Rom 5:12 “Therefore, just as through one man…” In this verse he begins to treat of the four goods of the justified previously mentioned, beginning with peace. When he says therefore, that is, on account of this reconciliation, the Apostle now begins to distinguish and to set forth what follows concerning reconciliation. The context is explained thus: if Adam had not sinned, the end of the human condition would be peace. And since peace is not an action or a passion, but a good of tranquil stability, the Apostle intends to describe the peace of the justified from its contrary state, namely the state of sin, and to make clear that the justified have attained the state of peace through Jesus Christ, in contrast to the state of sin, in this order: first he shows that they are freed from sin, then from the increase of sin, then from the external occasion of the increase of sin, which is the Law of Moses, and finally from the law of sin, although not from the side of the flesh, so that from the contrary one may see how great a good the justified attain.
He therefore declares the common state of mankind in sin by assuming one likeness (similitude), whose other part is deferred. Thus the text seems to be incomplete; yet it is not incomplete, but having begun the similitude, he pursues one member until, by resuming it, he may explain the other member of the similitude, when he later says: “so through one trespass…” Let therefore the adverb sicut (“just as”) remain suspended in the reader’s mind with respect to that in which the likeness holds, and let the learned reader observe that Paul excludes those points in which the likeness does not hold. In order to penetrate this more clearly: the intended likeness is between the sin (delictum) of the first man and the justice of Christ. And before he declares in what respect the sicut is verified, he excludes two respects in which it is not verified. Therefore the discourse appears truncated, though in truth it is not truncated but suspended on account of these intervening exclusions.
He says “through one man,” namely Adam, although there were two first parents, Eve and Adam, because he counts the woman as nothing for this purpose, so that from this we may understand that if Adam had not sinned, even if Eve had sinned, the human race would not have been infected.
“Sin entered into this world.” This must be understood with certainty of Adam’s sin. And since Adam’s sin was at once actual and original, it would have infected in both ways. Paul here is treating it insofar as it is original. For actual sin had entered earlier through Eve, and earlier still through the devil.
“And through sin, death.” (cf. Gen 2:17) In Genesis it is clearly stated: “On whatever day you eat of it, you shall die the death,” that is, you shall incur the necessity of dying. Thus through sin there followed the penalty of death. And from this penalty it again appears that the discourse concerns Adam’s sin insofar as it is original, for the penalty of death inflicted upon him for all posterity testifies that the sin whose penalty it is is imputed to him and to all his posterity.
“And thus death passed into all men.” It was not enough for Paul to say that sin and death entered the world through one man, lest you should suspect that they entered the world but were not spread to all. Therefore he adds not only that they entered the world, but that they passed into all men. And this he sets forth in reverse order, beginning with death when he says: “and thus death passed into all men.” Then he returns to sin, saying:
“In whom all sinned.” The Greek expression is ambiguous, so that it can be read either as “because of which” (propter quod) or “in whom” (in quo). In either way the sense comes to the same thing, as testified also by Cicero, who interprets such joined expressions as “in that.” The meaning here is most fitting for the context and for the true sense: death passed into all because all sinned—that is, on account of this, that all sinned. Thus it is signified that death is common to all by reason of sin common to all, lest you should think that the penalty of death is common to all but that sin is not common to all. Paul does not wish this to be understood. Rather, the penalty of death is common to all because sin is common to all.
Rom 5:13 “For until the Law…” Having declared the commonality of both sin and death, he now sets forth the different states of each in the world. One is from Adam to Moses, the other afterward. Although he makes both states known together, since by making one manifest the other is manifested by consequence, he now directly and explicitly treats the state before the Law, and afterward he will treat the state under the Law when he says: “But the Law…” The reason why Paul proposes not only the sin of the first man but also the different states of that sin is twofold. First, that he may show from this that through the grace of Christ men are freed not only from sin but also from the abundance of sin which existed under the Law. Second, that he may have occasion to show that the grace of Christ, just as it frees from the abundance of sin, so also frees from the yoke of the Law, which is the occasion of the increase of sin.
Thus a twofold difference is here implicitly and by consequence pre-tasted. With respect to sin, the difference consists in imputation and non-imputation, not in existence. Therefore he says “until the Law,” which comprehends the time of the first state.
“Sin was in the world.” So that Moses, who handed down this sin in Genesis, did not invent this sin, but it was spread throughout the world. Thus before the Law, just as after the Law, sin was extended; and in this there is no difference.
“But sin was not imputed when there was no law.” That is, sin was not imputed when the Law did not exist. Behold the difference, declared from the common notion of law. It is common at every place and every time that when a law does not exist, whose role it is to punish sin, sin is not imputed unto punishment. And therefore in the present case there is this difference: when the Law of Moses did not exist, sin, which was in the world and common to all, was not imputed unto punishment—indeed, he says less, because it was not even known. But when the Law of Moses came, sin, which was in the world, was imputed unto punishment, as the Law made it known. For here the discourse is about human imputation.
“But death reigned from Adam to Moses.” Behold the difference with respect to death. “Death reigned” consists in this: from Adam until Moses, death reigned; afterward it was considered a penalty, so that death was not regarded as a punishment of sin but as having dominion by right of nature over all. But when the Law of Moses came, death was known and regarded as the penalty of sin common to the human race.
“Even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression.” To explain clearly the commonality of sin in all without exception, both of infants and of the just, he says: even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression. Infants indeed have sin, but they did not sin by a similar transgression to Adam, since they never sinned actually. The just also, although they sin even actually, nevertheless did not sin by a similar transgression to Adam, inasmuch as they never transgressed a divine command given personally to them in the way Adam did. For Adam transgressed a divine commandment given directly to himself.
