Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 5:16
And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift [is] of many offenses unto justification.
16. And not, &c.] The line of thought here is less difficult if we take Rom 5:17 in close connexion, and read the words from “ for the judgment ” to “ unto justification ” as a parenthetic statement of the two facts before us. We may then paraphrase Rom 5:16-17 thus: “The Gift, in wonder and greatness of quality, far exceeds the Ruin, though each is the result of one Person’s act: (for, as we know, the sentence and execution was the result of one man’s one sin, while the atonement and justification is the result, in a sense, of many men’s many sins:) I say the Gift exceeds the Ruin; for while the result of Adam’s sin was just the lawful reign of death over men as sinners, the result of Christ’s work shall be not a mere reversal of this, but the reign of justified men over death in glory.”
And not, &c.] The Gr. here is more exactly, And not as by means of the sinning of one, [is] the gift: for the sentence [resulted] from one [person] unto condemnation; but the boon [resulted] from many offences unto acquittal. Here the “ one ” is plainly Adam; and the contrast is between his one-ness, and that of his sin, and the many offences of his many sons. St Paul estimates the greatness of the pardon of all the sins of all the justified from the tremendous legal results of the one sin of Adam. Such is sin, that Adam’s sin brought death on all men; such is grace, that innumerable sins are, through the Propitiation, “abundantly pardoned.” The phrase above, “resulted from,” has of course a different bearing in the two clauses. The first sin was the strict cause of the sentence; while the “many offences” “caused” the boon, only as calling forth the mercy. “The sentence unto condemnation;” “the boon unto acquittal:” in each of these phrases the last word explains the first: the sentence amounted to sentence of death; the gift was nothing less than acquittal. The hereditary guilt and doom of the Fall is very distinctly taught in this verse. The sentence of death on man as man came “by means of the sinning of one,” in a sense expressly distinguished from the guilt of the “many offences” of the many.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And not … – This is the second point in which the effects of the work of Christ differ from the sin of Adam The first part Rom 5:15 was, that the evil consequences flowed from the sin of one man, Adam; and that the benefits flowed from the work of one man, Jesus Christ. The point in this verse is, that the evil consequences flowed from one crime, one act of guilt; but that the favors had respect to many acts of guilt. The effects of Adams sin, whatever they were, pertained to the one sin; the effects of the work of Christ, to many sins.
By one that sinned – di’ henos hemartesantos. By means of one (man) sinning; evidently meaning by one offence, or by one act of sin. So the Vulgate, and many manuscripts. And the connection shows that this is the sense.
The gift – The benefits resulting from the work of Christ.
The judgment – The sentence; the declared penalty. The word expresses properly the sentence which is passed by a judge. Here it means the sentence which God passed, as a judge, on Adam for the one offence, involving himself and his posterity in ruin, Gen 2:17; Gen 3:17-19.
Was by one – By one offence; or one act of sin.
Unto condemnation – Producing condemnation; or involving in condemnation. It is proved by this, that the effect of the sin of Adam was to involve the race in condemnation, or to secure this as a result that all mankind would be under the condemning sentence of the Law, and be transgressors. But in what way it would have this effect, the apostle does not state. He does not intimate that his sin would be imputed to them; or that they would be held to be personally guilty for it. He speaks of a broad, everywhere perceptible fact, that the effect of that sin had been somehow to overwhelm the race in condemnation. In what mode this was done is a fair subject of inquiry; but the apostle does not attempt to explain it.
The free gift – The unmerited favor, by the work of Christ.
Is of many offences – In relation to many sins. It differs thus from the condemnation. That had respect to one offence; this has respect to many crimes. Grace therefore abounds.
Unto justification – Note, Rom 3:24. The work of Christ is designed to have reference to many offences, so as to produce pardon or justification in regard to them all. But the apostle here does not intimate how this is done. He simply states the fact, without attempting in this place to explain it; and as we know that that work does not produce its effect to justify without some act on the part of the individual, are we not hence, led to conclude the same respecting the condemnation for the sin of Adam? As the work of Christ does not benefit the race unless it is embraced, so does not the reasoning of the apostle imply, that the deed of Adam does not involve in criminality and ill-desert unless there be some voluntary act on the part of each individual? However this may be, it is certain that the apostle has in neither case here explained the mode in which it is done. He has simply stated the fact, a fact which he did not seem to consider himself called on to explain. Neither has he affirmed that in the two cases the mode is the same. On the contrary, it is strongly implied that it is not the same, for the leading object here is to present, not an entire resemblance, but a strong contrast between the effects of the sin of Adam and the work of Christ.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Rom 5:16
And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift.
