An Exegetical Analysis of Elliptical Constructions and Scope in Romans 5:18-19
This exegetical study of Implied Verbs and Scope of ‘All’ vs. ‘Many’ in Romans 5:18-19 is based on a b-greek discussion from Tue Jan 8 06:17:43 EST 2002. The initial query focused on the grammatical structure of Romans 5:18, specifically highlighting the absence of an explicit main verb in what appears to be a complex comparative sentence. The discussion posed the question of which verb or verbs are implied to coherently connect the series of prepositional phrases, acknowledging that a single implied verb might not suffice for all phrases.
The main exegetical issue under consideration revolves around two interrelated points. First, the challenge of identifying the grammatically implied verb(s) in Romans 5:18, which presents a significant anacoluthon or ellipsis that requires careful interpretation for translation. Second, the theological implications of the scope of salvation, particularly regarding the relationship between the terms πᾶς (all) in verse 18 and πολλοί (the many) in verse 19. The discussion explored whether πολλοί limits the universal scope suggested by πᾶς, impacting understandings of atonement and justification.
Greek text (Nestle 1904)
Ἄρα οὖν ὡς δι’ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα, οὕτως καὶ δι’ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς.
ὥσπερ γὰρ διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοί, οὕτως καὶ διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί.
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- No significant textual variants exist between Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010 for Romans 5:18-19.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)
For Romans 5:18-19, the textual apparatus of NA28 shows no significant variants affecting the core meaning or structure of these verses. The consistency across major critical editions (Nestle 1904, SBLGNT 2010, NA28) reinforces the stability of the Greek text in this crucial passage.
Lexical notes provide valuable insight into the key terms:
- παράπτωμα (paraptōma): According to BDAG, this term denotes “a deviation from the right way, a false step, lapse, sin, transgression.” In Pauline theology, it frequently refers to Adam’s original transgression.
- κατάκριμα (katakrima): BDAG defines this as “judicial condemnation, sentence of condemnation, condemnation.” It emphasizes the judicial outcome of the transgression.
- δικαίωμα (dikaiōma): This term, as per BDAG, can mean “ordinance, regulation,” or “a righteous deed or act.” In Rom 5:18, it specifically refers to Christ’s singular righteous act. Kittel, in his discussion of δίκαιος, notes that it can signify an act that brings about righteousness or meets a righteous requirement.
- δικαίωσις (dikaiōsis): BDAG renders this as “the act of putting in right relationship, justification.” It describes the process or state of being made righteous.
- πᾶς (pas): BDAG notes “all, every, whole, of every kind.” Kittel’s extensive entry emphasizes its inclusivity and totality, often signifying “all without exception” in universal statements. Its use in verse 18 points to a comprehensive scope.
- πολύς (polys): BDAG lists “much, many, great.” Kittel’s theological discussion on this term, particularly in Romans 5, is crucial. He argues that in the context of the Adam-Christ typology, οἱ πολλοί (the many) functions as a functional equivalent to πάντες (all), signifying the universal impact of Adam’s sin and Christ’s righteousness, rather than a limited subgroup. This contextual equivalence is vital for interpreting the scope of salvation in Paul.
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
Romans 5:18 presents a classic example of an elliptical construction, lacking an explicit main verb. The initial discussion highlighted this unique grammatical challenge. The parallelism established by ὥσπερ… οὕτως (just as… so also) in both verses 18 and 19 strongly implies a corresponding action. In verse 18, the two clauses, connected by ὥσπερ… οὕτως, consist primarily of prepositional phrases indicating source (δι’ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος / δι’ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος) and result (εἰς κατάκριμα / εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς) for a universal recipient (εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους).
Scholars and commentators, like the “NET notes” mentioned in the discussion, acknowledge the absence of a verb and suggest supplying phrases like “came through” or “resulted in.” The suggestion of γίνεται (ginetai, “it comes about”) or ἐγένετο (egeneto, “it came about”) as the implied verb is a plausible solution, reflecting the causal and resultant nature of the statements. This aligns with the understanding that Paul frequently omits the copula (forms of εἰμί, “to be”) in Greek, especially in such comparative or explanatory statements, when the context makes the meaning clear.
