Romans 5
[+/-] show/hide
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; 4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope: 5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. 6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. 12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Frequently used words or expressions in this chapter: much more (5), death (5), life (4), righteous(ness) (5), sin(ners, ned) (10). Surrounding context: previous chapter (4) justification by faith alone without works, next chapter (6) dead in Christ, alive to God, dead to sin, alive to righteousness.
What is Paul's purpose in writing to the Romans? Where does this chapter stand in the argument he has kept building on for the entire book? What previously established points does he use in this chapter that will shed light on where his argument progressing?
Just a few questions that helped me understand this chapter as well as the others. All comments and questions welcome.
[+/-] show/hide
3 Comments:
Elijah,
Okay, I'm not trying to set you up or point fingers or whatever, but I'd like a little clarification. Do you believe that you are currently walking in a state of sinlesness? I'm not arguing that you are or that you're not (since I don't know you), but I'm just wondering where you're coming from here.
Now, no one has brought him up yet, so I guess I'll do it now: From what I understand, Michael Pearl teaches this point of view and has stated that he has been living sinlessly for many years. I could be totally misunderstanding him, of course, and if I am please enlighten me. You've heard more of him than I have.
I guess what I'm asking is, is this idea of being "sinless from this day forward" theoretical or practical? And if it is practical, are you or anyone you personally know well actually acheiving this?
Well, one again I have spent the time that I intended to spend working on a post or at least a comment I have spent on various rabbit trails (all of them good, but none of them where I intended to be.) I’m not too good at staying in one chapter for any length of time.
I would hotly debate what you where saying, except you haven’t said anything antiginositc or contreversial yet. However I’m sure that you are just building up your case and will state what curx of where you are going in due time.
I think that how we got started on all this was a discussion of original sin. I have heard it said, (and I think that I agree) that no thelogy discussion will get far if the parties involved don’t agree on the inplications of Adam’s sin. I guess I already stated my case of that subject for now.
I’m still studying on the relationship of Christians and sin, so I’m not going to say anything that I’ll have to take back. I can play walking Westminster Catechism if you like for the sake of a debate (it wouldn’t be the first time), but if you are really out to debate with and convince me of something I’ll have to defer a answer for a little longer. Sorry. (Couldn’t we just stay on radical depravity? I already know what I believe there: )
So do you believe that in is impossible for a Christian to sin or that is possible for a Christian to not sin? Would you define between (for lack of a better phrase) types or degrees of sin?
I would add this to the list words used often in Romans 5.
Paraptoma (3900)
1. to fall beside or near something
2. a lapse or deviation from truth and uprightness
1. a sin, misdeed
King James Word Usage - Total: 23 trespass 9, offence 7, sin 3, fall 2, fault 2
Used eight times in Romans 5
I love Romans and read it fairly often, but I often find it somewhat grueling, and by the time I get through with Romans 11 I’m usually mentally exhausted. This is always a refreshing passage to read when I’m completely stumped trying to figure God out (okay so maybe that’s not precisely the context, but the principle still applies: )
O the depth of the riches both os the wisdom that knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out! For who has known him, and who has become his counselor? Or who has first given to him that it shall re recompensed to him again? For of him, and through him, and to him are all things: to whom be the glory forever. Amen
(Rom 11:33-36)
I guess that I’m fascinated by the things that God does not spell out in black and white, his hidden things.
I think that it is accurate to say that the main emphasis of Romans 5 is to showcase the glory of the work of Christ justification. In fact, I think that it something of a shame that the emphasis of all of our discussions always ends with the negative aspects of what ever doctrine and texts we happen to be discussing. For example, the emphasis in Rom 9 and Eph 1 is the glory of God revealed in his chosen people, with his glory in justice dwelled on much less. I think that the same goes here. The main point is not that we sinned in Adam (although I think that it is clearly taught here) but that Christ is far superior to Adam. But I guess we agree on that, so there is nothing to debate there…
That said, here is my long response regarding the negative aspects of Romans 5:
I think that the statement that God forewent the immediate death of Adam and Eve by the death of a substitute is unfounded. There is nothing in the text that states that the animal that God killed to clothe Adam was any kind of substitute. God was specific when he said “in the day you eat of it you will surely die” I think that if he meant “You will die someday” he would not have stated that they would die on the day they ate it. Death has more than one face, the physical end of life being only one of them. We where dead in our trespasses and sins, not physically, but spiritually. Death is separation, and in the day Adam ate the fruit I believe that he did die just as God had told him he would, but not in the way that we would expect. I think that it is a scriptural conclusion that in a spiritual since Adam died on that very day.
Sin was in the world before the Mosiac Law, but without law sin in not imputed. But they still died. v 14 says they did not sin in the “likeness” or the “similitude” of the sin of Adam. As in, God said, “don’t eat the apple” and he did. Those between Adam and Moses did not have a list of “thou shalt nots”, therefore they did not break a known command like Adam did.
