Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 5:13

(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

13. for until the law ] This and the following verses are not a parenthesis: see on Rom 5:12. “ Until ” here practically = “ before.” The period “from Adam to Moses” is in view, the Law of Moses being taken as the first elaborate statute-giving of God for man. “Laws” existed long before Moses; e.g. those of Marriage, of the sanctity of Life, and of the Sabbath. But the Mosaic Law covered the field of duty in a way unknown before; so as to suggest the question whether human beings, in the previous ages, in some instances, had not satisfied the claims of then-known duty, and so escaped death. But no: in those ages, as in the Mosaic, “death reigned;” therefore there was sin; therefore there was broken law; and that law, in numberless cases, (viz. infantine,) must have been broken only “in Adam;” for it was unknown to the persons in question.

law law ] Both these words in the Gr. are without the article. In spite of some difficulty, we must interpret the first of the Mosaic Law, and the second of Law in some other sense; here probably in the sense of the declared Will of God in general, against which, in a particular case, Adam sinned, and we “in him.”

is not imputed ] So as to bring penalty. Therefore, had there been in no sense a (broken) law in the primeval age, there would have been no death. But death was universal.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Rom 5:13-14

For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses.

The sin of those who died before the law

1. Sin supposes law.

2. But sin was in the world before the law.

3. Hence there is a law in the conscience to which all men are amenable. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The reign of death

is–

I. Perpetuated by sin.

II. Universal. Because all have sinned either against–

1. Positive commands, as Adam.

2. Or the moral law written in the heart.

3. Or in the Word of God.

III. Absolute. He strikes where and when he pleases–the young and old, etc.

IV. Irresistible. All must bow to his sceptre.

V. Would be eternal, but for the interposition of Christ. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

In Adam all die

1. Some say that there can be no criminality where there is not wilful transgression of the law: and therefore God could not impute guilt from birth to every child of Adam. To this we answer, that there is no other way of explaining the certain facts. All men suffer the penalty of sin and death. Now, why? Our explanation is that they are primarily held guilty before God. To deny this is to involve the question in yet greater darkness. It is to charge God with inflicting suffering upon our whole race without a reasonable cause.

2. Paul argues in the text that death had reigned from Adam to Moses, and therefore could not have resulted merely from the violation of the Mosaic law. It took effect on myriads who had no law to guide them but the dictates of conscience or of tradition, and on children who died in unintelligent infancy. But death is the practical imputation of sin: and such imputation implies the existence of a broken law. What law, then, can it be, but Gods command to Adam? And what breach of its but his transgression? And therefore, it was because they were regarded as having been implicated in Adams sin, that they were surrendered to the tyranny of death. Yet their criminality was very different from his. Theirs was indirect and accredited, while his was direct and real. Theirs was unconscious and involuntary, his deliberate and intentional. Theirs was through the crime of another, his through his own. His was the root, and in its damage the branches equally suffered. He was the fountain, and in its defilement all the stream of human existence was polluted.

3. Nor does this contravene our natural sense of justice. We ascribe blameworthiness to wrong states and tendencies of disposition, without staying to inquire how these were originated. A commoner may be elevated to the peerage, and thus confer titles and dignity on all future generations. Or a nobleman, convicted of treason, may involve his posterity in poverty and ignominy.

4. Now, this procedure on the part of God may strike you at first as unjust. And so it would be, if it stood alone. But–

I. We must consider it in connection with Gods great scheme of redemption. Paul invariably links the two together. Here he shows that Adams headship is a type of Christs: and if in one all men have been made sinners, so in the other all have, at least conditionally, been restored to righteousness. Similarly in 1Co 15:1-58 he affirms that as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

II. Our ruin by the fall does not entail on us the doom of final perdition. The life to come is always set forth as the retributive consequence of the present. And no principle is more clear or more frequently stated than that each man must give an account of himself before God, and receive the reward of his own doings. We are here treated as sinners for Adams sake: but hereafter, if so treated, it will be for our own sake. The necessary loss which we have sustained by the fault of another is limited and temporal; it will be our own fault if we make it absolute and eternal. This arrangement, then, has simply altered the conditions of our probationary life. There are two distinct courses which such probation may take.

1. Men might be created holy, and be left to obey or disobey. In the former case their righteousness would be sealed to them forever; but in the latter they must forfeit it forever. In this way the probation of angels was accomplished: and that of Adam and Eve.

2. The other mode is that of souls originally depraved, but furnished with adequate means of self-recovery through grace. And this is the method adopted in regard to all the posterity of Adam and Eve; and it is with reference to it that they are all born under the imputation of the first great transgression.

III. Compare these two alternatives, that you may see how much more desirable that one is, in which we find ourselves concerned. We see what our probation now is, and how easy it is for us, through Gods grace in Christ, to escape perdition, to triumph over our native depravity, and to lay hold on eternal life. But suppose the opposite method had been adopted, do you think that your eternal safety would have been more likely or certain than it is now? Is it not probable that the great majority of mankind would act as Adam and Eve did?

IV. The immense preponderance of good which accrues to the saved, through the economy of grace in Christ. There is a mighty superiority in the Saviours headship above that of Adam. The ultimate benefits of our salvation will infinitely exceed the little temporary sufferings of our loss and ruin through the fall. Conclusion:

1. Let us tremble at the thought of sin, when we survey its terrible results in the ravages of death.

2. Be convinced of sin, and stirred up to seek salvation from it.

3. Let us confidently accept and embrace the salvation of the gospel.

4. Here is an argument for submission and patience under the ills of life. Our subjection to affliction and sorrow is not meant to be our permanent and everlasting state. (T. G. Horton.)

The educating power of mortality

Dr. Bushnell, in his Moral Uses of Dark Things, shows how man can never be at his best without the influences of alarm and threatening, for these enable him to appreciate critical situations, and develop in him the grand qualities of caution and prudence. Surely God knew what was needed to bring the royal elements of our nature to full account when He put death into the world, hiding a mercy under a curse. It is a schoolmaster we should be thankful for, since without it we should lack expression for most that is finest and tenderest in ourselves. We cannot afford to miss the educating power of mortality and its sorrows–the suggestions of the burial scene and the last farewell, the lessons of sick room duty, the privilege of dying bed consolation and grace. We need the discipline of suffering and decay, the culture of fear and danger, the wakenings of latent virtue in fatal emergency and accident. Something must reveal to us the fittest ways of pity and kindness, the dearest facilities of affection, the noblest means of philanthropy, the purest offices of patience, the holiest opportunities of sympathy, the sweetest uses of hope, and the highest service of piety. And in a world where death is we have them all.

Who is the figure of Him that was to come.—

The figure of Him that was to come

If we see great streams of people journeying from every direction towards one common destination, we infer that this spot must be the centre of some unusual attraction. It is a pretty sight to stand some summer Sabbath morning upon a rising ground, and see the lanes dotted with pilgrims wending their way towards the church of God. Suppose a wayfarer encounters groups of travellers, and the nearer he draws to the adjacent town, finds the crowds increasing, and the interest heightening on every face. He asks the object of this unusual excitement, and learns that the foundation stone of a great temple is to be laid by a great man; that there is to be a procession and a gala day of banners, music, and rejoicing. So does a survey of the landscape of past history disclose the lives of many men tending towards one point; and, standing as we do upon our gospel vantage ground, we can see a long procession of lives tending in their acts and history to one point; we can hear the music of many a deed celebrating beforehand one greater deed than all. There was a divinity shaping the ends of many of the lives of the Old Testament worthies, to the purpose that they might be typical of that life which is our life, and by which our stifled souls might breathe again with their destined immortality. A mark had been impressed upon the lives of men in earlier times, and a map had been sketched upon the page of history, whose lines converged towards the one great central fact, that Jesus Christ should come into the world. If we look amongst the men whose lives were eminently typical of the Redeemer, we shall not find one in whose case it will be a more easy task to trace the parallel than that of Adam. But just in proportion as the similarity is striking, so will the points of difference be prominent.

I. Points of correspondence.

1. Both were formed by and came directly from God. Here, of course, we speak of Jesus in His humanity. In the method of his birth the first man differed from all the rest of his posterity, and the only parallel we find to it is in the miraculous conception of the Child of Bethlehem. Of course, even in this, the points of difference are greater than those of likeness. But it was the breath of the Lord which breathed into Adams nostrils the breath of life; it was the Spirit of the Lord which overshadowed the Virgin.

2. Both were formed in the same glorious likeness, designed as the mirrors to reflect the life and image of the Author of all life. And as in Adam, ere he fell, the unblushing cheek, where shame had been ashamed to sit, formed the mirror which reflected the likeness of the Father, so was that same likeness printed on the form and feature of the spiritual life of Jesus Christ, so that He could claim His heavenly pedigree, and declare, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.

3. The fatherhood of both over a numerous race.

(1) The tawny slave who hoes the rice field in the burning sun; the dark-eyed denizens of China and of India; the fiery Afghan; the tall Circassian; the dwarfish Hottentot; the fur-clad dweller amidst northern ice; and the naked panter in the tropic heat; the homeless Jew and clannish Gentile; the readers of the Koran, of the Shasters, of the Bible; the worshipper of the sun, of Juggernaut, and of Jesus; each creature who bears the form and likeness of a man, dates his paternity to Adam.

