ver. 12. We mu<t suppose these verses designed to prove that all men are sinners, which, as just shown, is at variance with the con text, with the obvious meaning of ver. 12, with the scope of the passage, and the drift of the argument. Or we must adopt the interpretation of those who confine the word JcatJi to the dis solution of the body, and make the apostle argue to show that this particular evil is to be referred not to the personal sins of men, but to the sin of Adam. Or we are driven to some other unsatisfactory view of the passage. In short, these verses, when the clause in question is thus explained, present insuperable difficulties.
Others understand the difference between Adam and those intended to be described in this clause, to be, that Adam sinned personally and actually, the others did not. In favour of this view it mav be argued, 1. That the words evidently admit of this interpretation as naturally as of the other. Paul simply says the persons referred to did not sin as Adam did. Whether he means that they did not sin at all; that they were not sinners in the ordinary sense of that term; or that they had not sinned against the same kind of law, depends on the context, and is not determined by the mere form of expression. 2. If ver. 12 teaches that men are subject tQ death on account of the sin of Adam, if this is the doctrine of the whole passage, and if, as is admitted, vs. 13, 14 are designed to prove the assertion of ver. 12, then is it necessary that the apostle should show that death comes on those who have no personal or actual sins to answer for. This he does: ' Death reigns not only over those who have never broken any positive law, but even over those who have never sinned as Adam did; that is, who have never in their own persons violated any law, by which their exposure to death can be accounted for.' All the arguments, therefore, which go to establish the interpretation given above of ver. 12, or the correctness of the exhibition of the course of the apostle's argument, and the design of the whole passage, bear with all their force in support of the view here given of this clause. The opposite interpretation, as was attempted to be proved above, rests on a false exegesis of ver. 12, and a false view of the context. Almost all the objections to this interpre tation, being founded on misapprehension, are answered by the mere statement of the case. The simple doctrine and argument of the apostle is, that THERE ARE PENAL EVILS WHICH COME
UPON MEN ANTECEDENT TO ANY TRANSGRESSIONS OF THEIR OWN; AND AS THE INFLICTION OF THESE EVILS IMPLIES A VIOLATION OF LAW, IT FOLLOWS THAT THEY ARE REGARDED AND TREATED AS SINNERS, ON THE GROUND OF THE DISOBEDI ENCE OF ANOTHER. In other words, it Avas "by the offence of one man that judgment cane on all men to condemnation." It is of course not implied in thui statement or argument, that men are not now, or were not from Adam to Moses, punishable for their own sins, but simply that they are subject to penal evils, which cannot be accounted for on the ground of their personal transgressions, or their hereditary depravity. This statement, which contains the whole doctrine of imputation, is so obviously contained in the argument of the apostle, and stands out so conspicuously in the Bible, and is so fully established by the history of the world, that it is frequently and freely ad mitted by the great majority of commentators.
ly^~f//.. '/.<;.: ct'j^iy^)~ ~o~j~o EC^ u.i<7o^ eknu. — Qhrysostom. '' I Low a type'." he says: because fix he was the cau<e of tlie death introduced by eating (the forbidden fruit.) to all who are of him, although they did not eat of the tree; so a!><> Christ, to those who are of him, though they have not wrought right eousness, is become the procurer of the righteousness which, by means of the cross, he graciously gives to us all; on this account h'1 first and last m;ikes tin' one so prominent, continu ally bringing it forward." This is an interesting passage
coming from a source so different from the Augustinian school of theology. Every essential point of the common Calvinistic interpretation is fully stated. Adam is the cause of death coming on all, independently of any transgressions of their own; as Christ is the author of justification without our own works. And flic /n<t>u/. in the one clause, are all who are of Adam; and 1//c. tti<i>tt</. in the other, those who are of Christ.
