He Was Raised for Our Righteous Living

An Argument that Romans 5:12-21 Is About Sanctification, Not Justification

By Joel Mohrmann

Romans 5 is a rich source of theology, but it can be difficult to understand. In this article, Joel Mohrmann makes a case for a unique, possible interpretation of this chapter based on his in-depth study of the original Greek text. We trust this will help you think through God’s Word carefully as we try to understand what He’s communicating to us. Joel serves on Convincing Proof’s Board of Directors and works in the field of electrical engineering in Lincoln, NE.

The Epistle to the Romans is a magnificent work that one could rightly consider Paul’s magnum opus. A plethora of weighty theological truths are discussed within its pages, but as a result of this, some parts of Romans can be difficult to understand. For me, some of the phrases that Paul uses in the vicinity of Romans 5 have been a bit difficult to ascertain. For example, at the very end of chapter 4, right before launching into chapter 5,1 Paul makes the statement that Jesus “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” But what does it really mean that Jesus was raised for our justification? Was not our justification finished at the cross? Similarly, in Rom. 5:18, Paul says that there “resulted justification of life to all men.” What exactly is justification of life? Translations vary here. The ESV says “justification and life,” as if these are two separate things. The 1984 NIV had “justification that brings life,” but the translators appear to have backed away from that, adopting the ESV’s rendering in the 2011 edition. I once heard an explanation that this meant “justification as applied to our lives.” But isn’t that sanctification?

It was not until I read a commentary on the book of Romans written by Zane Hodges, a figure who is relatively unknown in the evangelicalism of today, that I began to understand these statements. Zane Hodges served as a New Testament Greek professor at Dallas Theological Seminary from 1959 to 1986. In his commentary Romans: Deliverance from Wrath2 (which was published posthumously), Hodges introduced me to a new way of looking at these passages that I had never encountered before. After doing further research of my own to see if the things he said about this text were true, I have concluded that much of his reading of Romans 5 is the best and most convincing treatment of the text. The key to understanding Romans 5 is to realize that Paul is moving on from discussing justification directly to discussing its effects—namely, sanctification.

Thus, while Hodges’ book Romans: Deliverance from Wrath was instrumental in the formulation of my ideas on this text, and while many of these key insights come from him, I have also done my own work to investigate these conclusions. I myself am not a Greek scholar and do not have a degree in this field; I am not an expert in Biblical Greek. I am simply doing my best using the sources that I have available to me. I have consulted additional sources beyond those cited by Hodges in his commentary, and there are numerous places where I have expanded on the argumentation and have added some of my own thoughts as well. However, as I will attempt to defend below, I have come to be convinced that this translation and interpretation of Romans chapter 5 is what Paul (and ultimately God) intends to communicate to us through this text.

Context and the Structure of Romans

In order to understand the argument that Rom. 5:12-21 is about sanctification, we first have to understand its context and where it is situated in the overall structure of the book of Romans. I agree with Hodges that Romans 5 is the pivotal chapter that begins Paul’s transition from talking about justification to discussing sanctification. This transition from justification to sanctification happens early in chapter 5, meaning that Rom. 5:12-21 falls after Paul has started describing sanctification. Looking at the structure of Romans in broad categories, I believe that Rom. 1:18-3:20 describes the dire problem for all of humanity, and that is sin. Sin is a barrier for everyone without exception. Rom. 3:21-4:25 then describes the first part of the solution to sin, which is justification, being declared righteous before God and being brought into a right relationship with Him. Rom. 5:1-8:39 finally describes the second part of the solution to sin, which is sanctification, being made righteous in our lives through the power of the Holy Spirit and gaining victory over sin. Thus, in Romans 5 we are at the very beginning of Paul’s section on sanctification.

Rom. 5:9 says, “Having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.” Through this verse, Paul signals that he is moving on from his theme of justification, putting that in the past (“having now been justified” is a Greek aorist participle, indicating an action in the past3), and moving on to sanctification, which is how we are delivered (“saved”) from God’s temporal wrath which is now being revealed (“the wrath” mentioned in Rom. 1:184). (Note in Rom. 5:9 that “shall be saved” is in the future tense, indicating that this deliverance will happen in the future after one is justified.5 It is not synonymous with justification.) Verse 10 makes this even clearer: “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son [justification], much more, having [already] been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life [sanctification].” This is saying that, having already been justified by Jesus’ death to atone for our sin, we can now be delivered from sin and from its consequences (God’s temporal wrath) in our lives by Christ’s life, in other words, by the type of life that He offers that was modeled by His earthly life and is given to us in union with Him as a result of His resurrection, which by extension becomes our resurrection.

In terms of our union with Christ (Romans 6), we have been raised to life with Him and now share in His life, in a sense. The life that we now live is “bound up,” if you will, with Christ’s life (as Paul says in Gal. 2:20, “I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me”). Note the connection of Christ’s death with our justification and Christ’s life with our sanctification. This reading of Rom. 5:9-10 also fits nicely with how I think Rom. 4:25 should be rendered (which I’ll argue for below): “[Jesus] was delivered over [to death] for our transgressions [justification], and was raised [to life] for our righteous living [sanctification].” His death was the death of our sin, and His life (His being raised to life from the dead, just as we are brought from death to life when we are saved, cf. John 5:24) results in our living righteously. He is the life of our life, as the old German Lutheran hymn said: Jesu, meines lebens leben; Jesu, meines todes tod (“Jesus, my life’s life; Jesus, my death’s death”).6 I think the verses of Rom. 5:9-10 are directly relevant to this discussion, since they are the immediately preceding context for the section of verses being considered, Rom. 5:12-21, which begins with a “Therefore,” referring back to the context immediately prior.

Romans 5:12-21 (LSB with Modifications)

I have recently been impressed with the new Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) translation in many respects. Its goal is to stick close to the text as much as possible, and it has tightened up various translations from what the already very good New American Standard Bible 1995 had done. In Romans 5, the LSB is very similar to most major translations, following the long history of translating these verses in a similar manner that stretches back to the King James Version and its predecessors. However, I disagree with this tradition for the translation of Romans 5 (including the LSB’s), but I will quote the LSB as a base text and make several key modifications of its translation of various terms. I will defend these choices in the paragraphs that follow.

(12) Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— (13) for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed listed out [ellogeó] when there is no law. (14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the trespass of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

(15) But the gracious gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. (16) And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment condemnation [krima] arose from came out of [ek] one transgression resulting in condemnation servitude to sin [katakrima], but on the other hand the gracious gift arose from releases out of [ek] many transgressions resulting in justification righteous action [dikaioma]. (17) For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

(18) So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to servitude to sin [katakrima] for all men, even so through one act of righteousness righteous action [dikaioma] there resulted justification of life to righteous living [dikaiosin zoes] for all men. (19) For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were appointed made [kathistémi] sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be appointed made [kathistémi] righteous. (20) Now the Law came in so that the transgression would increase appear greater [pleonazó], but where sin increased appeared greater [pleonazó], grace abounded all the more appeared exceedingly great [huperperisseuó], (21) so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Verse 13: Logizomai vs. Ellogeó

Usually, every time the word “imputed” (or an equivalent such as “credited” or “accounted”) is given in a translation of the book of Romans, with the exception of this verse, the underlying Greek word is a form of logizomai, such as in Rom. 4:4-5: “Now to the one who works, his wage is not counted [logizetai] according to grace, but according to what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes upon Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted [logizetai] as righteousness.” BDAG calls logizomai an “accounting term” which means to “reckon, calculate, …count, take into account, …place to one’s account, … credit, … put on someone’s account, [or] charge to someone.”7 By contrast, ellogeó is used only once in Romans and only one other time in the New Testament in Philemon 18. There, it is rendered as “charge to my account” (“But if he has wronged you in any way or owes you anything, charge that to my account”). BDAG doesn’t say much about this word, only that it means “to charge with a financial obligation, charge to the account of someone.”8 However, other sources have suggested a more general meaning, such as simply “count” (how the ESV translates it in Rom. 5:13) or “reckon” as Moulton-Milligan implies for the “metaphorical usage” of Rom. 5:13.9 (Moulton-Milligan also states that it can mean “to put to one’s account” as in “put down to our account everything you expend.”10) I find it notable that if Paul meant mostly the same thing here as he does in Rom. 4:4-5, namely in the sense of imputation, then he could have just used the word logizomai to accomplish that. However, Moulton-Milligan and the context in Philemon suggest that this word had more of a sense of listing out charges on an account rather than necessarily crediting or imputing something to someone.

If this is true, it helps avoid the confusion of this verse when compared with various verses in Romans 2, where Paul says that men without the law will still be condemned for sinning. If this verse means that sin is not imputed or does not count against someone if there is no law, then it is unclear how those without the law can still be guilty of sin. But Rom. 2:12-15 clearly says, “For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law…. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law naturally do the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they demonstrate the work of the Law written in their heart….” One could argue that Paul meant that if, hypothetically, there were no moral law, whether written on tablets or on hearts, then no one could be guilty of sin.11 I would agree with that statement, but contextually, Paul doesn’t seem to be saying that here in verse 13 because this verse starts out saying “…for until the Law sin was in the world…,” which indicates Paul has in mind the Mosaic law. This becomes especially clearer when it is noted that the following verse, verse 14, says that death reigned “from Adam until Moses,” implying that something changed with Moses, namely, the introduction of the Mosaic Law.

