even the existence of inherent depravity; it must, therefore, be for the oifence of one man that judgment has come upon all men to condemna- tion.' The wide sense in which the sacred writers use the word death accounts for the fact that the dissolution of the body (which is one form of the manifestation of the divine displeasure) is not only included in it, but is often the prominent idea.
Until the law. That the law of Moses is here intended is plain from V. 14, where the period marked by the words until the laiv is described by spying from Adam to Moses.
Sin was in the world, that is, men were regarded as sinners. These words must have the same meaning as all have sinned in the preceding, verse. They neither mean that men were corrupt, nor that they were actual sinners, but that they were treated as sinners. This is obvious from the next clause, ' Before the time of Moses men were treated as sinners, but they are not so treated where there is no law.' Sin is not imputed where there is no law. That is, sin is not laid to one's account and punished ; see ch. 4:8," Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin ;" see remarks on ch. 4 : 3, and the frequently recurring equivalent expressions, " His iniquity shall be upon him," as in Num. 15: 31; "He shall bear his iniquity," Lev. 5: 1. The principle here advanced, and on which the apostle's argument rests, is that the inflic- tion of penal evils implies the violation of law. The only question then is, what law have all mankind violated so as to become subject to death ? The answer follows in the next verse.
(14) nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses. That is, men were subject to death before the law of Moses was given, and conse- quently not on account of violating it. There must be some other ground, therefore, of their exposure to death.
Even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's trans- gression. That is, who had not sinned as Adam did. The question is, what is the point of dissimilarity to which the apostle here refers ? Some say it is that Adam violated a positive command to which the sanc- don of death was expressly added, and that those referred to did not. The principal objections to this interpretation are, 1. That it destroys the distinction between the two classes of persons here alluded to. It makes Paul, in effect, reason thus, ' Death reigned over those who had not vio- lated any positive law, even over those who had not violated any posi- tive law.' It is obvious that the first clause of the verse describes a general class, and the second clause, which is distinguished from the first by the word even, only a portion of that class. All men who died from Adam to Moses died without violating a positive command. The class, therefore, which is distinguished from them, must be contrasted with Adam on some other ground than that which is common to the whole. 2. This interpretation is inconsistent with the context, because it involves us in inextricable difficulties in the interpretation of vs. 13, 14. We must suppose that these verses are designed to prove that all men