praise_yeshua
Well-known member
You left out part of my response. Why is that?
An Article on free will
- Thread starter TomL
- Start date
You left out part of my response. Why is that?
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I never said you where setting anything free. The manifestation of the sons of God will culminate in freedom.
I'm a rather good shot myself. Never shot anything that didn't suffer death.
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Not that you care but the appeal is to the pain of birth... "travail". Pay attention to what you read. Every animal you consume is the offspring of some mother and father that did nothing worthy of death themselves when they got caught up in the travail of humanity.
Do you need more?
I don't think a rebuttal to most of this will convince you of my view. However, your view presents more than a few interpretive problems for me. I will perhaps ask a couple of them to see what your answer might be.I'll leave you with this Jim.
Death has spread to every single person. The precise meaning of the final clause of v 12 is debated. Thomas Schreiner provides the following interpretation:
When Paul says “all sinned,” he indeed means that every human being has personally sinned. Nevertheless, we should not read a Pelagian interpretation from this, for the ἐϕʼ ᾧ phrase explains why all human beings have sinned. As a result of Adam’s sin death entered the world and engulfed all people; all people enter the world alienated from God and spiritually dead by virtue of Adam’s sin.
By virtue of entering the world in the state of death (i.e., separated from God), all human beings sin. This understanding of the text confirms the view of scholars who insist that original death is more prominent than “original sin” in this text.
The personal sin of human beings is explained by the sway death holds over us. Such an interpretation is also supported by the notion that death is a power that reigns and rules over us now (Rom. 5:14, 17) and that culminates in physical death. Moreover, Paul says specifically in 5:15 that human beings “died” because of the trespass of Adam.
Our alienation and separation from God are due to Adam’s sin, and thus we sin as a result of being born into the world separated from God’s life. The notion that we are “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1; cf. Eph. 2:5; Col. 2:13) should be interpreted similarly. This phrase does not mean that first we commit trespasses and sins and as a consequence die. Rather, the idea is that we are born into the world (“children of wrath by nature,” Eph. 2:3) separated from God, and our sins are a result of the spiritual state of death. The entire context of Eph. 2:1–10 supports this interpretation, for God remedies the situation by granting life to those of us who are dead and as a result of his life we do good works. The parallel is remarkable: the consequence of death is trespasses and sins, whereas the result of life is good works. Ephesians 4:17–18 confirms my interpretation. The reason Gentiles live in a way that displeases God is because they are separated from his life. In other words, the result of spiritual death is a lifestyle of sin.
There is no such thing as "easy believism" and we have Pelagian's viewpoints on this forum.
Commentary on Romans 5:12-21
Notes (NET Translation) 12 So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned — The words “so then”…biblicalscholarship.wordpress.com
I’m Fallen and I Can’t Get Up (An Exegetical on Romans 5:12-19) | Bible.org
12 On account of this, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death entered by means of sin, and so death spread into all men, because all sinned. 13 For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 But death reigned from Adam until Moses...bible.org
Romans 5:12-21 - Philip Schaff's Popular Commentary (4 vols)
What does Romans 5:12-21 mean? Commentary, explanation and study verse by verse by Philip Schaff's Popular Commentary on the NT (4 vols). ONLINE and FREEwww.bibliaplus.org
Romans 5:12-21 an Exegetical Investigation
In Romans 5:12-21 Paul uses a comparison between Adam and Christ to explain three facets of the gospel: First, the effect and reach of sin; secondly, the effect and reach of the righteousness of Christ; thirdly, the effect and reach of grace. This project is an exegetical investigation into the...scholar.csl.edu
This more for the readers sake and the imperative to search the Scriptures diligently, thoughtfully and critically with the help of the Holy Spirit.
God bless.
J.
First, what death do you see in your view of Romans 5:21-21?