John Piper, John MacArthur, and others suggest that this verse is saying that sin (or its guilt) was actually not imputed to individuals before the Mosaic law since they had no law. Instead, the reason people died before the Mosaic law was because Adam’s sin was imputed to all his descendants. Thus, Piper says that “People died even though their own individual sins against the Mosaic law were not the reason for dying; they weren’t counted. Instead, the reason all died is because all sinned in Adam. Adam’s sin was imputed to them,” and he suggests that verse 12 means “death spread to all because all sinned in Adam.”12 Likewise, MacArthur states that death didn’t come as a penalty for sins committed; rather, it is because of “the sin nature.”13 However, this view that human beings were not held responsible for their sins seems to conflict with Rom. 2:12-15. Furthermore, the idea of sin being imputed from Adam as the only reason men were held guilty seems to be read into the text here rather than out of it. Despite Piper’s rewording, Paul seems to be making the argument that death spread to all men “because all sinned”—in other words, “because they sinned” themselves and thus receieved death as a penalty just like Adam did. With a slightly different perspective, John A. Witmer (citing Rom. 4:15) says that this “means that sin does not have the character of being a transgression apart from Law and therefore sin is not taken into account… as such.”14 I have to admit that this reasoning sounds like a distinction without a difference. You could say that mankind at this time didn’t have sin imputed to them specifically as a transgression of a particular law, but so what? In this view, sin is still charged against them, just not as the breaking of a law, so it seems akin to hair splitting and would not really be necessary for Paul to state here if that’s what he meant.

Following Hodges,15 I think Paul uses ellogeó here to mean “counted,” “itemized,” or “listed out,” and thus he is making a much more benign point than is usually assumed. In other words, Paul is literally saying that without the law, there is no official list of sins given by God that we can refer to. Sin is not “listed out” or “itemized” when there is no written law. Paul is making a rather unimpressive observation, but he’s using it to say that although there was no “official list of sins,” sin was still at work in the world, and this was seen in the fact that death was reigning over people (“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses”). People were still being punished for their sins (see Cain’s curse or Noah’s flood) even though they had no written list of rules and weren’t sinning in exactly the same way that Adam did. (The oral tradition about Adam’s first sin could have served as the only “official” law the people at that time had.) So, I think that all Paul is saying with this verse is that sin is not explicitly listed out when there is no law, or as Hodges put it, “the absence of the law means that man’s failures cannot be codified into a specific list of infractions.”16 But nonetheless people still sin, since according to Romans 2 they have another type of “un-itemized” law written on their hearts—and thus death still reigns over them regardless. Their experience is one characterized by actions (sin) that ultimately lead to the consequences of decay and death.17

Verses 16 & 18: Krima and Katakrima

Often in our English vocabulary, the words “judgment” and “condemnation” can, in some scenarios, be used almost interchangeably. To judge someone and to condemn someone do not seem to be that far apart when we look for space between the two concepts. Condemnation could be said to always be a negative judgment, whereas simply a judgment could have a negative or positive outcome. That could be the case, but often the word “judge” is used with only a negative outcome implied. In this passage, the negative outcome of a judgment is clearly in view, such that verse 16, which is translated as “the judgment… result[ed] in condemnation,” almost seems to be saying nothing more than “the judgment… result[ed] in judgment.” If so, that would be uselessly tautologous.

Similarly to English, I think the same thing is true of the Greek word krima. In various places in the New Testament, krima is alternatively rendered as “judgment” or “condemnation.” Strong’s Concordance says that krima means “a judgment, a verdict; sometimes implying an adverse verdict, a condemnation.”18 BDAG, similarly, in one of its meanings for krima, says that it means a “legal decision rendered by a judge… mostly in an unfavorable sense, of the condemnatory verdict and sometimes the subsequent punishment itself.”19 Paul uses the word krima in this way in two other places in Romans, and the LSB translates it both times as “condemnation.” Rom. 3:8 says, “And why not say… ‘Let us do evil that good may come’? Their condemnation [krima] is just.” Similarly, in Rom. 13:2, Paul says, “Therefore whoever resists that authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation [krima] upon themselves.” The only other uses of the word in Romans which the LSB translates as “judgment” are in Rom. 2:2-3 (“And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things”), which, in light of the context of Romans 1, could just as easily be translated “condemnation,” and Rom. 11:33 (“How unsearchable are His judgments”) which is probably the only time in Romans that a translation of “condemnation” would not be as appropriate.

The word that is rendered “condemnation” by the LSB (and most major translations) in Rom. 5 is katakrima, which is a compound word formed from kata (“from”) and krima (“judgment”/‌“condemnation”). Thus, katakrima is literally what is “from judgment” or what comes as the result of a judgment or condemnation. This word is a rarer word since it is only used three times in the New Testament, all of which occur in Romans, two of which are in this chapter. BAGD says that katakrima is “prob[ably] not ‘condemnation’ but the punishment following a sentence.”20 Additionally, BDAG suggests that the word “does not denote merely a pronouncement of guilt… but the adjudication of punishment” and suggests translations of “punishment,” “penalty,” “doom,” and even “death sentence.”21 However, a death sentence was not the only result of a judgment or the only form of punishment. Another form of punishment resulting from a negative judgment was penal servitude. Strong’s Concordance gives katakrima the definition of “punishment following condemnation, penal servitude, penalty.”22 Note that Strong’s Concordance also thinks that katakrima is something that follows condemnation, not the condemnation itself. Moulton-Milligan agrees and suggests that “penal servitude” is the most natural use of the word, noting that “the word must be understood technically to denote ‘a burden ensuing from a judicial pronouncement – a servitude.’”23 Moulton-Milligan goes on to say, “It follows that this word does not mean condemnation, but the punishment following sentence.”24 If the word katakrima is translated as “condemnation,” Moulton-Milligan notes that then “[t]here is no adequate antithesis between krima and katakrima, for the former [krima] never suggests a trial ending in acquittal.”25 In other words, krima and katakrima would both mean the same thing: condemnation. However, in Romans 5, they seem to be used in a slightly differentiated sense; in other words, one is said to have come from the other.

Besides Romans 5, katakrima is only elsewhere used in the highly familiar and very well-loved verse in Rom. 8:1, which the LSB (and most major translations) translates, “Therefore there is now no condemnation [katakrima] for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (As a proponent of the Majority Text, Hodges would add “…who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”26 I’m inclined in this direction as well.) Though it is often how this verse is understood, I think that reading this verse as if eternal condemnation (in other words, being condemned to hell) is in view is misguided. Rather, translating katakrima here as “servitude (to sin),” as was suggested in some of the Greek lexicons, better fits the flow of Paul’s argument from Romans 7 into Romans 8. What is in view here is not the condemnation or negative judgment itself but rather its results, namely, a condition of servitude to sin. To read it in a really wooden sense, it could be rendered, “There is therefore now no results of condemnation (i.e., servitude to sin and ultimately death) for those who are in Christ Jesus.” In Romans 7, Paul talks about his struggle with sin,27 describing himself as “sold in bondage [pipraskó] under sin” in verse 14. Both BDAG28 and Strong’s Concordance29 suggest that the verb pipraskó, which here is rendered “sold in bondage,” can also mean “sold as a slave.” It is the same word used in Matt. 18:25 in the parable of the unforgiving servant where it says, “But since he [the servant] did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold [pipraskó].” This would indicate that Paul is talking about a condition of servitude/slavery to sin. Later in Romans 7, Paul says that he is made “a captive to the law of sin which is in [his] members” and that he is serving “with [his] flesh the law of sin.” He then asks who will deliver him from this condition and reveals that it is Jesus. Rom. 8:1 then follows with its “therefore” and presents the solution to chapter 7. The solution is that believers who avail themselves of the Spirit’s power and don’t rely on their flesh can escape their servitude to sin and have victory over it. I think that is more clearly the meaning of Rom. 8:1. Paul is not talking about salvation and escaping the condemnation of hell, which would seem to come out of nowhere in this context; rather, he is saying that those who are in Christ Jesus don’t have to live in “servitude to sin” as he described in chapter 7 if they will “walk by the Spirit” as Paul will further describe in Rom. 8:4. The righteous action of the law will be fulfilled in those who “walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”30

In light of this, I think that katakrima should carry a similar definition of “servitude (to sin)” here in Romans 5. It would make more sense meaning an actual penalty that resulted from the judgment rather than simply just “condemnation,” which is basically the judgment itself. This is why I render krima in this context as “condemnation,” since an assumed negative judgment is in view, which is consistent with translations in Rom. 3:8 and 13:2. The word “judgment” would also be a fine translation, but I wanted to emphasize that contextually the negative result is already in view and thus saying “judgment… result[ed] in condemnation” is short-circuited because it would have nothing else to mean other than “condemnation… result[ed] in condemnation” unless katakrima is rendered as something else, namely “servitude to sin.” Therefore, this text in verse 16 is not saying that God’s judgment arose as a result of sin and resulted in men being condemned to death and ultimately to hell. Rather, this text is saying that a negative judicial sentence, condemnation, came as a result of Adam’s one transgression and it resulted in all men—Adam and his descendants—being in servitude to sin, with death reigning over them. Verse 18 then means the same thing, that as a result of Adam’s one transgression, all men became subject to sin as its slaves, ultimately being ruled by death, as verse 21 also states that “sin reigned in death.” Servitude to sin and its consequences (ultimately death) was the penalty that resulted for all of Adam’s descendants from the judgment rendered upon Adam’s sin.

