But not as...so also!

David Paul

This turn of phrase from Rom. 5:15 is...um...how to put this?

Bizarre.

Is this common for Greek? Or is it just Paul being Paul? Any Logos resource insight you may supply would be appreciated.

Ben Hein

ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὡς τὸ παράπτωμα, οὕτως καὶ τὸ χάρισμα, “but not as the trespass, so also the effect of grace.” The comparison between Adam and Christ begun in v 12 and taken up again in v 14c is once more interrupted to stress the disparity between them, but with a formula (οὐχ ὡς … οὕτως καί) which is again similar to the one which is held in suspense (ὥσπερ … οὕτως καί—vv 12, 18) and which reduces the jarring effect of the long interruption (cf. v 12c). παράπτωμα (4:25; 5:15–18, 20) now replaces παράβασις (2:23; 4:15; 5:14). Whether Paul intended them to bear a different meaning is unclear: παράπτωμα can have more the sense “false step, slip, blunder” (LSJ), whereas “transgression” is the more fitting translation for παράβασις (so Cranfield). But the distinction does not amount to much (cf., e.g., Ezek 18:22, 24, 26); both refer to Adam’s disobedience; and it may be that Paul switched to παράπτωμα simply because it read more euphonistically with the other -μα compounds which predominate in the following verses (see Form and Structure). On the other hand, since παράβασις elsewhere in Romans has the force of deliberate breach of the law, the effect of using παράπτωμα is to reinforce the idea of a broader concept of sinning (vv 12d–14). χάρισμα as usual means a concrete enactment of grace (see on 1:11). Here the act of Christ is characterized as an embodiment of grace; with the clear implication that the epoch making χάρισμα stamps the character of the whole epoch as “charismatic” (see further on 12:6).

James D. G. Dunn, vol. 38A, Romans 1–8, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 279.

helpful?

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476564#Comment_476564

Not exactly. He calls (οὐχ ὡς … οὕτως καί) "a formula", but is it a common Greek formula, or one that is unique to Paul's obtuse method of "communication"?

Moo says this:

15 Paul explains the typological relationship between Adam and Christ in vv. 15–21. The similarity between the two consists in the fact that an act of each is considered to have determinative significance for those who “belong” to each. This “structural” similarity between Adam’s relationship to his “descendants” and Christ’s to his underlies all of vv. 15–21. But vv. 15–17 reveal that this parallelism in structural relationship does not extend to the nature of the two acts and their consequences. These three verses present two basic contrasts between the work of Adam and of Christ. Paul introduces each contrast with the phrase “is not like”⁸⁹ (vv. 15a, 16a) and follows it with an elaboration (vv. 15b and 16b–17) using the phrase “how much more.”⁹⁰ The first contrast is one of degree: the work of Christ, being a manifestation of grace, is greater in every way than that of Adam (v. 15). The second contrast is (mainly) one of consequence: Adam’s act brought condemnation (v. 16b) and death (v. 17a); Christ’s brought righteousness (v. 16b) and life (v. 17b).

Verse 15 begins with a “but” because Paul is now qualifying the typological relationship between Adam and Christ he enunciated in v. 14b. He first states the difference: “the gift is⁹¹ not like the trespass.” Paul uses yet a third term to describe Adam’s representative act: “trespass,” or “false step.” He probably shifts to this term to create a phonetic parallel with the key word in the verse: charisma, “gift.”⁹² In light of “gift of righteousness” in v. 17 and verses such as 6:23, this “gift” could be the righteous status that God gives to people,⁹³ but the contrast with “trespass” points to an act of Christ rather than the effects of that act. This is confirmed by v. 16, where the gift leads to “righteousness.” In this verse, then, “gift” denotes not the gift given to the believer (as is usually the case in Paul), but the act of Christ himself considered as a “work of grace.”⁹⁴ Paul chooses this unusual way of designating the work of Christ to accentuate its gracious character and its power: Christ’s act, being a work of God’s grace (charis), is far more potent than Adam’s act.⁹⁵

