On The Use Of The Preposition εἰς In The Phrases κατάκριμα And εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς In Rom. 5:18 -- By: Owen Street
BSac10c05 (July 1853) p. 522
On The Use Of The Preposition εἰς In The Phrases κατάκριμα And εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς In Rom. 5:18
The difficulty that has been felt in the interpretation of this passage has been to render it in simple accordance with those teachings of Scripture which affirm that a portion of mankind will fail of justification and eternal life. Commentators who have dealt with it, may be ranged in three classes.
1. Those who hold with McKnight, that the “condemnation” (κατάκριμα) is limited to temporal death, and that the “justification” (δικαίωσις) is simply antithetic; extending no further than to that respite which mankind enjoy from immediate death, and that restoration from the dominion of death that awaits them in the resurrection.
2. Those who maintain with Chalmers, that the πάντας ἀνθρώπους, here said to be involved in the calamity of the fall, are not identical with the πάντας ἀνθρώπους upon whom “came the free gift unto justification of life;” the former denoting “all men,” in the widest sense, as represented by Adam; while the latter is restricted to the “all men” of all nations and kindreds and people and tongues who were represented by Christ, i.e. the elect.
3. Those who maintain with Calvin, that whatever is affirmed in
BSac10c05 (July 1853) p. 523
either part of this passage, is affirmed of “all mankind,” in the common and obvious sense of the terms; but understand the latter affirmation to mean nothing more than that salvation is provided for all, and freely offered to all.
The first of these explanations seems to have found but few advocates, and may probably now be regarded as obsolete.
The two that remain have ranged the great army of commentators in opposing ranks of nearly equal strength. And the blows which each has dealt at the fabric of the other, seem to us to have left little to be desired by those who would rejoice in the demolition of both. It has been shown, on the one side, that if πάντας ἀνθρώπους means literally “all men,” in the first member of the passage, it cannot in the same argument, and the same sentence, have so lost its proper significance as to denote only a part of mankind; especially, as there is nothing in the grammatical construction to indicate such a change.
With equal clearness, it has been shown, on the other side, that δικαίωσιν ζωῆς cannot be restricted to the mere...
Click here to subscribe