Verses 16 & 18: Dikaioma and Dikaiosis

A significant group of words of which Paul makes extensive use in Romans is the family of words with the dik- root. The most common of these are the adjective dikaios (righteous, just), the noun dikaiosuné (righteousness), and the verb dikaioó (to justify; literally “to righteousify”). These form the backbone of Paul’s use of judicial language to fully explain how we are made right with God, which is a doctrine we know today as the doctrine of justification, which term is derived from these very words. However, there are two additional words with the dik- root that Paul makes use of in Romans, but they are used only sparingly. These are the nouns dikaioma and dikaiosis. Dikaioma is the more common of the two, as it is used five times in Romans, ten times in the New Testament, and more frequently in the Septuagint.31 Dikaiosis is much rarer, as it is only used twice in the New Testament, both times in the book of Romans, and only once in the entire Septuagint!

In most translations, dikaiosis is translated as “justification” whereas dikaioma is given a range of translations depending on its usage, one of those also being “justification.” In fact, it is in the context of Rom. 5:16-18, a span of only three verses, where dikaiosis and dikaioma are both rendered as “justification,” and dikaioma specifically is rendered in one place as “justification” and in another as “act of righteousness.” I think this should give us pause. While words certainly can be flexible and can shift usage in close contexts, sometimes requiring different translations for the same word in the same context, we should nonetheless be hesitant to assume that a careful writer like Paul would use two different words in the same immediate context to mean the same thing while using one of those same words twice in the same immediate context to mean two different things. Note the usage in Rom. 5:16-18: “…the gracious gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification [dikaioma]…. through one act of righteousness [dikaioma] there resulted justification [dikaiosis] of life to all men.” If this is what Paul meant, the wording he used to achieve that meaning seems rather confusing at best.

To untangle this, let us start by surveying the other uses of dikaioma throughout the book of Romans. Its first use comes in Rom. 1:32, which says, “and although they know the righteous requirement [dikaioma] of God….” It is used again in Rom. 2:26, which says, “So if the uncircumcised man observes the righteous requirements [dikaioma] of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?” Finally, it is used in Rom. 8:4, which reads, “so that the righteous requirement [dikaioma] of the Law might be fulfilled in us….” In all of these places, the word is translated as “righteous requirement,” which is certainly within the range of its meaning according to BDAG. The first sense of meaning that BDAG gives for dikaioma is “a regulation relating to just or right action, regulation, requirement, commandment.”32 BDAG states that this is mostly how the Septuagint uses the word. This is very similar to the second sense of meaning offered by BDAG for dikaioma, which is “an action that meets expectations as to what is right or just, righteous deed.”33 It is in accordance with this sense of meaning that dikaioma is usually translated as “act of righteousness” in Rom. 5:18. So, the word can either mean a righteous requirement itself or an action that is in accord with such a righteous requirement, namely, a righteous action.

However, BDAG invents an entire third category of meaning just to explain the usage of the word dikaioma in Rom. 5:16. BDAG says it means “to clear someone of a violation… (opp[osite] katakrima) it is prob[ably] chosen because of the other words [ending] in -ma, and is equiv[alent] in [meaning] to dikaiosis.”34 What this is referring to is that in Rom. 5:16, Paul uses a bunch of words ending in -ma that give the verse a consonant quality akin to alliteration: “And the gift [dorema] is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment [krima] arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation [katakrima], but on the other hand the gracious gift [charisma] arose from many transgressions resulting in justification [dikaioma].” It is striking that such an incongruous definition is proposed for the meaning of this word in one particular place that applies nowhere else in any other ancient writings,35 and it is further stunning that this definition equates its meaning with another word used in the same immediate context. The question must be asked: If what Paul really meant by dikaioma was dikaiosis, then why didn’t he just use dikaiosis? And BDAG’s answer seems to be that Paul wanted to write an artful sentence using words that sounded similar, so he fudged the meaning of dikaioma because he wanted it to end in -ma like several other words in the sentence. I don’t think that explanation is very convincing, and as I will later show, I think dikaioma can easily have one of the standard meanings, namely the second one—righteous action—assigned to it by BDAG in this verse without having to invent a special category.

One reason to think that dikaioma was employed by Paul in the context of verse 16 to mean “righteous action” is the usage of the word in Romans chapter 8 alongside another word also used in verse 16, katakrima. The presence of these two words together in verse 16 of chapter 5 and verses 1-4 of chapter 8 hints of a deliberate allusion Paul is drawing between the two texts. Note how, in Rom. 5:16, katakrima and dikaioma are specifically contrasted: “…on the one hand condemnation came out of one transgression resulting in katakrima [servitude to sin], but on the other hand the gracious gift releases out of many transgressions resulting in dikaioma [righteous action].” The result of condemnation was katakrima, but the result of the gracious gift was dikaioma. They are contrasting realities which describe the result of a state of sin and a state of grace, respectively. In Rom. 8:3b-4, the LSB renders dikaioma as follows: “He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteous requirement [dikaioma] of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” The LSB uses BDAG’s first sense of meaning (“righteous requirement”) to translate dikaioma here, which could certainly be warranted, but the second sense (“righteous action”), which is similar though not quite identical, is also a viable option. Zane Hodges explains this subtle difference by stating that “Paul does not mean here that a Christian can operate under the law and carry out its ‘requirements,’ but rather that the righteous action which the law stipulated, but failed to produce [in a person’s life]…, can be achieved under grace.”36

If the additional clause of the majority text reading is accepted for Rom. 8:1, the connection between Rom. 8:4 and Rom. 8:1 becomes obvious, as both contain the qualifier “who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” Recall that Rom. 8:1 uses the word katakrima as such: “Therefore there is now no servitude to sin [katakrima] for those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” We can see once again the contrast that Paul draws here between katakrima on the one hand and dikaioma on the other. There is no katakrima (servitude to sin) for those who walk according to the Spirit and not the flesh (verse 1), but there is (the fulfillment of) dikaioma (righteous action) for those who walk according to the Spirit and not the flesh (verse 4). Romans 8 is the pinnacle of Paul’s section on sanctification in this letter that began in chapter 5, and it seems with this structure that Paul is making a direct allusion here to verse 16, which also contrasted katakrima with dikaioma. If these verses in Romans 8 are indeed alluding back to Rom. 5:16, then rendering dikaioma uniquely in verse 16 as “justification” would destroy the evident nature of this connection. No translation of which I am aware chooses to render dikaioma as “justification” in Rom. 8:4, so given its potential connection to Rom. 5:16, it makes less sense to render it there as “justification” also.

I will now turn to considering the even rarer word dikaiosis. Given that it is used only twice in the entire New Testament, both within a 19-verse span of the book of Romans, it is close to what would be considered a hapax legomenon.37 Rom. 4:25 is where the word first appears, and it is used as such: “He who was delivered over for our transgressions, and was raised for our justification [dikaiosis].” It is then used again in Rom. 5:18, “…through one act of righteousness there resulted justification [dikaiosis] of life to all men.” This word is so rare that Moulton-Milligan doesn’t even include it with its own entry,38 though it does give a very brief mention of it under another word (katakrima) and defines it as “a process of absolution, carrying with it life.”39 BDAG likewise gives it a very abbreviated treatment, defining it as “justification, vindication, acquittal… as a process as well as its result.”40 BDAG notes that it is used in the Septuagint translation of Lev. 24:2241 as follows: “There shall be one standard of judgment [dikaiosis] for you; it shall be for the sojourner as well as the native.” It is also used not in the Septuagint but in Symmachus’ Greek Old Testament translation of Psalm 35:23-24a:42 “Stir up Yourself, and awake to my justice [dikaiosis] And to my cause, my God and my Lord. Judge me, O Yahweh my God, according to Your righteousness [dikaiosune].” It can be seen by its usage that this word takes on a bit of a flexible meaning depending on its context.

