Calvin (7/21/01-7/22/01)

5:12

Paul begins to look at the occasion of our fall, as it more clearly brings into our view what Christ has done for us. So, we begin a contrast of Adam and Christ, noting both the similarities, and the divergences between type and typified. In this first passage, the sin Paul refers to is that sin that comes with us into life, that seed of sin we inherit from our forebears. God never punished another for a sin they did not commit, but each, we are taught had sin of their own to be punished for. Adam, having fallen from grace, could not do other than produce seed like himself, and so, from that seed, we begin already ruined.

5:13

Next, Paul cuts off the argument that those prior to the Law could not have sinned in transgressing it. He declares that prior to the Law, there was yet the understanding that a God existed to whom honor was due, and there was yet some degree of a rule of righteousness. Both of these were transgressed in the wicked actions of the people, even before the Law codified the rules. Clearly, God shows by His actions that He did occasion the punishments of sins before the Law was given; as in the Flood, the plagues upon Pharaoh, the destruction of Sodom, and Cain's condemnation. And, just as clearly, men had their concepts of what was right, as can be seen in their accusations and defenses of each other. Yet, this knowledge was generally suppressed, unless forced into recognition by outward circumstance. So, in this verse, we must understand Paul as writing comparatively, showing that apart from the constant constraint of the Law, man became lax in pursuing the paths of righteousness. Footnote: An alternate view of this passage would see no other sin but Adam's in sight throughout. Paul, in this view, ignores the personal sins of those before the Law, to focus more fully on the impact of that one, original sin of Adam. This is what is compared to the impact of Christ. So, the imputation of our personal sins did not occur prior to the informing of the Law, yet the impact of that first, informed sin of Adam was felt. In pointing out that the punishment came even upon those who hadn't known the Law, two things may be in view. First, it may be that by so declaring the case, he sought to heighten the Jews' awareness of their own situation, showing that, if those were punished who did not know, the case can only be worse for those who were given the clarity of the Law to guide them. Secondly, he may be clarifying that the Law was not the cause of death, but only the revealing of the cause, for death came solely due to sin. And in this, we see that ignorance will be no excuse.

5:14

Even during the period between Adam and the Law, no matter how much men tried to ignore the difference between good and evil, no matter how much they suppressed their knowledge of their own wickedness, yet sin, unimputed though it was, still held sway, and death, as a consequence still ruled them. Their willful blindness did not stop the judgment of God from coming upon their deeds. This passage is considered one of the proof texts of the sinfulness of children at birth, they having had no opportunity to sin as Adam had. But, in this is also viewed all those who had sinned without having a clear command of God. Adam had a command given him, which he broke. From then, until the time of Moses, no command was given except conscience. So, the thought here is more inclusive, but certainly does not exclude infants from its number. Now comes the first comparison and contrast of Adam and Christ. Note that it is they that are compared. Adam is not declared a type of sinfulness, with Christ as a type of righteousness. No, Adam is declared a type of Christ, because in him, sin and death came to all, and in Christ, righteousness and life came to all.

5:15

Throughout this section, it seems Paul leaves out parts of his argument, in this case, pointing out that there are differences between the gift of grace, and the heritage of original sin, but failing to explain those differences. Footnote: This seeming shortcoming in Scriptural style is more a function of the reader's lack of fluency in the Hebrew modes of expression of which Scripture is constituted. One can infer from this verse that the power of Christ to save is far greater than the power of Adam to destroy, although that implication is by no means unavoidable in the wording of the verse. It is also possible that Paul is here attempting to clarify the limits of that similitude that exists between the cases of Adam and Christ. It is clear that the contrast drawn is not between the many and the many, but between the destroying sin, and the saving righteousness, which remains sufficient to overcome that sin. Footnote: The terms regarding 'the many,' and 'all' are meant to contrast with the 'one' of sin, or of righteousness. That the terms speak of two distinct groups must be construed as true, even though the two terms are used interchangeably in referring to each of these groups. Thus, the many, or all, of Adam's descent are all mankind, lost in sin. But, the many, or all, of Christ's redeemed, are those who believed, and cannot be taken as encompassing all of mankind. We are all impacted by Adam's sin, not in that we are punished for his sin, but rather that we inherit his sinful nature from birth, and so deserve punishment for our own sin. Grace is offered in opposition to sin, and the gift of grace - life in Christ - is offered in opposition to the fruits of sin, which are death. That grace is God's. It remains in God, being His, and what abides in us are the effects of that grace.

5:16

Now, the contrast is further brought out. Condemnation came in response to one sin in Adam, and this condemnation, passed to us along with the sin. But Christ is shown the greater in that He frees us not only from this original sin, not only from the sinfulness we suffered prior to our baptism, but from a multitude of sins, inclusive of those we daily add to our account by our failures, for His grace relieves continually. Also, there is the contrast between the results that must have come from strict justice, and those results obtained by that gracious pardon He has given us.

5:17

Footnote: In the style of the Prophets, Paul repeats his thought in different words, and in different ordering, now speaking of the man, or cause, prior to the effect, where earlier, it had been the impact spoken of first. Paul continues to dwell on this contrast so as to better display the great worth of God's grace toward us. In this, he leads us from self-confidence to Christ-confidence. From there, he builds us up to a full assurance, which in turn brings from us a proper gratitude. In all things, Christ has surpassed Adam, His righteousness overcoming Adam's sin, His grace overcoming Adam's curse, and His life overcoming Adam's death. Note that he writes that we will reign in life, not that life will reign in the faithful, and yet, it should be born in mind that the two concepts are largely synonymous. We ought to pause and further consider the difference between Adam and Christ, which Paul has left out as not pertinent to his topic. First, it must be noted that the sinfulness of Adam is not imputed to us, such that we are punished for another's sin. Rather, the sinfulness of his nature has passed to our nature, an inheritance causing us to be regarded as sinful in the sight of God. By contrast, we do not have Christ's own righteousness within us as some innate quality, that we may now be pardoned for our own nature, as we were previously punished for our own nature. Rather, Christ's righteousness has been freely imputed to us. We are considered by God not as we are in our own nature, but as we are filtered through Christ. Secondly, it should be noted that Adam's heritage, being a fleshly matter, is passed to all of mankind, whereas Christ's heritage, being a spiritual matter, is passed only to those who attain it by faith. As to the infant, those born into the covenant family are given a right of adoption [in infant baptism], which is not given to those outside the covenant.

5:18

Summarizing his thought, Paul once more contrasts the impact of Adam's sin with the impact of Christ's righteousness. And yet, he speaks not of Christ's righteousness, but of the justification He has wrought, for His righteousness resulted in the communicating of that justification to all men. He died for the sins of all, and communicated the import of His atoning death to all, but not all chose to hear and accept what had been done on their behalf. The justification of life is that remission of sins obtained for us by Christ, and so it must be, for our hope of salvation rests solely upon God's propitious view of us, and for Him to so accept us, we must be just in His sight. So it is that life proceeds from justification. Footnote: The justification of life is a Hebraism, indicating that life (and that eternal) is the end-result of justification. So, the impact of this phrase, while inclusive of Calvin's view, extends even farther.

5:19

In this final verse of the passage, Paul brings out some other characteristics of the comparison. We are not only condemned in the inheritance we have of Adam, but we are guilty. This must be understood. We are not punished for another's offense, but for our own. By contrast, we are pardoned because of Christ's obedience, and none of our own. Notice that His righteousness consisted of full and perfect obedience to the whole of God's command. If we are to come before Him justified by our own merits, this is the degree of obedience we will be required to maintain. One failure will suffice to negate all that we might have managed, and so we see that it is an impossibility in ourselves to please God. "For then only we truly worship Him when we follow what He has commanded us, and render obedience to His Word." No created rules of our own can replace His requirements, "for obedience is better than sacrifices."

 

 

Matthew Henry (7/23/01-7/24/01)

5:12

A parallel is shown between Adam and Christ, not only to illustrate the point at hand, but also to commend God's love to us, and give us comfort in recognizing the congruency of our fall and our recovery. The typical aspect of Adam is brought out more clearly in v14. (1Co 15:45 - The first Adam was a living soul, but the last is a life-giving spirit.) In his interactions with God, he performed, as it were, a public role, representing all of humanity, and thus bringing all of humanity to failure in his failure. In the same way, Christ performed a public role as representative of humanity, and in His successes, we all succeeded. And in His successes, he closed the breach that Adam had made between God and man. We look at this life, and see it engulfed in sin, seeing that that sin is not just in us, but in all of nature. And when we query after its source, we find it in the failing of the first man, Adam. When the earth was first created, God declared it good (Ge 1:31), and so, we know it had no sin within it, although heaven had been penetrated by sin in the revolt of the angels by that time. Sin came in with Adam's failures, and that sin was then imputed to all mankind. (1Co 15:22 - In Adam, all died). As he was our representative, it is fitting that his failures be reflected upon us, just as the actions of a national representative are taken as representing the nation, and just as the acts of the body as a whole are also considered as the acts of the body's members. Furthermore, as nature was so designed that each passes itself in kind to its progeny, Adam, having become sinful, could not but pass that sinful nature to his progeny. (Ac 17:26 - God made every nation of mankind from one man. He determines their times, their epochs, and their lands.) Having brought in sin, he also brought in the death which is the result of sin. Death, in this instance, encompasses the temporal, the spiritual, and the eternal. (Ge 2:17 - Don't eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for in the day you do so, you will most certainly die.) And so, the sentence of death was passed upon all, an inescapable edict. And for those who will obey no other rule, yet the rule of death will demand their obedience in the end, it is the final enemy (1Co 15:26 - Death is the last enemy that will be abolished.)

