Romans 5:16-21, Commentary
Aug 7th, 2009 by Micah Tillman | 2 Comments |
[ Romans 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5: Intro, 1-11, 12, 12-14, 15, 16-21, Summary ]
I want to get chapter 5 over with, if that’s okay with you:
16 And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. 17 If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. 19 For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, just as sin exercised dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through justification leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
____
5:16 — Note that “judgment” and “condemnation” (“krima” and “katakrima“) can only be metaphorical here, since Paul is describing the situation before the Law (and its attendant judgments and condemnations).
As Paul said in v. 13, “sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law” (NRSV). This sets the context for all the verses up to v. 20, where the law “comes in.”
In other words, Paul, in v. 16, is referring to the ontological effects of sin (i.e., death) under the metaphor of the court of law, but not saying there is any actual judgment or condemnation for sin apart from the Law. Apart from the Law, there is simply the fact (sin is cutting oneself off from God) and the consequence (death).
____
5:17 — Note the recurrent theme of “dominion,” putting us firmly in the context of Genesis 1. (See here for what “dominion” means in Genesis 1.)
Adam and Eve abdicated their roles God’s representatives (as representations/images of God) to the world — they ceased “exercising dominion” — cutting themselves, their world, and their descendants off from God (i.e., ceasing to re-present, make God present to, themselves, their world, and their descendants).
Again, this is simply an ontological fact, not the consequence of an arbitrary decree by God.
Jesus, however, can restore us to our proper status as God’s representatives to the world (as representations/images of God).
____
5:18 — Adam’s sin cuts everything and everyone off from God, killing everything and everyone. Jesus’ righteousness reconnects everything and everyone to God.
Notice the universal quantifiers in this verse. Adam’s sin resulted in death for “pantas anthropous” (“all humans,” not “all humanity“) and Jesus’ righteousness resulted in justified life for “pantas anthropous” (“all humans,” not “all humanity“). It’s the same phrase in both cases.
Again, Paul is dealing with things at their fundamental ontological level (in abstraction from the Law) at this point, so “justification” has to be taken in the original Greek sense of “just,” “dike” (pronounced: “dee-kay”).
The Greek word dike meant the same as “to be in line with the fundamental order/hierarchy of the universe” (see MacIntyre) — like text’s being “justified” means its being in line with the margins of the page.
Jesus’ righteousness (dikaiomatos, also from dike) — His being in line with the fundamental order/hierarchy of the universe (as created by God!) — returns us to justified life (dikaiosin zoes) — life in line with the fundamental order/hierarchy of the universe (as created by God!).
I.e., it restores us to our status as images/representations/representatives of God in and to the world.
____
5:19 — Through (dia) Adam’s disobedience — not “in” Adam’s sin!!! – the masses (the hoi polloi) were made hamartoloi — people who miss the mark.
This does not mean that God “imputes” or “reckons” Adam’s sin to us, sees us as guilty of it. After all, sin is only imputed/reckoned if there is a Law (v. 13!!!), but Paul is talking about how things were even before the Law. The Law doesn’t “come back in” until v. 20!
And through (dia) Jesus’ obedience — not in Jesus’ obedience — the masses will be made dikaioi (righteous, in line with the fundamental order of things).
Both acts, in other words (Adam’s and Jesus’) have consequences for everyone, regardless of ethnicity.
Adam, in cutting himself, his world, and descendants (i.e., everyone) off from God, produced progeny who followed suit (who “miss the mark”). This is simply an ontological, natural consequence (like a genetic mutation), not something God did to Adam’s followers or imposed upon them (like having to pay your parents’ debts).
Jesus, in following the will of God, fixes that, and makes it possible for everyone to get back to what they were supposed to be.
____
5:20 — And when God finally introduced the Law, the result wasn’t that people were suddenly made righteous. The Law didn’t realign everyone with the fundamental order of things.
Instead, people reacted to the Law by sinning more. (The word for “trespass” is paraptoma, which, etymologically, has the sense of “falling off.”)
And that’s how it so often is. People don’t like being told what to do, so they often do the opposite of what they’re told (even if they would have never thought of doing so, were it not for being told not to do so).
But Jesus’ gift was enough to even fix all of that.
____
5:21 — Therefore, proper dominion has been restored, and death replaced by the eternal kind of life.
Sweet deal, if you ask me.
____
[ Romans 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5: Intro, 1-11, 12, 12-14, 15, 16-21, Summary ]
One of my favorite verses is 16 “the free gift is not like the effect of one man’s sin”. (It is even more fun to read in KJV.)
In these days, we don’t often use a negative metaphor (“its not like”). My Bible school teacher used to say it was similar to explaining “A donkey is not like my Cadillac”.
*chuckle* I wonder what makes a negative metaphor actually helpful?
Does it have to be something like this:
“A donkey is not like my Cadillac” . . . “even though they are both similar in that they are modes of transportation.”
?
Negative metaphors open up an entire world of things that would be true, but unhelpful:
“A donkey is not like yellow paint” or “like a symphony” or “like two nickels.”
Of course, maybe you could supply a context for each that would make it relevant.
I find this all very amusing, for some reason.