he Apostle teaches and exhorts:
12. “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into this world…”
In Greek and Syriac it reads, “entered into the world.”
The Apostle proceeds to show the greatness of Christ’s charity toward mankind. He now does this by taking up the matter itself from a higher principle—namely, from the fact that the human race fell into sin and death through the transgression of the first parent, whereby it came about that it stood in need of Christ as a restorer unto justice and life. Therefore he now opens and explains to us the original cause of the corruption of the human race.
That word “wherefore” (Greek διὰ τοῦτο, “for this reason”) seems to have the force of a causal particle, as if he were saying: “For just as by one man…”—so that it serves as a confirmation of what he had just said, namely, “through whom we have received reconciliation.” For he proves this because, just as through Adam we fell into sin, so through Christ we are restored to justice.
Some, however, think that the sentence is complete in itself with the words that follow, rendering it thus: “As by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death,” so that the comparison is between the entrance of sin through one man and the entrance of death through sin—just as we say in the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy will be done, as in heaven, so also on earth.” Erasmus suggests this way of completing the sentence, and Gagnaeus approves it.
Stapulensis interprets differently. He holds that the particle “and” in the second place is superfluous, saying it is lacking in some Greek manuscripts; thus he translates: “As by one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, so death passed upon all men.” Yet this reading of some Greek copy is noted neither by Robert Stephanus nor by any other whom I have read.
Moreover, these constructions do not seem probable to me, because neither comparison fits the present purpose. For, as has been said and is clear from what follows, the Apostle intends to compare the first man with the second—that is, Adam with Christ—by way of antithesis, as if one should say: “As Adam harmed the human race, so Christ benefited it.”
Therefore others judge the sentence to be incomplete, lacking the second member of the comparison, to be supplied thus or similarly: “As by one man sin, and by sin death, entered into the world, so by one man—namely Christ—justice, and by justice life, entered into the world.”
But Cajetan denies that the text is defective; rather he says the whole sentence is suspended, so that the second member of the comparison is postponed by a long hyperbaton until the place where it says, “Therefore, as by the offense of one…” There, the first member about Adam being resumed, the second about Christ is given. Although before Cajetan, Augustine had also observed this and noted it in his exposition.
As to the understanding of this passage, Pelagius in his commentary, and his followers, in order to exclude original sin, interpreted that sin entered the world through one man by way of pattern and example—because the descendants, seeing the first man sin, followed by sinning and imitated his example as a model. Theodoret teaches this fairly plainly, adding: “For each receives condemnation not because of the first parent’s sin but because of his own decision.” Erasmus too leans too rashly toward this sense, both in his paraphrase and notes, following Origen as appears. For although Origen is varied and unstable in his commentary, he chiefly dwells on explaining and exaggerating imitation of sin, and on that account accuses all the righteous of ancient times from Abel to Abraham.
But Augustine, disputing against the Pelagians, maintains and shows by many arguments that this passage admits no other interpretation than the entrance of sin by propagation, and that it cannot without absurdity be understood of imitation.
First, because Paul sets the first man in opposition to Christ: thus through the first man sin, just as through Christ justice. But justice is not through Christ merely by imitation; for even the ancients who preceded Christ and could not imitate Him were justified through Christ, and Christ’s justice also reaches infants who cannot imitate at all. Therefore neither is sin through the first man by imitation. Rather, as Christ by the hidden inspiration of grace makes us just, so Adam by a hidden corruption of nature made us sinners.
If the Apostle had meant imitation, he should have opposed to Adam not Christ but Abel or Enoch or some other righteous man of old whom men of all ages might imitate. Moreover, no one is properly said to imitate what he does not know, even if he does something similar; one imitates only when he knowingly takes another’s deed as a model. But many grievous sinners have never heard of the first man’s sin; though they become like him by sinning, they do not take their pattern from him, and therefore cannot properly be called his imitators.
If imitation were meant, it would be more fitting to say that sin entered the world through the devil, since he sinned first: “The devil sins from the beginning” (1 John 3), and it is written, “They imitate those who belong to him” (Wisdom 2).
Further, just as through one man sin entered the world, so also death; but the entrance of death cannot be understood by imitation, therefore neither can the entrance of sin. Finally, if imitation were intended, the Apostle would not say afterward, “judgment from one unto condemnation,” but “from many,” as he says, “grace from many offenses unto justification.”
These and similar arguments against Pelagius’ interpretation Augustine brings forward in many places—Book 1 on the Baptism of Infants, Book 4 against the two Epistles of the Pelagians, Sermon 14 on the words of the Apostle, Epistle 89 to Hilary, and others collected by the Venerable Bede. From these it is clear that this passage can be understood only of the propagation of sin, as Augustine concludes.
And lest we doubt that this is the true interpretation, already in Augustine’s time it was defined by the Fathers of the Council of Milevis (canon 2) that the Apostle’s words “by one man…” must be understood of the transmission of original sin, as the Catholic Church everywhere has always understood. This canon was repeated in the same words by the Council of Trent (Session 5, canon 4).
Now let us come to the explanation of the Apostle’s words.