5:13

Now, we are given to recognize that sin did not begin at the giving of the Law, for before that Law came, there were clear judgments upon the sinful. Consider Cain, Sodom, or the Flood, all of which preceded the giving of the Law. Yet, Paul tells us, sin is not noted where no law sets the limit. Thus, there must indeed have been a law in some form by which these were judged. Sin was already present, so there must have been a rule that sin broke.

5:14

That death reigned in this time only proves the more that sin existed. And in that it ruled even those who had not sinned in themselves (infants), it showed the presence of original sin, sin from conception, passed in the blood of our nature. If God is just and righteous, and yet children, who have not had so much as an opportunity to sin, are subject to death, then it follows that original sin must have accompanied their birth.

5:15

In showing the riches of Christ's love, Paul encourages the believer who has been considering his condition in the light of Adam's sin. He notes that where sin and wrath have been communicated to us from another [like a disease], it is all the more likely that grace and love will also be communicated to us from another. Clearly God, who is love, and who is righteous, would prefer to impute righteousness, rather than sin. His natural inclination is toward mercy, and punishment is the less desired work His justice requires Him to do. Also a source of encouragement is the consideration that if the effort of Adam was so strong as to impact all his posterity - him being a mere creation of flesh, the power of Christ, who is God incarnate, to save is far greater. "Surely Adam could not propagate so strong a poison but Jesus Christ could propagate as strong an antidote, and much stronger.

5:16

Our guilt was due to the singular offence of Adam, but Christ's grace abounds in that it not only eliminates the guilt of that original sin, but also that of all other offences we may commit. The comparison in this verse is between the single sin that led to condemnation, and the righteous life given to atone for all the sins of believers. (Col 2:13 - When we were dead in our sins, flesh uncircumcised, He made us alive together with Himself, having forgiven all our transgressions.)

5:17

Whereas death was given the reign over us by Adam's sin, Christ's righteousness has not only ended the reign of that tyrant, but has elevated us, like Joseph in Egypt, to a position wherein we rule as kings and priests of our God. We have not only been pardoned by saving grace, we have been elevated to a greater privilege than we had in Adam before the fall. (Rev 1:5-6 - Jesus Christ is the faithful witness, the first-born from the dead, the king of all the kings of the earth. He loves us, and released us from our sins by His blood. He has made of us a kingdom of priests unto the Father, and His is all the glory, and His is the rulership and dominion throughout eternity. Rev 5:9-10 - Thou art worthy to break the seals of the book, for You were slain to pay the price by Your blood that procured for God a people from every tribe and nation. And of them, You have made a kingdom, all of them made priests unto our God, and they will reign upon the earth.)

5:18-5:19

The resemblance of Adam and Christ is displayed. In Adam, one man disobeyed a simple and explicit command of God. His action was evil because God had forbidden it. This first disobedience opened the door for greater sins to enter. This poisonous spread of sin is the means by which his one sin had such far reaching impact, all of his posterity being made sinful by the one act. Convicted along with Adam for his sin, we are made equally culpable by that law, condemned to the same judgment, which would bury us eternally, were there no recourse. In this regard is Christ similar: His righteous obedience also passed to all of His posterity, given as a free gift. His righteousness lay in His obedience to every command of God, the precise opposite of Adam. By His complete obedience, even unto paying the cost of our own sins, He satisfied God's justice, and made our righteousness a reality. The salvation He procured is a common salvation, offered freely to all who will take of it, to all believers, given immediately upon their belief. In that act we are freed from death, and granted life. Many shall accept that offered righteousness, although they may seem few enough in the great mass of mankind. They are not only offered righteousness, but are declared righteous by act of God's law.

 

 

Adam Clarke (7/24/01-7/26/01)

5:12

The remainder of Chapter 5 argues the case that God's grace in Christ is given equally to all, both Gentile and Jew. The argument is that (1) Christ's obedience extends as far as Adam's disobedience, and (2) Adam's disobedience extends to all mankind so, (3) Christ's obedience must also extend to all mankind. Since all are descended of Adam (whether or not one wishes to include them in Abraham's line), and all will be released from bodily death at the resurrection, it is only reasonable to expect that all will be offered the same blessings that are to accompany that resurrection. Not only does God's grace extend as far as Adam's sin, but it goes much farther, encompassing also, all the sins mankind has committed since. God's grace is once more shown just, in that Christ's obedience being the vehicle of death's reversal for mankind was a fitting counterpart to Adam's sin being the vehicle by which death arrived. And again, through Christ, not only this blessed reversal, but an abundance of blessings besides. Furthermore, the Law and grace are shown in stark contrast, for it was the Law by which Adam's sin brought the condemnation of death to all mankind. But it is grace that restores life to the condemned, providing the dispensation for their sins, that obedience might be restored to them unto eternal life. Paul's argument is laid out in orderly fashion, moving from the affirmation of the death passed to us by Adam (v12-14), to the affirmation that there is a correspondence of sorts between Adam and Christ, between original sin, and the free gift of grace (v14), to the assessment that has been argued from the start of this letter - that God's grace is sufficient to reach all men, and cannot be confined to the Jews (v18-19). In the course of this, he is careful to point out that the gift of grace is far in excess of that correspondence he is showing in this argument (v15-17). So, in concluding his argument, he echoes his thoughts elsewhere (1Co 15:20-21 - Christ has been raised from death as the first fruits of those who have died. And as death came by one man, so also, resurrection came by one man.) It is left to the careful reader to recognize that the gift extends to all of mankind who will show themselves willing to accept it. Finally, to keep the point from escaping notice, he points out how the Law that brought death to Adam was promulgated into the Jewish constitution in the Mosaic Law, so as to more fully expose their offence and its proper penalty (v20). But, he also displays the full depth of grace, as being more than sufficient to repair the damages of all that sin, to restore all the sinners to righteousness (v21). Notice that from the beginning of this book, Paul has been moving his argument back in time, beginning at Christ's worldly ministry in the first 3 chapters, moving back to the time of Abraham in the fourth chapter, and now, arriving at Adam in the fifth. In each of these settings, mankind is viewed as before the court of God, an abundance of legal terms denoting the truth of the situation for man. Prior to Adam's sin, neither sin nor death were present in the world, his sin was the cause of both. The product of moral evil is natural evil. If the moral evil of sin had not occurred, neither would the natural evils that man has suffered ever since. (Ge 3:19 - Your food will come by hard labor until you return to the earth from which you were formed. For you were created from dirt, and you will return to dirt once more. Ecc 3:20 - All men return to the same dust, because they all came from the same dust.) This return was never declared until after Adam had sinned. As Adam produced children in his own image, they came with his moral image as well. Every one of us is born with the seeds of sin, and in every one of us, those seeds have produced fruit. Further, that fruit has resembled that of Adam, for his sin was in trying to be independent of God, and so is our own. "Hence, prayer is little used, because prayer is the language of dependence; and this is inconsistent with every emotion of original sin." Instead, when we are faced with our sin, we try to shift the blame elsewhere, and it is a very rare thing to find one who will candidly admit his sins.

5:13

In showing that death, the punishment of sin, was in effect throughout all the ages prior to Mosaic Law, it is shown that punishment was not for our own breaches of the Law, but for the sin of Adam, because punishment could not be given for breaking a Law that had not been given.

5:14

From this reign of death, it is clear that sin was indeed present from Adam's time to that of Moses, and that during that period there was no law present. Rather, all men were under the covenant of grace given to Adam, or that of Noah, or under the specifics of the Abrahamic covenant. Since there was no law for them to transgress, death could not have come for their own, unimputed sins. They could not sin as Adam had, for there was no rule for them to disobey. The fact that death reigned in spite of this shows that their death was a continuing consequence of Adam's sin. Adam is considered a type of Christ, for the following reasons. Firstly, both were the source by which their respective natures were spread to all mankind, Adam spreading sin, and Christ, righteousness. (v12 - through one man sin and death spread to all men. Jn 1:9 - Christ was the true light that came into the world and enlightened every man.) Secondly, all were caused to die in Adam, and all are made alive in Christ. (1Co 15:22 - As all die in Adam, so all shall be made alive in Christ. Ro 5:21 - Sin reigned in death, grace reigns in eternal life through the righteousness that came through our Lord Jesus Christ.) Finally, all the guilt of mankind came through Adam, and all the justification of life comes through Christ. (v18 - One sin led to the condemnation of all. One righteous life of obedience led to the justification of all.)

5:15

Having spoke of the typical similarities, Paul is quick to notice the divergences of type and real, so as not to allow misleading conclusions to be drawn. Thus, he shows that Christ's gift of grace is far in excess of the deadly burden of sin that was in Adam's type. That grace more than covers the extent of Adam's sin, reaching farther, and so exceeding the ability of the type to be typical. In the grace of God, which is being contrasted to Adam's offence, we should recognize not only the immediate grace of salvation, but also that grace which is added to it, so encompassing the whole of God's gracious gift to man. That grace was given immediately upon Adam's failure (Ge 3:15 - I will make enemies of the sons of evil, and the son of woman, who will bruise your head.) While Paul's conclusions in v18-19 restrict themselves to the comparison at hand, it seems from the context of v15-17 that we are intended to recognize the full extent of grace in that conclusion. It seems that those specified by 'the many' in reference to Adam must be the same as those so specified in reference to Christ, and if that be taken to mean all of mankind in the former case, it cannot be restricted to some in the latter case. Had Paul intended to promulgate a doctrine of particular election in this passage, surely it would be worded much differently. (1Co 15:22 - All die in Adam, all will be made alive in Christ.) Christ died for all men, and the free offer of salvation is given to every soul, His light is shone into every heart (Jn 1:9 - True light came and enlightened every man.) All can receive it, all can act upon that received grace, and so be eternally saved. And (v17 - all that do so receive and act upon that grace will reign in life through Christ.) Yet, with this in view - that it is possible that all men be saved, it remains possible for Christ to point out that many will not come to Him, and find life. The two things are not necessary opposites.

