Rom 5:12, 14-15 | Barnes | STEP | Verses 12-21. This passage has been usually regarded as the most difficult part of the New Testament. It is not the design of these Notes to enter into a minute criticism of contested points like this. They who wish to see a full discussion of the passage, may find it in the professedly critical commentaries; and especially in the commentaries of Tholuck and of Professor Stuart on the Romans. The meaning of the passage in its general bearing is not difficult; and probably the whole passage would have been found far less difficult if it had not been attached to a philosophical theory on the subject of man's sin, and if a strenuous and indefatigable effort had not been made to prove that it teaches what it was never designed to teach. The plain and obvious design of the passage is this-- to show one of the benefits of the doctrine of justification by faith. The apostle had shown (1.) that that doctrine produced peace, (2.) That it produces joy in the prospect of future glory, (3.) That it sustained the soul in afflictions; (a) by the regular tendency of afflictions under the gospel, ; and (b) by the fact that the Holy Ghost was imparted to the believer. (4.) That this doctrine rendered it certain that we should be saved, because Christ had died for us, ; because this was the highest expression of love, ; and because, if we had been reconciled when thus alienated, we should be saved now that we are the friends of God, . (5.) That it led us to rejoice in God himself; produced joy in his presence, and in all his attributes. He now proceeds to show the bearing on that great mass of evil which had been introduced into the world by sin, and to prove that the benefits of the atonement were far greater than the evils which had been introduced by the acknowledged effects of the sin of Adam. "The design is to exalt our views of the work of Christ, and of the plan of justification through him, by comparing them with the evil consequences of the sin of our first father, and by showing that the blessings in question not only extend to the removal of these evils, but far beyond this; so that the grace of the gospel has not only abounded, but superabounded." (Prof. Stuart.) In doing this the apostle admits, as an undoubted and well understood fact, 1. That sin came into the world by one man, and death as the consequence, . 2. That death had passed on all; even on those who had not the light of revelation, and the express commands of God, . 3. That Adam was the figure, the type of him that was to come; that there was some sort of analogy or resemblance between the results of his act, and the results of the work of Christ. That analogy consisted in the fact that the effects of his doings did not terminate on himself, but extended to numberless other persons, and that it was thus with the work of Christ, . But he shows, 4. That there were very material and important differences in the two cases. There was not a perfect parallelism. The effects of the work of Christ were far more than simply to counteract the evil introduced by the sin of Adam. The differences between the effect of his act and the work of Christ are these: (1.) The sin of Adam led to condemnation. The work of Christ has an opposite tendency, . (2.) The condemnation which came from the sin of Adam was the result of one offence. The work of Christ was to deliver from many offences, . (3.) The work of Christ was far more abundant and overflowing in its influence. It extended deeper and farther. It was more than a compensation for the evils of the fall, . 5. As the act of Adam threw its influence over all men to secure their condemnation, so the work of Christ was fitted to affect all men, Jews and Gentiles, in bringing them into a state by which they might be delivered from the fall, and restored to the favour of God. It was in itself adapted to produce far more and greater benefits than the crime of Adam had clone evil; and was thus a glorious plan, just fitted to meet the actual condition of a world of sin; and to repair the evils which apostasy had introduced. It had thus the evidence that it originated in the benevolence of God, and that it was adapted to the human condition, . Verse 12. Wherefore. (διατουτο). On this account. This is not an inference from what has gone before, but a continuance of the design of the apostle to show the advantages of the plan of justification by faith; as if he had said, "The advantages of that plan have been seen in our comfort and peace, and in its sustaining power in afflictions. Further, the advantages of the plan are seen in regard to this, that it is applicable to the condition of man in a world where the sin of one man has produced so much woe and death. On this account also it is a matter of joy. It meets the ills of a fallen race; and it is therefore a plan adapted to man." Thus understood, the connexion and design of the passage is easily explained. In respect to the state of things into which man is fallen, the benefits of this plan may be seen, as adapted to heal the maladies, and to be commensurate with the evils which the apostasy of one man brought upon the world. This explanation is not that which is usually given to this place, but it is that which seems to me to be demanded by the strain of the apostle's reasoning. The passage is elliptical , and there is a necessity of supplying something to make out the sense. As . (ωσπερ). This is the form of a comparison . But the other part of the comparison is deferred to . The connexion evidently requires us to understand the other part of the comparison of the work of Christ. In the rapid train of ideas in the mind of the apostle, this was deferred to make room for explanations, ( .) "As by one man sin entered into the world, etc., so by the work of Christ a remedy has been provided, commensurate with the evils. As the sin of one man had such an influence, so the work of the Redeemer has an influence to meet and to counteract those evils." The passage in is therefore to be regarded as a parenthesis thrown in for the purpose of making explanations, and to show how the cases of Adam and of Christ differed from each other. By one man , etc. By means of one man; by the crime of one man. His act was the occasion of the introduction of all sin into all the world. The apostle here refers to the well-known historical fact, ( ) without any explanation of the mode or cause of this. He adduced it as a fact that was well known; and evidently meant to speak of it not for the purpose of explaining the mode, or even of making this the leading or prominent topic in the discussion. His main design is not to speak of the manner of the introduction of sin, but to show that the work of Christ meets and removes well-known and extensive evils. His explanations, therefore, are chiefly confined to the work of Christ. He speaks of the introduction, the spread, and the effects of sin, not as having any theory to defend on that subject, not as designing to enter into a minute description of the case, but as it was manifest on the face of things , as it stood on the historical record, and as it was understood and admitted by mankind. Great perplexity has been introduced by forgetting the scope of the apostle's argument here, and by supposing that he was defending a peculiar theory on the subject of the introduction of sin; whereas nothing is more foreign to his design. He is showing how the plan of justification meets well-understood and acknowledged universal evils . Those evils he refers to just as they were seen, and admitted to exist. All men see them, and feel them, and practically understand them. The truth is, that the doctrine of the fall of man, and the prevalence of sin and death, do not belong peculiarly to Christianity, any more than the introduction and spread of disease does to the science of the healing art . Christianity did not introduce sin; nor is it responsible for it. The existence of sin and woe belongs to the race ; appertains equally to all systems of religion, and is a part of the melancholy history of man, whether Christianity be true or false. The existence and extent of sin and death are not affected if the infidel could show that Christianity was an imposition. They would still remain. The Christian religion is just one mode of proposing a remedy for well-known and desolating evils ; just as the science of medicine proposes a remedy for diseases which it did not introduce, and which could not be stayed in their desolations, or modified, if it could be shown that the whole science of healing was pretension and quackery. Keeping this design of the apostle in view, therefore, and remembering that he is not defending or stating a theory about the introduction of sin, but that he is explaining the way in which the work of Christ delivers from a deep-felt universal evil, we shall find the explanation of this passage disencumbered of many of the difficulties with which it has been thought usually to be invested. By one man . By Adam . See . It is true that sin was literally introduced by Eve , who was first in the transgression, . But the apostle evidently is not explaining the precise mode in which sin was introduced, or making this his leading point. He therefore speaks of the introduction of sin in a popular sense, as it was generally understood. The following reasons may be suggested why the man is mentioned, rather than the woman, as the cause of the introduction of sin. (1.) It was the natural and usual way of expressing such an event. We say that man sinned, that man is redeemed, man dies, etc. We do not pause to indicate the sex in such expressions. So in this, he undoubtedly meant to say that it was introduced by the parentage of the human race. (2.) The name Adam , in Scripture, was given to the created pair , the parents of the human family, a name designating their earthly origin. , "In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called THEIR name Adam ." The name Adam, therefore, used in this connexion, ( ,) would suggest the united parentage of the human family. (3.) In transactions where man and woman are mutually concerned, it is usual to speak of the man first, on account of his being constituted superior in rank and authority. (4.) The comparison on the one side, in the apostle's argument, is of the man Christ Jesus; and to secure the fitness, the congruity (Stuart) of the comparison, he speaks of the man only in the previous transaction. (5.) The sin of the woman was not complete in its effects without the concurrence of the man. It was their uniting in it which was the cause of the evil. Hence the man is especially mentioned as having rendered the offence what it was ; as having completed it, and entailed its curses on the race. From these remarks it is clear that the apostle does not refer to the man here from any idea that there was any particular covenant transaction with him , but that he means to speak of it in the usual, popular sense; referring