First must be refuted those who do not understand “one man” here as Adam but as Eve, because she sinned first. So think Pseudo-Ambrose and Pelagius. But they are refuted by clear arguments. First, because Paul afterward expressly names Adam. Second, because Paul’s intention is to compare this man with Christ—the first man with the second—which does not fit Eve. Moreover, although in general statements the masculine may include the feminine, neither grammar nor scriptural usage allows a woman to be designated by the masculine when she alone is meant.
But it is asked how the Apostle says “through one man,” since through Eve also sin and death entered, as many Fathers hold and as Scripture seems to say: “From a woman sin had its beginning” (Sirach 25), and “in sins my mother conceived me” (Psalm 50), and because of the corruption of nature we are called children of Eve.
It is answered that this does not hinder the truth of the statement, because the man is principal in generation; though he needs the partnership of the woman, yet they are one flesh: “the two shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2). Thus also of Abraham’s descendants the Apostle says, “from one”—namely Abraham—though Sarah is not excluded. Therefore when it is said “through one man,” Eve is not excluded, though not expressly signified.
As Augustine says (cited by Bede): “Therefore through one man sin entered the world, because it entered through the seed of generation, which, beginning from the man, is conceived by the woman.” He who alone was born without sin did not wish to be born in this manner.
See also Augustine, Book 1 on the Baptism of Infants, chapter 18, and Hugh (Question 132).
But now let us state the Apostle’s meaning.
“As,” he says, “through one man”—namely Adam, who was constituted by God as the parent and principle of the whole human race—“sin entered into the world,” that is, into the entire human race, by propagation; because that one and first man, by transgressing God’s command, rendered all his posterity liable to sin and corrupted them in himself as in their root.
We interpret “world” as the entire human race—that is, all men propagated carnally from Adam. For the Apostle explains himself in this way when he immediately adds: “And so death passed upon all men.” This is also the interpretation of blessed Augustine in the Enchiridion, chapter 26, and in countless other places, and indeed of all the orthodox Fathers. To interpret “world” as the place where men dwell, or as this earthly and bodily life, fits Paul’s meaning less well.
“Sin” is taken generally, yet properly so as to signify whatever has the true nature of guilt—whether actual, habitual, or otherwise. But here it is verified of the sin that is propagated, that is, of original sin. This is not the actual transgression of Adam itself, which could exist only in him and was removed in him by repentance, but the sin in which and with which each of his descendants is born. Although it is Adam’s sin—that is, committed by his will, and therefore one in origin—it is transfused by propagation into all and is in each as his own, as the Council of Trent speaks and defines (canon 3).
Hence Augustine says (Retractations, Book 1, chapter 13): “That which in infants is called original sin, though they do not yet use the free choice of the will, is not absurdly called voluntary, because contracted from the evil will of the first man it has become in a certain way hereditary.”
Whether that sin is concupiscence with which we are born—as Augustine commonly holds and Peter Lombard following him—or the privation of original justice as Anselm holds, whom many scholastics follow, or something else, is disputed among theologians and has been discussed by us elsewhere (Sentences II, distinction 30). Certainly, although the Council of Trent did not define this question, yet in teaching (canon 5) that concupiscence in the baptized is not sin, it implies that in the unbaptized it is sin, and nothing other than original sin.
Now that here by the name of sin is meant neither the punishment of sin nor the guilt (that is, obligation to punishment) arising from sin—as some have thought—but true sin, is clear from the Apostle’s own words, in which he distinguishes sin from death, which is the punishment of sin, and opposes sin to the justice of Christ. Further, from the canon of the Council (repeated at Trent, Session 5, canon 2), where it is defined that from Adam’s transgression not only death and bodily punishment passed into the human race, but also sin, which is the death of the soul. Finally, from the same session (canon 5), where it is affirmed that by baptism all that has the true and proper nature of sin is taken away. Hence it clearly follows that original sin—whatever precisely it is—before baptism has the true and proper nature of sin, as Augustine explains in many places.
“And through sin death”—that is, death entered into the world. He understands bodily death, not merely the death of the first man (as some think), but bodily death in general, whose cause was in the first man, as was said of sin. Death is said to have entered through sin because when sin was introduced into the world, death was introduced at the same time into the human race, inflicted by God the just judge who said: “In whatever day you eat of it, you shall die the death” (Genesis 2).
Some explain death as mortality—that is, the necessity of dying. But there is no need of this explanation, since death itself can be understood simply, as in what follows to the end of the chapter. Under it, however, mortality and other common bodily miseries are included. For as Adam by sin was changed for the worse both in soul and body, so he transmitted both corruptions to all his descendants. This was long ago defined against the Pelagians at the Council of Orange (canons 1–2) and later repeated at Trent (Session 5, canons 1–2).
Pelagius, however, teaches in his commentary—so as not to admit that bodily death arose from sin—that this place should be understood of the death of the soul, which each incurs when he sins. For he held that the first man was created mortal from the beginning, so that whether he sinned or not he would die in body, not as a penalty of sin but by necessity of nature—a view condemned by the Council of Milevis (canon 1).
But that bodily death is meant here is most clearly shown by the apostolic context. The same is shown by the parallel passage (1 Corinthians 15): “By a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. As in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive.” Finally, it is proved by the threat given to the first parent concerning the forbidden tree (Genesis 2): “In whatever day you eat of it, you shall die,” namely that death of which, after he sinned, it is said (Genesis 3): “You are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
“And so death passed upon all men”—as if he said: And this is the reason, namely that because the first parent introduced sin and death, death spread through the whole human race.