Second, if sin of Adam is the reason fr the death of all mankind, and if the free gift is the justification for the few who believe, how can you consider that the free gift is "much more" than the one man's sin? How can you count the imputation of righteousness to a few to be much more than the imputation of death to a the whole of mankind? It seems to me that in your view the sin of Adam which affects the whole of humanity is considerably more powerful than the gift of Jesus which affects only a few in comparison.
Certainly not from you.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Johann
Well-known member
Give me your point of view @Jim
Here's my answer-
What is the “death” in Romans 5:12–21?
The term θάνατος (“death”) occurs multiple times in Romans 5 (vv. 12, 14, 15, 17, 21), and its meaning must be derived from context. It includes, but is not restricted to, physical death, and is best understood as comprehensive—spiritual, physical, and judicial.
a. Physical death
Paul clearly sees physical death as the universal outcome of Adam’s sin: “so death spread to all men” (v. 12).
Rom 5:12 Because of Διὰ this, τοῦτο just as ὥσπερ - ἡ sin ἁμαρτία entered εἰσῆλθεν, into εἰς the τὸν world κόσμον through δι’ one ἑνὸς man, ἀνθρώπου and καὶ - ὁ death θάνατος, through διὰ - τῆς sin, ἁμαρτίας so οὕτως also καὶ - ὁ death θάνατος passed διῆλθεν, to εἰς all πάντας men, ἀνθρώπους because ἐφ’ . . . ᾧ all πάντες sinned. ἥμαρτον·
Rom 5:12 because-of01 N1 This02 even-as03 through04 One05 Human06 The07 sin08 Into09 The10 world11 entered12 And13 through14 The15 sin16 The17 Death18 And19 Thus20 Into21 All22 Humans23 The24 Death25 passed-through26 On27 Which28 All29 sinned30
Scripture4All
This is confirmed in v.14: “death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam.”
That means even infants and others who did not commit conscious transgression still died—indicating death came not by personal guilt alone, but by representation.
Rom 5:14 But01 Reigns02 The03 Death04 From05 Adam06 Unto07 Moses08 And09 (on)over10 the-ones11 No12 sinning13 On14 The15 Likeness16 Of-the17 transgression18 [of]-Adam19 Who20 Is21 Type22 Of-the23 one-being-about24
b. Spiritual and Judicial death
Paul’s broader theology demands more than physical death. In Romans 6:23, “the wages of sin is death” refers to eternal separation from God, not merely physical demise.
Ephesians 2:1: “You were dead in your trespasses and sins”—this death is spiritual alienation.
Therefore, in Romans 5, θάνατος is judicial death under God’s wrath (Rom 1:18; 2:5), and it is this death that Christ's justification reverses (Rom 5:18, ζωῆς δικαίωσιν—“justification of life”).
Rom 1:18 is-being-revealed01 For02 Indignation03 Of-god04 From05 Heaven06 On07 all08 irreverence09 And10 injustice11 Of-humans12 the-ones13 The14 Truth15 In16 injustice17 retaining18
Rom 1:19 because-that01 The02 [which-is]-known03 Of-the04 God05 Apparent06 Is07 among08 Them09 The10 For11 God12 To-them13 manifests[-it]14
Rom 1:18 For γὰρ [the] wrath ὀργὴ of God Θεοῦ is revealed Ἀποκαλύπτεται from ἀπ’ heaven οὐρανοῦ upon ἐπὶ all πᾶσαν ungodliness ἀσέβειαν and καὶ unrighteousness ἀδικίαν of men, ἀνθρώπων - τῶν suppressing κατεχόντων, the τὴν truth ἀλήθειαν by ἐν unrighteousness, ἀδικίᾳ
Rom 1:19 because διότι the τὸ known γνωστὸν - τοῦ of God Θεοῦ is ἐστιν manifest φανερόν among ἐν them, αὐτοῖς· for γὰρ - ὁ God θεὸς has revealed [it] ἐφανέρωσεν. to them. αὐτοῖς
Scholarly Support:
A.T. Robertson, Grammar, p. 531: “Death here includes more than the mere physical dissolution. It is the penal result of sin.”