to him as being the fountain of all the woes that sin has introduced into the world. Sin entered into the world . He was the first sinner of the race. The word sin here evidently means the violation of the law of God. He was the first sinner among men, and in consequence all others became sinners. The apostle does not here refer to Satan, the tempter, though he was the suggester of evil; for his design was to discuss the effect of the plan of salvation in meeting the sins and calamities of our race . This design, therefore, did not require him to introduce the sin of another order of beings, he says, therefore, that Adam was the first sinner of the race, and that death was the consequence. Into the world . Among mankind, . The term world is often thus used to denote human beings--the race, the human family. The apostle here evidently is not discussing the doctrine of original sin; but he is stating a simple fact, intelligible to all: "The first man violated the law of God, and in this way sin was introduced among men." In this fact--this general, simple declaration--there is no mystery. And death by sin . Death was the consequence of sin; or was introduced because man sinned. This is a simple statement of an obvious and well-known fact. It is repeating simply what is said in , "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." The threatening was, ( ,) "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." If an inquiry be made here, how Adam would understand this, I reply, that we have no reason to think he would understand it as referring to anything more than the loss of life as an expression of the displeasure of God, Moses does not intimate that he was learned in the nature of laws and penalties; and his narrative would lead us to suppose that this was all that would occur to Adam. And indeed there is the highest evidence that the case admits of, that this was his understanding of it. For in the account of the infliction of the penalty after the law was violated, in God's own interpretation of it, in , there is still no reference to anything further. "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Now, it is incredible that Adam should have understood this as referring to what has been called "spiritual death," and to "eternal death," when neither in the threatening, nor in the account of the infliction of the sentence, is there the slightest recorded reference to it. Men have done great injury in the cause of correct interpretation by carrying their notions of doctrinal subjects to the explanation of words and phrases in the Old Testament. They have usually described Adam as endowed with all the refinement, and possessed of all the knowledge, and adorned with all the metaphysical acumen and subtility of a modem theologian. They have deemed him qualified, in the very infancy of the world, to understand and discuss questions which, under all the light of the Christian revelation, still perplex and embarrass the human mind. After these accounts of the endowments of Adam, which occupy so large a space in books of theology, one is surprised, on opening the Bible, to find how unlike all this is the simple statement in Genesis. And the wonder cannot be suppressed that men should describe the obvious infancy of the race as superior to its highest advancement; or that the first man, just looking upon a world of wonders, imperfectly acquainted with law, and moral relations, and the effects of transgression, should be represented as endowed with knowledge which, four thousand years after, it required the advent of the Son of God to communicate! The account in Moses is simple. Created man was told not to violate a simple law, on pain of death. He did it; and God announced to him that the sentence would be inflicted, and that he should return to the dust whence he was taken. What else this might involve--what other consequences sin might introduce, might be the subject of future developments and revelations. It is absurd to suppose that all the consequences of the violation of a law can be foreseen, or must necessarily be foreseen, in order to make the law and the penalty just. It is sufficient that the law be known; that its violation be forbidden; and what the consequences of that violation will be, must be left in great part to future developments. Even we yet know not half the results of violating the law of God. The murderer knows not the results fully of taking a man's life: he breaks a just law, and exposes himself to the numberless unseen woes which may flow from it. We may ask, therefore, what light subsequent revelations have cast on the character and result of the first sin? and whether the apostle here meant to state that the consequences of sin were in fact as limited as they must have appeared to the mind of Adam? or had subsequent developments and revelations, through four thousand years, greatly extended the right understanding of the penalty of the law? This can be answered only by inquiring in what sense the apostle Paul here uses the word death . The passage before us shows in what sense he intended here to use the word. In his argument it stands opposed to "the grace of God, and the gift by grace," ( ) to "justification," by the forgiveness of "many offences," ( ) to the reign of the redeemed in eternal life, ( ) and to "justification of life," ( .) To all these, the words "death," ( ) and "judgment," ( ) stand opposed. These are the benefits which result from the work of Christ; and these benefits stand opposed to the evils which sin has introduced; and as it cannot be supposed that these benefits relate to temporal life , or solely to the resurrection of the body, so it cannot be that the evils involved in the words "death," "judgment," etc., relate simply to temporal death. The evident meaning is, that the word "death," as here used by the apostle, refers to the train of evils which have been introduced by sin. It does not mean simply temporal death; but that group and collection of woes, including temporal death, condemnation, and exposure to eternal death, which is the consequence of transgression. The apostle often uses the word death , and to die , in this wide sense, ; . In the same sense the word is often used elsewhere, , etc. etc. In contrasting with this the results of the work of Christ, he describes not the resurrection merely, nor deliverance from temporal death, but eternal life in heaven; and it therefore follows that he here intends by death that gloomy and sad train of woes which sin has introduced into the world. The consequences of sin are, besides, elsewhere specified to be far more than temporal death, . Though, therefore, Adam might not have foreseen all the evils which were to come upon the race as the consequence of his sin, yet these evils might nevertheless follow. And the apostle, four thousand years after the reign of sin had commenced, and under the guidance of inspiration, had full opportunity to see and describe that train of woes which he comprehends under the name of death. That train included evidently temporal death, condemnation for sin, remorse of conscience, and exposure to eternal death, as the penalty of transgression. And so . Thus. In this way it is to be accounted for that death has passed upon all men; to wit, because all men have sinned. As death followed sin in the first transgression, so it has in all; for all have sinned. There is a connexion between death and sin which existed in the case of Adam, and which subsists in regard to all who sin, And as all have sinned, so death has passed on all men. Death passed upon . (διηλθεν). Passed through; pervaded; spread over the whole race, as pestilence passes through, or pervades a nation. Thus death, with its train of woes, with its withering and blighting influence, has passed through the world, laying prostrate all before it. Upon all men . Upon the race; all die. For that (εφω). This expression has been greatly controverted; and has been very variously translated. Elsner renders it, "on account of whom." Doddridge, "unto which all have sinned." The Latin Vulgate renders it, "in whom [Adam] all have sinned." The same rendering has been given by Augustine, Beza, etc. But it has never yet been shown that our translators have rendered the expression improperly. The old Syriac and the Arabic agree with the English translation fix this interpretation. With this agree Calvin, Vatablus, Erasmus, etc. And this rendering is sustained also by many other considerations. (1.) If (ω) be a relative pronoun here, it would refer naturally to death , as its antecedent, and not to man . But this would not make sense. (2.) If this had been its meaning, the preposition (εν) would have been used. See Note of Erasmus on the place. (3.) It comports with the apostle's argument to state a cause why all died, and not to state that men sinned in Adam . He was inquiring into the cause why death was in the world; and it would not account for that to say that all sinned in Adam. It would require an additional statement to see how that could be a cause. (4.) As his posterity had not then an existence, they could not commit actual transgression. Sin is the transgression of the law by a moral agent; and as the interpretation " because all have sinned " meets the argument of the apostle, and as the Greek favours that certainly as much as it does the other, it is to be preferred. All have sinned . To sin is to transgress the law of God; to do wrong. The apostle in this expression does not say that all have sinned in Adam, or that their nature has become corrupt, which is true, but which is not affirmed here; nor that the sin of Adam is imputed to them; but simply affirms that all men have sinned. He speaks evidently of the great universal fact that all men are sinners. He is not settling a metaphysical difficulty; nor does he speak of the condition of man as he comes into the world. He speaks as other men would; he addresses himself to the common sense of the world; and is discoursing of universal, well-known facts. Here is the fact--that all men experience calamity, condemnation, death . How is this to be accounted for? The answer is, "All have sinned." This is a sufficient answer; it meets the case. And as his design cannot be shown to be to discuss a metaphysical question about the nature of man, or about the character of infants, the passage should be interpreted according to his design, and should not be pressed to bear on that of which he says nothing, and to which the passage evidently has no reference. I understand it, therefore, as referring to the fact that men sin in their own persons, sin themselves --as, indeed, how can they sin in any other way?--and that therefore they die. If men maintain that it refers to any metaphysical properties of the nature of man, or to infants, they should not infer or suppose this, but should show distinctly that it is in the text. Where is there evidence of any such reference? (s) "as by one man" .

