Chapter 5

Chapter begins with "therefore", Paul having concluded his "proof" of justification by faith for all men.  Then he talks of how our "endurance" in faith is built up and made stronger by suffering for Christ.  He has an extended syllogism about it. 

2023 - The MSB outline said Chapter 4 yesterday was The Example of Righteousness.  Today, vss 1-11 are The Blessings of Righteousness, and 12-21 are about the Imputation of Righteousness.  MSB says that Paul's discussion of the perpetuation of Adam's sin (5:12-21) is one of the deepest, most profound theological passages in all of Scripture.  I think it is best to start with what comes after therefore:

2023 - Starts this way:

1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. [Rom 5:1 ESV].  This certainly goes with the previous chapter.  But I like the matter-of-factness of the wording.  That is how it works.  We are justified by faith.  We are.  The Jews are.   Those before Abraham were.  One salvation for all.  Paul now "adds in" Christ.  He says the peace we obtain is "through" Jesus Christ, but he hasn't told us how that works yet.  Note the next verse:

2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. [Rom 5:2 ESV].  "Access into grace (by faith I think he means) through Christ.  But again, he seems to be making thesis statements which he will support later?

2023 - Vss 3-5 are this sequence connecting our suffering for Christ to __ endurance, then hope, then shamelessness because the presence of the Holy Spirit in us confirms God's love for us.  So...once we are justified by faith, God's grace is gifted to us.  We have paid nothing.  Even so, now that we have this grace, we rejoice in our sufferings as they mold us into what we ought to be in this life, as the Holy Spirit assures us of God's love in the suffering.  Is Paul saying that since grace was not of our doing, we ought to not complain if there is some "downside" to it afterwards in the form of suffering, but that this suffering builds character in us and the hope of glory after this life?  Grace refocuses us on eternal rewards, and puts earthly suffering into context in that way?  I don't know...I thought he was going to explain what Christ has to do with justification?

2023 - Hmmm.  In vs 9:   9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. [Rom 5:9 ESV].  In vs 1, Paul said we are justified by faith.  It was the point of "Therefore...".  Now Paul says we are justified by the blood of Christ.  So...faith = blood?  That doesn't seem like the right way to state it.  Hmm...there is another therefore in this verse isn't there?  What came before it?  That Christ died for us while we were still sinners.  Too deep...What about those saved before the crucifixion?  Do we need to see them as "still sinners" in the sense that wrath (justice, the fit sentence for the crimes all commit against God) was still hanging over all because there had not been sufficient atonement to that point?  Is that how Paul means "sinners"?  That seems to work but you'd have to state is as "Prior to the crucifixion, the saved were justified by faith but still under wrath.  After crucifixion, the saved were justified by faith and atoned for (should be a better word...redeemed?) by the blood of Christ APPLIED only to the justified...or those who would be justified.  Seems to work as "been justified" is aorist passive participle, loosing us from time restrictions that would make salvation as an ongoing concept a little difficult.  In this mood and tense, though, the saved, whenever they were or are saved, Christ's blood is justifying them - being applied to them - according to when faith "manifests" in them/us.  And in that same verse, we see that we SHALL BE saved from wrath.  This is in future tense.  Paul, as he wrote this, was NOT saved from wrath YET, but would be at some future time.  Wrath seems to be used here as final justice from God.  That final justice is hell for those who have no faith, which is required for Christ's blood - the atonement - to apply to you, which after your death in the future will save you from hell.  So we need to keep in mind that wrath is also future for all who are living still.  Wrath comes only after death or rapture.

2025 - The blood is only applied AFTER faith.  That's why "they without us could not be made perfect".  That's why he "led captivity captive".  This is why atonement is limited. It is limited to those who have faith - to the saved.  Abraham had faith but he died without atonement...atonement came later.  Under the Law, wrath is delayed by blood, but not set aside.  This is all symbolic.  The Law shows us that wrath must come to all men, and that no power or action of man can sufficiently atone and so set aside wrath.  Sin, just one sin, requires that justice be done, the sentence of death be carried out, and the death in view is eternal suffering in hell for any sin...for all sins.  That eternal suffering in  hell is the wrath of which Paul is speaking here.  Hmm...NOT the wrath on earth in Revelation because most of humanity will not be there to suffer through that.