(2) The seed of the Second Adam shall be also numerous. All souls are His, purchased by Him, that they may be born again through Him. And though the work of regeneration by no means keeps pace with the increase of the race, He shall yet see His seed, and that seed shall outnumber sand or stars for multitude, and be gathered out of all lands. And they shall bear the family feature clear in life and lineament. As by nature they once bore the image of the earthly, so by the redundant grace of this new birth shall they bear impressed upon them the image of the heavenly.

4. The lordship and dominion with which each was invested.

(1) Man was made only a little lower than the angels, and has been crowned with glory and honour. He holds dominion over the very work of Gods own hand; he wounds the earth that it may give him food. All things are put beneath his feet; the beasts range plain and mountainside, but they cannot range so widely as the thought of man; the birds soar high, but they cannot cleave their way to such fair altitudes as mans ambition may attain; the fishes dive down into the ocean gorge, but they cannot pierce to such a deep profound as that intelligence which marks mankind and sets the human over the brute creation.

(2) And if a man is thus large in lordship and dominion, how much more the Son of Man, who came to reassert the creatures claim after it had been flung away, by sharing His own dominion with that creature. The dominion of Jesus is illimitable. While man is made a little lower, He is made so much better than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For when the power of Omnipotence showed forth its mightiest sinew, it was when it wrought in Christ, and raised Him from the dead, etc. (Eph 1:20-23).

5. The conjugal union ordained by God respecting them. Paradise was inadequate to appease the need of the first man, and bring him to rest, till woman was created. And so the Maker hushed him into a deep sleep, and from his side He took the comrade meet for him, and made his happiness complete. Now this is one of the most striking types of Christs union with His Church. He is the Bridegroom, and that Church is the bride, the Lambs wife. Adam and Eve were not more intimately and emphatically one flesh than Christ and the Christian are one spirit. This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.

II. Points of contrast.

1. The first Adam was of the earth, earthy; the Second Adam was the Lord from heaven.

2. The first Adam possessed the Divine image, and effaced it; the Second Adam put on the human image, that He might restore in us the Divine. The serpent hissed its evil breath, and filmed the brightness which God had spread over His creatures brow; and, just as the foul vapour on a looking glass blurs the reflections on its disc, so did the image stamped by the Creator there become distorted and disturbed. But Christ rubbed off the taint of the tempters breath, and wrote the name of God upon the creature in His own blood.

3. The spirit of apostate Adam was proud, unbelieving, discontented, and rebellious; that of the Second Adam was humble, submissive, obedient, and faithful.

4. The first Adam was the medium of death, while the Second brought salvation and life.

5. By the first Adam paradise was lost; by the Second that paradise is regained. (A. Mursell.)

Adam a type of Christ

I. As the federal head of mankind.

II. As the source of life–natural–redeemed.

III. As the cause of universal but widely opposite experiences–sin, death–life, righteousness.

IV. As the prototype of human nature–earthly–heavenly.

V. As the ruler of the world–natural–Divine. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Adam a type of Christ

This is the earliest and deepest of all the types; God the Spirit grasps the first fact of mans history, and therewith prints the lesson of mans redemption. Note–

I. The agreement between the type and the Antitype.

1. Adam and Christ were the true sources or heads of their respective families.

(1) There are two conceivable methods of constituting humanity; one, to make each man independent of all; the other, to make the first man the head and source of humanity. This latter method our Maker has adopted, and it is useless to question whether the other would have been better. When the bird is shut up in a cage, it is better that it should not dash itself against the bars. It was in an attempt to be as God that our first parents fell. If we would escape their fate, we should abandon speculations and address ourselves to facts. In point of fact we all come into the world with darkened minds and wayward hearts, which the Scriptures explain by the fall. Some complain of the difficulties they find there on this subject; but the difficulty lies, not in the Scriptures, but in the fact. Creatures manifestly the head of creation, under the government of an omnipotent and beneficent Being, lie in sin and suffering, and have done so from age to age, without intermission or mitigation. This is the difficulty; all Bible difficulties are small when compared with this.

(2) The first man stood as head and representative of the race. His fall brought all down. At the head he stands, and at first the line of march is narrow: on the apex one; and behind him two or three walk abreast: broader and broader grows the stream, until, in our day, the file of march is a million of millions deep. On the other side stands He that was to come. Alone He stands at the head; already a multitude, which no man can number, tread the pilgrims path; and now we look forward to that time when the stream of the Second Adams children shall be co-extensive and coincident with that of the first.

2. These two representatives stood side by side from the first, and redemption began to flow from Christ as soon as sin was brought in by Adam. The promise sprang at the gate of Eden, an echo of the curse. Christ began to act as the Head of the redeemed the moment that the first man became the head of a fallen race. Under the earlier economies many felt the drawing of the unseen Christ, and in the days of His personal ministry, although He manifested Himself only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, He had compassion on the surrounding heathen, and hastened forward to the day of their redemption.

3. On both sides it is by birth that the members are united to their head and his destiny. We have been born to this inheritance of sin and suffering; we cannot shake it off. But be of good cheer, prisoner of hope: if by a corresponding new birth you are one with the Second Adam, you have no cause to weep. You cannot, indeed, escape from being a man; but if you are a new creature in Christ Jesus, the second birthright is as irrevocable as the first. It is a fixed principle of natural science that species do not change. But that which is impossible with man is possible with God. He has undertaken in the gospel to make a new creature.

II. The difference. The chief point lies in this, that whereas Adams seed derive from their head sin and death, Christs seed derive from their Head righteousness and life. One of the strangest facts in history is that multitudes are proud of their first birth, and do not give themselves any concern about a second. Under this, however, there are many specific points of difference.

1. While Adams seed possess the moral nature of their head complete, Christs possess His moral nature only in part. When we derive a sinful nature from the first man, we have previously no better nature, that may mingle with it and mitigate its evil. In me, that is in my flesh–in all that I derive from man my father–there dwelleth no good thing. But on the other hand, the regeneration is the getting of a new nature, indeed, through union in spirit with Christ; but it is gotten by one who previously possessed an evil nature, and that evil nature is cast down from the throne, but not cast forth from the territory. The two contend against each other; and there is not peace, but a sword (see Rom 7:1-25). The union with Christ in the regeneration is likened to the grafting of a fruit tree. The tree at the first, which springs from seed, is wholly evil. When it is grafted it is made good; but not so completely as it was originally made evil. In some way, however, the remnants of the old will be filtered out; and nothing shall enter heaven that would defile its golden streets or be a jar in its new song.

2. The two bands are not equally numerous. Adams company includes absolutely the whole of the human race; Christs company is contained within it, and is therefore necessarily smaller. Adams company consists of all the born, and Christs of all the born again. Gods creatures of the old and new creation seem to envelop each other, after the manner of a sphere within a sphere, the most precious being embedded in the heart. Humanity, comparatively small in bulk, is surrounded by the mightier mass of beasts that perish. In the heart of humanity lie the regenerate–the true, vital seed of the kingdom; and the crust that surrounds them will crumble and be cast away. When the earth and all that it contained have passed away, Christ and Christians will remain, inheritors together and alone of the eternal life.

3. Although we inherit this corruption from the first man, we personally have no relation to him; we received it from the last that stood before us in the line. But from Christ our life flows as its fountain, and each generation of believing men continue to draw their spiritual life and justifying righteousness immediately from Him. The new creature does not propagate its kind. If the first Adam were annihilated, man would still be born in sin; but if Christ were no more Christ, there could be no more for any man a new, a holy life. The difference is somewhat like that between a tree propagating its kind by seed and one sustaining its branches. When once the seed is ripened and cast, the progenitor tree may be burned. But even when the branch has been put forth by the tree, the branch is ever directly dependent on the tree. If the tree should die, all the branches would die too. Adam might say, I was the tree, and ye grew from the seed which I shed; but Christ says, I am the vine, ye are the branches. And as Christians hold directly of Christ, Christ holds individually by Christians. The Head endures pain when the members are injured. How safe is that life which is hid with Christ in God?

4. The gain by the second Adam is greater than the loss by the first (verse 15). He pays our debt, and makes us rich besides. He sets free the slave, and makes him a son. Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. (W. Arnot, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 13. For until the law sin was in the world] As death reigned from Adam to Moses, so also did sin. Now, as there was no written law from Adam to that given to Moses, the death that prevailed could not be the breach of that law; for sin, so as to be punished with temporal death, is not imputed where there is no law, which shows the penalty of sin to be death. Therefore, men are not subjected to death for their own personal transgressions, but for the sin of Adam; as, through his transgression, all come into the world with the seeds of death and corruption in their own nature, superadded to their moral depravity. All are sinful-all are mortal-and all must die.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

For until the law sin was in the world: q.d. It appears that all have sinned, because sin was always in the world, not only after the law was given by Moses, but also before, even from the beginning of the world till that time.