The Adamic and Christian dispensations
I. The adamic.
1. One offence brought condemnation.
2. Upon all mankind.
3. By a just and inevitable law.
II. The Christian.
1. Grace is free.
2. Brings justification.
3. For all.
4. From many offences. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
The one and the many
With the one sinner is contrasted the multitude of the justified. What a difference between the power of the spark which sets fire to the forest by lighting a withered branch, and the power of the instrument which extinguishes the conflagration at the moment when every tree is on fire, and makes them all live again. (Prof. Godet.)
Christ and the many
He gave His life a ransom for many (Mat 20:28); His blood was shed for many (Mat 26:28; Mar 14:24); He bare the sins of many (Isa 53:11-12); by His knowledge He justifies many (Isa 53:11); He brings many sins to glory (Heb 2:10). The many are a multitude which no man can number (Rev 7:9). (T. Robinson, D. D.)
Salvation a free gift
One excuse which awakened sinners are accustomed to allege in their own defence is, that they wish to love God with all their heart, but cannot. They do, indeed, wish to be saved, but they are not willing to be saved in Gods way; that is, they are not willing to accept salvation as a free gift. They would do anything to buy it, but will not take it without money and without price. Suppose that you were very sick, and were told by the physician that there was but one medicine in the world which could save your life, and this was exceedingly precious; that you were also told that there was but one person in the world who had any of this in his possession; and that, although he was willing to give it to those who asked, he would on no account sell any. Suppose this person to be one whom you had treated with great neglect and contempt, injured in every possible way. How exceedingly unwilling would you be to send to him for the medicine as a gift: you would rather purchase it at the expense of your whole fortune. You would defer sending as long as possible; and when you found you were daily growing worse, and nothing else could save you, you would be obliged, however reluctantly, to send and ask for some. Just so unwilling are sinners to apply to God for salvation, as a free gift; and they will not do it until they find themselves perishing, and that there is no other hope for them. (E. Payson.)
Sin the occasion of glorifying God
I do believe that sin in itself has the same aspect as affliction–that it makes room for the mercy of God. I hardly dare say what Augustine, when speaking of the fall and of the sin of Adam, and looking to all the display of grace that followed it, said. He said, beata culpa—happy fault, as if he thought that by means of sin the grace of God is so magnified and displayed he might call it a happy fault. I will not go so far. I scarcely do more than repeat what that great master in Israel once said; but I do say this, that I cannot imagine an occasion for glorifying God equal to the fact that man has sinned. God so loved the world as to give Christ to die for sinners, and how could this have been if there had been no sin? The Cross is a constellation of glory that is brighter than creation itself. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 16. And not as it was by one that sinned] That is, the judicial act that followed Adam’s sin (the sentence of death pronounced upon him, and his expulsion from paradise) took its rise from his one offence alone, and terminated in condemnation; but the free gift of God in Christ takes its rise also from the many offences which men, in a long course of life, have personally committed; and the object of this grace is to justify them freely, and bring them to eternal life.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
q.d. As there is a difference between Adam and Christ in respect of their persons, so also in respect of their acts, and the extent thereof; for one sin of Adam did condemn us; the mischief arose from one offence; but the free gift and grace of Christ doth absolve us not only from that one fault, but from all other faults and offences; it reacheth to the pardon, not only of original sin, but of all other personal and actual sins.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
16. And not as it was by one thatsinned, so is the gift“Another point of contrast may bementioned.”
for the judgment“sentence.”
was by onerather, “wasof one,” meaning not “one man,” but, as appears fromthe next clause, “one offense.”
to condemnation, but the freegift“gift of grace.”