The word rendered lit/if/-/'. rv,To~, from T'J~T(D (to xfri/cc,') means a i>r!nt. or impression made by a blow; as in John xx. 2~>, rov rvrrov 7(o's -f'j/.o)^, tin- }irint <>f tin')i<(ifx. In a wider sense it means a fitjin^' or fnnn. literally, as when spoken of an image, Acts vii. 4;>, or figuratively when used of a doctrine, Rom. vi. IT. More commonly in the Scriptures it means either a model after which anything is to be made, lleb. viii. ~>, or an example to lie followed, Philip, iii. 17, "as ye have us for an example," '/j/.tt(o~ ^'/~-~z rvrrov '/]tm~. Besides these, so to speak secular meanings, it has the religious sense of ti/or, a designed prefiguration, or counterpart, either historically, as the passover was a type or significant commemoration of the passing over, by the destroying angel, of the habitations of the Hebrews in Egypt; or prophetically, as the sacrifices of the Old Testa ment were types of the great sacrifice of the Lamb of God. A typo, thcicforo, in the religious sense of the term, is not a mere historical parallel or incidental resemblance between persons or events, but a designed resemblance — the one being intended to prefigure or to commemorate the other. It is in this sense that Adam was the type of Christ. The resemblance between them was not casual. It was predetermined, and entered into the whole plan of God. As Adam was the head and representative of his race, whose destiny was suspended on his conduct, so Christ is the head and representative of his people. As the sin of the one was the ground of our condemnation, so the righteousness of the other is the ground of our justification. This relation between Adam and the Messiah was recognized by the Jews, who called their expected deliverer, linqzan t-sri. the last Adam, as Paul also calls him in 1 Cor. xv. 4-5, b Zoyv-o^ Aod/jL. Adam was the type, rorj /^//ovroc, either of the Adam who was to come, or simply of the one to come. The Old Testa ment system was preparatory and prophetic. The people under its influence were looking forward to the accomplishment of the promises made to their father. The Messianic period on which their hopes were fixed was called "the world or age to come," and the Messiah himself was b Ipyppsvo^ b psttcov, the one coming* As Paul commenced this section with the design of insti tuting this comparison between Christ and Adam, and inter rupted himself to prove, in vs. 13, 14, that Adam was really the representative of his race, or that all men are subject to death for his offence; and having, at the close of ver. 14, announced the fact of this resemblance by calling Adam a type of Christ, he again stops to limit and explain this declaration by pointing out the real nature of the analogy. This he does principally by showing, in vs. 15 — IT, the particulars in which the com-
* Fliilippi, Professor in the University at Rostock, one of the most recent as he is one of the best of the German commentators, says, in a note to this pas
sage, "The Protestant Church had abundant scriptural authority as well as theolo<ncal reasons for their doctrine of the imputatio peccati Adamitici ad culpam et pcenam, and its consequent pcccatum originate, consisting in the habitus peccandi, and hence involving guilt. It is one of the merits of Julius Mailer's work (die Christliche Lelire von der Siinde,) that he rejects the modern doctrine, that innate depravity or the corruption of nature in man, consequent on the fall of Adam, is simply an evil, so that only voluntary assent thereto is pro perly of the nature of sin."
parison docs not hold. In verses 18, 19, which Kre a resump tion of the sentiment of ver. 12, he states the grand point of their agreement.
VERSE 15. Bat not as the offence, so also is the free gift. The cases, although parallel, are not precisely alike. In the first place, it is far more consistent with our views of the character of God, that many should be benefitted by the merit of one man, than that they should suffer for the sin of one. If the latter has happened, MUCH MORE may we expect the former to occur. The attentive reader of this passage will perceive con stantly increasing evidence that the design of the apostle is not to show that the blessings procured by Christ are greater than the evils caused by Adam; but to illustrate and confirm the prominent doctrine of the epistle, that we are justified on tho ground of the righteousness of Christ. This is obvious from the sentiment of this verse, k If we die for the sin of Adam, much more may we live through the righteousness of Christ.' But not as the off>'n<'<\ occ. \7//" o'j% w^ TO xatod~7ci)/jia, o7jTu) xa> TO ftafaffua, a singularly concise expression, which however the context renders sufficiently plain. Ilo.<xL~T«)ti.a. from ~(J.<XJ~''.~TO) (to fall,) means JalJ, and ydotafi.^ an act of <jrae<\ or gracious gtft, which is explained bv ^ dcon^d in this verse, TO ocoor^ia in ver. 1<J, and '/t 0(ooia TY^ or/j/.coa'r^-/^ (the (//ft of righteousness,) in ver. 17. The meaning therefore is, that 'the fall is not like the gracious restoration.' The reason why the one is not like the other, is stated in what follows, so that 'fo.n has its appropri ate force: ' They are not alike, fur if by the oil'cnce of one many be dead.' The dative ~aoa.~Tcofjt.aT! expresses the ground or reason. The offence of one was the ground or reason of the many dying; and as deatli is a penalty, it must be the judicial ground of their death, which is the very thing asserted in ver. 12, and proved in vs. 1:>7 14. ^fanij be dead; the words are o[ ~U)M>', o,~ii)(j.^<tv^ the many died, the aorist a~ldavov cannot mean he dead. By tlte manij are intended nil mankind, ol ~o/M)l and ~a>r£C being interchanged throughout the con text. They arc,1 called the many, because they are many, and for the sake of the antithesis to tlte one. The many died for the offence of one; the sentence of deatli passed on all for his offence. The same idea is presented in 1 Cor. xv. 22.