Douglas Moo, NICNT Romans, pp. 321–322: “Death here must be interpreted as comprehensive: it includes physical death, spiritual alienation, and eternal judgment.”
B.F. Westcott (St. Paul and Justification, p. 37) sees this death as “the sum total of the curse upon man’s sin—spiritual separation, mortality, and condemnation.”
2. How is Christ’s gift “much more” if it applies to fewer?
This is a theological and logical challenge, but Paul himself anticipates and addresses it through the repeated phrase πολλῷ μᾶλλον (“much more”) in vv. 15, 17, and 20.
a. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Comparison
The contrast Paul draws is not quantitative (number of people) but qualitative (efficacy of gift vs. damage of sin).
Adam’s one sin brings condemnation (one sin = many deaths), but Christ's one act of obedience brings justification for many sins. This is made explicit in v.16:
“For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.”
That is, Christ's gift overcomes a far greater problem: not just one sin (as in Adam), but “many trespasses”. Christ's grace triumphs not merely over one act of rebellion, but over the accumulated guilt of countless sins.
b. “Much More” in Eschatological Finality and Security
In v.17 Paul says: “those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.”
Here is the πολλῷ μᾶλλον again—“much more shall they reign.”
The language of “reigning in life” signals eschatological resurrection and glorification—something far greater than the physical and spiritual death inherited from Adam.
Adam brings ruin; Christ brings eternal kingship in life (cf. Rev 5:10).
c. Why not universal application of Christ's gift?
Paul never suggests that scope is the main point of the comparison; instead, he is concerned with representation and headship.
Adam is the head of all in Adam (i.e., humanity by nature); Christ is the head of all in Christ (i.e., humanity by faith). Cf. 1 Cor 15:22:
“As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”
To press symmetry beyond headship confuses the covenantal framework. Both are corporate heads, but their corporations differ: natural vs. spiritual (cf. 1 Cor 15:45–49).
Christ’s act is greater in scope of remedy (it covers many sins), depth of transformation (it brings life, not just survival), and certainty of effect (eternal reign).
Moreover, while all die in Adam involuntarily, all who are justified in Christ receive the gift willingly (οἱ λαμβάνοντες, Rom 5:17)—this is not a defect but a demonstration of grace’s power to transform, not merely override.
The “death” in Romans 5 is judicial, spiritual, and physical—all springing from the covenantal guilt imputed through Adam as representative.
Christ’s gift is “much more” not because of number but because it triumphs over greater evil (many sins), brings eternal righteousness and life, and culminates in glory and dominion.
To argue that the imputation of sin is more powerful than Christ’s gift misses Paul’s point: Christ’s work does not merely match Adam’s but superabounds over it (ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν ἡ χάρις, Rom 5:20).
Cross References and Notes:
+ Romans 6:23 – death as wages of sin (judicial death)
+ Ephesians 2:1 – spiritual death as separation from God
+ 1 Corinthians 15:21–22 – two corporate heads: Adam and Christ
+ 2 Corinthians 5:21 – imputation of sin to Christ, righteousness to believer
+ Romans 8:1–4 – reversal of condemnation through union with Christ
Now give me your point of view and see if we can come to an agreement Jim.
J.
Physical death is not the direct result of Adam's sin. He was ejected from the Garden because of his sin. And he eventually died physically because he no longer had access to the Garden and the fruit of the tree of life that was in the Garden (Gen 3:22). Physical death is intrinsic to the creation. That is why the tree of life was in the Garden to begin with; it was a preventative measure against dying physically. So then nothing of Romans 5 concerns physical death of human beings. Sin is not the reason for physical death; sin is the reason for spiritual death.