is of many offences untojustificationa glorious point of contrast. “Thecondemnation by Adam was for one sin; but the justification byChrist is an absolution not only from the guilt of that firstoffense, mysteriously attaching to every individual of the race, butfrom the countless offenses it, to which, as a germ lodged inthe bosom of every child of Adam, it unfolds itself in his life.”This is the meaning of “grace abounding towards us in theabundance of the gift of righteousness.” It is a gracenot only rich in its character, but rich in detail; itis a “righteousness” not only rich in a completejustification of the guilty, condemned sinner; but rich in theamplitude of the ground which it covers, leaving no one sin ofany of the justified uncancelled, but making him, though loaded withthe guilt of myriads of offenses, “the righteousness of God inChrist.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift,…. The apostle goes on with the dissimilitude between the effects of Adam’s sin, and Christ’s righteousness:
for the judgment was by one to condemnation; by “judgment” is meant, not the judgment of God, or the judiciary sentence pronounced by God on Adam and his posterity for sin; but the guilt of the one man’s sin, which is imputed to all men to condemnation, on account of which the sentence of condemnation passed on all men; the law transgressed, became a ministration of condemnation to them:
but the free gift is of many offences unto justification; the righteousness of Christ, which stands opposed to the guilt of Adam’s sin, being imputed to all his offspring, is to the justification of them; and that not only from the guilt of that particular offence, but from many other offences, even all their actual sins and transgressions, of every sort; which is another instance of the exuberance, or abounding of the grace of God, in the righteousness of Christ, not only over the sin of the one man, but also over the sins of many, even all the elect of God; for the last clause may be also thus rendered, “the free gift is of the offences of many, unto justification”.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Through one that sinned (‘ ). “Through one having sinned.” That is Adam. Another contrast, difference in source ().
Of one ( ). Supply , Adam’s one transgression.
Of many trespasses ( ). The gift by Christ grew out of manifold sins by Adam’s progeny.
Justification (). Act of righteousness, result, ordinance (Rom 1:32; Rom 2:26; Rom 8:4), righteous deed (5:18), verdict as here (acquittal).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
That sinned [] . The better supported reading. Some MSS. and versions read aJmarthmatov transgression.
Of one. Some explain, one man, from the preceding (one) that sinned. Others, one trespass, from ver. 17.
The judgment [] . Judicial sentence. Compare 1Co 6:7; 1Co 11:29. See on 2Pe 2:3.
Condemnation [] . See on shall be damned, Mr 16:16. A condemnatory sentence.
Justification [] . Not the subjective state of justification, but a righteous act or deed. Rev 19:8; see on ver. 18.
The word is sometimes rendered orinance, Heb 9:1, 10; an appointment of God having the force of law. So Rom 1:32, where Rev. gives ordinance for judgment, and Rom 2:26, ordinances for righteousness.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And not as it was by one that sinned,” (kai ouch hos di’ henos hamartesantos) “And not as through one (man) sinning;” that sin passed (and its nature) by one man’ through his sin, into the inherent nature of his offspring, Rom 5:12. The “not” indicates that the “similarity” of Rom 5:14, does not mean that the gift of Salvation by Christ is passed by inheritance.
2) “So is the gift,” (to dorema) “So exists the gift; the gift of God’s righteousness is passed, offered, made available to all men, but not by inheritance or natural birth. This is to emphasize that Salvation is of a gift, not an inheritance, Joh 3:3; Joh 3:6; Joh 3:16; Eph 2:8-9.
3) “For the judgment was by one to condemnation,” (to men gar krima eks henos eis katakrima) “For the judgment of the one, (offence) on the one hand, is of condemnation;” That is the offence (transgression) of Adam was to condemnation or judgment that caused it to affect every human by natural birth, Eph 2:1-3.
4) “But the free gift is of many, offences,” (to de Charisma ek pollon paraptomaton) “On the other hand the free gift is out of many offences;” Sin of Adam that caused the fall of humanity was one, but sins that caused redemption were many, involving –all offences of all men of all times, Isa 53:6; Isa 2:14.
5) “Unto justification,” (eis dikaioma) “Unto acquittal or justification,” to liberation, even release from the condemnation, Act 13:38-39. This justification by faith in Christ is from all things that offend God.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
16. This is especially an explanation of what he had said before, — that by one offense guilt issued in the condemnation of us all, but that grace, or rather the gratuitous gift, is efficacious to our justification from many offenses. It is indeed an expansion of what the last verse contains; for he had not hitherto expressed, how or in what respect Christ excelled Adam. This difference being settled, it appears evident, that their opinion is impious, who have taught that we recover nothing else by Christ but a freedom from original sin, or the corruption derived from Adam. Observe also, that these many offenses, from which he affirms we are freed through Christ, are not to be understood only of those which every one must have committed before baptism, but also of those by which the saints contract daily new guilt; and on account of which they would be justly exposed to condemnation, were they not continually relieved by this grace.
