IV. JUSTIFICATION: THE IMPUTATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS (3:21–5:21)

A. Justification as the Answer to the Sinfulness of Humanity (3:21–26)

OVERVIEW

To help his readers follow his train of thought, the apostle reverts to the term he used in stating the theme of the letter in 1:17—God’s “righteousness.” He repeats again the necessity for faith (cf. 1:16) and then summarizes the material from 1:18–3:20 by the reminder that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile as far as sin is concerned, concluding that there is only one way in which the universal human plight can be remedied. Having done this, he goes on to give a rich exposition of salvation through the use of various theological terms, with principal attention to justification.

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

COMMENTARY

21 With the words “but now,” Paul indicates the arrival of a new era of salvation brought through the work of Jesus Christ (v.22). God’s righteousness—i.e., his saving activity whereby he brings human beings into right relation to himself—has been manifested “apart from law” (cf. John Reumann, “The Gospel of the Righteousness of God: Pauline Reinterpretation in Romans 3:21–31,” Int 20 [1966]: 432–52). The law, as Paul has just indicated, cannot bring a right relationship with God. Instead, it functions only to make those who live under it conscious of their sin (v.20). The perfect tense of “has been made known,” in contrast to the present tense “is revealed” in 1:17 (where the ongoing proclamation of the gospel requires it), draws attention to the appearing of Jesus Christ in the arena of history (cf. 2Ti 1:10). More specifically, it points to the fulfillment of God’s saving purpose in him. Yet even before the initial appearing of the Savior, this method of making men and women right with himself was operating in principle, as “the Law and the Prophets”—a summary term for the OT—testify. This observation prepares the reader for the recital of God’s dealings with Abraham and David to be considered in ch. 4. They, too, were justified by God’s saving activity apart from the law.

22 God’s righteousness becomes operative in human life “through faith in Jesus Christ.” This statement is more explicit than the initial mention of faith in connection with the gospel (1:16–17), since it specifies the necessary object of faith, even Jesus Christ. Much discussion has been given to the phrase “through faith in Jesus Christ.” Is pisteōs Iēsou Christou (lit., “faith [faithfulness] of Jesus Christ”) to be understood as a subjective or objective genitive? If the phrase is taken as a subjective genitive, in view would be the faith of Jesus, or more precisely, his faithfulness (which is also one of the meanings of pistis, GK 4411) in fulfilling his mission (for an example of the same genitival construction [tēn pistin tou theou] understood as a subjective genitive, see 3:3, “will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness?”; cf. 4:16). On the other hand, if the construction is taken as an objective genitive, it would mean, as commonly translated, “faith in God” (for an example that requires this meaning, see Mk 11:22). The same construction is found in Romans 3:26; twice in Galatians 2:16; and also in Galatians 2:20; 3:22; and Philippians 3:9. In all of these instances, there is a degree of similar ambiguity. In Galatians 2:16 we find the identical phrase, “by faith in Jesus Christ,” followed by the explanatory statement, “we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus.” In this present instance, it seems that the objective genitive (so NIV, “faith in Jesus Christ”) is to be preferred.

It is worth noting that it is never said that people are saved on account of their faith in Christ, a construction that might encourage the notion that faith makes a contribution and has some merit. Rather, it is through faith that salvation is appropriated. Faith is simply a mode of receptivity (“the hand of the heart,” as Frédéric Godet puts it). Faith receives what God bestows but adds nothing to the gift. As all are under the curse of sin (v.9), so all recipients of salvation depend on its appropriation through faith, “for there is no difference” (10:12).

23 The reason all must come to God through faith in Christ is that “all have sinned and fall short of [or lack, as in Mk 10:21] the glory of God.” This crisp summarizing statement repeats the point already established by Paul in 3:9, 19. The glory in view cannot be eschatological (as in 5:2), since even believers, for whom the sin problem has been solved, lack the future glory now. The suggestion that the glory is God’s approbation or praise (Denney, 610) is unlikely, since this meaning of doxa (GK 1518), common in Luke, is somewhat rare in Paul. Dodd, 50–51, seeks to link the glory with the image of God in man (cf. 1Co 11:7), which is marred by sin. This is suggestive, but it would be more acceptable if Paul had used the past tense (“have fallen short”) to match the sense in the previous statement about sin. Probably the best interpretation is to associate the glory with the divine presence and the privilege Adam and Eve originally had of direct communion with God. This ever-present deprivation is depicted in the restriction of the glory to the Most Holy Place in the tabernacle and the denial of the right of access to the people except through the high priest once a year. God’s glory is the majesty of his holy person. To be cut off from this direct fellowship is the great loss occasioned by sin.

24 At first glance, it seems that Paul is committing himself to a doctrine of universal salvation, that all who have sinned are likewise justified. This impression is certainly incorrect. The problem can be handled in one of two ways: (1) to suppose that the reader is intended to supply something along this line: “Since all have sinned, all must be justified—if they are to be saved—by God’s free grace”; or (2) to understand the last phrase in v.22 and all of v.23 as semiparenthetical, so that the words “to all who believe” (v.22) are followed directly by “are justified freely by his grace” (v.24).

In the word “justified,” we encounter perhaps the leading doctrinal contribution of Romans. How to be just in God’s sight is the age-old human problem (Job 9:2; 10:14). To get at the meaning of the doctrine, some attention must be given to terminology. In classical Greek the verb dikaioō (GK 1467) was sometimes used to mean “do right by a person, give him justice.” As a result, it could be used in the sense of “condemn.” But in its biblical setting it is used in the opposite sense, namely, “to acquit” (Ex 23:7; Dt 25:1). It is clear both from the OT and the NT that dikaioō is a forensic term—it is the language of the law court. But to settle on “acquittal” as the meaning of justification is to express only a part of the range of the word, even though an important part (Ac 13:39).

There is a positive side that is even more prominent in NT usage—“to consider, or declare to be, righteous.” The word does not mean “to make righteous,” i.e., to effect a change of character. Some consider it ethically deplorable that God should count as righteous those who have been and to some extent continue to be sinful. E. J. Goodspeed’s translation, for example, defied the linguistic evidence and rendered dikaioō as “to make upright.” Goodspeed failed to realize that the question of character and conduct belongs to a different area, namely, sanctification, and is taken up by Paul in due course, whereas justification relates to status and not to condition.

In the background is the important consideration, strongly emphasized by Paul, that the believer is “in Christ.” This key Pauline concept is a truth that will be unfolded at a later stage in Paul’s presentation and summarized by him in 8:1 (cf. 1Co 1:30; 2Co 5:21). Nowhere is the relation between justification and being “in Christ” better stated than in Paul’s declaration, “that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ” (Php 3:8–9). To be justified includes the truth that God sees the sinner in terms of the sinner’s relation to his Son, with whom he is well pleased.

Though justification has much in common with forgiveness, the two terms ought not to be regarded as interchangeable. Even though forgiveness of sins can be stated in comprehensive fashion (e.g., Eph 1:7; 4:32), its continuing aspect, related to the ongoing confession of sin (1Jn 1:9), sets it somewhat apart from justification, which is a once-for-all declaration of God in behalf of the believing sinner. The surprise for Paul was that God declares a person “righteous at the beginning of the course, not at the end of it” (Bruce, 102).

Sinners are justified “as a gift” (dōrean, GK 1562; NASB; NIV, “freely”). The same word is used in John 15:25, where it bears a somewhat different but not unrelated meaning—“without reason.” God finds no reason, no basis, in sinners for declaring them righteous. He must find the cause in himself. This truth goes naturally with the observation that justification is offered “by [God’s] grace.” Perhaps the best synonym we have for it is “lovingkindness” (NASB; NIV, “love”; see, e.g., Pss 23:6; 36:5; 130). It is a matter not simply of attitude but also of action, as the present verse attests. “Grace” (charis, GK 5921) lies at the basis of joy (chara, GK 5915) for the believer and leads to thanksgiving (eucharistia, GK 2374).

If justification is a matter of “gift,” with grace as its basis, “the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” is the means a gracious God employed to achieve this great salvation. With the word “redemption” (apolytrōsis, GK 667), Paul employs the language of the slave market, namely the manumission of slaves. The benefit redemption brings in this life, according to Ephesians 1:7, is forgiveness of sins, and this is applicable in our passage. Another aspect, belonging to the future, is the redemption of the body, which will consummate our salvation (Ro 8:23; cf. Eph 4:30).

25 Paul turns next to the language of the temple sacrifices: “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood.” Some propose the translation “purposed” (lit., “set before himself”), objecting to the rendering of proetheto (GK 4729) with “presented” (NASB, “displayed publicly”) on the ground that a public exhibition of the person of Jesus is too theatrical. But the public character of God’s redemptive act on the cross seems also in view in Galatians 3:1, which reads, “Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.” Furthermore, we have in the immediate context words such as “made known” (v.21) and “demonstrate” (vv.25, 26). It should be pointed out, however, that the emphasis on faith (v.25) suggests that the real force in “presented” is found not so much in the actual exhibition of Christ on the cross as in the proclamation of the gospel that makes his saving work central (so too probably in the Gal 3:1 passage). This very proclamation emphasizes that Christ, under God, has become “a propitiation” (the NASB’s rendering of the difficult word hilastērion [GK 2663]; NIV, “sacrifice of atonement”).

In the LXX, the first occurrence of hilastērion (Ex 25:17–22, translating the Hebrew word kappōret, GK 4114; NIV, “atonement cover”) has reference to the lid or cover of the ark in the Most Holy Place, the innermost sanctuary of the temple. The KJV, following Tyndale, regularly translates the word as “mercy seat,” which was in turn dependent on Luther’s translation “Gnadenstuhl.” The idea of “seat” is altogether misleading. What is in view is “place” of atonement, since the lid is the place where the High Priest sprinkled blood to atone for the sins of the people on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:13–16), once a year. (The cognate verb kipper means “to atone.”)

What is meant when Paul refers to Christ as a hilastērion? A famous twentieth-century debate on the question took place between C. H. Dodd and Leon Morris. Dodd’s contention (The Bible and the Greeks [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935], 82–95) is that when the LXX translators used the cognate verb hilaskesthai (“to make propitiation, make atonement for,” GK 2661) and its derivatives to render the Hebrew root kipper, they did not attach to the word the classical sense of “propitiation” but rather gave it the force of “expiation,” i.e., a removal of sin’s guilt (cf. in 3:25 the RSV’s translation “expiation,” under Dodd’s editorship). The idea of the appeasement of the wrath of a god, as in the concept of propitiation, struck Dodd as more of a pagan idea than a biblical one. Admitting faint traces of propitiation in the OT data, he nevertheless advocated that when the subject of the verb is human, the idea is simply that of making expiation, and when the subject is divine, the concept is that of forgiveness. Leon Morris (The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955]), working through the same OT materials, came up with different results, which can be summarized in two observations: (1) Dodd, 138, ignored the fact that the verb hilaskomai, which he would render “forgive” in reference to God, is used repeatedly in situations where the context makes it clear that the wrath of God is a factor, so that propitiation is actually involved; and (2) the argument from context is also important for the interpretation of the Romans passage, because the first main section of the book (1:18–3:20) is permeated with the concept of the divine wrath along with the emphasis on judgment. The word “wrath” (orgē, GK 3973) is found four times here (1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5). Under these circumstances, it would be strange for Paul to give a statement of the remedy for human sin and unrighteousness without indicating that the wrath of God has been satisfactorily met by God’s own provision. There is no term in 3:21–26 that conveys this idea if it is not to be found in hilastērion (cf. Dodd, 169).