5:16

The judgment against Adam was for his particular sin, and led to condemnation. By contrast, Christ's free gift was a response of God to the many sins that men had personally committed in their lives, and His judgment in this led to their justification and eternal life.

5:17

Death is represented as reigning over humanity, and the proof is seen in his destruction of his subjects. But those who receive of Christ's grace, and dwell in it, will be redeemed from that tyrant to the very throne room of God, to live and reign with Him forever. (Rev 1:5-6 - Christ is the first born of the dead, and ruler of all earthly kings. He released us from our sins by His blood, and made of us a kingdom of priests unto God. Glory and dominion are His forever. Rev 2:7 - I will allow the one who overcomes to eat of the tree of life. Rev 2:10 - Be faithful amidst the current tribulations, and I will give you life. If you overcome, you will not be harmed by the second death. Rev 3:21 - To the overcomer, I will grant that he sit with Me on My throne, just as I overcame and sat with My Father on His.) The gift of grace noted in v15 is clearly that same abundant gift of righteousness and justification noted here. That abounding grace, however, must be received by those who would reign in life, that reign being impossible without having received grace. And that receiving must be understood as implying belief in Christ having died for our sins, as welcoming the grace He offers, as building upon that grace, and as producing the fruits of the Spirit. (Mt 13:20 - The rocky soil represents the one who hears, and receives what is heard with joy. Jn 1:12 - To all who received Him, who believe in His name, He gave the right to be children of God. Jn 3:11 - We bear witness of things we have seen, but you refuse to receive our testimony. Jn 3:32-33 - He bears witness to what He has seen and heard, but no man receives that testimony. The one who does receive it, in doing so testifies that God is true. Jn 5:43 - You refuse to receive Me, when I come in the name of My Father, but when somebody comes in no name but their own, you gladly receive them. Jn 12:48 - He who rejects Me, and won't receive My words, has One who judges him. Jn 13:20 - Those who receive those I send, receive Me; and, if they receive Me, they receive Him who sent Me. Jn 14:17 - The world cannot receive the Spirit of truth, for it cannot comprehend Him. Jn 17:8 - They received the words You gave Me, which I in turn gave them. They understood that I was come from You, and believed that You sent me.) Note that in all these cases, there is belief and welcoming either implied or explicit in the receiving.

5:18-5:19

A natural and unbiased reading of this verse must find in it the declaration that all will have their salvation in Christ's righteousness, just as all had their condemnation in Adam's sin. God's justice had its due in the universal condemnation of mankind. His mercy must also have its due, and for these two attributes to be in balance, that due must also include all of mankind in the life it brings. Three different words are used in this and prior verses to speak of righteousness or justification: dikaiooma, dikaiosunee, and dikaioosis. The first of these generally indicates the sentence of a judge in classical literature. However, in Scripture, it often has the sense of God's laws or commands, (Lk 1:6 - They were righteous in God's sight, walking in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.) Here (v16), however, it is contrasted with condemnation, and so, clearly takes on the significance of absolution. For the second, seen in v17, refer to section ID in the notes from this same commentary. The third of these words, here translated as justification, had the classical meaning of condemnatory punishment, but in the two occurrences found in the Gospel, it clearly indicates pardon and forgiveness. (Ro 4:25 - He was delivered to judgment for our sins, and raised from death for our justification.) The distinctions between these words lie as follows. The second word is indicative of the pardon and salvation found in the Gospel, whereas the first indicates the state brought about by that pardon; of our life restored to sanctity and delivered from death. The last of these terms refers to the fact of our restoration to eternal life. Thus, a progression is seen from His pardon of our sin, to the purification of our hearts, to our preparation for the glory of eternal life in His presence. It should be noted that when Paul speaks of forgiveness of sins, he always includes faith as a necessary condition, but when he comes to justification of life, no such condition is mentioned.

 

 

Barnes' Notes (7/26/01-7/29/01)

5:12

This section of Scripture has been seen as the most difficult portion of the New Testament, but much of the difficulty lies in those doctrines that commentators and theologians have brought with them into the study of it, rather than in the text itself. "A strenuous and indefatigable effort" had been made by some "to prove that it teaches what it was never designed to teach." In plain fact, Paul is here simply laying out for display one of the great benefits of justification by faith. Already, in the opening of this chapter, he has shown the peace, the joy, and the perseverance that this justification brings to the faithful believer (v1-5). He has shown us conclusively the certainty of our salvation, knowing that Christ, in dying for us, had already done the harder work of changing enemy to friend, and was certain to save those now His friends (v6-10). Finally, he has displayed the fact that this justification has brought us to the place wherein we rejoice in God Himself, His presence with us, and all His attributes [even the scary ones] (v11). Now, he moves on to demonstrate the super-efficacy of Christ's atonement in accounting for all the sin that had come into the world since Adam, removing these evils, and continuing far beyond that removal in the application of His grace. Outlining this argument, we see (1) that sin came by one man, bringing death with it; (2) that this death came upon all, whether or no they had any revelation of God's commands; (3) that there is some degree of analogy between Adam's life and impact, and the life of Christ, and His impact, primarily in the extent of that impact upon all people; (4) that the analogy is not complete, there being important differences between the two such as (a) the opposing tendencies of their work - condemnation vs. justification, (b) the difference in cause - one offence vs. many, (c) degree of effect - Christ's work "overflowing in its influence," more than compensating for the evils of the fall. Finally, he shows that Christ's work was particularly suited to overcome the condemnation caused by Adam, to deliver and restore to God's favor a fallen humanity. In this, it is evident that His work was from the benevolence of God, and perfectly adapted to the human condition. There is a rather lengthy footnote here, laying out the argument for imputed [or original?] sin, which I'm not going to go into at this point, since other commentators will cover that position quite nicely. The 'therefore' that opens this verse ought better to be understood as a "furthermore," in that it continues the listing of the benefits to be had in the gospel plan of justification. Recognizing that this is not the standard understanding, Barnes offers the fact that "the passage is elliptical, and there is a necessity of supplying something to make out the sense." The comparison begun in this verse is not completed until v18, the intervening verses being a parenthetical comment both explaining the comparison, and showing the differences between the type and the typified. The known fact of the universal nature of sin is brought in without attempts at explaining the cause, because Paul's purpose here is not to explain some doctrinal position with regard to sin, but to display and explain the greatness of Christ's work in meeting the need created by this known evil. (Ge 3:6-7 - The woman, seeing the fruit to be desirable as food, took and ate, giving her husband also some, which he ate. Having eaten, they both became aware of their nakedness, and made coverings from the fig leaves to wear.) We cannot forget at this point that Paul is not attempting to defend a particular theory as to sin's introduction, but only putting forth the plan of justification as meeting and overcoming these well known universal evils. Christianity no more introduced sin, nor is responsible for its existence than modern medical science introduced or is responsible for disease. Were Christianity proven false, yet the problem of sin would remain. While Scripture is clear on the fact that Eve was actually the first to break God's command in eating the fruit, Adam is mentioned here. (1Ti 2:14 - Adam was not deceived, but Eve first fell into sin.) Since Paul is not specifically addressing the topic, he refers to the case in its popularly understood form. Why is Adam spoken of as the responsible one? He speaks of the man, as is a standard mode of reference to the whole of humanity, or a general member thereof. Furthermore, God applied the name "Adam" to the pair, male and female (Ge 5:1-2), and so, the reference here might be taken as to the 'united parentage' of humanity. Or, as the man is generally spoken of first, being the authority in a couple, he may so refer to Adam here. Also, since the other half of the comparison is to the man, Jesus Christ, it fits the comparison best to refer to the man, Adam. Eve's sin was not complete until Adam concurred. "It was their uniting in it which was the cause of the evil" [?!?!?] Footnote: defends the idea of initial covenant with Adam (Ge 2:17 - On the day you eat from that tree, you will surely die), noting that Adam was not empowered to do anything but agree to this covenant. The implicit promise of that contract for Adam was life, and the penalty he paid for breaking this covenant was the loss of that promised good. Clearly, there was a covenant, for Scripture speaks of those who broke covenant with God, as Adam had done (Hos 6:7), and compares that covenant with the new covenant of grace [listing Gal 4:24, but that refers to Moses, not Adam: (Gal 4:24-26 - Hagar and Sarah represent two covenants, the one from Mount Sinai, born into slavery, but the other represents the freedom of the Jerusalem above.]) Adam was the first sinner of the race, and since the discussion here does not require bringing in another order of beings, Satan is not discussed in relation to this first sin. Only, Adam is brought out as the first sinner, and death as the consequence of his actions. By this, sin is noted as coming into the world, as coming to mankind. There is no discussion here of original sin, only of the known fact that this is the way sin and death were introduced into mankind. The threat made in Ge 2:17 is seen concluded in (Ge 3:19 - You will eat by the sweat of labor until you return to the dust you were taken from.) Nothing in the Scriptural record suggests Adam had a highly developed understanding of law and penalty. Far more likely is it that he simply understood God at His word. Nothing in the wording of the account suggests that Adam had reason to understand of this threat an eternal or spiritual death. This concept has been carried into the reading by those with prior doctrine to carry in with them. It is shocking that they would consider Adam to have had a clearer understanding of such things than did the world thousands of years hence, when God's own Son had to come to explain such things to us. Footnote: By equal assessment, Scripture gives no ground for us to assume Adam a less able man than ourselves in his innocence, for he was (Ge 1:27 - created in the image of God. Col 3:10 - as we have put on a new self that is being renewed to a true knowledge in accord with the image of our Creator, Eph 4:24 - which, being in God's likeness, has been created in righteousness and holiness of truth.) No basis can be found in this for thinking Adam's knowledge less than our own. More likely that his knowledge was far superior. It is not required that a violator know the full extent and repercussions of his actions to make the law just. Adam need not have known more than that physical death would result from his violation. What is the sense in which Paul speaks of death here? It is clearly held up in opposition to justification, eternal life, and the gift of grace. Given that these refer to more than temporal life, it must be that in death, Paul looks at more than temporal death, but speaks to the greater issue of sin's impact. Paul, being under divine inspiration, may well have better recognized the full impact of Adam's sin than Adam did in committing it. In the same way that death came to Adam due to his sin, it has happened to all men due to their own sins. Death has thus spread to the whole race. Some read the concluding statement as "in Adam all have sinned," others, as here, take it as "all sinned." An argument for the latter form is given based on wording, and on its better concord with the context, which is to declare the cause of death in the world. Sin requires the transgression of a Law by a moral agent. Thus, the declaration that all have sinned explains why all have suffered penalty. Claiming that all sinned in Adam would have done nothing to explain why they were penalized without further explanation. There is no basis here to support the idea of imputed sin, or the sinfulness of infants. He merely argues from the fact that death was the penalty for sin, and all die, that all must therefore have sinned in and of themselves. Footnote: lengthy defense of doctrine of original sin. It hinges on the understanding of 'and so.' This is taken by the Reformed theologians as indicating 'because of,' or 'in consequence of.' By contrast, the Baptist position put forth by Barnes takes its meaning as 'in like manner.' To make that supposition on this side of the comparison would require that we make the same supposition on the other; that as Christ has first been able to live righteous, so others also are able, which ultimately destroys the whole Gospel message. Furthermore, the case of infant death decries the possibility that the closing clause of this verse is to be understood of each man's personal sins, for infants have not the opportunity to sin. Finally, to argue that the cause lies solely in personal sin would obviate Paul's whole argument here, for why bring Adam up as a cause, if the cause is then laid upon each individual? The design is lost.