He sets gift in opposition to judgment: by the latter he means strict justice; by the former, gratuitous pardon. From strict justice comes condemnation; from pardon, absolution. Or, which is the same thing, were God to deal with us according to justice, we should be all undone; but he justifies us freely in Christ.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(16) The judgment was by one.The judgment, verdict, or sentence from a single case ends in, or in other words takes the form of, condemnation; whereas, on the other hand, the free gift, starting from or prompted by many sins, ends in, takes the form of, justification. In the former of these cases the verdict is Guilty, while in the other case it (or, rather, the free act of grace which takes its place) is a verdict of acquittal.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
16. By one of many Contrast of NUMBER. By one sinner (supply also by one sin) was the condemnation; of many offences (supply also of many offenders) was the justification. By the apostle’s ellipsis the one sinner stands against many offences; but the very nature of the contrast shows the ellipses on both sides should be filled.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And not as through one who sinned, so is the gift, for the judgment came of one unto punishment after sentence, but the free gift came of many trespasses unto justification.’
Again Paul’s ‘not as’ emphasises the superiority of the gift, this time the contrast being between Adam’s one act of sinning resulting in punishment following sentence, and the free gift of righteousness (possibly seen as inclusive of many acts of righteousness in the life of Christ) which covers many trespasses, and results in many being ‘declared righteous’. In the one case punishment following sentence came for many as a result of the one trespass (because that one trespass permeates all men), in the other the free gift of His righteousness covers many trespasses with a declaration of righteousness. When we recognise that the ‘many trespasses’ covers both ‘the sins done aforetime’ of Rom 3:25, the sins of all God’s Old Testament people who found salvation, and the sins of all who have become God’s people since, we recognise its huge coverage. And all these people have been covered with His free gift of righteousness, so that they have been accounted as righteous by God.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Rom 5:16. And not as it was by one that sinned, &c. The Apostle here manifestly enters upon another respect, in which the gift reaches beyond the offence: , and, has nearly the same force as also. See on chap. Rom 1:17 and the introduction to the present chapter.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Rom 5:16 . Continuation of the difference between the gift of grace and the consequence of the fall, and that with reference to the causal origination on either side in a numerical aspect. [1315]
And not as through one, who has sinned, so is the gift, i.e. it is not so in its case the state of the case there is the very reverse as if it were occasioned . (like death through Adam). The . indicates the unity of the person and of the accomplished sinful act; comp Stlting. Beyond the simple after nothing is to be supplied (so also Mangold), because the words without supplement are quite in accordance with the Greek use of (Bernhardy, p. 352, Stallbaum, a [1317] Plat. Sympos . p. 179 E), and yield an appropriate sense, whereas none of the supplements that have been attempted are suggested by the context. It has been proposed, e.g. after . to supply (Grotius, Estius, Koppe), or or (Bengel, Klee, Reiche, Kllner; or after : (Beza), which is indeed impossible, but is nevertheless resorted to even by de Wette: “and not like that which originated through one that sinned, so is the gift,” and Tholuck: “the gift has a different character from that which has come through the one man sinning .” Comp Philippi, who like Rckert and Dietzsch supplies merely after . (and then after .: ), which however still yields no complete sentence, since the is without a subject. The correct view in substance is taken by Rothe, Ewald, and van Hengel; while Fritzsche still calls in the aid of a supplement after . ( ); and Hofmann even wishes mentally to supply to . from what precedes, to which it is attached, as predicate; [1319] whereas Mehring puts his rendering, which erroneously makes it a question (comp on Rom 5:15 ), in this form: “ And ought not the gift to be, as it was through one that sinned? ”
. . [1321] ] sc [1322] ; explanation of the point of difference previously specified: For the judicial sentence redounds from a single one to a sentence of condemnation, but the gift of grace from many trespasses to a sentence of justification .
] quite general: the sentence which God pronounces as judge ; comp 1Co 6:7 . For the kind of sentence , which this shall prove to be in the concrete result, is indicated only by the following . The explanation which refers it to the divine announcement contained in Gen 2:17 (Fritzsche, Dietzsch) is erroneous, because the latter is a threat, and not a ; and because the act of Adam must have already preceded the . Others understand by it the sentence of punishment pronounced against Adam , which has become a sentence of punishment (sentence of death) against his posterity ( ) (Reiche, Rckert, Nielsen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Krehl, de Wette, Maier, Hofmann); but wrongly, because they thus neglect the pointed interchange of and , and in place the stress on the condemned subject, which however is not even mentioned. Linguistically erroneous is the view of Beza, Calixtus, Wolf, and others, that . is the guilt . Nor does it mean the state of being finally adjudged (Stlting). Philippi, Tholuck, Ewald, and van Hengel hold the right view; while Rothe, with unnecessary refining and gratuitous importation, takes and by themselves as subject, and as predicates (“the one effect is a righteous judgment. the other on the contrary a gift”). Dietzsch still more breaks up the sentence, making and appositions , the former to , and the latter to .
