Romans 5:18 f. Summary recapitulation of the whole parallel treated of from Romans 5:12 onwards, so that the elements of likeness and unlikeness contained in it are now comprehended in one utterance. Συλλογίζεται ἐνταῦθα τὸ πᾶν, Theodore of Mopsuestia. The emergence of the ἄρα οὖν now ushering in the conclusion, as well as the corresponding relation of the contents of Romans 5:18 f. to the indication given by ὁς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος in Romans 5:14, carries us back to Romans 5:12; not merely to Romans 5:16 f. (de Wette, Fritzsche); or merely to Romans 5:15-17 (Hofmann, Dietzsch). The right view is taken by Philippi, Ewald, Holsten.

ἄρα οὖν] conclusive: accordingly then,[1335] in very frequent use by the Apostle (Romans 7:3; Romans 7:25, Romans 8:12, Romans 9:16; Romans 9:18, Romans 14:12; Romans 14:19; Galatians 6:10; Ephesians 2:19 et al[1336]), and that, contrary to the classical usage (Herm. a[1337] Antig. 628, a[1338] Viger. p. 823), at the beginning of the sentence. For the necessary (contrary to Mehring’s view) completion of the two sentences, which are in the sharpest and briefest manner compressed as it were into a mere exclamation (Ewald), it is sufficient simply to supply: res cessit, it has come, ἀπεβή (Winer, p. 546 [E. T. 734]), or ἐγένετο (Grotius). See Buttmann’s neut. Gr. p. 338. As it therefore has come to a sentence of condemnation for all men through One trespass, so also it has come to justification of life (which has for its consequence the possession of the future Messianic life, comp Romans 5:21; John 5:28-29) for all men through One justifying judgment. The supplying of τὸ κρῖμα ἐγένετο to the first, and τὸ χάρισμα ἐγένετο to the second half (so Fritzsche and Rückert), considering the opposite sense of the two subjects, renders the very compressed discourse somewhat singular.

διʼ ἑνὸς δικ.] through one judicial verdict (see on Romans 5:16; Romans 5:19), namely, that which was pronounced by God on account of the obedience of Christ rendered through His death. In strict logic indeed the δικαίωμα, which is properly the antithesis of κατάκριμα (as in Romans 5:16), should not be opposed to παράπτωμα; but this incongruity of a lively interchange of conceptions is not un-Pauline (comp Romans 5:15). And it is thoroughly unwarranted to assign to δικαίωμα here also, as in Romans 5:16, significations which it has not; such as actual status of being righteous (Hofmann, Stölting), fulfilment of right (Philippi, Mangold), making amends (Rothe), righteous deed (Holsten), righteous life-condition of Christ (Dietzsch), with which a new humanity begins, Acts of justification (Tholuck), virtuousness (Baumgarten-Crusius), obedience (de Wette), and the like—definitions, in which for the most part regard is had to the act of the death of Jesus partly with and partly without the addition of the obedientia activa (comp also Klöpper), while Fritzsche explains it of the incarnation and humiliation of Christ (Php 2:5; Php 2:8) as His recte factum. Ewald interprets rightly: “through One righteous sentence;” so also van Hengel and Umbreit. This alone is permitted by Romans 5:16. It is the One declaration of what is now of right, that is, the judicial verdict of the being reconciled, which took place on the part of God on the ground of Christ’s sacrificial death—the consequence therefore, of His ὑπακοή rendered in death—and which so far may appear as the antithesis to the fall of Adam with the same right as in Romans 5:15 the grace and gift were adduced as the contrast to that fall. To take the ἑνός as masculine (Vulgate, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, and many others, including Tholuck, Fritzsche, Nielsen, Picard, Klöpper, Philippi, and Hofmann), is, seeing that no article is annexed, unwarranted according to the analogy of the immediate context, vv 17, 19; or Paul would have only expressed himself in a way liable to be misunderstood (how differently in ver 16!). Equally unwarranted is it to conceive the verb to be supplied in the apodosis as in the future (Philippi, Dietzsch). The judicial verdict is given and has redounded once and for ever to justification of eternal life for all; that is the great historical fact of salvation, which Paul has in view and sets forth as a concrete event (not under the point of view of a timeless abstraction, as Rothe thought) without considering how far it is now or in the future appropriated through faith by the subjects.

In both halves of the verse πάντες ἄνθρωποι is simply all men, as in Romans 5:12. At the same time it must be noted that in the second half the relation is conceived in its objectivity. On the part of God it has come to justification for all; thus the case stands objectively; the subjective attainment of this universal justification, the realisation of it for the individuals, depends upon whether the latter believingly apprehend the δικαίωμα for their own subjective δικαίωσις, or unbelievingly reject it. This dependence on a subjective condition, however, did not belong to the scope of our passage, in which the only object was to set forth the all-embracing blessed objective consequence of the ἓ δικαίωμα, in contrast to the all-destructive objective consequence of the ἕν παράπτωμα. Hence just as little can anything be deduced from our passage as from Romans 11:32 in favour of a final ἀποκατάστασις. The distinction imported by Hofmann and Lechler: that πάντες ἄνθρωποι means all without distinction, and πάντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι, on the other hand, all without exception, the sum total of mankind, is purely fanciful; πάντες means omnes, nemine excepto, alike whether the substantive belonging to it, in accordance with the connection, has or has not the article (“articulus, cum sensus fert additus vel omissus, discrimen sententiae non facit,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 519). Only when the article stands before πάντες (consequently οἱ πάντες ἄνθ.) does the distinction emerge, that we have to think of “cunctos sive universos, i. e. singulos in unum corpus colligatos” (Ellendt, p. 521); comp Krüger, § 50, 11, 12; Kühner, II. 1, p. 545.

