Since it has been shown that there was not yet sin from transgression of the law, it remains that this was Adam's sin. Through it death reigned even over those who did not sin directly.
For those who did not receive the law and did not transgress it are not called sinners. Yet they sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression and became partakers of his fall, as their forefather, who is a type of Christ.
For as the ancient Adam made all guilty of his fall, though they did not fall as he did, so Christ justified all, though they did nothing for which they ought to be justified.
This is why he is the type of Him who was to come, that is, of Christ." Thus all is clear, though it cannot be denied that even after this, perplexities may arise when reading this passage.
To remove them, one must keep in mind that the Apostle did not intend to present an all-sufficient proof that all sinned in Adam. He intended only to point to certain evident facts that could lead to this truth.
He pointed them out as blessed Theophylact explains. But how can it be said that sin was not imputed before the law? It was imputed to Cain, to those before the flood, to the builders of pagan sacred pillars, to the Sodomites, and to the Egyptians.
All of them bore the corresponding punishments of God. Here is the answer. The Apostle means such imputation by which death would be adjudged for sin, and death common to all.
For he is seeking the source of the death of people after Adam. Since death was set above as the consequence of sin, he seeks such a sin as would be the cause of the death of all by God's decree.
But there was no such sin. There were sins, but there was no sin in that sense. There were no sinners after the likeness of Adam's transgression.
People sinned while already being liable to death, already condemned to death. Some were indeed condemned to death, such as those before the flood, the Sodomites, and the Egyptians.
But this was not the original and precise adjudication of death. It was only the hastening of the term of death already adjudged to all.
How can it be said, "when there was no law," when even before the law of Moses there was law: the law of conscience, the law of Noah, and the law of circumcision?
The Apostle requires, as it were: show me such a law under which God Himself personally said, "Do this and that; if you do not do it, you will die." As is known, there was no such law.
There were laws, but with other threats, not with this one. Deaths were also adjudged for sins, as by the flood under Noah, by fire in Sodom, and the like.
But this was not for violation of a law given with the threat of death for its violation. It was for lawlessness in general, which had grown to such a degree that the lawless became unworthy of life.
This was an application of judgment to the matter, based on laws given earlier without the threat of death. Death was not joined to these deeds at the beginning, but was later adjudged to the lawless by the free decree of God's righteousness.
Why, then, does the Apostle have in view only the period from Adam to Moses? It is as though after the law of Moses other orders of God's judgment began, and death could be explained as the consequence of violating it.
One may suppose that the Apostle does this conditionally. From where is death? From sin. From what sin, when before Moses, for example, there was no solemn legislation, let alone one with the threat of universal death, as with Adam?
Let someone say that death came for violation of the law given through Moses. But from where was death before Moses? It could be from nowhere except Adam's sin.
Here the Apostle did not at all intend to define what, how, and why things were after Moses. For his purpose, it was enough to stop at this pre-Mosaic period in order to show: you see death.
But from where is it, when there was no law? From Adam's sin. Chrysostom says generally: "If death had its root in sin, and sin, while there was no law, was not imputed, why did death have dominion over those who lived before the law?
From this it is clear that not this sin, not the sin of transgressing the law, but another, namely the sin of Adam's transgression, was the cause of the common corruption. By what is this proved? By the fact that all who lived before the law died."
Adam is called a type of Him who was to come, that is, of Jesus Christ. In what respect? In this respect: "As Adam became the cause of death for his descendants, though they did not eat of the tree's fruit, a death introduced into the world by Adam's eating.
So also Christ, for those who believe in Him, became the author of righteousness, though they had no righteous deeds. He granted this righteousness to all of us through the Cross.
The Apostle maintains this thought both above and below, and repeats it many times. He dwells especially on this thought so that, to the Jew's objection, 'How was the human race saved by the merits of one Christ?' you also may answer him.
How was the whole human race condemned for the disobedience of one Adam? All the more, there is no comparison between sin and grace. On the contrary, there is an infinite distance between the one and the other.
When the very nature of the deed, the power of Him who accomplished it, and its fittingness all show that superiority and victory are on Christ's side, tell me, what pretext do you have for unbelief?
For it is more fitting for God to save than to punish. Thus the Apostle proves that in the work of salvation there is nothing contrary to reason" (Chrysostom).
These last words of Chrysostom clarify the meaning and significance of the following verses, verses 15-17, in which the Apostle says that the gift is not like the transgression.
They do not present independent propositions, but contain subordinate and explanatory thoughts. These strengthen the proposition stated just before, that as through one came sin and death, so also through one came righteousness and life.
After proving this proposition, the Apostle could have expounded its content more fully at once, in the form of a conclusion, as he does in verses 18 and 19.
But the Apostle's aim in this section, verses 12-19, is to deepen conviction in the possibility of the salvation of all through one. He wishes to remove every wavering of the mind in acknowledging this truth.
He has just proved that, as sin and death came through one, there is no reason to doubt that righteousness and life also came through one. The certainty of the first proposition strongly confirms the certainty of the second.
Now he shows that, for one of sound mind, the latter proposition should have greater certainty and should be accepted with greater conviction of its truth. Why so? Because the gift is not as the transgression.
If sin, through one man, subjected all to condemnation and death, then much more are grace and the gift, through the same one Man, powerful to justify and save all.
Saint Paul explains in various ways, in verses 15-17, this superabundance of the good things in grace over the abundance of evils from sin. Although some terms and relations of concepts in them are difficult to understand, the chief thought is clear.
THEOSIS