Furthermore, the insight that “verbal efficacy/dynamism/force… resides in the verbal nouns” (παράπτωμα, κατάκριμα, δικαίωμα, δικαίωσις) is profound. These nouns, being derived from verbs, carry inherent action. Thus, the structure conveys a dynamic relationship without needing an explicit linking verb, relying on the reader’s understanding of Greek idiom. Romans 8:31, cited in the discussion (εἰ ὁ θεὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, τίς καθ’ ἡμῶν;), provides a simpler analogy where a copula (ἐστιν) is implicitly understood between a subject and predicate. However, Romans 5:18 is more complex as it involves multiple prepositional phrases, and the “verbal nouns” carry the weight of action, not just a state of being.
A second critical point is the relationship between πᾶς (all) in verse 18 and οἱ πολλοί (the many) in verse 19. The discussion raised the question of whether πολύς limits the scope of πᾶς. Rhetorically, the structure of verses 18-19 forms a parallel argument (Adam’s transgression and its effect vs. Christ’s righteous act and its effect). Grammatically, in this specific Adam-Christ typology (Rom 5:12-21), οἱ πολλοί serves as a contextual synonym for πάντες. This is not to say that the words are always interchangeable, but that in this specific theological argument, Paul uses οἱ πολλοί to emphasize the universal sweep of the consequences of Adam’s sin and Christ’s righteousness upon humanity, rather than a limited subgroup. The comparison with Mark 10:45 (λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν) and 1 Timothy 2:6 (ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων) further illustrates how “many” and “all” can function in a contextually equivalent manner concerning the scope of Christ’s saving work, even if not strict synonyms in every instance.
Therefore, the rhetorical force of Romans 5:18-19 lies in its comprehensive parallelism. Just as Adam’s single act had universal negative ramifications, so Christ’s single act has universal positive ramifications. The stylistic choice to omit a verb in verse 18 enhances the terse, impactful nature of Paul’s theological statement, allowing the weight of the verbal nouns to convey the profound consequences.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Romans 5:18-19 masterfully employs an elliptical construction and a rhetorical parallelism to convey profound theological truths about the universality of sin and salvation. The absence of an explicit verb in verse 18 is a stylistic feature that relies on the inherent verbal force of the nouns (παράπτωμα, κατάκριμα, δικαίωμα, δικαίωσις) and the strong comparative conjunctions (ὥσπερ… οὕτως). The terms πᾶς and οἱ πολλοί, while distinct lexically, function synonymously within the Adam-Christ typology of Romans 5, emphasizing the comprehensive scope of both condemnation and justification.
Translation must therefore capture both the implied action and the universal scope:
-
So then, just as through one trespass there resulted condemnation for all people, so also through one righteous act there resulted justification that brings life for all people.
This translation explicitly supplies “there resulted” to clarify the implied verb and the causal relationship, emphasizing the outcome of each action. -
Therefore, as the one trespass led to condemnation for all humanity, so too the one righteous act leads to life-giving justification for all humanity.
This rendering uses “led to” to convey the progression and consequence, while “humanity” highlights the universal scope of “all people.” -
Consequently, just as by a single transgression came about condemnation for all humanity, likewise by a single righteous deed came about justification unto life for all humanity.
This translation uses “came about” to capture the sense of an event or state being brought into existence, maintaining the parallelism and universal scope with “humanity.”
Hi Sam
PAS with article = ALL
without article = MANY
Scuse me my bad english
Mario Trinchero
2011/1/18 Samuel Cripps
Really? Who made that rule? (Rules like this always remind me of Lucy’s
“little-known facts.” When Charlie Brown asks her how, if they’re
little-known, she comes to know them. “I make ’em up.”)
v. 18.
You could just as plausibly say that the scope of POLUS (which in a
one-versus-many context could quite naturally imply “all”) is limited by the
preceding PAS: “all” always has a frame of reference (all what? or all who?)
Doesn’t the Adam/Christ discussion in Romans 5 occur in the context of a
Jews/all-humanity discussion in the epistle as a whole?
I don’t know what “all” means in the context of the conversation that
prompted the initial post. If it’s an argument about universalism (in the
sense of the salvation of every individual human), I don’t think Paul is
addressing that question here. If you want to address it, Sam, you’ll have
to do so in the context of a larger exegetical, hermeneutical, and
theological project. Lexicon entries and rules about articles (especially
bogus rules) won’t help you (or, in this case, your opponents).