Paul explains the difference between Adam’s trespass and Christ’s act of grace in the last part of the verse: “for if the many died through the trespass of the one, how much more has the grace of God and the gift⁹⁶ in grace⁹⁷ of the one man Jesus Christ abounded for the many.” In the protasis (“if …”) of this sentence, Paul states the relationship between Adam’s sin and the spiritual plight of all people that he has hinted at in v. 12: the transgression of “the one” brought death to “the many.”⁹⁸ Most scholars (probably) think that Paul in this passage uses “the many” equivalently to “all” (cf. v. 18).⁹⁹ It is true that “the many” can at times refer to “all” those belonging to whatever group may be under discussion. But the claim that it usually does so is exaggerated.¹⁰⁰ “The many” refers simply to a great number; how inclusive that number might be can be determined only by context. In the protasis of this verse, “the many” clearly includes all people; for Paul has already said that “all died” with reference to the sin of Adam (v. 12). But in the apodosis (“how much more …”) “the many” must be qualified by Paul’s insistence in v. 17 that only those who “receive” the gift benefit from Christ’s act. Here it refers to “a great number” of people (but not all of them) or to “all who respond to the gift of grace.” For them, Paul claims, the enjoyment of the gift and grace of God will be even more certain¹⁰¹ than the death that came to all in Adam. Condemnation through Adam is inescapable, and Paul says nothing that would diminish the horrible reality of this judgment under which all people stand. But alongside condemnation there is the grace of God. And since it is precisely God’s grace with which we have to do, there is an “abounding plus” (Murray), a superabundance connected with God’s gift in Christ that has the power not only to cancel the effects of Adam’s work but to create, positively, life and peace. Adam’s “trespass” is the quintessence of human activity, an act for which a strict accounting must be due (cf. 4:1–6); but Christ’s act is precisely a “gift,” a matter of God’s initiative, of his “unmerited favor” in which people are passive and which can, accordingly, never be earned, but only “received” (cf. v. 17).¹⁰²

⁸⁹ Gk. οὐχ ὡς.

⁹⁰ Note the γάρ in vv. 15b, 16b, and 17. A few expositors have argued that vv. 15a and 16a are questions that assume a positive answer, in which case these verses state a comparison rather than a contrast (cf. Griffith Thomas; C. C. Caragounis, “Romans 5:15–16 in the Context of 5:12–21: Contrast or Comparison?” NTS 31 [1985], 142–48).

⁹¹ The word ἐστιν is assumed in v. 15a: ἀλλὰ [ἐστιν] οὐχ ὡς τὸ παράπτωμα, οὕτως καὶ τὸ χάρισμα. We might paraphrase: “but it is not in the case of the trespass, as it is in the case of the gift.”

⁹² Gk. παράπτωμα (cf. ἁμαρτία [“sin”] in v. 12 and παράβασις [“transgression”] in v. 14; cf. also vv. 17 and 18). See Dunn. The word παράπτωμα is relatively rare in Paul (16 occurrences; in Romans, outside this paragraph, 4:25 and 11:11, 12) but is essentially synonymous with ἁμαρτία (note the interchange in v. 20). (See W. Michaelis, TDNT VI, 171–73. Trench suggests a difference in meaning between the two terms at places in the NT [Synonyms, pp. 245–47], but his case is not persuasive.) παράπτωμα does not allude to the concept of law-breaking inherent in Paul’s use of παράβασις (e.g., Godet; Cranfield; contra Cambier, L’Evangile, p. 289; Barrett; Wilckens). But this does not mean that it denotes any less serious an offense than does ἁμαρτία or παράβασις (contra, e.g., Godet, who argues from etymology).

⁹³ E.g., Cranfield.

⁹⁴ Cf. Meyer; Gifford.

⁹⁵ See esp. Doughty, “The Priority of Grace,” pp. 173–75.

⁹⁶ The extraordinary concentration of “gift” words in this apodosis—χάρις (“grace”), δωρεά (“gift”), ἐν χάριτι (“in grace”)—reveals the stress that Paul wants to put on this point but creates syntactical questions as well. First, is ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἡ δωρεά a hendiadys (“the gracious gift of God”) or do χάρις and δωρέα each have separate importance—“the grace of God and the gift”? With the repetition of the article, the latter is more likely. What, then, is the difference between the two? Stuart suggests that χάρις is the general “gift” available to all, while ἡ δωρεά denotes the actual benefits granted only to believers. But it is unlikely that we can distinguish them in extent, since they are coordinated as subjects of “abound to the many.” More likely, “grace” denotes the motive or manner in which God works, while “the gift” is the specific manifestation of this grace—the righteous status and life conferred on “the many.”