Romans 5:12

Verses 12-21. This passage has been usually regarded as the most difficult part of the New Testament. It is not the design of these Notes to enter into a minute criticism of contested points like this. They who wish to see a full discussion of the passage, may find it in the professedly critical commentaries; and especially in the commentaries of Tholuck and of Professor Stuart on the Romans. The meaning of the passage in its general bearing is not difficult; and probably the whole passage would have been found far less difficult if it had not been attached to a philosophical theory on the subject of man's sin, and if a strenuous and indefatigable effort had not been made to prove that it teaches what it was never designed to teach. The plain and obvious design of the passage is this-- to show one of the benefits of the doctrine of justification by faith. The apostle had shown

(1.) that that doctrine produced peace, Rom 5:1

(2.) That it produces joy in the prospect of future glory, Rom 5:2 (3.) That it sustained the soul in afflictions;

(a) by the regular tendency of afflictions under the gospel,

Rom 5:3,4; and

(b) by the fact that the Holy Ghost was imparted to the believer.

(4.) That this doctrine rendered it certain that we should be saved, because Christ had died for us, Rom 5:6; because this was the highest expression of love, Rom 5:7,8; and because, if we had been reconciled when thus alienated, we should be saved now that we are the friends of God, Rom 5:9,10.

(5.) That it led us to rejoice in God himself; produced joy in his presence, and in all his attributes. He now proceeds to show the bearing on that great mass of evil which had been introduced into the world by sin, and to prove that the benefits of the atonement were far greater than the evils which had been introduced by the acknowledged effects of the sin of Adam. "The design is to exalt our views of the work of Christ, and of the plan of justification through him, by comparing them with the evil consequences of the sin of our first father, and by showing that the blessings in question not only extend to the removal of these evils, but far beyond this; so that the grace of the gospel has not only abounded, but superabounded." (Prof. Stuart.) In doing this the apostle admits, as an undoubted and well understood fact,

1. That sin came into the world by one man, and death as the consequence, Rom 5:12.

2. That death had passed on all; even on those who had not the light of revelation, and the express commands of God, Rom 5:13,14.