James Ernest
—
Hi James
do you know Max Zerwick S.I.
and your book Analysis Philologica Novi Testamenti Graeci?
pag 344
ad romanos 5:19
οἱ πολλοί hic = omnes (cf 18); semitice in οἱ πολλοί non subauditur oppos.
ad “omnes”,
ideo “multi” intellegi possunt omnes, qui multi sunt (cf Matt 20;28)
Mario Trinchero
2011/1/18 James Ernest
Yep–Zerwick is right on. (Not sure what “your book” means–I wish it were
my book!)
For the Latinless, Mario is quoting Zerwick, who says, roughly: HOI POLLOI
here = “all” (cf. 18). In semitic idiom, HOI POLLOI does not imply
opposition to “all”; so “many” can be understood as referring to the “all,”
who are many.
What I was trying to suggest was that HOI POLLOI could be understood in
terms of the preceding PAS; but further, that PAS in this Pauline context
cannot necessarily be equated without further ado with whatever “all” may
mean in the context of the contemporary interests of Sam’s interlocutors.
Incidentally, Zerwick provides no support for the aforequoted rule (PAS with
article = ALL, without article = MANY), so I still don’t know there that
came from, but no matter. My intent wasn’t to single out Mario for a
bashing, just to express wonder at how these things crop up and spread
around, and to voice once again, for the benefit of any newbies on the list
who might be misled by such a “rule,” the caveat, often raised here by
others, that theological, hermeneutical, and exegetical problems raised by
or touched on by particular texts are generally not subject to easy solution
through facile rules (which are often bogus anyway) or even competent
lexicography. Let’s see, how to say in Latin . . . would that be “Contextus
rex”?
James Ernest
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Mario Trinchero
wrote:
I had heard of the notion that POLUS for PAS is an established semiticism, but
did not know about how the article could affect the construction. Nor did I
know about Zerwick’s “rule.”
I would argue that Mark 10:45 violates Zerwick’s rule, because I do think POLLWN
does means PANTWN here. But we know that the article can be ommitted with
prepositions where we would expect it without.
By the way, how would one say “Context is King” is Koine?
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________
Sent: Tue, January 18, 2011 8:33:23 AM
Yep–Zerwick is right on. (Not sure what “your book” means–I wish it were
my book!)
For the Latinless, Mario is quoting Zerwick, who says, roughly: HOI POLLOI
here = “all” (cf. 18). In semitic idiom, HOI POLLOI does not imply
opposition to “all”; so “many” can be understood as referring to the “all,”
who are many.
What I was trying to suggest was that HOI POLLOI could be understood in
terms of the preceding PAS; but further, that PAS in this Pauline context
cannot necessarily be equated without further ado with whatever “all” may
mean in the context of the contemporary interests of Sam’s interlocutors.
Incidentally, Zerwick provides no support for the aforequoted rule (PAS with
article = ALL, without article = MANY), so I still don’t know there that
came from, but no matter. My intent wasn’t to single out Mario for a
bashing, just to express wonder at how these things crop up and spread
around, and to voice once again, for the benefit of any newbies on the list
who might be misled by such a “rule,” the caveat, often raised here by
others, that theological, hermeneutical, and exegetical problems raised by
or touched on by particular texts are generally not subject to easy solution
through facile rules (which are often bogus anyway) or even competent
lexicography. Let’s see, how to say in Latin . . . would that be “Contextus
rex”?
James Ernest
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Mario Trinchero
wrote:
Mark,
Zerwick doesn’t give a rule! The (bogus) rule about the article comes from
elsewhere.
That’s tough. BASILEUEI hH AKOLOUQIA ??
James
Hi Sam
PAS with article = ALL
without article = MANY
Scuse me my bad english
Mario Trinchero
2011/1/18 Samuel Cripps
Really? Who made that rule? (Rules like this always remind me of Lucy’s
“little-known facts.” When Charlie Brown asks her how, if they’re
little-known, she comes to know them. “I make ’em up.”)
v. 18.
You could just as plausibly say that the scope of POLUS (which in a
one-versus-many context could quite naturally imply “all”) is limited by the
preceding PAS: “all” always has a frame of reference (all what? or all who?)