It should be noted that in Ambrosiaster and Sedulius one reads only “so also passed upon all men,” so that either death or sin or both may be understood. The same reading appears frequently in Augustine and in an ancient manuscript we have seen. Although Pelagius seems to have read “death passed,” and Primasius likewise, some Pelagians—whose manuscripts lacked the word “death”—wanted not sin but death to be understood, as Augustine reports (Against the Two Epistles of the Pelagians, Book 4, chapter 4), at the same time indicating that both may be understood, which he repeats elsewhere.
Nevertheless it is not necessary that sin be expressly understood here, since the transition of sin to all men is clearly declared both by what precedes and what follows. Greek manuscripts and commentators consistently support our received reading.
Whether any exception exists—for example those who will be alive at the last judgment—may be asked; but see the proper places (1 Corinthians 15; 2 Corinthians 5; 1 Thessalonians 4). It is certain that mortality and the debt of death belong to all whom Adam drew into guilt.
“In whom all sinned.” “In whom,” that is, in Adam, as both Latin and Greek interpreters commonly understood. The sense is: when Adam sinned, all were constituted sinners. For Paul explains himself below when he says that “through the disobedience of one man many were made sinners.”
That “in whom” (Greek ἐφ᾽) cannot be referred to sin—so as to mean “in which sin of the first man all sinned”—as Augustine once thought, because the Greek gender does not allow it, since ἁμαρτία (sin) is feminine; Augustine later noticed this and corrected his view (Against the Two Epistles of the Pelagians, Book 4, chapter 4).
All are said to have sinned in Adam as in the principle and root of the whole race, because they were in his loins when he sinned. Hence Augustine says: “In whom all sinned, when all were that one man.” He says this in On the Baptism of Infants, Book 1, chapter 10, and repeats it elsewhere.
This is to be understood thus: when he sinned by his own will, in him as in the principle of the race the cause was given by which thereafter the whole human race would be infected and each would be constituted a sinner—namely by his own sin which he contracts from that origin. Just as if a father infected with leprosy begets children who are leprous, they are said to have become leprous in their father, although each contracts his own leprosy from him—though this comparison does not correspond in every respect, as can be understood from what has been said.
Moreover, Erasmus translated this passage as follows: "Therefore, since all have sinned," which the translator of Chrysostom also followed. This translation can only be tolerated if it refers not to actual sins by which men are said to imitate the first man as a sinner (which commentary has already been excluded and rejected), but is understood concerning the original sin of individuals, so that the sense is: Death has spread to all for the reason that sin also passed to all. This sense pleased Cajetan and is not rejected by Sasboldus.
However, it should be known that no ancient interpreters, neither Latin nor Greek, have interpreted that particle "in whom" as "inasmuch as"—except among the Latins, if you exclude Pelagius, and among the Greeks, Theodoret, who departs not far from Pelagius's sense, as is sufficiently apparent from what has been said above. These are Pelagius's words: "In whom all sinned, that is, in that all sinned by the example of Adam." Photius the Greek similarly interpreted it, as Ecumenius reports his words. From him John Gagney drew the same Greek words and converted them into these Latin ones: "In this," he says, "we die together with Adam himself because we have sinned together with him, and he indeed gave the beginning, but we, taking occasion from this, not only did not turn away from evil but were also helpers to him." Thus Photius, praised more than enough in this matter by Gagney, though he is a more recent author and was divided from the Roman Church by a grave schism.
Certainly Ecumenius explains the Apostle in his own words and sense thus: "In whom Adam" or "through whom Adam all sinned." This agrees with the exposition previously cited. No less clear are the words of Theophylact: "In whom, that is, in Adam." These two authorities also seem to have understood Chrysostom (whom they willingly follow, although he spoke somewhat more obscurely) in the same sense.
Nor does the Greek preposition do so much for Erasmus's translation, which in this phrase where it says ἐφ' ᾧ they judge to be causal, so that it means the same as "inasmuch as," "insofar as," "for what reason." For it is established that the Apostle Paul in the epistles and Luke in the Acts use these three prepositions ἐπί, ἐν, and εἰς interchangeably sometimes for the one Latin preposition "in." We have noted this elsewhere as well. Although even here a cause is signified when it is said "in whom Adam." Certainly a little later where we read "in the likeness of Adam's transgression," in Greek it is ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι ("in the likeness"), just as here "in whom," although elsewhere he is accustomed to say ἐν ὁμοιώματι, as above in chapter 1 and below in chapter 8 and in Philippians 2. Thus Acts 2: "Let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ"—in Greek ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι, which is commonly said ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι and sometimes εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, as in Matthew 10 and 28. So also Hebrews 9: "in foods and drinks," and again "a testament is confirmed in the dead"—in both places Greek ἐπί. Nor does Erasmus translate these passages differently.
