[1] E.g. Alford, H., The Greek NT etc. 4 Vols., Vol. 2 5th ed. (London, etc. 1865) 362Google Scholar; Liddon, H. P., Explanatory Analysis of Paul's Epistle to the Romans (London, 1893) 104Google Scholar; Sanday, W. – Headlam, A. C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC), 4th ed. (Edinburgh, 1900) 138 f.Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (BNTC) corr. ed. (London, 1962) 113Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (TNTC) (London, 1963) 131 f.Google Scholar; Murray, J., The Epistle to the Romans etc. (NICNT), 2 Vols. (Grand Rapids, 1959–1965), Vol. I, 191 ff.Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC new Series) 2 Vols. (Edinburgh, 1975–1979), Vol. I, 284 ff.Google Scholar; Barth, K., The Epistle to the Romans (1933, rp. Oxford, 1977) 176 f.Google Scholar; Schlier, H., Der Römerbrief (Freiburg etc., 1977) 168 f.Google Scholar

[2] Barth, , op. cit., 176, paraphrases: ‘But there is no equilibrium; and one may not say: as the trespass, so also is the free gift … And since there is no equilibrium, one may not say: as through one that sinned sin entered into the world, so through the one righteous man the gift has been given to men’. In a similar way Cranfield, op. cit., 269, translates. ‘But it is not a matter of “As is the misdeed, so (also) is the gracious gift” …’ Recourse to solutions whereby Paul's words are put on the lips of an imagined speaker betray how embarrassingly difficult their current interpretation is.Google Scholar

[3] Murray, op. cit., 191 ff. He thinks, moreover, that vs. 15 resumes the comparison of vs. 12.

[4] Similarly Cranfield, op. cit. 271; Kuss, O., Der Römerbrief, Erste Lieferung (Regensburg, 1957) 226 and Schlier, op. cit., 159. References to other units have been suggested, e.g. to 3. 21–5. 11, or to 1. 18–5. 11.Google Scholar

[5] The factor of faith, though not explicitly mentioned, is, of course, presupposed in 5. 12–21.

[6] Cranfield, op. cit. 270, regards vv. 13–17 as parenthetical for the purpose of emphasizing the dissimilarity between Adam and Christ. Murray, op. cit. 187 and 191, thinks only of vv. 13–14 as parenthetical. Similarly Schlier, op. cit. 164 and Kuss, op. cit. 225 and 234.

[7] Vs. 15 can hardly be regarded as the apodosis (along with a renewed protasis) for the protasis of vs. 12, as Murray, op. cit. 180 and 191, supposes. Cranfield, op. cit., 270, rightly sees the apodosis in vs. 18.

[8] Similarly Schlier, op. cit. 159.

[9] The connection between Adam's fall and the plight of mankind, though in varying degrees of causality, is well attested in Jewish writings, cf. e.g. 4 Ezra 7. 116 f.: ‘O thou Adam, what hast thou done! For though it was thou that sinned, the fall was not thine alone, but ours also who are thy descendants!’ (see also 3. 21 f. and 4. 30 ff. and G. H. Box's remarks in Charles, R. H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the OT etc., Vol. II, 555 f.)Google Scholar; 2 Baruch 23. 4: ‘When Adam sinned and death was decreed against those who should be born …’ (further 17. 3; 48. 42 f. and H. H. Maldwyn's comments in Charles, op. cit., II, 477 f.). See also Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 2nd ed. (London, 1955) 31 ff.Google Scholar

[10] Cf. e.g. Cranfield's remark (op. cit., 269 f.): ‘Paul begins to draw his parallel between Christ and Adam in vs. 12, but.breaks off at the end of the verse without having stated the apodosis of his sentence, because, realising the danger of his comparison's being very seriously misunderstood, he prefers to indicate as emphatically as possible the vast dissimiliarity between Christ and Adam before formally completing it.’ To the same effect Schlier, op. cit., 166 and Kuss, op. cit., 225. See also Michel, , Der Brief an die Römer (KEKNT), 13th ed. (Göttingen, 1966) 189Google Scholar and Jervell, J., Gud og hans fiender. Forsøk på å tolke Romerbrevet (Oslo, 1973) 84 and 88.Google Scholar

[11] Barrett, op. cit., 113: ‘But the act of grace did not after all correspond exactly to the act of sin’; Schlier, op. cit., 170, similarly: ‘Und nicht entspricht der Sünde des Einen die Gabe’; Michel, op. cit., 184: ‘Doch gilt nicht der Satz: wie die Übertretung, so auch die Gnadengabe’; also 189; Käsemann, E., An die Römer (HNT) (Tübingen, 1973) 130: ‘Freilich (geht es) beim Gnadenwerk wie die Verfehlung, so auch die Begnadigung.’Google Scholar