Doesn’t the Adam/Christ discussion in Romans 5 occur in the context of a
Jews/all-humanity discussion in the epistle as a whole?
I don’t know what “all” means in the context of the conversation that
prompted the initial post. If it’s an argument about universalism (in the
sense of the salvation of every individual human), I don’t think Paul is
addressing that question here. If you want to address it, Sam, you’ll have
to do so in the context of a larger exegetical, hermeneutical, and
theological project. Lexicon entries and rules about articles (especially
bogus rules) won’t help you (or, in this case, your opponents).
James Ernest
—
Hi James
do you know Max Zerwick S.I.
and your book Analysis Philologica Novi Testamenti Graeci?
pag 344
ad romanos 5:19
οἱ πολλοί hic = omnes (cf 18); semitice in οἱ πολλοί non subauditur oppos.
ad “omnes”,
ideo “multi” intellegi possunt omnes, qui multi sunt (cf Matt 20;28)
Mario Trinchero
2011/1/18 James Ernest
Yep–Zerwick is right on. (Not sure what “your book” means–I wish it were
my book!)
For the Latinless, Mario is quoting Zerwick, who says, roughly: HOI POLLOI
here = “all” (cf. 18). In semitic idiom, HOI POLLOI does not imply
opposition to “all”; so “many” can be understood as referring to the “all,”
who are many.
What I was trying to suggest was that HOI POLLOI could be understood in
terms of the preceding PAS; but further, that PAS in this Pauline context
cannot necessarily be equated without further ado with whatever “all” may
mean in the context of the contemporary interests of Sam’s interlocutors.
Incidentally, Zerwick provides no support for the aforequoted rule (PAS with
article = ALL, without article = MANY), so I still don’t know there that
came from, but no matter. My intent wasn’t to single out Mario for a
bashing, just to express wonder at how these things crop up and spread
around, and to voice once again, for the benefit of any newbies on the list
who might be misled by such a “rule,” the caveat, often raised here by
others, that theological, hermeneutical, and exegetical problems raised by
or touched on by particular texts are generally not subject to easy solution
through facile rules (which are often bogus anyway) or even competent
lexicography. Let’s see, how to say in Latin . . . would that be “Contextus
rex”?
James Ernest
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Mario Trinchero
wrote:
I had heard of the notion that POLUS for PAS is an established semiticism, but
did not know about how the article could affect the construction. Nor did I
know about Zerwick’s “rule.”
I would argue that Mark 10:45 violates Zerwick’s rule, because I do think POLLWN
does means PANTWN here. But we know that the article can be ommitted with
prepositions where we would expect it without.
By the way, how would one say “Context is King” is Koine?
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________
Sent: Tue, January 18, 2011 8:33:23 AM
Yep–Zerwick is right on. (Not sure what “your book” means–I wish it were
my book!)
For the Latinless, Mario is quoting Zerwick, who says, roughly: HOI POLLOI
here = “all” (cf. 18). In semitic idiom, HOI POLLOI does not imply
opposition to “all”; so “many” can be understood as referring to the “all,”
who are many.
What I was trying to suggest was that HOI POLLOI could be understood in
terms of the preceding PAS; but further, that PAS in this Pauline context
cannot necessarily be equated without further ado with whatever “all” may
mean in the context of the contemporary interests of Sam’s interlocutors.
Incidentally, Zerwick provides no support for the aforequoted rule (PAS with
article = ALL, without article = MANY), so I still don’t know there that
came from, but no matter. My intent wasn’t to single out Mario for a
bashing, just to express wonder at how these things crop up and spread
around, and to voice once again, for the benefit of any newbies on the list
who might be misled by such a “rule,” the caveat, often raised here by
others, that theological, hermeneutical, and exegetical problems raised by
or touched on by particular texts are generally not subject to easy solution
through facile rules (which are often bogus anyway) or even competent
lexicography. Let’s see, how to say in Latin . . . would that be “Contextus
rex”?
James Ernest
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Mario Trinchero
wrote:
Mark,
Zerwick doesn’t give a rule! The (bogus) rule about the article comes from
elsewhere.
That’s tough. BASILEUEI hH AKOLOUQIA ??
James