Now it can also be asked here whether the Apostle's saying "In whom all sinned" is true without exception. To this I briefly respond: If we consult sacred Scripture, if we consult the entire antiquity of ecclesiastical tradition, nothing is found to prevent it from being universally true that absolutely all men who by the common law of generation—that is, through the intercourse of male and female and therefore according to carnal concupiscence—have arisen or will arise from Adam, have sinned in Adam. Only Christ, God and man, who was not born thus but came into the world by a new and singular birth through a virgin, that He might raise up and restore in His elect what fell in Adam, was immune from that contagion. For thus that first man, as Augustine says in Enchiridion chapter 26, bound his offspring, which by sinning he corrupted in himself as if in the root, with the punishment of death and damnation, so that whatever offspring was born from him and from the simultaneously condemned spouse through whom he had sinned, through carnal concupiscence, would draw original sin.
Hence the same Augustine writes in book 1 of On Marriage and Concupiscence, chapter 12, that for this reason Christ, who was to be without sin, willed to be conceived without fleshly concupiscence, so that from this also He might teach that all flesh born from intercourse is the flesh of sin, since only that which was not born from it was not the flesh of sin. Since these and many other testimonies exist in Augustine and other holy fathers, by which they not only make no exception in this sentence of the Apostle Paul that we are treating, but also exclude and remove every exception in clear words, it is certainly a matter of scruple for me, whose purpose is to adhere to the senses and doctrines of the Saints, to make any exception in it, however certain others whom we do not point out may think otherwise about this matter.
13. FOR UNTIL THE LAW SIN WAS IN THE WORLD. He speaks of sin generally, so as also to include actual sins, of which the source and kindling is original sin, whether they are of transgression or not. Therefore he is not here concerned to separate this sin from actual sins, from which indeed in adults it cannot be separated. Therefore now the Apostle shows that after sin once entered into the world, it was always in the world and reigned even before the law—namely that which was given through Moses. For those who understand here the natural law, like Origen and any others, stray from Paul's mind. For it is plainly clear from what follows that he speaks of the written and Mosaic law.
Nor is Origen's supplement to be admitted: "Until the law, sin was dead in the world," that is, until the age using reason, when the natural law begins to be known, sin in children is dead so that it cannot be imputed to them. For this is a bold and violent addition. Therefore let us not doubt that the Apostle speaks of the Mosaic law, which is the exposition of nearly all.
Augustine indeed expounds thus: "until the law," that is, even after the law was given, sin remained. For the law could not drive sin out of the world, so that for this reason another remedy was needed by which sin might be taken away. According to this sense, the necessity of seeking and expecting righteousness from Christ is tacitly indicated here.
But others thus: Not only in the time of the law, when transgression was manifested, but also from the beginning until the time when the law was given, sin was in the world. This sense is simpler and more accommodated to the Apostle's scope indicated above. Finally, what follows corresponds well to it:
BUT SIN WAS NOT IMPUTED WHEN THERE WAS NO LAW. Or as not a few manuscripts have, agreeing with the Greek: "But sin is not imputed when there is no law." The connection is this: Indeed even before the law sin was in the world, but it was not imputed because where there is no law, sin is not imputed. The Apostle denies that without law sin is imputed—not simply (for thus all would have been just before the law according to that saying "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin"), but that it is imputed as transgression, because, as was said in the previous chapter, "Where there is no law, neither is there transgression." In that place also it was explained what is signified by the name of transgression or prevarication.
I say he denies that sin, where there is no law, is imputed as transgression. The proof of this is that the children of Israel, although both in Egypt and in the desert before the law was given they sinned frequently and gravely—partly by worshiping idols (which Scripture testifies in Ezekiel 23 and Joshua 24:3), partly by murmuring against God and Moses—nevertheless are not read to have been punished with any manifest punishment or plague. But truly immediately after the law and the legal threats were published, as soon as and whenever they sinned, as in the worship of the calf and in other ways, divine vengeance immediately followed them, according to that saying of the previous chapter: "The law works wrath."
But you will ask: if sin was not imputed before the law, how is it read that it was so gravely punished by God—that now He destroyed the world with a flood, now overthrew Pentapolis with fire, Cain was a wanderer and fugitive upon the earth, Canaan was subjected to the servitude of his brothers, Er and Onan were struck down by the Lord? The response is clear from what has been said. For all these were punished not for transgression of some law established by God (for the law had not been given), but for violations of the rights of nature by sins so great and so manifest that they provoked vengeance from Him who is the author of nature.
Furthermore, some interpret this part thus: "Where there is no law, sin is not known nor reckoned as sin"—namely by the one sinning. For "through the law comes knowledge of sin" (above chapter 3). But this does not seem to be Paul's meaning here, who always understands imputation as that which is done by another, as is clear first from the preceding chapter, then from other passages, such as 2 Timothy 4: "All deserted me; may it not be imputed to them," and to Philemon: "If he has wronged you at all or owes you anything, impute that to me."
Now as for some who supply this part thus: "Sin was not imputed unto death when there was no law"—first, they seem to me to depart from the customary signification of the verb "to impute" in the Scriptures (concerning which in the previous chapter), because sin by true estimation is not death, although it deserves death. Second, it is established that not every punishment of transgressors of the Mosaic law is death, yet to all these their sin is said, according to Paul's mind, to be imputed—namely unto transgression, on account of which they are subjected to punishments established by the law.