Similitude:
that which has been made after the likeness of something
1. a figure, image, likeness, representation
2. likeness i.e. resemblance, such as amounts almost to equality or identity
Why did even those who had not sinned in the same way that Adam sinned die? “ Nevertheless” implies that there is another side to the equation than that which has so far been presented. So Paul is telling us basically this: “All that being said about sin not being imputed where there in no law being said, they still paid to penalty for sin, death.” How do you reconcile sin not being imputed with paying the penalty for sin? Both of these seemingly contradictory statements are true. Why? Because in Adam all sinned. Their individual sins where not counted, but there was enough to condemn them to death in Adam’s sin.
17 (...For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
I have to admit, when I read v. 18, I was stumped. Not by the appearance that it taught universal atonement, but that it was looking something like universal salvation. The word for justification is Strongs 1347: the act of God declaring men free from guilt and acceptable to him abjuring to be righteous, justification. No two ways about it, if “all” here means every man without exception than everyone is righteous before God. Which is problematic, to say the least. I’ll quote from John Piper:
In verse 19 those who are "made righteous" are called "the many": "so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." In verse 18 those who have "justification of life" are "all men." "Through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." Who are these "all men"? Does it mean that every human being who is in Adam will also be justified so that no one will be lost and there is no such thing as eternal punishment for anyone? This is called universalism.
I don't think so, for several reasons.
1) Verse 17 speaks of "receiving" the gift of righteousness as though some do and some don't. Verse 17: "For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ." That does not sound like everybody does receive it.
2) "Justification of life to all men" in Romans 5:18 does not mean all humans are justified, because Paul teaches clearly in this very book and elsewhere (2 Thessalonians 1:9) that there is eternal punishment and all humans are not justified. For example, in Romans 2:5 he says, "But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God," and then in verses 7 and 8 he contrasts this wrath with "eternal life" and so shows that it is eternal wrath, not temporary wrath. So there will be some who are not justified but come under the wrath of God forever and others who have eternal life.
3) "Justification of life to all men" in Romans 5:18 does not mean all humans are justified, because in all of Romans up until now justification is not automatic as if every human receives it, but it is "by faith." Romans 5:1, "Therefore, having been justified by faith . . ." Romans 3:28, ‘For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.’...”
The only consistently biblical way I see to read this verse is with this in mind: Here is the word “all” as defined by Strongs on Crosswalk.com:
individually
1. each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2. collectively
1. some of all types
... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.” Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile...
The phrase “all men” is often used to clarify that Paul is speaking of all classes of men, Jews, Greeks and Barbarians, free and slave, male and female. The gospel is not limited to the Jews alone, but is for all men.
Are you still with me? We are still on v. 18 “Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life” “Well,” I’m sure you will say “if all doesn’t mean every single person, than where does that leave your argument that all sinned in Adam?”
The logic is not “The first all is every single person and the second is some form all kinds of people” rather the logic is this: The same word is used for “all” both times in this verse, so they must have the same strengths and weaknesses. In implications of “all” here must be inferred from the context and from the rest of scripture. So here we are: the all men that are justified are not each and every individual person (which is a scriptural conclusion). The “all” in the latter part of the verse (based on the context and other scripture) are all that walk the planet, from every tongue, tribe and nation that are in Christ. This leads us to define the “all” in the first part of the verse accordingly: they are all that walk planet from every tongue, tribe and nation that are in Adam, which is, of course, every single person. The result of the two treatments of the word all are the same, but the way of drawing the conclusion is different.
I think it significant that he started with Adam. What is the point, if the only sin that counts is those we commit literally? I think that Paul is stressing that in the same way as Christ is the second Adam. How? The doctrine is known as federal headship. We didn’t “do” anything to be part of Adam’s line and the consequences for his sin, neither did we do anything to merit being part of Christ’s line and the consequences for his righteousness. Adam’s sin was imputed to us because we are born in him according to the flesh, Christ’s righteousness in imputed to us because we are his born of him according to the Spirit. And what is ours Christ far surpasses what is ours in Adam.
You said “The free gift came upon all men unto justification of life? In the same verse, we have Adam's offense bring condemnation to all, so this all is obviously everyone. This goes very much against the L.”
One question. Who would you say that the “all” are that where judged for the offence of Adam? If you are using this to disprove limited atonement by saying that justification is granted to everyone you must take the part about Adam’s sin to mean every single person, which goes against your stance that all did not sin in Adam. You have to pick one. Either you grant that everyone on earth sinned and Adam and everyone in earth is justified in Christ, (which is universalism) or you take “all” to be less than all-inclusive.
Post a Comment
Hide comments