I believe this passage to be the most important in the entire Bible. The teaching of the covenantal, federal, legal, forensic imputation of Christ's righteousness to us as the only meritorious cause of our justification is the heart of Reformed soteriology and is what separates it from all other forms of deficient soteriologies. The two-Adams structure is the heart of the Gospel. In the original exegesis, published Nov. 9, 2021 I largely followed Doug Moo's commentary, as I believed it to be the best treatment of this passage. With further study of verses 12-14, I have become convinced that Schreiner has the correct interpretation of this passage as a whole. As of 3/16/22, I have adopted Schreiner's interpretation of 12-14. I believe his new 2018 interpretation to be the most likely understanding of this section. I am inclined to his old interpretation (and Brian Vickers') as an alternative for the most likely 2nd option. As a whole, I believe his commentary should be followed, adjusted by my comments here from v. 15 onwards. Should 5:12d actually mean all sinned "in Adam" (which I take to be quite improbable), Murray's basic reading seems most likely with adjustment by Moo (Paul certainly doesn't have infants in mind).
Introduction: As Moo states, “The opening words of the paragraph, ‘because of this.’ suggests that what Paul is about to teach in 5:12-21 is a conclusion drawn from something he has argued earlier...the idea that we will be saved ‘in union’ with Christ (5:10)...does most justice both to the contents of 5:1-11 and 12-21 and to the natural meaning of the phrase Paul uses...We would then paraphrase the transition at 5:12 as follows: “in order to accomplish this [namely, that God has promised to save all those who are justified and reconciled through Christ], there exists a life-giving union between Christ and his own that is similar to, but more powerful than, the death-producing union between Adam and all his own” (344-346).
We would then do well to consider how this concept of “union with Christ” functions in Romans, and luckily, Doug Moo has an excursus on this. I will quote a few parts that I found the most important:
“The theological concept that grounds and motivates the “with Christ” language of Paul is his understanding of Christ as a representative, even inclusive, figure. Rom. 5:12-21 has established that ‘Christ’s obedience’/’act of righteousness’ affects all who belong to him. Davies refers in this regard to the Jewish teaching that every generation was to consider itself as having taken part in the Exodus...As Tannehill notes, it is but a ‘short step’ to the inference that Christ’s death is a corporate or inclusive act, so that his death is at the same time the death of all those who are ‘in’ him. And Paul takes just this step in 2 Cor. 5:14: ‘One died on behalf of all; therefore all died.’ The death of Christ is also the death of all whom he represents” (417).
“In the case of both Adam and Christ, the union between them and those they represent is primarily-and in Christ’s case perhaps exclusively-forensic. Because he is our representative, the judgement or decision that has fallen on Christ falls also on those who come to belong to him. Seen in this light, the ‘participationist’ language of Paul is at the service of, and determined by, his forensic or ‘judicial’ conception of the work of Christ” (418).
“The ‘informing’ theology is Paul’s understanding of Christ as the representative head of the new age, or realm, who incorporates within himself all who belong to that new age. For us to be ‘in Christ’ means, then, to belong to Christ as our representative, so that the decisions applied to him apply also to us. See 1 Cor. 15:22, especially: ‘as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive’ (note also 2 Cor. 5:14-17)” (421).
12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all people, because all sinned.
Through Adam's one covenantal transgression, sin entered the world. Both the propensity to sin given through sin nature and actual sin came in through Adam's one sin. In the original post, I suggest we could read this as "Therefore, just as sinning entered the world through one man, and death through sinning, in this way death spread to all people, because all have sinned", and I still think it to be a correct interpretation. Schreiner is correct that "the context clarifies that death is both spiritual and physical", and "Adam died when he sinned, for upon sinning, he was immediately separated from God". As Vos said of Genesis 2:17, " a deeper conception of death seems to be hinted at. It was intimated that death carried with it separation from God, since sin issued both in death and in the exclusion from the garden. If life consisted in communion with God, then, on the principle of opposites, death may have been interpretable as separation from God".
While "most scholars maintain that Paul breaks off his comparison in midsentence and doesn't complete it until 5:18", Schriner is correct that "it is more likely, however, that the comparison is completed in 5:12c-d. We could paraphrase the verse this way: since sin and death entered the world through one man, so also death spread to all people because all sinned...All people die because Adam introduced sin and death into the world".
