EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
Romans 5:18 f. Summary recapitulation of the whole parallel treated of from Romans 5:12 onwards, so that the elements of likeness and unlikeness contained in it are now comprehended in one utterance. Συλλογίζεται ἐνταῦθα τὸ πᾶν, Theodore of Mopsuestia. The emergence of the ἄρα οὖν now ushering in the conclusion, as well as the corresponding relation of the contents of Romans 5:18 f. to the indication given by ὁς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος in Romans 5:14, carries us back to Romans 5:12; not merely to Romans 5:16 f. (de Wette, Fritzsche); or merely to Romans 5:15-17 (Hofmann, Dietzsch). The right view is taken by Philippi, Ewald, Holsten.
ἄρα οὖν] conclusive: accordingly then,[1335] in very frequent use by the Apostle (Romans 7:3; Romans 7:25, Romans 8:12, Romans 9:16; Romans 9:18, Romans 14:12; Romans 14:19; Galatians 6:10; Ephesians 2:19 et al[1336]), and that, contrary to the classical usage (Herm. a[1337] Antig. 628, a[1338] Viger. p. 823), at the beginning of the sentence. For the necessary (contrary to Mehring’s view) completion of the two sentences, which are in the sharpest and briefest manner compressed as it were into a mere exclamation (Ewald), it is sufficient simply to supply: res cessit, it has come, ἀπεβή (Winer, p. 546 [E. T. 734]), or ἐγένετο (Grotius). See Buttmann’s neut. Gr. p. 338. As it therefore has come to a sentence of condemnation for all men through One trespass, so also it has come to justification of life (which has for its consequence the possession of the future Messianic life, comp Romans 5:21; John 5:28-29) for all men through One justifying judgment. The supplying of τὸ κρῖμα ἐγένετο to the first, and τὸ χάρισμα ἐγένετο to the second half (so Fritzsche and Rückert), considering the opposite sense of the two subjects, renders the very compressed discourse somewhat singular.
διʼ ἑνὸς δικ.] through one judicial verdict (see on Romans 5:16; Romans 5:19), namely, that which was pronounced by God on account of the obedience of Christ rendered through His death. In strict logic indeed the δικαίωμα, which is properly the antithesis of κατάκριμα (as in Romans 5:16), should not be opposed to παράπτωμα; but this incongruity of a lively interchange of conceptions is not un-Pauline (comp Romans 5:15). And it is thoroughly unwarranted to assign to δικαίωμα here also, as in Romans 5:16, significations which it has not; such as actual status of being righteous (Hofmann, Stölting), fulfilment of right (Philippi, Mangold), making amends (Rothe), righteous deed (Holsten), righteous life-condition of Christ (Dietzsch), with which a new humanity begins, Acts of justification (Tholuck), virtuousness (Baumgarten-Crusius), obedience (de Wette), and the like—definitions, in which for the most part regard is had to the act of the death of Jesus partly with and partly without the addition of the obedientia activa (comp also Klöpper), while Fritzsche explains it of the incarnation and humiliation of Christ (Php 2:5; Php 2:8) as His recte factum. Ewald interprets rightly: “through One righteous sentence;” so also van Hengel and Umbreit.
Meyer's NT Commentary
Romans 5:18 f. Summary recapitulation of the whole parallel treated of from Romans 5:12 onwards, so that the elements of likeness and unlikeness contained in it are now comprehended in one utterance. Συλλογίζεται ἐνταῦθα τὸ πᾶν, Theodore of Mopsuestia. The emergence of the ἄρα οὖν now ushering in the conclusion, as well as the corresponding relation of the contents of Romans 5:18 f. to the indication given by ὁς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος in Romans 5:14, carries us back to Romans 5:12; not merely to Romans 5:16 f. (de Wette, Fritzsche); or merely to Romans 5:15-17 (Hofmann, Dietzsch). The right view is taken by Philippi, Ewald, Holsten.
ἄρα οὖν] conclusive: accordingly then,[1335] in very frequent use by the Apostle (Romans 7:3; Romans 7:25, Romans 8:12, Romans 9:16; Romans 9:18, Romans 14:12; Romans 14:19; Galatians 6:10; Ephesians 2:19 et al[1336]), and that, contrary to the classical usage (Herm. a[1337] Antig. 628, a[1338] Viger. p. 823), at the beginning of the sentence. For the necessary (contrary to Mehring’s view) completion of the two sentences, which are in the sharpest and briefest manner compressed as it were into a mere exclamation (Ewald), it is sufficient simply to supply: res cessit, it has come, ἀπεβή (Winer, p. 546 [E. T. 734]), or ἐγένετο (Grotius). See Buttmann’s neut. Gr. p. 338. As it therefore has come to a sentence of condemnation for all men through One trespass, so also it has come to justification of life (which has for its consequence the possession of the future Messianic life, comp Romans 5:21; John 5:28-29) for all men through One justifying judgment. The supplying of τὸ κρῖμα ἐγένετο to the first, and τὸ χάρισμα ἐγένετο to the second half (so Fritzsche and Rückert), considering the opposite sense of the two subjects, renders the very compressed discourse somewhat singular.
διʼ ἑνὸς δικ.] through one judicial verdict (see on Romans 5:16; Romans 5:19), namely, that which was pronounced by God on account of the obedience of Christ rendered through His death. In strict logic indeed the δικαίωμα, which is properly the antithesis of κατάκριμα (as in Romans 5:16), should not be opposed to παράπτωμα; but this incongruity of a lively interchange of conceptions is not un-Pauline (comp Romans 5:15). And it is thoroughly unwarranted to assign to δικαίωμα here also, as in Romans 5:16, significations which it has not; such as actual status of being righteous (Hofmann, Stölting), fulfilment of right (Philippi, Mangold), making amends (Rothe), righteous deed (Holsten), righteous life-condition of Christ (Dietzsch), with which a new humanity begins, Acts of justification (Tholuck), virtuousness (Baumgarten-Crusius), obedience (de Wette), and the like—definitions, in which for the most part regard is had to the act of the death of Jesus partly with and partly without the addition of the obedientia activa (comp also Klöpper), while Fritzsche explains it of the incarnation and humiliation of Christ (Php 2:5; Php 2:8) as His recte factum. Ewald interprets rightly: “through One righteous sentence;” so also van Hengel and Umbreit.
It wasn't the comparison I was hoping for, but... it does seem apt. Hopefully without the starvation, abuse, and rape that I would associate with Auschwitz.