3. That Adam was the figure, the type of him that was to come; that there was some sort of analogy or resemblance between the results of his act, and the results of the work of Christ. That analogy consisted in the fact that the effects of his doings did not terminate on himself, but extended to numberless other persons, and that it was thus with the work of Christ, Rom 5:14. But he shows,

4. That there were very material and important differences in the two cases. There was not a perfect parallelism. The effects of the work of Christ were far more than simply to counteract the evil introduced by the sin of Adam. The differences between the effect of his act and the work of Christ are these: (1.) The sin of Adam led to condemnation. The work of Christ has

an opposite tendency, Rom 5:15.

(2.) The condemnation which came from the sin of Adam was the

result of one offence. The work of Christ was to deliver from

many offences, Rom 5:16.

(3.) The work of Christ was far more abundant and overflowing in

its influence. It extended deeper and farther. It was more than

a compensation for the evils of the fall, Rom 5:17.

5. As the act of Adam threw its influence over all men to secure their condemnation, so the work of Christ was fitted to affect all men, Jews and Gentiles, in bringing them into a state by which they might be delivered from the fall, and restored to the favour of God. It was in itself adapted to produce far more and greater benefits than the crime of Adam had clone evil; and was thus a glorious plan, just fitted to meet the actual condition of a world of sin; and to repair the evils which apostasy had introduced. It had thus the evidence that it originated in the benevolence of God, and that it was adapted to the human condition, Rom 5:18-21.

Verse 12. Wherefore. (διατουτο). On this account. This is not an inference from what has gone before, but a continuance of the design of the apostle to show the advantages of the plan of justification by faith; as if he had said, "The advantages of that plan have been seen in our comfort and peace, and in its sustaining power in afflictions. Further, the advantages of the plan are seen in regard to this, that it is applicable to the condition of man in a world where the sin of one man has produced so much woe and death. On this account also it is a matter of joy. It meets the ills of a fallen race; and it is therefore a plan adapted to man." Thus understood, the connexion and design of the passage is easily explained. In respect to the state of things into which man is fallen, the benefits of this plan may be seen, as adapted to heal the maladies, and to be commensurate with the evils which the apostasy of one man brought upon the world. This explanation is not that which is usually given to this place, but it is that which seems to me to be demanded by the strain of the apostle's reasoning. The passage is elliptical, and there is a necessity of supplying something to make out the sense.

As. (ωσπερ). This is the form of a comparison. But the other part of the comparison is deferred to Rom 5:18. The connexion evidently requires us to understand the other part of the comparison of the work of Christ. In the rapid train of ideas in the mind of the apostle, this was deferred to make room for explanations, (Rom 5:13-17.) "As by one man sin entered into the world, etc., so by the work of Christ a remedy has been provided, commensurate with the evils. As the sin of one man had such an influence, so the work of the Redeemer has an influence to meet and to counteract those evils." The passage in Rom 5:13-17 is therefore to be regarded as a parenthesis thrown in for the purpose of making explanations, and to show how the cases of Adam and of Christ differed from each other.

By one man, etc. By means of one man; by the crime of one man. His act was the occasion of the introduction of all sin into all the world. The apostle here refers to the well-known historical fact, (Gen 3:6,7) without any explanation of the mode or cause of this. He adduced it as a fact that was well known; and evidently meant to speak of it not for the purpose of explaining the mode, or even of making this the leading or prominent topic in the discussion. His main design is not to speak of the manner of the introduction of sin, but to show that the work of Christ meets and removes well-known and extensive evils. His explanations, therefore, are chiefly confined to the work of Christ. He speaks of the introduction, the spread, and the effects of sin, not as having any theory to defend on that subject, not as designing to enter into a minute description of the case, but as it was manifest on the face of things, as it stood on the historical record, and as it was understood and admitted by mankind. Great perplexity has been introduced by forgetting the scope of the apostle's argument here, and by supposing that he was defending a peculiar theory on the subject of the introduction of sin; whereas nothing is more foreign to his design. He is showing how the plan of justification meets well-understood and acknowledged universal evils. Those evils he refers to just as they were seen, and admitted to exist. All men see them, and feel them, and practically understand them. The truth is, that the doctrine of the fall of man, and the prevalence of sin and death, do not belong peculiarly to Christianity, any more than the introduction and spread of disease does to the science of the healing art. Christianity did not introduce sin; nor is it responsible for it. The existence of sin and woe belongs to the race; appertains equally to all systems of religion, and is a part of the melancholy history of man, whether Christianity be true or false. The existence and extent of sin and death are not affected if the infidel could show that Christianity was an imposition. They would still remain. The Christian religion is just one mode of proposing a remedy for well-known and desolating evils; just as the science of medicine proposes a remedy for diseases which it did not introduce, and which could not be stayed in their desolations, or modified, if it could be shown that the whole science of healing was pretension and quackery. Keeping this design of the apostle in view, therefore, and remembering that he is not defending or stating a theory about the introduction of sin, but that he is explaining the way in which the work of Christ delivers from a deep-felt universal evil, we shall find the explanation of this passage disencumbered of many of the difficulties with which it has been thought usually to be invested.

By one man. By Adam. See Rom 5:14. It is true that sin was literally introduced by Eve, who was first in the transgression, Gen 3:6, 1Timm 2:14. But the apostle evidently is not explaining the precise mode in which sin was introduced, or making this his leading point. He therefore speaks of the introduction of sin in a popular sense, as it was generally understood. The following reasons may be suggested why the man is mentioned, rather than the woman, as the cause of the introduction of sin.

(1.) It was the natural and usual way of expressing such an event. We say that man sinned, that man is redeemed, man dies, etc. We do not pause to indicate the sex in such expressions. So in this, he undoubtedly meant to say that it was introduced by the parentage of the human race.

(2.) The name Adam, in Scripture, was given to the created pair, the parents of the human family, a name designating their earthly origin. Gen 5:1,2, "In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called THEIR name Adam." The name Adam, therefore, used in this connexion, (Rom 5:14,) would suggest the united parentage of the human family.

(3.) In transactions where man and woman are mutually concerned, it is usual to speak of the man first, on account of his being constituted superior in rank and authority.

(4.) The comparison on the one side, in the apostle's argument, is of the man Christ Jesus; and to secure the fitness, the congruity (Stuart) of the comparison, he speaks of the man only in the previous transaction.