But sin is not imputed when there is no law: q.d. It appears there was a law before the law of Moses, for if there had been no law all that while, then sin would not have been imputed to men, so as to make them liable to punishment or death; but sin was imputed or charged upon men before the law of Moses, and death passed upon all. Therefore there must have been a law, by the transgression of which men were sinners, before that time. And that was either the law of nature, or the positive law which God gave to Adam, the transgression whereof is imputed to all, as we shall see, Rom 5:19. Some think the apostle doth here obviate a cavil: q.d. Let no man think that sin began to have its being together with the law, for there was sin before there was any written law to forbid it. The same acts that were forbidden afterwards by the law, were before committed, and were really sinful in the sight of God. But sin was not so well known, nor so strictly charged upon the sinner, as it is since the law was given. It was not imputed comparatively, though absolutely it was, as may appear by many instances, as the drowning of the world, the destruction of Sodom, &c.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

13, 14. For until the law sin was inthe worldthat is during all the period from Adam “untilthe law” of Moses was given, God continued to treat men assinners.

but sin is not imputed wherethere is no law“There must therefore have been a lawduring that period, because sin was then imputed”; as isnow to be shown.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

For until the law, sin was in the world,…. This is a proof of sin’s having entered into the world, by one man’s transgression of the positive law of God, which forbid him the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; since it was in the world before the law of Moses was given: the sin of Adam and the guilt of that were in the world before, and came upon all men to condemnation; the general corruption of nature appeared before; and actual sins, and transgressions of all sorts were committed before; as by the immediate posterity of Adam, by the men of the old world, by the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, by the patriarchs and their posterity, by the Egyptians, Canaanites, and others. They were all guilty of sin, corrupted by it, and under the dominion of it, except such as were released from it by the grace of God: now when sin is said to be until this time, the meaning is not that it existed and continued until the law of Moses took place, and then ceased; for that law did not, and could not take away sin, it rather increased it, at least it became more known by it; but that it was in being before it, and had influence and power over the sons of men, so as to subject them to death:

but sin is not imputed when there is no law. This looks like an objection, that if there was no law before Moses’s time, then there was no sin, nor could any action of man be known or accounted by them as sinful, or be imputed to them to condemnation; or rather it is a concession, allowing that where there is no law, sin is not imputed; but there was a law before that law of Moses, which law was transgressed, and the sin or transgression of it was imputed to men to condemnation and death, as appears from what follows.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Until the law ( ). Until the Mosaic law. Sin was there before the Mosaic law, for the Jews were like Gentiles who had the law of reason and conscience (2:12-16), but the coming of the law increased their responsibility and their guilt (2:9).

Sin is not imputed ( ). Present passive indicative of late verb (–) from and , to put down in the ledger to one’s account, examples in inscription and papyri.

When there is no law ( ). Genitive absolute, no law of any kind, he means. There was law before the Mosaic law. But what about infants and idiots in case of death? Do they have responsibility? Surely not. The sinful nature which they inherit is met by Christ’s atoning death and grace. No longer do men speak of “elect infants.”

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Until the law. In the period between Adam and Moses.

Is not imputed [ ] . Put to account so as to bring penalty. From logov an account or reckoning. Only here and Phl 1:18.

Figure [] . See on 1Pe 5:3.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “For until the law,” (Achri gar nomou) “For up until (prior to) the law;” even up until the giving of the law –sin existed, evidenced by the deeds of Wrong that men did, by the presence of recurring death, and by the conscience of doers of wrong to wit. Adam, Jacob, Joseph’s brethren.

2) “Sin was in the world,” (hamartia ‘en en kosmo) “Sin existed in the world;” and it had been since Adam’s sin for 2,500 years. It had been evident by the presence of death, a finished product in the depraved human body, Jas 1:1-27; Heb 9:27. And by the practice of men.

3) “But sin is not imputed,” (hamartia de ouk ellogeitai) “But sin is not reckoned, accounted, or computed,” held against one with so severe judgment, Rom 4:15; 1Jn 3:4.

4) “When there is no law,” (me ontos nomou) “When no law exists;” Still the principle of righteousness, a universal law principle did exist to indict the conscience of man regarding right and wrong, as witnessed by word of mouth from others, by practice of wrong before their eyes, and by their conscience, the Divine monitor of the soul of every man, Rom 2:14-15. The principles embodied in the ten commandments seem to be indelibly imprinted on the consciences of all responsible men.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

13. For until the law, etc. This parenthesis anticipates an objection: for as there seems to be no transgression without the law, it might have been doubted whether there were before the law any sin: that there was after the law admitted of no doubt. The question only refers to the time preceding the law. To this then he gives this answer, — that though God had not as yet denounced judgment by a written law, yet mankind were under a curse, and that from the womb; and hence that they who led a wicked and vicious life before the promulgation of the law, were by no means exempt from the condemnation of sin; for there had always been some notion of a God, to whom honor was due, and there had ever been some rule of righteousness. This view is so plain and so clear, that of itself it disproves every opposite notion.

But sin is not imputed, etc. Without the law reproving us, we in a manner sleep in our sins; and though we are not ignorant that we do evil, we yet suppress as much as we can the knowledge of evil offered to us, at least we obliterate it by quickly forgetting it. While the law reproves and chides us, it awakens us as it were by its stimulating power, that we may return to the consideration of God’s judgment. The Apostle then intimates that men continue in their perverseness when not roused by the law, and that when the difference between good and evil is laid aside, they securely and joyfully indulge themselves, as if there was no judgment to come. But that before the law iniquities were by God imputed to men is evident from the punishment of Cain, from the deluge by which the whole world was destroyed, from the fate of Sodom, and from the plagues inflicted on Pharaoh and Abimelech on account of Abraham, and also from the plagues brought on the Egyptians. That men also imputed sin to one another, is clear from the many complaints and expostulations by which they charged one another with iniquity, and also from the defenses by which they labored to clear themselves from accusations of doing wrong. There are indeed many examples which prove that every man was of himself conscious of what was evil and of what was good: but that for the most part they connived at their own evil deeds, so that they imputed nothing as a sin to themselves unless they were constrained. When therefore he denies that sin without the law is imputed, he speaks comparatively; for when men are not pricked by the goads of the law, they become sunk in carelessness. (165)

But Paul wisely introduced this sentence, in order that the Jews might hence more clearly learn how grievously they offended, inasmuch as the law openly condemned them; for if they were not exempted from punishment whom God had never summoned as guilty before his tribunal, what would become of the Jews to whom the law, like a herald, had proclaimed their guilt, yea, on whom it denounced judgment? There may be also another reason adduced why he expressly says, that sin reigned before the law, but was not imputed, and that is, that we may know that the cause of death proceeds not from the law, but is only made known by it. Hence he declares, that all became miserably lost immediately after the fall of Adam, though their destruction was only made manifest by the law. If you translate this adversative δε, though, the text would run better; for the meaning is, that though men may indulge themselves, they cannot yet escape God’s judgment, even when there is no law to reprove them.

Death reigned from Adam, etc. He explains more clearly that it availed men nothing that from Adam to the time when the law was promulgated, they led a licentious and careless life, while the difference between good and evil was willfully rejected, and thus, without the warning of the law, the remembrance of sin was buried; yea, that this availed them nothing, because sin did yet issue in their condemnation. It hence appears, that death even then reigned; for the blindness and obduracy of men could not stifle the judgment of God.

(165) This verse, as bearing on the argument, maybe viewed rather differently. This and the following verse contain an explanation or an illustration of the last, Rom 5:12. He states in this verse two things: a fact and a general principle; the fact is, that sin, the first sin in its evident effects, (for he speaks throughout of no other sin, as to Adam, or as producing death,) was in the world before the law of Moses was given; and the general principle he avows is, that no sin is imputed where there is no law. Having made this last admission, he proceeds in the Rom 5:14 to say, that “nevertheless,” or notwithstanding, death, the effect of sin, prevailed in the world, and prevailed even as to those who did not actually or personally sin as Adam did. He takes no account of personal sins, for his object was to show the effects of the first sin. And then he says, that in is respect Adam was a kind of type, a figure, a representative of Christ who was to come; and in the three verses which follow, Rom 5:15, he traces the similitude between the two, pointing out at the same time the difference, which in every instance is in favor of the last Adam. That τύπος signifies here likeness and not identity, is quite certain, whatever may be its common meaning because its import is exemplified and illustrated in the verses which follow. — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(13) So much we can see; so much is simple matter of history, that sin was in the world from Adam downwards. But here comes the difficulty. Sin there was, but why guilt? And why death, the punishment of guilt? The pre-Mosaic man sinned indeed, but could not rightly be condemned for his sin until there was a law to tell him plainly the distinction between right and wrong.

It will be observed that the law of nature (Rom. 1:19-20; Rom. 2:14-15) is here left out of consideration. In the places mentioned, St. Paul speaks of the law of nature only as applicable to his contemporaries or to comparatively recent times. He does not throw back its operation into the primitive ages of the world; neither does he pronounce upon the degree of responsibility which men, as moral agents, then incurred. This would fall in with the doctrine that the consciousness of right and wrong was gradually formed. It is not, indeed, to be said that St. Paul exactly anticipated the teachings of the inductive school of moralists, but there is much in their system, or at any rate in the results to which they seem to be coming, that appears to fall into easy and harmonious relations with the teaching of the Apostle.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

13. The apostle suspends the prosecution of the parallelism in order to show to the Jews that the antithesis is not narrowed to the period of the Mosaic law alone, but covers the whole human history and race, including the patriarchate from Adam to Moses.