It could be the case that, taken in a more general sense, the proper amount of ambiguity may be afforded the word if it is translated as something similar to “righteous result,” noting that it belongs to the dik- family and thus relates to righteousness and that BDAG states that it is “justification [more literally “righteous-ification”]… as a process as well as its result” (emphasis mine).43 That would fit decently well with its two Old Testament uses: “There shall be one righteous result for you; it shall be for the sojourner as well as the native” (Lev. 24:22) and “Stir up Yourself, and awake to my righteous result And to my cause, my God and my Lord” (Psalm 35:23). Reading this in the context of Rom. 4:25 and Rom. 5:18, it opens up the meaning of these passages and decouples them from necessarily requiring the word to mean “justification,” which in our theological vocabulary has come to have a very specific and substantial meaning. Rom. 4:25 would read, “He who was delivered over for our transgressions, and was raised for our righteous result.” Similarly, Rom. 5:18 would say, “…through one act of righteousness there resulted a righteous result of life to all men.” This raises the question: what is this “righteous result”? Many translations have assumed that the righteous result is justification, but is that required by the text? Was Jesus really raised for our justification? He certainly died to pay for our sins (He was “delivered over for our transgressions”), which allows us to be justified, but was he raised for that as well, or for something else?

It is my contention that the “righteous result” in view here is actually referring to our sanctification, not our justification. Thus, the word dikaiosis could be less literally rendered in this context as “righteous living.”44 There are three reasons for this. First, it seems pertinent that, in Rom. 5:18, Paul combines dikaiosis with zoes (life), thereby creating an awkward term sometimes translated “justification of life,” whereas “righteous result of (in) life” or “righteous living” might make more sense. Second, as I’ve argued above, I think Romans 5 begins Paul’s section on sanctification, and thus Rom. 4:25 serves as the jumping off point to launch that discussion. It starts off with “He who was delivered over for our transgressions,” referring to our justification, which Paul has just finished discussing, “…and was [also] raised for our righteous living,” referring to our sanctification, which Paul will now begin to discuss. In Pauline thought, specifically in the book of Romans and especially chapter 6, it seems that Paul views our sinful living as having died in Christ, and our righteous living thus lives through Christ. (Rom. 6:4, “…as Christ was raised from the dead… we too might walk in newness of life.”) It is a Pauline motif to see our sanctification as the result of our having been raised up with Christ (see, e.g., Col. 3:1, “if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is,” and Phil. 3:10-11, “that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection… if by any means I may attain to [His] resurrection from the dead”45). Third, as will be discussed later, if dikaioma in Rom. 5:16 means “righteous action,” and if Rom. 5:18 is parallel in meaning to Rom. 5:16 (which BDAG admits46), then dikaiosis has a similar meaning to “righteous action,” namely “righteous living.” Theologian Robert N. Wilkin suggests this possibility: “[I]f Paul used a noun to allude to justification, it would likely be dikaiosune, not the rare word dikaiosis. Possibly… this word has not been properly understood by most commentators and translators. Dikaiosis might mean righteous living (which would be a synonym to dikaioma, righteous action).”47 This looser translation of the word also fits better contextually into the two Old Testament uses of the word in Lev. 24:22 and Psalm 35:23: “There shall be one standard of righteous living for you…” and “Stir up Yourself, and awake to my righteous living…” or much more roughly, “Take note of the righteous way in which I am living….”

Now, we need to turn to considering the usage of dikaioma and dikaiosis together in the same context. The argument for translating these words as most major translations do (following a long history of rendering these words as such dating back to the Wycliffe, Geneva, and King James translations) seems to follow a particular chain of reasoning. First, it is determined that dikaiosis, one of the noun forms of the verb dikaioó (“to justify”), must mean “justification” in the context of Rom. 4:25. Second, as the only other use of this word occurs in Rom. 5:18, it should be translated consistently there, and thus it is also rendered as “justification.” Third, Rom. 5:18 is seen to be a parallel verse to Rom. 5:16. Fourth, the word in the corresponding position in the parallel statement in Rom. 5:16, dikaioma, is rendered to mean “justification” as well (regardless of the fact that the same word, dikaioma, is translated “act of righteousness” in Rom. 5:18). Finally, it is then concluded that dikaioma can reasonably mean “justification” because Paul wants that verse to have a consonant quality by using a bunch of words that all end in -ma. Thus, the consequence is that dikaioma takes a nonstandard meaning with regard to all of its other ancient usages.48 As mentioned previously, this is the solution that BDAG accepts for how to translate these words in this context.49 While using words with endings that have a quasi-rhyming quality is a “creative” and memorable way to formulate this statement, I don’t think it is reason enough to conclude that Paul would necessarily force a word to assume an atypical meaning when he uses the same word in the typical sense in the very same context.

Contrastingly, I believe that an alternate argument can be proposed that reverses the flow of reasoning employed in the previous argument, relies on some of the same key premises, and results in a less ad hoc solution that doesn’t assign a nonstandard meaning to a word that enjoys moderate ancient usage. First, I would start with the assumption that the word dikaioma should be translated according to one of its standard meanings, which is consistent with all other usages of the word in the book of Romans. According to BDAG, this would be its second sense of “righteous action.” This is again how the word is commonly rendered when it appears in the immediate context in verse 18. Second, I would note that Rom. 5:16 is parallel to Rom. 5:18. (This premise is shared with the prior argument.) Third, I would thus conclude that the word that appears in the corresponding position in the parallel statement in Rom. 5:18, dikaiosis, needs to mean something similar to “righteous action,” namely “righteous result.” When dikaiosis is then paired with zoes, it would mean “righteous result in life” or “righteous living.” (This premise’s core idea, that the parallel words should have similar meanings, is shared with the prior argument.) Fourth, I would acknowledge that, as the only other use of this word occurs in Rom. 4:25, it should be translated consistently there, and thus it should also be rendered as “righteous result” or even “righteous living.” (This premise, at least in its form, is also shared with the prior argument.) Finally, I would conclude that even though the word zoes isn’t paired with dikaiosis in Rom. 4:25, it likely has a functionally equivalent meaning because of the contrasting death/life motif present in that verse.50

I think this solution to this translation difficulty better explains the evidence and avoids the somewhat ad hoc and arguably undesirable solution that forces dikaioma to assume a category of meaning that it nowhere else assumes. Does it make more sense for dikaioma to take one of its two standard meanings, according to BDAG, and to render dikaiosin zoes as “righteous living,” or does it make more sense to render dikaiosis as “justification” and then invent a special category of meaning for dikaioma? I think the former is more likely, especially since the more literal rendering of dikaiosis as “righteous result” has the proper amount of ambiguity, generality, and flexibility to fit all biblical uses of the word in Leviticus 24, Psalm 35, and Romans 4-5. This would account for BDAG’s assumption that dikaioma and dikaiosis are parallel and must be essentially synonymous but would avoid creating a special category of meaning for dikaioma. Taking this all together, I would render verses 16 and 18 to read, “And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the condemnation came out of one transgression resulting in servitude to sin, but on the other hand the gracious gift releases out of many transgressions resulting in righteous action…. So then as through one transgression there resulted servitude to sin for all men, even so through one righteous action there resulted righteous living for all men.”

This translation, then, clearly shows that these verses are discussing sanctification, producing righteous actions in the lives of believers, rather than justification, being declared righteous by God. It is the gift of justification that releases us in order to make it possible for us to be sanctified through living righteously. Some other commentators, who have not extensively opined on the specific translations of various terms offered here, have nonetheless recognized that at least some of these verses are talking about sanctification rather than justification. For example, while he does think Rom. 5:16 is about justification, Edwin C. Blackman writes about Rom. 5:17-18 that “Christ makes possible… righteous living (vss. 17-18), and the triumph of grace over sin (vs. 19), thus reversing the process which produces their opposites. The old humanity was characterized by the disobedience exemplified in Adam; the redeemed humanity reproduces the obedience shown in Christ’s perfect life. Made righteous [vs. 19] appears to mean complete moral perfection, a more developed stage [i.e., sanctification] than is implied by justification” (emphases mine).51

Verse 16: Ek

A subsidiary consideration concerns the translation of the preposition ek in verse 16. Prepositions are notoriously hard to translate in any language and can carry a wide array of meanings that do not map one-to-one into another language. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon has this to say about ek: “it denotes exit or emission out of, as separation from, something with which there has been close connection.”52 BDAG, in its many senses of possible meaning (specifically six) for ek gives something similar with its first meaning: “marker denoting separation, from, out of, away from, (a) w[ith] the place or thing fr[om] which separation takes place…, (b) w[ith] a group or company fr[om] which separation or dissociation takes place…, (c) of situations and circumstances out of which someone is brought…, (d) of pers[ons] and things with whom a connection is severed….”53 BDAG’s third category of meaning for ek is similar but distinct: “marker denoting origin, cause, motive, reason, from, of … (c) to denote derivation… come, derive from someone or someth[ing].”54 In short, it could simply be translated “from” (as the CSB has it) or “out of.” English translations offer many readings for the relationship rendered here, and some render each ek slightly differently. The KJV reads the first ek as “was by” and the second ek as “is of.” The CEB renders the first ek as “came from” and the second as “came out of.” The NET renders the first as “resulting from” and the second as simply “from” with potentially an implied “resulting.” Interestingly, the NRSV and ESV assign the ek here to BDAG’s fifth category of meaning, that of “a marker denoting temporal sequence,”55 by translating it as “following” in both places: “judgment following one trespass… the free gift following many trespasses….”