Mat 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
Mat 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Correct, but it answers a lot of questions, see #7864
That's what preexistence teaches, Origen made it popular. The RCC in the 6th century condemned it and maybe they were right for a change.
And yet we sin, all of us.
In Origen preexistence we already are sinners before birth because we joined the satanic rebellion.
But of course, it's a blast from the past (second through six century) buried in the 6th century by the RCC, books were burned. It's a mind blowing theory.
Happens when people hear something new, the first reaction is to disagree, pretty normal. What comes after that is more important, does it start to itch or not.
True that.
Jesus -
One Spirit, the Holy Spirit
One soul, His personality - John 14:9
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
I might be wrong
The way I look at it is Adam was made innocent. He was not to know good and evil, but he ate of the tree and obtained that knowledge. It was knowledge he was not made to live with. Neither he nor we.
Remember goodbye
@MTMattie @Jim @civic @GodsGrace @synergy @brightfame52 @Kermos @TomL @dwight92070 @Johann @ProDeo
Romans 5:16 ~ "And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification."
The meaning is, in the case of the one that sinned, namely, Adam, condemnation came by one offense; but the free gift of righteousness extends to many offenses, and to life eternal. This is another particular in which the gift exceeds the evil. It not only, as is stated in the last verse, confers more than Adam lost, but it pardons many sins; whereas condemnation came "one sin" on the part of Adam. The gift by grace, then, not only procure to him who receives it the pardon of that one offense on account of which he fell under condemnation, but it brings to him the pardon of his many personal offenses, (that we all are ashamed to confess before others if the truth is known) although these offenses deepen and aggravate the condemnation, and bear witness that he allows the deeds of his first father. Judgment, or sentence. Here it is expressly asserted that condemnation has come by the one sin of the one man. If, then, all are condemned by that sin, all must be guilty by it, for the righteous Judge would not condemn the innocent.
To say that any are condemned or punished for Adam’s sin, who are not guilty by it, is to accuse the righteous God of injustice. Can God impute to any man anything that is not true? If Adam’s sin is not ours as truly as it was Adam’s sin, could God impute it to us? Does God deal with men as sinners, while they are not truly such? If God deals with men as sinners on account of Adam’s sin, then it is self-evident that they are sinners on that account. The just God could not deal with men as sinners on any account which did not make them truly sinners. The assertion, however, that Adam’s sin is as truly ours as it was his, does not imply that it is his and ours in the same sense. It was his personally; it is ours because we were in him. Adam’s sin, then, is as truly ours as it was his sin, though not in the same way.
By one ~ Some make the substantive understood to be man. But though this would be a truth, yet, from the nature of the sentence, it is evident that the substantive understood is not man, but sin; for it is opposed to the many offenses. It is, then, the one offense opposed to many offenses.
Unto justification ~ the free gift confers the pardon of the many offenses in such a way that the person becomes righteous; he is, of course, justified. Robert Haldane on Romans , I edited just a little, and added some, plus added the highlight~RB"
Amen!
Romans 5:16 ~ "And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification."
The meaning is, in the case of the one that sinned, namely, Adam, condemnation came by one offense; but the free gift of righteousness extends to many offenses, and to life eternal. This is another particular in which the gift exceeds the evil. It not only, as is stated in the last verse, confers more than Adam lost, but it pardons many sins; whereas condemnation came "one sin" on the part of Adam. The gift by grace, then, not only procure to him who receives it the pardon of that one offense on account of which he fell under condemnation, but it brings to him the pardon of his many personal offenses, (that we all are ashamed to confess before others if the truth is known) although these offenses deepen and aggravate the condemnation, and bear witness that he allows the deeds of his first father. Judgment, or sentence. Here it is expressly asserted that condemnation has come by the one sin of the one man. If, then, all are condemned by that sin, all must be guilty by it, for the righteous Judge would not condemn the innocent.