Until the law During the patriarchal period. This verse reasons thus: During the patriarchate there was sin, and therefore law. (See notes Rom 9:6-14.)

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.’

Sin was in the world from the moment of Adam’s fall. This happened before the Law came into the world, the Law which made sin apparent for what it was. As a consequence men sinned, but as there was no God-given Law by which they could be demonstrated as blameworthy, man could not pass judgment on men. Judgment was very much left in the hands of God, for man was in no position to pronounce on what was sin. Man was unable to ‘impute sin’. Once, however, the Law was there man could impute sin. In other words he was able to demonstrate that it was blameworthy in the eyes of God and could therefore act as judge on God’s behalf. But he had not been able to do that before. We can consider how Cain’s sin was brought home to him by God, not by Adam (Genesis 4).

We cannot really suggest that Paul was saying that  God  could not impute sin, for he would have been very much aware that God had clearly imputed it to Cain (Gen 4:7), and had equally clearly imputed it to mankind when He destroyed them by the Flood (Genesis 6-9). Consider also the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah which were clearly imputed to them (Genesis 18-19). In each case God called them to account on the basis of what He and of what they knew to be wrong. How else could He have been seen as the Judge of all the earth Who did what was right (Gen 18:25)? It was thus man who, in so far as it was so, was left in the dark as to what was sin. And even then he had received various directions from God (e.g. Gen 9:6; Gen 18:19; Gen 26:5), so that he knew of some things which were displeasing in God’s eyes. Indeed for Paul to suggest that God would not impute sin would be partly to negate his earlier argument about the law written in men’s hearts. The point being made here, therefore, is not that God could not impute sin, but that men were unable to point the finger at each other, and sentence each other on the basis of it. It was they who were unable to identify sin and bring it into condemnation.

The importance of this for Paul’s argument lies in the fact that a Jew might argue against all being seen as having sinned on the basis that sin could not be imputed before the giving of the Law. ‘Nevertheless,’ says Paul, ‘that all sinned is demonstrated by the fact that all died.’

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Rom 5:13. For until the law, sin was [counted] in the world] The Apostle’s doctrine, that all have received the reconciliation through Christ, being founded on the fact, that all have been subjected to sin and death through Adam, he immediately enters on the proof of that fact, by appealing to the death of infants and others, who, not being capable of actual sin, cannot be thought to die for their own transgression. But to see the argument in its full force we must supply the word counted or imputed in the first clause, which is inserted by the Apostle in the second: sin was counted in the world to all men: that is, all men without exception suffer death, the punishment of sin.

But sin is not imputed, when there is no law By law Mr. Locke understands a revealed positive law threatening death for every offence. But on that supposition, no sin could be punished before the law of Moses was given, contrary to what happened to the antediluvians. And after it was given, none but the sins of the Jews could be punished. Whereas the Apostle affirms, chap. Rom 1:32 that the Gentiles know, that they who sin against the law written on their heart, are worthy of death. I therefore think that the expression, Where there is no law, is general, and means, where no law of God is known; and that the Apostle had in his eye the case of infants and idiots, to whom certainly there is no law, as they are not capable of the knowledge of law; consequently they are not capable of sinning actually like Adam. Wherefore since death reigns over them, equally as over others, it is evident, that, having nosin of their own, they die through Adam’s sin alone.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Rom 5:13 f. Demonstration , that the death of all has its ground in the sin of Adam , and the causal connection of that sin with death. This argument, conducted with great conciseness, sets out from the undoubted historical certainty (it is already sufficiently attested in Genesis 4-6) that during the entire period prior to the law ( = , Rom 5:14 ) there was sin in humanity; then further argues that the death of individuals, which yet has affected those also who have not like Adam sinned against a positive command, cannot be derived from that sin prior to the law, because in the non-existence of law there is no imputation; and allows it to be thence inferred that consequently the death of all has been caused ( ) by the sin of Adam (not by their individual sins). Paul however leaves this inference to the reader himself; he does not expressly declare it, but instead of doing so he says, returning to the comparison begun in Rom 5:12 : , for in that death-working operation of Adam’s sin for all lay, in fact, the very ground of the typical relation to Christ. Chrysostom aptly says: , , ; , , . ; . . [1275] Compare Oecumenius.

] i.e. in the period previous to the giving of the law, comp Rom 5:14 ; consequently not during the period of the law, , [1277] Theodoret; comp Origen, Chrysostom, and Theodore of Mopsuestia.

] preserved nowhere else except in Boeckh, Inscript . I. p. 850 A, 35, and Phm 1:18 (text rec [1279] ), but undoubtedly meaning: is put to account (consequently equivalent to , Rom 4:4 ), namely, here, according to the context, for punishment , and that on the part of God ; for in the whole connection the subject spoken of is the divine dealings in consequence of the fall. Hence we are neither to understand ab judice (Fritzsche), nor: by the person sinning ; so Augustine, Ambrosiaster, Luther (“then one does not regard the sin”) Melancthon (“non accusatur in nobis ipsis”) Calvin, Beza and others, including Usteri, Rckert, J. Mller, Lipsius, Mangold, and Stlting (“there the sinner recognises not his sin as guilt”), whereby a thought quite irrevelant to the argument is introduced.

] without the existence of the law ; , as previously , meaning the Mosaic law, and not any law generally (Theodore of Mopsuestia, and many others, including Hofmann), as already points to the divine law . Comp Rom 4:15 . The proposition itself: “ Sin is not imputed, if the law is absent ,” is set down as something universally conceded, as an axiom; therefore with repetition of the subject (in opposition to Hofmann, who on account of this repetition separates . . [1281] from the first half of the verse and attaches it to what follows), and with the verb in the present . The proposition itself, inserted as an intervening link in the argument with the metabatic , without requiring a preceding , which Hofmann is wrong in missing (see Dietzsch and Khner, II. 2, p. 814), has its truth as well as its more precise application in the fact, that in the absence of law the action, which in and by itself is unlawful, is no transgression of the law (Rom 4:15 ), and cannot therefore be brought into account as such . That Paul regarded the matter in this light, and had not, as Hofmann thinks, sinning generally, “as it was one and the same thing in the case of all,” in view apart from the sins of individuals, is plain also from . . , in Rom 5:14 . His thought is: If the death of men after Adam had been caused by their own sin, then in the case of all those, who have died during the period from Adam till the law, the sin which they have committed must have been already reckoned to them as transgression of the law, just as Adam’s sin was the transgression of the positive divine command, and as such brought upon him death; but this is inconceivable, because the law was not in existence. In this Paul leaves out of consideration the Noachian commands (Gen 9 ), as well as other declarations of God as to His will given before the law, and likewise individual punitive judgments, such as in the case of Sodom, just because he has only the strict idea of real and formal legislation before his mind, and this suggests to him simply the great epochs of the Paradisaic and Sinaitic legislations. A view, which does not subvert the truth of his demonstration, because mankind in general were without law from Adam until Moses, the natural law, because not given positively, remaining out of the account; it makes the act at variance with it appear as sin ( ), but not as , which as such .

Rom 5:14 . ] at, yet , although sin is not put to account in the absence of the law. It introduces an apparently contradictory phenomenon, confronting the . . [1282] ; one, however, which just proves that men have died, not through their own special sin, but through the sin of Adam, which was put to their account. ] prefixed with emphasis: death has not perchance been powerless, no, it has reigned, i.e. has exercised its power which deprives of life (comp Rom 5:17-21 ). Hofmann (comp also Holsten, Aberle, and Dietzsch) finds in the emphatic . the absolute and abiding dominion, which death has exercised independently of the imputation of sins ( being taken as the simple but ), “just as a king, one by virtue of his personal position once and for all entitled to do so, exercises dominion over those who, in virtue of their belonging to his domain, are from the outset subject to him.” But no reader could educe this qualitative definite sense of the , with the highly essential characteristic elements ascribed to it, from the mere verb itself; nor could it be gathered from the position of the word at the head of the sentence; on the contrary, it must unquestionably have been expressed (by possibly, or ) seeing that the subsequent ( even over those, etc.) does not indicate a mode of the power of the (personified) death, but only appends the fact of its dominion being without exception.