(5.) The sin of the woman was not complete in its effects without the concurrence of the man. It was their uniting in it which was the cause of the evil. Hence the man is especially mentioned as having rendered the offence what it was; as having completed it, and entailed its curses on the race. From these remarks it is clear that the apostle does not refer to the man here from any idea that there was any particular covenant transaction with him, but that he means to speak of it in the usual, popular sense; referring to him as being the fountain of all the woes that sin has introduced into the world.

Sin entered into the world. He was the first sinner of the race. The word sin here evidently means the violation of the law of God. He was the first sinner among men, and in consequence all others became sinners. The apostle does not here refer to Satan, the tempter, though he was the suggester of evil; for his design was to discuss the effect of the plan of salvation in meeting the sins and calamities of our race. This design, therefore, did not require him to introduce the sin of another order of beings, he says, therefore, that Adam was the first sinner of the race, and that death was the consequence.

Into the world. Among mankind, Jn 1:10, 3:16,17. The term world is often thus used to denote human beings--the race, the human family. The apostle here evidently is not discussing the doctrine of original sin; but he is stating a simple fact, intelligible to all: "The first man violated the law of God, and in this way sin was introduced among men." In this fact--this general, simple declaration--there is no mystery.

And death by sin. Death was the consequence of sin; or was introduced because man sinned. This is a simple statement of an obvious and well-known fact. It is repeating simply what is said in Gen 3:19, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." The threatening was, (Gen 2:17,) "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." If an inquiry be made here, how Adam would understand this, I reply, that we have no reason to think he would understand it as referring to anything more than the loss of life as an expression of the displeasure of God, Moses does not intimate that he was learned in the nature of laws and penalties; and his narrative would lead us to suppose that this was all that would occur to Adam. And indeed there is the highest evidence that the case admits of, that this was his understanding of it. For in the account of the infliction of the penalty after the law was violated, in God's own interpretation of it, in Gen 3:19, there is still no reference to anything further. "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Now, it is incredible that Adam should have understood this as referring to what has been called "spiritual death," and to "eternal death," when neither in the threatening, nor in the account of the infliction of the sentence, is there the slightest recorded reference to it. Men have done great injury in the cause of correct interpretation by carrying their notions of doctrinal subjects to the explanation of words and phrases in the Old Testament. They have usually described Adam as endowed with all the refinement, and possessed of all the knowledge, and adorned with all the metaphysical acumen and subtility of a modem theologian. They have deemed him qualified, in the very infancy of the world, to understand and discuss questions which, under all the light of the Christian revelation, still perplex and embarrass the human mind. After these accounts of the endowments of Adam, which occupy so large a space in books of theology, one is surprised, on opening the Bible, to find how unlike all this is the simple statement in Genesis. And the wonder cannot be suppressed that men should describe the obvious infancy of the race as superior to its highest advancement; or that the first man, just looking upon a world of wonders, imperfectly acquainted with law, and moral relations, and the effects of transgression, should be represented as endowed with knowledge which, four thousand years after, it required the advent of the Son of God to communicate! The account in Moses is simple. Created man was told not to violate a simple law, on pain of death. He did it; and God announced to him that the sentence would be inflicted, and that he should return to the dust whence he was taken. What else this might involve--what other consequences sin might introduce, might be the subject of future developments and revelations. It is absurd to suppose that all the consequences of the violation of a law can be foreseen, or must necessarily be foreseen, in order to make the law and the penalty just. It is sufficient that the law be known; that its violation be forbidden; and what the consequences of that violation will be, must be left in great part to future developments. Even we yet know not half the results of violating the law of God. The murderer knows not the results fully of taking a man's life: he breaks a just law, and exposes himself to the numberless unseen woes which may flow from it.

We may ask, therefore, what light subsequent revelations have cast on the character and result of the first sin? and whether the apostle here meant to state that the consequences of sin were in fact as limited as they must have appeared to the mind of Adam? or had subsequent developments and revelations, through four thousand years, greatly extended the right understanding of the penalty of the law? This can be answered only by inquiring in what sense the apostle Paul here uses the word death. The passage before us shows in what sense he intended here to use the word. In his argument it stands opposed to "the grace of God, and the gift by grace," (Rom 5:15) to "justification," by the forgiveness of "many offences," (Rom 5:16) to the reign of the redeemed in eternal life, (Rom 5:17) and to "justification of life," (Rom 5:18.) To all these, the words "death," (Rom 5:12,17) and "judgment," (ro 5:16,18) stand opposed. These are the benefits which result from the work of Christ; and these benefits stand opposed to the evils which sin has introduced; and as it cannot be supposed that these benefits relate to temporal life, or solely to the resurrection of the body, so it cannot be that the evils involved in the words "death," "judgment," etc., relate simply to temporal death. The evident meaning is, that the word "death," as here used by the apostle, refers to the train of evils which have been introduced by sin. It does not mean simply temporal death; but that group and collection of woes, including temporal death, condemnation, and exposure to eternal death, which is the consequence of transgression. The apostle often uses the word death, and to die, in this wide sense, Rom 1:32, 6:16, 7:5,10,13,24, 8:2,6,13; 2Cor 2:16, 7:10, Heb 2:14. In the same sense the word is often used elsewhere, Jn 8:51, 11:26, 1Jn 5:16,17, Rev 2:11, 20:6, etc. etc. In contrasting with this the results of the work of Christ, he describes not the resurrection merely, nor deliverance from temporal death, but eternal life in heaven; and it therefore follows that he here intends by death that gloomy and sad train of woes which sin has introduced into the world. The consequences of sin are, besides, elsewhere specified to be far more than temporal death, Eze 18:4 Rom 2:8,9,12. Though, therefore, Adam might not have foreseen all the evils which were to come upon the race as the consequence of his sin, yet these evils might nevertheless follow. And the apostle, four thousand years after the reign of sin had commenced, and under the guidance of inspiration, had full opportunity to see and describe that train of woes which he comprehends under the name of death. That train included evidently temporal death, condemnation for sin, remorse of conscience, and exposure to eternal death, as the penalty of transgression.

And so. Thus. In this way it is to be accounted for that death has passed upon all men; to wit, because all men have sinned. As death followed sin in the first transgression, so it has in all; for all have sinned. There is a connexion between death and sin which existed in the case of Adam, and which subsists in regard to all who sin, And as all have sinned, so death has passed on all men.

Death passed upon. (διηλθεν). Passed through; pervaded; spread over the whole race, as pestilence passes through, or pervades a nation. Thus death, with its train of woes, with its withering and blighting influence, has passed through the world, laying prostrate all before it.