5:13

In discussing the period between Adam and Moses, Paul addresses another of the three periods of mankind prior to Christ. The first was Adam, who, along with the situation of his own sin were discussed in the previous verse. The second period is that during which only natural law could act as guide to man. The purpose is to show that Christ's death met all the ills incumbent in Adam's sin, and in those of man left without revelation. The third period was that period during which man had the revelation of the Law, and in that period, too, sin reigned. But again, the gospel of Christ suffices to remove the impact of those sins. With and without the Law, sin was in the world, as people did evil. Since people cannot be guilty of a breach of law where no law exists, and since even in this pre-Law period, people were punished by death, it is clear that some form of law must have been present. Having pointed out in Ro 4:15 that there could be no transgression where there was no law, Paul here closes the loophole, pointing out that all were sinners, and so, we can infer, there must have been a law to transgress.

5:14

In spite of sin not being reckoned without law, people died before the Law. Inasmuch as death comes to whom and at such time as it pleases, and is inescapable, it is said to reign. That reign would be eternal without the gospel's intervention. Here, Paul is looking at the 2500 year period between the one law Adam had, and the Mosaic Law. Seeing that all died during this period, the conclusion is drawn that all must have sinned. Thus, even in an economy or dispensation that had no revealed law, death's punishment showed sin to be present. They had not sinned in the manner of Adam because they had nothing more than natural law to guide them, where Adam had revealed law. Four arguments are made against the idea of imputed sin: first, that it is an unintelligible idea; second, that Paul does not attempt to convey such a thought; third, that his intent here is to show that all sinned, due to their transgressions of law, as proved by their punishment of death; and finally, the record of history is against the idea that sin was not punished for the entirety of that 2500 year period. Since Augustine, many have looked at this verse as specifically addressing the subject of infants, but it is a forced reading. The natural view of this is that Adam had sinned in breaking a revealed law, whereas those who followed had broken a law known only by nature or tradition. Against the idea of infants being born in sin is offered: that they are not specifically mentioned, nor are they alluded to here; that it fails to fit the context of the argument, given that it was not only infants who died in this period, and that his argument stands without attempts to include infant mortality into the equation. If death proves sinfulness, would not the death of infants prove their sinfulness? That inference is not affirmed by Paul here, and even if infants were being referred to in this passage, it would do nothing to prove more than that they had sinned in themselves. Returning to the argument: the wording of this verse is opposed to the idea that infants were intended, indeed in earlier times, the idea of imputed sin was based on Adam's federal headship, and thus were all made guilty, but that position has largely been abandoned, even amongst Calvinists; finally, even in that group, most interpreters take the same view of this passage, that it refers to all who died in that period (in which group Calvin includes infants, but also looks at this as speaking about those who had only the natural law of conscience to guide their actions.) Footnote: The argument in defense of infant reference: Paul has been arguing that death spread to all from one man. To prove this, he has shown that even before the Law, death had ruled over all men. Here, to ensure that we don't return to laying the blame solely at each man's feet for their own sins, he gives the example of babes, who could not yet have sinned of their own accord, and so, the cause of their sinfulness is forced to refer back to Adam. Furthermore, the 'even' that introduces this clause would seem to indicate a group of people distinct from the general group of men between Adam and Moses, for of that group, none had sinned as Adam had - in breaking a revealed law - so to cull out a subgroup of those who hadn't sinned as Adam had would be to cull the whole group into the whole group, a meaningless exercise unworthy of the rhetorician. In point of fact, to take the 'likeness of Adam's sin' to indicate personal transgression presents a more complete similitude than to take it as equating natural law to revealed, and, since Paul gives no further specific, either inference can be justified by the phrase. The argument that infants are not specified is begging the question, and therefor invalid. So, also, the arguments that his own phrasing of the position is unintelligible says only that his phrasing is bad. And the arguments that only infants died, or that none died for their own sins in that period are both strawman arguments, positions held by no man. The word tupos (type) occurs sixteen times in the New Testament, with the following meanings. It can indicate an impression made by hammering (Jn 20:25 - Thomas said he wouldn't believe he'd seen the Lord, unless he saw the imprint of the nails, and touched the wounds.) It can indicate a model or pattern, or iconic image (Ac 7:43-44 - You brought with you items of Moloch and Rompha, images that you made for worshiping them, for which you were taken by Babylon. Our fathers also had the tabernacle in the wilderness, which God spoke to Moses in regard to, giving him the pattern to build it to. Heb 8:5 - Moses was warned to ensure that he made everything in accord with the pattern given him on the mountain.) It can indicate a summary (Ac 23:25 - Claudius wrote a letter in this form.) It can be a law or doctrine (Ro 6:17 - Although you were slaves to sin, you became obedient to the form of teaching you were committed to.) Finally, it can indicate a role model we are to imitate (Php 3:17 - Follow my example, and look to those who walk according to that pattern you see in us. 1Th 1:7 - You became an example to all believers. 2Th 3:9 - We offer ourselves as a model for you to follow. 1Ti 4:12 - Don't allow others to discount your young age, but in all your words and conduct show yourself an example for believers. Ti 2:7 - Show yourself an example of good deeds, sound doctrine, and dignity in all things. 1Pe 5:3 - Don't lord yourself over your flock, but serve as an example to them. 1Co 1:6 - These things happened as an example, so that we would not crave the evils that they did. 1Co 10:11 - They are written as examples for us who are at the end of the age.) The comparison is not here made between the person of Adam and that of Christ, but between the result of Adam's conduct and the results of Christ's work. The comparison lies both in contrast and in resemblance, of which Paul first pursues the contrasts, namely that one's crime caused death to many, but the other's work brought grace to many; that Adam's offense brought many woes, whereas Christ's work brought remission of offense; that one brought the reign of death, but the other, life. As to the resemblance, it lies in that both had an impact on the many by their singular acts. A similar comparison is made in 1Corinthians (15:22 - As all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. 15:45 - The first Adam became a living soul, but the last Adam a life-giving spirit.) Here, the issue is that Adam was the head of the race, and in his fall, he made it certain that we would all enter life depraved, and subject to the death penalty. We "would be treated as if fallen." Having shown the universal impact of sin, Paul now begins the display of Christ's salvation as able to overcome that great fountain of evil. [This seems to state the position he just finished defying. Hmm.]