I think BDAG’s first sense of meaning, specifically (c), as well as (c) for the third sense of meaning, works nicely in verse 16, which could be roughly translated as, “…on the one hand condemnation out of [ek] one transgression… but on the other hand the gracious gift out of [ek] many transgressions.” (However, I also think that the translation of ek as “following” here, per the ESV, could be plausible.) The LSB translates ek as “arose from” consistently in each case, adding the word “arose” to help the meaning. However, even though the condemnation was the direct consequence caused by one transgression, it is probably not the case that the gracious gift is the direct consequence caused by many transgressions. The usage doesn’t seem precisely parallel, at least in terms of causation. Thus, a slightly dissimilar translation could be warranted here, as numerous translations (noted above) have done. Hence, I (effectively following Zane Hodges56) have rendered the relationship of the condemnation to the one transgression as that it ”came out of ” it (which is functionally similar to the LSB’s “arose from”), whereas the gracious gift brings one out of or “releases out of ” many transgressions (which has a slightly different feel than the LSB’s “arose from”). I think this makes the flow of thought here clearer, but regardless of how the preposition ek is translatedin this passage, I do not believe it affects the arguments concerning the translation of the much more substantial words krima, katakrima, dikaioma, and dikaiosis in this context.

Verse 19: Kathistémi

Because of the common translation of dikaiosis as “justification” in the prior verse, it seems that many think verse 19 is also talking about the doctrine of justification, that through Adam’s disobedience all men were appointed or declared sinners (original sin) but through Christ’s obedience all believers will be appointed or declared righteous (in a forensic sense).57 That is certainly within the ballpark of valid potential interpretations of this text, but I see the verse as parallel with the previous ones and thus talking about the doctrine of sanctification, that many believers will be “made righteous” in experience. Just as through one man’s sin we became sinners by experience, so through Christ’s obedience we will become righteous by experience. In other words, through one man’s disobedience, sin came to reign over us, and we became slaves to sin by sinning, but through Jesus’ obedience we can now become “slaves to God” (as Paul speaks of elsewhere such as Rom. 6:22) and have victory in our own lives through living righteously. Just as Adam’s sinful actions opened the way of living in sin to us, so Jesus’ actions opened the way of living in righteousness (the possibility of living righteously) to us.

Even though I think the standard interpretation is within the realm of possible meaning for the text here, I take the position I do for two reasons. First, as I have said before, I believe that, in the structure of the book of Romans, Paul has just entered his section on sanctification starting with chapter 5, and so the entire context in which verse 19 falls is primarily about sanctification rather than justification. The other reason that I think verse 19 is referring to sanctification is that I see it as restating the same ideas as verse 18 in a parallel way.58 As argued before, I think verse 18 is talking about being freed from servitude to sin in order to live righteously. It’s discussing sanctification. This is seen partially from the fact that verse 18 is also restating, in a sense, the parallel thoughts of verse 17 (and, by extension, of verse 16), which says “For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness [justification] will reign in life [sanctification] through the One, Jesus Christ.” In verse 17, the parallel result of death reigning because of the sin of Adam is that those who have received the gift of righteousness can “reign in life,” which clearly seems to be talking about sanctification. That phrase doesn’t sound like something that would be necessarily describing justification; plus, it seems that justification was already alluded to as a past reality with the words describing those “who receive the… gift of righteousness.” Those who believe in Jesus Christ receive justification, and then they have the power through Christ to reign (righteously) over their lives instead of being reigned over by sin and death.

Thus, since I view verse 19 as a parallel restating of verse 18 and verse 17, then I also think it follows that verse 19 is talking about being freed from servitude to sin (“many were made sinners”) in order to live righteously (“many will be made righteous”). It then follows that this “being made righteous” is not here being used analogously to our being declared righteous in justification but rather to being actually made righteous in our lives by the Holy Spirit. This is why I prefer the translation of kathistémi as “made” rather than “appointed.” There are three senses of meaning of this word according to BDAG: (1) “to take someone somewhere, bring,” (2) “to assign someone a position of authority, appoint” and (3) to “cause someone to experience something, make, cause.”59 While the LSB’s translation of “appointed” could certainly be warranted, I think the third category of meaning expresses this gist of this verse best, and, in fact, BDAG itself assigns kathistémi in Rom. 5:19 to this third category.60 In a roughly equivalent way, verse 19 could read, “One man’s disobedience caused many to experience sin, but One Man’s obedience caused many to experience righteousness.”61 The translation of simply “made” for kathistémi (as in the NASB) offers the proper amount of ambiguity in rendering this word, so that we don’t have to read it necessarily in the “appointed” or “declared” sense but rather in a “constituted” or “became” sense. Therefore, in this rare case, I would agree with the NASB’s rendering against the LSB’s revision of it.

Finally, other commentators have recognized that this verse is discussing the realities of sanctification—being made righteous in the way we live as believers. Obviously, Hodges takes this position, although he prefers to translate kathistémi as “constituted.”62 John A. Witmer also says that “In the second half of 5:19 the many …are not simply declared righteous (the verb dikaioó is not used here), but they will be made righteous in the process of sanctification, culminating in glorification in God’s presence. The word ‘made’ (from kathistémi) means ‘stand constituted as,’ the same verb used in the first half of verse 19 in the words ‘were made sinners.’”63 Both Hodges and Witmer see the word “constituted” as describing a process of becoming righteous rather than being simply declared righteous. As quoted previously, Edwin Blackman also sees verse 19 as “mean[ing] complete moral perfection, a more developed stage [i.e., sanctification] than is implied by justification.”64

Verse 20: Pleonazó and Huperperisseuó

This is a fairly minor point, but I think my alternate translation of these words (following Hodges65) helps express what this verse is saying more clearly. This verse almost acts as an answer to a question that could be raised by someone reading what Paul has written so far: If, as verses 13 and 14 indicate, sin was in the world before the law was given and men were still held accountable for their sin even though there was no written law, then why was the law given? Paul’s answer to that implicit question here is that the law was given to make all sinful actions evident and to expose all of sin for what it really is. This is similar to ideas expressed in Romans 7, especially Rom. 7:13: “Therefore did that which is good [the law] become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by working out my death through that which is good [the law], so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.” In other words, through the clarity that the law brings, sin would be shown to be the evil that it really is. In Rom. 7:7b, Paul says, “I would not have come to know sin except through the Law. For I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’” Paul admits that there were some sins that may not have been evident to him just based on what his conscience thought was wrong, what he learned from God’s moral law written on his heart (since that picture is incomplete and partially corrupted by sin itself). Rather, the law came along to reveal the full measure of sin and how deeply it had infected and damaged human beings. With the law, we would now have greater awareness of what sin is and of which things are actually sinful. Zane Hodges explains that “once the will of God has been made plain to men, an offense against His will becomes greater in the sense that its seriousness is increased and magnified in light of the divinely revealed standard.”66

Thus, in verse 20, Paul is saying that the law came in so that sin would become greater; that is, our awareness of our sin would be heightened. To say that the law came in so that sin would “increase” makes it sound like the law was given so that more sins would be committed or so that people would sin more than before now that the rules were explicit. If verse 13 is taken to mean “imputed” rather than “listed out,” against what I argue above, and thus it means people were not held accountable for sins before the law, then this verse would make it seem like the law was given so that people would start committing sin. The people would be made aware of the sinfulness of actions that they didn’t think were sinful (which I think is true to a point, that the law was given for this purpose), but in addition, people could therefore only now be held accountable for actually committing those sins (which I don’t think is true). As explained above, that would seem to go against Paul’s insistence in Romans 2 that, even without the law, mankind is guilty of committing many sins.

The Greek word rendered “increase” in this verse is pleonazó. BDAG gives three categories for the meaning of pleonazó: (1) “to become more and more, so as to be in abundance… become great… increase in number, multiply,” (2) “to have more than is necessary, have too much,” and (3) “to be responsible for increase.”67 Along with BDAG, I think pleonazó here falls into the first category. While a translation of “increase” could certainly be warranted, we have to ask, “increase in what sense?” Because of its general connotation, to translate this as “increase” makes it sound like something is necessarily increasing in number or quantity, which according to BDAG is a valid sense of this verb, but it doesn’t have to mean this. Especially when used intransitively, as here, its usage can be more flexible and ambiguous as BDAG allows the translation “to become great[er].”68 Moulton-Milligan suggests that pleonazó should be taken in the sense that something came to be “in excess of the amount previously decreed,”69 which is certainly vague enough to encompass both meanings. Translating pleonazó slightly more ambiguously or generally as “became greater” leaves open the question of how exactly sin became greater—did it become greater in quantity, i.e., more sin was actually being committed because of the law, or did it become greater in quality, i.e., people’s awareness of their own actions increased and more of what they were already doing was exposed as sinful? In other words, there wasn’t more sin because of the Mosaic Law; the sin that was already there just appeared greater.