[1335] Ἄρα, “ad internam potius causam spectat,” οὖν, “magis ad externam,” Klotz, ad Devar. p. 717. Comp. p. 173. The ἄρα serves specifically for dialectic accuracy; Baeumlein, p. 35; comp. Kühner, II. p. 857.

[1336] t al. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1337] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1338] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

Romans 5:18. With ἄρα οὖν (cf. Romans 7:3; Romans 7:25, and often in Paul) the conclusion of the argument is introduced. It is simplest to take ἑνὸς in both clauses as neuter. “As through one offence the result for all men was condemnation, so also through one righteous act the result for all men is justification of life.” The result in both cases is mediated; in the former, by men’s actual sin; in the latter, by their faith in Christ. It has been questioned whether δικαίωμα can mean a “righteous act,”—that which Christ achieved in His death, conceived as one thing commanding the approval of God. This sense seems to be required by the contrast with παράπτωμα, but Meyer and others argue that, as in Romans 5:16, the meaning must be “a sentence of justification”. “Through one justifying sentence (pronounced over the world because of Christ’s death) the result for all men is justification of life.” But this justifying sentence in vacuo is alien to the realism of Paul’s thinking, and no strain is put upon δικαίωμα (especially when we observe its correspondence with παράπτωμα) in making it signify Christ’s work as a thing in which righteousness is, so to speak, embodied. Lightfoot (Notes on Epistles of St. Paul, p. 292) adopts this meaning, “a righteous deed,” and quotes Arist., Rhet., i., 13, τὰ ἀδικήματα πάντα καὶ τὰ δικαιώματα, and Etk. Nic., v., 7 (10): καλεῖται δὲ μᾶλλον δικαιοπράγημα τὸ κοινόν: δικαίωμα δὲ τὸ ἐπανόρθωμα τοῦ ἀδικήματος. This sense of an act by which an injustice is rectified is exactly suitable here. Through this the result for all men is δικαίωσις ζωῆς: for the genitive, see Winer, p. 235. Simcox, Language of the N.T., 85. When God justifies the sinner, he enters into and inherits life. But Lightfoot makes it Genesis appos.

18. Therefore] In Romans 5:18-19 the argument, from Romans 5:12, is summed up as to its main substance; namely, the parallel of Adam and Christ; the illustration of the work of Christ by Adam’s position in respect of his descendants and the effect on them of his sin.

as by the offence of one] Better, as by one offence, as in marg. E. V.—The Gr. is elliptical here. We may supply “the result was,” in each part of the verse; as through one offence the result was, unto all men, to condemnation; so through one righteous act the result was, unto all men, to justification of life.—The word rendered here righteous act is the same as that rendered “acquittal” in the note on Romans 5:16, q.v. Its strict original meaning is a thing righteously done. Its usual actual meaning is an ordinance of justice. But in one N. T. passage at least it appears to mean a righteous act or course of acts. (Revelation 19:8, “the righteousnesses of the saints.”) It thus is possible to interpret it in one place here as an ordinance of acquittal, in the other as the great Acts of righteousness (which becomes also, as it were, a statute of righteousness,) done by the Redeemer for His brethren. Such a change of reference is not alien to St Paul’s style.—If, however, the interpretation righteous ordinance should seem more necessary than it seems to us, it would fairly suit the context. Christ’s obedience is (as suggested just above) viewed thus as the embodied ordinance, or institute, of Justification. This last, on the whole, is Meyer’s explanation.

all men … all men] What is the reference of these words in the two cases respectively? In the first, certainly, all mankind is meant. Every man, not in theory only but fact, incurred sentence of death in Adam. In the second case also, many commentators, (e.g. Meyer,) hold that all mankind is intended: not that all actually receive justification, but that all are within the scope of Christ’s work. Without entering on the profound question of the Divine Intentions, and merely seeking for St Paul’s special thought here, we prefer to take the second “all men” with a limit, as meaning “all who are connected with the Second Adam;” all “His brethren.” For through this whole context St Paul is dealing with results and facts, not with abstract theory. From the dreadful fact of the result of death from the Fall he reasons to the results of Christ’s work; and the parallel would be most imperfect (and such as precisely to contradict the “much more” of Romans 5:15; Romans 5:17,) if while in the one case condemnation was a fact and act, Justification should be only a possibility in the other. If Adam brings death in fact on all concerned, Christ must bring life in fact on all concerned also. Again, a limitation is suggested by the whole reasoning of the Epistle, and specially by Romans 8:30, where the justified are identical with the “foreknown” and “glorified,” in the plain sense of the passage.—The use of “all men” with this change of reference is fairly illustrated by 1 Corinthians 15:22-23. For through that whole ch. the Resurrection of the Church is the sole subject; and 1 Corinthians 15:23 explicitly refers to “them that are Christ’s:” and yet, when the parallel of Adam and Christ is in view, the word “all” is equally used there in both cases.—See for other illustrations, though less exact, John 12:32; Titus 2:11.

