Genesis 3:20

3:20 The man ¹  named his wife Eve, ²  because ³  she was the mother of all the living. ⁴ 

Genesis 9:19

9:19 These were the sons of Noah, and from them the whole earth was populated. ⁵ 

Malachi 2:10

The Rebellion of the People

2:10 Do we not all have one father? ⁶  Did not one God create us? Why do we betray one another, in this way making light of the covenant of our ancestors?

Romans 5:12-19

The Amplification of Justification

5:12 So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people ⁷  because ⁸  all sinned – 5:13 for before the law was given, ⁹  sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin ¹⁰  when there is no law. 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type ¹¹  of the coming one) transgressed. ¹²  5:15 But the gracious gift is not like the transgression. ¹³  For if the many died through the transgression of the one man, ¹⁴  how much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ multiply to the many! 5:16 And the gift is not like the one who sinned. ¹⁵  For judgment, resulting from the one transgression, ¹⁶  led to condemnation, but ¹⁷  the gracious gift from the many failures ¹⁸  led to justification. 5:17 For if, by the transgression of the one man, ¹⁹  death reigned through the one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ!

5:18 Consequently, ²⁰  just as condemnation ²¹  for all people ²²  came ²³  through one transgression, ²⁴  so too through the one righteous act ²⁵  came righteousness leading to life ²⁶  for all people. 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man ²⁷  many ²⁸  were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one man ²⁹  many ³⁰  will be made righteous.

Romans 5:1

The Expectation of Justification

5:1 ³¹ Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have ³²  peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Colossians 1:22

1:22 but now he has reconciled you ³³  by his physical body through death to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before him –

Colossians 1:1

Salutation

1:1 From Paul, ³⁴  an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,

[3:20]  ¹ tn Or “Adam”; however, the Hebrew term has the definite article here.

[3:20]  ² sn The name Eve means “Living one” or “Life-giver” in Hebrew.

[3:20]  ³ tn The explanatory clause gives the reason for the name. Where the one doing the naming gives the explanation, the text normally uses “saying”; where the narrator explains it, the explanatory clause is typically used.

[3:20]  ⁴ tn The explanation of the name forms a sound play (paronomasia) with the name. “Eve” is חַוָּה (khavvah) and “living” is חַי (khay). The name preserves the archaic form of the verb חָיָה (khayah, “to live”) with the middle vav (ו) instead of yod (י). The form חַי (khay) is derived from the normal form חַיָּה (khayyah). Compare the name Yahweh (יְהוָה) explained from הָיָה (hayah, “to be”) rather than from הַוָה (havah). The biblical account stands in contrast to the pagan material that presents a serpent goddess hawwat who is the mother of life. See J. Heller, “Der Name Eva,” ArOr 26 (1958): 636-56; and A. F. Key, “The Giving of Proper Names in the OT,” JBL 83 (1964): 55-59.

[9:19]  ⁵ tn Heb “was scattered.” The verb פָּצָה (patsah, “to scatter” [Niphal, “to be scattered”]) figures prominently in story of the dispersion of humankind in chap. 11.

[2:10]  ⁶ sn The rhetorical question Do we not all have one father? by no means teaches the “universal fatherhood of God,” that is, that all people equally are children of God. The reference to the covenant in v. 10 as well as to Israel and Judah (v. 11) makes it clear that the referent of “we” is God’s elect people.

[5:12]  ⁷ tn Here ἀνθρώπους (anqrwpou") has been translated as a generic (“people”) since both men and women are clearly intended in this context.

[5:12]  ⁸ tn The translation of the phrase ἐφ᾿ ᾧ (ef Jw) has been heavily debated. For a discussion of all the possibilities, see C. E. B. Cranfield, “On Some of the Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5.12,” SJT 22 (1969): 324-41. Only a few of the major options can be mentioned here: (1) the phrase can be taken as a relative clause in which the pronoun refers to Adam, “death spread to all people in whom [Adam] all sinned.” (2) The phrase can be taken with consecutive (resultative) force, meaning “death spread to all people with the result that all sinned.” (3) Others take the phrase as causal in force: “death spread to all people because all sinned.”

[5:13]  ⁹ tn Grk “for before the law.”

[5:13]  ¹⁰ tn Or “sin is not reckoned.”

[5:14]  ¹¹ tn Or “pattern.”

[5:14]  ¹² tn Or “disobeyed”; Grk “in the likeness of Adam’s transgression.”

[5:15]  ¹³ tn Grk “but not as the transgression, so also [is] the gracious gift.”

[5:15]  ¹⁴ sn Here the one man refers to Adam (cf. 5:14).

[5:16]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “and not as through the one who sinned [is] the gift.”

[5:16]  ¹⁶ tn The word “transgression” is not in the Greek text at this point, but has been supplied for clarity.

[5:16]  ¹⁷ tn Greek emphasizes the contrast between these two clauses more than can be easily expressed in English.

[5:16]  ¹⁸ tn Or “falls, trespasses,” the same word used in vv. 15, 17, 18, 20.

[5:17]  ¹⁹ sn Here the one man refers to Adam (cf. 5:14).

[5:18]  ²⁰ tn There is a double connective here that cannot be easily preserved in English: “consequently therefore,” emphasizing the conclusion of what he has been arguing.

[5:18]  ²¹ tn Grk “[it is] unto condemnation for all people.”