Schreiner rightly departs from his old interpretation, seeing that, "though it is theologically true that spiritual death leads to sin...in Rom. 5 and 6 Paul emphasizes that sin leads to death. That sin leads to death is the specific point in 5:12a-b, and it is reiterated in 5:13-24, 15, and 17 and confirmed in Rom. 6:23, "for the wages of sin is death." It is possible, of course, that Paul teaches both truths in these verses: sin leads to death and spiritual death leads to sin. But the latter notion is not articulated clearly elsewhere in Rom. 5-6, whereas Paul repeatedly affirms that death is the result of sin. Hence it seems more plausible to think that 5:12c-d teaches that death spread to all because all sinned".
He then adds:
These arguments moved me away from Schreiner's old interpretation (as well as Vickers) of 5:12-14.
Regarding Murray's interpretation of 5:12d as meaning "all sinned (in Adam", followed by Moo and our original exegesis, he is absolutely correct that "on linguistic grounds it is quite improbable that 'all sinned' means 'all sinned in Adam.' Wedderburn (1973b: 351) rightly argues that the connection between the sin of Adam and the rest of humanity is conveyed by the first part of verse 12 and not the latter part of the verse. The most natural way to construe 'all sinned'...(cf. exactly the same phrase in 3:23)...is to see a reference to the personal and individual sin of all people...the last part of verse 12 shows that death spread to all people because they sinned voluntarily in their own persons".
Rightly, Longnecker: ""there is no legitimate way in which Paul can be made to say that 'all have sinned collectively' or that 'all have sinned in Adam.' Such understandings would be, as Fitzmyer rightly insists, 'additions to Paul’s text.' Rather, the πάντες ('all') is emphatic and cannot be toned down; and the constative use of the third-person aorist indicative verb ἥμαρτον ('have sinned') signals the actual sins of individual people throughout the course of human history"".
To read 12d as "all sinned (in Adam)" is to make an assumption that Paul does not make in this verse. This is, as Schreiner notes, not of course, to adopt a Pelagian reading of v. 12. It is true that we are condemned because of Adam's sin (18-19), and yet it is also true that we are condemned because of our own sins. "Sin and death entered into the world through Adam, and hence people sin and die because of both Adam's sin and their own sin, though the sin of Adam is fundamental and typological". Paul's focus in this verse is on personal sin, as the parallel in 3:23 and lack of the phrase "in Adam" (which Paul surely could have supplied) force us to conclude.
13
In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to a person’s account when there is no law.
There is an implied question that Paul is responding to here, namely "How can those without the law sin if there was no law to specify sin?" (since Paul has said in 4:15 that without the law there is no transgression). Paul clarifies that sin existed in the world even though it was not technically sin against a specially revealed law.
I won’t spend much time on this, but that “sin is not imputed when there is no law” means that there is a greater degree of responsibility when one sins against a revealed law (see Thielman, 286).
14
Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression. He is a type of the Coming One.
Spiritual-physical death was universal from Adam until Moses over those who did not violate a specific and specially revealed law. Adam is a type of Christ, being a covenant head of a soteriological covenant, and that being a covenant of works.
15
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if by the one man’s trespass the many died, how much more have the grace of God and the gift which comes through the grace of the one man Jesus Christ overflowed to the many.
Here Paul compares and contrasts the works of Adam and Christ. The “gift” in this verse refers to Christ’s work, as Moo says, “gift’ denotes not the gift given to the believer (as is usually the case with Paul), but the act of Christ himself considered as a ‘work of grace” (362).
Piper: Now in verses 15-19 Paul draws out the similarities and differences between Adam and Christ. His aim is to magnify the grace and sufficiency of the justification that comes through Christ for sinners. In Romans 5:15 he does something surprising. He contrasts Adam’s “transgression” with a “free gift.” He says, “But the free gift (cariv sma, charisma) is not like the transgression (paraptwma v , paraptøma). For if, by the transgression of the one, the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift (dwrea, dørea) by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many” (5:15). This is surprising because we expect him to contrast Adam’s transgression with Christ’s obedience or righteousness. The implication seems to be that Christ’s righteousness is a gift that sinners may receive. This is, in fact, made explicit in verse 17 where the gift is defined as “the gift of righteousness” (th`~ dwrea`~ th`~ dikaiosuvnh~, t∑s døreas t∑s dikaiosun∑s). “If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ” (5:17). So Adam’s transgression is contrasted with Christ’s righteousness, [I call the “gift of righteousness” (5:17) “Christ’s righteousness” 1) because of its apparent parallel in verse 15 with Adam’s trespass; and 2) because it seems to be identical with the “one act of righteousness” in verse 18, which is parallel with Christ’s obedience in verse 19.] which is understood as a gift. The implication is that although Adam’s transgression brought death to many, Christ’s righteousness, as a free gift, abounded (ejperisseusen v , eperisseusen) for many. How it abounded for them is made explicit in verse 17: “Those who receive the abundance (perisseianv , perisseian) of grace and the free gift of righteousness [will] reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.” In other words, the “free gift” in verse 15 is not the gift of eternal life, but the gift of righteousness that obtains eternal life. Thus Paul begins to develop the contrasts and similarities between Adam and Christ to magnify the superiority of Christ’s righteousness over Adam’s sin.
