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.
14.Even over them, etc. Though this passage is commonly understood of infants, who being
guilty of no actual sin, die through original sin, I yet prefer to regard it as referring to all those who
sinned without the law; for this verse is to be connected with the preceding clause, which says, that
those who were without the law did not impute sin to themselves. Hence they sinned not after the
similitude of Adam’s transgression; for they had not, like him, the will of God made known to them
by a certain oracle: for the Lord had forbidden Adam to touch the fruit of the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil; but to them he had given no command besides the testimony of conscience. The
Apostle then intended to imply, that it did not happen through the difference between Adam and
his posterity that they were exempt from condemnation. Infants are at the same time included in
their number.
Who is a type of him who was to come. This sentence is put instead of a second clause; for we
see that one part only of the comparison is expressed, the other is omitted — an instance of what
is called anacoluthon^166 You are then to take the meaning as though it was said, “as by one man
sin entered into the whole world, and death through sin, so by one man righteousness returned, and
life through righteousness.” But in saying that Adam bore a resemblance to Christ, there is nothing
incongruous; for some likeness often appears in things wholly contrary. As then we are all lost
through Adam’s sin, so we are restored through Christ’s righteousness: hence he calls Adam not
inaptly the type of Christ. But observe, that Adam is not, said to be the type of sin, nor Christ the
type of righteousness, as though they led the way only by their example, but that the one is contrasted
with the other. Observe this, lest you should foolishly go astray with Origen, and be involved in a
pernicious error; for he reasoned philosophically and profanely on the corruption of mankind, and
not only diminished the grace of Christ, but nearly obliterated it altogether. The less excusable is
Erasmus, who labors much in palliating a notion so grossly delirious.
Romans 5:15
- Sed non sicut delictum, ita et donum; nam
si unius delicto^167 multi mortui sunt, multo magis - But not as the offence, so also is the free
gift. For if through the offence of one many be
gratia Dei et donum Dei in gratia, quæ fuit unius
hominis Christi, in multos abundavit.
dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift(^166) , not consequent: a figure in grammar when a word or a clause, required by a former one, is not put down. — Ed.
(^167) Delicto — fault, μ — stumbling, fall, transgression. Perhaps the last would be the best word here. It is rendered
sometimes in the plural number “trespasses,” Matthew 18:35; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Ephesians 2:1Macknight renders it here “fall,”
but most “offense.” The comparison here is between the sin of one, which produced death, and the grace of God through one,
which brings the “gift” of life; and the difference, “much more,” seems to refer to the exuberance of grace by which man is to
be raised to a higher state than that from which Adam fell. “A little lower than the angels” was man in his first creation; he is
by exuberance of grace to be raised to a state as high as that of angels, if not higher; or we may take “much more” as intimating
the greater power of grace to recover than sin to destroy. Sin is the act of man, and issued in death; but grace is the act of God,
and will therefore with greater certainty issue in life.
“Adam’s life after his fall was even as a slow dying, that reached its completion in his physical death; Christ’s of
mankind is also gradual, the height of which is in the glorification of the body.” — Olshausen