2025 - So the blood is applied at a point in time - it is a physical thing - but it was effective for all time - backwards to Adam, to Abraham, to Moses...and forward to us today.

2023 - I'm taking too much time again today...but this is so important.

Next is verse 10:  10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. [Rom 5:10 ESV]. "While we were" is present active participle.  So "Being enemies formerly", we were reconciled - aorist to show that it was at different times for different people depending on when they came to faith and by the shed blood of Jesus.  That word I couldn't think of above that ought to better than "atoned for" is in fact "reconciled".  Paul is saying that Christ's death paid our entire debt - and so reconciled in "accounting terms" all that we owed Him from debt owed to debt paid.  Then Paul uses "reconciled" again, this time as aorist passive participle - think -ing - in the sense of still committing sins, covered as they occur by Jesus shed blood - then sometime in the future we SHALL BE SAVED (future tense) by his life.  So Paul is juxtaposing the completion of our redemption by Christ on the cross - that is by his death - and by his resurrection - his life - we will in the future be saved from hell and live AGAIN, as he does, in heaven with God.

Never occurred to me before...ultimately, we the created will live in heaven with the God who created us.  Does anyone else look forward to that condition?  Is Muslim's God in Muslim heaven, or is it just for people?

To hammer it home, in vs 11 Paul explicitly states that it was God, through Christ, that accomplished our reconciliation.  Received is in the aorist, because all receive it at a different time.  But see how clearly Paul states that this was God's plan, executed in the sending of his Son to die, to reconcile US to HIM.  There is no reconciling ourselves.  We DO NOT initiate reconciliation by ANYTHING that we do.  Deals a hard blow to baptism I think.

2023 - Good work here.  Reading on out today, since this is the really really deep stuff.  I will focus on 12-21 next year.

There is a sequence here...

Christ's death on the cross paid for our sins, and reconciled us to God.  God required payment, as justice demanded.  There was no amnesty, no commutation of the sentence.  Those are not justice, but something else.  Those are not Godly things.  Here is the rest of it:

9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. [Rom 5:9 ESV]

We first had to be justified/reconciled/paid in full in our relationship to God.  Jesus blood (his death on the cross) accomplished that reconciliation.  Once that was done...something further....but I am not getting it.

MSB note says that since ALL of God's wrath for our individual sin was focused on Christ substituting for us as the object of that wrath, there is now no wrath left to be directed against us.  We are free from wrath.  Seems to still be missing something....but that's the note.

This verse:

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-- [Rom 5:12 ESV]

Says that the "imperfection" that sin caused in Adam was an inheritable, dominant trait that we all have received through him.  But it also adds that we have each sinned on our own, apart from that, and so are subject to sin's penalty.  Paul refers again to the difference between condemnation for sin when you know it is sin, and the injustice of that condemnation if you didn't know.  It is not about sin it is about unbelief????

2021 - Looking at the MSB note...because this is hard.  MSB says this passage is one of the most enigmatic in the entire book.  So I am not going to feel too badly about struggling to assimilate it.  So.  Some things from MSB:

Adam's sin transformed his inner nature and brought spiritual death and depravity, and this "fallen" nature is passed on.  It does not "renew" and start fresh with every newborn child.  The nature is corrupt, and is passed on in its corrupted form.  That nature makes it impossible - for anyone at any time - to live a life wholly acceptable and pleasing to God.  So all men sin, even in the absence of the law, by "falling short of the glory of God".  It isn't just about refraining from things you should not do.  It is also about not doing what you ought to do.  It is about thinking what you ought to think, about being grateful to God for all that happens...So...From Adam to Moses, the book doesn't say "He violated the 3rd commandment".  It says "he could not and did not do as unfallen man could have done".  It is failure to reach the mark that is sin, rather than violation of a specific rule.  The nature of sin during this time was different than under the law.  Today, we have the scriptures, we have a delineation of the standard, we sin both ways, whether Jew or Gentile.