5:15

The word offence means to fall or stumble over an obstacle (Mt 6:14-15 - If you forgive men their offences, the Father will also forgive you. If you refuse your forgiveness, He also will refuse His. Mt 18:35 - My Father will treat you in the same fashion, if you refuse to honestly forgive your brother.) The term is used in Adam's case to describe the way in which he fell from his elevated state of obedience and happiness into the condemned state brought on by his sin. Christ's gift to us differs greatly from this sin of Adam's. It is a favor to us, where Adam's sin became a burden to us. The evils that came of Adam's sin are by this point obvious to all, so Paul doesn't dwell on them longer. Rather, he works to show that the benefits that came of Christ's gift are more than sufficient as an antidote for those evils. The means by which Adam's fall spread is not stated here, nor is it at issue. The point is simply that it occurred, it was a certain fact, however it may have come to be. Imputation cannot be argued from this passage because: it is not stated; that doctrine is an effort to explain the means, which Paul doesn't see fit to discuss; the doctrine introduces more problems, in laying our punishment at the feet of Adam's sin, and then working to make such a thing appear just. Calvin is sited as concurring with this in stating that we don't perish as though we were innocent, but our doom is ascribed to Adam because his sin caused our sin. Footnote: notes that this statement from Calvin is removed from a context both immediate and more general, that would clarify that the sin he sees us dying for is that with which we are born. Too many phrases in this section of Scripture refer things back to the one man, the one offence, to claim that imputed sin is not supported therein. By his very act of declaring similitude between Christ's work and Adam's sin, the inference of imputed sin is clear. In the same manner as our righteousness comes from Christ, we are told, our condemnation came from Adam. If imputed in one case, then clearly, also in the other. While declaring that Paul states no manner, Barnes insists that his own interpretation of the manner is supported, and refuses attempts to support the manner of imputation by saying that Paul doesn't declare the manner. In these comparisons, many clearly means all, the word being used as the more appropriate counterpart to the one. That all are ruled by death is unopposable fact. Grace abounded much more, which is as it ought to be for a wise and merciful God. If He allowed so much ill to come of Adam's sin, it is right and fitting that much more good ought to come from His Son's righteousness. That His grace should be greater than the evil of man is as would be expected in His nature. In contrast to Adam, we are shown Christ, the One appointed by grace to bestow the favor of salvation upon mankind in abundance, that salvation being more than enough to counter all the sins that have occurred since Adam. It seems unreasonable to attempt to make the many of Adam's impact include all men, and then limit the many of Christ's impact. How is His grace greater, if the many it impacts is a far smaller portion of mankind? Yet, if the many is again all, how is it that not all have been saved? Obviously, Christ's work has not benefited the same extent of mankind as Adam's sin, since indeed many still suffer and die in their sins. Inasmuch as it can be reasonably believed that the dying infant is indeed changed and prepared for heaven by the work of Christ, having had no opportunity to sin, it could be said that Christ's work was of equal impact for that group. And as to those who survive to the age of moral accountability, His work offers them a chance for pardon as well. Also, since Messiah's atonement held back the immediate execution of the Law's penalty, there is in that a blessing that extends to all mankind. He died for all nations (Heb 2:9 - He was made temporarily lower than the angels, tasting death by God's grace, that His suffering might benefit everyone. 2Co 5:14-15 - His love controls us, knowing that one died, and therefore we all died; and that He died for all, that all should live, and in living, live for Him who rose again on their behalf. 1Jn 2:2 - He is the propitiation not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world.) His offer of salvation is universal, and so as extensive as the fall (Rev 22:17 - The Spirit and the bride say "come." Let the hearer say "come," as well. Let the thirsty come and let him who wishes drink of the water of life at no cost. Jn 7:37 - If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. Mt 11:28-29 - All who are tired and burdened, come to Me, and I will give you rest. Mk 16:15 - Go and preach to the whole creation.) It seems entirely likely that of the whole of the human race, more will be saved than not. Thus, as with a vaccination, though many may die before the vaccine is available, and many more because they don't obtain it, yet the vaccine is a universal success in countering the disease it stops. Footnote: That the two cases cannot both be taken as universal is seen in the benefits that are spoken of in the case of Christ's many, for they are declared righteous, and reigning in life, which clearly is not true of all mankind. It ought to be clear that the many and the all, in reference to Christ, are applied only to the whole number of those who are represented by Him. If the benefit is extended to all, it must be in the nature of those limited benefits Barnes has noted, which fall short of salvation. But if that be accepted, the evils of the fall must pass in limited fashion as well. However, Paul declares a very real death as the evil passed along. Further, Barnes is inconsistent in interpreting this section, as he attributes the many to all mankind, but later limits the all of v17 to the redeemed.

5:16

A second difference is brought out. Before, it was noted that the tendency of the effect differed; the one tending to evil, the other to good. Here, the contrast is in the source. In Adam, a single crime led to all the consequent evil, by whatever means. In Christ, many crimes led to His work and its consequent blessings. By one act of sin, all were subjected to death by the judgment of God (Ge 2:17 - On the day you eat from that tree you will die. Ge 3:17-19 - Because you did, the ground will be cursed, requiring great effort from you to gain your food. Weeds will plague you as you take from the plants to make your bread in great labor until the day you die, returning to the dirt you were made from.) This judgment has led to universal condemnation, although Paul is silent as to how this came to be, pointing only to the evident impact. In that Christ's unmerited favor came in response to a great number of sins, we see that grace abounds more than that condemnation that came of one act. Seeing as grace requires some act on the part of the believer to become effective in his life, is it not reasonable to say that condemnation also required some act on the part of the sinner? It is unclear from this passage, for Paul does no more to speak of the methods by which salvation comes than he did to condemnation's spread. Nor are we required to assume an absolute correlation, given that the verse is expositing upon the contrasts between the two actions.

5:17

This verse rather summarizes the last several verses. If His administration has allowed death such great dominion because of one man's offence, we can expect that those who participate in His plan of salvation will be certainly kept in a dispensation of life. Indeed, this latter outcome should be expected even more than the former, since God is good. Here, we view the redeemed, in whom the evils that come as a consequence of Adam's sin are more than overcome by the mercies extended in the work of Christ. Where Adam introduced the burden of evil and condemnation, Christ has offered the gift of righteousness and justification. The reign we are told we will have consists in being brought to a glorious happiness in heaven, being triumphant over our enemies in ultimate victory, and joining our Captain in the splendors of His heavenly rule. (2Ti 2:12a - If we endure, we will reign with Him. Rev 5:10 - You have made them a kingdom of priests to our God, and they will reign on earth. Rev 20:6 - Those who are part of the first resurrection are blessed, and the second death can not touch them. They will be priests of God, and will reign with Christ a thousand years. Rev 22:5 - Night will be no more, and lamps and sunlight will pass as unneeded, for God will illuminate them, and they will reign forever. Rev 3:21 - To the overcomer, I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I overcame and sat with My Father. Lk 22:30 - You may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and will sit in judgment over the tribes of Israel.) Life is given as opposed to death, complete freedom from condemnation and its attendant pains. (Jn 3:36 - He who believes the Son has eternal life.) Again, the means by which Christ accomplishes this are not discussed here, but only the consequences, which are in view in this comparison. In consequence, there is a similarity between Adam's act and that of Christ, but the similarity is by no means complete.

5:18

Here, we pick up at the point of departure back in v12, summing up the whole argument thus far. It is apparent fact that the condemning judgment of death has come upon all men by the act of the one first Adam. In the same way, (as one to all), the holy, obedient purity of the one Redeemer has brought justification and salvation upon all mankind. (Php 2:8 - Even being as a man, He was obedient even to the point of dying on a cross.) "There was an original applicability in the work of Christ to all people - a richness, a fullness of atonement suited to meet the sins of the entire world, and restore the race to favor." It is stated that Christ's work was sufficient to the universal need. It is not stated that it will necessarily extend that far, only that it is able to. "It is suited to meet all the consequences of the fall…This is all the argument requires." Note that it is not said that all will be saved, only that God's plan in Christ is suited to meet all the evils of the fall. As the sun is able to give light to all, yet some see it not, due to blindness or willful closing of the eyes, so Christ's work is able to save all, yet some receive it not, due to blindness or willful closing of the heart.

5:19

To prevent charges that men were condemned who were without guilt, Paul points out that all were indeed sinners of their own accord. This sin of ours, we are told, is a result of Adam's sin, but how this is so, we are not told. 'To be made' generally takes on one of two meanings in Scripture: either to appoint to office (Mt 24:45, Lk 12:42 - Who is the faithful slave that his master put in charge over his house? Mt 24:47 - He will put him in charge of all he owns.), or to become in fact (Jas 3:6 - The tongue is a very world of sin set in our body, and defiling the entire body by its actions. Jas 4:4 - Friendship with the world is hostility toward God.) Nowhere is this phrase found to mean imputed. To assume imputation here, would require it on both sides of the equation, both in the condemned sin, and in the saved righteousness, but that would make a doctrine of universal salvation necessary, which is unacceptable. Footnote: It seems clear enough that we are made righteous by Christ's obedience, without any obedience of our own. How, then, is it improper to understand this as saying we were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam, without any disobedience of our own? Barnes is inconsistent in that in some places he denies the analogy of the two cases, and in others, insists upon it. All are sinners, deserving of punishment by their own acts. "In the divine administration none are regarded as guilty who are not guilty; none are condemned who do not deserve to be condemned." Christ's obedience is held up in opposition to Adam's disobedience, and in that, the whole of Christ's work for the salvation of people is in view. The many here must mean the same as the many in the first clause. [And yet, he immediately follows with] The explanations of the means of salvation (Ro 1:17 - The just shall live by faith. Ro 3:24-26 - We are justified as a gift of grace through Jesus Christ, who was a public propitiation by faith. In this, God displays His righteousness in passing over our sins, so that He might be just and justifier at one and the same time, in saving those who have faith in Jesus. Ro 4:1-5 - Abraham believed, and that was considered righteousness in him. Were it by works, then justification would be payment, not gift, but to those who do not hold to works, but rather believe in Him who justifies, faith is reckoned [imputed?] as righteousness.) must be seen as limiting the scope of 'the many' here. A summary of the doctrines found in this passage: (1) Adam was created holy, able to obey but free to fail. (2) He was given a simple command to obey, as a most favorable trial of human nature. (3) Violating that single command would expose him to the stated penalty (death), and all such woes as might follow upon that, which included the loss of God's favor, sickness, death, depravity, and eternal pains of hell. (4) Adam, as head of the race, was on trial not just for himself, but for all posterity. To refer to this as a covenant is to be avoided, as the term has implied significance that does not apply, and that term is not used here. Rather, it ought to be spoken of as a law. (5) All are subjected to the ills of Adam's act just as if they had personally committed the act. Since God does not judge falsely, where he declares guilt, there is guilt. This is the imputation that Scripture supports, an imputation of guilt, rather than of sin. (6) In some fashion, not here specified, it is certain that all Adam's posterity will sin as soon as they begin to act as moral agents. Yet, this will be a voluntary act, and not some physical necessity. This is original sin, as taught by the apostle. (7) Since an infant comes to life with that same certainty of sin as soon as it becomes able to choose it, a change is necessary before it reach eternity, else it would sin there. Thus the blood of atonement, and the ministry of the Holy Spirit are necessary here, as well, that the infant may be saved. (8) The foregoing accord with the analogy of society, wherein the evils of one will often involve whole families or societies in ruin. (9) This analogy removes all objections against the effects of Adam's sin. (10) Doctrine should follow Scripture in stopping short of attempts to explain the how. The facts have been presented, and not the means. Thus should doctrine be, also. It were possible to have created man such that his actions for good or evil affected only himself, but then all the attendant blessings of family and community would have been unknowable, and each man left in total solitude. God has ordained it otherwise, making of us families, tribes, and nations, in which lie many of the great blessings of this life. While it is possible to abuse these groupings, and so produce great misery, it is also quite possible to work by these groupings to promote a greater peace, friendship, and prosperity. It is this selfsame structure of organization that has brought the fall of man through Adam. But, it is also this structure that has brought our salvation through Christ.