Hilastērion probably includes both ideas—propitiation and expiation—and therefore some translations opt for the more general “sacrifice of atonement” (e.g., NIV; cf. NJB, “sacrifice of reconciliation”), shifting the emphasis appropriately from the place of the atonement to the means of atonement itself. Supporting this are the words “in his blood,” which are probably meant to modify hilastērion (see below). The only other occurrence of the word in the NT (Heb 9:5) is a clear allusion to the lid that covered the ark of the tabernacle. The cognate verb hilaskomai occurs in an important passage in Hebrew 2:17: “make atonement for the sins of the people” (NIV). Another related word, hilasmos (GK 2662), occurs in 1 John 2:2; 4:10, where the NASB translates “propitiation for our sins” (cf. the NIV’s “atoning sacrifice for our sins”).

Remarkably, the hilastērion, the lid of the ark within the Most Holy Place—hence the most hidden place of all—is said by Paul now to be “displayed publicly” (NASB; NIV, “presented”) in the cross. T. W. Manson (“Hilastērion,” JTS 46 [1945]: 5) remarks, “The mercy-seat is no longer kept in the sacred seclusion of the most holy place: it is brought out into the midst of the rough and tumble of the world and set up before the eyes of hostile, contemptuous, or indifferent crowds.” Indeed, Christ has become the meeting place of God and man where the mercy of God is available because of the atoning sacrifice of the Son: “His death is the eschatological expiatory event established by God, which transcends and at the same time abrogates the previous forms of atonement in the cult. . . . The crucified one has thus become the place where God himself has brought about expiation publicly and for all” (EDNT, 2:186).

On the basis of the use of hilastērion on inscriptions of the Koine period, Adolf Deissmann (Bible Studies [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901], 124–35) maintains that the word should be rendered “a votive offering” or “a propitiatory gift.” He concludes, “The crucified Christ is the votive gift of the Divine Love for the salvation of men.” But all the examples he gives from pagan sources concern votive gifts brought by men and women and designed to propitiate the deity, whereas Christ is set forth by God as propitiatory. The difference is very real.

The phrase “in his blood” poses somewhat of a problem since in the word order of the Greek text the words “through faith” come just before it. This suggests that the believer’s faith is to be placed in the blood of Christ (so KJV and NIV, “through faith in his blood”). It has been pointed out, however, that there is no example of Paul’s calling for faith in a thing rather than a person, unless we allow the gospel to be included in this category. So if the translation is allowed to stand, it has to be regarded as anomalous. In the immediate context, the idea of putting faith in is expressed without a preposition by using the genitive case (vv.22, 26). The alternative suggestion is to place a comma after “faith,” thus separating the clauses and making both dependent on hilastērion. This makes good sense, as in the NASB: “a propitiation [sacrifice of atonement] in His blood through faith” (cf. NRSV, “a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith”).

The remainder of v.25 deals with the necessity of the propitiatory provision in terms of God’s “justice” (dikaiosynē [GK 1466], the same word in the original as “righteousness”). The perfect, holy character of God needs justification for his passing over “sins committed beforehand”—i.e., in the ages prior to the cross. His “forbearance” is not to be thought of as sentimentality or weakness but as an indication that meeting the demands of his righteous character would be accomplished in due season. This happened at the cross. The Greek paresis (GK 4217; NASB, “passed over”; NIV, “left . . . unpunished”) is close to aphesis (“forgiveness,” GK 912) in meaning, but with an appreciable difference in that paresis denotes a temporary remission of a debt, which fits the situation here exactly (see MM, s.v. paresis). In line with God’s forbearance, the full penalty for sin was not exacted.

Stuhlmacher, 60–61, summarizes this effectively: “Inasmuch as Jesus gives up his life to death as a substitute for all, he suffers vicariously the judgment of destruction on behalf of sinners. But because he does this in the name of God as one who is innocent and out of his own love, his blood is the infinitely valuable means of atonement which is effective once for all time and procures for those who believe the forgiveness of their sins, new life before and with God, and consequently the righteousness of God which sinners lack.”

26 Now the bearing of the cross on God’s dealings with men “at the present time” is unfolded. Paul’s statement here amounts to a declaration that God is at once just in himself while at the same time he justifies the sinner who has faith in Jesus. Gottlob Schrenk (TDNT 2:188) thus speaks of a new feature in this verse: “the fact that the justice of the One who is absolutely righteous is demonstrated in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. . . . The new factor is the absolute connection with the atoning death of Christ in which God shows himself to be dikaios.” Only the death of Jesus makes possible the forgiveness of sinners without compromising the very character of God (cf. J. Piper, “The Demonstration of the Righteousness of God in Romans 3:25–26,” JSNT 7 [1980]: 2–32; on this entire passage, see D. A. Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21–26 [JSNTSup 65; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992]).

NOTES

22 On the debate concerning subjective versus objective genitive, see Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11 (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002; esp. the introduction [xxi–lii] and the appendixes, which contain James D. G. Dunn’s “Once More, Pistis Christou,” and Hays’s “Pistis and Pauline Christology: What Is at Stake?” [249–98]). See also Arland Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulation in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 148–63; Paul J. Achtemeier, “Apropos the Faith of/in Christ,” in Pauline Theology, ed. E. E. Johnson and D. M. Hay (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 4:82–92; Morna D. Hooker, “Pistis Christou,” NTS 35 (1989): 321–42.

Instead of “for all” (εἰς πάντας, eis pantas), a few Fathers have “upon all” (ἐπὶ πάντας, epi pantas). A group of manuscripts ( plus many cursives and Fathers) combine the two readings (cf. KJV).

24 In his important study of righteousness in Paul, Ziesler, 34–35, concludes that whereas the verb δικαιόω, dikaioō, is essentially forensic in meaning (“to justify”), the noun δικαιοσύνη, dikaiosynē, and the adjective δίκαιος, dikaios, describe “behavior within relationship” and so are basically ethical in their import. This position is open to the criticism that it too sharply distinguishes the force of the noun and adjective from that of the verb. In other words, the noun and the adjective are capable of carrying the forensic connotation also.

For a clear statement on justification as status, see Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (New York: Scribner, 1951), 1:276. On justification, see the discussion in G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, ed. Donald A. Hagner (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 478–91.

On the Hebrew ḥesed (“loving-kindness,” GK 2876), see TDOT 5:62: “Everything that is said focuses on what Yahweh does for Israel and the individual worshiper. The history of Yahweh’s people, past, present, and future, the life of the individual Israelite—in fact, the entire world—is the stage for the demonstration of Yahweh’s kindness.”

We are confronted here with a major theological concept. The Greek term ἀπολύτρωσις, apolytrōsis (GK 667), has as its kernel the word λύτρον, lytron (“ransom,” GK 3389), used by Jesus of his self-giving in behalf of the many (Mk 10:45). Paul does not use this word, though ἀντίλυτρον, antilytron (GK 519), appears once (1Ti 2:6). The word “redemption” has its OT background chiefly in the deliverance of Israel from Egypt (Ex 6:6; 15:13) and is used often without any reference to sin or the payment of a ransom. But something of the idea of the cost involved continues to cling to the word even though unexpressed (cf. 1Pe 1:18, where the cognate verb λυτρόω, lytroō, is used). The term here may be said to connote “deliverance through the substitutionary death of Jesus, the emphasis being all the time on liberation” (David Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings [Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1967], 76).

25 See also Leon Morris, “The Meaning of Hilastērion in Romans iii.25,” NTS 2 (1955–56): 33–43. An independent study by David Hill (Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings, 23–48) leads to conclusions substantially in agreement with Morris’s position.

On the phrases “in his blood” and “through faith,” see Arland Hultgren, Paul’s Gospel and Mission: The Outlook from His Letter to the Romans (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 47–72.

B. The Availability of Justification through Faith Alone (3:27–31)

27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

COMMENTARY

27–28 The opening words suggest that Paul may have in mind Jews who tended to boast in the law (cf. 2:17, 23). He asks “on what principle” (lit., “by what kind of law”) boasting is excluded. But does “principle” convey the idea adequately? Certainly nomos (GK 3795) is used in this sense later on (e.g., 7:21, 23). But perhaps the use of the word nomos, so familiar to the Jews and so treasured by them, is calculated to catch their eye and make them think. Perhaps something between “law” and “principle” is needed here—something special in the sense of what is ordained by God (cf. TDNT 4:1071). God has ordained faith as the sole condition of receiving salvation, and that provides no basis for boasting, since in the last analysis faith, like the salvation it embraces, is “the gift of God” (Eph 2:8).

Paul could speak of the righteousness he sought through keeping the law as “my own” righteousness (Php 3:9), but he cannot so speak of the righteousness he has in Christ. Once more he insists on justification by faith (Luther famously added the word “alone”), “apart from observing the law” (v.28; cf. vv.20–21). This may appear to bring him into contradiction with his assertion in 2:13. But Paul will maintain that those who are justified by faith will be doers of the law, even though their justification does not depend on that fact. The point here is that to glory in one’s achievement ruins the whole enterprise; it becomes an affront to God, its value is gone. The basic fact of justification by faith necessarily excludes boasting.

29–30 Again Paul moves to catch the eye of his Jewish readers by appealing to their awareness that God is one; an allusion to the Shema is intended (cf. Dt 6:4). The Jews, surrounded by pagan idolatry, proudly repeated their monotheistic confession. Paul now turns it to good account. Logically, if God is one, if he alone is God, then we may well expect him to employ only one method to bring humanity to himself. Faith is the condition for receiving salvation on the part of Jews and Gentiles alike (v.30). Neither has any advantage over the other. The Gentiles must come by the same faith that is required of the Jews (cf. 1:16; Gal 2:15–16). It is doubtful that the difference in prepositions used with faith (“by faith,” “through that same faith”) implies any clear distinction in God’s dealings with the two groups.

31 Given Paul’s polemic against “observing the law” (e.g., vv.27–28), his strong, positive statement about the law here may seem surprising. One might indeed think that since justification is the gift of God appropriated by faith, the law is thereby nullified. Paul vehemently denies such a conclusion. “Absolutely not,” the apostle would answer, for the operation of faith ultimately upholds or establishes the law. Unfortunately, Paul does not explain the sense in which this is true.

Two main possibilities have been suggested. First, we may understand “law” here in the sense of “Scripture” or a part thereof. Since Paul regards the gospel of justification by faith as witnessed to by Scripture (v.21) and as anticipated already in Abraham and David (4:1–11), his argument about justification by faith amounts to an upholding of the law. Even if we take “law” here in the sense of commandments, Paul could mean that the limited purpose of the law is fulfilled by bringing an awareness of sin (v.20) and thus pointing to the necessity of the cross (vv.24–25). Both Scripture generally and the specific, divinely intended role of the law can be regarded as established by the gospel.

Second, however, Paul may have in mind the important fact that the righteousness described by the law and the moral standards toward which the law pointed remain of the highest importance. This would at once hark back to 2:6–10, 13, as well as anticipating the argument about sanctification in ch. 6 and the statement of 8:4. That is, there remains a sense in which the one who is justified by faith will also freely live out the righteousness of the law. Paul’s argument to this point might seem to undermine this righteousness, and to forestall the expected objection, he affirms with great strength that far from overthrowing the law, the gospel of grace and faith establishes it. Those who are justified by faith will live righteously.

C. The Illustration of Justification from the Old Testament (4:1–25)

OVERVIEW

The fact that in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed (1:17) could suggest that justification is a new thing, peculiar to the Christian era. To discover that it was already present in the OT, as Paul has already maintained (3:21), serves to engender confidence in the ongoing continuity of the purpose of God and in the basic unity of the Bible: “It is essential for the structure of faith that behind the appearance of Christ in an historical perspective a preceding activity of God appears” (Leonhard Goppelt, “Paul and Heilsgeschichte,” Int 21 [1967]: 325).

