Romans 5:19

At the first glance this verse seems to be a mere useless repetition of the foregoing. Looking at it closely, we see that, as the γάρ, for, indicates, it is meant to state the moral cause which gives rise to the two facts put parallel to one another in Romans 5:18. In fact, Romans 5:19 a serves to explain 18a, and 19b to explain 18b. This logical relation accounts for two modifications, apparently accidental, which are introduced into the parallel expressions in Romans 5:19. For the simple ὡς, as, of Romans 5:18, there is substituted here ὥσπερ, which is more emphatic and precise, for precisely as. For the new contrast is meant to give the key to the preceding one. Then, for the antithesis of one offence, of one sentence of justification, to the notion of universality, (all), Romans 5:18, there is substituted the antithesis between εἷς and οἱ πολλοί, one and the many. Why the reappearance of this expression used in Romans 5:15, but abandoned since Romans 5:16-17 ? It is because the apostle would here ascend from historical effects to moral causes or hidden principles. Two historical facts sway the life of mankind (Romans 5:18): the condemnation which kills it, and the justification which quickens it. These two great facts rest on two individual moral acts: an act of disobedience, and an act of obedience. Now in both cases the extension to all of the effect produced can be explained only on one condition: the possibility, namely, of the action of one on many. This second antithesis: one and many, belongs therefore to the exposition of the cause (Romans 5:19), as the first: one act and all, belong to the exposition of the historical fact (Romans 5:18). Hence the reason why in Romans 5:15, where he had to do with the antithesis between the two causes, the apostle had dropped the pronoun πάντες, all, used in Romans 5:12, to apply the form εἷς and οἱ πολλοί, one and the many, and why he reverts to it here, where he is ascending from the effect to the cause. New proofs of the scrupulous care with which the apostle watched over the slightest details of his writings.

This word παρακοή, disobedience, denotes the moral act which provoked the sentence of condemnation (Romans 5:18 a). There had been in the case of Adam ἀκοή, hearing; a positive prohibition had sounded in his ears. But this prohibition had been for him as it were null and non-existent (παρακοή).

The verb κατεστάθησαν, which we have translated literally by were constituted, signifies, when it is applied to an office: to be established in it (Luke 12:14; Acts 7:10; Acts 7:27; and even Hebrews 5:1); but when it is applied, as here, to a moral state, the question arises whether it is to be taken in the sense of being regarded and treated as such, or being rendered such. The second meaning, if I am not mistaken, is the most common in classic Greek: τινὰ εἰς ἀπορίαν καθιστάναι, to put one into a state of embarrassment; κλαίοντα καταστῆσαί τινα, to make one weep, etc. In the two principal examples taken from the New Testament there is room for some hesitation; James 4:4: “Whosoever will be a friend of the world is made the enemy of God,” may signify: “ is proved, or is rendered the enemy”...The last sense is the more natural. In 2 Peter 1:8: “Such virtues will make you neither barren nor unfruitful,” the second meaning is the more probable. It is also the meaning which the context appears to me to demand here. The apostle is explaining the moral cause of the fact stated 18a. The meaning: to be regarded, or treated as..., will only yield a tautology with the fact to be explained. The real gradation from the one verse to the other is as follows: “They were treated as sinners (by the sentence of death) (Romans 5:18); for they were really made sinners in Adam (Romans 5:19).” The last words of Romans 5:12 already involved the same idea. “They all participated mysteriously in the offence (ἐφ᾿ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον);” the first fact whence there resulted the inclination to sin affirmed in our Romans 5:19. Moreover, the διά construed with the genitive (by) would suffice to demonstrate the effective sense of the καθιστάναι, to constitute, in Romans 5:19. With the other sense, the διά with the accusative (on account of) would have been more suitable.

With the disobedience of one there is contrasted the obedience of one. Some understand thereby the expiatory sacrifice of Jesus. But as in the Levitical cultus the victim required to be witbout blemish, so in the true expiatory sacrifice the victim required to be without sin. It is impossible, therefore, to isolate the death of Christ here from His holy life; and the term obedience embraces both; comp. Philippians 2:8.

If the word δίκαιοι, righteous, denoted here a moral state, like the ἁμαρτωλοί, sinners, in the first proposition, the same question would be raised here as to the meaning of καθίστασθαι. But if the word righteous is applied, as the sense of this whole part requires, to imputed righteousness, then the verb naturally takes the meaning of being constituted righteous, though there would be nothing to hinder us from translating it, as in the first member, by: being rendered righteous. For as the case in question is a state obtained in a declaratory way, being rendered amounts to the same thing as being constituted. The future: will be rendered, or constituted righteous, is referred by some to the successive justification of those sinners who during the present economy come to faith; by others, to the final declaration of the judgment day. In the passages 16b and 17b the apostle transported himself, as we have seen, to the close of the economy of probation. This connection decides in favor of the second meaning. The time in question is that described Romans 5:9-11. If, then, the idea of moral righteousness is not that of this word righteous, as Dietzsch and others will have it, the fact of sanctification is nevertheless involved in the supreme absolution to which the second part of this verse refers.

The expression: the many, or the multitude, cannot have the same extension in the second member as in the first. For it is not here as in Romans 5:15, where the question was only of the destination of righteousness. This passage refers, as is proved by the future: will be made righteous, to the effectual application. Now, nowhere does St. Paul teach universal salvation. There are even passages in his writings which seem expressly to exclude it; for example, 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Philippians 3:19. On the other hand, the pronoun the many cannot denote a simple plurality (the majority); for, as we have seen in Romans 5:15; Romans 5:19 a, the article οἱ, the, implies a totality. The totality must therefore be restricted to those whom, Romans 5:17, Paul called the accepters, οἱ λαμβάνοντες, and of whom he said: they shall reign in life. This future: shall reign, is in close connection with the future: will be made, in our verse; for the declaration of righteousness (Romans 5:19) is the condition of reigning in life (Romans 5:17).

We cannot hold, with the school of Baur, that this parallel between Adam and Christ was inspired by a polemical intention in opposition to a legal Jewish-Christianity. But it is nevertheless evident that in so vast a survey of the principal phases of the religious development of mankind, a place, however small, could not fail to be granted to the Mosaic institution. The part of the law is therefore briefly indicated Romans 5:20; Romans 5:21 is the general conclusion.