 

 

Wycliffe (7/30/01)

5:12

Sin and death are spoken of as having begun at a real, historical point in time, and death as having spread to all mankind. That spread was not necessarily in response to individual sins, although, beyond the case of infant death, all did sin individually. Rather, the focus is on "the sin of the all …focused in that of the one man Adam." (emphasis theirs). In this, Paul takes the Hebrew view of family solidarity to a universal application. Examples of this Hebraic view can be found in (Josh 7:16-26 - Joshua determined that Achan was the one who had taken spoil from Ai, to which Achan confessed. In spite of confession, came punishment, and that punishment took not only Achan's life, but that of all his children, and all his livestock, as well as the destruction of all his other goods.) and in (Ge 14:18-20 - Melchizedek, priest of God Most High, blessed Abram, and glorified Him for the victory Abram had had. Abram, in response, gave a tenth of his possession to Melchizedek. Heb 7:9-10 - After a fashion, Levi, through Abraham, paid tithes, being in his father when his father paid tithes to Melchizedek.) As with Levi and Abraham, so with all mankind and Adam.

5:13

Sin could not be charged to those who had no law, yet sin remained in the world between the time of Adam's one law, and the more complete law of Moses. Lacking such laws, sin could not be charged to them as it had to Adam.

5:14

Yet, we know men died in this period, and so were charged with sin. For cause, Paul looks with the view of racial solidarity to the source of the race, to Adam, and finds in him the cause for all men. It is not said that no commands were given by God for this entire period, only that in their absence, the overriding case of Adam's sin yet caused a reckoning of sin against every man. (Ge 26:5 - Abraham obeyed Me, keeping my commands, statutes, and laws.)

5:15

Adam and Christ are contrasted. From Adam, death came to all mankind. The gift of God in Christ, which is righteousness, came to the same 'many,' and therefore, also must be understood as coming to all mankind.

5:16

From Adam's one transgression came God's verdict of condemnation to the full punishment required by His law. But, from the innumerable sins that occurred after that time, came His action in providing the gift of His Son, and thereby bringing our acquittal before His bench to our justification.

5:17

Because of Adam's act of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Ge 2:17), death came to reign over all mankind. Man's obedience to God was tested and found wanting. As man's decision was required in the fall, so it is required in the recovery. The gift of righteousness is offered to all, but man must act in receiving that gift in faith. (Ro 1:17 - In the Gospel, God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith. Ro 3:21-22 - God's righteousness is now made apparent without reference to the Law, yet witnessed by that Law and by the Prophets. That righteousness is for all who believe, through faith in Jesus Christ, without distinction. Ro 3:26 - He demonstrates His righteousness now, so as to be the just justifier of him whose faith is in Jesus. Ro 5:21 - As sin reigned in death, so grace reigns in righteousness through Christ our Lord, leading to eternal life. Ro 9:30 - Even though they weren't seeking righteousness, they came to righteousness by faith. Ro 10:3 - Since they didn't understand God's righteousness, they sought to make their own standards of righteousness, and refused His standard.) The only reason the gift offered to all is not universally effective, is because men have largely refused the gift.

5:18

In one transgression, the verdict of the death sentence came to all men. In like manner, in one obedient action (Christ's death and resurrection), the gift of acquittal and life came to all men. Clearly, "the effect of Christ's righteous deed extends just as far as the effect of Adam's transgression."

5:19

The legal language of the last verse is carried forward to this verse in the phrases 'were made,' and 'will be made,' which express a legal appointing or establishing. So, in Adam, the court's decision established all of us as sinners worthy of death. In Christ, the court has decided in our favor, establishing us as justified. It is a future action, in that it extends to future generations. [Why not, then, Adam's verdict, which also extends to future generations?] Again, the scope of 'the many' is the same in both cases, describing God's view of man through the realized effect of Adam's disobedience, and the potential effect of Christ's obedience. He does not declare that all men will be saved, only that Christ's obedience covers all who were affected by Adam's disobedience.

 

 

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown (7/30/01-8/1/01)

5:12

Being as this section has generated so much theological discussion, it will need detailed viewing. Before going into details, though, a look at the terms used to express Adam's fall, and Christ's victory. In the case of Adam, the words 'the sin' [hamartia (266)], 'the transgression' [parabasis (3847)], 'the offence' [paraptooma (3900)], and 'the disobedience' [parakoee (3876)]. The first of these refers to missing the mark, or deviating from right. As the most general and comprehensive term of the collection, it is both the opening and closing charge in this section. The second term speaks of going beyond the proper place. The third speaks of falling to the side. The last word is obvious in its meaning, and most clearly brings to light the obedient nature of Christ's actions. In His case, three terms are used: 'the free gift' or 'gift of grace' [charisma (5486)], 'the gift' [hee doorea (3588)(1431)], and 'the gift' [to dooreema (3588)(1434)]. These are pretty much self explanatory, pointing up the gratuitous nature of redemption in Christ. What comes in this section is built upon the whole of the preceding argument. Sin is not used in reference to some principle of sin, nor does it refer to actual sin, in this case, for neither the principle itself, nor the actual individual sins of each man brought death to mankind, but only the first sin can claim this result. So, it is not that sin, itself, that enters the world, but the legal guilt that is associated with it. The punishment of death came upon all, because in that first sin, all sinned. It must be clear to the reader that, if that sin is spoken of by which death entered, it must be Adam's first sin, and if it is his first sin that is noted, it cannot be our own personal sins that are in view here, it must hold that in some sense, we are all reckoned as having sinned in Adam's first sin. If we accept the Fall at all, and we cannot but accept that all die, experiencing the punishment that is sin's due, then we must either accept that there is absolutely no moral government over life, or else accept that there is a moral connection between us and Adam. That the arrangement made for our salvation is built upon a similar moral connection to the Second Adam confirms and illuminates this truth all the more. Many views have developed as to the significance of 'as' in the opening of this verse ("just as through one man"), of which, a brief canvas. It seems like the beginning of a comparison, but then, where is the other part? Some find no other part, and so take this more as a similitude: It is like the case by which sin entered. But this makes Adam the primary topic, whereas the context shows him to be an introductory to the proper view of Christ. Others seek the closing of the comparison in this same verse, but this seems to require bad translation, changing the 'and' of 'and death' to 'so,' or else changing 'and so death spread' to 'even so.' Apart from being poor translations, these put the contrast between Adam and the rest of mankind, where clearly the comparison is drawn between Adam and Christ. Others think that Paul may have been caught up in greater thoughts and so neglected the logical completion of the comparison, closing it only in substance, perhaps in v15. However, the majority find the closing of the comparison in v18-19, where there is a full closing of the equation. In substance, none of the views that accept a comparison differ greatly. All are equally clear that the view is to the introduction and magnification of Christ, which introduction is made in one fashion or another in every verse from v15 to the end of the section.

5:13

A few among the fathers took this as until the Law's cessation, but that doesn't make a great deal of sense, especially with the clarification of v14's 'from Adam to Moses.' Again, it is that first sin which is held in view in this verse, and not a principle of sinfulness, nor personal sins. What is stated here, is echoed elsewhere in Scripture (Ro 4:15 - Where there is no law, there is no violation of law. 1Jn 3:4 - Sin is lawlessness [breaking the law]). This is no reference to man's feeling his sinfulness, but simply points out the fact that God's treatment of mankind in this period clearly shows that some law had to have been violated.

5:14

And yet, in spite of what appeared to be an absence of law, death came to all. Is this a reference to infant mortality? It seems unlikely, since it singles out a subset of those 'from Adam to Moses,' which subset also exists in those 'since Moses.' It serves no purpose in the argument Paul is making to so single out such a group. It makes less sense to single them out as somehow peculiar to that period. Rather, it seems clear that he is pointing out the unique status of that whole group, in that they had no specific rule that threatened death in its violation, and yet, in the justice of God, they died. No sooner does Paul name that one man to whom he has been referring, than he also mentions the Christ to whom he is comparing, reminding his reader of the purpose of this thread in the argument. The comparison is on their public character as the two representative heads of mankind.

5:15

There are contrasts as well as similarities. Firstly, we can be assured that God, who permitted the one man's sin to so infect all of humanity, will certainly bless all of humanity for the merit of Christ's obedience. 'The many' is used consistently to refer to all of mankind. The gift of grace here mentioned is righteousness, and should not be confused with the grace of God which is its source. The latter is the cause, the former the effect. In saying 'much more,' Paul does not intend to contrast the degree of righteousness with the degree of sinfulness, but that our certainty of the outcome is so much the greater, given the view of what God has allowed in the case of sin. That the good result of righteousness should so flow from a good and just God is the more certain, given what we understand of Him.

