Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:40:09.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Some of the Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5.121

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

C. E. B. Cranfield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The first problem which confronts us is that of the relation of this verse and of the whole section 5.12–21 to what has preceded.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , September 1969 , pp. 324 - 341
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 324 note 2 The proportion of forward references to backward in the New Testament as a whole is roughly 1:2. This is also the proportion in the Pauline corpus.

page 324 note 3 The following clause is usually a clause or a clause: in Hcb. 9.15 we have a clause, and in Mark 12.24 a participial clause.

page 324 note 4 Barrett, C. K., The Epistle to the Romans (London, 1957), p. 110.Google Scholar

page 324 note 5 ibid.

page 325 note 1 Barrett, ibid.; cf. Bultmann, R., ‘Adam and Christ according to Romans 5’, in Klassen, W. and Snyder, G. F. (edd.), Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in honor of Otto A. Piper (New York, 1962), p. 153.Google Scholar

page 325 note 2 Sanday, W. and Headlam, A. C., The Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh, 5th ed. 1902), p. 131Google Scholar, list supporters of the various suggestions.

page 325 note 3 cf. Michel, O., Der Brief an die Römer (Göttingen, 1957), p. 121, n. 1.Google Scholar

page 325 note 4 Nygren, A., A Commentary on Romans (London, 1952), p. 209Google Scholar, rejects the translation ‘therefore’ on the ground that Paul gives no intimation that he regarded Adam's position so highly that he would be likely to want to prove that Christ may be compared with him. But the point is Adam's significance for all men, and it is surely understandable that Paul should wish to prove that Christ is also significant not just for believers but, like Adam, for all men—only for blessing instead of for ruin.

page 326 note 1 cf. Barth, K., Christ and Adam: Man and Humanity in Romans 5 (Edinburgh, 1956), p. 42.Google Scholar

page 326 note 2 cf., e.g., Origen, in P.G. 14, col. 1005f; Augustine, in P.L. 35, col. 2068; Vulgate (et ita: contrast ita et in vv. 15, 16, 19, 21, and sic et in v. 18); Calvin, J., The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, tr. by Mackenzie, R. (Edinburgh, 1961), p. IIIGoogle Scholar; Lagrange, M. J., Saint Paul: Epître aux Remains (Paris, reprinted 1950), p. 105; Michel, op. cit., p. 121f.Google Scholar

page 326 note 3 Le Christ dans la théologie de Saint Paul (Paris, 1951), p. 178Google Scholar. His argument in a note on the same page, ‘II serait cependant étrange que, précédé dans le même verset par , le ne soit pas apodose’, seems to me to have no force. Why should not a protasis beginning with be continued by a further clause ‘and so (as a result)’? He goes on to admit that Paul regularly uses in apodoses, but adds: ‘mais la construction se complique ici par le fait qu'il envisage prématurément le rapport entre le salut chrétien et le péché d'Adam. II y a une double parité: un est à la base et la diffusion est universelle.’

page 327 note 1 op. cit., pp. 109 and 110.

page 327 note 2 The Last Adam: A study in Pauline anthropology (Oxford, 1966), p. 79, n. 13 (continued on p. 80.).Google Scholar

page 327 note 3 For cf. 11.26; 1 Cor 7.36, 11.28; Gal. 6.2. For introducing an apodosis answering to a protasis introduced by , or similar word, sce, in this chapter, vv. 15 (though here is omitted by B), 18, 19, 21; and 6.4; 11.31; 1 Cor. 12.12; 15.22; Eph. 5.24; Col. 3.13; 2 Tim. 3.8. On this use of after reference may be made to Kühner, R., Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, revised by Gerth, B., II/2 (Hanover, 1904), p. 256.Google Scholar

page 328 note 1 op. cit., p. 132.

page 329 note 1 op. cit., p. 121.

page 329 note 2 Hermeneia eis ten pros Romaious epistolen, in P.G. 60, col. 475.

page 329 note 3 That here means ‘mankind’, ‘human life’, is sometimes treated by commentators as self-evident. For an interesting argument in support of this interpretation reference may be made to Luther, M., Lectures on Romans, tr. and ed. by Pauck, W. (London, 1961), p. 165fGoogle Scholar. For the language used here cf. Wisd. 2.24 (); Apocalypsis Mosis 32 (‘… und alle Sünde ist durch mich [i.e. Eve] in die Schöpfung gekommen’— Strack and Billerbeck III, p. 226; Deut Rabba 9 (206a) (‘… denn er [i.e. Adam] hat den Tod in die welt gebracht’—Strack and Billerbeck III, p. 228).

page 330 note 1 To say, as Professor Scroggs does (op. cit., p. 79, n. 12), ‘It is the clear concensus of modern scholars that is to be understood as “because”’, is—to say the least—an over-simplification.

page 331 note 1 P.L. 44, col. 614.

page 331 note 2 P.G. 101, col. 553. His words are: .

page 331 note 3 Le Royaume de Dieu et sa venue (Neuchâtel, 1937), p. 157.Google Scholar

page 332 note 1 Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Stuttgart, 4th ed. 1948), p. 248fGoogle Scholar. The Liddell, Scott, and Jones Lexicon (p. 622, s.v. B, III, 3) suggests ‘wherefore’ as the meaning of in this verse. Does this mean that the Lexicon supports the interpretation favoured by Stauffer?