⁹⁷ The prepositional phrase ἐν χάριτι κτλ. may modify ἡ δωρεά (“the gift which comes through the grace of the one man Jesus Christ” [e.g., S-H; Cranfield; and most English translations]) or ἐπερίσσευσεν (“the gift has abounded through the grace of the one man Jesus Christ to the many” [Meyer; Lafont, “Romains 5,15–21,” p. 483]). While a good argument for the latter is the parallelism thereby attained with the protasis (ἐν χάριτι corresponding to τῷ παραπτώματι), the protasis and apodosis of the sentence are not syntactically parallel anyway, and word order would slightly favor the former rendering. On this reading, ἐν is probably instrumental: the gift … which has come through the grace of the one man Jesus Christ. As with χάρισμα in v. 15a, χάρις in this last clause designates Christ’s work as an act of grace.

⁹⁸ The dative τῷ παραπτώματι could be causal (“because of the trespass of the one the many died”), referential (“in conjunction with the trespass of the one the many died”), or instrumental (“through the trespass of the one the many died”). We prefer the last. A related issue is the significance of the aorist tense of ἀπέθανον (“died”). It need not, of course, mean that Paul views the infliction of death as a “one-time” event; he simply portrays the condemnation of all people as a comprehensive whole. However, if Paul had thought of death as a penalty inflicted on each individual when he sins, we might have expected the imperfect or the present tense. This point gains force from the observation that Paul in this passage always presents the effects of Adam’s act as a completed fact, while the effects of Christ’s act are always viewed as continuing or future (cf. vv. 17, 19, 21). The aorist tense of ἀπέθανον may, then, suggest that the sentence of death imposed on all people took place immediately in conjunction with the trespass of Adam.

⁹⁹ See esp. J. Jeremias, TDNT VI, 536–41. He argues that the use of οἱ πολλοί inclusively (= “all”) is rooted in the OT (esp. Isa. 53) and is extremely common in the NT.

¹⁰⁰ In Paul, e.g., the clear majority of the occurrences of [οἱ] πολλοί are restrictive, designating “many” or “most” but not “all” (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19; 10:5; 15:6; 2 Cor. 2:6, 17; 4:15; 6:10; Phil. 1:14 [all articular]; Rom. 16:2; 1 Cor. 1:26 [twice]; 11:30; 16:9; 2 Cor. 11:18; Gal. 3:16; Phil. 3:18; Tit. 1:10). Although a number of these could have an inclusive reference, Jeremias’s claim (TDNT VI, 540) that “οἱ πολλοί is always used inclusively” in the NT except in Matt. 24:12 and 2 Cor. 2:17 cannot stand. Places where Paul uses πολλοί inclusively but where the context limits the group intended are Rom. 12:5 and 1 Cor. 10:17.

¹⁰¹ The phrase πολλῷ μᾶλλον (“how much more”), used to introduce the apodosis (the “then” clause) of the sentence, may have a qualitative force—“how much more abundantly will the grace of God … abound to the many” (Alford)—but, in keeping with its use in 5:10–11 (see the note there), it is more likely to have simple logical significance—“how much more [certainly] will the grace of God … abound to the many” (Meyer).

¹⁰² Cf. again, especially, Doughty, “The Priority of Grace,” pp. 174–75; also H. Weder, “Gesetz und Sünde: Gedanken zu einem Qualitativen Sprung im Denken des Paulus,” NTS 31 (1985), 364–71.

Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996). 334.

I'm still working through all of this...if someone else finds an explanation for this bizarre turn of phrase, please contribute. It doesn't help that Moo quotes Trench, a resource I have...AND THE LINK DOESN'T WORK!!!!!!!

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476570#Comment_476570

And from the "I told you so..." department, the monstrous morass of verbiage that once resembled footnotes are a result of the problem I just mentioned in this thread not long ago. For a forum dedicated to issues such as those that will turn up here, this forum's architecture is quite ill-prepared to handle the responsibility.

[:(]

Justin Cofer

David Paul said:

This turn of phrase from Rom. 5:15 is...um...how to put this?

Bizarre.

Is this common for Greek? Or is it just Paul being Paul? Any Logos resource insight you may supply would be appreciated.

Ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὡς ..., οὕτως καὶ

BDAG notes the use of καί seems pleonastic to our way of thinking.  In fact, it is omitted by B.  So perhaps it is awkward.

[quote]

οὕτω/οὕτως

① referring to what precedes, in this manner, thus, so
ⓐ w. a correlative word καθάπερ … οὕτως (s. καθάπερ) (just) as … so Ro 12:4f; 1 Cor 12:12; 2 Cor 8:11. καθὼς … οὕτως (just) as … so Lk 11:30; 17:26; J 3:14; 12:50; 14:31; 15:4; 2 Cor 1:5; 10:7; Col 3:13; 1 Th 2:4. ὡς … οὕτως as … so Ac 8:32 (Is 53:7); 23:11 (οὕτω); Ro 5:15.

καί

② marker to indicate an additive relation that is not coordinate to connect clauses and sentences, also, likewise, funct. as an adv.

ⓒ In sentences denoting a contrast καί appears in var. ways, somet. in both members of the comparison, and oft. pleonastically, to our way of thinking καθάπερ … , οὕτως καί as … , thus also 2 Cor 8:11. ὥσπερ … , οὕτως καί (Hyperid. 1, 2, 5–8) Ro 5:19; 11:30f; 1 Cor 11:12; 15:22; Gal 4:29. ὡς … , οὕτως καί Ro 5:15, 18.

ὡς

② a conjunction marking a point of comparison, as.

ⓐ ὡς is correlative w. οὕτως=so. οὕτως … ὡς (so, in such a way) … as: οὐδέποτε ἐλάλησεν οὕτως ἄνθρωπος ὡς οὗτος λαλεῖ ὁ ἄνθρωπος J 7:46. ὡς … οὕτως Ac 8:32 (Is 53:7); 23:11; Ro 5:15 (ὡς τὸ παράπτωμα, οὕτως καὶ τὸ χάρισμα, both halves to be completed),

ἀλλά

② when whole clauses are compared, ἀλλά can indicate a transition to someth. different or contrasted: the other side of a matter or issue, but, yet. δεῖ γὰρ γενέσθαι, ἀλλʼ οὔπω ἐστὶν τὸ τέλος Mt 24:6, cp. Lk 21:9. κεκοίμηται· ἀλλὰ πορεύομαι ἵνα ἐξυπνίσω αὐτόν J 11:11, cp. vs. 15; 16:20; Lk 22:36; J 4:23; 6:36, 64; 8:37; Ac 9:6; Ro 10:18f. ἁμαρτία οὐκ ἐλλογεῖται … ἀλλὰ … sin is not charged; nevertheless … 5:13f. Introducing an objection, ἀλλὰ ἐρεῖ τις (Jos., Bell. 7, 363 and Just., A I, 7, 1 ἀλλὰ φήσει τις) probably colloq. = ‘well’, someone will say: 1 Cor 15:35; Js 2:18 (difft. DWatson, NTS 39 ’93, 94–121). Taking back or limiting a preceding statement παρένεγκε τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ· ἀλλʼ οὐ τί ἐγὼ θέλω Mk 14:36. ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὡς τὸ παράπτωμα, οὔτως καὶ τὸ χάρισμα Ro 5:15.

[quote]

"In comparative clauses with the indicative the negative comes outside in the principal sentence, since comparison is usually made with a positive note. So οὐ καθάπερ (2 Cor. 3:13); οὐ καθὼς ἠλπίσαμεν (8:5); οὐκ εἰμὶ ὤσπερ (Lu. 18:11); οὐχ ὡς (Ro. 5:15 f.)."

A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Logos Bible Software, 1919), 1159.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476570#Comment_476570

David Paul said:

It doesn't help that Moo quotes Trench, a resource I have...AND THE LINK DOESN'T WORK!!!!!!!

Is  there a broken link, or does Moo just refer to Trench?

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476642#Comment_476642

alabama24 said:

David Paul said:

It doesn't help that Moo quotes Trench, a resource I have...AND THE LINK DOESN'T WORK!!!!!!!

Is  there a broken link, or does Moo just refer to Trench?

Actually, I figured out that the problem was mine. I still use L3 most often, and I was expecting to get a pop-up when I hovered over the link (in L3, sometimes you do and sometimes you don't). If I actually click the link, Trench opens up. So I apologize for my misplaced frustration.