.] equivalent to in Rom 5:13 . A distinction of sense between and is (contrary to the opinion of Tittmann, Synon. p. 33 f.) purely fanciful. See Fritzsche, p. 308 ff. and van Hengel in loc [1285]

. . [1286] ] even over those [1287] who have not sinned like Adam, that is, have not like him transgressed a positive divine command. Even these it did not spare. It is erroneous with Chrysostom (but not Theodoret and Theophylact) to connect . . [1288] with . So Finckh again does, following Castalio and Bengel: “quia illorum eadem atque Adami transgredientis ratio fuit. i.e. propter reatum ab Adamo contractum .” Erroneous for this reason, that Paul, apart from the little children or those otherwise incapable of having sin imputed, whom however he must have indicated more precisely, could not conceive at all (Rom 3:23 ) of persons who had not sinned ( without any modal addition more precisely defining it), and a limitation mentally supplied ( sine lege peccarunt, Bengel) is purely fanciful. The , even , refers to the fact that in the period extending from Adam till Moses, excluding the latter, positively given divine commands were certainly transgressed by individuals to whom they were given, but it was not these merely who died (as must have been the case, had death been brought on by their own particular sins); it was also those , [1289] who etc. Their sin was not . . ( used of the form , in which anything occurs, see Bernhardy, p. 250); they did not sin in such a way, that their action was of like shape with the transgression of Adam , “quia non habebant ut ille revelatam certo oraculo Dei voluntatem,” Calvin. For other definitions of the sense see Fritzsche, p. 316, and Reiche, Commentar. crit. I. p. 45 ff. Reiche himself explains it of those who have transgressed no command expressly threatening death . So also Tholuck. But this peculiar limitation is not suggested by the context, in which, on the contrary, it is merely the previous which supplies a standard for determining the sense of the similarity. According to Hofmann down to is meant to be one and the same with the previous , inasmuch as a transgression similar to that of Adam could only then have occurred, “ when God placed a people in the same position in which Adam found himself, when he received a divine command on the observance or transgression of which his life or death depended . This misconception, springing from the erroneous interpretation of , is already excluded by , [1290] as well as, pursuant to the tenor of thought, by the fact that in the pre-legal period in question all those, who transgressed a command divinely given to them by way of revelation, sinned like Adam. Their sin had thereby the same moral form as the act of Adam; but not only had they to die, but also ( ) those who had not been in that condition of sinning. Death reigned over the latter also.

The genitive with . is not that of the subject (Hofmann), but of the object , as in Rom 1:23 , Rom 6:5 , Rom 8:3 ; the sins meant are not so conceived of, that the of Adam is homogeneously repeated in them, but so that they are, as to their specific nature, of similar fashion with it , and consequently belong to the same ethical category . They have morally just the same character. As to see on Rom 1:23 .

] who to educe now from Rom 5:13-14 the result introduced in Rom 5:12 , and so to return to the comparison there begun is type of the future (Adam). Theophylact correctly paraphrases: (by bringing upon them death), , , . Compare 1Co 15:45 . Koppe, following Bengel, takes . as neuter ( of that, which should one day take place ), and for . This agreement of the relative with the following substantive would perhaps be grammatically tenable (Hermann, a [1291] Viger. p. 708; Heind. a [1292] Phaedr. p. 279), but seeing that immediately precedes it, and that the idea of Christ being is a Pauline idea (1 Cor. l.c [1293] ), it is quite unjustifiable to depart from the reference of the to Adam; and equally so to deny to the its supplement from the immediately preceding , and to take it as “ the man of the future ” (Hofmann), which would nevertheless yield in substance the same meaning.

] type , so that the is the anti -type (1Pe 3:21 ). The type is always something historical (a person, thing, saying), which is destined, in accordance with the divine plan, to prefigure something corresponding to it in the future, in the connected scheme of sacred historical teleology, which is to be discerned from the standpoint of the antitype. Typical historical parallels between Adam and the Messiah (so that the latter is even expressly termed the last Adam) are found also in Rabbinical authors (e.g. Neve Schalom f. 160, 2 : “Quemadmodum homo primus fuit primus in peccato, sic Messias erit ultimus ad auferendum peccatum penitus;” Neve Schalom 9, 9 : Adamus postremus est Messias”), and are based in them on the doctrine of the . Compare the passages in Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth . II. p. 819, 823 ff. Paul based this typology of his on the atoning work of Christ and its results, as the whole discussion shows; hence in his present view Christ as the is not still to come, but is already historical. Comp Chrysostom; also Theodore of Mopsuestia: (Adam) , . For this reason however may not, with Fritzsche and de Wette, be referred to the last coming of Christ; but must be dated from the time of Adam, in so far, namely, as in looking back to the historical appearance of Adam, Christ, as its antitype, is the future Adam (comp ).

[1275] . . . .

[1277] As is well known, Peyrerius ( Praeadamitae s. exercitat. exeg. in Rom 5:12-14 , Amst. 1655) referred the here to the law given to Adam in Paradise; and found thus a proof for his Preadamites .

[1279] ec. Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[1281] . . . .

[1282] . . . .

[1285] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1286] . . . .

[1287] with is a Hebraism ( ). Compare Luk 1:33 ; Luk 19:14 ; 1Sa 8:9 ; 1Sa 8:11 ; 1Ma 1:16 .

[1288] . . . .

[1289] Consequently the two classes, formed by Paul, are not to be so distinguished that the one shall embrace men before Noah, and the other the Noachian race (van Hengel). Both classes are included in the whole period from Adam till Moses.

[1290] Which necessarily assumes a class of sinners in the pre-legal period, whose sin was homogeneous with that of Adam. This also, in opposition to Mangold, p. 121, and Dietzsch, p. 98; according to whose and Hofmann’s definition of the sense, Paul ought either to have omitted the altogether, or to have inserted it before .

[1291] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1292] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1293] .c. loco citato or laudato .

REMARK 1. Those who refer to the proper sins of individuals, or even to the principle of the dwelling in them, ought not to find, as Baumgarten-Crusius, Umbreit, and Baur still do, the proof for the in Rom 5:13 f.; for how in the connection of the passage could any proof for the universality of sin be still required? Certainly just as little as in particular for the fact , that, with death already existing in the world (Dietzsch), all individuals have sinned . Consistently with that reference of the . there must rather have been read from Rom 5:13 f. the proof for this , that the death of all results from the proper sins of all. But how variously has this demonstration been evolved! Either: although sin has not until Moses been imputable according to positive law, yet each one has brought death upon himself by his sin (Rom 5:14 ), which proves the relative imputation thereof . So de Wette. Or: although sin, which even from Adam till Moses was not lacking, be not imputed by a human judge in the absence of positive law, yet the reign of death (Rom 5:14 ) shows that God has imputed the pre-Mosaic sins . So Fritzsche. Or: in order to show “ in Adamo causam quaerendam esse, cur hominum peccata mors secuta sit ,” Paul declares that death has reigned over all from Adam till Moses, whether they sinned like Adam or differently. So van Hengel; comp also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 264. Or: not even in the period from Adam till Moses was sin absent; but the clear proof to the contrary is the dominion of death in this period . So Baur, and with a substantially similar view of the mode of inference ab effectu ad causam , [1297] Rothe also. But however it may be turned, the probative element has first of all to be read into the passage; and even then the alleged proof (Rom 5:14 ) would only be a reasoning backwards from the historical phenomenon in Rom 5:14 to the cause asserted by . ., and consequently a mere clumsy argument in a circle, which again assumes the assertion to be proved id quod erat demonstrandum in the phenomenon brought forward in Rom 5:14 : and moreover utterly breaks down through the proposition that sin is not imputed in the absence of law. Ewald, in his former view ( Jahrb. II.) rightly deduces from Rom 5:14 ; consequently it only appears the more certain, that death propagated itself to them only by means of Adam’s ,” but attributes to this inference, consistently with his view of . ., the sense: “ that they all sinned unto death just in the same way as, and because, Adam had sinned unto it .” In his later view ( Sendschr. d. Ap. P. ) he supposes that in connection with the possible doubt may have arisen, whether it was so certain that death had come upon those oldest men from Adam till Moses in consequence of their sins? which doubt Paul properly answers in Rom 5:13 f., thereby all the more corroborating the truth. But the emergence of a doubt is indicated by nothing in the text; and that doubt indeed would have been dissipated by the very fact that those men were dead , which does not prove however that they died on account of their sins . Thus also the matter would amount to a reasoning in a circle. According to Tholuck the argument is: that death has passed upon all through the disposition to death (?) introduced in Adam, and not through their own sins, is plain from the fact, that pre-Mosaic sin, though not positively threatened with death, as in the case of Adam and in the law, was nevertheless placed under its dominion .” Only thus, he holds, is the logical relation between the clauses apparent. In general this is right; but by this very circumstance Tholuck just attests the correctness of our explanation of , namely, that it is not meant of individual sin. The caution which he inserts against this inference, namely, that Paul regards the actual sins “only as the relatively free manifestations of the hereditary sinful substance,” is of no avail, seeing that they remain always acts of individual freedom, even though the latter be only relative, while the argument in our passage is such that the individual’s own sins, as cause of death, are excluded . Ernesti joins . . [1298] with . . [1299] : “since indeed all have sinned, but sin is not placed to account,” etc. The . , standing in the way, he encloses in a parenthesis. But why this parenthesis? The , in the sense of Rom 3:23 , needed no proof; and it could not occur to any one to date sin only from the epoch of the law. The . acquires its pertinent significance when, as an essential element in the syllogistic deduction, it is closely united with the axiom . . . [1300] attached to it, and is not set aside in a parenthesis as if it might equally well have been omitted. According to Holsten the argument turns on the fact that objective sin entered the world through Adam, and death along with it; thus death has passed upon all because all were sinners (in the objective sense) a diffusion by means of one over the whole, which is illustrated by the thought that, while sin was in the world until the law, this sin could not, in the absence of law, be imputed as subjective guilt; but death became ruler, in accordance with the objective divine law of the universe, with a tyrannical power not conditioned by the subjects of its rule, even over those who were indeed ( objectively ) sinners, but not ( subjectively ) transgressors like Adam. Holsten has certainly in this way avoided the error of making universal death conditioned by the subjective sin of the individuals; but he has done so by means of a distinction between objective and subjective sins, which is so far from being suggested by the text, that it was just through Adam that the subjective sin, joined with the consciousness of guilt , entered the world, and therefore the divine action, in decreeing death upon sin, could not be conceived as indifferent to the subjectivity. Hofmann who sees in . a [very unnecessary] ground assigned for the . , upon which there follows in . . [1301] a declaration regarding death in the pre-legal period, according to which this could not have been caused by the sinning of that period, seeing that on the contrary the latter took place when death was already present confuses the entire exposition of the passage, and by his artificial rendering of makes the understanding of it impossible . In general the entire history of the interpretation of our passage shows that when once the old ecclesiastical explanation of (this however taken as propterea quod ) is regarded as the Charybdis to be shunned at all hazards, the falling into the Scylla becomes unavoidable. Even Klpper, in attributing to the underlying thought that Adam’s sin penetrated to all, and Dietzsch, by his simplifying and modification of Hofmann’s exposition, have not escaped this danger.

