Rom. 5:15-21 - The gift of grace is not like the trespass

Posted Wed, 21/11/2007 - 17:03 by andrew

15 But not as the trespass, so also the gift of grace. For if by the trespass of one the many died, much more surely have the grace of God and the gift in grace of the one man Jesus Christ to the many overflowed.

16 And not as through one (man) having sinned (is) the gift; for whereas judgment from (the) one (led) to condemnation, the gift of grace from the many trespasses to justification.

17 For if by the trespass of one, death came to reign through the one, much more surely will those receiving the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign through the one (man) Jesus Christ.

18 So then as through one lapse for all men to condemnation, so also through one righteous act for all people to justification of life.

19 For 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.

20 The Law came in so that the trespass increased; but where sin increased, grace over-abounded,

21 that even as sin came to reign in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to life of the age, through Jesus Christ our Lord.


My translation

15-16 The one-to-many effect holds both for death and for life: many died through one man’s trespass, many receive grace through the act of the one man Jesus Christ. Again, we remind ourselves that the ideological background to this formula is not an existential narrative of personal sin and salvation but the eschatological crisis confronting Israel: Israel faces condemnation by the Law and destruction because of its many trespasses, but God’s righteousness has been demonstrated ‘apart from the Law’, through the faithfulness of Jesus (3:21-22), leading to the justification of many. The ‘justification by faith’ (cf. 5:1) that Paul is explaining in this chapter corresponds to the ‘righteousness of faith’ that ensures that the descendants of Abraham inherit the world when the law brings the destruction of God’s wrath on the people (4:13-15). It is this narrative which determines the extent of the many who receive grace.

But the gift of grace (charisma) is unlike the trespass in that its effects are more certain and more abundant; and whereas the trespass led to condemnation and death, the gift of grace leads to justification and life. Adam is important to Paul’s argument because it was his transgression against the commandment of God that led to the universal reign of death. But in the framework of this argument it is Israel’s many trespasses against the law of Moses, which have brought condemnation on the nation, that need to be remedied, not the uncounted sins of the rest of humankind, whose sins are not ‘after the likeness of the transgression of Adam’.

17 The assertion that those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness will reign may echo the story of the Son of man community - that righteous part of Israel which suffers, is vindicated when God judges his enemies, and comes to reign throughout the age to come (cf. Dan. 7:27 LXX; cf. Wright, Romans, 528). If this is the case, the future tense of the verb points to the eschatological vindication that will come, in effect, with judgment on Jerusalem and the eventual victory of the ‘saints’ over Rome.

18 The one righteous act of Jesus has led to the justification of life for all who are subject to the Law of Moses - a justification or vindication before God which will consist of the life of the coming age (cf. 5:21) rather than the destruction and death that before long will manifest the wrath of God against Israel. Verse 19 repeats the point with a slight shift of focus: through the disobedience of Adam the many (probably all humankind) were made sinners; through Christ’s obedience (cf. Phil. 2:8) the many will be made righteous - that is, they will be vindicated on the day when Israel is judged.

20-21 The reference to the Law at this point takes us back to 5:14: the introduction of the Law of Moses made the Adam-like sin possible - a sin that is ‘counted’ as wilful disobedience of God. The effect was that the trespass increased. This increase of the trespass should be understood in simple numerical or quantitive terms. Adam’s trespass against the commandment was singular; Israel’s trespasses against the Law of Moses are multiple because it is a whole nation that has sinned, bringing upon itself the condemnation of the Law and the wrath of God. But the increase in the trespass means only that grace has over-abounded, so that it might bring about the justification of a faithful remnant that will survive the crisis of the end of the age of second temple Judaism and enjoy the life of the age that has now (from our point of view) come.

Paul’s argument in Galatians 3:19 is rather different: ‘Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the seed might come to whom it has been promised, ordained through angels by hand of a mediator.’ Here the Law is understood to have been introduced because of the transgressions of the descendants of Abraham - to keep order, so to speak, until the promise might be inherited through faith.

See also:

Comments

"the many" and "all men"

by john doyle - 01/03/2008 - 01:28

"But in the framework of this argument it is Israel’s many trespasses against the law of Moses, which have brought condemnation on the nation, that need to be remedied, not the uncounted sins of the rest of humankind, whose sins are not ’after the likeness of the transgression of Adam’."

It seems that only those who have sinned in the context of an already-existing relationship with God are under moral condemnation, both individually and collectively. The rest of humankind sins, but their sins aren’t imputed to them as the basis for condemnation (v. 13).

The transgression of Adam precedes the formation of Israel and the Mosaic Law. However, Adam received a command directly from God, a command to which God attached a curse in the event of transgression ("you shall surely die"), and Adam disobeyed that explicit command. As a consequence, says Paul, "all men" inherit the curse of death on Adam, even those who never knew God or received any commands from Him.

You said in your interpretation of Rom. 5:14 that "there is a general human condition in which sin and death hold sway." As Paul says,

until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam. (Rom 5:13-14)

Presumably then, "sinning in the likeness of Adam’s sin" means acting contrary to God’s explicit command, whether that command is a personal one (like God’s command to Adam in the Garden) or a codified one (like the Law God gave to the Jews through Moses). The Gentiles have no relationship with God, so they face neither a personal nor a codified command of God against which they might transgress. Being excluded a priori from a relationship with God, the Gentiles do not incur the wrath and judgment thrust upon those who transgress. In Paul’s words, sin is not "imputed" to those who sin outside a law-governed relationship with God. Nonetheless, all humans inherit death from Adam’s sin, even if neither his sin nor their own sins are "imputed" to them as the basis for condemnation. To this general human condition the Mosaic Law adds a supplement of national blessing and accountability. Sinning under the Law brings not just death, which is the Adamic consequence, but God’s judgment and punishment on the nation and on the individual as a member of that nation. Using Paul’s term, sin is "imputed" to those under law.