2025 - So...The Law was to reacquaint Israel with sin, since 450 years in Egypt had redefined that to a great extent.  Egypt did not sin against it's gods.  Those gods did not impose standards on their worshipers, and no idol every does.  In idolatry, offerings and sacrifice can "earn" favor from a god.  A god can be manipulated, a god can become indebted almost if the sacrifice is great enough.  Hence, sacrificing one's own children!  So the Law was to show that God is different than that.  God has a bar, a required standard of behavior, based on his own moral perfection.  Israel was given a sense of just how high the bar was by the introduction of specific rules.  Thou shalt not...  Then the Law itself.  Then the dietary and sacrificial laws.  All to show that the standard was not just of outward behavior but of inner perfection also.  And because of Adam, NO ONE can ever attain that standard.  The Law said that and taught them.  Over time, salvation was redefined as a result of obedience to specific rules.  Salvation was redefined as behavior-based.  Then Jesus came and said "The Law says...but I say..." and showed us that it is internal, and that the Laws are just the outward expression of internal morality - of God's standard made alive in us through the presence and the communication of the Holy Spirit with our spirit.

This verse:

14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. [Rom 5:14 ESV]

This says that man was condemned by sin from Adam all the way to the giving of the Law to Moses - even though there was no Law there to condemn men.  They were condemned not by legal means for violating the written law, but by their unbelief.  I think. 

But MSB disagrees.  Says this is not about individual sin at all.  Not about each of us earning our own condemnation.  MSB says as we were all "seminally" present in Adam when he sinned, we also are sinners.  The phrase used in MSB is that we are not sinners because we sin, but instead that we sin because we are sinners. (2023 - even so, Paul puts in this phrase that says "death spread to all men because all sinned", rather than saying "death spread because all are sinners in Adam.".  We sin because we are sinners - as Adam's descendants - but it is ALSO TRUE that all do sin.  We are sinners in that we cannot help but sin.  Adam did that to us.  His sin "infected us" with something that was not there before.  Adam did not have to sin, but we must.  He could resist, but that antibody is now destroyed.  Ohhh!  I like that!!!  When Adam sinned, it killed forever the antibody that could resist it!)

2023 - Death reigned from Adam to Moses.  BEFORE the Law.  All were sinners and all sinned, so wrath was in effect, even before the law.  What God did not do, even before the Law, was to apply that wrath, but He instead justified by faith (Chapter 4), and did not send the dead directly to hell since Jesus had not yet been born.  He put them in a "holding cell" until "the guilty party - the one who assumed their guilt" had come forward, after which they were not "bailed out" nor "released on parole", but exonerated by Christ.  They were no longer guilty!  That's how it works with us too!

2023 - The word "type" here is used of Adam in relation to Christ. The Greek word is typos, Strong's 5179. It is used 16 times in 15 vss in the mGNT.  LOOK UP ALL OF THEM!  Also, see what the equivalent word is in Hebrew, and look those up also.  The point is that you cannot declare everything in the OT a type, and then find something in the NT that corresponds.  That is putting things in there that are not there.

2021 - "sinning was not like the transgression of Adam".  Adam sinned in that he violated a direct command of God.  God said don't eat.  Adam ate.  From Adam to Moses, there was no direct command about how to do things.  There was no law to violate.  So...where there is no law, there is no transgression - at least not of the kind that Adam committed.  Finally, I get that.  Doesn't mean there was no sin, it means sins from Adam to the Law were qualitatively different than before or after. 

2025 - Again, this goes to the definition of sin discussed above.  Sin is missing the mark, it is a failure to achieve the moral and ethical standard of God Himself.  Sin is far more than just "not transgressing".  Here, "not transgressing" mean not violating a specific command.  Since from Adam to Moses there were no written commands in place - even "do not eat of this tree" was no longer in effect because Eden no longer existed - so no one could transgress.  But you could still miss the mark.  You could sin even without any rules.