[1297] According to the correlation of the ideas sin and death , comp. Baur, neut. Theol. p. 138.

[1298] . . . .

[1299] . . . .

[1300] . . . .

[1301] . . . .

REMARK 2. Since Paul shows from the absence of imputation ( ) in the absence of law, that the death of men after Adam cannot have been occasioned by their own individual sins, but only by Adam’s, in which all were partakers in virtue of their connection with him as their progenitor, he must have conceived that Adam’s sin brought death not merely to himself but also at the same time to all by way of imputation; and therefore the imputatio peccati Adamitici in reference to the death , to which all are subjected, certainly results from our passage as a Pauline doctrine. But as to original sin (not however as to its condemnableness in itself), the testimony of our passage is only indirect, in so far, namely, as the , according to its proper explanation and confirmation in Rom 5:13 f., necessarily presupposes in respect to Adam’s posterity the habitual want of justitia originalis and the possession of concupiscence.

REMARK 3. The view of Julius Mller as to an original estate and original fall of man in an extra-temporal sphere (comp the monstrous opinion of Benecke, p. 109 ff., and in the Stud. u. Krit. 1832, p. 616 ff.) cannot be reconciled with our passage and its reference to Gen 3 . [1303] See Ernesti, p. 247 ff., and among dogmatic theologians, especially Philippi, III. p. 92 ff.; and (against Schelling and Steffens) Martensen, 93, p. 202 ff. Exo 2 .

[1303] Nor with the N. T. generally, which teaches an extra-temporal mode of existence only in the case of Christ . The extra-temporal condition and fall supposed by Mller are not only outside of Scripture, but at variance with it.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Ver. 13. Sin is not imputed ] In men’s esteem, as Rom 4:15 .

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

13. ] How, consistently with ch. Rom 4:15 , could all men sin, before the law ? This is now explained. For up to (the time of) the law (= . . Rom 5:14 ; not ‘ during the time of the law ,’ as Orig [33] , Chrys., , , Theodoret, an allowable rendering of the words, but manifestly inconsistent with the sense; nor, ‘ as far as there was law, there was sin ,’ as Dr. Burton, which is both inadmissible from the following, and would not answer to the simple matter of fact, ) there was sin in the world (‘men sinned,’ see Gen 6:5-13 ; committed actual sin: not, men were accounted sinners because of Adam’s sin; the Apostle reminds us of the historical fact , that there was sin in the world during this period): but sin is not reckoned (as transgression) where the law is not .

[33] Origen, b. 185, d. 254

has given rise to much dispute. Very many Commentators (Aug [34] , Ambr [35] , Luth., Melanc., Calv., Beza, Rckert, Tholuck, Stuart, al.) explain it of consciousness of sin by the sinner himself , as in ch. Rom 7:7 ; but (1) as De Wette observes, this is not the natural sense of the word, which implies TWO parties, one of whom sets down something to the account of the other (ref.): (2) this interpretation would bring in a new and irrelevant element, for the Apostle is not speaking in this chapter at all of subjective human consciousness , but throughout of objective truths with regard to the divine dealings: and (3) it would be altogether inconsistent with the declarations of ch. Rom 2:15 , where in this sense the of sin by the distinctly asserted.

[34] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430

[35] Ambrose, Bp. of Milan , A.D. 374 397

I am persuaded that the right sense of . is, reckoned , ‘ set down as transgression ,’ ‘put in formal account,’ by God . In the case of those who had not the written law, is not formally reckoned as , set over against the command: but in a certain sense, as distinctly proved ch. Rom 2:9-16 , it is reckoned and they are condemned for it. Nor is there any inconsistency, as Tholuck complains, in this view. Other passages of Paul’s writings support and elucidate it. He states the object of the law to be, ch. Rom 7:13 , . The revelation of the law exaggerated , brought into prominent and formal manifestation, the sinfulness of sin, which was before culpable and punishable , but in a less degree. With this view also agree Act 17:30 ; ch. Rom 2:12 , , , and Rom 3:25 , in so far as they state an analogous case. The objection to taking relatively, ‘is not fully reckoned ,’ will hardly be urged by those who bear in mind the Apostle’s habit of constantly stating relative truths as positive , omitting the qualifying particles: see e.g. ch. Rom 7:7 , where with and with both, we must supply qualifications (see notes there).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Rom 5:13 f. These two verses are rather obscure, but must be intended ( ) to prove what has been asserted in Rom 5:12 . = , Rom 5:14 , the law meant being the Mosaic. The sin which was in the world before the law is not the guilt of Adam’s fall imputed to the race as fallen in him, but the actual sin which individuals had committed. Now if law has no existence, sin is not imputed. Cf. Rom 4:15 . The natural inference would seem to be that the sins committed during this period could not be punished. But what was the case? The very opposite of this. Death reigned all through this period. This unrestrained tyranny of death (observe the emphatic position of ) over persons whose sins cannot be imputed to them, seems at variance with the explanation just adopted of . Indeed Meyer and others use it to refute that explanation. The reign of death, apart from imputable individual sin, implies, they argue, a corresponding objective reign of sin, apart from individual acts: in other words, justifies the interpretation of according to which all men sinned in Adam’s sin, and so ( and only so ) became subject to death. But the empirical meaning of is decidedly to be preferred, and we must rather fill out the argument thus: “all sinned. For there was sin in the world before Moses; and though sin is not imputed where there is no law, and though therefore no particular penalty death or another could be expected for the sins here in question, yet all that time death reigned, for in the act of Adam sin and death had been inseparably and for ever conjoined.” . . . even over those who did not sin after the likeness of Adam’s transgression. For , cf. Winer, p. 492. This describes not some, but all of those who lived during the period from Adam to Moses. None of them had like Adam violated an express prohibition sanctioned by the death penalty. Yet they all died, for they all sinned, and in their first father sin and death had been indissolubly united. And this Adam is sc. . In the coming Adam and his relations to the race there will be something on the same pattern as this. 1Co 10:6 ; 1Co 10:11 , Heb 9:14 , 1Co 15:22 ; 1Co 15:45 ; 1Co 15:49 . Parallels of this sort between Adam and the Messiah are common in Rabbinical writings: e.g. , Schttgen quotes Neve Schalom , f. 160 2. “Quemadmodum homo primus fuit unus in peccato, sic Messias erit postremus, ad auferendum peccatum penitus;” and 9, 9 has “Adamus postremus est Messias”. Cf. Delitzsch: Brief an die Rmer , p. 82 f. The extent to which the thoughts of this passage on sin and death, and on the consequences of Adam’s sin to his descendants, can be traced in Jewish writers, is not quite clear. As a rule (see above on Rom 5:12 ) they admit the dependence of death on sin, though Schttgen quotes a Rabbi Samuel ben David as saying, “Etiamsi Adamus primus non peccasset, tamen mors fuisset”. On the unity and solidarity of the race in sin and its consequences, they are not perfectly explicit. Weber ( Die Lehren des Talmud , p. 217) gives the following summary: “There is an inherited guilt, but not an inherited sin; the fall of Adam has brought death upon the whole race, not however sinfulness in the sense of a necessity to commit sin; sin is the result of each individual’s decision; it is, as far as experience goes, universal, yet in itself even after the Fall not absolutely necessary”. This seems to agree very closely with the Apostle’s teaching as interpreted above. It is the appeal to experience in Paul ( ), crossing with a transcendent view of the unity of the race in Adam, which gives rise to all the difficulties of interpretation; but without this appeal to experience (which many like Bengel, Meyer and Gifford reject) the whole passage would hang in the air, unreal. There must be something which involves the individual in Adam’s fate; that something comes into view in , and there only; and without it our interest dies. A sin which we commit in Adam (and which never becomes ours otherwise) is a mere fancy to which one has nothing serious to say.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

imputed. Not the same word as in Rom 4:6, &c. Greek. ellogeo. Only here and Phm 1:18.

when, &c. = there not (Greek. me) being law.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

13.] How, consistently with ch. Rom 4:15, could all men sin, before the law? This is now explained. For up to (the time of) the law (= . . Rom 5:14; not during the time of the law, as Orig[33], Chrys.,- , ,-Theodoret,-an allowable rendering of the words, but manifestly inconsistent with the sense;-nor, as far as there was law, there was sin, as Dr. Burton,-which is both inadmissible from the following, and would not answer to the simple matter of fact, ) there was sin in the world (men sinned, see Gen 6:5-13; committed actual sin: not, men were accounted sinners because of Adams sin; the Apostle reminds us of the historical fact, that there was sin in the world during this period): but sin is not reckoned (as transgression) where the law is not.