14. BUT DEATH REIGNED FROM ADAM TO MOSES. Although, he says, before the law sin was not imputed, nevertheless it was in the world, and on account of this, death, brought in by sin, reigned—that is, raged, exercised tyranny over the human race even throughout that entire time which preceded the giving of the law. For that is "from Adam to Moses." For through sin comes death, whether it is imputed or not.
EVEN OVER THOSE WHO DID NOT SIN IN THE LIKENESS OF ADAM'S TRANSGRESSION. In Greek, "in the likeness," and so it was written in the Laon codex. The sense, however, is the same: "according to the likeness."
Augustine warns in book 1 on the baptism of infants, chapter 11, and in epistle 89 to Hilarius, that certain Latin codices read without the negation, "who sinned." And the Ambrosian commentator interprets that reading and contends it is true, asserting that the Greek codices in which the negation is read are corrupted by its insertion. But Origen also expounds the affirmative reading with many words, although at the end he acknowledges—whether he himself or Rufinus his translator—that in certain copies the negation is found.
This negative reading is without doubt truer and more genuine. For the copulative particle "even" objects to the affirmative reading. For what is the sense: "Even over those who sinned," as if death ought rather to reign over those who did not sin? And yet Origen reads the particle "even," although Latin codices, about which Augustine speaks and among these the Ambrosian, suppress it also.
But the negation was erased for no other reason than that it was not understood how death reigned over those who did not sin, especially because it had been said a little before that "in Adam all sinned." Certainly Augustine testifies that the Greek codices, either all or nearly all, have the negation. That Chrysostom and the other Greek expositors also read the negation, their commentaries show. Cyril also reads it in books 1 and 12 on John, and more ancient than all these, Irenaeus in book 3 against heresies, chapter 20.
As for the Latins, St. Jerome constantly reads the negation, as in book 3 of the dialogue against the Pelagians near the end, and in the epitaph of Nepotianus, and in the epistle to Paula on the death of Blesilla. Finally the Latin commentators, except the pseudo-Ambrose of whom we spoke and Sedulius (who nevertheless also mentions the negative reading and expounds it). Today indeed in all codices, both Latin (which I attribute to Jerome's correction) and Greek, the negation is found, with the Syriac text also supporting it.
Furthermore, that reading can be expounded in two ways. For either the sense is that death reigned not only over those who sinned by their own will, made similar to the first parent who transgressed God's commandment by his own will in that matter, but also over infants who did not sin by an act of their own will but only contracted sin from Adam by being born. This is Augustine's exposition in the places mentioned, likewise Jerome's in book 3 of the dialogue against the Pelagians, and the later Latins'.
Or the sense is that death reigned even before the law was given and therefore even over those who had not transgressed some law established for them by God as Adam had done by transgressing the commandment given to him by God, but had only sinned against the law of nature. This sense, which the Greek commentaries suggest and which Augustine also brings forward and seems to approve in proposition 29 with what precedes, agrees excellently and appears entirely genuine.
And indeed the Apostle may seem to have alluded to the passage in Hosea 6, which reads thus: "But they, like Adam, have transgressed the covenant"—that is, they did not sin from ignorance as those who have no law, but just as Adam transgressed the express covenant which I established with him in paradise, so also these transgressed the law which I gave them through Moses by worshiping false gods.
Therefore in that manner the Apostle says death reigned over those who did not have the law and through this did not transgress in the manner he had said in chapter 2: "Those who sinned without law will perish without law," so that "to sin without law" and "to sin not in the likeness of Adam's transgression" are the same, and conversely "to sin under law" and "to sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression" are the same.
That those who simply did not sin in any way cannot be understood is manifest, because he had already said "In whom all sinned" and in the above "we have charged that all are under sin," likewise "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Hence that construction of this passage which Chrysostom presents becomes improbable, saying thus: "How did it reign? According to the likeness of Adam's transgression." Augustine also mentions this in the proposition mentioned above, even if he does not approve it.
For if this part, by hyperbaton as they say (to whom this interpretation appeals), is referred to the word "reigned," that phrase "over those who did not sin" will be placed absolutely. This conflicts with what has been said, not to mention the rather awkward expression. For it is not aptly said that death reigns "according to the likeness of Adam's transgression," as men sin according to that likeness.
For what they press concerning the Greek preposition ἐπί, by which they say a cause is denoted, we have already taught elsewhere that these prepositions ἐν and ἐπί are sometimes used interchangeably in the Scriptures.
WHO IS A TYPE OF THE ONE TO COME. Who—Adam—is a type, in Greek τύπος, of the one to come—that is, he bears the figure of Him who was to come, namely Christ, whom elsewhere he calls "the last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15). The Apostle means that Adam was a type and figure of Christ by comparison from the contrary, as Augustine says. For Adam and Christ are like two mutually opposed principles in respect to men. For through Adam sin and death entered into the world; through Christ, righteousness and life. This matter is explained more fully a little later.
Otherwise that τοῦ μέλλοντος ("of the one to come") could be taken in the neuter gender—that is, "of that which is to come"—but making no sense relevant to the present purpose.