It is here, therefore, expressly asserted that the sin of Adam was the cause of all his posterity being subjected to death, that is, to penal evil. But it may still be asked whether it was the occasional or the immediate cause. That is, whether the apostle means to say that the sin of Adam was the occasion of all men being placed in such circumstances that they all sin, and thus incur death; or that by being the cause of the cor ruption of their nature, it is thus indirectly the cause of their condemnation; or whether he is to be understood as saying that his sin is the direct judicial ground or reason for the infliction of penal evil. It has been frequently said that this is all theory, philosophy, system, &c. But any one may see that it is a mere excgetical question — what is the meaning of a given phrase? Does the dative here express the occasional cause, or the ground or reason of the result attributed to the offence of one man? It is a mere question of fact; the fact is all, and there is neither theory nor philosophy involved in the matter. If Paul says that the offence of one is the ground and reason of the many being subject to death, he says all that the advo cates of the doctrine of imputation say. That this is the strict exegetical meaning of the passage, appears from the following reasons: 1. That such may be the force and meaning of the words as they here stand, no one can pretend to doubt. That is, no one can deny that the dative case can express the ground or reason as well as the occasion of a thing. 2. This interpre tation is not only possible, and in strict accordance with the meaning of the words, but it is demanded, in this connection, by the plainest rules of exposition; because the sentiment expressed by these words is confessedly the same as that taught in those which follow; and they, as will appear in the sequel, will not bear the opposite interpretation. 3. It is demanded by the whole design and drift of the passage. The very point of the comparison is, that as the righteousness of Christ, and not our own works, is the ground of our justification, so the sin of Adam, antecedently to any sins of our own, is the ground of the infliction of certain penal evils. If the latter be denied, the very point of the analogy between Christ and Adam i-s destroyed. 4. This interpretation is so plainly the correct and natural one, that it is, as shown above, freely
Much more the grace of God, and tl/e gift by grace, which is by one man, hath abounded unto many. Had Paul been studi ous of uniformity in the structure of his sentences, this clause would have been differently worded: ' If by the offence of one many die, much more by the free gift of one shall many live.' The meaning is the same. The force of the passage lies in the words mu'-li more. The idea is not that the grace is more, abundant and efficacious than the offence and its consequences: this idea is expressed in ver. iiO; but, 'if the one dispensation has occurred, much more may the other; if we die for one, much more may we live by another.' The -O/MU ILU./MW does not express a higher degree of efficacy, but of evidence or cer tainty: ' If the one tiling lias happened, mwh more certainly may the other be relied upon.' The first clause of the verse may be thus interpreted, 'the grace of God, even the inft by graee;' so that the latter phrase is explanatory of the former. If they are to be distinguished, the first refers to the cause, viz. the grace of God; and the second to the result, viz. the gift by grace, i. e. the gracious or free gift, viz. the gift of righteous ness, as explained in ver. 17. Wlti<:h /.v by one man, J>'SU9 Christ; that is. which comes to us through Christ. This free gift i.i of course the opposite of what comes upon us for the sake of Adam. Guilt and condemnation come from him; riirhteousnos and consequent acceptance from Jesus Christ. AYhat is here called the free gift is. in ver. 17, called the gift of right eousness. JIath abounded unf<> ni'im/^ z:~ TO\J' ro//o^c, unto ilie many; that is. has been freely and abundantly bestowed on the many. Whether the many, in this clause, is co-extensive numerically with the many in the other, will be considered under ver. 18.
VERSE It.). And not </* it?/w* by one tJmf.sv/W'7,* xn /* tlte gift, &c. This clause, as it stands in the original, and not as by one that sinned, the gift, is obviously elliptical. Some word corresponding to gift is to be supplied in the first member;
either offence, which is opposed to i\\Q free gift in the preceding verse: or judgment, which occurs in the next clause. The sense then is, ' The gift (of justification, see ver. IT) was not like the sentence which came by one that sinned.' So Professor Stuart, who very appositely renders and explains the whole verse thus: "Yea, the [sentence] by one who sinned, is not like the free gift; for the sentence by reason of one [offence] was unto condemnation [was a condemning sentence]; but the free gift [pardon] is of many offences, unto justification, i. e. is a sentence of acquittal from condemnation." The point of this verse is, that the sentence of condemnation which passed on all men* for the sake of Adam, was for one offence, whereas we are justified by Christ from many offences. Christ does much more than remove the guilt and evils consequent on the sin of Adam. This is the second particular in which the work of Christ differs from that of Adam.
For the judgment was by one to condemnation. JR/j one, lg ivnc, either by one man, or by one offence. As &fj.ator^(Tai>TO<; is the true reading in the preceding clause, most modern com mentators say that s^o^ must be masculine, by one man. The antithesis, however, between ivoc and ~o/Moy is so obvious, that it is more natural to supply ^atoa~T(otaa~o^, from the next clause, as in Hebrew parallelisms, an ellipsis in the first member must at times be supplied from the second. An example of this kind Gesenius finds in Isa. xlviii. 11. Here the very object of the apostle is to contrast the one offence for which we suffer through Adnm. with the many offences from the guilt of which Christ delivers us. Luther, Beza, Olshausen, Rothe, and others, take li/oc as neuter, one offence. "A judgment to condemnation" is a Hebraic or Hellenistic idiom, for a condemnatory judgment, or sentence of condemnation, f The word */>///«, rendered judg ment, properly means the decision or sentence of a judge, and
* The words all men are expressed in ver. 18, where this clause is repeated: "By the offence of one, judgment came on all men to condemnation."