[33] Origen, b. 185, d. 254

has given rise to much dispute. Very many Commentators (Aug[34], Ambr[35], Luth., Melanc., Calv., Beza, Rckert, Tholuck, Stuart, al.) explain it of consciousness of sin by the sinner himself, as in ch. Rom 7:7; but (1) as De Wette observes, this is not the natural sense of the word, which implies TWO parties, one of whom sets down something to the account of the other (ref.): (2) this interpretation would bring in a new and irrelevant element,-for the Apostle is not speaking in this chapter at all of subjective human consciousness, but throughout of objective truths with regard to the divine dealings: and (3) it would be altogether inconsistent with the declarations of ch. Rom 2:15,-where in this sense the of sin by the distinctly asserted.

[34] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430

[35] Ambrose, Bp. of Milan, A.D. 374-397

I am persuaded that the right sense of . is, reckoned, set down as transgression,-put in formal account, by God. In the case of those who had not the written law, is not formally reckoned as , set over against the command: but in a certain sense, as distinctly proved ch. Rom 2:9-16, it is reckoned and they are condemned for it. Nor is there any inconsistency, as Tholuck complains, in this view. Other passages of Pauls writings support and elucidate it. He states the object of the law to be, ch. Rom 7:13, . The revelation of the law exaggerated, brought into prominent and formal manifestation, the sinfulness of sin, which was before culpable and punishable, but in a less degree. With this view also agree Act 17:30; ch. Rom 2:12, , ,-and Rom 3:25, in so far as they state an analogous case. The objection to taking relatively, is not fully reckoned, will hardly be urged by those who bear in mind the Apostles habit of constantly stating relative truths as positive, omitting the qualifying particles: see e.g. ch. Rom 7:7, where with and with both, we must supply qualifications (see notes there).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Rom 5:13. , until) Sin was in the world, not only after the law was given by Moses, but also during the whole period before the law from Adam down to Moses, during which latter period sinners sinned without the law, ch. Rom 2:12, for the condition of all before Moses, and of the Gentiles subsequently [after Moses time], was equal; but this sin was not, properly speaking, the cause of death: because there is no imputation of sin without the law, and consequently there is no death; comp. Rom 5:20. The sin committed by Adam, entailing evil on all, is called the sin ( ) twice in the preceding verse; now, in this verse, sin in general is called without the article.- , is not imputed) The apostle is not speaking here of mens negligence, which disregards sin in the absence of a law, but of the Divine judgment, because sin is not usually taken into any account, not even into the Divine account, in the absence of the law.-Comp. , impute, or put it to my account, Phm 1:18, note. Sin therefore does not denote notorious crimes, such as those, for which the inhabitants of Sodom were punished before the time of Moses, but the common evil. Chrysostom on this passage shows exceedingly well, what Paul intended to prove by this argument, , , , ; , that it was not the very [actual] sin of transgressing the law, but that of the disobedience of Adam-this was the sin that brought universal destruction, and what is the proof of this? The fact that all died before the giving of the law.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Rom 5:13

Rom 5:13

for until the law sin was in the world;-Throughout the period from Adam to Moses there was no law given, and God seems to have dealt with man as he has during no other period. He treated him as a father treats his children, incapable of understanding the force of a general law or rule. But when he found one here and one there disposed to honor him, he gave him personal attention and schooled him to respect the authority of Jehovah. The family of Abraham was thus tutored and schooled for successive generations until they were capable of appreciating its force and effects. Then through Moses law was given to this family and advanced in the school of divine teaching.

but sin is not imputed when there is no law.-Sin is not counted for death when there is no law making death the penalty for breaking it.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

until: Gen 4:7-11, Gen 6:5, Gen 6:6, Gen 6:11, Gen 8:21, Gen 13:13, Gen 18:20, Gen 19:4, Gen 19:32, Gen 19:36, Gen 38:7, Gen 38:10

but sin: Rom 4:15, 1Co 15:56, 1Jo 3:4, 1Jo 3:14

Reciprocal: Lev 17:4 – blood shall Psa 32:2 – The Lord Joh 10:10 – more abundantly

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

:13

Rom 5:13. Sin in this verse is in the ordinary sense, pertaining to the personal conduct of human beings. Adam introduced the knowledge of it, but a person must be old enough to possess knowledge before he can actually perform it responsibly. Not imputed means it is not taken into account, and the particular form of sin meant in this verse is that which is the transgression of law. (See the comments on this at chapter 4:15.) In view of this, before there was any law given, men could not be counted as sinners by transgression since there was no law to transgress.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Rom 5:13. For until the law. Rom 5:13-14 present a historical confirmation of the statement that all sinned. All sinned when Adam sinned, far the penalty of sin came from the very first, and that, too, when there was no such transgression of positive precept as in the case of Adam. Hence the penalty was the result of Adams sin, an idea familiar to all who believed the Old Testament.

Sin was in the world. Sin as a tyrant, with its penal consequences. This thought is resumed and expounded in Rom 5:14.

But sin is not reckoned; fully reckoned is perhaps the best reading of the compound verb in the original. In a certain sense it is reckoned (comp. chap. Rom 2:9-16), but it cannot be fully reckoned as transgression, where law is not, or, in the absence of law. This proposition would be self-evident to the readers, and it was emphatically true of the Mosaic law, which, as Rom 5:14 shows, was in the Apostles mind.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

The apostle having asserted the doctrine of original sin in the former verse, he prosecutes and pursues it in this and the following verses: asserting, That it is evident all have sinned, because sin was always in the world; not only after the giving of the law by Moses, but also before, even from the beginning of the world to that time.

As if the apostle had said, There was certainly a law given before there was a law written: a law given to Adam, before a law written by Moses; now this law was either the law of nature written in Adam’s heart, or the postive law of God given to Adam, against which law men were capable of offending before the law of Moses was written; otherwise sin would not have been imputed to them, for sin is not imputed where there is no law.”

Learn hence, That God having created man a rational creature, capable of moral government, is by immediate resultancy his King and governor, and has ruled him from the beginning by a law, yet not barely by a law, but by a covenant, with promises and threatenings annexed, rewarding him for his obedience, and punishing him for his rebellion.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Vv. 13, 14. For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed if there is no law; and nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the resemblance of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come.

According to the first two interpretations of the preceding proposition, which lay down the sins committed by each individual as the sole or secondary cause of his death, the argument contained in Rom 5:13-14 would be this: All die because they have all sinned; for even during the time which elapsed down to the giving of the law sin was in the world; now sin is undoubtedly not reckoned in the absence of law. Nevertheless, that did not prevent sin from reigning during all the interval between Adam and Moses, which proves certainly that it was nevertheless imputed in some measure. How could that be? Because of the law of nature written even in the heart of the Gentiles. Such is De Wette’s interpretation, also that of Lange and Reuss. In this sense the second proposition of Rom 5:13 must be taken as an objection made to Paul on which he raises himself. Then he would be made to answer in the sequel by confining himself to stating the very fact of the reign of death. But the explanation of death is the very point in question; how could the fact itself be given in proof? Then a simple would not have sufficed to indicate such a shifting in the direction of the thought. The text rather produces the impression of a consecutive argument. Finally, at the close of such an argument, the apostle could not have left to be understood the solution which he himself gave of the problem, namely, the natural law written in the heart of the Gentiles. This idea, on which everything rested, was at once too essential and too unfamiliar to the minds of his readers to be passed over in silence as self-evident. It has been sought to meet these difficulties by giving to the word , to put to account, a purely subjective meaning, and so to make the proposition, Rom 5:13 b, a simple observation interjected by the way. Ambrose and Augustine, then Luther, Calvin, and Melanchthon, and in our days Rckert, Rothe, and J. Mller, do in fact apply the imputation expressed by not to the judgment of God, but to the reckoning which the sinner makes to himself of the trespass which he has committed: Every one died for his own sin, for sin existed even before the law, though the sinners did not take account of it, nor esteem themselves guilty. But death, which nevertheless reigned, proved that God on His part imputed it to the sinner. But this purely subjective signification of the term cannot be justified. It would require to be indicated in some way. How, besides, could Paul have affirmed in terms so general that the sinners between Adam and Moses did not impute their sins to themselves, after saying of the Gentiles, Rom 2:15, that their thoughts mutually accuse or excuse one another, and Rom 1:32, that these same Gentiles knew the judgment of God, that those who do such things are worthy of death? Finally, the idea that, notwithstanding this want of subjective imputation, the divine imputation continued ever in force, would have required to be more strongly emphasized in Rom 5:14. In general, all these modes of interpretation, according to which Paul is held to explain the death of individuals by their own sins, run counter to the object which he had before him in this whole passage, the parallel between the justification of all in one, and the condemnation of all in one.