Furthermore, Pelagius's commentary at this place is entirely Pelagian, referring everything to imitation. His words are: "Adam was made a type of Christ. For just as Adam, transgressing God's commandment first, is an example to those wishing to transgress God's law, so also Christ, fulfilling the Father's will, is an example to those desiring to imitate Him." But we have sufficiently refuted this sense, which he also inculcates in what follows, above.
However, because this type is not in every respect conformable, as Augustine says in the second work against Julian, therefore it follows:
15. BUT NOT AS THE TRESPASS, SO ALSO IS THE GIFT. Understand the verb "is" or "conducts itself" or something of that kind. He shows that in the comparison already mentioned there is dissimilarity, because these two things do not proceed entirely similarly: the sin of Adam and the gift or grace of Christ, about which he had said above, "through whom we have now received reconciliation." Not similarly, I say, compared from the contrary—that is, Adam's sin unto evil and Christ's grace unto good—since the latter is far more powerful and efficacious than the former.
"Trespass" here and in what follows he calls what above he called "sin." For he does not distinguish in this present discussion between ἁμαρτία (sin) and παράπτωμα (trespass). This is clear from the fact that below, when he had said "the law came in to increase τὸ παράπτωμα," he resumes the same thus: "but where ἡ ἁμαρτία increased." This is a manifest proof of the interchangeable use of these words. Therefore from this word παράπτωμα someone wrongly concludes that here is signified not the trespass or sin of Adam but the fall of the whole race. For certainly that the sin of one Adam is signified is plainly shown by what follows:
FOR IF BY THE TRESPASS OF ONE, MANY DIED, MUCH MORE HAS THE GRACE OF GOD AND THE GIFT IN THE GRACE OF ONE MAN JESUS CHRIST ABOUNDED TO MANY. This is proof of the stated dissimilarity, which he pursues up to that point "Therefore as through one man's trespass," etc. He teaches that Christ's donation, compared with Adam's harm, excels, whether we consider the gifts that are given or the sins that are forgiven. The former mode he attends to here, the latter in the immediately following part, and finally he joins both differences. This analysis is Augustine's in the exposition of proposition 29.
Although it pleases others that in the third place he only repeats and explains what he said first. "In the grace of one man"—in Greek "in the grace which is or was of one man." Likewise "to many"—in Greek "to many," just as in the rest of the chapter the translator constantly renders the same word, lest this change from "many" to "more" move anyone, as if more were saved through Christ than died in Adam, when the matter rather stands contrariwise.
But the Pelagians abused this reading, saying that therefore Paul spoke of Christ's grace as "abounding to more" because it extends also to infants who could not have imitated Adam's sin. Concerning this matter, Augustine, ignorant of our reading, writes thus in work 2 against Julian, in words cited by Bede: "That you said the Apostle vigilantly pressed 'much more has the grace of God and the gift in the grace of one man Jesus Christ abounded to more,' wishing it to be understood that 'more' was said because His grace reaches to infants to whom the imitation of the first man does not pertain—either a faulty codex has lied to you, or you yourself lie, or by someone false or deceiving, or by forgetfulness you have been deceived. For the Apostle does not say 'more' but 'many.' Attend to the Greek codex and you will find πολλοὺς not πλείονας. He said therefore that grace abounded much more to many, not to more many—that is, not to more, as we have already shown." Thus Augustine.
It is clear therefore that the Apostle does not here press the multitude of those who are made partakers of Christ's grace, but the abundance of Christ's benefits, which is signified in that he says "much more."
The sense therefore is: For by the trespass or transgression of one man indeed, many—that is, all propagated from him—incur death, but much more through the grace of one man Jesus Christ—that is, on account of His merits—God pours out liberally upon many, namely all the elect or all pertaining to Christ, the gifts of His grace. For Adam by his trespass brought in death, but Christ through His grace procures for men many and great gifts of the Holy Spirit and even immortality itself, and thus restores to us more grace than we lost in Adam—namely perseverance in righteousness and eternal life. For Adam did not have these in paradise.
Again, from this passage the sin of propagation is established against the Pelagians. For as Augustine noted, the phraseology of sacred Scripture does not allow us to say that Adam died by the trespass of the devil, although he imitated it, just as here many are said to have died by the trespass of one Adam. Therefore this is to be understood not of imitation but of propagation.
But you will ask why he said "many" in the former part when he could have said "all." I answer: either because he was speaking of the past—ἀπέθανον, "they died"—or rather so that there might be conformity of the first member with the latter. So below he now calls both "all," now "many." See the commentary there.
16. AND NOT AS THROUGH ONE WHO SINNED, SO ALSO IS THE GIFT. In Greek: "And not as through one who sinned, the gift or donation." Certain Latin manuscripts agree, as well as the text of Ambrose in an older edition, which read not "sin" but "the one sinning," so that it is likely that the Latin translator translated it this way. For in Greek there is a participle of the past tense, which the Latins lack. Augustine also in book 1 on the baptism of infants, chapter 12, and epistle 89 and proposition 29, reads "the one sinning." In which places, although the copies vary, nevertheless even in Bede in the collections from Augustine's book on the baptism of infants, "the one sinning" is read. Bede himself, when citing the Apostle's text, now reads "the one sinning," now "the sinner."