Romans 4 is devoted almost exclusively to Abraham and to God’s dealings with him. The NT writers seem to turn to Abraham almost instinctively when discussing faith (besides Paul in Galatians and Romans, cf. Heb 11 and Jas 2). Abraham is a supremely important figure—even a kind of paradigm—at the beginning of God’s covenantal relationship with the people who would later be called “Israel.” If Paul can establish as true that the father of the nation of Israel was justified by faith rather than by works, he will have effectively established his argument, especially with his Jewish readers.

1. The Case of Abraham (4:1–5)

1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

COMMENTARY

1–5 In calling Abraham “our forefather,” the apostle is not turning aside to address Jewish believers only, because he makes the point in this chapter that Abraham is also the father of Gentiles who are justified by faith (v.16). The argument of this passage has universal applicability.

What reality had Abraham “discovered” in his relation to God? (cf. Richard B. Hays, “‘Have We Found Abraham to Be Our Father According to the Flesh?’ A Reconsideration of Romans 4:1,” NovT 27 [1985]: 76–98). The perfect tense of the word points to the ongoing importance of what he learned.

2 Picking up the matter of boasting from 3:27, and making his familiar link of boasting with works, Paul seems to allow that Abraham could conceivably have had something to boast about—at least before others. If anyone could be considered a man of obedience and righteousness, Abraham was the perfect candidate (cf. Ge 26:5). Even before Paul’s day, Judaism laid great emphasis on Abraham’s piety, grounding it in his obedience. About 150 years earlier, one author asked, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1 Macc 2:52; cf. Sir 44:20; Jub. 23:10; and in the NT, Jas 2:21, where Ge 15:6 is quoted to make a different point from Paul’s). But as we have already seen Paul argue, no one is able to boast in works “before God.” No one can claim a righteousness that establishes a right relationship with God. Nygren, 168, observes, “What Paul does in the fourth chapter can be stated most simply as follows. He takes Abraham away from the representatives of righteousness by the law and sets him forth as the type of those who through faith are righteous.” Justification, as Paul has shown us, is the work of God, and hence no human being can boast before him.

3 To show that Abraham’s close relation to God was not based on works, a simple appeal to Scripture is decisive: “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Nothing whatsoever is said about his obedience in leaving country and kindred in response to God’s call. Faith was required for such a response, of course, and that faith was of the same sort that Abraham exercised later. Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 because it makes precisely the point he wants to make, and even with the same vocabulary that he has been using. (Part of the quotation is presented again in v.22; Paul uses the whole quotation again in Gal 3:6.) It not only has Paul’s favorite pisteuō (“believe” [GK 4409], which in Greek is the same root as pistis, “faith”), but also dikaiosynē, “righteousness” (GK 1466), as well as the verb, logizomai, “credit” (GK 3357). This last verb is picked up in Paul’s exposition of the theme of justification in this chapter, being used no fewer than ten more times. Since it means something like “to consider something true,” it is exactly suited for the legal fiction of the acquittal of the guilty, and hence it is perfect for Paul’s argument.

At the time referred to in the quotation, Abraham was in the Promised Land but had as yet no progeny. Abraham reminded God that Eliezer of Damascus, a servant of his household rather than his own offspring, would therefore become his heir (Ge 15:3). As shown by the Nuzi tablets, in the society of Chaldean Ur out of which Abraham had come, a couple could adopt a son to help them in their old age and to see that they were properly buried. In consideration of these services, the one adopted was named the heir. As time went on, Abraham saw no prospect other than this. But God directed him to look up into the heavens and count the stars, promising that his descendants would be as numerous. Abraham accepted this promise, relying on God to fulfill it. This was the basis on which God pronounced him righteous.

The nature of Abraham’s faith was essentially the same as that of the NT believer, despite the difference in circumstances and time. (Abraham looked forward to something God would do, whereas the Christian looks back to what God has provided in Christ.) In retrospect, we can see a degree of continuity between the covenant with Abraham and the fulfillment brought by Christ. It does seem that we are warranted in concluding that Abraham trusted in a promise that pointed to Christ (Jn 8:56; Gal 3:16), though at that time this may not have been clear to the patriarch. Much depends on how he understood the promise in Genesis 12:3. Abraham’s faith was credited to him “as righteousness,” which means that faith itself does not constitute righteousness.

4 Paul goes on to contrast faith with works, noting that work yields wages that must be treated as an obligation for an employer. Faith, on the other hand, entails the receiving of a righteous standing simply as a “gift” (lit., “grace”) from God. So grace is pitted against obligation and faith against works (cf. 11:6). It is possible that Paul has borrowed the term “wages” (misthos, GK 3635) from the LXX of Genesis 15:1, where reward or recompense is assured to Abraham.

5 How far grace goes beyond justice is seen in the remarkable statement that God “justifies the wicked.” Not only does God justify men and women apart from works, but he does so contrary to what they deserve. Bruce, 115, points out the shocking contradiction with Exodus 23:7 (“I will not acquit the guilty”), where “in the LXX version the same Greek words are used to convey what God forbids in the law as Paul here uses to declare what God in fact does in the gospel.” OT law required the judge to condemn the wicked and justify the righteous (Dt 25:1), but where God is both Judge and Savior, the wicked have an opportunity denied to them in ordinary human reckoning. The prophetic word anticipated this result through the work of the Servant (Isa 53:5–6, 11). In saying that God justifies the ungodly, the text is not singling out Abraham as the sinner par excellence but rather is pointing to the universal human predicament wherein all are desperately in need of justification (cf. 5:6), including even Abraham. Justification is a matter purely of grace, unmerited favor, with no admixture of works as part of its basis.

NOTES

1 There is a textual problem in this verse. The Greek infinitive εὑρηκέναι, heurēkenai (GK 2351; NASB, “found”; NIV, “discovered”), is placed after “our forefather” in some manuscripts, in which case it is naturally taken with κατὰ σάρκα, kata sarka, lit., “according to the flesh” (GK 4922), giving a meaning such as “discovered by his own powers.” A more important group of manuscripts place the same infinitive after “shall we say,” in which construction the words κατὰ σάρκα, kata sarka, go with “our forefather,” thus indicating a natural or blood relationship. A small group of witnesses, including the important manuscript B, omit the infinitive altogether. The uncertain position of the infinitive in some witnesses may tend to support the omission. A few translations (e.g., NEB, REB, NJB) reflect the omission in their wording. But with the textual committee of the United Bible Societies, one may wonder why any copyist would have added the infinitive if it was not there originally (see Metzger, 450).

5 Judaism mingled things that Paul was careful to keep apart. Michel, 162, observes, “Law and works, faith and obedience, obedience and merit, reward and blessing are a unity in the rabbinic theology.” Stuhlmacher, 72, writes, “In view of this divine activity, there is no longer any room for the Jewish and Jewish-Christian middle way of justification on the basis of faith and works, that is, on the basis of both God’s mercy and the meritorious deeds of the pious (4 Ezra 7:7; 13:23; James 2:20ff.).”

2. The Case of David (4:6–8)

6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7Blessed are they

whose transgressions are forgiven,

whose sins are covered.

8Blessed is the man

whose sin the Lord will never count against him.”

COMMENTARY

6 Though the case of David is not strictly parallel to that of Abraham, and though it is treated only briefly, it is clear from the opening word (kathaper, “the same thing,” GK 2749) that the general theme remains the same. Note Paul’s introductory words about God’s blessing of the person “to whom God credits righteousness apart from works.” What we found in Abraham was the positive reckoning of justification; in David we find the equivalent, but in reverse—the nonreckoning of sin.

7–8 What immediately strikes one as peculiar is the apparent lack of harmony between what Psalm 32 states and what Paul announces as the bearing of the quotation. Whereas Paul indicates that the quotation has to do with the reckoning of righteousness apart from works, the passage itself contains neither of these terms. Instead it speaks of offenses that have been forgiven and of sins that have been covered. As we compare v.6 with vv.7–8, one word stands out as common to both passages. It is the word translated “credits” in v.6 and “count” in v.8 (logizomai, GK 3357). As we have noted, this word dominates the early part of the chapter, occurring in vv.3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11.

Paul’s training under Gamaliel (Ac 22:3) shows through here, since it is evident that he is utilizing a principle of rabbinic interpretation made famous by Hillel, namely, the principle of analogy. This means that in situations where the same word occurs in two passages of Scripture, the sense in one may be carried over to explain the meaning in the other. In the case of Abraham, righteousness was credited to him, apart from works, on the basis of faith. In the case of David, the question does not concern good works but rather the fact of the sins he committed. So the far-reaching nature of justification is seen ever more clearly. Not only are good works not required for justification, but even the obstacle of their opposite, namely, grievous sins committed, is taken away by the forgiving grace that is part of justification.

One may add that since David the sinner was actually already a justified man, known as the man after God’s own heart (1Sa 12:14; Ac 13:22), in his case we learn the truth that sin in the life of a believer does not cancel justification. God is able to forgive. His calling and gifts are irrevocable (Ro 11:29). At the same time, God showed his displeasure regarding David’s sin, severely chastening him until the sin had been fully confessed. Even afterward, his sins continued to produce havoc in his family. David suffered the humiliation of the revolt led by Absalom. Yet God did not withdraw his favor and support, as seen by a succession of events: Absalom’s setting aside of Ahithophel’s counsel, the triumph of David’s forces in the battle, the ignominious death of Absalom, and the resurgence of desire on the part of the people for David’s return as their king. In contrast to Abraham, David lived under the regimen of the Mosaic law. Though the law is not mentioned, the text says that David “speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works” (v.6). There may be a suggestion here that after having sinned, David could not rectify his situation by means of works. He was completely shut up to God’s mercy exhibited in the forgiveness of his transgressions. Forgiveness is always and only a matter of God’s grace.

3. The Promise to Abraham—Prior to and Apart from Circumcision (4:9–12)

9Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

COMMENTARY

9 The issue discussed here is the importance of the time of God’s declaration of righteousness on behalf of Abraham in relation to the time of his circumcision. By using the term “blessedness” from the opening of Psalm 32, Paul makes the transition from David back to Abraham. Are the uncircumcised able to share in this blessedness? The answer one might expect from the Jewish perspective is a negative one. One must remember the enormous importance of circumcision to the Jews as the sign of the Mosaic covenant and the chief identifying mark of God’s covenantal people over against the pagans. It is God’s covenantal people who are the recipients of forgiveness, not pagan Gentiles.

10 Paul dissents, arguing skillfully that the benefit David enjoyed was enjoyed by Abraham and, very significantly, that Abraham received it when he was still uncircumcised (note the repetition for emphasis in v.10). The narrative of Abraham’s circumcision does not occur until Genesis 17:9–27, some time after Abraham’s faith was credited as righteousness.

11 Paul makes the point very explicitly: “the sign [sēmeion, GK 4956] of circumcision” was “a seal [sphragis, GK 5382] of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” For all intents and purposes, at this point Abraham was like one of the Gentiles. This opens the door to the extension of the blessedness of justification to the Gentiles. Paul is still using the method of analogy regarding logizomai (“credit,” GK 3357; see comments at vv.7–8).