Let us then resume our explanation of the end of Rom 5:12; and let us seek from this viewpoint to give account of Rom 5:13-14 : Death passed upon all, for that (in Adam) all sinned. The course of the following argument at once becomes easy to understand: Sin was assuredly in the world at that time (and you might consequently say to me: it was for that reason men died); but I answer: sin is not imputed if there is no law (it could not therefore be the cause of the death with which every individual was visited); and yet death reigned even over those who had not like Adam violated a positive law. The conclusion is obvious: Therefore all these individuals died, not for their own sin, but because of Adam’s, which had been affirmed in the close of Rom 5:12 and which was to be proved. We might in our own day argue in exactly the same manner to explain the death of the heathen or of infants: Since they are still without law, they die, not because they have sinned personally, but because they all sinned in Adam. It is clear also how the argument thus understood is in keeping with the object of this passage. All having been, as is proved by the death of all, condemned in Adam, all can likewise be really justified in Christ. Hofmann and Dietzsch, who have explained in the sense of: on the ground of which (death) all have sinned, are of course obliged to interpret Rom 5:13-14 differently from us, though to arrive at the same result. We think it useless to discuss their explanation, which falls to the ground of itself, with that which they give to the last words of Rom 5:12.

Having explained the argument as a whole, let us return to the details of the text itself. The for, at the beginning of Rom 5:13, bears not only on the proposition of which it forms part, but on the entire argument to the end of Rom 5:14.

The words , until the law, might signify, as the old commentators would have it: as long as the law existed, that is to say, from Moses to Jesus Christ. For may have the meaning of during. But Rom 5:14, which paraphrases the words thus: from Adam to Moses, excludes this meaning.

The absence of the article before , law, certainly does not prevent it here from denoting the Mosaic law; comp. Rom 5:14 : until Moses. But it is not as Mosaic law, but as law strictly so called, that the Jewish law is here mentioned. And so the translation might well be: till a law, that is to say, a law of the same kind as the commandment which Adam violated. The absence of the article before , sin, has a similar effect; there was sin at that period among men. In the following proposition it is again sin as a category which is designated (being without article). If the substantive , sin, is repeated (instead of the pronoun), it is because, as Meyer says, we have here the statement of a general maxim.

The verb is not found elsewhere except in the Epistle to Philemon, Rom 5:18, where Paul asks this Christian to put to his account, his, Paul’s, what Onesimus, whom he is recommending, may still owe to him. Between this term and , which he more frequently uses, the one shade of difference is that of the , in, which enters into the composition of : to inscribe in the account book. It is wholly arbitrary to apply this word to the subjective imputation of conscience. The parallel from the Epistle to Philemon shows clearly what its meaning is. But does the apostle then mean to teach the irresponsibility of sinners who, like the Gentiles, have not had a written law? No; for the whole book of Genesis, which describes the period between Adam and Moses, would protest against such an assertion. The matter in questior is an immediate and personal imputation, resting on a threatening like this: In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die. The infliction of the punishment of death in the sense of this divine saying necessarily supposes a positive law violated; it supposes in general a theocratic government set up. Only in such circumstances can the violator be brought to account to be immediately judged and subjected, either to capital punishment, or to the obligation of providing an expiatory act, such as sacrifice (taking the place of the punishment of death). Outside of such an organization there may be other great dispensations of a collective and disciplinary character, such as the deluge, the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, or the abandonment of the Gentiles to their own corruption (chap. 1). These historical dispensations are vast pedagogical measures taken in respect of the whole human race; they have not the character of judicial and individual sentences, like those which rest on some article of a code violated by an individual with full knowledge of the law; comp. the contrast between the , shall perish, and the , shall be judged, Rom 2:12.

The subjective negative before represents the fact as it exists in the mind of the author of the maxim.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

13, 14. For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed, there being no law; but death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the similitude of Adams transgression, who is the type of him who is to come. Here is an allusion to the infants, idiots and heathens who did not sin after the manner of Adam, i. e., break a known law; yet they all died physically, thus paying the penalty and showing to all the world their guilt in a sense, i. e., corroborating the above conclusion that all sinned seminally in Adam. How was Adam the type of Christ? Only representatively. Both Adam and Christ represent the entire human race. This is so fortunate for us. We all failed in Adam; but we all have a second chance in Christ; otherwise we must have gone like the fallen angels

(Jud 1:6) to abide in adamantine chains and penal fires forever.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 13

Until the law; during the interval which elapsed from Adam to the giving of the Mosaic law.–When there is no law; that is, no law at all; for there was, during all this time, a law of nature, by which men were rendered accountable.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

5:13 {11} (For until {o} the law sin was in the world: but sin is not {p} imputed when there is no law.

(11) That this is so, that both guiltiness and death began not after the giving and transgressing of law of Moses, is evident in that men died before that law was given: for in that they died, sin, which is the cause of death, existed then: and in such a way, that it was also imputed: because of this it follows that there was then some law, the breach of which was the cause of death.

(o) Even from Adam to Moses.

(p) Where there is no law made, no man is punished as faulty and guilty.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Paul did not carry through the comparison begun in Rom 5:12 here. If he had it would have been "so righteousness entered the world by one man and life through righteousness." Evidently Paul broke off his statement because he wanted to explain the relationship between sin and the Law, specifically, why there was death before the Law. Rom 5:13-14 explain Rom 5:12. He returned to the thought begun in Rom 5:12 in Rom 5:18.

People died before God gave the Mosaic Law. If there is no law, there can be no transgression of law (cf. Rom 3:20). Since death is the penalty for transgression of law, why did those people die? The answer is they died because they sinned "in" Adam. Adam transgressed God’s law in the Garden of Eden, and ever since his descendants have transgressed God’s law, not just the Mosaic Law. This accounts for the universality of death.

The idea that people should involuntarily suffer punishment because of the sins of another is repugnant to us. Nevertheless as the head of the human race, Adam’s actions resulted in consequences that his descendants had to bear. Likewise any representative leader’s decisions result in consequences his followers must bear. For example, when our president decides to sign into law some piece of legislation it becomes binding on everyone under his authority. Similarly, advocates of "natural headship" point out, we all bear physical characteristics that are the product of our parents’ action of producing a child. It is just one of the facts of life that we all suffer the consequences of the decisions of those who have preceded us and are over us (cf. Heb 7:9-10). Some of those consequences are good for us and others are bad for us. We all have to suffer the punishment for our sins ultimately because Adam sinned, as well as because we all commit acts of sin. Some people rebel against God because of this. However, God has promised not to punish us if we will trust in His Son (2Co 5:19). He has provided a way to secure pardon from punishment.

It is the punishment for Adam’s sin that we bear, not its guilt. We are guilty because we sin, but we die (the punishment of sin) because Adam sinned. Christ bore the punishment of our sins, not our guilt. He died in our place and for us. We are still guilty, but God will not condemn us for being guilty because He has declared us righteous in Christ (i.e., has justified us). Guilt is both objective and subjective. We are objectively guilty, but we should feel no subjective guilt because we have been justified (declared righteous).

"Every little white coffin,-yea, every coffin, should remind us of the universal effect of that sin of Adam, for it was thus and thus only that ’death passed to all men.’" [Note: Newell, p. 183.]

Most evangelicals believe that infants and idiots die physically because of Adam’s sin, but they do not die eternally (are unsaved) because they are incapable of exercising saving faith in Christ. Therefore, since God is just, He will have mercy on them (cf. Gen 18:25). [Note: See Robertson, 4:358-59.] Some people base their belief in the salvation of such people on 2Sa 12:23, but that verse probably only means that David anticipated going into the grave (Sheol), where his infant son had gone, not going to heaven.

Adam was a "type" or "pattern" (Gr. tupos) of one who would follow him, namely, Jesus Christ. A type is a divinely intended illustration of something else, the antitype. A type may be a person, as here, a thing (cf. Heb 10:19-20), an event (cf. 1Co 10:11), a ceremony (cf. 1Co 5:7), or an institution (cf. Heb 9:11-12). Adam is the only Old Testament character who is explicitly identified as a type of Christ in the New Testament. Adam’s act had universal impact and prefigured Christ’s act, which also had universal impact. The point of similarity between Adam and Christ is that what each did affected many others. Each communicated what belonged to him to those he represented.

"Adam came from the earth, but Jesus is the Lord from heaven (1Co 15:47). Adam was tested in a Garden, surrounded by beauty and love; Jesus was tempted in a wilderness, and He died on a cruel cross surrounded by hatred and ugliness. Adam was a thief, and was cast out of Paradise; but Jesus Christ turned to a thief and said, ’Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise’ (Luk 23:43). The Old Testament is ’the book of the generations of Adam’ (Gen 5:1) and it ends with ’a curse’ (Mal 4:6). The New Testament is ’The book of the generation of Jesus Christ’ (Mat 1:1) and it ends with ’no more curse’ (Rev 22:3)." [Note: Wiersbe, 1:530.]

The rest of this chapter develops seven contrasts (one per verse) between Adam’s act of sin and Christ’s act of salvation. As Adam’s act of sin resulted in inevitable death for all his descendants, so Christ’s act of obedience resulted in inevitable life for all who believe in Him.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)