To say that any are condemned or punished for Adam’s sin, who are not guilty by it, is to accuse the righteous God of injustice. Can God impute to any man anything that is not true? If Adam’s sin is not ours as truly as it was Adam’s sin, could God impute it to us? Does God deal with men as sinners, while they are not truly such? If God deals with men as sinners on account of Adam’s sin, then it is self-evident that they are sinners on that account. The just God could not deal with men as sinners on any account which did not make them truly sinners. The assertion, however, that Adam’s sin is as truly ours as it was his, does not imply that it is his and ours in the same sense. It was his personally; it is ours because we were in him. Adam’s sin, then, is as truly ours as it was his sin, though not in the same way.
By one ~ Some make the substantive understood to be man. But though this would be a truth, yet, from the nature of the sentence, it is evident that the substantive understood is not man, but sin; for it is opposed to the many offenses. It is, then, the one offense opposed to many offenses.
Unto justification ~ the free gift confers the pardon of the many offenses in such a way that the person becomes righteous; he is, of course, justified. Robert Haldane on Romans , I edited just a little, and added some, plus added the highlight~RB"
Last edited:
This is what I have of Robertson
For that all sinned (ἐφʼ ᾡ παντες ἡμαρτον [eph’ hōi pantes hēmarton]). Constative (summary) aorist active indicative of ἁμαρτανω [hamartanō], gathering up in this one tense the history of the race (committed sin). The transmission from Adam became facts of experience. In the old Greek ἐφʼ ᾡ [eph’ hōi] usually meant “on condition that,” but “because” in N. T. (Robertson, Grammar, p. 963).
A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Ro 5:12.
Consequently therefore, as through one trespass came condemnation to all people, so also through one righteous deed came justification of life to all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one, the many will be made righteous
W. Hall Harris III et al., eds., The Lexham English Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), Ro 5:18–19.
Apply your comment here
So, are many are just imputed righteous apart from any response of their own?
Obviously not as
Romans 5:1 (LEB) — 1 Therefore, because we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
BTW
My copy of Robertson reads
Here again we have “the one” (του ἑνος [tou henos]) with both Adam and Christ, but “disobedience” (παρακοης [parakoēs], for which see 2 Cor. 10:6) contrasted with “obedience” (ὑπακοης [hupakoēs]), the same verb καθιστημι [kathistēmi], old verb, to set down, to render, to constitute (κατεσταθησαν [katestathēsan], first aorist passive indicative, κατασταθησονται [katastathēsontai], future passive), and “the many” (οἱ πολλοι [hoi polloi]) in both cases (but with different meaning as with “all men” above).
A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Ro 5:19.
Perhaps you could give me your view of why God placed the tree of life in the Garden of Eden. What was its purpose in the life of Adam and Eve?
regarding
2 Corinthians 5:21 (LEB) — 21 He made the one who did not know sin to be sin on our behalf, in order that we could become the righteousness of God in him.
For he hath made him to be sin for us—Τον μη γνοντα ἁμαρτιαν, ὑπερ ἡμων ἁμαρτιαν εποιησεν· He made him who knew no sin, (who was innocent), a sin-offering for us. The word ἁμαρτια occurs here twice: in the first place it means sin, i.e. transgression and guilt; and of Christ it is said, He knew no sin, i.e. was innocent; for not to know sin is the same as to be conscious of innocence; so, nil conscire sibi, to be conscious of nothing against one's self, is the same as nulla pallescere culpa, to be unimpeachable.