There is then the consideration of the comparative word huperperisseuó which the LSB renders “abounded all the more” but which I render as “appeared exceedingly great.” Again, this word is similar to the last one in that it can describe something becoming greater in quantity or quality. Strong’s Concordance suggests that it means “to abound more exceedingly” or “to overflow.”70 Its only other New Testament use is in 2 Cor. 7:4, where the LSB renders it “overflowing” in the phrase “I am overflowing with joy in all our affliction.” BDAG gives it the meaning of “to be very high on a scale of amount, be in great excess… be present in (greater) abundance.”71 Literally, huperperisseuó is a compound word consisting of huper which means “over” and perisseuó which means “to be in abundance,” thus meaning “to be in overabundance.” This verb without the prefix huper occurs also in this context in Rom. 5:15 where it is translated “abound” in the phrase “…much more did the grace of God… abound to the many.” It is also used in Rom. 3:7 where it says, “But if through my lie the truth of God abounded [perisseuó] to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?”

However, BDAG offers this translation for that verse: “If by my falsehood the truthfulness of God has shown itself to be supremely great [perisseuó], to his glory…”72 (emphasis mine). This rendering of the verb is functionally equivalent to my suggestion that huperperisseuó be translated as “became exceedingly great” or “appeared exceedingly great” in verse 20. In Rom. 3:7, it is not as though there suddenly became more truthfulness in God or that His truthfulness somehow increased in amount, for that would be impossible for God. Rather, God’s truthfulness was just shown to be greater than was already recognized because of its contrast with the falsehood and lies of human beings. Similarly, verse 20 is saying that where sin now appeared greater, the grace extended to us by God now appeared supremely great. Since we were now more aware of just how much our actions were sinful, grace became all that more amazing (greater) to us. I don’t think this verse means that there were now more sins because having the law made us sin more which required there to be even more grace to cover all those extra sins being committed. Rather, I think verse 20 is just saying that we have reason to be much more appreciative of the amount and extent of God’s grace to us because the law showed us the full extent of our own sin and thus by extension our dire need for God’s grace.

I admit that, contrasted with the arguments I’ve made about the meanings of other words previously, the ones offered in support of my translations of huperperisseuó and more so pleonazó are shakier. I think I am correct to read them more generally and not as specifically relating to increasing in number or quantity as much as the ancient Greek usage reflected in the lexicons seems to suggest. However, if it is the case that I am wrong, and verse 20 should instead properly read as the LSB has it, I don’t think my overall argument for the meaning of this section of Romans 5 is drastically affected. It is still the case that Paul is discussing primarily sanctification, that as a result of our justification we can now overcome sin’s servitude in our lives and live righteously as an experience of the type of new life that Jesus offers. Verse 20 would simply mean then that our knowledge of the law actually increased our sinning and thereby strengthened sin’s reign over us, but even so, God’s grace was enough to “abound even more” and overcome all that so that we could live lives pleasing to God.


This section in Romans 5 is at the very beginning of Paul’s section on sanctification, where he is describing the contrast between our being in servitude to sin but having the opportunity to live righteously through Christ. In the book of Romans, Paul presents mankind’s problem universally as experiencing the wrath of God due to our sin. We all know the requirements of God’s law whether we have it written on tablets or on our hearts, but we fail to live up to it. Paul’s solution is that we can have righteousness that does not come from ourselves but from God. The first part of this solution is that our sins will be forgiven and we will be declared positionally righteous before God (justification) through our union with Christ in His death. The second part of this solution is that, because of our new standing in relationship to God, we will be enabled to overcome our servitude to sin and live righteously (sanctification) through our union with Christ in His life.

The section in Rom. 5:12-21 is one long, parallelistic section contrasting sin’s source with sin’s solution, with particular focus on the here-and-now effects of these. One man’s sin brought death (as a punishment) to many, but One Man’s gift brought grace (as a second chance) to many (verse 15). One man’s sin brought condemnation and servitude to sin to many who were now doomed to live a life of sinning, but the gift of God freed many from the condemnation and servitude of sin and made possible righteous actions (verse 16). Death reigned over many as a result of one man’s sin, but many will reign in their own lives through the life of One Man (verse 17). One man’s sin brought servitude to sin for many, but One Man’s righteous action made possible righteous living for many (verse 18). One man’s disobedience made many men sinners in how they lived their lives, but One Man’s obedience will make many people righteous in the way they live their lives (verse 19). When compared with God’s law, the sin in our lives appeared great, but God’s grace then appeared even greater (verse 20). While sin reigned over us producing sinful actions and resulting in death, grace now reigns over us producing righteous actions and resulting in life—life that will ultimately last eternally (verse 21). This entire section is introducing us to the reality that our new life in Christ is designed to revitalize, renew, and revolutionize the old life that we used to live before we were saved, so that now we can “walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4), no longer subject to the degrading effects of the reign of sin and death over us.

Appendix: Criticism of Translating Katakrima as “Servitude (to Sin)”

The only example of direct objections to Hodges’ translation of katakrima in Rom. 8:1 that I’ve seen come from Shawn Lazar, who worked with Robert N. Wilkin, a close associate of Hodges, for a number of years. His objections were as follows (from a post in a private Facebook group):

(1) “Zane made the mistake of using an example of how the word is used for the definition itself. The definition is Katakrima=punishment. ‘Condemnation’ works just fine. The example of a katakrima/punishment in M&M [Moulton-Milligan] is a ‘servitude’ on a piece of land.”

(2) “Zane did not understand the example. He mistakenly thought ‘servitude’ = ‘slavery’ and ran with that. He didn’t understand that a ‘servitude’ is a legal term in Roman Law… [A] ‘servitude’ on a piece of land… means a right of use that follows the land. So, if there’s a walking path on the land that the town has always used, and you buy the land, the land comes with the ‘servitude’ that the townsfolk can still use that path.”

(3) “Zane made the mistake of further adding the ‘to sin’ which do[es] not appear in the text. So, his translation at that point is not really a translation, so much as putting his theology on the text.”

(4) “I’d add, it’s made worse because he followed the Medieval longer reading at Rom. 8:1 instead of the short reading you’ll see reflected in most modern translations. …I think the ‘punishment’ in context is death. …But there is no condemnation for us who are in Christ. We’ve already passed from death to life, as Jesus says.”

In response to these reasonable objections, I would say the following in continuing to agree with Hodges’ decision to translate katakrima as “servitude to sin”:

(1) Lazar is correct that Moulton-Milligan’s first examples rely on Deissman and are about katakrima being used as “‘a burden ensuing from a judicial pronouncement—a servitude,’ …where a piece of land is transferred to the purchaser.”73 This is definitely a usage connected with Lazar’s contention that a (praedial) servitude in Roman law was more of a contractual obligation for a right-of-passage or easement on land. Moulton-Milligan emphasized that this particular servitude referenced was the result of a judicial pronouncement, which fits with the etymology of the word katakrima being literally “from judgment.” Moulton-Milligan doesn’t just stop at this example, however. They go on to give another example that katakrima can be “‘a judgment’ for a sum of money to be paid as a fine or damages,”74 which is also a penalty resulting from a judgment. Moulton-Milligan further states that “this word does not mean condemnation, but the punishment following sentence…. This not only suits Rom 81 admirably… but it materially helps the exegesis of Rom 516, 18.”75 So, they don’t think that “condemnation” is an adequate translation for katakrima (and neither did BAGD, the second edition of that lexicon,76 as mentioned above). Moulton-Milligan goes on to offer “penal servitude” as a translation specifically befitting Rom. 8:1.77 As for Rom. 5:18, Moulton-Milligan likens the meaning of katakrima to “permanent imprisonment” and cites Matt. 18:34 (“And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.”) as an illustration of this.78 So, it doesn’t seem clear that all Moulton-Milligan was discussing with regard to penal servitude is Roman-law servitude on a piece of property. Rather, Moulton-Milligan does seem to liken katakrima to some type of servitude or permanent imprisonment as a penalty, which could effectively be related to slavery. It’s not unthinkable to connect those concepts as being similar to a condition of slavery, at the very least.

(2) This point is just an extension of the prior one. Lazar is right that a (praedial) servitude had a very precise meaning with reference to a land agreement. According to the source Lazar cites, “Until late classical Roman law, the term servitutes (servitudes) was applied to restrictions on the ownership of land in favour of neighbouring land (e.g. a right of way from one plot over another to the highway, or a right that nothing be built on one plot so as to obstruct the light to a building on the other). The term expresses the idea that one plot serves the other.”79 Notice that this term is based on the idea that one plot of land serves another, which indicates a prior meaning for the word on which this legal, technical usage relies. Namely, that prior meaning would be one of “service” or “a condition of serving,” which is what indentured servitude was in a personal sense. I think a confusion of etymology might be happening here. Just because the word “servitude” had a technical and specific meaning in Roman law, that does not mean it has the same meaning when we (or modern Greek lexicons) employ the word today. (In other words, just because the Latin definition of the word was tied to a technical legal meaning, that doesn’t mean our modern derivative of that word necessarily carries the same technical meaning.) Merriam-Webster says that servitude is “a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one’s course of action or way of life.… Servitude is slavery or anything resembling it.”80 In the etymology section, Merriam-Webster says it comes from “Middle English, ‘slavery, bondage, feudal allegiance,’ borrowed from Anglo-French & Late Latin; Anglo-French servitute, borrowed from Late Latin servitūdin-, servitūdō ‘condition of being a slave,’ from Latin servus ‘slave’”81 So, its etymology is rooted in a slavery context as well. Yes, Moulton-Milligan did employ the word in the specific, legal, land-related context, but (as defended above), that doesn’t seem like the only way in which they intended to use it. It seems Moulton-Milligan thinks that katakrima is a penalty resulting from a negative judgment, which could include a land servitude but could also include other forms of penal servitude such as imprisonment.