Edit 8/8/23: I am somewhat uncertain about the above argument though I think it's basically correct. Strictly speaking, 5:17 says that a gift of righteousness which is a righteousness that Christ's work resulted in and won is given to believers. It doesn't necessarily say that Christ's work is that righteousness which is given to believers. To make that connection, I would want to follow Beale in "Union with the Resurrected Christ" 335-36 and argue for a link between 5:17-18 and the same thought found in Romans 4:25. One receives the gift of righteousness because one is identified with Christ's resurrection righteousness, a righteousness He won because of His obedience. See also https://twitter.com/dennyburk/status/1255708154572296193?s=46
Because of Adam, his descendants are born spiritually dead and are sure to physically die.
Moo: The dative 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. Are-
lated issue is the significance of the aorist tense of ärélavov ("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 or she 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 (WV. 17, 19, 21). The aorist tense of
äé0avov may, then, suggest that the sentence of death imposed on all people took place
immediately in conjunction with the trespass of Adam.
Schreiner: There is something prior to individual sin, something that undergirds and explains it: because of Adam's sin, human beings enter the world spiritually dead (and physical death will follow in due course). Human beings…are "dead on arrival" because of Adam's sin
16
And the gift is not like the one man’s sin, because from one sin came the judgment, resulting in condemnation, but from many trespasses came the gift, resulting in justification.
Moo: “As he did in v. 15, Paul goes on to elaborate this contrast: ‘For the judicial verdict that resulted in condemnation was from one sin, but the gift that leads to justification came after many transgressions”.
Schreiner:
Moo: “Paul, in fact, has two contrasts in mind: (1) the contrast between the results of Adam’s act and Christ’s—condemnation versus justification—and (2) the number of sins taken into account—the judicial verdict associated with Adam was based on one sin; the decree of justification that came through Christ after an untold number of sins.
The "gift" is Christ's righteous obedience (Moo: the act of Christ himself considered as a “work of grace.”), and therefore the "judgment" refers to the decree of condemnation arising from Adam's one sin of disobedience. Adam was judged for his sin, and so all were condemned and judged with him. Christ's obedience is given to all in Him, and so they are all counted to have obeyed with Him.
(cf. Piper's comments at v. 15).
17
If by the one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive the overflow of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
Schreiner:
Also Schreiner: The word δικαιοσύνης is appositional here, denoting the gift that is righteousness.
We can relate this point back to Piper's comments.
Kruse: Collins draws attention to the similarity existing between Paul’s statement here in 5:17 and that of Rabbi Hanina in the Mishnah (m. Makk. 3:15): If a sin of one sinner causes his death [‘he forfeits his life’], is it not logical to assume that a meritorious deed of one man causes his life to be given!
Collins says: ‘Paul has of course adapted the mishnaic statement to serve his own cause. Thus, whereas in the Mishnah, the sinner and the practitioner of the meritorious deed are both anonymous ciphers for any man, Paul, on the other hand, identifies them both, alluding to the sinner as Adam, while the man who performs a meritorious deed is clearly identified as Jesus Christ’.
18
So then, as through one man's trespass there is condemnation for everyone, so also through one man's righteousness there is justification leading to life for everyone.
Peter Sammons: As can be observed from the chart above, wherever δι’ + ἑνὸς is used in 5:12–19, the object of the preposition is not ἑνὸς. Modern English translations render it as an adjective and not as a noun, though it appears as a noun every other time in 5:12–19. Therefore, the object of the preposition in 5:18 must be either παραπτώματος
(transgression) and δικαιώματος (righteousness), not ἑνὸς. Here, ἑνὸς is a subjective genitive, not the object of δι’. The phrase should therefore be translated “one man’s
righteousness,” not “one act of righteousness".
Thus, the verse should read: “So then as through one man’s transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one man’s righteousness there resulted justification leading to life to all men”.