] has, like afterwards, the chief emphasis; is masculine on account of the previous . , not neuter ( ), as Rothe, Mehring, Dietzsch, Stlting and others think. This masculine however does not necessitate our taking also as masculine (Hofmann), which would in itself be allowable (comp on 2Co 1:11 ), but is here opposed by the consideration that Paul would have expressed the personal contrast to more symmetrically and thoughtfully by the bare . The Vulgate gives the right sense: “ ex multis delictis .”
] points to the motive cause, producing the event from itself: forth from one ; see Khner, II. 1, p. 399. Just in the same way the second .
] sc [1325] , as in the first half of the verse, [1326] “ut una cum praesentibus praeterita tamquam eadem in tabella repraesentet,” van Hengel. One was the cause (moving the divine righteousness) that the judgment of God presents itself in the result as a punitive judgment (namely, that on account of the sin of one all should die, Rom 5:12 ); many sins, on the other hand, were the cause (moving the divine compassion) that the gift of grace results in concreto as a judgment of justification. In the one case an unity , in the other a multiplicity , was the occasioning cause. In the second clause also, following the analogy of in the first, is conceived of generally and abstractly; the redounds in the concrete case , when God, namely, forgives the many sins and declares their subjects as righteous. , which is not, with Dietzsch, to be understood in the sense of the right framing of life through sanctification of the Spirit a view contrary to linguistic usage and the context is here also (comp Rom 1:32 , Rom 2:26 , Rom 8:4 ; Luk 1:6 ; Heb 9:1 ; Heb 9:10 ; Rev 15:4 ; frequently in LXX. and Apocr., see Schleusner, Thes. II. p. 167 f.), according to its literal signification, in itself nothing else than judicial determination, judicial sentence; but it is to be taken here in the Pauline sense of the divine , hence: the sentence defining righteousness , the ordinance of God in which He completes the as actus judicialis , the opposite of . Condition of righteousness (Luther and others), “ the actual status of being righteous ” (Hofmann), would be represented by ; satisfaction of justice , compensation of justice (Rothe, Mehring following Calovius, and Wolf), in accordance with which idea it may even designate punishment in classical usage (Plat. Legg. ix. p. 864 E), it might mean (Aristot. Eth. Nic. v. 7, 17: ), but never does so in Biblical usage, to which this special definition of the sense is foreign. Paul could convey the sense declaration as righteous, verdict of justification , the more appropriately by , since in Bar 2:17 the word is also substantially thus used ( . , in Hades they shall not praise God and declare Him righteous ). Compare also 2Sa 19:28 ; Jer 11:20 ; Pro 8:20 ; Rev 15:4 ; Rev 19:8 . [1328] The right view is taken by Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, Krehl, Philippi, Tholuck, Ewald, van Hengel, Holsten, Klpper, and Pfleiderer; Rckert (also Maier) abides by means of justification, following merely the form of the word without empirical proof, while de Wette is undecided, and Stlting, without precedent from linguistic usage (comp above Luther and Hofmann), understands the state of justification into which the state of grace (the ) has passed. These two conceptions however exclude any idea of succession, and are concurrent.
The addition in D. Vulg. is a correct gloss; comp Rom 5:18 .
[1315] Dietzsch takes it differently, finding the progress of the argument in this, that at the end a state of life adequate to the divine law may be established. This view however rests on an erroneous exposition of (see below), and generally on an erroneous mixing up of sanctification with justification an intermingling to be avoided throughout the entire train of thought in our passage; comp. Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1872, p. 167.
[1317] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[1319] It would run thus: “ The gift has not so accrued abundantly to the many and passed over to them, as was the case when such a bestowal ensued through one that sinned .” This supplement is already guarded against by the fact that . down to is the obvious parallel of . . down to , and hence, like the latter, may not be supplemented further than by . Any other course is arbitrary and artificial.
[1321] . . . .
[1322] c. scilicet .
[1325] c. scilicet .