As Genesis 15:6 had been explained with the aid of Psalm 32:1–2, now the apostle reverses direction and explains Psalm 32 with the aid of Genesis 15:6, which he again quotes (v.9). David, of course, was circumcised, but Abraham was not circumcised at the time of his faith being reckoned as righteousness. According to the record, it was not until fourteen years later that he received the rite (Ge 17:24–26). His circumcision, then, was really a sign of what he previously had. It was a testimony to justifying faith, not something in which to take any pride (cf. Ro 2:25–29). Nygren, 174, observes, “The Jews looked upon Abraham as the great dividing point in the history of mankind. But according to Paul, Abraham through his faith became the great rallying point for all who believe, whether circumcised or uncircumcised. There is no distinction; all who are justified are justified by faith alone.”

12 The similarity of the faith of uncircumcised Gentiles and the faith of the uncircumcised patriarch brings them into a special relationship with Abraham, who in effect becomes their father and they his children (vv.11, 16; cf. Gal 3:6–9). Again in this passage we see Paul’s emphasis on the fact that the justification of Jews and Gentiles rests on exactly the same basis (cf. Ac 15:11; Gal 2:16). Just as in v.11 the apostle speaks of the Gentiles, assuring to the uncircumcised the reality of justification, so in v.12 he speaks of the Jews. Here he refers to Jews in two categories—not only as circumcised but, what is far more important, as believers who share the faith Abraham had before he was circumcised. Thus for Paul, those of the circumcision must also “walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.”

NOTES

9 The answer of the synagogue to the question in this verse was that the blessedness was properly confined to the circumcision (Str-B, 3:203). Fitzmyer, 380, quotes Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 29B, 4:36: “The state of uncircumcision is the impurity of all impurities . . . , the mistake of all mistakes.”

11 It is from the language of this verse that the church understands the sacrament of baptism as the outward sign and seal of an inward reality already possessed.

4. The Promise to Abraham—Apart from the Law (4:13–17)

13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

COMMENTARY

13 The thought moves on to the consideration that Abraham’s justification was apart from the law or legal considerations. It is surprising that Paul does not parallel the argument of the preceding verses by once more appealing to the temporal priority of Abraham’s justification by faith to the giving of the law. He uses such an argument in Galatians 3:17–18: “the law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.” Here Paul is content to indicate that the promise (the word is a collective, referring to the totality of what God promised) to Abraham was quite apart from the law.

Paul speaks of the promise to “Abraham and his offspring” that “he would be heir of the world [kosmos, GK 3180].” Clearly, in terms of the Abrahamic covenant, one expects the word “land [gē, GK 1178]” here (as in the LXX of Ge 12:7; 15:7). This easy move from the land of Israel to the world points to Paul’s conception of the universal dimensions of the salvation history that began with Abraham. That story involves greater dimensions than Abraham could have envisioned. Indeed, for Paul, as for the OT prophets, it is a story that involves the entire created order (cf. Ro 8:20–22). For Paul it is the world rather than the land that is always in view (cf. 1Co 6:2).

14–15 Paul’s argument is that if the inheritance of the promise comes to those “who live by law” (v.14), then faith is emptied of value and the promise has effectively been put out of operation. As soon as a promise is hedged about with conditional elements, it loses its value. Particularly is this true of the law because of its inflexible character. As Paul shockingly puts it, “law brings wrath” (v.15). Instead of leading to righteousness, the law brings judgment, as Paul has already indicated (3:20). To make the promise conditional on observance of the law would pit the God of grace against the God of judgment, an absolutely intolerable situation. Where there is no law there may indeed be sin, but not “transgression” (parabasis, GK 4126) technically, a point Paul makes again in 5:13. If the promise had been conditioned by the keeping of the law, the human inability to observe the law with complete fidelity would have occasioned disobedience and consequently the operation of wrath, resulting in forfeiture of what was promised. The introduction, therefore, of observance of the law as a condition for receiving the promise would have two disastrous effects: (1) it would put a question mark over the character of God for adding a condition, and (2) it would make the realization of the promise impossible, since no one has been able to keep the law fully.

16 The promise, on the other hand, belongs to the realm of “faith” and “grace.” Faith is mentioned first and emphasized, in reaffirmation of v.13, because of the intended contrast with works of law, which are ruled out in vv.14–15. The only ground for certainty in relation to the promise is grace (as appropriated by faith and as opposed to attempted legal obedience). Probably the element of certainty is intended to apply to faith as well as to grace. This is just another way of saying that the ultimate guarantee must be God and his faithfulness.

“Those who are of the law” are listed as among the offspring of Abraham. In what sense is this to be understood? Fitzmyer, 385, concludes that “the divine promise still holds good for the Jewish people descended physically from Abraham,” apparently in anticipation of Paul’s argument in ch. 11. It is possible, however, and more consistent with Paul’s soteriological argument to conclude that he means here Jews who have come to faith in Christ. Cranfield, 1:242, notes that “more probably Paul means by it the Jewish Christians, who possess the law as well as sharing Abraham’s faith.” A further option worth considering is that a person who happened to live during the Mosaic era (i.e., one who could be described as “of the law”) was not thereby automatically excluded from the blessing of the Abrahamic covenant, provided that person had faith. The expression cannot refer to legal obedience, however, without bringing Paul into contradiction with himself. And so the blessing of Abraham is both for those Jews who may have belonged to the Mosaic epoch yet who shared in the faith of the patriarch, and also for those Gentiles who share in the faith of Abraham. Both groups are in view in the statement that he is “the father of us all.”

17 This is followed by a quotation of the prediction that Abraham would be “a father of many nations” (Ge 17:5, where the very change of name from Abram to Abraham [= “father of a multitude”] is the result of this promise). It is difficult to know how Abraham would have understood this promise. From the perspective of the NT, of course, it is taken as referring to the church, composed of a membership from all the nations. It was in this unforeseen way that Abraham would become the father of many nations. Only God could foresee the course of history that was to include the coming of Christ, his finished work, his command to evangelize all nations (Mt 28:19–20), and the response of faith to the gospel around the world.

The syntax of the words after the quotation is unclear. A good solution is to connect them with “the promise . . . may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring” (v.16). The resultant sense is that “the promise may be certain before God whom Abraham believed” (following Bruce, 117).

God is described here by two terms. First, he is one “who gives life to the dead.” It is perhaps natural to think of such an expression in terms of resurrection (vv.24–25) but hardly with reference to receiving Isaac back, as it were, from the dead, when Abraham was ready to offer him to God (a subject pursued in Heb 11:19 but not mentioned here). The thought seems to move rather toward the discussion in the next verses, anticipating the provision of offspring despite the deadness of Abraham and Sarah as would-be parents (cf. v.19, where the word “dead” occurs twice). This conclusion is favored by the second affirmation in which God is said to be the one who “calls into being that which does not exist” (NASB). This may be a reference to God’s creative activity (see Isa 48:13; 2 Bar. 21:4). But the NASB text note supplies an alternative, literal translation: “calls the things which do not exist as existing” (cf. NIV, “calls things that are not as though they were”). It is as though Isaac already existed; Isaac was real in the thought and purpose of God before he was begotten.

NOTES

13 The idea of the descendants of Abraham inheriting the earth rather than merely the land can already be found in Jubilees 22:14 in an account of Abraham’s blessing of Jacob.

15 It is precisely because of the failure of the law that everything depends on grace and that the death of Christ was necessary. As Paul writes in Galatians 2:21, “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

16 The relation between grace and faith is made clear in the formula of Ephesians 2:8: “by grace . . . through faith.”

5. Abraham’s Faith the Standard for Every Believer (4:18–25)

18Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” 19Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. 20Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” 23The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

COMMENTARY

18 The final value of the illustration of Abraham in respect to justification is that his faith becomes the standard for all believers. “Against all hope,” this man had faith in God’s promise (cf. Ernst Käsemann, “The Faith of Abraham in Romans 4,” in Perspectives on Paul [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971], 79–101). In view of his condition (and Sarah’s as well) because of advanced age (“as good as dead,” v.19), the situation honestly had to seem beyond hope. Nevertheless, he believed the promise of God that offspring would be given. The words “father of many nations” and “so shall your offspring be” clearly echo the promises recorded in Scripture and serve to sharpen Abraham’s dilemma. “Against all hope” takes account of the great change that came over his outlook due to the pledge God gave him. After making the original promise (Ge 15:5), God waited until it was physically impossible for this couple to have children. Then he repeated his pledge (17:5) as though to test Abraham. Abraham’s act of faith was essentially the same as on the previous occasion, but meanwhile circumstances had made the fulfillment of the promise impossible apart from supernatural intervention. His only recourse was God, and he was able to rest his faith in God’s promise.

19–20 Abraham faced the fact of his physical condition (“as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old”) and that of Sarah and did not waver in his faith. Abraham apparently suffered a momentary hesitancy (Ge 17:17, where he laughed at the idea, as Sarah would also [18:12]), but it passed and was not held against him. That he really trusted God for the fulfillment of the promise is seen in his readiness to proceed with circumcision for himself and his household before Isaac was conceived (17:23–27). This act in itself could be construed as giving “glory to God,” an expression of trust in the power of the Almighty to make good his promise. Moreover, it was an open testimony to others of his ongoing trust in God’s faithfulness to his word. If God should fail in this matter, Abraham would be an object of pity from some, of ridicule from others.

21 As far as Abraham was concerned, he was not taking a chance. He was “fully persuaded” that God’s power would match his promise. This man of God was called on to believe in a special divine intervention—not after it occurred, but before. His faith is the more commendable because it was exercised in the face of apparent lack of necessity. Would not Ishmael do as the desired progeny? He had been born to Abraham through Hagar in the interval between the original promise (Ge 15) and its renewal (ch. 17). Abraham was willing to rest in the wisdom as well as in the will of God.

22 Verse 22 probably refers to the original statement of Abraham’s justification (Ge 15:6, quoted in v.3), emphasizing that his ability to meet the renewed promise of God of a son by unwavering faith was strictly in line with the faith that brought justification at an earlier point. Stuhlmacher, 75, observes, “Abraham is, for the apostle, the ‘father’ of all who believe. He is not, therefore, merely an individual from history, but the historically determined prototype of what it means to have faith in God.”

23–24 Having dealt with Abraham’s situation, the apostle turns finally to applying God’s dealings with the patriarch to the readers of his letter. This procedure accords with his observation that “everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (15:4). There are differences between Abraham’s case and the position of the readers, yet the basic similarity in God’s dealings with both is unmistakable. Both believe in God as the one who acts on their behalf; both receive justification. Of course, the mention of the resurrected Jesus (v.24) is an element that could not belong to the OT as history, but the intended parallel with Abraham’s experience is nevertheless fairly evident. The same God who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead made alive the “dead” body of Abraham so as to make parenthood possible. In v.24, Paul says that just as righteousness was credited to Abraham, so also God “will credit [mellei logizesthai; lit., “about to be credited”]” to those who believe “in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.” The futurity is from the perspective of the OT, since Paul asserts justification as a present reality for believers. The point is clear: the pattern of being “credited” as righteous by faith is the same for Abraham and those who are Christians.

25 Death and resurrection were the calling and experience of Jesus. One can hardly fail to notice the carefully balanced character of this final statement, relating as it does the death of Jesus to our sins and his resurrection to our justification. Beyond question, the statement owes much to Isaiah 53, where in the LXX the Servant is pictured as “delivered over” (paradidōmi [GK 4140] in the LXX [53:6, 12], as here) on account of the sins of the many. Justification (dikaioō, GK 1467) appears in the LXX of 53:11. Moreover, the resurrection, though not stated in so many words, is implied in 53:10, 12. Whether Paul’s statement is one he has taken over from Christian tradition (cf. 1Co 15:3–4), as some believe, or is entirely his own composition may be an open question. But one can at least affirm that this passage shows the early tendency to phrase redemptive truth in brief, creedlike formulations.