Schreiner: “Justification’ means that one is declared to be right before God, and conversely ‘condemnation’ refers to those on whom a sentence of judgment has been passed...the word ‘justification’ is forensic, indicating the right standing believers have before God...The transgression of the one man resulted in condemnation for all people. Certainly nothing new is being articulated here, since this is an obvious inference from the previous argument. Similarly, the righteous act by the one man, Jesus Christ, resulted in the justification that leads to life for all people. Again, the conclusion drawn here follows from the preceding verses, although Paul adds the thought of Christ’s righteous conduct as the means of righteousness for believers...Those in Christ now enjoy the righteousness of another, a righteousness not their own. By virtue of their union with Christ, they are counted righteous before God” (292-293).
19
For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were appointed sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be appointed righteous.
Sammons: Translating this phrase as “one man’s righteousness” fits well with how 5:12 is translated. The Greek reads ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον. Is this aorist to be translated as a
past (for all sinned) or as a gnomic present (for all sin)? Almost all English
translations translate the phrase as “all sinned” (aorist/past) in Adam. In other words,
Romans 5:12 is understood to teach that men are held accountable, as if they had
performed the very work of Adam—that is, his transgression of the law. To be sure,
Paul is not attempting to convey the concept of status change here as in 5:19, which
reads ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν (“the many were made sinners”). In 5:19,
κατεστάθησαν is used not just to convey the “status” of sinners, but also their
accountability as actual workers of iniquity.21 ἑνὸς is being used in a similar fashion
as it was in 5:17 to refer to the “one man’s” work. Therefore, ἑνὸς should have the
same meaning in 5:18, thus referring to “one man’s righteousness.”
Paul’s use of the term δικαιώματος is also necessary to understand why Paul is
not referring to “one act of righteousness,” but to “one man’s righteousness.” Because
δικαιώματος appears in the singular, many English translations interpret Paul’s words
as meaning “one act of righteousness.” However, this interpretive meaning of the text
is not demanded by a singular appearance of δικαιώματος. The term can be used
comprehensively, as it is in Romans 8:4: “so that the requirement of the Law might
be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”
The term translated “requirement” (NASB) is δικαίωμα. In Romans 8:4, though this
term appears in the singular, it clearly refers comprehensively to plural requirements,
and does not isolate one requirement above the rest. For example, if Romans 8:4 is
referring to the Mosaic Law,22 then one would not assume that the Mosaic Law is
made up of one law; it entails hundreds of laws! In 8:4, as in 5:18, the term’s
appearing in the singular does not necessitate a numerical one, but a comprehensive
one. Therefore, to isolate Christ’s death from His entire life of righteousness is
unnecessary and unwarranted.
Also, Beale, who points out that Adam's "one trespass" was a process of sin capped off by his eating of the tree, just as Christ's righteousness was a life of righteousness, capped off by his obedient death: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxM-wjn0j94&feature=youtu.be
though I think this argument somewhat weak.
Longnecker: “The obedience of Jesus” is at the heart of the early church’s “Christ hymn,” which Paul quotes in Phil 2:6-11 and uses as the basis for his exhortations to his converts at Philippi — focusing on the statement of 2:8: γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου (“he became obedient even to the extent of death”).
Next, we should follow Schreiner in seeing "will be appointed righteous" as a logical, not a real future. However, there could be an "already-not-yet" element, referring both to present possession of justification, and a future declaration at the eschaton.
Thielman: Despite the eschatological overtones and the future tense...justification does not await the final day. Just as the ungodly and wicked have started to experience God's wrath in the present (1:18), so those who believe the gospel are rendered righteous when they believe 94;5; 5:1, 9). The future tense, then, is a logical future, indicating what is true for "the many" that benefit from Christ's obedient, atoning death (292).
Moo commenting on v. 17 has a note that says, "See Caneday, 'Already Reigning,' 27-43...The future tense may be, in other words, something of a 'logical future': future not so much in time as Paul writes but future from the standpoint of the reign of death in Adam (Murray)". If this is so, then it is most probable that v. 19 also speaks of a logical future.
Moo: “since Adam and Eve had been explicitly told not to eat the fruit of the tree. In keeping with the careful contrasts that Paul has used throughout the passage, then Christ’s work is characterized as ‘an act of obedience.’ Paul may be thinking of the ‘active obedience’ of Christ, His lifelong commitment to ‘do His Father’s will’ and so fulfill the demands of the law” (371).
Schreiner rightly picks up on an allusion to Is. 53:11, but interprets the connection wrongly, suggesting that this indicates that Christ’s death is more likely in view as opposed to his entire life of obedience.
Is 53:11 - Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.