So now the question is this: does Jesus’ death and resurrection eliminate only the condemnation and punishment attached to those who sin under law, "in the likeness of Adam’s offense" — in particular the descendants of Abraham? Or does Jesus also eliminate the universal curse of death that all men inherit from Adam, Jew and Gentile alike, whether they sinned in the likeness of Adam’s offense or not?

One would expect that Paul would consistently contrast "all men," who inherit the curse of death through Adam, with "the many," who benefit under law from the atonement of Christ. But Paul’s words don’t conform to this expectation:

For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. (Rom. 5:15b)

Here Paul describes the impact of the one man — Adam first, then Jesus — on "the many": same word for both predicates. If our understanding of the Adamic curse is correct, then when Paul says that "the many" died through Adam, he really means"all men," as he said in verse 12. Or is Paul saying that "the many" — that subset of "all men" who under God’s law — inherit the universal death sentence along with the moral condemnation that applies to them alone through their collective law-based association with Adam? It’s hard to say.

A few verses later Paul changes predicates:

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. (Rom. 5:18)

Here, instead of "the many," Paul speaks of "all men" as recipients both of condemnation through Adam and of justification through Christ. Andrew, you infer that Paul here is referring to justification of life to all "who are subject to the Law of Moses" — i.e., by "all men" Paul really means "the many." But should we then infer that only "the many" who are subject to the Law receive condemnation through Adam? If condemnation refers to moral judgment, then yes, but if it refers to the curse of death, then no.

Then, in the very next verse:

For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. (Rom. 5:19)

Here "the many" actually seems to mean "the many;" i.e., those under law. But it’s hard to be sure. And throughout this passage Paul never explicitly states that Christ lifts the Adamic curse of death, either for "the many" or for "all men." Or does he?

so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Rom. 5:21)

Over whom did "sin reign in death": the many, or all men? Sin was in the world and spread to all men, and so too did death spread to all men, even to those whose sins were not imputed to them (v. 13). So does eternal life spread through the one man Christ to all men? Or did sin reign in death only over the many who were condemned under law, so that only the many benefit from eternal life? I don’t think it’s possible on strictly exegetical grounds to make a consistent distinction between "the many" and "all men" in this passage, such that the curse of death is universal whereas eternal life is granted only to the descendants of Abraham.

Who are "all men"?

by john doyle - 03/03/2008 - 18:02

In my last comment I addressed the difficulty of reconciling the differences between "the many" and "all men" in this discourse by Paul. Paul seems to be saying that "all men" were doomed to mortality as a result of Adam’s sin, regardless of whether they had entered into a relationship with God, regardless of whether they had transgressed against commands that God had explicitly imposed on them. As I pointed out on a different thread, to my knowledge this is the only passage in the entire Bible that even gestures toward a doctrine of original sin. Consequently we needn’t reconcile what Paul says here with other scriptural elaborations on the consequence of Adam’s sin for his descendants, inasmuch as no such elaborations exist until we get to the Church Fathers and especially to Augustine.

In Philippians 3:6 Paul asserts that, according to the righteousness of the Law, he was found blameless. Paul wasn’t the only one: Matthew 1:19 says that Joseph the husband of Mary and "father" of Jesus was a righteous man; Luke 1:6 says that Zacharias and Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist, were "both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord." So apparently it could be done: to be under the Mosaic Law and yet to be numbered among "those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam’s offense" (Romans 5:14). Still, the judgment of God on Israel extended even to these blameless ones, because the Law’s curse was a communal one, levied not just against individual transgressors but against "the many" who collectively participated in the legal relationship with God.

Suppose, as Andrew consistently argues, Paul wrote Romans in general and chapter 5 in particular for the instruction of the Jewish believers. Suppose Paul sees the parallels between Adam and Jesus as applying exclusively among "the many" who have entered into relationship with God, referring not at all to Gentiles who had historically been excluded from such a relationship. In that case, "the many" and "all men" point to the same referent; namely, all those who collectively through history have been positioned inside God’s covenantal arrangements.

Now of course everyone is mortal, regardless of whether they are part of "the many" or not. But if Paul is speaking only of "the many" here, then why does he speak of them inheriting death from Adam, a fate that befalls everyone, not just those inside the communal covenant? Maybe Paul isn’t really talking about physical death here; maybe, as has been proposed by many other Biblical interpreters, he’s talking about spiritual death.

In Romans 5 Paul associates a whole complex of troubles with Adam: disobedience, sin, transgression, condemnation, death. In contrast, Paul associates with Jesus a parallel complex of blessings: free gift, grace, justification, obedience, righteousness, life. It seems the exegete has two clear choices when interpreting the extended parallelism of this chapter: (1) Just as all men became mortal through Adam, even if as individuals they weren’t in a relationship with God, so too life will be granted to everyone through Christ. (2) Just as the many who had entered in covenantal relationship with God received condemnation through Adam, even if as individuals they were found blameless before God, so too they shall receive justification through Christ. Given the overall thrust of Romans, I think option 2 is the best bet.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.