[12] The word ώς occurs 424x in the NT, of which 147x in the Pauline corpus: Rm 20x; 1 Cor 37x; 2 Cor 29x; Gal 8x; Eph 16x; Phil 5x; Col 6x; 1 Th 8x; 2 Th 4x; 1 Tim 4x; 2 Tim 4x; Tit 2x; Philm 4x. The word οὔτως occurs 210x in the NT, of which 74x in the Pauline writings: Rm 17x; 1 Cor 31x; 2 Cor 7x; Gal 5x; Eph 4x; Phil 2x; Col Ix; 1 Th 5x; 2 Th 1x; 2 Tim 1x. Despite the frequent occurrence of these words by themselves and their natural collocation together, there is no other example in the NT of the construction ούχὡς…οὕτωςκαί… To be sure ούχ ώς occurs a few times, but with the οὓτως absent those instances constitute no parallel to our construction. Some of these examples are: Mt 7. 29//Mk 1. 22: καί ούχ ώς οί γραμματεῑς; Mt 26. 39: πλήν ούχ ώς έγώ θέλω άλλ ώς σύ; Acts 28. 19: ούχ ώς τοῡ ἒθνους μον ἒχων τι κατηγορειν; Rm 1. 21: ούχ ώς θεόν έδόξασαν. The two texts, which come closest to the construction under discussion are 1 Th 2. 4 and 5. 2. In 5. 2 we have: ήμέρα κυρίον ώς κλέπτης έν νυκτί οὔτως ἒρχε ται. At first sight this gives the appearance of coming rather close to the structure of Rm 5. 15. Nevertheless, the absence of the ούχ and the καί, which are the real problem with the sentences of Rm 5. 15–16, deprive it of all relevance. In the case of 2. 4: οὔτω λαλοῡμεν ούχ ώς άνθρώποις άρέσκοντες, the ούχ is, to be sure, present, but the καί is missing and the οὔτω-part precedes the ώς-part.

We must, therefore, conclude that the construction of Rm 5. 15 is unique in the NT. Unfortunately lexica of Classical and Post-classical Greek, such as Liddell-Scott-Jones, Δ.Δημητράκον, MέγαΛεξικόν⋯ληςτ⋯ς‘Eλληνικ⋯ςΓλώσσης, 9 Vols., ‘Aθ⋯ναι (1933–53), and Moulton, J. H. – Milligan, G., The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (1930) record no instance of ούχ ώς … οὔτως καί …Google Scholar

The main word of the sentence is χάρισμα. To this word belongs logically the negative particle ούχ. The force of the καί is that of also. The natural way to express the meaning which scholars give to the sentence would have been to write: άλλά τό χάρισμα ούκ έστιν ώς τό παράπτωμα. In that case, Paul would be saying clearly that there is a difference between the gift of grace and the trespass. Whereas, the way in which the sentence is now constructed implies that Paul is saying something different. The construction, admittedly difficult or even improbable as a statement, is both legitimate and natural if understood as a question of the type which expects the answer ‘Yes!’.

[13] Schlier's presentation is such an example.

[14] E.g. Cranfield, , op. cit., 285.Google Scholar

[15] Cf. a similar thought in 4 Ezra 4. 31 f. For its force in the sentence see the translation below.

[16] To take 15a as illustration, it is rendered in the following way by: AV: ‘But not as the offence (RV: trespass) so also is the free gift;’ RSV: ‘But the free gift is not like the trespass;’ NEB: ‘But God's act of grace is out of all proportion to Adam's wrongdoing;’ TEV: ‘But the two are not the same; for the free gift of God is not like Adam's sin.’ To the same effect the Dutch translation of 1952 and the Swedish translation of 1917.

[17] Again, vs. 15a may serve as illustration for the following commentators: Alford, op. cit., 362, ‘But not as the act of transgression so also is the gift of grace;’ Brunner, E., The Letter to the Romans (London, 1959) 43Google Scholar: ‘But the free gift is not like the trespass;’ Schlier, op. cit., 158: ‘Aber nicht wie mil dem Fall verhällt es sich mit dem Gnadenwerk;’ Bultmann, R., ‘Adam und Christus nach Röm 5’ (ZNW, 50 1959) 152CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘Und nicht wie das παράπτωμα, dass durch einen, der sündigte, geschah, war das δώρημα’; Brandenburger, E., Adam und Christus: exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Röm 5:12–21 (Neukirchen, 1962) 224Google Scholar: ‘Und nicht wie durch den Einen, der sündigte, (das Gewirkte kam) - (so kam auch) die Gabe.’ Sanday-Headlam, op. cit., 138 f., have a paraphrase too long to be reproduced. For other renderings, see notes 2 and 11, above.

[18] Against Käsemann, op. cit., 144, who thinks that ‘Die Wiederholung der Einleitung von 15a in 16a beweist, dass 16 den vorhergehenden Vers nicht fortsetzt, sondern verschärft.’

[19] So too G. Schrenk, Art. δίκη etc. in TDNT, II, 222.

[20] Similarly Michel, op. cit., 191.