In the second place, it signifies a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin, and answers to the חטאה chattaah and חטאת chattath of the Hebrew text; which signifies both sin and sin-offering in a great variety of places in the Pentateuch. The Septuagint translate the Hebrew word by ἁμαρτια in ninety-four places in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, where a sin-offering is meant; and where our version translates the word not sin, but an offering for sin. Had our translators attended to their own method of translating the word in other places where it means the same as here, they would not have given this false view of a passage which has been made the foundation of a most blasphemous doctrine; viz. that our sins were imputed to Christ, and that he was a proper object of the indignation of Divine justice, because he was blackened with imputed sin; and some have proceeded so far in this blasphemous career as to say, that Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinners, because all the sins of mankind, or of the elect, as they say, were imputed to him, and reckoned as his own. One of these writers translates the passage thus: Deus Christum pro maxima peccatore habuit, ut nos essemus maxime justi, God accounted Christ the greatest of sinners, that we might be supremely righteous. Thus they have confounded sin with the punishment due to sin. Christ suffered in our stead; died for us; bore our sins, (the punishment due to them,) in his own body upon the tree, for the Lord laid upon him the iniquities of us all; that is, the punishment due to them; explained by making his soul—his life, an offering for sin; and healing us by his stripes.
But that it may be plainly seen that sin-offering, not sin, is the meaning of the word in this verse, I shall set down the places from the Septuagint where the word occurs; and where it answers to the Hebrew words already quoted; and where our translators have rendered correctly what they render here incorrectly.
In Exodus, chap. 29:14, 36: LEVITICUS, chap. 4:3, 8, 20, 21, 24, 25, and 29 twice, 32, 33, and 34; chap. 5:6, 7, 8, 9 twice, 11 twice, 12; chap. 6:17, 25 twice, 30: chap. 7:7, 37: chap. 8:2, 14 twice; chap. 9:2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 15, 22; chap. 10:16, 17, 19 twice; chap. 12:6, 8; chap. 14:13 twice, 19, 22, 31; chap. 15:15, 30; chap. 16:3, 5, 6, 9, 11 twice, 15, 25, 27 twice; chap. 23:19: NUMBERS, chap. 6:11, 14, 16; chap. 7:16, 22, 28, 34, 40, 46, 52, 58, 70, 76, 82, 87; chap. 8:8, 12; chap. 15:24, 25, 27; chap. 18:9; chap. 28:15, 22; chap. 29:5, 11, 16, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38.
Besides the above places, it occurs in the same signification, and is properly translated in our version, in the following places:—
2 CHRONICLES, chap. 29:21, 23, 24: EZRA, chap. 6:17; chap. 8:35: NEHEMIAH, chap. 10:33: JOB, chap. 1:5: EZEKIEL, chap. 43:19, 22, 25; chap. 44:27, 29; chap. 45:17, 19, 22, 23, 25. In all, one hundred and eight places, which, in the course of my own reading in the Septuagint, I have marked.
Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with a Commentary and Critical Notes (vol. 6, New Edition.; Bellingham, WA: Faithlife Corporation, 2014), 338–339.
MADE SIN
“For he hath made him to be sin (ἁμαρτίαν
for us.”[1] 2 Cor. 5:21. A common rendering of the original is sin-offering. This has ample warrant, and avoids, the insuperable difficulties attending any restriction to a primary or ethical sense of sin. That the Scriptures often use the original term in the sense of sin-offering there is no reason to question.[1] Exod. 29:14, 36; Lev. 4:24; 5:9; Hos. 4:8. In the references given, after a description of the sin-offering, we have for it the simple phrase, “ἁμαρτία ἐστί
,” and so used several times; also, after the preceptive instruction respecting the daily sacrifice of atonement, we have the phrase, “
τὸ μοσχάριον τὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ποιήσεις
,” the last two words being the very same used in the text under review. On ἁμαρτία, as used in the references given in Leviticus, Sophocles says that “it is equivalent to θυσία περὶ ἁμαρτίας.[2]
Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods.
Thus we have in Scripture usage ample warrant for rendering the same term in the text under review as
sin-offering
. Nor do we thereby surrender any vital truth or fact of atonement. Christ is all the same a sacrifice for sin.
