# Romans 5:18 - Is the "free gift" in the original?



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 3, 2012)

"Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

This is a typical reading of Romans 5:18 in almost every translation available. I also checked German translations, and they all virtually say the same thing.

The King James Version, however, is an exception:

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one *the free gift* came upon all men unto justification of life."

It has the "free gift," which no other translation that I know has. It totally changes the meaning of the text, because it replaces (NOT contradicts) the effectual nature of Christ's atonement with a free offer of the Gospel. As Matthew Henry used KJV in his commentary on Romans, he concluded:

"There is *a free gift *come upon all men, that is, *it is made and offered promiscuously to all*. The salvation wrought is *a common salvation*; the proposals are general, the tender free; whoever will may come, and take of these waters of life. This free gift is to all believers, upon their believing, unto justification of life."

Isn't this an alteration of the original meaning of the text? Even though the "free gift" part may first sound good to the ear of a proponent of Limited Atonement, in my opinion, it does injustice to *the context *of the text. As John Murray points out, verse 18 simply summarises what is taught before, starting from verse 12. The "free gift" interpretation of verse 18 does not fit or make sense of the verses that precede it.

What do you think?


----------



## Whitefield (Jan 3, 2012)

Evidently it is an insertion by the KJV translators. And probably is a reinsertion of a phrase found in verse 16.


----------



## J. Dean (Jan 3, 2012)

I guess the question should be "What does the original Greek say?"


----------



## rookie (Jan 3, 2012)

Κατά συνέπεια, όπως ακριβώς το αποτέλεσμα μιας παραβίασης ήταν καταδίκη για όλους τους άνδρες, έτσι και το αποτέλεσμα μιας πράξης της δικαιοσύνης ήταν δικαιολογία που φέρνει η ζωή για όλους τους άνδρες

Now don't ask me what that means...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 3, 2012)

Note how the KJV renders, _with the italics:_Rom.5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one _*judgment came*_ upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one _*the free gift came*_ upon all men unto justification of life.​I suppose, what I see is an attempt at clarifying two parallel statements, with the "appropriate" (missing) terms. In both cases, the terms judgment or justification are directly inferred from the latter terms in the respective clauses, katakrima (sentence, condemnation) and dikaiosin (acquittal, justification).

I think the ESV does "as much with less," sticking closer to the Gk original, but I'm not sure I agree that the interpretations are that far apart.Rom.5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.​

The KJV takes the "one" (enos, genitive) and makes it a substantive object of the preposition, and thus the older interpretation flows.
The ESV attaches "one" to the following noun, "transgression" (paraptomatos), and then again to "righteousness/righteous act" (dikaiomatos), and the translation seems to flow just as well, leaving Paul with an enthymeme of sorts; but all of it is evidently dependent on what has already been stated.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 3, 2012)

Ray,
Is that "Modern" Greek of Rom.5:18? Because it isn't Koine,

"Αρα οὖν ὡς δι᾿ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα, οὕτω καὶ δι᾿ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς."


----------



## MW (Jan 3, 2012)

Charles Hodge (A Commentary on Romans, p. 169): "It will be remarked, from the manner in which they are printed, that the words _judgment came_, in the first clause of this verse, and the _free gift came_, in the second, have nothing to answer to them in the original. That they are correctly and necessarily supplied, is obvious from a reference to ver. 16, where these elliptical phrases occur in full."

Failure to recognise an ellipsis can lead to false translation, and in this case the antithetical parallelism of the passage requires the utmost care in ensuring both sides of the comparative statement contain an equality of terms. In the first translation in the OP there is an inequality of terms which weakens the parallel.


----------



## rookie (Jan 3, 2012)

What ever google translate is......most probably modern....


----------



## KMK (Jan 3, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> Charles Hodge (A Commentary on Romans, p. 169): "It will be remarked, from the manner in which they are printed, that the words _judgment came_, in the first clause of this verse, and the _free gift came_, in the second, have nothing to answer to them in the original. That they are correctly and necessarily supplied, is obvious from a reference to ver. 16, where these elliptical phrases occur in full."
> 
> Failure to recognise an ellipsis can lead to false translation, and in this case the antithetical parallelism of the passage requires the utmost care in ensuring both sides of the comparative statement contain an equality of terms. In the first translation in the OP there is an inequality of terms which weakens the parallel.



Here is Plummer:



> 18. Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation ; even so by the right eoiisness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justificaton of life. Therefore the two words so rendered are not the same as those rendered wherefore in v. 12. But they are of like import, and clearly mark the connection of this with v. 12. The comparison there begun, and interrupted by the parenthesis, is here fully carried out, only the leading terms judgment and free gift, being properly borrowed by our translators from preceding sentences. Some prefer to read one offence and one righteousness, instead of the offence of one and the righteousness of one. No doubt Adam brought ruin on us by one act. Nor does the grammar forbid this rendering. *Yet the objections to it are perhaps sufficient to cause its rejection.* They are such as these: I. The term one in the context uniformly applies to one person. Both in vs. 17, 19, one man is named. The sense in v. 18 is best reached by understanding one person in each case. At all events there is no improvement in the force of the argument by the proposed change. 2. Throughout the passage the apostle all along carefully marks the distinction between the one and the all, the one and the many. 3. If the phrase one righteousness is found elsewhere in scripture, the author does not remember it. *4. Those, who contend for the change do ask us to believe that Christ saves us by one act of righteousness, viz. his obedience unto death, understanding that phrase to mean his obedience in dying. This is not safe doctrine.* Speaking of the proposed change and the reason of it Wardlaw says : " It seems to be not merely a superfluous refinement, but moreover to proceed from a false principle with regard to what is necessary as the ground of acceptance and of life. And without entering largely into the discussion about the active and passive obedience of Christ, I would say it seems to give us a more complete and satisfactory view of the finished work of Jesus, when we consider him as not only bearing the curse which forms the sanction of the law, but also as rendering to its requirements that sinless obedience, which, according to the original engagement of God, entitles to life. That the Lord our righteousness did render such a sinless obedience to all the great spiritual principles and requirements of the law cannot be doubted," p. 281: All Christ did and all he bore was for our salvation. He suffered in obeying. He obeyed in suffering.
> 
> No fair criticism can ever shew that rigliteousness in this verse or obedience in v. 19 means simply his sufferings, much less his obedience in the mere act of dying. His circumcision and baptism were as much in fulfilment of all righteousness as his death. His perfect love to God and his equal love to man, evinced in every way, were essential to his righteousness. There is a sense in which Christ's righteousness is one. It is a seamless robe. There is no rent in it. It is undivided. It cannot be divided. But this is a very different thing from saying that Christ wrought out his righteousness the last few hours of his life. The parallel between Adam and Christ is not intended to be preserved in the shortness of the time in which, or the ease with which ruin and recovery were wrought. No ? Destruction is easy. Recovery is difficult. It is so in every thing. A rash act of one may destroy a thousand lives, but all the power of men and angels cannot restore one life. A child may in a few hours burn down a city, which ten thousand men could not build in a year. In a moment Adam brought down ruin. It required the righteousness and obedience of the life of Christ and his agony in the garden and on the cross to bring us to God. Yea, to the same end he ever liveth to make intercession for us. " The truth is, the work of Christ is just the whole of his humiliation, with all that he did and all he suffered in the nature which he humbled himself to assume. That on account of which God exalted and glorified Christ, is that on account of which he justifies -and glorifies sinners."


----------