Furthermore, the plausibility of my (and Hodges’) translation of this word does not hinge precisely on it being rendered “servitude to sin” although that is probably the clearest way of rendering it, given this argument. It could also be rendered more vaguely as simply “punishment” (as BDAG suggests82 and as Lazar also approves above in point 1) or “penalty,” but that alone wouldn’t destroy the argument I’m making here. If this were the case, we’d still have to ask the relevant question: What is this punishment/penalty? Is it condemnation to hell? Is it death? Is it slavery to sin? (In the argument above, I also suggest that it could be clunkily rendered as “results of condemnation,” which would lead to the same question: what are these results?) The argument can be made that, contextually, this punishment is the slavery to sin that Paul experiences in Romans 7 and is freed from in light of Romans 8. Paul feels “imprisoned” by his sin. Rom. 8:1 could still mean that this type of slavery to sin is not the inevitable penalty of those who are in Christ Jesus. Rather, there is a way of escape from this depressing cycle. Thus, even if we conclude that “servitude” is not an apt translation of this word, other (perhaps less objectionable) options on offer still mostly cohere with the argument that is made above, that katakrima in Rom. 8:1 is not referring to eternal condemnation in hell, especially if the verbal link between Rom. 5:16-18 and Rom. 8:1-4 (discussed above) is considered.

(3) Lazar’s observation here is correct. The “to sin” is additional material that Hodges argued was implied by the context, so he added it to his translation in italics to indicate it had no Greek equivalent in the original text. This is what many other translations (e.g. NASB, ESV, etc.) do as well—adding words that they think will help the reader understand the text better but in italics. I think adding “to sin” is useful in trying to help people make the connection between Rom. 7 and Rom. 8:1 that Hodges argues exists in the text. It could have been rendered as simply “There is therefore now no servitude for those who are in Christ Jesus…,” and it would have been sufficient and carried the same force of meaning given the context in Romans 7.

(4) I think using the word “Medieval” here to describe the longer reading misdirects the reader to thinking this addition must be very late and therefore assuming that it was definitely added in the Middle Ages. Yes, it is the later Byzantine/Majority Text reading, but there is some earlier support for it as well. I think the textual question is less resolved than many modern textual critics do. Scholars such as Zane Hodges, Art Farstad, Maurice Robinson, William G. Pierpont, Wilbur Pickering, and others have argued for the authenticity of the Byzantine readings. They are the minority in the field of textual criticism, to be sure, but they do exist. Basically, there are three variant readings for Rom. 8:1 found in the extant Greek manuscripts. There is the short reading: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Then there is a “middle” reading that adds this: “…who walk not according to the flesh.” And finally there is the long reading that adds further: “…but according to the Spirit.” The majority of all extant Greek manuscripts include the long reading, but the earliest manuscripts we still have today reflect the short reading.

As for manuscript support for the middle and long readings, Codex Alexandrinus (A), which dates from the 5th century (AD 400s), includes the middle reading.83 It is the earliest manuscript to support either of the longer (middle or long) readings. The 400s is not generally considered part of the Medieval age. Codex Athous Laurae (Ψ) also includes the middle reading,84 and it is dated to the AD 700-800s, which would be the very early Medieval ages. The Latin Vulgate, which dates to the late 4th century (AD 300s), with manuscripts from the 5th century, includes the middle reading.85 Likewise, the Syriac Peshitta, which dates from the 5th century (for the New Testament), includes the middle reading.86 As for the long reading, that is not found in the manuscripts until the 9th century (AD 800s), with Codex Mosquensis I (K) and Codex Porphyrianus (P),87 although it appears that corrections made to Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Claromontanus (D) also include the long reading88 and may have been made around this time or slightly earlier.

However, both the middle and long readings have some early support in the church fathers as well. The middle reading is found in the work “Concerning Baptism” by Basil of Caesarea (AD 330 – 378).89 Theodoret of Cyrus (AD 393 – c. 458) cites the long reading in his commentary on the book of Romans.90 In fact, his statement of the meaning of this verse seems to accord well with the argument I am making above. He says that Rom. 8:1 means that “our passions can no longer get the mastery over us without our own consent, now that we have received the grace of the Spirit of God.”91 In other words, now that we are Christians, we don’t have to be enslaved to sin because we are enabled to walk by the Spirit. Finally, John Chrysostom (AD c. 347 – 407) seems to cite both the middle and long readings in different places. In his homilies on Romans, Chrysostom says, “Then as the fact that many fall into sin even after baptism presented a difficulty… [Paul] consequently hastened to meet it, and says not merely ‘to them that are in Christ Jesus,’ but adds, ‘who walk not after the flesh’; so showing that all afterward comes of our listlessness. For now we have the power of walking not after the flesh, but then it was a difficult task.”92 Later in this same homily, under Rom. 8:4, Chrysostom says, “therefore, in that place [verse 1] also, after saying, ‘there is therefore no condemnation,’ he added, ‘to them that walk not after the flesh’; and here also, ‘that the requisition of the Law might be fulfilled in us,’ he proceeds with the very same thing; or rather, not with it only, but even with a much stronger thing. For after saying, ‘that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us that walk not after the flesh,’ he proceeds, ‘but after the Spirit.’”93 This seems to commit Chrysostom to the middle reading; however, he quotes the longer reading in his homilies on the book of Matthew, when quoting Rom. 8:1-2: “And as to our having received more abundant help, hear Paul, when he says, ‘There is therefore no condemnation now to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit: for the law of the Spirit of life has made me free from the law of sin and death.’”94 This also shows that at least the middle and long reading of this text were known about by some as far back as the 4th and 5th centuries, before the Medieval era.

However, regardless of whether the short, middle, or long reading is the original one, my argument above (as well as Hodges’) does not solely depend on the longer reading. You could leave out the qualifying phrase “who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit” in Rom. 8:1 and still contextually ascertain what I argue Paul is saying here. For instance, Rom. 8:4 has this same qualifier in a similar context (“so that the righteous action of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit”), which lends support to the thesis statement of this chapter, found in verse 1, being conditional. Additionally, the verbal connection between Rom. 8:1-4 and Rom. 5:16-18, where katakrima (servitude) is presented as the antithesis of dikaioma (righteous action), can help us to ascertain the meaning of Rom. 8:1, even without the longer reading. John H. Niemelä makes this point in a footnote in the Hodges commentary: “Some may imagine that omitting the phrase… would negate Hodges’s exposition of v 1. It does not…. Pretend that the critical text’s omission… were right. Would the verse then suggest that all believers would automatically escape penal servitude? No, both prior and following context teach that the escape is not automatic. It requires walking by the Spirit.”95 Thus, the meaning of Rom. 8:1 can be inferred without the longer reading. If it is given that the term katakrima is translated as something akin to “servitude,” then the meaning I’ve outlined above becomes ascertainable. The condemnation of Adam brought us into servitude (to sin), but Jesus’ gift brings righteous action (Rom. 5:16), and thus there is now no servitude for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). Why? Because, as Rom. 8:2-4 explains, Christians can and should walk by the Spirit, putting to death the deeds of the flesh and thus performing righteous actions.


[1] I do realize that the chapter breaks were not placed here by Paul, and thus I realize that the mere change from one chapter to the next does not necessarily indicate a shift in Paul’s thought, but it is also the case that the editor who added them later probably recognized that such a shift had taken place at this point.

[2] Zane Hodges, Romans: Deliverance from Wrath (Corinth, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2013).

[3] Hodges, 140.

[4] Hodges, 142.

[5] Hodges, 141.

[6] This hymn is often called “Christ the Life of All the Living” after its English translation. See https://www.bach-cantatas.com/Texts/Chorale165-Eng3.htm and https://hymnary.org/hymn/LH1941/151/.

[7] BDAG: Walter Bauer, Frederick William Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature: Third Edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 597.

[8] BDAG, 319.

[9] James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1929), 204.

[10] Moulton-Milligan, 204.

[11] This would be a completely hypothetical situation since there has never existed a time in world history where there was no moral law communicated either in general or special revelation. Humanity has always had God’s moral law written on our hearts; not everyone has known of the Mosaic law specifically.