[5:18]  ²² tn Here ἀνθρώπους (anqrwpou") has been translated as a generic (“people”) since both men and women are clearly intended in this context.

[5:18]  ²³ tn There are no verbs in the Greek text of v. 18, forcing translators to supply phrases like “came through one transgression,” “resulted from one transgression,” etc.

[5:18]  ²⁴ sn One transgression refers to the sin of Adam in Gen 3:1-24.

[5:18]  ²⁵ sn The one righteous act refers to Jesus’ death on the cross.

[5:18]  ²⁶ tn Grk “righteousness of life.”

[5:19]  ²⁷ sn Here the one man refers to Adam (cf. 5:14).

[5:19]  ²⁸ tn Grk “the many.”

[5:19]  ²⁹ sn One man refers here to Jesus Christ.

[5:19]  ³⁰ tn Grk “the many.”

[5:1]  ³¹ sn Many interpreters see Rom 5:1 as beginning the second major division of the letter.

[5:1]  ³² tc A number of important witnesses have the subjunctive ἔχωμεν (ecwmen, “let us have”) instead of ἔχομεν (ecomen, “we have”) in v. 1. Included in the subjunctive’s support are א* A B* C D K L 33 81 630 1175 1739* pm lat bo. But the indicative is not without its supporters: א¹ B² F G P Ψ 0220^vid 104 365 1241 1505 1506 1739^c 1881 2464 pm. If the problem were to be solved on an external basis only, the subjunctive would be preferred. Because of this, the “A” rating on behalf of the indicative in the UBS⁴ appears overly confident. Nevertheless, the indicative is probably correct. First, the earliest witness to Rom 5:1 has the indicative (0220^vid, third century). Second, the first set of correctors is sometimes, if not often, of equal importance with the original hand. Hence, א¹ might be given equal value with א*. Third, there is a good cross-section of witnesses for the indicative: Alexandrian (in 0220^vid, probably א¹ 1241 1506 1881 al), Western (in F G), and Byzantine (noted in NA²⁷ as pm). Thus, although the external evidence is strongly in favor of the subjunctive, the indicative is represented well enough that its ancestry could easily go back to the original. Turning to the internal evidence, the indicative gains much ground. (1) The variant may have been produced via an error of hearing (since omicron and omega were pronounced alike in ancient Greek). This, of course, does not indicate which reading was original – just that an error of hearing may have produced one of them. In light of the indecisiveness of the transcriptional evidence, intrinsic evidence could play a much larger role. This is indeed the case here. (2) The indicative fits well with the overall argument of the book to this point. Up until now, Paul has been establishing the “indicatives of the faith.” There is only one imperative (used rhetorically) and only one hortatory subjunctive (and this in a quotation within a diatribe) up till this point, while from ch. 6 on there are sixty-one imperatives and seven hortatory subjunctives. Clearly, an exhortation would be out of place in ch. 5. (3) Paul presupposes that the audience has peace with God (via reconciliation) in 5:10. This seems to assume the indicative in v. 1. (4) As C. E. B. Cranfield notes, “it would surely be strange for Paul, in such a carefully argued writing as this, to exhort his readers to enjoy or to guard a peace which he has not yet explicitly shown to be possessed by them” (Romans [ICC], 1:257). (5) The notion that εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν (eirhnhn ecwmen) can even naturally mean “enjoy peace” is problematic (ExSyn 464), yet those who embrace the subjunctive have to give the verb some such force. Thus, although the external evidence is stronger in support of the subjunctive, the internal evidence points to the indicative. Although a decision is difficult, ἔχομεν appears to be the authentic reading.

[1:22]  ³³ tc Some of the better representatives of the Alexandrian and Western texts have a passive verb here instead of the active ἀποκατήλλαξεν (apokathllaxen, “he has reconciled”): ἀποκατηλλάγητε (apokathllaghte) in (Ì⁴⁶) B, ἀποκατήλλακται [sic] (apokathllaktai) in 33, and ἀποκαταλλαγέντες (apokatallagente") in D* F G. Yet the active verb is strongly supported by א A C D² Ψ 048 075 [0278] 1739 1881 Ï lat sy. Internally, the passive creates an anacoluthon in that it looks back to the accusative ὑμᾶς (Juma", “you”) of v. 21 and leaves the following παραστῆσαι (parasthsai) dangling (“you were reconciled…to present you”). The passive reading is certainly the harder reading. As such, it may well explain the rise of the other readings. At the same time, it is possible that the passive was produced by scribes who wanted some symmetry between the ποτε (pote, “at one time”) of v. 21 and the νυνὶ δέ (nuni de, “but now”) of v. 22: Since a passive periphrastic participle is used in v. 21, there may have a temptation to produce a corresponding passive form in v. 22, handling the ὑμᾶς of v. 21 by way of constructio ad sensum. Since παραστῆσαι occurs ten words later, it may not have been considered in this scribal modification. Further, the Western reading (ἀποκαταλλαγέντες) hardly seems to have arisen from ἀποκατηλλάγητε (contra TCGNT 555). As difficult as this decision is, the preferred reading is the active form because it is superior externally and seems to explain the rise of all forms of the passive readings.

[1:1]  ³⁴ tn Grk “Paul.” The word “from” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the sender of the letter.