Upon all men. Upon the race; all die.

For that (εφω). This expression has been greatly controverted; and has been very variously translated. Elsner renders it, "on account of whom." Doddridge, "unto which all have sinned." The Latin Vulgate renders it, "in whom [Adam] all have sinned." The same rendering has been given by Augustine, Beza, etc. But it has never yet been shown that our translators have rendered the expression improperly. The old Syriac and the Arabic agree with the English translation fix this interpretation. With this agree Calvin, Vatablus, Erasmus, etc. And this rendering is sustained also by many other considerations.

(1.) If (ω) be a relative pronoun here, it would refer naturally to death, as its antecedent, and not to man. But this would not make sense.

(2.) If this had been its meaning, the preposition (εν) would have been used. See Note of Erasmus on the place.

(3.) It comports with the apostle's argument to state a cause why all died, and not to state that men sinned in Adam. He was inquiring into the cause why death was in the world; and it would not account for that to say that all sinned in Adam. It would require an additional statement to see how that could be a cause.

(4.) As his posterity had not then an existence, they could not commit actual transgression. Sin is the transgression of the law by a moral agent; and as the interpretation "because all have sinned" meets the argument of the apostle, and as the Greek favours that certainly as much as it does the other, it is to be preferred.

All have sinned. To sin is to transgress the law of God; to do wrong. The apostle in this expression does not say that all have sinned in Adam, or that their nature has become corrupt, which is true, but which is not affirmed here; nor that the sin of Adam is imputed to them; but simply affirms that all men have sinned. He speaks evidently of the great universal fact that all men are sinners. He is not settling a metaphysical difficulty; nor does he speak of the condition of man as he comes into the world. He speaks as other men would; he addresses himself to the common sense of the world; and is discoursing of universal, well-known facts. Here is the fact--that all men experience calamity, condemnation, death. How is this to be accounted for? The answer is, "All have sinned." This is a sufficient answer; it meets the case. And as his design cannot be shown to be to discuss a metaphysical question about the nature of man, or about the character of infants, the passage should be interpreted according to his design, and should not be pressed to bear on that of which he says nothing, and to which the passage evidently has no reference. I understand it, therefore, as referring to the fact that men sin in their own persons, sin themselves--as, indeed, how can they sin in any other way?--and that therefore they die. If men maintain that it refers to any metaphysical properties of the nature of man, or to infants, they should not infer or suppose this, but should show distinctly that it is in the text. Where is there evidence of any such reference?

(s) "as by one man" Gen 3:6,19.

Romans 5:14-15

Verse 14. Nevertheless. Notwithstanding that sin is not imputed where there is no law, yet death reigned.

Death reigned. Men died; they were under the dominion of death in its various melancholy influences. The expression "death reigned" is one that is very striking. It is a representation of death as a monarch; having, dominion over all that period, and over all those generations. Under his dark and withering reign men sank down to the grave. We have a similar expression when we represent death as "the king of terrors." It is a striking and affecting personification, for

(1.) his reign is absolute. He strikes down whom he pleases, and when he pleases.

(2.) There is no escape. All must bow to his sceptre, and be humbled beneath his hand.

(3.) It is universal. Old and young alike are the subjects of his gloomy empire.

(4.) It would be an eternal reign if it were not for the gospel. It would shed unmitigated woes upon the earth; and the silent tread of this terrific king would produce only desolation and tears for ever.

From Adam to Moses. From the time when God gave one revealed law to Adam, to the time when another revealed law was given to Moses. This was a period of 2500 years; no inconsiderable portion of the history of the world. Whether men were regarded and treated as sinners then, was a very material inquiry in the argument of the apostle. The fact that they died is alleged by him as full proof that they were sinners; and that sin had therefore scattered extensive and appalling woes among men.

Even over them. Over all those generations. The point or emphasis of the remark here is, that it reigned over those that had sinned under a different economy from that of Adam. This was that which rendered it so remarkable; and which showed that the withering curse of sin had been felt in all dispensations, and in all times.

After the similitude, etc. In the same way; in like manner. The expression "after the similitude" is a Hebraism, denoting in like manner, or as. The difference between their case and that of Adam was, plainly, that Adam had a revealed and positive law. They had not; they had only the law of nature, or of tradition. The giving of a law to Adam, and again to the world by Moses, were two great epochs between which no such event had occurred. The race wandered without revelation. The difference contemplated is not that Adam was an actual sinner, and that they had sinned only by imputation. For

(1.) the expression, "to sin by imputation," is unintelligible, and conveys no idea.

(2.) The apostle makes no such distinction, and conveys no such idea.

(3.) His very object is different. It is to show that they were actual sinners; that they transgressed law; and the proof of this is that they died.

(4.) It is utterly absurd to suppose that men from the time of Adam to Moses were sinners only by imputation. All history is against it; nor is there the slightest ground of plausibility in such a supposition.

Of Adam's transgression. When he broke a plain, positive, revealed law. This transgression was the open violation of a positive precept; theirs the violation of the laws communicated in a different way--by tradition, reason, conscience, etc. Many commentators have supposed that infants are particularly referred to here. Augustine first suggested this, and he has been followed by many others. But probably in the whole compass of the expositions of the Bible, there is not to be found a more unnatural and forced construction than this. For

(1.) the apostle makes no mention of infants. He does not in the remotest form allude to them by name, or give any intimation that he had reference to them.

(2.) The scope of his argument is against it. Did infants only die? Were they the only persons that lived in this long period? His argument is complete without supposing that he referred to them. The question in regard to this long interval was, whether men were sinners? Yes, says the apostle. They died. Death reigned; and this proves that they were sinners. If it should be said that the death of infants would prove that they were sinners also, I answer, (a) that this was an inference which the apostle does not

draw, and for which he is not responsible. It is not affirmed

by him.

(b) If it did refer to infants, what would it prove? Not that

the sin of Adam was imputed, but that they were personally

guilty, and transgressors. For this is the only point to which

the argument tends. The apostle here says not one word about

imputation. He does not even refer to infants by name; nor does

he here introduce at all the doctrine of imputation. All this is

mere philosophy introduced to explain difficulties; but whether

true or false, whether the theory explains or embarrasses the

subject, it is not needful here to inquire.