[1326] In consequence of the way in which Hofmann has supplemented the first half of the verse, we should now take, in the one instance, as predicate to ; and in the other instance, as predicate to , notwithstanding that in both cases a definition with is already given by Paul himself. How enigmatically and misleadingly he would have written!
[1328] Where are the divine verdicts of justification, which the saints have received. The pure byssus is their symbol. Compare Ewald, Joh. Schr. in loc. p. 330. Dsterdieck understands it otherwise (righteous acts).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
Ver. 16. Of many offences ] i.e. Of all, whether imputed to us, inherent in us, or issuing from us,
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
16. ] Distinction the second , in KIND. The former difference was quantitative: this is modal. And not as (that which took place) by one that sinned, so is the gift .
It is a question whether any thing, and what, is to be supplied before . Rthe, Meyer, and Tholuck (and so E. V.), would supply nothing, and render, ‘And not as by one having sinned, so is the gift.’ But (De W.) this has against it, (1) that since the following gives the reason for this sentence, this must contain implicitly all that that next expands in detail; which is not merely the distinction between springing from one man and out of many offences , but much more: and (2) that thus would = or vice versa , whereas characterizes the bringer in , and the occasion . Others have supplied (Bengel, Kllner): (Theophyl., Reiche): (Grot., Estius, Koppe): but inasmuch as it is purposely left indefinite, to be explained in the next verse, it is better to supply an indefinite phrase which may be thus explained: e.g. , ‘ that which took place by one ,’ [or ‘( it was ) through one ,’] &c.
. . .] For the judgment (pronounced by God upon Adam) came of (was by occasion of) one (man having sinned, supply : would be hardly allowable, and would not help the sense, inasmuch as many sinners , as well as many sins, are implied in . . below), unto condemnation (its result, in his own case and that of his posterity: supply, as in Rom 5:18 is expressed, ( ) ); but the gift of grace was by occasion of many transgressions (where sin abounded, Rom 5:20 , there grace much more abounded: the existence of the law being implied in .) unto justification . The only difficulty here is the sense of . The ordinary meaning of the word is , ‘the amendment of an evil deed:’ so Aristotle, Eth. Nicom. Rom 5:10 , , , , . , . But this, which Aristot. insists on as the proper, but not perhaps usual sense of the word, is not to be pressed in the N. T., and does not, though upheld by Calv., Calov., Wolf, and Rthe, suit the context as contrasted with . Other renderings are, ‘ an absolutory sentence ’ (Meyer, Fritz., al.): ‘ a righteous act ,’ as in Rom 5:18 ; Bar 2:19 ; ‘ righteousness ,’ as in Rev 19:8 (where see note): ‘ a righteous cause ,’ or plea (LXX, Jer 11:20 ): ‘ justification ’ (E. V., Luth., De Wette, al.). The first seems to me to be right, as standing most exactly in contrast with ; the use of the – being partly perhaps accounted for by the alliteration of the ending marking more strongly the antithesis. Thus as is a sentence of condemnation , so will be a sentence of acquittal . This in fact amounts to justification .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Rom 5:16 . A fresh point of contrast. That which God bestows (for , see Mayor on Jas 1:17 ) is not as through one that sinned: the analogy with Adam breaks down here. For the Divine judgment ( neutral) starting from one (person) resulted in condemnation (for all); whereas the free gift, starting from many offences (which appealed to the mercy of God), has resulted in a sentence of justification (for all). This abstract way of looking at the matter disregards what the Apostle insists on elsewhere, that this “sentence of justification” only takes effect for the individual on the condition of faith. The in this verse is a decisive argument for the meaning given above to : redemption is not inspired merely by the fall of the race in Adam, but by its actual and multiplied offences, and this is its glory. : is masculine, resuming the of the previous clause; not neuter, with anticipated from the following clause.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
And not, &c. Read, And not as by means of one having sinned is the free gift; for the judgment indeed of one (was) unto condemnation; but the free gift is of (or resulted from) many transgressions unto justification.
gift. Greek. dorema. Not the same word as Rom 5:15. Occurs only here and Jam 1:17.
judgment. Greek. krima. App-177.
condemnation. Greek. katakrima. Only here, Rom 5:18; Rom 8:1. Compare App-122.; Rom 177:6.
justification. Greek. dikaioma, a righteous acquittal. App-191.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
16.] Distinction the second, in KIND. The former difference was quantitative: this is modal. And not as (that which took place) by one that sinned, so is the gift.
