18--21.
δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί. ἵνα πλεονάσηῃ τὸ παράπτωμα.
631
20. Νόμος δὲ παρεισῆλθεν,
οὗ δὲ ἐπλεόνασεν ἡ ἁμαρτία, ὑπερ-
επερίσσευσεν ἡ Χάρις" 21. ἵνα ὥσπερ ἐβασίλευσεν ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν
τῷ θανάτω, οὕτω καὶ ἡ Χάρις βασιλεύσῃ διὰ δικαιοσύνης εἰς ζωὴν
”/ A > A ~ lol , ς ~ αἰώνιον, διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν.
not then, but when they believe in Christ, that men are constituted δίκαιοι.
Ver. 20f. ‘The comparison between Adam and Christ is closed. But in the middle, between the two, stood the law ”’ (Meyer). Paul must refer to it in such a way as to indicate the place it holds in the order of Providence, and especially to show that it does not frustrate, but further, the end contemplated in the work of Christ. παρεισῆλθεν: see ver. 12 above. Sin entered into the world; the Law entered into the situation thus created as an accessory or subordinate thing ; it has not the decisive signficance in history which the objective power of sin has. Words in which the same pre- positions have a _ similar force are παρεισάγω, 2 Pet. ii. 1; παρεισδύνω, Jude 4; παρεισφέρω, 2 Pet. i. 5: of. Gal. ii. 4. There is often in such Sel though not necessarily, the idea of stealth or secrecy: we might render “the law slipped in”. ἵνα πλεονάσῃ τὸ παράπτωμα : the purpose expressed by tva is God’s: Winer, p. 575. The offence is multiplied because the law, encountering the flesh, evokes its natural antagonism to God, and so stimulates it into disobedience. Cf. Gal. iii. 19 ff., and the development of this idea in chap. vii. 7 ff. As the offence multiplied, the need of redemption, and the sense of that need were intensified. οὗ δὲ ἐπλεόνασεν ἡ ἁμαρτία: ἁμαρτία seems used here, not παράπτωμα, because more proper to express the sum total of evil, made up of repeated acts of disobedience to the law. ‘* Sin” bulked larger, as “ offence ”’ was added to “΄ offence’’. οὗ might seem to refer to Israel only, for it was there that the law had its seat; but there is something analogous to this law and its effects everywhere ; and everywhere as the need of redemption becomes more pressing grace rises in higher power to meetit. ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν: “ the ἐπλεό- νασεν had to be surpassed”? (Meyer). Cf. 2 Cor. vii. 4. Paul is excessively fond of compounds with ὑπέρ. The purpose of this abounding manifestation of grace is, ‘“‘that as sin reigned in death, soalso should grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life through
Jesus Christ ou,;Lord”. ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ: it is more natural to oppose this to ζωὴ αἰώνιος, and regard death as “‘ a province which sin had won, and in which it exercised its dominion ’’ (Gifford), than to make it parallel (with Meyer) to διὰ δικαιοσύνης, and render ‘“‘in virtue of death ” (dat. instr.). Grace has not yet attained to its full sovereignty ; ; it comes to this sovereignty as it imparts to men the gift of God’s righteousness (διὰ δικαιοσύνης) ; its goal, its limit which is yet no limit, is eternal life. Some, however, construe eis ζωὴν αἰώνιον with διὰ δικαιοσύνης: through a righteous- ness which ends in eternal life: cf. eis δικαίωσιν ζωῆς, ver. 18. διὰ Ἰ. Χ. τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν: this full rhetorical close has almost the value of a doxology. CuHapTerR VI.—Vers. 1-14. Inthe fifth chapter, Paul has concluded his ex- position of the “righteousness of God”’ which is revealed in the Gospel. But the exposition leaves something to be desired—something hinted at in iii. 8 (‘‘ Let us do evil that good may come’’) and recalled in v. 20 f. (‘‘ Where sin abounded, grace did superabound’’). It seems, after all, as ifthe gospel did ‘‘ make void the law ” (iii. 31) ina bad sense ; and Paul has now to demonstrate that it does not. It is giving an unreal precision to his words to say with Lipsius that he has now to justify his gospel to the moral consciousness of the Jewish Christian; it is not Jewish Christians, obviously, who are addressed in vi. 19 ff., and it is not the Jewish-Christian moral consciousness, but the moral conscious- ness of all men, which raises the questions to which he here addresses himself. He has to show that those who have ‘‘re- ceived the reconciliation”’ (v. 11), who ‘‘ receive the abundance of the grace and of the gift of righteousness” (v. 17), are the very persons in whom ‘‘ the righteous requirement of the law”? is fulfilled (viii. 4). The libertine argument is rather Gentile than Jewish, though when Paul speaks of the new religion as establishing Law, it is naturally ‘the Mosaic law of which he thinks. It was the one definite embodiment of the concept. The justifi- cation, to the moral consciousness, of the