Furthermore, the Syriac indeed translates it thus: "And not as the trespass of one, so the gift." But he did this as a paraphrast. It is therefore an incomplete statement, especially as written by Paul in Greek, which may be supplied and expounded thus: "For neither as through one man who sinned death came into the world, so also does Christ's gift conduct itself"—as if to say: Not as from one man's one transgression death was introduced, so does Christ's grace liberate from only one sin and its punishment. The following words declare this sense:
FOR THE JUDGMENT INDEED WAS FROM ONE UNTO CONDEMNATION, BUT THE GRACE WAS FROM MANY TRESPASSES UNTO JUSTIFICATION. In Greek there is a play on words, κρίμα κατάκρίμα, which cannot be rendered in Latin.
That "from one"—either understand "trespass," as Augustine wishes, because "from many trespasses" follows, or "from one who sinned," for this had preceded. Although the sense comes to the same thing. For if you understand "from one who sinned," it must be taken formally—that is, insofar as he sinned. "Condemnation" indeed means that of death, which he expressed in what preceded, concerning which he also soon expounds himself.
Therefore the sense is: For the judgment indeed of God from one sin of the first man, or because that one man sinned, proceeded unto condemnation of death; but the grace of God, having led forth and liberated not from one trespass but from many, bestows righteousness, because it not only remits that one sin of Adam, whether committed by him or contracted from him, which is in individuals, but moreover remits many sins superadded by the evil will of Adam's posterity themselves.
Furthermore, the Apostle further illustrates this dissimilarity of the comparison between Adam and Christ in the following words:
17. FOR IF BY THE TRESPASS OF ONE, DEATH REIGNED THROUGH ONE—certain codices wrongly read "For if in the trespass of one," namely with the preposition "in" added, which is neither in the Greek nor in all the Latins, and impedes the sense more than it helps.
MUCH MORE THOSE WHO RECEIVE THE ABUNDANCE OF GRACE AND OF THE GIFT AND OF RIGHTEOUSNESS WILL REIGN IN LIFE THROUGH ONE, JESUS CHRIST. "And of the gift and of righteousness"—in Greek "and of the gift of righteousness" without the middle conjunction, except that in a few it reads "the gift of righteousness." Moreover, Augustine only reads "the abundance of grace and of righteousness" in book 1 on the baptism of infants, chapter 13, and thus is cited by Bede in the collections. So also it is read in Irenaeus, book 3, chapter 18.
The sense of the period: If through one man, inasmuch as that one transgressed and by that contagion infected his posterity, death pervaded the human race, much more those who through Christ will have received the abundance of gifts by which they will have been justified from sins and advanced in righteousness, will reign in eternal life through the same one man opposed to the first man, namely Jesus Christ.
It is a repetition of the earlier difference, except that here he now more expressly opposes life to death—namely that life which will be the reward of righteousness received through Christ. Where it should be noted that when he had said "death reigned through one," he nevertheless did not say conversely that life will reign through one Jesus Christ, but said that the justified themselves will reign in life—both because it sounds more pleasant if the men themselves are said to be about to reign (which kingdom indeed Scripture also promises to the just, Matthew 25 and elsewhere), and because by so speaking he wished to suggest also a certain dissimilarity between death and life, just as he had done between trespass and gift. For death so reigns that it destroys those over whom it reigns. But life will so reign in us that it makes us kings—that is, sharers with Christ of the heavenly kingdom.
Observe, reader, that the Apostle in this chapter uses almost indifferently and interchangeably four Greek words: χάρις, χάρισμα, δώρεα, δώρημα. Of which the first our translator renders "grace," the second now "gift," now "grace," the third now "gift," now "donation," and the fourth "gift." By these words, according to the exigency of what is said, sometimes God's beneficence is signified, sometimes the act of giving, sometimes the thing itself given. This will be clear to one who weighs each in its own place.
18. THEREFORE AS THROUGH THE TRESPASS OF ONE UNTO ALL MEN UNTO CONDEMNATION—he returns to the comparison of Adam and Christ indicated in that part "who is a type of the one to come," and he recollects it from what has been said and at the same time supplies what he had left incomplete where he said "Therefore as through one man," etc., by adding what follows:
SO ALSO THROUGH THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF ONE UNTO ALL MEN UNTO JUSTIFICATION OF LIFE. "Through the righteousness of one"—in Greek "through the justification of one," and thus he translated the Greek word δικαίωμα a little before. But both here and there "righteousness" is rightly understood. So Revelation 19: "Fine linen is the justifications of the saints"—that is, righteousnesses, just works. It is a different verbal form in what follows: "unto justification of life"—in Greek δικαίωσιν.
The sense of this passage is: Now from those things which we have said about Adam and Christ it is clear that just as through the disobedience of one Adam, evil or sin was propagated unto all men begotten from him, drawing them unto condemnation of death, so also through the righteousness of one Christ—that is, his just and holy actions and particularly his obedience by which he obeyed the Father even unto death—good or grace reaches and as it were is propagated unto all men who are on Christ's side, unto effecting in them righteousness by which they may be led unto eternal life—as if he had said, unto vital or vivifying justification.
I said "particularly obedience" because he names this in the following part.