It is a question whether any thing, and what, is to be supplied before . Rthe, Meyer, and Tholuck (and so E. V.), would supply nothing, and render, And not as by one having sinned, so is the gift. But (De W.) this has against it, (1) that since the following gives the reason for this sentence, this must contain implicitly all that that next expands in detail; which is not merely the distinction between springing from one man and out of many offences, but much more: and (2) that thus would = or vice versa, whereas characterizes the bringer in, and the occasion. Others have supplied (Bengel, Kllner): (Theophyl., Reiche): (Grot., Estius, Koppe):-but inasmuch as it is purposely left indefinite, to be explained in the next verse, it is better to supply an indefinite phrase which may be thus explained: e.g. , that which took place by one, [or (it was) through one,] &c.
…] For the judgment (pronounced by God upon Adam) came of (was by occasion of) one (man having sinned,-supply : would be hardly allowable, and would not help the sense, inasmuch as many sinners, as well as many sins, are implied in . . below), unto condemnation (its result, in his own case and that of his posterity: supply, as in Rom 5:18 is expressed, () ); but the gift of grace was by occasion of many transgressions (where sin abounded, Rom 5:20, there grace much more abounded: the existence of the law being implied in .) unto justification. The only difficulty here is the sense of . The ordinary meaning of the word is , the amendment of an evil deed: so Aristotle, Eth. Nicom. Rom 5:10, , , , . , . But this, which Aristot. insists on as the proper, but not perhaps usual sense of the word, is not to be pressed in the N. T., and does not, though upheld by Calv., Calov., Wolf, and Rthe, suit the context as contrasted with . Other renderings are, an absolutory sentence (Meyer, Fritz., al.): a righteous act, as in Rom 5:18; Bar 2:19; righteousness, as in Rev 19:8 (where see note): a righteous cause, or plea (LXX, Jer 11:20): justification (E. V., Luth., De Wette, al.). The first seems to me to be right, as standing most exactly in contrast with ; the use of the – being partly perhaps accounted for by the alliteration of the ending marking more strongly the antithesis. Thus as is a sentence of condemnation, so will be a sentence of acquittal. This in fact amounts to justification.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 5:16. , and) The meaning is to this effect: and not, as by one that sinned (is the judgment) (so by one, the author of righteousness is) the gift [Engl. Vers, is different]; that is to say; And [moreover] the proportion [the ratio] on both sides, is not the same.-, the judgment) namely, is.- , from one) namely, offence, [Engl. Vers. differs]; for the antithesis, of many offences, follows. The one offence was of the one man; the many offences are of many men.[53]
[53] I frankly confess, that I do not clearly understand how this plural proves, that Paul is not treating here of original sin, as if it ever exists without the accompaniment of other sins, which is the assumption of some one of the more recent commentators. Doubtless the Apostle distinctly shows, that the gift in Christ is the cure both for original sin, and for the actual offences of individuals BESIDES. There are, certainly, many actual sins, which are not to be considered as the necessary consequence of the first sin (otherwise all the morality of our actions would now cease); but there is no sin, whether it be called original or actual, the pardon and removal of which, ought not to be considered as the mere effect of the gift, .Therefore the power of the gift, , is greater than that of the judgment, .-E. B.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 5:16
Rom 5:16
And not as through one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment came of one unto condemnation,-Through one that sinned death came, and condemnation to all. One death brought both physical decay and spiritual ruin, or, rather, both spiritual ruin and physical decay are results from one cause.
but the free gift came of many trespasses unto justification. -The free gift is for the justification of many offenses that the offender may live.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
offences
Sin. (See Scofield “Rom 3:23”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
for the: Gen 3:6-19, Gal 3:10, Jam 2:10
but the free: Isa 1:18, Isa 43:25, Isa 44:22, Luk 7:47-50, Act 13:38, Act 13:39, 1Co 6:9-11, 1Ti 1:13-16
Reciprocal: Num 7:15 – General 2Ch 33:19 – all his sins Isa 55:7 – for Jer 50:20 – and there Eze 33:16 – General Rom 3:24 – justified Rom 5:15 – But not
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
:16
Rom 5:16. This verse means virtually the same as the preceding one, but expressed in slightly different language.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 5:16. And not as through one that sinned. There is some (but insufficient) authority for another reading: through one sin, A single act of sin is referred to in either case.