2025 - Look how this idea applies to those who never hear.  They have no rules.  They have no knowledge of God at all.  They couldn't possibly know about Jesus.  How is it fair that they are condemned to hell?  BECAUSE "all sinned" in vs 12. 

2025 - But is this right...because in vs 13, sin is not imputed when there is no law"?  Surely Paul says here that from Adam to Moses, no one could violate a rule because there were no rules.  But there was missing the mark, even if they didn't know where the mark was.  They sinned because the were born sinners already.  They sinned BECAUSE they were SINNERS already.  They must needs miss the mark, every one of them, because they were born with death in them, with sin in them.

Yet...death reigned.  Sinners sinned, and died.  That last little phrase of vs 12 has to be honored:  "...because all sinned.".  What kind of sin, then, are we talking about?  It was not the violation of a direct prohibition.  It was not the lack of obedience to a specific command.  So what constituted sin from Adam to Moses? 

Note also that this is a NT statement that Adam is a type for Christ.  It explicitly says that we can examine Adam as a type for Christ. 

MSB also says that from Adam to Moses death reigned not because of violation of Mosaic Law, but because of the inherent, inherited sinful nature of all men.  What?  Where there is no law sin is not imputed, yet these are all considered sinners?  That is NOT the way to explain this concept.  (see above, 2021)  MSB refers us back to 2:12, which says there are those who "sin without the law".  Which takes me back to saying that while it is Adam's sin that condemned the whole world, each of us also sins individually.  I am saying there is unwritten law that we all understand.  To lie, to cheat, to kill...we need no law to know those things are sin.  A sort of "universality of conscience" exists because we are in the image of God.  It is against this that we sin without the law.  Again...this is what I think right now.  I could be way off.

2022 - As noted 2022 on chapter 4, there is unintentional transgression of the Law - which does not count as "legal guilt", and there is purposeful intentional sin, knowing and premeditated, that exists with or without the law.  Deciding to do what we know - from general revelation if nowhere else - is wrong is always sin, with or without a written Mosaic Law.

2021 - Perhaps I am getting crossed up by thinking that Paul is speaking here of individuals, and each man's accountability for his own actions.  Instead, maybe Paul is talking about the big picture, of sin entering the world and condemning all men, and then the gift that saves some men.  The gift is not like the trespass.  The trespass condemned all.  Universal, fallen man, no longer capable of pleasing God.  The gift, though available to all,  only saves some - those who have faith.  No decision is needed to be sinful, we are born in it, as a result of Adam's sin.  Decision is needed to be faithful.  We choose to accept the gift.  Some choose to do so.  This seems a good way to understand this verse:

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. [Rom 5:15 ESV]

This summary verse:

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. [Rom 5:18 ESV]

However you explain the details, this verse makes sense to me.  One sin condemned all, one sacrifice justified all. 

2021 - Or at least it made sense last year...Where is limited atonement in light of this verse?  The verse starts with therefore, and the verses just prior are about Jesus.  Abraham had faith, and his faith was accounted to him for righteousness.  So...if we "have faith", then that one act of having faith - in the atoning sacrifice of Christ - leads to our justification...to justification of all who "have faith".  Faith is efficacious to the saving of all men, and does save all who are justified by having faith.  I think this is the way to read it.  EVEN SO, faith would not have saved us without the atonement, without the substitutionary death of Christ in flesh like ours, without God's willingness to place us "in Christ" and see him only when he evaluates/judges each of us.

2021-2,  One single sin - Adam's disobedience - led to the condemnation of all men.  But Christ's sacrifice cleanses men of many sins, not just Adam's one sin.

2021-2, MSB says that Paul's use of the word "all" in association with justification is not about universal salvation - he says it cannot mean that because only those who accept Christ can be saved, despite the sufficiency of that sacrifice.  The word "all" is used here for the sake of maintaining parallelism of language - a kind of "rule of prose" if you will - with vs. 12.  And look at the continuation in vs 19.   Here, that one sin didn't lead to the death of all but to the death of many, just as the sacrifice leads to the life - not of ALL - but of the many.  So Paul says it both ways, tying it all together grammatically and prosaically.   