The chief difficulty for the interpretation of v.25 lies in the preposition dia, “for,” common to both clauses. In the first clause, “delivered over . . . for our sins” probably means that it was on account of them that Jesus had to die for salvation to be procured. In the second, more difficult clause, “raised . . .for our justification” can mean that Jesus was resurrected because our justification was accomplished in his death (cf. “justified by his blood,” 5:9). Since justification is already achieved through the cross, however, it is unlikely that Paul means that the resurrection of Christ achieved our justification. More likely is the idea that our justification is confirmed or guaranteed by the resurrection.

Justification, considered objectively and from the standpoint of God’s provision, was accomplished in the death of Christ (5:9) and therefore did not require the resurrection to complete it. Paul does not mention the resurrection in his definitive statement on justification in 3:21–26. Subjectively, however, the resurrection of Christ was essential for the exercise of faith, since if he remained under the power of death, serious doubts would arise about the efficacy of his sacrifice on the cross. Furthermore, justification is not simply a forensic transaction, important as that aspect is, but involves also a living relationship with God through Jesus Christ (5:18).

Finally, the justification to which Paul refers is justification through faith (cf. 5:1), and this applies as definitely to us as to Abraham (cf. v.24). To believe in a Christ who died for our sins is only half the gospel. The resurrection cannot be omitted—observe how Paul includes both aspects in 6:3–4 when showing how the work of Christ provides the foundation for Christian living. For Paul, the death and resurrection of Christ belong together, and the former without the latter would be of little significance. Therefore he rarely thinks of the one without the other.

NOTES

19 The best manuscripts ( A B C), among others, have the reading κατενόησεν, katenoēsen (GK 2917), meaning “he contemplated” (NASB; NIV, “faced the fact [about]”) his physically old body. Other texts (D G K P Ψ 33 etc.) have a negative before this verb, apparently to emphasize the faith of Abraham—he gave no thought to the age of his body. It is rare to have two opposite readings that nevertheless yield finally much the same sense. Metzger’s comment, 451, is appropriate: “here Paul does not wish to imply that faith means closing one’s eyes to reality, but that Abraham was so strong in faith as to be undaunted by every consideration.”

D. The Benefits of Justification (5:1–11)

OVERVIEW

Commentators on Romans differ on whether ch. 5 concludes the section begun in 3:21, or whether it begins a new major section of the letter. In fact, a good case can be made either way. Chapter 5 can be taken as the conclusion of the discussion of the subject of justification (so Calvin, Godet, Sanday and Headlam, Bruce, Murray, Dunn, Stuhlmacher, Byrne), or as the beginning of the section on sanctification that lasts through ch. 8 (so Barrett, Cranfield, Moo, Schreiner, Fitzmyer [beginning at 5:8]).

Here the discussion of justification (the dikaio root occurs no fewer than eight times in the chapter) goes beyond the exposition of what it is in itself, for that has been sufficiently covered. At this point we hear no more of the law or of supposed merit built up through obedience to it. Justification is now viewed in the light of the wealth of blessings it conveys to the child of God. Many indeed are the gifts that lie enfolded in this cardinal truth, as we see in this passage. It becomes a serious thing, then, to say, as some have done, that justification is not a central teaching with Paul but just an illustration of salvation drawn from the law court, or to call it merely a line of argumentation worked out to save his Gentile converts from the ignominy of being circumcised for their admission to the fellowship of the church. If this general appraisal had any truth in it, we should expect the apostle to make much more sparing use of the term “justify” than he does. Indeed we should look for him to be satisfied with “salvation” terminology.

Some would contend that we are already on the ground of sanctification in this chapter, and in support of this opinion they are able to point to the strong emphasis on experience in vv.2–5. No doubt the elements mentioned there do have an important bearing on Christian life, but the overall emphasis still remains on justification (vv.9, 16) along with reconciliation as seen against the background of enmity occasioned by sin (vv.10–11). Perhaps even more decisive is his use of prepositions—a small but significant indicator. The emphasis in ch. 5 is on what has been done for the believer through Christ and his saving work (5:1–2, 9–11, 17–19, 21; cf. 3:24), whereas in ch. 6 Paul deals with what has happened to the believer together with Christ (6:4–6, 8) and what he or she enjoys in Christ (6:11, 23). Furthermore, it is in ch. 6 (vv.19, 22), not in ch. 5, that sanctification (or holiness) first makes its appearance. Nevertheless, it is true that ch. 5 (especially in vv. 12–21) prepares for chs. 6–8 and thus has somewhat of a transitional character. In this passage, the union of the people of Christ with him, as over against their former union with Adam, furnishes the needed context for the development of the various aspects of sanctification. A common and appealing description of chs. 5–8 asserts that in successive chapters we learn of freedom from wrath (5), sin (6), law (7), and death (8).

1Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. 3Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

COMMENTARY

1 The first statement of ch. 5 presupposes the whole argument from 3:21 as the background for what is now set forth (cf. “therefore”). Paul assumes the reality of justification for himself and his readers (“since we have been justified”). This could have been inferred from 4:24–25, but Paul is careful to emphasize that justification is an assured fact before going on to show what it involves. So he includes the part that faith plays also, though this too has been affirmed in 4:24.

The first of the blessings conveyed by justification is “peace.” We have encountered the word in the salutation (1:7) and in an eschatological setting (2:10). Here, however, the background is the estrangement between God and humanity because of sin, and hence the divine wrath set forth in the first section of the epistle. Justification means that we are no longer subject to that wrath. Observe also in the present chapter the occurrence of “wrath” (v.9) and “enemies” (v.10). Peace in this setting means the objective reality of harmony with God rather than a subjective state in the consciousness of a person, though it may be expected to give rise to a feeling of security.

That the objective meaning is to be adopted in the present passage is put beyond all doubt by the fact that the kind of peace in view is “peace with God.” Since this particular reality is placed first among the benefits of justification, it should be evident how central is the wrath of God to Paul’s exposition of the plight of fallen humanity. That plight could be dealt with only through the mediation of “our Lord Jesus Christ.” Related passages tell the same story. Christ made peace through the blood of his cross (Col 1:20). “He himself is our peace,” writes Paul in Ephesians 2:14, and then he goes on to show how this peace works in two directions, removing the enmity between Jew and Gentile to make them one in the body of Christ and reconciling both in one body to God through the cross. The term “peace” is nearly synonymous with the messianic salvation (cf. Ac 10:36). Indeed, underlying the Greek word eirēnē (GK 1645) is the Hebrew concept of šalôm (GK 8934), namely, ultimate well-being in every regard.

2 The second benefit is “access by faith into this grace.” The word prosagōgē (GK 4643) connotes “access” into the presence of God (it is the language of the temple) and hence can be associated with the Christian’s state of grace and also the hope of glory. Here also faith is mentioned as the essential instrumentality, as in justification itself. We are to think of the Father in his exaltation and glory as the one approached, with Christ introducing us as those who belong to him and so to the Father. There is a striking similarity in thought between this passage and Ephesians 2:17–18, where Paul asserts that Christ came and preached peace to those far away (Gentiles) and to those near (Jews), “for through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.” Later in that epistle Paul shows that this access enables one to approach God in prayer with freedom and confidence (3:12).

The “grace in which we now stand” sums up the privilege of the saints in this present time, enjoying every spiritual blessing in Christ, and the possession of this grace gives warrant for the hope that we shall share the glory of God. Here will be the restoration of the glory that was first lost in Adam’s fall (3:23). In this prospect believers exult. Grace opens the door that someday will swing wide to permit the experience of the glorious presence of the Almighty, a privilege to be enjoyed without end. Grace is the only sure basis for the expectation of sharing eternity with God. Worth noting is the close relationship between faith and hope in v.2. As with Abraham (4:18), so with believers of every era the two virtues have much in common (cf. 1Pe 1:21; Heb 11:1).

3 The word “rejoice,” which was used to characterize the hope of the Christian for participating in the glory yet to be revealed (v.2), now carries over to another area totally different in nature as well as in time, namely, that of “sufferings” (NASB, “tribulations”). Peace with God does not necessarily bring peace with others. The actual conditions of life, especially for believers in the midst of a hostile society, are not easy or pleasant, but the knowledge of acceptance with God, of grace constantly supplied, and the prospect of future glory enable believers to rejoice, even in the face of sufferings. The term thlipsis (GK 2568) refers often to external suffering such as persecution, but it is used occasionally for distress—a natural extension of the application of the word, since external events tend to affect the human spirit.

We should not expect to find a full treatment of the subject of suffering here, since sufferings are viewed simply as one link in a chain of events and interactions designed to show what profit they bring to Christian experience, not what they are in themselves. Elsewhere Paul stresses that they are an extension of the sufferings experienced by Christ in the days of his flesh, rightly to be experienced now by those who make up his body (Php 3:10). Believers rejoice when by their suffering they can show their love and loyalty to Christ (Ac 5:41; cf. 2Th 1:4–5).

Suffering has this value, namely, that it produces “perseverance” or “steadfast endurance.” This is a suitable element to go along with tribulation because it denotes resistance to pressure; hypomonē (GK 5705) means literally “a bearing up under [it].” One does not take the pressure passively by abjectly giving in to it, as much Eastern philosophy counsels its devotees to do. Christ “endured” the cross (Heb 12:2) and thus triumphed over death. Just here lies one of the remarkable distinctives of the Christian faith: the believer is taught to glory and rejoice in the midst of suffering rather than to sigh and submit to it as a necessary or inevitable evil, or indeed as a punishment sent by the gods.

4 The value of perseverance is that it develops “character.” Job sensed the worth of perseverance, saying in the midst of his troubles, “When he has tested me, I will come forth as gold” (Job 23:10). The word rendered “character” (dokimē, GK 1509) indicates tested value. The newborn child of God is precious in his sight, but the tested and proven saint means even more to him because such a one is a living demonstration of the character-developing power of the gospel. When we stand in the presence of God, all material possessions will have been left behind, but all that we have gained by way of spiritual advance will be retained. This progress is a testimony to God’s provision, so it rightly has a place in glory.

This helps to explain Paul’s statement that character produces “hope” (elpis, GK 1828). Looking back, we see that hope consummates a series of items beginning with tribulations. But just prior to this, Paul has considered hope from the standpoint of another series: faith, peace, access, grace, and then hope of the glory of God (vv.1–2). So we are entitled to say that just as our present access gives hope of sharing the divine glory, so too do our sufferings. They help to produce character, and approved Christian character finds its ultimate resting place in the presence of God, not in the grave. By means of this school of suffering, the Lord is fitting us for his eternal fellowship. Hope for the Christian is not wishful thinking, as it so often is in the world, but rather confident expectation.

5 Next Paul makes it plain that this hope is not just a pious wish, for it does not put one to shame. It “does not disappoint” (cf. the quotation of Isa 28:16 in 9:33 and 10:11) because it depends on “his [God’s] love.” This is, of course, a subjective rather than an objective genitival construction. In view is not our love for God but his love for us. Ordinary human hope may bring disappointment and frustration, but not this hope. Totally unlike ordinary human hope, this hope will never disappoint, exactly because it rests not on human potentiality but on the faithfulness of God’s love (cf. Ps 22:5). For this reason, NT hope is a matter of confident expectation—confident because it is based on what God does, not on what we do. The objective basis of all that Paul speaks of here is supremely important. As Fitzmyer, 397, has observed, “Paul is not advocating some sort of Pelagianism when he says that tribulation produces endurance, endurance character, and character hope, for the basis of it all is divine grace.”