(3.) The very expression here is against the supposition that infants are intended. One form of the doctrine of imputation as held by Edwards, Stapler, etc., has been that there was a constituted oneness or personal identity between Adam and his posterity; and that his sin was regarded as truly and properly theirs; and they as personally blameworthy or ill-deserving for it, in the same manner as a man at forty is answerable for his crime committed at twenty. If this doctrine be true, then it is certain that they not only had "sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression," but had committed the very identical sin, and that they were answerable for it as their own. But this doctrine is now abandoned by all, or nearly all, who profess to be Calvinists; and as the apostle expressly says that they had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, it cannot be intended here.

(4.) The same explanation of the passage is given by interpreters who nevertheless held to the doctrine of imputation. Thus CALVIN says on this passage, "Although this passage is understood commonly of infants, who, being guilty of no actual sin, perish by original depravity, yet I prefer that it should be interpreted generally of those who have not the law. For this sentiment is connected with the preceding words, where it is said that sin is not imputed where there is no law. For they had not sinned according to the similitude of Adam's transgression, because they had not, as he had, the will of God revealed. For the Lord forbid Adam to touch the fruit [of the tree] of the knowledge of good and evil; but to them he gave no command but the testimony of conscience." Calvin, however, supposes that infants are included in the "universal catalogue" here referred to. Turretine also remarks, that the discussion here pertains to all the adults between Adam and Moses. Indeed, it is perfectly manifest that the apostle here has no particular reference to infants; nor would it have ever been supposed, but for the purpose of giving support to the mere philosophy of a theological system.

Who is the figure. (τυπος) type. This word occurs sixteen times in the New Testament: Jn 20:25, (twice;) Acts 7:43,44, 23:25; Rom 5:14, 6:17, 1Cor 10:6,11, Php 3:17, 1Thes 1:7, 2Thes 3:9, 1Timm 4:12 Tit 2:7, Heb 8:5, 1Pet 5:3. It properly means,

(1.) any impression, note, or mark which is made by percussion, or in any way. Jn 20:25, "the print (type) of the nails."

(2.) An effigy or image which is made or formed by any rule; a model, pattern. Acts 7:43, "Ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures (types) which ye had made." Acts 7:44, "That he should make it [the tabernacle] according to the fashion (type) that he had seen." Heb 8:5.

(3.) A brief argument, or summary, Acts 23:25.

(4.) A rule of doctrine, or a law or form of doctrine, Rom 6:17.

(5.) An example or model to be imitated; an example of what we ought to be, (Php 3:17, 1Thes 1:7, 2Thes 3:9, 1Timm 4:12, Tit 2:7, 1Pet 5:3); or an example which is to be avoided, an example to warn us, 1Cor 10:6,11. In this place it is evidently applied to the Messiah. The expression "he Who was to come" is often used to denote the Messiah. As applied to him, it means that there was in some respects a similarity between the results of the conduct of Adam and the effects of the work of Christ. It does not mean that Adam was constituted or appointed a type of Christ, which would convey no intelligible idea; but that a resemblance may be traced between the effects of Adam's conduct and the work of Christ. It does not mean that the person of Adam was typical of Christ; but that between the results of his conduct and the work of Christ there may be instituted a comparison, there may be traced some resemblance. What that is is stated in the following verses. It is mainly by way of contrast that the comparison is instituted, and may be stated as consisting in the following points of resemblance or contrast.

(1.) Contrast. (a) By the crime of one, many are dead; by the work of the

other, grace will much more abound, Rom 5:15.

(b) In regard to the acts of the two. In the case of Adam,

one offence led on the train of woes; in the case of Christ,

his work led to the remission of many offences,

Rom 5:16.

but life much more over the other.

(2.) Resemblance. By the disobedience of one, many were made sinners; by the obedience of the other, many shall be made righteous, Rom 5:18,19. It is clear, therefore, that the comparison which is instituted is rather by way of antithesis, or contrast, than by direct resemblance. The main design is to show that greater benefits have resulted from the work of Christ, than evils from the fall of Adam. A comparison is also instituted between Adam and Christ in 1Cor 15:22,45. The reason is, that Adam was the first of the race; he was the fountain, the head, the father; and the consequences of that first act could be seen everywhere. By a Divine constitution the race was so connected with him, that it was made certain that, if he fell, all would come into the world with a nature depraved, and subject to calamity and death, and would be treated as if fallen, and his sin would thus spread crime, and woe, and death everywhere. The evil effects of the apostasy were everywhere seen; and the object of the apostle was to show that the plan of salvation was adapted to meet and more than countervail the evil effects of the fall. He argued on great and acknowledged facts--that Adam was the first sinner, and that from him, as a fountain, sin and death had flowed through the world. Since the consequences of that sin had been so disastrous and wide-spread, his design is to show that from the Messiah effects had flowed more beneficent than the former were ruinous. In him the tribes of Adam boast

More blessings than their father lost.

WATTS.

(v) "the figure of him" 1Cor 15:22,45 Verse 15. But not as the offence. This is the first point of contrast between the effect of the sin of Adam and of the work of Christ. The word offence means, properly, a fall, where we stumble over anything lying in our way. It then means sin in general, or crime, Mt 6:14,15, 18:35. Here it means the fall, or first sin of Adam. We use the word fall as applied to Adam, to denote his first offence, as being that act by which he fell from an elevated state of obedience and happiness into one of sin and condemnation.

So also. The gift is not in its nature and effects like the offence.

The free gift. The favour, benefit, or good bestowed gratuitously on us. It refers to the favours bestowed in the gospel by Christ. These are free; i.e. without merit on our part, and bestowed on the undeserving.

For if, etc. The apostle does not labour to prove that this is so. This is not the point of his argument. He assumes that as what was seen and known everywhere. His main point is to show that greater benefits have resulted from the work of the Messiah than evils from the fall of Adam.

Through the offence of one. By the fall of one. This simply concedes the fact that it is so. The apostle does not attempt an explanation of the mode or manner in which it happened. He neither says that it is by imputation, nor by inherent depravity, nor by imitation. Whichever of these modes may be the proper one of accounting for the fact, it is certain that the apostle states neither. His object was not to explain the manner in which it was done, but to argue from the acknowledged existence of the fact. All that is certainly established from this passage is, that as a certain fact resulting from the transgression of Adam, "many" were "dead." This simple fact is all that can be proved from this passage. Whether it is to be explained by the doctrine of imputation, is to be a subject of inquiry independent of this passage. Nor have we a right to assume that this teaches the doctrine of the imputation of the sin of Adam to his posterity;--for

(1.) the apostle says nothing of it.