The view of Christ as the Head of all Mankind is, to say the least, far less distinct in Scripture than that of Christ as the Head of justified Mankind, the true Church. Bearing this in mind, a difference of reference here will surely seem more natural than a sameness which can only be explained by admitting profound differences along with it.

justification of life] i.e. which confers, and results in, life; both by reversal of the sentence of death, and (as in Romans 5:17) by the gift of the life of glory in consequence.

Romans 5:18. Ἄρα οὖν) ἄρα draws the inference, syllogistically: οὖν concludes, almost rhetorically: for this subject is not farther discussed than in this and the following verse.—ἑνὸς—ἑνὸς, of one—of one) In the masculine; as is manifest from the antithesis, all. The word one, generally put without the addition, man, designates with the greatest force, one, either of the two.—δικαιώματος—δικαίωσιν) Δικαίωμα is, so to speak, the material substratum, the foundation for δικαιώσει, justification; obedience, righteousness fulfilled. It may be called justificament (justificamentum) The ground and material of justification, as ἐδραίωμα denotes a firmament [or means of making firm]; ἔνδυμα, vestment; ἐπίβλημα, additament [or the thing wherewith addition is made]; μίασμα, defilement; ὀχύρωμα, muniment; περικάθαρμα, the means of purgation; περίψημα, the thing scraped of; σκέπασμα, a tegument or the thing wherewith a covering is made; στερέωμα, firmament; ὑπόδημα, a thing wherewith the foot is covered, a shoe; φρόνημα, sentiment [the material of φρόνησις] French sentiment. Aristot. Eth. Book v. c. 10, has put ἀδίκημα and δικαίωμα in opposition to each other, and defines the latter to be the correction of injustice [τὸ ἐπανόρθωμα τοῦ ἀδικήματος] the putting right what is wrong; which is tantamount to satisfaction [or atonement], a term undeservedly hateful to the Socinians.

The following scheme exhibits the exquisite propriety of the terms:—

A.

B.

C.

D.

Romans 5:16.

κρίμα,

κατάκριμα·,

χάρισμα,

δικαίωμα,

judgment.

condemnation.

free gift.

righteousness.

Romans 5:18.

παράπτωμα,

κατάκριμα·,

δικαίωμα,

δικαίωσις ζωῆς,

Offence.

condemnation.

righteousness.

justification of life.

In both verses A and B are of the same class, συστοιχεῖ, [are co-ordinate] and likewise C and D; but A and C correspond in the opposite classes, ἀντιστοιχεῖ; so also B and D. In Romans 5:16 the transaction on the part of God is described; in Romans 5:18 on the part of Adam and of Christ; and that, with less variety of words in the case of the economy of sin, than in the case of the economy of grace. Διχάιωσις ζωῆς, justification of life, is that Divine declaration, by which the sinner, subject to death, has life awarded to him, and that too, with justice on his side.

Verse 18. - So then, as through one trespass (rather so than "by the offence of one," as in the Authorized Version) the judgment came upon all men unto condemnation, so also through one act of righteousness (so Revised Version. The expression is δἰ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος, contrasted with the preceding δἰ ἑνὸς παραπτωματος) the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life, i.e. conferring life. "Declaratio Divina ilia, qua peccator, mortis reus, vitae adjudicatur, idque jure" (Bengel). Here, as was observed under ver. 15, the phrase used is εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, not εἰς τοὺς πολλοὺς, thus indisputably denoting universality of effect, as of the παράπτωμα, so also of δικαίωμα. But there is no verb to make clear the force of the preposition εἰς. It may denote the result to which a cause tends, without implying its inevitable accomplishment. Thus (Romans 7:10), Αὐρέθη μοι ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ εἰς ζωὴν, αὕτη εἰς θάνατον, where the same preposition expresses both the intended result of life and the actual result of death. Romans 5:18The offense of one (ἑνὸς παραπτώματος)

Rev., corrects, one trespass.

The righteousness of one (ἑνὸς δικαιώματος)

See on Romans 5:16. Rev., correctly, one act of righteousness.

Romans 5:18 Interlinear
Romans 5:18 Parallel Texts


Romans 5:18 NIV
Romans 5:18 NLT
Romans 5:18 ESV
Romans 5:18 NASB
Romans 5:18 KJV

Romans 5:18 Bible Apps
Romans 5:18 Parallel
Romans 5:18 Biblia Paralela
Romans 5:18 Chinese Bible
Romans 5:18 French Bible
Romans 5:18 German Bible

Bible Hub