And it is the Holy Spirit who brings a foretaste of the future into our present experience and who thus brings the consciousness of unmovable love and strengthens us to run the course. Subjective desire is supported by an objective divine gift guaranteeing the realization of an eternal fellowship with God. This passage thus contains an intimation of the importance of the believers’ possession of the Holy Spirit as a certification concerning the future aspects of their salvation. In ch. 8 this will be developed more fully. But even in the limited treatment given the Spirit in the present passage we get a glimpse of something that specially characterizes the Spirit. By him God’s love is “poured out . . . into our hearts.” The initial outpouring at Pentecost (Ac 2:33; cf. Isa 32:15; Eze 39:29; Joel 2:28; Zec 12:10) is maintained in individuals who receive the Spirit at conversion. The verb “poured out” speaks of the inexhaustible abundance of the supply, being reminiscent of the copious provision for the thirsty children of Israel in the wilderness (Nu 20:8, 11; cf. 1Co 10:4). The blessings found in Christ are mediated to the people of God by the Spirit: “St. Paul refers all his conscious experience of the privileges of Christianity to the operation of the Holy Spirit, dating from the time when he [the believer] definitively enrolled himself as a Christian, i.e. from his baptism” (Sanday and Headlam, 126). Looking back over the opening paragraph of ch. 5, we see that the thought has advanced from faith to hope and from hope to love (the same order as in 1Co 13:13).

6–8 Having dwelt on the powerful influence of the divine love ministered to the hearts of believers by the Spirit, Paul next explores the depth of that love, finding it in the cross of Christ. The demonstration of God’s love in Christ came “at just the right time,” while we were “still” in our sins. This recalls Paul’s placing of the incarnation and redeeming work of Jesus in the fullness of time (Gal 4:4). Since the argument of Romans has included the purpose of the law as bringing clear knowledge of sin (3:20) and as working wrath (4:15), the connection with the Galatians material is fairly close. The law had operated for centuries and had served to expose the weakness and inability of humanity to measure up to the divine standard of righteousness. God does not wait, as some thought, for us to produce a sufficient and acceptable level of righteousness before he acts to save. Quite the contrary: he acts “at just the right time”—i.e., at the time of our manifest helplessness and captivity to sin.

“Powerless” (asthenēs, GK 822) is the translation of a word that commonly means “weak” or “sickly,” but here it has a somewhat specialized force well expressed by Sanday and Headlam, 127, as “incapable of working out any righteousness for ourselves.” A still more uncomplimentary description of the necessity of Christ’s death for the world is the word “ungodly.” The same term was used in the striking statement of 4:5 that such are the people God justifies. This astonishing truth is the very heart of the meaning of grace. As Stuhlmacher, 80, has written, “The history of the sending of Christ, which climaxes in his atoning death, is thus the absolute realization of the grace of God which exists prior to faith.”

A third word descriptive of those for whom Christ died is “sinners” (v.8). The verb “to sin” has been used in 3:23 to summarize the human predicament traced in the opening chapters. We need to see how Paul prepares the way for the impact of this term by contrasting it with both “righteous” and “good” (v.7). Here, in a parenthetical statement about one person dying for another, he puts aside for the moment the technical theological force of the word “righteous” in the sense of “justified” and uses it as it is used in ordinary parlance. Likewise, he ignores the fact that in 3:12 he has quoted from Psalm 14:3, “There is no one who does good,” and then proceeds to use “good” as we do when recognizing kindness and benevolence in one another. In other words, Paul is illustrating a point from ordinary life.

It is unclear here whether or not Paul uses the two words “righteous” (dikaios, GK 1465) and “good” (agathos, GK 19) synonymously (so Barrett, Murray, Bruce). Possibly the second half of v.7 means to correct the first half with the concession that such a thing is conceivable, albeit unlikely. On the other hand, it is equally possible that the two words are different in meaning (so Sanday and Headlam, Cranfield, Moo). In that case, Paul would be saying it is a rare thing to find a person ready to die for another upright person, but it would be easier to find one willing to die for a good person. In this case, “a good man” stands on a higher plane than “a righteous man.” Bengel, 65, put the point succinctly: “Every good man is righteous; but every righteous man is not good.”

A further complicating factor is the absence of the article with “righteous,” whereas “good” has it. This opens the possibility that tou agathou should be understood as a neuter noun, referring not to a good man but to “the good cause,” especially the public good (so Leenhardt, 136). Thus one might well die for a good cause, if not for a righteous person. Against this, however, the context requires that all three words—“righteous,” “good,” and “sinners”—be treated as personal. In the last analysis, “a good person” is not merely righteous, but one who is a benefactor—hence, one for whom others might well be willing to die (see esp. A. D. Clarke, “The Good and the Just in Romans 5:7,” TynBul 41 [1990]: 128–42).

Paul is ready now to proceed to his point (v.8). It was for “sinners” that Christ died, for human beings who were neither “righteous” nor “good.” The contrast is between the tremendous worth of the life laid down and the unworthiness of those who stand to benefit from it. The motivating force behind the death of Christ for sinners is the love of God: God loved, and so Christ died. No attempt is made to deal with the Savior’s reaction or motivation. Paul leaves much to Christian awareness of the intimate bond between Father and Son, the whole truth about God being in Christ (2Co 5:19) and Christ being motivated by love for the lost (as in Jn 15:12–13). What he puts in the foreground is the love of God, and this Paul underscores by designating it as “his [God’s] own love.” It is distinctive, unexpected, unheard of (cf. Jn 3:16).

Four times in vv.6–8 the verb “to die” (apothnēskō, GK 633) occurs, and in each instance the preposition is hyper (“for” or “on behalf of”), commonly employed by Paul in such contexts. He could have used anti (“in the place of”), which would stress the substitutionary aspect of the death of Christ. He probably avoids it, however, because he wants to stress something else as well, in line with the emphasis on the divine love. For this purpose hyper is eminently suited; it can express the substitutionary character of the sacrifice of Christ (as papyri usage indicates) plus the additional element of action on behalf of another, in line with the loving empathy of God in Christ.

9–11 Whereas the preceding paragraph dealt with the depth of the love of God as seen in the cross, the present section moves on to declare the height of that love, its refusal to stop short of effecting final and everlasting salvation in which the enmity created by sin has been completely overcome.

We are invited to take our stand on the fact of an achieved justification (the participle being the same as in v.1 and probably here, as there, bearing a causal aspect: “because we have been justified”) and then turn to face the far-reaching effects of this justification on our future—effects that will be in view through ch. 8. Lest it be taken lightly, the means of that justification is repeated (cf. 3:25): “by his [Christ’s] blood.” The REB has “by Christ’s sacrificial death,” and Barrett, 99, renders it “at the cost of his blood” (cf. BDF, para. 219.3). This takes the place of the reference to “through faith” in v.1.

Though we were reconciled when we were still enemies, God no longer looks on us as enemies, and therefore we will be saved from eschatological wrath (v.9; cf. 1Th 1:10; 5:9). God will furthermore not suffer us to lapse back into the unreconciled position but, on the contrary, will carry us on to the full end of our salvation (v.10). The agency of Christ continues to be crucial, only now with this difference: that whereas our justification was achieved by his death, our salvation is secured by his life (cf. 4:25). “His life” is a clear reference to Christ’s postresurrection life rather than to his life in the days of his flesh. Here Paul conjoins justification and salvation, as he did in the thematic statement of 1:16–17.

The right understanding of vv.10–11 depends on a correct understanding of the word echthroi (“enemies,” GK 2398), the fourth term Paul has used for those in the unsaved state (see vv.6–8 for the others). Is “enemies” used in an active sense to mean those who have enmity toward God (cf. 8:7), or in the passive sense meaning those who are reckoned as enemies by God? Several reasons dictate that the latter is the intended force of the word. First, that the word is capable of conveying this meaning is evident from 11:28, where the people of Israel are spoken of as enemies in the reckoning of God and yet loved by him, involving the same combination as in the passage we are considering. The enmity here, as in 11:28, is not temperamental but judicial. Second, the mention of “God’s wrath” in v.9 points to the conclusion that the echthroi are the objects of the wrath. Third, the tenor of the argument leads one to the same conclusion. Paul reasons from the greater to the lesser. If God loved us when we were enemies, now that he has made provision for us at infinite cost, much more will he go on to see us through to the final goal of our salvation. But if the sense is that God loved us and saved us when we were enemies in our attitude toward him, the “much more” loses its point.

Closely related to the above considerations is the fact that Paul not only states that we have been reconciled (v.10, twice) but that “we have now received reconciliation [katallagē, GK 2903]” (v.11, emphasis added). He avoids saying that we have done anything to effect the reconciliation. God provided it through the death of his Son. The matter is made even clearer, if anything, in the companion statement of 2 Corinthians 5:18 that God has reconciled us “to himself.” In an excursus on the relation between justification and reconciliation, Stuhlmacher, 82, puts it well: “God is thus the one who creates atonement, grants justification, and establishes reconciliation, on the basis of his free will and grace.” The appropriate response of the reconciled community is exultation (cf. vv.2–3). (For Paul’s argument, see S. E. Porter, “The Argument of Romans 5: Can a Rhetorical Question Make a Difference?” JBL 110 [1991]: 655–77.)

NOTES

1 The famous textual problem in this verse concerns whether the main verb of the sentence is an indicative (“we have”) or subjunctive (“let us have”). The only difference between the two is the middle vowel in ἔχομεν, echomen (GK 2400). If it is an omicron (short) the verb is indicative; if it is an omega (long) the verb is subjunctive. This is one of the few places in textual criticism where the strongest possible manuscript evidence has been made to yield to the internal logic of the passage. The textual evidence for the omega, the subjunctive, is sterling: A B C D K L, in addition to cursives, versions, and patristic citations. Support for the short vowel, the indicative, is found only in the “corrected” editions of and B, as well as F G P, besides cursives, versions, and patristic citations.

As for internal considerations, however, exhortation seems out of place here. This is especially true since the construction demands that this same hortatory thrust be carried to a point midway through v.3. This is particularly awkward in v.2, because the text says that through Christ we have also gained access—and this is fact, not exhortation. The word “also” (καί, kai), which a number of translations omit, seems clearly to point to something mentioned earlier that we also have through Christ. This decidedly favors the indicative rendering, “we have peace.”

Moreover, the confusion can easily be explained. It is well known that the short and long “o” of Greek were often confused in pronunciation during the Hellenistic period. J. H. Moulton writes, “It is indeed quite possible that the apostle’s own pronunciation did not distinguish [short] ‘o’ and [long] ‘o’ sufficiently to give Tertius [16:22] a clear lead, without his making inquiry” (A Grammar of New Testament Greek [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906], 1:35). For the same confusion of the same vowels, see 1 Corinthians 15:49. This means that it is precarious to lay too much store by the superior manuscript testimony for the (long) “o” reading. A further possibility is that the indicative was deliberately changed to the subjunctive in order to harmonize it with the verb καυχώμεθα, kauchōmetha (GK 3016, v.2), itself misunderstood as a subjunctive (see Frederick Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament [Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1899], 155)!

The discovery of a vellum fragment of part of Romans in 1950 is an interesting development. It supports the text of B everywhere (through some thirty verses) except at 5:1. The Wyman fragment, designated 0220, is dated by W. H. P. Hatch in the latter part of the third century, whereas B dates from the first third of the fourth century. Hatch (“A Recently Discovered Fragment of the Epistle to the Romans,” HTR 45 [1952]: 83) wrote, “This evidence for echomen is probably pre-Hesychian. Therefore the argument for the indicative is greatly strengthened, and the claim of the subjunctive to be the correct reading is correspondingly weakened.”