2021-2, Abraham was not under the law.  So no sin was imputed to Abraham.  Nor was righteousness imputed to him until he had faith.  Abraham, as Adam's seed, was born corrupt, sinful, and unacceptable to God.  Even with no Law to condemn him, sin corrupted him, he was conceived in sin, because he was descended from sinners.  He also died before there was any sacrificial system under the Law to atone for his sins and justify him in God's sight.  The blood of animals could never have done that anyway.  But faith in God, trust in God, recognition of God - also apart from the Law and based on personal interaction with God - is what saved Abraham from sin, just as it saved Gentiles during the time of the Law though they did not know the Law. 

2022 - Oh my....Abraham WAS sinless in that there was no Law for him to break.  He could not be held guilty of a crime that there was no law against.  BUT, he was already a sinner because he was born in sin as a descendant of Adam, as a participant in Adam's sin because Abraham, like the whole planet, is descended from Adam.  It does literally mean that Abraham was sinless, as was EVERYONE born from Adam to Moses.  But without faith in God, as revealed either in nature or by family tradition, the "sinless" still die, because they are sinners in Adam.  Finally!  It DOES mean exactly what it says.  There is NO SIN where there is NO LAW, but there are still SINNERS!!!  There is no way to be such a good person that God will not send us to hell.  We are the children of children of children who were all sinners, and as such we are also counted sinners.

2025 - Look what happens here if you take the position that Adam is only a symbol, and not a real person in history.  That whole concept of sin without the law not imputed has to go away, because "descent from Adam" is not a real thing.  Here is a remarkable argument against evolution.  If you want evolution, you still have to find a way to put Adam as an historical figure into the mix, AND you have to say he was the first "human" ever to live.  What was before Adam had to be monkeys.  So what made Adam human?

2025 - This:

14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. [Rom 5:14 ESV].  Clearly, that last phrase says those from Adam to Moses DID SIN, even though it was not like Adam's sin.  Sin is more than just breaking a rule!

My goodness, think of the implications of this!  It goes along with God being recognized even in nature.  That "sermon" had to be present for all this to work.  The ancient Americas, where there was no religion, where the Law was unknown - individual sin was not imputed to those people because there was no Law for them to violate - not like the Law that Adam violated.  Nevertheless, they are descended from Adam, and so corrupt and sinful as their general condition, for which God's wrath is directed at them.  BUT, they have as much chance to be saved as Abraham did, because Abraham was saved when there was no Law!  Oh my!  This is how it works.  Also, it can ONLY work this way if God created Adam and all mankind descended from him.  I cannot work in the case of evolution at all, because there is no common inheritance of a fallen condition.  Unless you pick out that first creature that attained "human-ness", and name him Adam.  But then you have death preceding sin in order to evolve that kind of Adam, but death only came after sin.  All this is contained in these first five chapters of Romans.  Wow.  No such thing as the imputation of specific sin to individuals where there is no law.  But general condemnation as descendants of Adam.  That makes it fair to send them to hell, because it is not about what they did wrong, but about who they are.  They are fallen man.  And if they could recognize, and be recognized by God, they, like Abraham could be saved.  But I am not sure they were.  I am not sure any of them were ever saved.  Well...that's not so.  Noah was before Abraham, and he was saved.  But no one else on the planet was.  So many died in sin when there was no Law, even though no sins were charged to their accounts.  Because it is not about sin, it is about faith!  This is what Rom. 5:12 is all about!  vs14b - It is not the same kind of sin that Adam sinned, but it is still sin.

2022 - This is the concept that Satan has corrupted into universal salvation.  We are no longer under the Law.  Bible says that specifically.  Where there is no Law, no sin is imputed.  So no one "sins" because there's no Law to break.  Therefore, all are saved.  But faith is left out of this sequence.  Even where there is no sin, wrath - the wages of sin - still comes, because we are all the seed of Adam.  And if it were not that way, the sacrifice of one man would also NOT be able to save us.  FAITH is the key to salvation, from Adam all the way down to today.