“Who is a type of the one to come.” The Greek construction concerning τύπος is ambiguous, as is the Latin, so that the sense can be twofold. One is: Adam is the type or figure of the future Adam, that is, of Christ, insofar as there is a likeness: just as through one man, etc. And the figure holds in this respect, that Adam was the father of sin and death, whereas Christ is the father of justice and life. The other sense is: Adam is a type, that is, a kind of exemplary form, of future sin, since from him the sin of the whole human race is derived, as a form is expressed from a type. Both are true; let the reader choose whichever sense he wishes. In both, however, “future” is said with respect not to Paul’s time, but to Adam’s.
Rom 5:15 “But not as the trespass, so also the gift.” Before, as was said, he explains the likeness, he excludes the likeness with respect to both sin and death. The first dissimilarity consists in this: he refers Adam’s sin to a limited penalty, namely death, but refers the grace of Christ, from the grace of God, to an overflowing gift. Thus we may understand how far dissimilar is the gift conferred through Christ on the human race from the death inflicted on the human race through Adam’s trespass. For death is a certain and limited penalty, but the gift of Christ is immeasurable. And to this end two causes of such great superabundance are added: the principal cause, namely the grace of God, and the instrumental cause, namely the grace of Jesus Christ the man.
“If by the trespass of one many died…” Behold the manner in which the trespass brings death: namely, that the trespass of one Adam was so powerful that it constituted many—namely, the multitude of the human race—as dead.
“Much more…” Behold the principle of dissimilarity: with much greater power, the grace of God and the gift are set over against death, to comprehend all benefits, both external and internal, divinely bestowed on the human race through Christ.
“In the grace of one man, Jesus Christ.” Over against the trespass of one man, namely Adam, he places the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, so that the dissimilarity appears more clearly: the more powerful grace is than trespass, and the more excellent Christ is than Adam.
“And it abounded unto many.” No difference is signified with respect to the multitude, since on both sides “many” are described.
Rom 5:16 “And not as through one who sinned, so also the gift.” The interpreters have added the adverb and conjunction, so and and, and by some error it is read “sin” instead of “one who sinned.” It should therefore be read: “And not as through one who sinned is the gift.” The sense is: the gift is not like that which came through one who sinned. The second dissimilarity is excluded. And the dissimilarity consists in this: that the sin of one Adam merited divine judgment unto condemnation, but the gift of Christ answers to many trespasses unto justification. For he intends to magnify the gift of Christ from this, that it answers sufficiently to the innumerable multitude of the trespasses of the human race, whereas Adam’s condemnation corresponds only to the trespass of one man.
Thus he says: “For the judgment indeed, from one (offense), was unto condemnation; but grace—from many trespasses—was unto justification.”
Rom 5:17 “For if by the trespass of one death reigned through the one…” As gathering together both dissimilarities in order to explain further and to add force, he forms the argument: if by the trespass of one death reigned through one, much more those receiving the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ. Over against the reign of death he places the reign in life; over against one Adam, one Jesus Christ.
Rom 5:18 “Therefore, as through one trespass…” Having declared the dissimilarities, he resumes the begun likeness in order to complete it.
“Unto all men.” Behold the force of the likeness: that the trespass of Adam was a trespass that by its own nature overflowed unto all men, because although one sinned, he sinned as the head of human nature.
“Unto condemnation.” He states both that Adam’s trespass was unto all men and that it was unto condemnation, in order to explain the commonality both of sin and of condemnation, that is, of punishment.
“So also through one justification…” He sets over against the trespass of one man the justification of one, without doubt Jesus Christ.
“Unto all men.” By its own nature the justification of Christ on the Cross was unto all men, because He is the head of the whole Church from the beginning of the world to the end, and therefore His merit is by its own nature the merit of all, as regards sufficiency.
“Unto justification of life.” Over against condemnation he does not place life simply, but justification of life, because in this time through Christ’s merit we do not yet obtain bodily life, but justification unto life; but in the future age we shall also obtain vital justification even with respect to the body.
Rom 5:19 “For just as through the disobedience of one man…” He explains the likeness from the species of sin, and because he has so often named Adam’s trespass, he now shows that its species was disobedience. And it is fittingly called disobedience, because Adam’s sin was not evil in itself by its object or matter (for eating was not evil in itself), but because it was forbidden; therefore it is ascribed to disobedience (cf. Phil 2:8).
“Many were constituted sinners.” He not only explains the species of Adam’s trespass, but also the mode in which that trespass is imputed to others, by saying that we were constituted sinners, so that without any ambiguity we may understand that not only the penalty of sin, but sin itself, we all have incurred through the disobedience of one. Here original sin is most clearly explained. For by saying that through the disobedience of one we were constituted sinners, he most plainly signifies that through that disobedience we were conceived as sinners. By saying “we were constituted,” he shows that without our own works we were constituted sinners through that disobedience, which is that all of us have original sin. Hence Paul also includes himself among this multitude of the human race.
“So also through the obedience of one…” Namely, through that obedience by which He became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross.
“Many will be constituted just.” Even without their own works, as is clear in Baptism. Thus, just as by the fact that men are generated from Adam they are constituted sinners, so by the fact that they are generated from Christ through Baptism they are constituted just.
And from this doctrine of Paul you have not only that original sin is common to all men, but also that the justice of Christ is common to all men, and therefore to infants as well. Otherwise Adam’s sin would be more powerful than Christ’s justice, since Adam’s sin would extend to infants and Christ’s justice would not extend to them—which is the opposite of what Paul clearly teaches. And this is to be noted in support of the Baptism of infants.
CONTINUE:
Comments
Post a Comment