So is the gift. It is only necessary to supply is; though some suggest fuller explanations: judgment came, etc., in the first clause, gift is a different word from that in Rom 5:15, but refers to the same thing.
For the judgment. The judicial sentence of God. The word itself may refer to a favorable or unfavorable sentence.
Came. This, or some verb of motion, is to be supplied; the prepositions involving the idea of motion, or result.
Of, or, from, one. (Not by.) This may refer to one trespass, in accordance with the next clause, or to one man, namely, one that sinned, in the previous clause. The latter is preferable; what precedes usually determines the sense of an elliptical phrase.
Unto condemnation. The judicial sentence (judgment), in consequence of the act of one man, resulted in condemnation; as set forth in Rom 5:12.
But the free gift, or, gift of grace (as in Rom 5:15).
Of, or, from, many falls, or, trespasses, The many sins of men could be pardoned only by a free gift. In this sense they were the origin or occasion of the free gift. As a result this free gift came unto a righteous (or, justifying) act. A righteous verdict, or, an act that justifies. This is not the word usually rendered justification. But the meaning is substantially the same. The word, derived from the verb meaning to account righteous, here denotes either, in opposition to condemnation, the righteous decree or verdict which God pronounces on account of the perfect obedience of Christ, or, in opposition to trespass (as in Rom 5:18), the righteous act of Christ on which that verdict is based. It seems improper to refer it to the subjective state of justification. See further on Rom 5:18.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
And not as through one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment came of one unto condemnation, but the free gift came of many trespasses unto justification. [The apostle here makes mention of the main particular, wherein the effect of Christ’s act has a wider range than the effect of Adam’s act. It may be well to observe, at this point, that wherever the act of Christ is simply equal in range to that of Adam, the effect is unconditional; but wherever the range exceeds that of Adam, then it becomes conditional upon faith, and is only enjoyed by believers. Paul does not here pause to bring out this important detail, but it is abundantly set forth by him elsewhere, and by other New Testament writers, so that it is, of course, implied here. Moreover, says he, the sentence of condemnation which came through the one person, Adam, though it comprehended the whole human family, is not as wide-reaching as the free gift, or justification, which came through Christ, for the judgment came because of one sin; but the free gift of justification came as to many trespasses to pardon them. In other words, the bestowal of justification exceeded in quantity the bestowal of condemnation; for one condemnation was given for one sin, but the justification was bestowed many times because of many sins. If Christ’s one act of sacrifice had simply counteracted the effects of the one sin of Adam, then there would have been equality; but it did much more, for it also effected the justification of the countless trespasses of believers who obtained pardon by reason of it. How great is the efficacy of our Lord’s sacrificial act! If one single sin brought death upon the entire human family, how unspeakably awful is its power! Who can measure the destructive force and the eternal energy of a single sin? Who then can estimate the justifying power of the sacrifice of Christ, since it nullifies, for believers, the accumulative power of the incalculable numbers of sins committed by innumerable sinners, in all the untold moments of human lives, each sin of which carries a destructive force which no lapse of ages can exhaust? No wonder, then, that we are told that there is no “other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.” We should note also that Paul does not here say that the sacrifice of Christ justifies all mankind from their many trespasses. This would be Universalism. He merely contrasts the power of one sin with that greater power which nullifies the effect of many sins, and thus shows that the range of Christ’s act exceeded that of Adam. To counteract Adam’s one sin in a million of his descendants, is a narrower work than to counteract the more than a million sins committed by any mature sinner, much less the unthinkable number committed by millions of sinners.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
16. And not as by the one that sinned is the free gift; for judgment is from one unto condemnation, and the free gift from many transgressions unto justification. This verse confirms the fact the two Adams in their representative characters are parallel lines, running through time and all eternity. All we lost in Adam we gained in Christ and infinitely more, as Christ is infinitesimally greater than Adam.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
5:16 {15} And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift [is] of many offences unto {t} justification.
(15) Another inequality consists in this, that by Adam’s one offence men are made guilty, but the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us freely, does not only absolve us from that one fault, but from all others.
(t) To the sentence of absolution, by which we are acquitted and pronounced righteous.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
In Adam’s case a single sin by a single individual was sufficient to bring condemnation to the whole human race. In Christ’s case one act of obedience, which the transgressions of many people made necessary, was sufficient to bring justification to all those who believe in Him (Rom 5:16). Here the divine verdicts following Adam’s act and Christ’s act are in view: condemnation and justification.