If this rendering be denied, what then? Will sin be held in any strictly ethical sense, or under any legitimate definition of sin proper? Certainly not. Christ could not so be made sin. No one who can analyze the terms and take their import will so maintain. Sin must still be subject to interpretation. Shall the rendering be the turpitude or demerit of sin? Even satisfactionists must discard this, as they deny the possibility of its transference. Shall it be the guilt of sin? This some will allege. But guilt as a punishable reality cannot be separated from sin as a concrete fact in the person of a sinner. Only punishment remains as a possible rendering. But here is a like difficulty, that sin as punishable is untransferable. Miley’s systematic theology
I have this work on electronic copy and can find no such reference. I did a search on the phrases "Paul views all people as condemned," and "but because they participate in it.” with no hits
I did find
18 Paul now summarizes his basic argument in this paragraph, finally stating the full comparison between Adam and Christ that he began in v. 12, parenthetically remarked on in vv. 13–14, and elaborated on in vv. 15–17. After the negative comparisons of vv. 15, 16a, and 16b, and the qualitative contrasts (“how much more”) in vv. 15b and 17, Paul returns to the simple comparative structure of v. 12. This comparative structure is the basic building block of vv. 18–21, Paul using it three times to state the parallel between Adam and Christ: “as … so” (v. 18); “just as … so” (v. 19); “just as … so” (v. 21). Verse 20, like vv. 13–14, breaks into the sequence with a comment about the role of the Mosaic law in the general salvation-historical scheme of Adam and Christ.
Paul again expresses himself in v. 18 elliptically, leaving important elements to be supplied by the reader. Probably we should translate something like “as condemnation came to all people through the trespass of one man, so also did the righteousness that leads to life126 come to all people through the righteous act of one man.”128 Paul again asserts that Adam’s trespass has been instrumental in leading to the “condemnation” of all people. In keeping with the alternatives we explored for the interpretation of v. 12d, some take this instrumental connection to be mediate—Adam’s “trespass”-human sinning-“condemnation” of all—and others immediate—Adam’s “trespass”-“condemnation” of all. While the text does not rule out the former, we think the latter, in light of the parallel with Christ and the lack of explicit mention of an intermediate stage, to be more likely (cf. the discussion on 5:12d).
In the last paragraph we have spoken of “justification leading to life” as applicable to believers. But does not Paul’s explicit statement that this justification leading to life is “for all people” call into question the propriety of so confining justification only to some people? Indeed, this verse simply makes explicit what seems to be the logic of the paragraph as a whole, as Paul has repeatedly used the same terminology of those who are affected by Christ’s act as he has of those who are affected by Adam’s. And if, as is clear, Adam’s act has brought condemnation to all, without exception, must we not conclude that Christ’s act has brought justification and life for all? A growing number of scholars argue that this is exactly what Paul intends to say here. Recently, for instance, A. Hultgren has urged that the universal statements in this passage must be taken seriously, as descriptive of a “justification of humanity” that will be revealed at the judgment. Some people are justified by faith in this life, but those who do not accept the offer of God in this life are nevertheless assured of being justified at the judgment.
Such universalistic thinking is, naturally, very appealing—who likes the idea that many people will be consigned to the eternal punishment of hell? But if, as seems clear, many texts plainly teach the reality of such punishment for those who do not embrace Christ by faith in this life (cf., e.g., 2 Thess. 1:8–9; Rom. 2:12; and the argument of 1:18–3:20), those who advocate such a viewpoint are guilty of picking and choosing their evidence. But can we reconcile the plain universalistic statements of this verse with these other texts that speak of the reality of hell? Some deny that we can, suggesting that we face a paradox on this point that God will resolve someday. Others argue that what is universal in v. 18b is not the actual justification accomplished in the lives of individuals, but the basis for this justification in the work of Christ. Christ has won for all “the sentence of justification” and this is now offered freely to all who will “receive the gift.” Nevertheless, whatever one’s view on “limited atonement” might be (and the view just outlined is obviously incompatible with this doctrine), it is questionable whether Paul’s language can be taken in this way. For one thing, Paul always uses “justification” language of the status actually conferred on the individual, never of the atonement won on the cross itself (cf. particularly the careful distinctions in Rom. 3:21–26). Second, it is doubtful whether Paul is describing simply an “offer” made to people through the work of Christ; certainly in the parallel in the first part of the verse, the condemnation actually embraces all people. But perhaps the biggest objection to this view is that it misses the point for which Paul is arguing in this passage. This point is that there can be an assurance of justification and life, on one side, that is just as strong and certain as the assurance of condemnation on the other. Paul wants to show, not how Christ has made available righteousness and life for all, but how Christ has secured the benefits of that righteousness for all who belong to him.