page 332 note 2 op. cit., p. 122, n. 3.

page 332 note 3 Stauffer's argument that the chiastic correlation of the clauses demands his interpretation which gives can hardly be sustained, since (as we have already noted) there is a chiasmus quite independently of his interpretation: (even if this were omitted with D G etc., the unexpressed subject of the verb would Still be )—.

page 332 note 4 On Augustine's interpretation of the words reference should be made to Bonner, G., ‘Augustine on Romans 5, 12’, in Cross, F. L. (ed.), Studia Evangelica, V (Berlin, 1968), pp. 242–247, to which I am much indebted.Google Scholar

page 332 note 5 P.L. 44, col. 115.

page 333 note 1 P.L. 44, col. 614.

page 333 note 2 The relevant passage in Ambrosiaster's Commentaria in epistolam ad Romanos is in P.L. 17, col. 92. It includes the words, ‘Manifestum itaque est in Adam omnes peccasse quasi in massa.’

page 333 note 3 De nupt. et concup. ii.15.

page 333 note 4 De pecc. mer. et rem. iii.3.14.

page 333 note 5 In epistolam ad Romanos expositio, in Opera (ed. altera Veneta, ,) VI (Venice, 1725), p. 64.Google Scholar

page 333 note 6 op. cit., p. 170.

page 333 note 7 In Higgins, A. J. B. (ed.), New Testament Essays: studies in memory of T. W. Manson (Manchester, 1959), p. 159.Google Scholar

page 334 note 1 The last of these meanings is favoured by S. Lyonnet, in Huby's commentary pp. 536–8. On p. 556 he paraphrases the clause thus: ‘étant remplie la condition que tous les adultes ont péché personellement, ratifiant de la sorte et faisant leur la révolte d'Adam’. Lyonnet's appendix in his edition of Huby's commentary (pp. 521–57) is one of the most careful of discussions of Rom. 5.12–14 of recent times.

page 334 note 2 P.G. 101, columns 553 and 556. He says: . He then appeals to 2 Cor. 5.4.

page 334 note 3 Sanday and Headlam (p. 133) cite Origen as supporting the interpretation ‘in whom’: Nygren (p. 215) says that Origen understood as meaning ‘because’. The relevant passage of the Latin translation of Origen's commentary (P.G. 14, col. 1011) is: ‘Absoluta sententia pronuntiavit Apostolus in omnes homines mortem pertransisse peccati, in eo in quo omnes peccaverunt, sicut et alibi. “Omnes enim”, inquit, “peccaverunt et egent gloria Dei.”’

page 334 note 4 Eis pros Romaious epistolen, in loc, in his Ek tes katholou hermeneias Ioannou tou Chrysostomou eklogai eklegeisai, in P.G. 95, col. 477. John Damascene's words are as follows: Tò, .

page 334 note 5 Tes tou hagiou Paulou pros Romaious epistoles exegesis, in loc, in P.G. 124, col. 404. The relevant passage is: .

page 334 note 6 P.G. 60, col. 474. Unfortunately Chrysostom's words do not make clear exactly how he understood the grammar of the clause. His comment on the clause is: . His (which is repeated by John Damascene and Theophylact) suggests that he was specially concerned with the fact that men became mortal because of Adam (perhaps under the influence of 1 Cor. 15.21–22). A little later (col. 475) he says (on v. 14): . It has sometimes been asserted that Chrysostom understood Paul's in the sense ‘in whom’, but there seems to be no justification for this contention (cf. Lyonnet, in Huby's commentary, p. 535, n. 2).

page 335 note 1 K.D. IV/1, p. 568.

page 335 note 2 Gnomon Novi Testamenti (3rd ed. reprinted in London, 1862), p. 516.Google Scholar

page 335 note 3 p. 106f.

page 335 note 4 Théologie de Saint Paul, I, p. 256f, though he sees the original sin as not to be isolated from its whole stream of consequences which include actual sins.

page 335 note 5 p. 190f.

page 336 note 1 p. 129f: cf. p. 126.

page 336 note 2 p. 111f.

page 337 note 1 Hermeneia eis ten pros Romaious epistolen on 5.12, in P.G. 74, col. 784. Whether it is fair to say, as Lyonnet does (in Huby, p. 533), ‘On notera chez Cyrille la traduction de par ’, I am not quite sure. Might not the be due to the form of Cyril's sentence, and not intended as an interpretation of ?

page 337 note 2 ibid. This comes a little earlier in his comment than the sentence quoted first.

page 337 note 3 P.G. 74, col. 789.

page 338 note 1 p. 112.

page 338 note 2 op. cit., p. 159

page 338 note 3 pp. 125–30.

page 339 note 1 cf., e.g., Lagrange, p. 107f; Huby, pp. 191ff; and cf. also John Chrysostom, P.G. 60, col. 475.

page 340 note 1 op. cit., pp. 63–64.

page 341 note 1 In the light of Scripture it must be asserted that, objectively, we only know human death as death-as-the-wages-of-sin, whether we consciously so know it or not.