2 It is unclear whether the words τῇ πίστει, tē pistei (“by faith”), are original. The textual evidence is closely balanced: for inclusion, A C K P 33; for omission, B D G 0220. The words in the Greek text are accordingly put into brackets.

6 Strong manuscript evidence ( A C D*; but not B) supports a somewhat awkward repetition of the word “yet” in the text (ἔτι γὰρ . . . ἔτι, eti gar . . . eti), as though to emphasize the overwhelming fact that Christ died for humanity precisely at the time when it was in its hopeless condition of sin.

The inability of the law had become abundantly clear. It was the right time that Christ died for the ungodly. One may ask, If we were to grant that Galatians and Romans have the same emphasis on this point, why then do they not have the same term for “time” (Romans has καιρός, kairos [GK 2789], and Galatians χρόνος, chronos [GK 5989])? Actually there is no perceptible difference, since the word “fullness” (πλήρωμα, plērōma, GK 4445), in Galatians introduces the very emphasis of καιρός (kairos) time as to its character rather than as to its duration.

7 J. B. Lightfoot (Notes on Epistles of St. Paul [London: Macmillan, 1895], 286–87) berates those who profess to see no substantial difference between the δίκαιος (dikaios, GK 1465) and ἀγαθός (agathos, GK 19) here, quoting extensively from the Fathers to show that they are not synonymous. The righteous man is righteous, but nothing more. He lacks feeling for others. He may be so severely just that he is unattractive, if not actually repellent. On the other hand, the good man, while not lacking righteousness, goes beyond the other by being kind and benevolent.

8 On ὑπέρ, hyper, see M. J. Harris’s superb article, “Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament” (NIDNTT 3:1196–97).

9–10 Barrett, 100, notes the parallel content in vv.9 and 10. Verse 9 says of justification what v.10 says of reconciliation, namely, that through the death of Christ we will be saved.

11 As Bruce, 125, has pointed out, “where reconciliation is mentioned in the New Testament, God or Christ is always the Reconciler, and man is the object (or among the objects) of reconciliation. . . . God’s abhorrence of sin does not make him the enemy of sinners or seek their ill.”

E. The Universal Applicability of Justification (5:12–21)

OVERVIEW

This important and difficult portion of the epistle, packed with close reasoning and theological terminology, stands at the very heart of the development of Paul’s thought. He has presented all human beings as sinners and Christ as the one who has died to redeem them. Now he delves into the question, How does it come about that all—with no exception but Jesus Christ—are in fact sinners? In answer, he goes all the way back to the first man, Adam, to affirm that what Adam did has affected the whole of humankind, involving everyone in sin and death. But over this record of disaster and loss he puts the countermeasures taken on behalf of the race by another man, Jesus Christ, of which all are potential beneficiaries. Adam and Christ are the two turning points of all human history.

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

COMMENTARY

12 The one man through whom sin entered the world is not immediately named (reserved until v.14). The same procedure is followed with the other man to be considered: he too is called a man before he is named (v.15). Except for two non-theological references (Lk 3:38; Jude 14), every mention of Adam in the NT comes from the pen of Paul. In 1 Timothy 2:14, he makes the point that Adam, unlike Eve, was not deceived but sinned deliberately. In 1 Corinthians 15, as in the Romans passage, he institutes a comparison between the first and the last Adam but confines the treatment to the issue of death and resurrection, even though sin is dealt with somewhat incidentally (vv.17, 56), whereas in Romans 5, both sin and death are named immediately and are woven into the texture of the argument throughout. In the earlier letter, Paul makes the significant statement, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” (1Co 15:22), in line with Romans 5:12. Paul has already referred to the inevitable connection between sin and death in the only previous mention of death in Romans (1:32), except for reference to the death of Christ (5:10). But here in v.12 he pictures sin and death as entering the world through one man, with the result that death permeated the whole of humankind. It was the opening in the dike that led to the inundation, the poison that entered at one point and penetrated every area of humanity’s corporate life.

If Paul had stopped with the observation that death came to all humanity because all sinned, we would be left with the impression that all sinned and deserved death because they followed the example of Adam. But subsequent statements in the passage make it abundantly clear that the connection between Adam’s sin and death and what has befallen the race is far closer than that. Paul says that the many died because of “the trespass of the one” (v.15; cf. vv.18–19). Clearly the gist of his teaching is that just as humankind has become involved in sin and death through Adam, it has the remedy of righteousness and life only in Christ.

What, then, is the precise relation of Adam in his fall to those who come after him? Paul does not say, unless he provides the information in the last clause of the verse. The NIV uses the word “because,” which is certainly the meaning of eph’ hō in 2 Corinthians 5:4 and probably also in Philippians 3:12. The Vulgate rendering of the Greek is in quo, which could be understood as meaning “in which” (i.e., death) or “in whom” (i.e., Adam). The former does not make sense and the latter is so far removed from the antecedent (“man”) as to be dubious, though this was Augustine’s conclusion (see Notes).

Now if the correct translation is “because all sinned,” why did not Paul go on to say specifically that all sinned in the first man? That he could have done so seems clear from v.19: “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” Was it the sudden breaking off to follow another line of thought (vv.13–14) that prevented the full statement? Or was it Paul’s reluctance to gloss over human responsibility, which he had already established in terms of universal sin and guilt (3:23)? Experience demonstrates that despite the inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam, people are convicted of guilt for the sins resulting from it, i.e., for the sins they themselves commit. Conscience is a factor in human life and the Holy Spirit does convict of sin (cf. Jn 16:8). Perhaps, then, as some hold, while the emphasis on original sin is primary in the light of the passage as a whole, there is a hint that personal choice and personal sin are not entirely excluded (cf. “many trespasses” in v.16).

That we could have sinned in Adam may seem strange and unnatural to the Western mind. Nevertheless, it is congenial to biblical teaching on the solidarity of the human race. (For a famous example of corporate solidarity in the OT, see the story recorded in Jos 7:16–26.) When Adam sinned, the race sinned because the race was in him. Similar views are found in Jewish writings perhaps a half century after Paul: in 2 Esdras 7:118, “O Adam, what have you done? For though it was you who sinned, the fall was not yours alone, but ours also who are your descendants” (cf. 2 Esd 3:7, 21), and 2 Baruch 54:15, “Adam sinned first and has brought death upon all who were not in his own time” (cf. 2 Bar 17:3; 23:4). To put it boldly, Adam was the race. What he did, his descendants, who were still in him, did also. This principle is utilized in Hebrews 7:9–10: “One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.”

The doctrine of original sin and the punishment of Adam’s progeny for Adam’s sin would be an intolerable doctrine if any of his progeny had actually lived a life without sin. In fact, however, as Paul has made abundantly clear in 1:1–3:21, every human being is guilty of sin. The author of 2 Baruch, quoted above, also puts emphasis on our own responsibility: “each of us has become our own Adam” (2 Bar 54:19); all human beings consistently repeat for themselves the sin of their forefather. Sin is part of the natural makeup of the children of Adam, and they cannot escape living out their Adamic nature.

If one is still troubled by the seeming injustice of being born with a sinful nature because of what the father of the race did and being held accountable for the sins that result from that disability, one should weigh carefully the significance of reconciliation as stated by Paul: “that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them” (2Co 5:19, emphasis added). The sins committed, which owe their original impetus to the sin of the first man, are not reckoned against those who have committed them, provided they put their trust in Christ crucified and risen. God takes their sins and gives them his righteousness.

13–14 The dash at the end of v.12 is intended to indicate that the comparison Paul has launched with his “just as” is not carried through (in three statements to come the comparison is complete: vv.18–19, 21). In view of what follows, the complete statement, if given here, would have run something like this: “Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all, because all sinned, so righteousness entered the world by one man, and life through righteousness.” Grammatically, the conclusion is not formally stated at all, though in the KJV it is assumed that vv.13–17 are parenthetical, with v.18 stating the conclusion of v.12. Verse 18, however, is a recapitulation of the argument (it begins with a “just as” clause that repeats the “just as” clause of v.12), not a resumption of the statement of v.12. The necessary conclusion to v.12 is stated already in vv.15–17 in various ways. Throughout the passage, the thought is so tremendous as to prove intractable from the standpoint of expressing it in orderly sequence. The thought outruns the structural capacity of language.

Judging from the use of “for” at the beginning of v.13, these two verses are intended to support and explicate v.12. The point is made that from Adam to Moses the law was not yet given, so sin, though actual (“sin was in the world”), was not present in the sense of technical transgression. During this period, there was no charge from God similar to that given to Adam, which he had violated. In this situation, therefore, “sin is not taken into account.” The verb ellogeō (GK 1824), which appears only here in the NT, has the technical sense of “charge to someone’s account.” But the very fact that “death reigned” (v.14) during this period is proof that some specific transgression was being accounted, since death is the consequence of sin. The sin in view, therefore, must be the sin of Adam (whose very name means “human being”), a sin that accordingly involved all of his descendants. Death was not the consequence of actual sinful conduct during this period, since that sin was not the transgression of given commandments and thus could not exact a penalty. Death in this case rather obviously means physical death, which suggests that the same is true in v.12. This agrees with Paul’s treatment of the subject of death in 1 Corinthians 15 (see esp. v.22: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive”).

Adam is described as “a pattern [typos, GK 5596; NASB, “type”] of the one to come” (v.14). “The one to come” is to be taken from the perspective of Adam and his time and refers to the first coming of Christ, not his second coming (cf. Mt 11:3). A “type” involves a historical pattern wherein by divine ordination an earlier, parallel similarity (= type) resembles a later, parallel similarity (= antitype).

It may seem strange that Adam should be designated as a type of Christ when the two are so dissimilar in themselves and in their effect on humankind. But there is justification for the parallel. Nygren, 218, put it eloquently: “Adam is the head of mankind in the sense that in him mankind was lost. Christ is the head of mankind in the opposite sense, that in Him mankind was saved. Adam is the head of mankind, from which the contagion of sin and death spreads to all its members. Christ is the head of mankind, from which righteousness and life come to all its members.”

15–17 In this section, Christ’s effect on the human race is seen as totally different from that of Adam, and vastly superior. Note the repeated expression “how much more” (vv.15, 17). Any hint of parallelism suggested by “type” is now replaced by the element of contrast. True, there appears to be similarity in one point, in that the work of Adam and that of Christ relate to “the many” (hoi polloi, GK 4498). It will readily be seen by comparing v.15 with v.12 that “the many” is the same as “all” (“death came to all” and “the many died”). This point is also clear from v.19 in the statement that through Adam’s sin “the many were made sinners” (cf. v.12). This use of “the many” has a Semitic background and is to be understood in the inclusive sense of “all,” or at least “virtually all.” The parallel statement of 11:32 employs pantes, “all.” Paul “ascribes the greatest conceivable breadth to hoi polloi” (J. Jeremias, TDNT 6:542). The phrase thus underscores the importance of Adam and Christ respectively. What one did, in each case, affected the entire human race. The expression goes back to Isaiah 53:11–12, which underlies Jesus’ use in Mark 10:45. Calvin, 114, effectively draws out the sense in which Christ’s work is greater that Adam’s: “We may quite appropriately infer that if the fall of Adam had the effect of producing the ruin of many the grace of God is much more efficacious in benefiting many, since it is granted that Christ is much more powerful to save than Adam was to destroy.”