[12] John Piper in Matt Perman, “What Is the Biblical Evidence for the Imputation of Adam’s Sin?” Desiring God, Jan. 23, 2006, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-biblical-evidence-for-the-imputation-of-adams-sin/.

[13] John MacArthur, “Adam and the Reign of Death,” Grace to You, Oct. 31, 1982, https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/45-43/adam-and-the-reign-of-death/.

[14] John A. Witmer, “Romans,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983), 458.

[15] Hodges, 148.

[16] Hodges, 148.

[17] In searching for various views on this passage, I came across one that seems to reflect what I am claiming here: “Romans 5:13 is not teaching that the people from Adam to Moses were not responsible for their sins…. The message is that people did not [always] know they committed sin because God did not give them an explicit list of sins to avoid” (emphasis mine). John Calahan, “Romans 5:13 – Before the Law were people accountable for sin?” Never Thirsty: Like the Master Ministries, https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/romans-513-before-the-law-were-people-accountable-for-sin/. However, this author then inexplicably cites MacArthur as agreeing with him, when I think MacArthur is saying something quite different.

[18] Strong’s Concordance as published on BibleHub.com, “2917. krima,” Bible Hub, https://biblehub.com/greek/2917.htm/.

[19] BDAG, 567.

[20] BAGD: Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature: Second Edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 412.

[21] BDAG, 518.

[22] “2631. katakrima,” Bible Hub, https://biblehub.com/greek/2631.htm/.

[23] Moulton-Milligan, 327.

[24] Moulton-Milligan, 328.

[25] Moulton-Milligan, 328.

[26] Hodges, 207.

[27] I, along with Hodges and many others, believe that Paul is talking about his struggle with sin as a believer in Rom. 7 (Hodges, 192-194).

[28] BDAG, 814-815.

[29] “4097. pipraskó,” Bible Hub, https://biblehub.com/greek/4097.htm/.

[30] For interaction with criticism of translating katakrima as “servitude to sin” in Rom. 8:1, see the Appendix.

[31] The word dikaioma appears 125 times in the Septuagint according to Blue Letter Bible (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g1345/lxx/lxx/0-1/).

[32] BDAG, 249.

[33] BDAG, 249.

[34] BDAG, 249.

[35] At least, not in any cited by BDAG with the possible exception of 1 Enoch 104:9, in which it is far from clear that “justification” is a preferred translation there, and BDAG even suggests that it is equivalent to dikaiosune (righteousness). – BDAG, 249.

[36] Hodges, 212-213.

[37] A hapax legomenon is a word that only appears once in a given work. In this case, it refers to a Greek word used only once in the entire New Testament.

[38] If it were in Moulton-Milligan, it should be on page 163.

[39] Moulton-Milligan, 328.

[40] BDAG, 250.

[41] BDAG, 250.

[42] BDAG, 250.

[43] BDAG, 250.

[44] The translation of dikaiosis as “righteous living” is actually suggested by Robert N. Wilkin in a footnote in Hodges’ commentary. This is one point at which I actually depart from Hodges, who defended the translation of “justification” for dikaiosis both in Rom. 4:25 and Rom. 5:18 (see Hodges, 129, and Hodges, 156-158).

[45] For a deeper explanation of what I’m referring to here, see John H. Niemelä, “That I May Attain to Whose Resurrection? Philippians 3:11,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Vol. 25, Autumn 2012, 23-35. (John Niemelä served as an editor for Hodges’ commentary on Romans.)

[46] Dikaioma in Rom. 5:16 “is equiv[alent] in [meaning] to dikaiosis,” BDAG, 249.

[47] Found in Hodges, 156, in footnote 14. (Robert N. Wilkin served as an editor for Hodges’ commentary on Romans.)

[48] Stating this argument in premise-conclusion form would look like this: (P1) Contextually, dikaiosis must mean “justification” in Rom. 4:25. (P2) Dikaiosis likely has the same meaning in its only other usage, which occurs in Rom. 5:18. (C1) Therefore, dikaiosis in Rom. 5:18 must mean “justification.” (P3) Rom. 5:18 and Rom 5:16 are parallel passages, and the words dikaiosis and dikaioma, respectively, are parallel. (P4) These parallel words must have the same or similar meanings. (C2) Therefore, dikaioma in Rom. 5:16 must also mean “justification,” which is reasonable because this gives the verse a poetic, consonant quality.

[49] BDAG, 249-250.

[50] Stating this argument in premise-conclusion form would look like this: (Q1) Based on standard usage and context, dikaioma probably means “righteous action” in Rom. 5:16. (Q2 = P3) Rom. 5:18 and Rom 5:16 are parallel passages, and the words dikaiosis and dikaioma, respectively, are parallel. (Q3 = P4) These parallel words must have the same or similar meanings. (D1 ~ C2) Therefore, dikaiosis in Rom. 5:18 must mean something similar to dikaioma, and “righteous living” makes sense because of its pairing with zoes. (Q4 = P2) Dikaiosis likely has the same meaning in its only other usage, which occurs in Rom. 4:25. (D2 ~ C1) Therefore, dikaiosis in Rom. 4:25 must mean “righteous living,” which is reasonable because of the death/life motif in Rom. 4:25. Note that this employs premises P2-P4 from the prior argument; the only difference is in P1 or Q1. The question then is, which premise is better supported, P1 or Q1? As defended above, I hold that it is Q1.

[51] Edwin Cyril Blackman, “The Letter of Paul to the Romans,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, ed. Charles M. Laymon (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1971), 779.

[52] Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, as published on BibleHub.com, “1537. ek or ex,” Bible Hub, https://biblehub.com/greek/1537.htm/.

[53] BDAG, 295-296.

[54] BDAG, 296.

[55] BDAG, 297.

[56] Hodges, 151.

[57] For example, Patrick Abendroth, in the second appendix to his book Covenant Theology, suggests that Rom. 5:19 is a key support for the idea that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers in justification (Patrick Abendroth, Covenant Theology (Omaha, NE: Pactum Publishing, 2023), 163). John Piper also directly connects Rom. 5:19 to our justification in his article “The Sufficiency of Christ’s Obedience in His Life and Death,” published May 15, 2007, on Desiring God at https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-sufficiency-of-christs-obedience-in-his-life-and-death/.

[58] Hodges, 158-159.

[59] BDAG, 492.

[60] BDAG, 492.

[61] This is why I do not view Rom. 5:19 as lending any support to the idea that Christ’s specific righteousness, in other words His active obedience, is imputed to believers. Because I see this verse as discussing sanctification rather than justification, I think it undercuts the case for the imputation of Christ’s active obedience to us as Christians, and I find no similar support elsewhere in the Bible to sufficiently justify such a position. Therefore, I hold that believers are simply imputed righteousness as an attribute rather than given a specific righteousness that belonged to Christ as a result of His earthly obedience. As Rom. 4:9 says, our faith was simply counted to us as righteousness. God declares us righteous on the basis of faith.

[62] Hodges, 158-159.

[63] Witmer, 460.

[64] Blackman, 779.

[65] Hodges, 159-162.

[66] Hodges, 159.

[67] BDAG, 824.

[68] BDAG, 824.

[69] Moulton-Milligan, 517.

[70] “5248. huperperisseuó,” Bible Hub, https://biblehub.com/greek/5248.htm.

[71] BDAG, 1034.

[72] BDAG, 805.

[73] Moulton-Milligan, 327.

[74] Moulton-Milligan, 328.

[75] Moulton-Milligan, 328.

[76] BAGD, 412.

[77] Moulton-Milligan, 328.

[78] Moulton-Milligan, 328.

[79] Barry Nicholas and Alan Rodger, Oxford Classical Dictionary, “servitudes,” 2016, https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.013.5864.

[80] Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Online, Accessed Feb. 10, 2024, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/servitude/.

[81] Ibid.

[82] BDAG, 518.

[83] NET Bible Full-notes Edition, 2nd Edition, Thomas Nelson, 2019, https://netbible.org/bible/Romans+8/.

[84] Ibid.

[85] Vulgate.org, https://vulgate.org/nt/epistle/romans_8.htm/.

[86] Aramaic New Testament, James Murdock translation, 1852, http://aramaicnewtestament.org/peshitta/murdock/epistle/romans_8.htm/.

[87] UBS1: The Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1966, 548.

[88] UBS1, 548.

[89] Basil, “Concerning Baptism,” The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Volume 9: Saint Basil Ascetical Works, translated by Sister M. Monica Wagner (New York: The Catholic University of America Press, 1962), 343.

[90] UBS1, 548.

[91] Theodoret, Commentary of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria, on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, ed. Roger Pearse, 2013, https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/theodoret_commentary_on_romans_01.htm/.

[92] John Chrysostom, “Homily 13 on Romans,” from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume 11, ed. Philip Schaff, 1889, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210213.htm/.

[93] Ibid.

[94] John Chrysostom, “Homily 16 on Matthew,” from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume 10, ed. Philip Schaff, 1888, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200116.htm/.

[95] Hodges, 207.

Convincing Proof