The connection should be construed here as that the righteous obedience of the servant characterized by his “knowledge” of God’s law which is tied to his obedience (Ps. 1) will make the many he represents to be accounted righteous (Chou, “I Saw The Lord", 81: He transforms Israel by his sacrificial death and justifies them based upon his own righteousness...The hiphil of "[Hebrew Word]" presumes the status of an individual often expressed by a cognate (cf. 1 Kgs 8:32; Prov 17:15). This argues that the Righteous One justifies based upon his righteousness. The parallelism in Isa 53:11 confirms this. The Servant justifies as well as bears his people's sins or guilt). This also proves that to be “appointed righteous” or “made righteous” (other translations) is forensic, as will be further argued later. Dr. Chou does not connect the servant’s righteousness to His “knowledge” of the Torah, but he does connect the servant to the Davidic king. My argument here is that in like manner to Adam, the Davidic king was to obey the revealed will of God, which he would do by meditating on the Torah in order to be obedient and earn the covenantal reward of peace and blessing in the land of Israel for him and all he represented. The Davidic king’s obedience was tied to his knowledge of the Law on which he was to meditate day and night, even as much as his obedience and blessings for that obedience affected all those he represented in his kingdom. The focus then is on Christ’s entire life of obedience to the will of God. I barely read it, but I just found out Fesko actually goes in this direction here on pg. 8 ( https://tms.edu/m/TMSJ-Volume-32-Number-1.pdf ) See too Barrett, Canon, Covenant, and Christology pg. 68.
My interpretation above rests on connecting Is. 53:11 back to Is. 52:13 (cf. Reformation Study Bible, Treasury of Scripture Knowledge). The word for "act wisely" or "prosper" in 52:13 is the same in Deut. 29:9 and Josh. 1:7-8 which repeat the biblical theological theme I discussed above found in Psalm 1 and 2 (a related word being used in Ps. 1:3 for "prospers"). Note also 53:10 “the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand” and see Is. 11:2
Is. 42 announces the servant whose mission is to bring justice. He is given as a covenant for the people (42:6), meaning all that He does, He does as a representative of them, as repeated in 49:9. His mission is to lift up the poor and bears their iniquities (50:4-7; 53), he does this all in covenant with God, knowing if He does so He will be rewarded (53:10-12). His righteousness is to bear the people's iniquities. 52:13 tells us he will "act wisely", cf. Josh. 1:7-8, Psalm 1:3, Deut. 29:9. He "prospers" by meditating on the Law of the Lord and by obeying it. In performing covenantal obedience to God's Law, He is righteous through this meditation on God's law ("knowledge", i.e. "acting wisely" and prospering of 53:10-11), and thus by His righteousness, He "makes the many to be accounted righteous" as their representative as we have already said. (Edit: It looks like Jim Hamilton picks up on this in Typology pg. 202 and on pg. 211, he notes that 53:10, the verse just before 53:11, the phrase "he shall prolong his days" occurs, the exact phrase given in Deut. 17:20 for why the king is to copy the Torah and meditate on it! Obedience leads to eternal life (cf. my posts on Psalm 2 and the necessity of Christ's resurrection).)
(For evidence Is. 53:11 is forensic, see https://academia.edu/resource/work/5110454)
Schreiner: there is debate over whether the obedience of Jesus refers to his lifelong obedience (so, e.g., Murray 1959: 204–5). The word “obedience” (ὑπακοή, hypakoē) likely refers to the work of Jesus on the cross (cf. Phil. 2:8)...Still, not too much should be made of the distinction, since the obedience on the cross climaxes a life of obedience (cf. Schnabel 2015: 575). His obedience on the cross would be superfluous if obedience didn’t characterize his entire life.
I would suggest then that the focus of v. 19 is on Christ's righteousness itself, his obedience unto death (Phil. 2:8), which climaxes and is seen most clearly in his death on the cross.
Moo: “The verb that Paul uses in both phrases [“appointed” in our translation] has a forensic flavor...Here it refers to the fact that people are ‘inaugurated into’ the state of sin/righteousness. Paul is insisting that people were really ‘made’ righteous through Christ’s obedience. But this ‘making righteous,’ in light of the focus throughout this text on one’s state or position, means not to become ‘morally righteous’ people but to become judicially righteous” (371-372).
Osborne: The translation “were made” is somewhat weak, for as M. Black shows (1973:84), it has a strong legal connotation and means to “appoint” or “constitute” someone into a certain class or category. Moreover, the results center on a state of being into which the people are placed, sinners versus righteous,so it is best to say that those in Adam’s sin were “constituted as belonging to the class of sinners” and Christs atoning sacrifice “constituted his followers as belonging to the class of the righteous.”