5:16

Another contrast is brought out. In the case of sin and condemnation, it was a single sin that was taken as the legal cause of the race's condemnation to death. In contrast to this, we are shown the many sins as being somehow the legal cause of the race's justification. It is 'as if the cry of these countless offences had gone up to heaven, but instead of drawing down vengeance, had wakened the divine compassions.' Our condemnation come for one sin, but Christ's justification absolves us of our guilt not only for that first sin of Adam's, but for all the sins that have come of that initial seed. So, grace abounds in righteousness, justifying by its gift all the myriad offences of the man whose faith is in Christ, the Son of God.

5:17

Life comes by the work of Christ, and that life is both the right to live, and the righteous life of good will and conformity to God's law, "life, therefore, in its widest sense - life in the whole man and throughout the whole duration of human existence, the life of blissful and loving relationship to God in soul and body forever and ever." Unlike death, life does not reign over us as dictator, nor does life reign in us. Rather, life is the territory over which we shall reign, having received grace to live free and unchallenged in absolution of all sins. Note that this is a future tense reign, the significance of which will be explored below, in v19, and later, in Ro 6:5.

5:18

Here, the comparison begun in v12 is retrieved and completed, Paul having provided much supporting evidence prior to drawing his conclusion. All that is implied in the substance of the intervening text is now made explicit in the conclusion. An argument is made for change from "one transgression" to "the transgression of one", and from 'one act of righteousness' to "the righteousness of one." The inclusion of the "the" which is not in many of the manuscripts is supported by the fact that we are here comparing two persons, not their acts. It is between the many who were condemned and the many who were justified. The idea of 'one righteousness' does not match with the argument of the passage, nor is it an expression seen elsewhere in Scripture. The change of form for "one" does not necessitate a change in its significant, unless other matters of context force the change, which is not the case here. Later translations have preferred the idea of 'one act of righteousness,' [as the NASB,] which does not seem to significantly change the import of the message. In speaking of the justification of life, the concept put forth is that the justification we have in Christ entitles us to the rightful and legal possession of life, along with the ability to enjoy that possession.

5:19

Because of Adam's sin, we were constituted to be sinners. In Christ's obedience, both His active obedience in life, and His passive obedience in the death of the Cross are in view, it is the entire work of Christ, start to finish. That His death was a matter of obedience, Christ Himself affirms (Jn 10:18 - No man takes My life, but I lay it down of My own accord, and in My own authority, I both lay it down, and take it up again, for this is the commandment I have from My Father.) The making of man in this verse is not a matter of working some change in man, but a matter of ordaining. It is a judicial act in both cases, to condemnation in the former and justification in the latter. Note that Adam's work is past tense, where Christ's is future tense, so as to express the enduring nature of His act. (Ro 6:5 - If we have been united to Him in His death, we will most assuredly be united with Him in His resurrection, as well.) The "all" of v18 is the same group as the "many" here, although in v18, the contrast was between the one representative, and the many so represented, whereas here, the contrast is between the singular head of the race, and the race itself. It must be recognized, however, that in this final "many" made righteous, the view must reduce to the redeemed family of man. In Christ, the race is reborn, and those who refuse that rebirth will perish as persisting members of the old race condemned to die. Herein dies support for some universal justification. Herein also dies support for justification as a possibility in "the all," and as an actuality for "the many." The comparison held forth here is between the whole of the original race, impacted by the actions of the single head of that race, and the whole of the reborn race, impacted by the actions of their single head, Christ.

 

 

New Thoughts (8/2/01-8/5/01)

(8/4/01) I have about been put in shock by this section of study. So much has been made of these verses. It seems as though one could find the definition of every denomination, the source of every Christian disagreement, within this short paragraph. While I'm not inclined, in this time, to go into detailed theological dissections, I also recognize a unique opportunity being presented to me. Here, I have had the views of almost all the major divisions of Protestantism displayed, and set out for comparison. It behooves me, then, to avail myself of this display, which I will make some attempt to do. It's taken me a few days already just to try and pull out those bits from each commentary that either demonstrated their particular view, or otherwise struck a chord with me. In looking them over this morning, it's still overly much to absorb, so I've chosen to arrange these bits by verse, to try and get down to some granularity I can get around. I think, in this time of reflection, I will have to proceed in a more typical commentary fashion, taking things one verse at a time.

I have to say that, in viewing and reviewing this, I've really been struck by the question of why it is that God left this set of issues so open to debate? Why did He not declare these things more explicitly, and so preserve the unity of His house? I'll not attempt to answer for Him in this, but it does strike me that in leaving these things open, He has offered each of us an opportunity to test our understanding of Him. In all this debate, there is a sharpened display of each position's view of God's nature. Is He truly just and fair? Yes, He must be, else He could not be good, and if He could not be good, He would not be God. I think all are agreed on this. The struggle seems to be in coming to grips with how that justice and goodness play out in what we see in 'real' life.

5:12 As to the basic facts, or evidence, all seem to be in agreement. To whit: (1) God created the world, (2) and He declared it good. (3) Therefore, there could not have been any evil in the world at creation, (4) yet, we see evil in it today, (5) and that evil is universal in bringing death to man, and every other form of life we know. (6) Given all this, there must be a reason. All are agreed that the record of Scripture points to Adam as the reason, the entry point of evil into creation. Adam Clarke brings out the fact that the natural evil we see so prevalent today (again, most evident in the fact of death) is the product of moral evil. Had there been no first sin, there would have been no cause for all the curses which followed. Justice would require that some legal cause be present for punishment to ensue. With this just nature of God, Calvin agrees, pointing out that a just God could not be seen punishing one for a sin he did not himself commit.

Here is the first big issue of the section, which develops over the next several verses. If He doesn't punish us for the sins of others, and the laws that sin would require in order to break them were not yet given, how then the punishment? And, how the punishment of a babe that has had no possible opportunity of sinning? How then, the fetus subjected to abortion? God is just, so there has to be an explanation. There has to be some fashion in which we are truly sinners even prior to acting. Some would hold that each is indeed punished for their own, personal sins, but that fails to explain the infant / pre-birth cases. Somehow, we have indeed been made sinful in Adam's first act. Was it only the guilt that passed? Was it simply the fact that sin had become inherent in our nature, inevitable when once we had opportunity? Certainly, the laws of nature would indicate that each form of life procreates only in its own likeness, and Adam, bound by those laws as much as any other creature in creation, could only produce a being of sinful nature, being sinful himself. But it cannot be that the ability to sin is being punished. The declaration to Adam was not that he would die if he was capable of eating from the tree, but only that he would die if he actually ate. It is not the potential to sin, it is the actual that brings about condemnation, else we'd be hopeless still. Nor can it be the individual sins of each man that have brought the reign of death. It is explicit in this passage that death came by one man, not over and over again for each man successively. So how is it that we are yet guilty?

It requires an understanding along the lines of that brought out in the Wycliffe commentary to sort this out, an understanding of the Hebraic view of family. As was noted, there are a number of examples of this view in Scripture, wherein the whole of the family is held to be in some fashion a singular whole. Thus, the act of the head brings repercussions upon the whole of the family body. Thus, for example, we saw that Levi was considered as having tithed to Melchizedek inasmuch as he was Abraham's offspring. Thus, we are told that we are the body of Christ on earth, and He, our head. This is the structure God has chosen for mankind, and in it, we have both blessing and curse, as our head may choose. So, we find that Adam, by his actions, was representing all who would descend from him, and so, in his action, we also were found to have acted. God's justice is upheld, and the punishment even of the unborn is found to be just by this understanding.

5:13 Now we face more squarely the issue of the pre Law period. Here, there is a variety of viewpoint displayed. That death was present is undeniable. That death is the punishment of sin is understood, as is the fact that sin is the violation of a law, and cannot be where no law exists. How then is it the case the man died in this period? God punished sins. God is just, and will not punish those not guilty. Either, then, there was some form of law present in that period which mankind was guilty of breaking, or they were punished for the sins of another, namely Adam. But, a just God could not punish us for someone else's sins, could He? If we were not guilty in ourselves, would He then bring death upon us? Mr. Clarke appears to say 'yes' in response to this thought. However, it seems necessary to see that some law was indeed in effect during this period. That being the case, the purpose of the verse seems to be, as Calvin has indicated, to display the fact that the Mosaic Law was not the cause of death, but only served to reveal the cause more clearly and distinctly.

5:14 The argument over the why of death continues, and now the question of infants is brought more directly into the debate. A righteous God could not punish an innocent, so there must have been an original sin that came with us into life. So goes one side of the debate. Death must not have been for their own sins, but rather a continued consequence of Adam's sin. So goes another side, but this seems to violate the necessary justice of God. Calvin brings out the factor that ignorance is no excuse, a factor held out as true in all legal systems. This is a just understanding in the face of a just system of law. So long as the rules are not capricious and changing, there can be no excuse. Again, it falls back to the recognition that Adam was the racial head, and so, his actions were familial actions. He having sinned, we all have sinned. It seems harsh. However, it is the same rule that allows us to say that Christ being righteous, we all who are His family, newly created in Him, are righteous. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad!

(8/5/01) 5:15 Here begins some of the greatest debate in Christian history. How is God's grace greater, if it does not extend as universally as Adam's sin? Should we insist that 'the many' be the same many in both cases? The contrast being made is not between the two groups, but is between the relationship of each group to its head, between the effects of the one upon the many. Given this, there is no contextual reason to insist on an equality of 'the many.' Furthermore, to insist on this equality forces one into the position that in Christ, righteousness came to all. If we are going to take this degree of congruence between the two cases as what is intended, than the greater part of what is said about the one case must apply also to the latter. That being so, if we see that death, the result of sin, has come to all by Adam, then we ought to see that eternal life, the result of righteousness, has come to all by Christ. Yet, this is clearly not the case. The evidence that not all since Christ have been righteous is as beyond defensibility as is the evidence of universal death.