Another notable feature of the expression “how much more” is its connection with the recurring use of “grace” and “gift,” suggesting that the work of Christ not merely cancelled the effects of Adam’s transgression so as to put humanity back into a state of innocence under a probation such as their progenitor faced, but rather gives to humanity far more than was lost in Adam, more indeed than Adam ever had. The gift, prompted by grace, includes righteousness (dikaiosynē, GK 1466, v.17) and life (zōē, GK 2437, v.18), which is later defined as eternal life (v.21). Paul makes a further observation to the effect that in Adam’s case, a single sin was involved, and that was sufficient to bring condemnation, but in the work of Christ a provision is found for the many acts of sin that have resulted in the lives of his descendants (v.16).

16 Verse 16 contains a remarkable break in the symmetry we have become accustomed to in Paul’s argument. Again and again in ch. 5 Paul draws out the parallel: through one man’s sinful deed has come condemnation; through one man’s act of obedience has come the gift of righteousness and life. Here we read that “the judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation.” Then, however, Paul continues by asserting that “the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification” (emphasis added). The parallelism requires Paul to say that the gift followed one act of obedience or the equivalent (as esp. in vv.18–19). But instead he shocks us with the words “many trespasses.” Paul focuses on the human contribution to justification. All that human beings have to offer are their sins. Justification, as Paul has already demonstrated, does not arise from our acts of righteousness. The effect of this substitution of sins for deeds, or Christ’s deed, of righteousness is to underline the human dilemma and the reality of salvation by free grace rather than by works of the law. William Tyndale writes in the margin of his translation, “Adam’s disobedience damned us all ere we ourselves wrought evil. And Christ’s obedience saveth us all, ere we ourselves work any good” (D. Daniell, Tyndale’s New Testament [New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1995], 230).

17 Whereas up to this point Paul’s train of thought has been concerned with developing the concept of sin taken over from v.12, he now turns to its companion factor, death, likewise mentioned in v.12, with a view to enlarging it. The point of the “much more” appears to be that in Christ not only are the hold of death (its ability to reign over humanity; cf. v.14) and the hold of sin (“sin reigned in death,” v.21), established by Adam’s sin, effectively broken, but because of Christ’s redeeming work the believer is able to look forward to reigning in life through Christ. Again the parallelism is not strict: it is not life that reigns, but rather believers who will “reign in life.” This, of course, implies participation in the resurrection. Believers will have a share in the Lord’s kingdom and glory (cf. v.2; 8:17).

18 At this point, as noted above, Paul provides something of a conclusion to v.12, but in such a way as to take account of the intervening material. The opening word, “consequently,” shows his intent to summarize. Now Paul presents in stunning clarity the contrast he started to make in v.12. Notice the careful, symmetrical balancing of the clauses. One trespass brought condemnation for all humanity, and one act of righteousness brought justification for all. Adam’s sin is labeled “trespass” (NASB, “transgression”), indicating that it was deliberate. The basic meaning of the word rendered “trespass” (paraptōma, GK 4183), used five times in vv.15–18 and again in v.20, is to convey the idea of “falling aside” or “going astray.” “It refers directly to the disruption of man’s relation to God through his fault” (TDNT 6:172).

The reference is clearly to the violation of the divine restriction laid down in Genesis 2:17, with resulting condemnation for the entire human race. Adam’s act involved others directly; it did not merely set a bad example. Over against that act Paul put another of an entirely different character—an “act of righteousness.” The same Greek word (dikaiōma, GK 1468) occurs at the end of v.16, where it is rendered “justification.” The word is set over against “condemnation,” as in v.16, but now something is added, namely, the observation that justification is more than the antithesis of condemnation, more than the setting aside of an adverse verdict due to sin—more even than the imputation of divine righteousness. It is the passport to life, the sharing of the life of God (cf. v.21).

19 Another term for Adam’s failure occurs in v.19, namely, “disobedience” (parakoē, GK 4157). This word accents the voluntary character of his sin. Matching it is the “obedience” (hypakoē, GK 5633) of Christ (see esp. Php 2:8). This concept was highly meaningful for Paul, as we know from Philippians 2:5–11. The interpretation of that passage along the lines of a latent comparison between Adam (unnamed, but in the background) and Christ is most satisfactory. Instead of grasping after equality with God, as Adam had done, Jesus humbled himself and became obedient, even to the point of accepting death on a cross.

The result of Christ’s obedience is that “the many will be made righteous.” Does this refer to righteous character? Possibly so, if the future tense is definitely eschatological in its thrust, pointing to the consummation in glory, when imputed righteousness will have become righteousness possessed in unblemished fullness. But “will be made righteous” may simply be the equivalent of “will become righteous” in the forensic sense, as in 2 Corinthians 5:21, in which case the future tense need not be thought of as eschatological but as embracing all who in this age are granted justification. Most of these were indeed future to Paul’s time. Paul’s thought has not shifted away from the forensic.

Does the sweeping language used (“the many” being equivalent to “all,” as argued above) suggest that all humanity will be brought within the circle of justification, so that none will be lost? Some have thought so; the language sounds that way. But if the doctrine of universalism were being taught here, Paul would be contradicting himself, for he has already pictured some as perishing because of sin (2:12; cf. 1Co 1:18). Furthermore, his entire presentation of salvation has emphasized the fact that justification is granted only on the basis of faith. Note the implied reference to faith in the words “those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace” (v.17). We must conclude, therefore, that only as “the many” are found in Christ can they qualify as belonging to the righteous. When it comes to describing the saving work of Christ, however, Paul does not shy away from universal language. Rather, he must portray it in absolute terms and with the broadest strokes. In principle, de jure, Christ’s obedience—his atoning death on the cross—can only be thought of as outstripping the effects of Adam’s disobedience. Paul would not be amenable to language that described the work of Christ as a “limited atonement.”

20 At the conclusion of the chapter, Adam as a figure fades from view. Yet his influence is still present in the mention of sin and death. Paul now introduces another factor—the Mosaic law—to show its bearing on the great issues of sin and righteousness. There is scarcely a subject treated by Paul in Romans that does not call for some consideration of the law. The closest affinity to the thought in v.20 is found in 3:20: “through the law we become conscious of sin.” Also, ch. 7 traces the relationship between the law and sin in rather elaborate fashion.

The apostle is not maintaining that the purpose of the giving of the law is exclusively “so that the trespass might increase,” because he makes room for the law as a revelation of the will of God and therefore a positive benefit (7:12). The law also serves to restrain evil in the world (implied in 6:15; stated in 1Ti 1:9–11). Paul uses the unusual verb pareiserchomai (GK 4209) at the beginning of v.20 (“added”; NASB, “came in”). It has the idea of “slipping in between” (cf. its use in Gal 2:4), as though to say that the law had a limited and temporary role to perform. Similar language is used in Galatians 3:19 (“added”), where the law is regarded as something temporary, designed to disclose the “trespass” aspect of sin and prepare the way for the coming of Christ by demonstrating the dire need for his saving work. Stuhlmacher, 88, writes, “Just as it did between Abraham and Christ (cf. Gal. 3:19ff.), so too the law also ‘came in between’ Adam and Christ (at Sinai).” The function of the law to increase trespass was not recognized in rabbinic Judaism (cf. H.-J. Schoeps, Paul [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961], 174). From the Sermon on the Mount, however, it appears that Jesus sought to apply the law in just this way, i.e., to awaken a sense of sin in those who fancied they were keeping the law tolerably well but who had underestimated its searching demands and the sinfulness of their own hearts. The law thus finally leads to an understanding of the necessity of grace: “If it had looked as if the law worked hand in hand with sin, it is now made clear that it works hand in hand with grace” (Nygren, 227).

The bad news of this negative influence of the law is countered by good news announced with the words, “grace increased all the more.” The apostle waxes almost ecstatic as he revels in the superlative excellence of the divine overruling that makes sin ultimately serve a gracious purpose. The statement is akin to Paul’s repeated “how much more” argument (cf. vv.15, 17). The saving grace of God far exceeds the damning sin of Adam’s offspring.

21 With great effect, Paul brings the leading concepts of the passage together in the final, summarizing statement. “Sin reigned in death” picks up vv.12, 14; “grace” looks back to vv.15, 17; “reign” reflects vv.14, 17; “righteousness” harks back to v.17 as well as to 1:17 and many other passages; “eternal life” completes and crowns the allusion to “life” in vv.17–18. Sin and death are virtually personified throughout. Sin poses as absolute monarch, reigning through death as its vicar, but in the end it is exposed as a pretender and is obliged to yield authority to another, whose reign is wholly absolute and totally different, being as much (or more) a blessing as the other is a curse. “Eternal life” easily overcomes the threat of death.

The treatment of sin, death, and salvation in terms of “righteousness” is crucial to our understanding of our relation to God. It loudly proclaims that no sinner, whether a mystic aspiring to direct contact with God or a legalist counting on good works for approval in God’s sight, is able in those ways to find acceptance with God. Because one man, Adam, has intervened between humanity and the Creator, still another, even Jesus Christ, must be the medium of the return of sinners to a righteous God. Jesus of Nazareth alone is the means by which salvation can be experienced (cf. Jn 14:6). Thus grace reigns in sovereign power only “through Jesus Christ our Lord” (cf. Karl Barth, Christ and Adam: Man and Humanity in Romans 5 [New York: Harper, 1956]).

NOTES

12 See C. E. B. Cranfield, “On Some Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5.12,” SJT 22 (1969): 324–41; S. E. Porter, “The Pauline Concept of Original Sin, in Light of Rabbinic Background,” TynBul 41 (1990): 3–30.

Entering the debate about the meaning of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, eph’ hō (NIV, “because”), Nigel Turner does not attach great importance to the fact that Paul uses ἐπί, epi, with the dative rather than ἐν, en, the preposition that appears in 1 Corinthians 15:22. He remarks that “even in classical Greek, and much more so in the New Testament period, the distinctions between the cases with this preposition are difficult to maintain” (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1965], 118). He goes on to suggest that man is “under the power of” and “within the jurisdiction of” Adam. He does not deal with the problem of the remoteness of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, eph’ hō, from its alleged antecedent ἀνθρώπου, anthrōpou.

A departure in the attempted understanding of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, eph’ hō, has been made by F. W. Danker (“Romans V 12: Sin under Law,” NTS 14 [1968]: 424–39), who interprets Paul to mean that death passed to all men “on the basis of what law [eph’ hō] they committed their sins under.” He relies both on the previous teaching about law as involving Jew and Gentile (2:12–16) and on the immediate context in 5:13–14. He is able to make a plausible case, but one is left with the uneasy feeling that if scholars have missed this down through the years, the chances that the Roman church caught the meaning are rather slim.

Bruce, 130 (citing T. W. Manson), notes that although “in whom” (as in the Vulgate) “may be a mistranslation, it is a true interpretation.” For a full discussion, see Cranfield’s article mentioned above (“On Some of the Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5.12”). Fitzmyer, 413–17, discusses eleven options and concludes in favor of the words as introducing a result clause.

14 Barrett, 105–6, is of the opinion that since Paul has just mentioned Adam, the word “one” should be thought of in terms of the Adam to come, the last Adam, as Christ is explicitly termed in 1 Corinthians 15:45. Barth (Christ and Adam, 29) has advanced a provocative interpretation of Adam as a type of Christ. He has attempted to reverse the order: “Man’s essential and original nature is to be found . . . not in Adam but in Christ. In Adam we can only find it prefigured. Adam can therefore be interpreted only in the light of Christ and not the other way around.” It should be evident, however, that Paul’s thought here is not moving in the orbit of man as made in the image of God and therefore in the image of Christ who is the image of God. To import the preexistence of Christ is to introduce an element foreign to Paul’s purpose and treatment in this passage. For a careful review of Barth’s position and its weaknesses, see Murray, 384–90.