Thielman: Adam rendered humanity sinners and Jesus Christ will render humanity "righteous". This does not mean that former sinners become righteous in the moral sense but that they become "righteous" in the juridical sense...God renders sinners righteous and therefore free from the punishment they deserve (292).
Schreiner, Vickers, and Osborne (contra Moo) think that this verse teaches that there is a transformative element that is subordinated to the forensic (in other words, the federal union precedes the vital even as imputed righteousness precedes infused so that it is impossible to be justified without being sanctified), and while theologically true, this is not Paul’s focus and goes against all the evidence that Paul is focusing exclusively on the forensic element of imputation and justification here (and we have already seen this proven through the allusion to Is. 53:11’s “accounting” in this verse). Vickers seems double-minded here as he also states that, “Being ‘made’ righteous, even being ‘appointed’ righteous, means that one really is righteous, but it clearly does not mean that Paul is talking about being made righteous on the basis of one’s own works, or that he is talking about some sort of transformative righteousness” (156). Therefore, we should not say also with Vickers that, “This, of course, does not deny that a transformation takes place, but that the transformation logically follows the declared status. God’s word of justification not only declares something; it creates what it declares” and we should also not say with Schreiner, “Those who are in Adam and those who are in Christ actually become sinners and righteous, respectively...In other words, the forensic is the basis and foundation for the transformative” (293). Again, while this notion is true (it is, after all, the duplex gratia), this is not what Paul is saying, because “appoint” is forensic, not transformative. If there is a transformative element here, as Schreiner and Vickers say, then this is simply the truth of the duplex gratia, and does not change the fact that the transformative is subject to the forensic. This alone is enough to do away with all non-Reformed soteriologies. I am, however, still skeptical that there is any transformative element for those in Christ here (as is Moo when he says, "the union between them and those they represent is primarily-and in Christ’s case perhaps exclusively-forensic").
The “really”, “actually” becoming a sinner/righteous should not be seen as meaning that a transformation flows from the forensic, but rather, it should be seen as meaning that no legal fiction has occurred. You are truly accountable as if you had performed the actions of your respective federal head.
Vickers:
There is certainly a transformative element that follows forensic righteousness in that, “grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life” and in v. 18 justification results in life so that spiritual life follows the legal status of “righteous”, even as death followed the legal status of “sinner”; but that is not the focus of “appoint” in v. 19.
Finally, Maitland, "The Adam-Christ Comparison":
Moving onward, this iteration of the comparison utilizes the word "make" to explain the effect Adam's disobedience and Christ's obedience had on their constituencies. On the one hand, the many of Adam were "made" sinners through Adam's disobedience, but through Christ's obedience, the many will be "made" righteous. Taking this meaning, "make," the verb is basically synonymous with [Greek Word], suggesting that the two humanities of Adam and Christ are literally made what they are by their respective works. However, the verb often carries a forensic sense in the NT, referring to an appointment to a particular position. With such a forensic sense here, Paul would mean to connote that the two humanities were "appointed," one to the status of sinner and the other to the status of righteous. Of course, if one were appointed to the status of sinner and the other the status of righteous, does this not in essence "make" the two become what their status declares? Maybe, as some say, the whole distinction between "make" and "appoint" is really too fine and Paul could legitimately mean to incorporate both in unison.
The ultimate question for this issue concerns what is Paul's primary point of emphasis. It is understandable that many are uncomfortable saying the emphasis is on the aspect of "making," for this puts a great deal of stress on the personal actions of those affected. In relation to sin, the posterity of Adam is made a collective group of sin-committers without there ever being anyone apart from Adam to commit sin. In relation to righteousness, it would seem as if Paul is saying that the believer is made wholly right and perfect in their actions at the moment of exercising faith in Christ, which is contrary to the argument set forth in the following chapter of Romans. At the same time, it is hard to see that Paul here emphasizes both the idea of "make" and the idea of "appoint" side by-side. In most cases, the word is used with emphasis on only one meaning or the other, making a "double" meaning unusual.
The key to determining the intended meaning of "make" lies in the comparison drawn between Adam and Christ. What proves most problematic for the meaning of "make" is that it cannot rightly maintain the parallelism between Paul's two uses of the verb. While it is plausible that Adam might have fatalistically "made" sinners of his posterity in light of Romans 5:12, it does not necessarily follow that Christ would have done so in precisely the same way. This is evident by how closely faith is tied to becoming a beneficiary of Christ's work on the cross. Adam and his action made sinners of all men without exception, but it is exclusively by faith that Christ and his action can be said to "make" many righteous. One instance of "make" refers to a fatalistic reality, but the other to a contingent reality. In contrast, the forensic sense more adequately maintains the strict parallelism between the two uses of the verb. Just as many were appointed to the status of sinner by Adam's disobedience, so too many were appointed to the status of righteous by Christ's obedience. There is no difficulty with making sense of the disparity between how the consequences are wrought. Whether it should be that many receive one status through fatalism or that many receive another status through faith, in either case, the status is made reality by an agent. As Adam's person and work became inseparably tied to the "sinner" status of his posterity, so too Christ's person and work became inseparably tied to the "righteous" status for the people of God.
What specifically constitutes the righteousness which Christ bestows on the people of God? The word [Greek Word]; means not simply moral purity, but a standing of acquittal or being cleared from all charges. In correlation with our conclusion for "make", Paul's entire thought is that the many in Christ are constituted as judicially acquitted by God from whatever indictment there might have been otherwise in Adam. It is not simply that the many were made to act righteously or that they were somehow intrinsically transformed into a righteous people. It is rather that they are judicially appointed to a position of righteousness that is shared by Christ their head.
Moo rightly says on 5:19,
This does not necessarily mean, however, that people become sinners only by actually sinning in their own persons. People can be "made" sinners in the sense that God considers them to be such by regarding Adam's act as, at the same time, their act. It seems fair then...to speak of "imputation" here. This particular understanding of the word is in keeping with the legal connotations that the term often has, and it alone matches the second use of the verb in the verse. For, while some suggest that, as people are "made" righteous by believing, so they are "made" sinners by sinning, the substitution of a different term in the second member--"believing"--destroys the analogy. To maintain strict parallelism, we would have to argue rather that, as people are made sinners by sinning, they are made righteous by being righteous, or doing righteous things. Yet this interpretation is obviously impossible; people are made righteous only by the righteousness of Christ and their faith in Christ, not by being righteous [B.C.: Cf. Romans 3:22, and really just the entire thrust of Paul's argument in Romans].
Schreiner: Human beings die because of their own sin and because of Adam’s sin. To those in Christ, God graciously imputes Christ’s righteousness. At precisely this point the contrast between Adam and Christ emerges, and the wonder of grace shines brightly. As sons and daughters of Adam we enter the world spiritually dead and sinners. But God, in his grace, has reversed the baleful results of Adam’s sin by imputing the righteousness of Christ to us. Such an imputation is an act of grace; it is totally undeserved (295).
We have therefore in v. 19, the same truth that Irenaeus was articulating when he said that "Indeed, through the first Adam, we offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled and are made obedient even unto death". We were counted as federally having offended God in Adam, but now are counted as having federally obeyed God in Christ. Their actions are imputed to us. We were made to be/counted as offenders and guilty in Adam and made to be/counted as obedient and righteous in Christ. This is why the Epistle to Diognetus echoes Romans 5:18-19 along with 2 Corinthians 5:21 when it says,
He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for those who are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!
[See also Cyril of Alexandria: Christ therefore ransomed from the curse of the law those who being subject to it, had been unable to keep its enactments. And in what way did He ransom them? By fulfilling it. And to put it in another way: in order that He might expiate the guilt of Adam's transgression, He showed Himself obedient and submissive in every respect to God the Father in our stead: for it is written, "That as through the disobedience of the One man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One, the many shall be made just." He yielded therefore His neck to the law in company with us, because the plan of salvation so required: for it became Him to fulfill all righteousness.]
The interpretation that I am mainly seeking to counter here is an interpretation that holds the sin of Adam is not immediately imputed to his descendants, but instead, we are condemned by the inherent depravity that we receive from Adam. Of course, we've seen that the immediate imputation view is the most natural way to understand v. 19. Even if Schreiner is there correct that there is a transformational element to v. 19, it most certainly only follows the forensic element. Adam's one transgression federally made us legally "sinners". His transgression was therefore imputed to us so that we are legally held responsible for his sin and there is no clearer thing in the world that as a result, we are suffering the penal consequences for it. I wish to add one theological argument against this position. If creationism rather than traducianism is assumed (as I believe it absolutely should be, cf. Turretin), then the creation of souls destitute of original righteousness demands a prior objective legal basis for this. While you might be able to argue that one fatalistically receives a sin nature from Adam via natural generation and therefore is condemned that way (though even then, this would seem to assume an objective legal basis for why we inherit a sin nature from Adam in the first place), this does not explain why God chooses to supernaturally create souls destitute of original righteousness. The answer can only be found in that He does so as a punishment for Adam's sin, therefore, in being created destitute of original righteousness, we are bearing the penalty for his sin (i.e. it has been imputed to us). Thus, Christ, being a divine person, was not under the Covenant of Works with Adam since His person existed before the covenant was made and was preserved from the inherent stain of original sin because Adam's covenantal sin was not imputed to Him. That Christ did not bear the covenantal penalty (inheritance of a sin nature and lack of original righteousness) is evidence that He was not under the covenant and thus did not receive the legal imputation of the covenant transgression (though He did bear the legal penalty for our sins throughout His life under His own Covenant of Redemption).
Another argument for the immediate imputation of Adam's sin is the biblical-theological parallel that we find in the story of Achan, whose sin was imputed to his offspring and is intentionally modeled off the story of Adam's fall (cf. Brandon Crowe's "The Last Adam") and is clearly portrayed as immediate, regardless of anything that his family had done. As Achan's sin was imputed to Israel, so his sin was imputed to his family so that they were punished with him. All of Israel violated the covenant in Achan (Joshua 7:11 and 15), Achan "saw" a "beautiful" mantle and much silver and gold, "coveted" it, and "took" them and then "hid" them under his tent, Josh 7:21 (all clear references back to Adam and Eve's sin in the garden). Hosea 2:15 also speaks of Achor, the site of Achan's covenant transgression being turned into an Eden-like state. Perhaps this also connects to Hosea 6:7.
Finally, I will state that even if we were to accept the opposition's argument and agree that the imputation of Adam's sin is not taught here, it would not follow that the imputation of Christ's righteousness is not taught here, as this is clearly the case and cannot be taken any other way. I believe this is why Moo states, "In the case of both Adam and Christ, the union between them and those they represent is primarily-and in Christ’s case perhaps exclusively-forensic".
Since I have lodged a theological objection, it is only fair that I respond to a theological objection. Two arguments are lodged against immediate imputation.
Deut. 24:16 says that "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for their own sin". The thought here is that this mitigates against God holding us for accountable Adam's sin. The correct response here is that this verse is normative for the Mosaic Covenant specifically in the absence of a special command/revelation. In other words, this is establishing a general rule for the Mosaic Covenant and therefore has no bearing on the Adamic Covenant and furthermore only holds true for the Mosaic Covenant as a rule in the absence of a special command just like all the Mosaic Laws do. It is for this reason that the killing of Achan and his family does not contradict this verse because that was a special case. For comparison, the death penalty for adultery and murder were also normative and general commands in the absence of special revelation/command, but in the case of David, he was not put to death because of God's special command. God, as the legislator of the Mosaic Covenant, can suspend certain laws as He sees fit. As John Owen said, "God, as the Legislator and supreme Ruler of the Jewish republic, ofttimes dispensed with temporary punishments, as denounced in his threatenings, both as to the place, degree, and time of their execution; but God, as the supreme Lord and just Judge of the universe, doth not dispense with the eternal punishment of sin, to be inflicted at the proper and appointed time".
The second argument lodged against it is Ezekiel 18. This chapter is often misread to try to prove that God does not hold people accountable for others' sins. Notice that nowhere in the chapter does God say that the Israelites were not bearing the sins of their fathers (See Schnittjer, OT use of OT, pg. 279, the prophets do not deny it; Furthermore I would suggest Exodus 20:5 suggests that they were). That is not the point of Ezekiel 18. The point is that even so, even though God visits iniquity upon their generation and they bear the sins of those who came before them, there is still the possibility of repentance. They suffer for the sins of their fathers, yes, but they can escape this suffering. The proverb the Israelites were using (18:1) was not wrong because the sins of previous generations were not imputed to them, but it is wrong because it suggests there is fatalistically no way of escape (compare someone who complains that Adam's sin has been imputed to him and there's nothing he can do about it. There most certainly is a thing that can be done about this: repent!). That the issue is that the Israelites believe that they are fatalistically trapped by the sins of their fathers yet God is telling them if they repent, they will live and if they do not, they will die is very clear in verses 4-28 (cf. Dan Block's commentary). The issue is the use of the proverb to suggest that they cannot themselves escape the punishment that has come upon them by imputation and thus escape blame, whereas God shows that the one who repents will be reckoned righteous, and the one who continues to do evil, will be reckoned as evil (v. 20). To limit it to one or the other (this passage must either teach imputation or personal responsibility and thus debunk the other) is to repeat the same mistake the Israelites made.