(2.) That doctrine is nothing but an effort to explain the manner of an event which the apostle Paul did not think it proper to attempt to explain.

(3.) That doctrine is, in fact, no explanation. It is introducing an additional difficulty. For, to say that I am blameworthy or ill-deserving for a sin in which I had no agency is no explanation, but is involving me in an additional difficulty still more perplexing, to ascertain how such a doctrine can possibly be just. The way of wisdom would be, doubtless, to rest satisfied with the simple statement of a fact which the apostle has assumed, without attempting to ex- plain it by a philosophical theory. Calvin accords with the above interpretation: "For we do not so perish by his [Adam's] crime as if we were ourselves innocent; but Paul ascribes our ruin to him because his sin is THE CAUSE of our sin."

Many Greek, The many. Evidently meaning all; the whole race; Jews and Gentiles. That it means all here is proved in Rom 5:18. If the inquiry be, why the apostle used the word "many" rather than all, we may reply, that the design was to express an antithesis, or contrast to the cause--one offence. One stands opposed to many, rather than to all.

Be dead. Rom 5:12. The race is under the dark and gloomy reign of death. This is a simple fact which the apostle assumes, and which no man can deny.

Much more. The reason of this "much more" is to be found in the abounding mercy and goodness of God. If a wise, merciful, and good Being has suffered such a train of woes to be introduced by the offence of one, have we not much more reason to expect that his grace will superabound?

The grace of God. The favour or kindness of God. We have reason to expect under the administration of God, more extensive benefits than we have ills, flowing from a constitution of things which is the result of his appointment.

And the gift by grace. The gracious gift; the benefits flowing from that grace. This refers to the blessings of salvation.

Which is by one man. Standing in contrast with Adam. His appointment was the result of grace; and as he was constituted to bestow favours, we have reason to expect that they will superabound.

Hath abounded. Has been abundant, or ample; will be more than a counterbalance for the ills which have been introduced by the sin of Adam.

Unto many. Greek, Unto the many. The obvious interpretation of this is, that it is as unlimited as "the many" who are dead. Some have supposed that Adam represented the whole of the human race, and Christ a part, and that "the many" in the two members of the verse refer to the whole of those who were thus represented. But this is to do violence to the passage; and to introduce a theological doctrine to meet a supposed difficulty in the text. The obvious meaning is-- one from which we cannot depart without doing violence to the proper laws of interpretation--that "the many" in the two cases are co-extensive; and that as the sin of Adam has involved the race--the many--in death; so the grace of Christ has abounded in reference to the many, to the race. If asked how this can be possible, since all have not been, and will not be savingly benefited by the work of Christ, we may reply,

(1.) that it cannot mean that the benefits of the work of Christ should be literally co-extensive with the results of Adam's sin, since it is a fact that men have suffered, and do suffer, from the effects of that fall. In order that the Universalist may draw an argument from this, he must show that it was the design of Christ to destroy ALL the effects of the sin of Adam. But this has not been in fact. Though the favours of that work have abounded, yet men have suffered and died. And though it may still abound to the many, yet some may suffer here, and suffer on the same principle for ever.

(2.) Though men are indubitably affected by the sin of Adam--as, e.g., by being born with a corrupt disposition; with loss of righteousness; with subjection to pain and woe; and with exposure to eternal death--yet there is reason to believe that all those who die in infancy are, through the merits of the Lord Jesus, and by an influence which we cannot explain, changed and prepared for heaven. As nearly half the race die in infancy, therefore there is reason to think that, in regard to this large portion of the human family, the work of Christ has more than repaired the evils of the fall, and introduced them into heaven, and that his grace has thus abounded unto many. In regard to those who live to the period of moral agency, a scheme has been introduced by which the offers of salvation may be made to them, and by which they may be renewed, and pardoned, and saved. The work of Christ, therefore, may have introduced advantages adapted to meet the evils of the fall as man comes into the world; and the original applicability of the one be as extensive as the other. In this way the work of Christ was in its nature fitted to abound unto the many.

(3.) The intervention of the plan of atonement by the Messiah, prevented the immediate execution of the penalty of the law, and produced all the benefits to all the race, resulting from the sparing mercy of God. In this respect it was co-extensive with the fall.

(4.) He died for all the race, Heb 2:9, 2Cor 5:14,15, 1Jn 2:2. Thus his death, in its adaptation to a great and glorious result, was as extensive as the ruins of the fall.

(5.) The offer of salvation is made to all, Rev 22:17, Jn 7:37 Mt 11:28,29, Mk 16:15. Thus his grace has extended unto the many-- to all the race. Provision has been made to meet the evils of the fall; a provision as extensive in its applicability as was the ruin.

(6.) More will probably be actually saved by the work of Christ, than will be finally ruined by the fall of Adam. The number of those who shall be saved from all the human race, it is to be believed, will yet be many more than those who shall be lost. The gospel is to spread throughout the world. It is to be evangelized. The millennial glory is to rise upon the earth; and the Saviour is to reign with undivided empire. Taking the race as a whole, there is no reason to think that the number of those who shall be lost, compared with the immense multitudes that shall be saved, by the work of Christ, will be more than are the prisoners in a community now, compared with the number of peaceful and virtuous citizens. A medicine may be discovered that shall be said to triumph over disease, though it may have been the fact that thousands have died since its discovery, and thousands yet will not avail themselves of it; yet the medicine shall have the properties of universal triumph; it is adapted to the many; it might be applied by the many; where it is applied, it completely answers the end. Vaccination is adapted to meet the evils of the small-pox everywhere; and when applied, saves men from the ravages of this terrible disease, though thousands may die to whom it is not applied. It is a triumphant remedy. So of the plan of salvation. Thus, though all shall not be saved, yet the sin of Adam shall be counteracted; and grace abounds unto the many. All this fulness of grace the apostle says we have reason to expect from the abounding mercy of God.

(w) "grace of God" Eph 2:8 (x) "abounded unto many" Isa 53:11, Mt 20:28, 26:28, 1Jn 2:2