To hold to some universal salvation would require one of two understandings: either that none are punished by death who have not actively chosen sin, and so none are blessed with life except those who have actively chosen to live perfectly righteous lives, or, that all will be saved regardless of the life they lived. The first of these is denied by the death of the infant, for in that case, no choice could have been made. Paul has elsewhere used the case of Jacob and Esau to illustrate just this point, that God's choices are not necessarily based on our decisions or actions. Can we somehow consider as just that God will in the end save all of mankind, no matter how vile they have become? Can we find justice in this idea? Can we find support for it from the Scriptural record? I think not. Clearly, there are those God has decided not to salvage. The residents of earth before the Flood did not find eternal life in the waters. The people of Sodom did not find eternal life in the fire that consumed their city. The Canaanites were not to be given the opportunity of so much as continuing their temporal life when Israel entered their land. How can we think of God as suddenly changing His mind and deciding it was alright after all? It just won't fit the character of our Creator. In general, those who insist upon the universal offer are perforce led to the position that it is man's choice that limits Christ's impact. Can we really believe ourselves able to resist God's will? Will His Word go forth and not accomplish His purpose? Many who deny limited election feel that it belittles God to suggest that He couldn't save all of mankind. But, I don't know of anybody that suggests it was not possible. What stands in opposition to this is that He did not so choose. And I must respectfully suggest that it is a much smaller God that I can thwart by my bad attitude, than is that God who achieves perfectly what He desires to achieve, even if that desire not be as extensive as we might think it ought to be!

If our salvation is by God's grace alone, then it must be solely by His grace, by His choice, and not by our own. That grace which has saved us remains God's and in God. What is in us, if there be anything good, is the effect of grace, and that effect cannot but produce righteousness in life. It may not be immediate, and it may not be complete until the day we see Him, yet grace will accomplish that for which God sent it forth. Mr. Clarke insists that all can act upon that grace and so be saved. I would contend that all upon whom Grace has acted will be saved, and so, will act.

5:16 Barnes seems to argue in reverse, having insisted that choice was required for salvation, he suggests that choice must also have been required for condemnation. Were I to make this argument, I'd have made it the other way around. But then, that leads to the dead end of infant, or pre-birth, mortality, which ought to put an end to the argument. Clearly, choice was not a factor in all condemnation, the cause of guilt must be sought elsewhere, and we find it in Adam, in his choices as the head of the great body of humanity. Having put an end to the requirement of personal choice in condemnation, the requirement for personal choice in salvation is also ended. Yes, a choice was made, but the passage we are studying here says that those choices were both made for us by another, by Adam unto our death, and by Christ unto our life. In the latter case, one could conceivably push the decision back even farther, and recognize that it was God the Father who made the choice, for unless He calls, none will come to the Son, and unless we come to the Son, we'll never reach the Father. Praise be to You, oh Lord, that You have not left us to our own fickle desires, but have called us with an irresistible calling, to come follow hard after You!

5:17 Again in this verse, we see a number of our commentators insisting on man's decision, man's action being required both in their fall and in their recovery. But this seems to defy the whole point of the passage, doesn't it? Throughout, Paul points to Adam as the cause of death and suffering, and labors to point out that death continued to reign and rule whether or not there was revealed law to transgress, and whether or not the one condemned had had opportunity to sin in himself. Yet, in that punishment they are not punished for another's sin, God does not punish us for another's failure. It is not Adam's sin that passes to us, but the sinfulness of his nature, and by this, we are seen as sinful in God's sight. Even prior to any active choice, God looks at us and sees us sinful, incapable of anything but sin. In Christ, we are created anew, we take on a new nature, and once more, God looks upon that new nature, seeing not some choice of ours, but seeing that new creation that has been wrought by His Son, and He knows that it cannot but choose righteousness in the end. Far from the position of those who insist we must act (and yet have no merit of works in working necessarily), it seems that the legal decisions, at least, are beyond our scope. Are we reduced, then, to automatic machines? No. But until and unless a change is made on our will, on our program, as it were, we will have no desire to accept the dependency that comes with righteousness, nor will we have any desire to live righteously, for sin always puts on an enticing face, and we are all overly inclined to pleasure over good.

5:18 Here, I am challenged. Even Calvin seems to suggest that some action was required, noting that Christ's death was indeed for the sins of all men (which does seem undeniably to be the statement of this verse). Therefore, he moves to the position that the limit of salvation that we see lies in man's choice not to hear and accept. OK. Clearly, the verse does say that Christ's death was indeed an atonement for all of men's sins, all the sins of all men. And, clearly, not all are saved. We're back to this quandary. How then to resolve it? I think we have to come to the understanding of how it was made possible that some would choose to accept what was offered. Again, in our nature, we find nothing that we particularly desire to be saved from. As sinful as we are, until God's grace comes to change our perspective, to open our eyes to see what we have been doing, we have no interest in changing, no concept that anything needs changing. Ah, but with eyes open, we suddenly see who and what we have been, and the need becomes all too clear! And with that clarity comes recognition that in ourselves we are beyond hope. Thankfully, God does not keep us in this state of hopelessness, but shows us another possibility. Only then, does He say "choose you this day." And only then, are we able to choose wisely. So, indeed, our choice is necessary, but at the same time our choice was impossible to make before grace came upon us, and so desirable once known, that it was impossible that we should choose otherwise after grace had come.

5:19 By this point, most of the argument and debate has already been explored. Either we will insist that salvation comes to all, as death came to all, or we will insist that salvation comes to all who are chosen in Christ, and recognize a limit in this. Either we must choose for grace to have an effect, or grace must have an effect for us to choose. Either God punishes us for another's sin, or we are indeed sinful in our very nature. What I really saw out of the comments on this verse was that made in the JFB, which seems to offer a sensible means of understanding that the "all" of sinful mankind is not necessarily the "all" of saved mankind. What that author points out is that the comparison is between what are essentially two different races, between the impact of the head of each race upon that race. Indeed, two races are posited (no more and no less), that which covers all of mankind, barring the work of Christ upon their lives. This race has been universally condemned by the decision of the head. The second race is that of those reborn in Christ. Our rebirth is into a newness of life, into a newness of race. We are a new creation in Christ Jesus, and the actions of Christ as the head of this new race of righteous priests has led to a universal salvation of that race.

Final notes: There are a few last things I'd really like to take note of. First among these is an interesting contrast between the start of man's fall, and the end of man's salvation, which I'd not noticed before. The fall came of one man breaking the one law he was given, and eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Having done this, the door was barred by which man could have eaten of the tree of life. Indeed, death had come into the land. In Revelation 2:7, we find that those who overcome, those who have persevered in the new life Christ has brought, will be allowed to finally eat from that tree of life. The curse will be broken, and eternity opened to those whose nature Christ has changed, that they might, when once the trials of this current life are past, live in true and perfect righteousness, even as Christ did in this life.

Mr. Clarke, in spite of many things I disagree with, brings out a very valid concern. "Prayer is little used, because prayer is the language of dependence; and this is inconsistent with every emotion of original sin," he says. How sadly true this is! How we hate to be dependent upon anybody or anything outside ourselves! It seems to me, that this is all the more pronounced for the American male, and perhaps all the more as he finds his proper role threatened. We are taught from early on to be sufficient to every trial. In many cases, both at work and in the home, we are looked to as the one to solve whatever conflict or difficulty has come up. In the past, it was the men who were looked to for the defense of the house, the nation, or whatever else might need defending. We have been trained by this life to be independent, fully able to take care of ourselves and our own. God's Word also calls us to be prepared for every occasion, but His preparation takes us by surprise, for He calls us to prepare by total dependence. He tells us, rather proves it to us, that we can do nothing in our own strength. How contrary to what we want to think about ourselves. Lord God, thank You for making this thought known to me. How I struggle with prayer at times, most times. And now, You have given me to understand why. Oh pride, how shall you be defeated in me? How long, oh Lord, will I struggle with this overwhelming sin in my life? How long must I continue to struggle against what I truly desire? I thank You, oh Father, that You have moved me into positions where I cannot any longer consider myself sufficient. I thank You, that You have moved me into a position where I cannot but pray hard and long, if not as often as I ought. This, my King, leads me to the final thought I want to chase down here.

We offer ourselves as a model for you to follow. This was Paul's declaration (2Th 3:9). What a statement this makes of his walk with You. Here was a man whose understanding of Your ways, and of his own ability to get it completely wrong, was incredible. Here was a man who knew what it was to be humbled by Your greatness, who knew what it meant to walk holy before his God. And I am forced to ask myself if I would want anybody to follow my model, if You would want anybody to follow it. So much of my day to day life remains other than You would have it, other than I would have it. It seems so improbable that You would somehow use this imperfect model to bring anybody around. Yet, I will ask You to continue to reveal to me those things that must change. I will ask You to continue working those changes in me, and to continue changing my will that I might work with You in that task. It is indeed hard to be constantly kicking against the goads, and yet it seems I am unable to stop. I can indeed do nothing without You. Come, Lord. Bring Your assistance close by me. Holy Spirit, fill this broken vessel. Mend the cracks, that Your infilling might remain. Burn away the things that make You displeased. Bring me close and closer, oh my God, with each passing day, to the end You have seen for me from the beginning. I long for a life that reflects Your good work in me. I long for a life that brings others to You. I long for a life I'm no longer embarrassed by, that You are no longer shamed by. Lord, too often has Your name been brought low by the actions of Your children, and in this, I am as guilty as any other. Cleanse my heart oh God. I know it will hurt. I know I'll not be real thrilled as the cleansing comes. But I know no other way, oh Lord, than the way You choose. Come and work in me, that I may work with You and for You, that I might be a fruitful servant in this, Your vineyard.