Furthermore, the universal sign "all" placed in both members, not all expound in the same way. Pelagius indeed wishes it to be taken universally in neither place. "Is God unrighteous who inflicts wrath?" he asks. "By no means! How can he condemn all men for one's trespass when not all men have been justified by one Christ's righteousness? But when he says 'all,' he does not speak generally but signifies the multitude of each part." Thus he, with a heretical sense by which he denies original sin.
A certain more recent writer restricts universality in the latter place thus: "unto all men if they wish"—as if even willing itself were not a work of Christ's grace, Paul attesting in Philippians 2: "It is God who works in you to will." Therefore a restriction of this kind, which I have not read in anyone else, is entirely to be disapproved.
Another certain learned man understands absolute universality in both places, but interprets "justification of life" as resurrection unto life, which will be common even to the wicked, citing another passage of Paul as if of the same sense with this from 1 Corinthians 15: "As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." But we will deliver the true understanding of those words in their own place. To this place certainly that sense can only be fitted violently. For justification is nowhere in the Scriptures, indeed not even outside them, taken in this manner, not even if you add "of life."
Again, others, in order to preserve universality the same in both members, expound the latter part thus: "Through the righteousness of one, all men are justified as far as sufficiency is concerned." But this too is contrary to the Apostle's mind, who compares Adam's trespass with Christ's righteousness as to the effects of each, not as to the sufficiency of the causes.
But if the exposition of the universal sign which we have given pleases anyone less, he will be able to say that by "all men" in both members is understood the human race, yet not taken with the same amplitude, but according to the subject matter: in the former member indeed plainly generally, since there the discourse is about the parent of the whole race, through whom death was brought upon all without exception; in the latter however according to the mode of speaking which Scripture often uses, saying "all men" when it wishes to be understood as "many everywhere," as Luke 6: "Woe when men bless you," Acts 22: "You will be a witness for him to all men," Colossians 1: "Admonishing every man and teaching every man," and Titus 2: "The grace of God our Savior has appeared to all men"—that is, to the human race. Which is elsewhere signified by a similar locution using the name "world" or "whole world," as John 3: "So God loved the world," and in chapter 1 of this epistle: "Your faith is proclaimed in all the world."
Let this sense therefore be probable: Just as through one's trespass came condemnation of death upon the human race, so through one's righteousness came justification of life upon the human race. But distinguish the human race as I have said.
19. FOR AS BY THE DISOBEDIENCE OF ONE MAN MANY WERE CONSTITUTED SINNERS—the Greek varies in person: κατεστάθημεν "we were constituted," others κατεστάθησαν "they were constituted," which agrees better with the whole sequence of the Apostle's discourse.
SO ALSO BY THE OBEDIENCE OF ONE SHALL MANY BE CONSTITUTED RIGHTEOUS. He inculcates the same thing in other words, as a doctrine of the greatest moment. There is however a difference between this sentence and the previous one, because in that one the effects—death and life—are chiefly considered; in this one, however, sin and righteousness: sin as the cause of death, righteousness as the cause of life.
Then, because this is a certain interpretation of the previous statement, as Theophylact notes. For the Apostle interprets Adam's sin as disobedience and Christ's righteousness as obedience. Whence this sentence is rightly taken by him as a certain proof and declaration of what preceded.
Nor should it move you that he now calls "many" those whom he previously called "all," nor should Theodoret's commentary deceive you, saying that Paul used the word "many" even in the former part because there are found among Adam's posterity some who were free from greater sins, such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, and the patriarchs and others renowned and distinguished under the law—as if to say these are not comprehended in the Apostle's sentence because they were not imitators of the first transgression. This is an erroneous exposition and is refuted because the Apostle not only says that many were constituted sinners, but also said above that many died, since it is established that death pertains to all.
He therefore says "many" whom he before said "all," both because all men are truly many, and because not all absolutely are justified through Christ, but all according to the sense just mentioned.
Note also that the Apostle now calls what he previously called sin and righteousness "disobedience" and "obedience," from which it is understood that Paul was speaking about the actual sin of Adam and about the actual righteousness of Christ. Adam's sin is called disobedience not because it proceeded from contempt of the divine precept, but using the name of disobedience for transgression, because sin is committed against a positive and express law, such as was that concerning "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: you shall not eat of it. For on whatever day you eat of it, you shall surely die."
The sense is: Just as by the disobedience of one first man—that is, transgression—many, that is all begotten from him, were constituted sinners, inasmuch as they were infected from that transgression with sin, from which they are truly called and are sinners, so also by the obedience of one Christ, by which he obeyed the Father even unto the death of the cross, shall many be justified—namely, as many as are reborn from him through faith.
Again, this passage is manifest for original sin. Then from it is shown, against the sectarians, that our righteousness is internal, just as our sin is internal and inherent. For if truly and properly we are constituted sinners by Adam's transgression (which the adversaries admit), but we are not truly and properly constituted righteous by Christ's obedience but only imputatively, as they wish, then neither will this comparison which the Apostle makes stand, and much less will Christ's righteousness have conferred upon us than Adam's unrighteousness took away. For in him we lost true and inherent righteousness; in Christ we would recover imputed—that is, false—righteousness.
For the Apostle speaks of righteousness which we now receive through faith, not of that perfection of righteousness which we hope for in the future life.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment