Arminian approach to Romans 5 v15-19?

[pilgrim]

On Tuesday evening I am likely attending a Bible Study (with potential for discussion) on Romans Ch5.
I am trying to envisage how the chapter (particularly v15-19) might be interpreted in a non-universalist manner and what objections could be raised to such interpretations.
I am happy with the term ‘all’ in this context having to mean ‘every single individual who has ever lived’, I think the case for this is strong and I am aware of some (rather weak) attempts to interpret it differently. They do not bother me.
I would like help with the following two questions and any other thoughts/helps which folks here may have.
My questions are:

1. A Greek question: "οἱ πολλοὶ "
   I notice that the definite article is used even though it is omitted from some English translations. To my mind, the use of the definite article in the Greek (here) is important and emphasises to me that ‘the many’ referring to the first group (ie those under condemnation due to Adam’s sin) must be exactly the same set as ‘the many’ in the second (ie those who are justified due to Christ’s redemptive gift).
   I am suggesting that the use of the definite article prohibits the idea that the two 'many’s are different in nature (quantity/content etc). Is this correct thinking?

2. Verse 17: Doesn’t verse 17 give a potential loophole in that it talks of those **‘receiving’**the gift. Now, whilst I maintain that verse 18 refers to ALL persons, it may only suggest that the free gift of justification/life is available for ALL.
   I am suggesting that v17 can be interpreted as the free gift is given to all, but not all will open the package, not all will actually receive the gift - see verse 17: "they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life "

What say ye?

[Bob_Wilson]

On #1, I think repeating “the many” does appear to imply references to the same set.

On #2, 17’s “receive,” even if it is active, need not limit this set to less than “the many” of 18 who are in Adam. Universalists just claim that 18,19 clarify that everyone must and will actively receive the gift. In addition, Talbott e.g. (Inescapable Love) argues that “receive” is actually a passive verb (e.g. “the earth receives rain,” whether it actively chooses to be a recipient or not). In this case where our response would not be the focus, it is easy to see this gift as something that is universally given, and thus the “consequently” of verse 18 logically follows. Indeed, interpreting the assurances in 18,19, as only making justification “available” to all seems strained. The text is that the many “will be made righteous.”

[davo]

To my mind, the use of the definite article in the Greek (here) is important and emphasises to me that ‘the many’ referring to the first group (ie those under condemnation due to Adam’s sin) must be exactly the same set as ‘the many’ in the second (ie those who are justified due to Christ’s redemptive gift).

Yes, I can’t see how it could be anything other than just that.

Doesn’t verse 17 give a potential loophole in that it talks of those** ‘receiving’ **the gift. … I am suggesting that v17 can be interpreted as the free gift is given to all, but not all will open the package, not all will actually receive the gift - see verse 17: "they which receive] abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life "
I wouldn’t see this so much as a loophole… because “receive” is in the “active tense” this basically means “to grasp”. Thus the gift is indeed there for all… however, those that grasp it fully, in consequence will duly “reign in life” i.e., this life.

[pilgrim]

On #1, I think repeating “the many” does appear to imply references to the same set.

On #2, 17’s “receive,” even if it is active, need not limit this set to less than “the many” of 18 who are in Adam. Universalists just claim that 18,19 clarify that everyone must and will actively receive the gift. In addition, Talbott e.g. (Inescapable Love) argues that “receive” is actually a passive verb (e.g. “the earth receives rain,” whether it actively chooses to be a recipient or not). In this case where our response would not be the focus, it is easy to see this gift as something that is universally given, and thus the “consequently” of verse 18 logically follows. Indeed, interpreting the assurances in 18,19, as only making justification “available” to all seems strained. The text is that the many “will be made righteous.”

Hi Bob. Thanks for your thoughts and your reassurance on ‘the many’.
I agree that even if 'receive is active it doesn’t necessarily limit this set to less than ‘the many’ but that is of no help as even the smallest possibility that it might is enough for a traditional ect.er to dismiss this passage as universalist.
I love ‘the earth receives rain’ analogy thanks. I wonder if Talbott was sure from the Greek that lambano?? is used in a passive sense? that would seem to clinch it.

interpreting the assurances in 18,19, as only making justification “available” to all seems strained.

Yes, I agree.

[pilgrim]

To my mind, the use of the definite article in the Greek (here) is important and emphasises to me that ‘the many’ referring to the first group (ie those under condemnation due to Adam’s sin) must be exactly the same set as ‘the many’ in the second (ie those who are justified due to Christ’s redemptive gift).

Yes, I can’t see how it could be anything other than just that.

Doesn’t verse 17 give a potential loophole in that it talks of those** ‘receiving’ **

the gift. … I am suggesting that v17 can be interpreted as the free gift is given to all, but not all will open the package, not all will actually receive the gift - see verse 17: "they which receive] abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life "
I wouldn’t see this so much as a loophole… because “receive” is in the “active tense” this basically means “to grasp”. Thus the gift is indeed there for all… however, those that grasp it fully, in consequence will duly “reign in life” i.e., this life.

Hmmm - that’s a different take (for me and Bob) on this verse 17. So your view is that ‘receive’ is active which means there may well be some who ignore the gift and others who actively take it for themselves. So, as you say, if the gift is about reigning** in this life**, fine, no problem. But I can see how others at the Bible study could interpret the gift as eternal life which would support their view against universalism.
Now I’m VERY confused.
Perhaps we need a Greek expert. [tag]Paidion[/tag] [tag]JasonPratt[/tag]

[Sherman]

On #1, I think repeating “the many” does appear to imply references to the same set.

On #2, 17’s “receive,” even if it is active, need not limit this set to less than “the many” of 18 who are in Adam. Universalists just claim that 18,19 clarify that everyone must and will actively receive the gift. In addition, Talbott e.g. (Inescapable Love) argues that “receive” is actually a passive verb (e.g. “the earth receives rain,” whether it actively chooses to be a recipient or not). In this case where our response would not be the focus, it is easy to see this gift as something that is universally given, and thus the “consequently” of verse 18 logically follows. Indeed, interpreting the assurances in 18,19, as only making justification “available” to all seems strained. The text is that the many “will be made righteous.”

On #1, I agree that “the many” references the same set.

On #2 though, I have a different perspective. First let me note that the word “recieve” lambano is in the Active Mood. And thus, though a hate to disagree with Talbott, the focus of the passage is on the person actively, not passively, receiving. Note what vs. 17 actually says:

vs. 17 "If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

The promise is not about “going to heaven someday” for those who receive the grace of God, but “exercizing dominion in (this) life” through Jesus! For those of us who are privaledged to receive the grace of God in this life, we are citizens of the Kingdom of God, ambassadors or righteousness, ministers of reconciliation, and we have the privaledge and responsibility to exercize a positive influence through our lives, exercise dominion, shall reign in LIFE! Even the “gates of Hades/Death shall not prevail against the church!” Where there is death, we are to bring life. Where there is darkness, we are to bring light! Where there is sickness, we are to bring healing! etc. etc. etc. This verse is NOT taking about getting into heaven someday, but about bringing heaven to earth TODAY! Hallelujah!

We participate in the ministry of reconciliation, bringing heaven to earth today, because Jesus has already taken care of the heavenly side! Us receiving Grace empowers us to do this through our lives. So yes, sadly, in this life there will be many who do not “receive” the grace of God and “reign in life”!

[Paidion]

Hmmm - that’s a different take (for me and Bob) on this verse 17. So your view is that ‘receive’ is active which means there may well be some who ignore the gift and others who actively take it for themselves. So, as you say, if the gift is about reigning** in this life, fine, no problem. But I can see how others at the Bible study could interpret the gift as eternal life which would support their view against universalism.
Now I’m VERY confused. Perhaps we need a Greek expert. @Paidion @JasonPratt**

First let me say how much I appreciate your correct grammar, Pilgrim! This is probably a small matter for you English folk who have a history of using correct English. But here in Canada and United States, the teaching of grammar in schools has pretty much been swept under the rug. You used the phrase “for me and Bob”, which, of course, is grammatically correct. But here in Canada and United States, we think that whenever we combine another person with the first person singular, we should say (for example) “For Bob and I”. No regard is given to the fact that the object of the preposition “for” must be in the objective case, rather than the subjective case. Anyhow, it did my heart good to see it written corrrectly as “for me and Bob” (Of course, “for Bob and me” would have been correct also, maybe even better, since it is conventional to place the other person’s name first).

I do not consider myself to be a Greek expert, though I have studied Koiné Greek for several years, and continue to expose myself to it for my own private study, as well as for purposes such as has been brought up concerning “received”. There are two Greek words for this:

1. λαμβανω (lambanō). This word is better translated as “I am taking” or “I am obtaining” rather than “I am receiving”. It implies an active taking of something.

2. δεχομαι (dechomai—Pronounce “ch” as in “ach” not as in “chair”) This word means “I am receiving” in a more passive sense. For example, someone offers something to you and you receive it.

In Romans 5:17, the word used is “λαμβανω” (the lexical form). The actual form of the word in verse 17 is “λαμβανοντες”, which means “the ones taking” or “the ones who are taking.” I find it odd that none of the many translations I consulted render the word as a participle—except the Concordant, which renders it as “those obtaining”.

[davo]

@Sherman

On #2 though, I have a different perspective. First let me note that the word “recieve” lambano is in the Active Mood. And thus, though a hate to disagree with Talbott, the focus of the passage is on the person actively, not passively, receiving. Note what vs. 17 actually says:

vs. 17 "If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

The promise is not about “going to heaven someday” for those who receive the grace of God, but “exercizing dominion in (this) life” through Jesus! For those of us who are privaledged to receive the grace of God in this life, we are citizens of the Kingdom of God, ambassadors or righteousness, ministers of reconciliation, and we have the privaledge and responsibility to exercize a positive influence through our lives, exercise dominion, shall reign in LIFE!

We participate in the ministry of reconciliation, bringing heaven to earth today, because Jesus has already taken care of the heavenly side! Us receiving Grace empowers us to do this through our lives. So yes, sadly, in this life there will be many who do not “receive” the grace of God and “reign in life”!

Yep!!

[Eaglesway]

IMO verse 15 is sufficient unto itself as the UR proof text in the section, and verse 17 can be allowed to stand as they see it- the resolution being that, as it says in 1 Corinthians 15:21-24, As in Adam all die so also in Christ shall all be made alive, each in his own order- that section of 1 Cor is the perfect companion text with Rom 5 15-19.

So as the one transgression produced death in “the many” how “much more” (pollo mallon consistent thruout all usages indicating “much” more) the righteousness of the one will result in life to the same many"…

but as yet it is only to those who have received. Eventually all will receive(Phil 2:9,10; Col 1:16-21; 1 Cor 15:21-28, John 12:32)

Since Paul and all the apostles spoke from a mind-set/paradigm/contextual thought of the eventual salvation of all this makes sense contextually, where as speaking from the paradigm of ET or ER so many of those scriptures make no sense. ET and ED never entered their minds, since the gospel was given to them by direct revelation from the LOGOS, Jesus.

verse 17 is difficult as a possible limiter when looked at only within the context of Rom 5:15-19, so I bring attention to the continuing discourse- Rom 8 and Romans 11:32-36 especially, to show the continuation of UR thought in Paul’s overall paradigm, the whole creation set free(Ro 8)… God has bound up all in disobedience that He may have mercy on all…For from Him and to Him and through Him are all things(Rom11)…then on to “As in Adam all die so also in Christ are all made alive, but each in His own order”(1 Cor 15)…an administration suitable to the fulness of times, the gathering together into one of all things in Christ (Eph 1)

showing the continuing paradigm of universal reconciliation throughout Paul’s writings.

[pilgrim]

Well, thanks very much Davo, Sherman and Paidion. I must admit that I was a little sceptical of your thoughts Davo because I had read Gerry Beauchemin (Hope Beyond Hell p118-120) how lambano was used in a passive sense (he also gives examples of Rom 1:5, Rom 5:11, Rom 8:15 to support the passive use of that word!).
But with all your helps, I now lean to the interpretation you have brought to the table.

P.S. Paidion, thank you for your mention of correct use of grammar, though I do now regret not putting Bob first. Truth is, I am ashamed of my poor knowledge of the rules of grammar. I was schooled at a time and in a place where the teaching of grammar in English lessons was heavily frowned upon. I would have loved to have had grammar lessons but I received (active or passive??) none. Fortunately I picked up some small knowledge by opting for the dead languages of Latin and Greek. I am still grateful that, at that time, there was a redundant Latin and Greek teacher in the school.

[pilgrim]

Eaglesway - Cheers!
Yes, I agree the other texts and passages should be considered though I doubt this fact will be given its proper place in the Bible Study tomorrow.
If I DO raise 1Cor 15:22, I know the objection will be that the ‘in Christ’ means only ‘all the believers’, rather than ‘due to Christ all humanity’.
If you have any helps on countering this very common objection please feel free to post.

[lancia]

First let me say how much I appreciate your correct grammar, Pilgrim! This is probably a small matter for you English folk who have a history of using correct English. But here in Canada and United States, the teaching of grammar in schools has pretty much been swept under the rug. You used the phrase “for me and Bob”, which, of course, is grammatically correct. But here in Canada and United States, we think that whenever we combine another person with the first person singular, we should say (for example) “For Bob and I”. No regard is given to the fact that the object of the preposition “for” must be in the objective case, rather than the subjective case. Anyhow, it did my heart good to see it written corrrectly as “for me and Bob” (Of course, “for Bob and me” would have been correct also, maybe even better, since it is conventional to place the other person’s name first).

I found this comment quite interesting. The error one makes in saying things like for you and I, between you and I, or between you and myself is called a hypercorrection. A hypercorrection comes from misapplying a grammatical rule in attempting to be correct. Perhaps it originates in our early years of language learning when we are frequently corrected by parents and teachers after we say things like Me and Bob are going to the game.

Maybe a little knowledge IS a dangerous thing, after all!

[Paidion]

I must admit that I was a little sceptical of your thoughts Davo because I had read Gerry Beauchemin (Hope Beyond Hell p118-120) how lambano was used in a passive sense (he also gives examples of Rom 1:5, Rom 5:11, Rom 8:15 to support the passive use of that word!).

Pilgrim, would it make sense to translate the word as “obtained” in Rom 1:5 and Rom 5:11? The Concordant translation does so.
Would “obtained” work even in Rom 8:15? Though the Concordant translates it as “get” and “got” in that verse. I think it would work, because “the spirit of sonship” is something to be obtained, pursued actively. I understand that the whole creation is groaning for the manifestation of the sons of God, and that this manifestation has not yet taken place. It will take effort to become one of the perfected (completed) sons.

Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. (Php 3:12)

[Eaglesway]

Eaglesway - Cheers!
Yes, I agree the other texts and passages should be considered though I doubt this fact will be given its proper place in the Bible Study tomorrow.
If I DO raise 1Cor 15:22, I know the objection will be that the ‘in Christ’ means only ‘all the believers’, rather than ‘due to Christ all humanity’.
If you have any helps on countering this very common objection please feel free to post.

My primary response to that objection is Colossians 1:15-20

, in which Paul defines “all” expansively- altho I have posted it too late to help and I am sure you already knew it HAHAHA!

[davo]

I must admit that I was a little sceptical of your thoughts Davo because I had read Gerry Beauchemin (Hope Beyond Hell p118-120) how lambano was used in a passive sense (he also gives examples of Rom 1:5, Rom 5:11, Rom 8:15 to support the passive use of that word!).

It may be possible (??) to gain a somewhat passive reading of those texts, but I’d be sticking with the “active tense” parsing for 5:17. Not only that… the specific Gk rending of “receive” in Rom 5:17 is λαμβάνοντες (lambanontes) and occurs elsewhere, for example…

Mt 17:24 When they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?”

I don’t know one taxman that doesn’t grab for or grasp after your taxes… there ain’t nothing “passive” about it, lol.

Jn 5:44 How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God?

Clearly these guys were falling over each other to “receive” such accolades… again, such backslapping wouldn’t have been too “passive” IMO.

[Bob_Wilson]

I have no bias here. But what is basis for insisting lambonontes is an active participle? I thought, as Davo implies, the same spelling is used in both active and passive senses. Does it come down to comparing examples of both types, and then arguing which is closest to the text at hand?

[davo]

I have no bias here. But what is basis for insisting lambonontes is an active participle? I thought, as Davo implies, the same spelling is used in both active and passive senses.

Only dealing with the texts John raised earlier…

Rom 1:5; Rom 5:11 ἐλάβομεν (elabomen) = 1st per, Tense – aorist, Voice – active; Mood – indicative; Number – plural

Rom 8:15 ἐλάβετε x2 (elabete) = 2nd per; Tense – aorist; Voice – active; Mood – indicative; Number – plural

Rom 5:17 λαμβάνοντες (lambanontes) = Tense – present; Voice – active; Mood – participle; Case – nominative; Number – plural; Gender – male

Out of the 4 texts in view only Rom 5:17’s lambanō is “participle”.

The root word is λαμβάνω (lambanō), broadly meaning…

1) to take 1a) to take with the hand, lay hold of, any person or thing in order to use it 1a1) to take up a thing to be carried 1a2) to take upon one’s self 1b) to take in order to carry away 1b1) without the notion of violence, i.e., to remove, take away 1c) to take what is one’s own, to take to one’s self, to make one’s own 1c1) to claim, procure, for one’s self 1c1a) to associate with one’s self as companion, attendant 1c2) of that which when taken is not let go, to seize, to lay hold of, apprehend 1c3) to take by craft (our catch, used of hunters, fisherman, etc.), to circumvent one by fraud 1c4) to take to one’s self, lay hold upon, take possession of, i.e., to appropriate to one’s self 1c5) catch at, reach after, strive to obtain 1c6) to take a thing due, to collect, gather (tribute) 1d) to take 1d1) to admit, receive 1d2) to receive what is offered 1d3) not to refuse or reject 1d4) to receive a person, give him access to one’s self, 1d41) to regard any one’s power, rank, external circumstances, and on that account to do some injustice or neglect something 1e) to take, to choose, select 1f) to take beginning, to prove anything, to make a trial of, to experience 2) to receive (what is given), to gain, get, obtain, to get back.

I’m NOT making a case for any “passive” reading etc, although in certain texts it would most obviously be the case, but as far as Rom 5:17 goes I think the “active” tense, according to the parsing (and not any bias of mine) is a no-brainer.

[Bob_Wilson]

Davo, When you state that the “parsing” in Romans 5:17 is no-brainer “active,” are you saying that this spelling cannot be a passive participle?

[pilgrim]

I’ll tell you about how the study went later (I need bed now) but it is to be continued in a fortnight.

I have just looked at this from Meyer’s NT Commentary ( I believe Meyer was not a universalist):

οἱ λαμβάνοντες] not those who believingly accept (Bengel, Rothe, van Hengel, and others), but simply the recipients. The present participle denotes the presence of the time of grace introduced by Christ, which stands in the middle between the former reign of death and the reign of life in the blissful future and determines the subjects of the latter; comp Romans 5:11.

-this suggests Meyer is a proponent of a passive state doesn’t it?

Bengel’s Gnomen says:

λαμβάνοντες, receiving) Λαμβάνειν may be rendered either as a neuter-passive verb, empfangen, erlangen, kriegen to receive, to acquire, to get; or actively, annehmen, to take. The former is the better sense; still the relation to δωρεὰν a gift, is more suitable to the act of taking. In justification, man does something; but the act of taking, so far as it is an act, does not justify, but that which is taken or laid hold of. The gift and taking, are correlatives. Furthermore, this verb is not used, when we are speaking of sin; and it is for the same reason, owing to which it happens that we are not said to reign in death, but death reigned; but life reigns in us

I am beginning to think there is no definitive answer.

The quotes (and more) can be found here:

biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/5-17.htm

[davo]

Davo, When you state that the “parsing” in Romans 5:17 is no-brainer “active,” are you saying that this spelling cannot be a passive participle?

No… I’m merely point to the fact that every Gk lexicon “I’ve” consulted renders λαμβάνοντες (lambanontes) as per Rom 5:17 as being in the ACTIVE VOICE meaning, the subject produces the action – in this case, to take or grasp etc. However, I’m no Greek scholar so you can take what I’m saying with a pinch of salt… but either way, it IS in the “active voice” (as far as I’ve seen) and I didn’t make up the rules of Gk grammar etc.

So Bob… how then are you reading this text in question?