In this last phrase, we touch on what is the most likely explanation of Paul’s language in this verse. Throughout the passage, Paul’s concern to maintain parallelism between Adam and Christ has led him to choose terms that will clearly express this. In vv. 15 and 19, he uses “the many”; here he uses “all people.” But in each case, Paul’s point is not so much that the groups affected by Christ and Adam, respectively, are coextensive, but that Christ affects those who are his just as certainly as Adam does those who are his. When we ask who belongs to, or is “in,” Adam and Christ, respectively, Paul makes his answer clear: every person, without exception, is “in Adam” (cf. vv. 12d–14); but only those who “receive the gift” (v. 17; “those who believe,” according to Rom. 1:16–5:11) are “in Christ.” That “all” does not always mean “every single human being” is clear from many passages, it often being clearly limited in context (cf., e.g., Rom. 8:32; 12:17, 18; 14:2; 16:19), so this suggestion has no linguistic barrier. In the present verse, the scope of “all people” in the two parts of the verse is distinguished in the context, Paul making it clear, both by his silence and by the logic of vv. 12–14, that there is no limitation whatsoever on the number of those who are involved in Adam’s sin, while the deliberately worded v. 17, along with the persistent stress on faith as the means of achieving righteousness in 1:16–4:25, makes it equally clear that only certain people derive the benefits from Christ’s act of righteousness.
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 340–344.
Where Moo acknowledges
12d, some take this instrumental connection to be mediate—Adam’s “trespass”-human sinning-“condemnation” of all—and others immediate—Adam’s “trespass”-“condemnation” of all. While the text does not rule out the former, we think the latter, in light of the parallel with Christ and the lack of explicit mention of an intermediate stage, to be more likely (cf. the discussion on 5:12d).
Mediate imputation being
The doctrine of mediate imputation states that the sin of Adam is not imputed directly to his posterity; instead, Adam’s corrupt and sinful nature is imputed directly, and Adam’s sin is imputed as a consequence of the imputation of Adam’s corrupt nature12
BTW I did find this
First, we could be content to posit an unresolved “tension” between the individual and the corporate emphasis. Paul in v. 12 asserts that all people die because they sin on their own account; and in vv. 18–19 he claims that they die because of Adam’s sin. Paul does not resolve these two perspectives; and we do wrong to try to force a resolution that Paul himself never made. A systematic theologian may have to find a resolution; but we exegetes need not insist that Paul in this text assumes or teaches one. Now it is certainly the case that we can err by insisting that a text give us answers to all our questions about a topic or (still worse) by foisting on a biblical author theological categories that do not fit that author’s teaching. But we can also fail to do our job as exegetes by failing to pursue reasonable harmonizations that the author may assume or intend. So we think it is legitimate to ask whether Paul suggests any resolution of the tension between individual and Adamic responsibility for sin in this text.
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 324–325.
Agree.
Agree.
And yet there is this big difference between Adam and us, Adam was created as an adult living in the presence of God, knowing God, experience God, His presence, experienced only good as he did not know the opposite. Knowledgeable, intelligent, he gave animals their names.
We are born in pain, helpless and before we even understand good and evil we already sinned xxx times, no knowledge of God, never experienced His presence.
Adam ≠ us.
