Romans 5:18-19

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One Man the many will be made righteous.

V18-19 – One sin = condemnation; one act of righteousness = justification. For “all” or “many”? Paul now moves on to the similarities of Adam and Christ. Remember he said that Adam was a pattern of the One to come. That’s a type. But then he went and gave us anti-type examples. Now Paul is back to the similarities. First, we see that just as one man’s sin (Adam as our federal representative) equals condemnation for all, so One man’s righteousness (Christ, our new representative) equals justification for all. Second, we see that just as one man’s disobedience (Adam) makes many sinners, so the obedience of One man (Christ) makes many righteous. One act got all men into sin and condemnation; one act got many men out of sin and condemnation. Anything stand out to you about these comparisons?

Throughout this passage Paul uses the terms “all” and “many.” Does he mean something different by those terms? No. The words “all” and “many” in this passage are interchangeable as far as Paul is concerned. They are stressing two aspects of the same truth. Look at v15. There it says by the transgression of the one, the “many” died. Now, does Paul mean that by Adam’s sin some people died, but not all people? Is that why he uses “many” there? No. Go back and look at v12. Through one man, sin entered into the world and death spread to “all” men. “All” in v12, and “many” in v15 are parallel. Paul will use “many” in this passage to stress the amazing multiplying effect of sin; even though it was one sin, “many” are impacted. He’s not saying “many, but not all.” He’s saying, “Isn’t it amazing that one sin can wreak this kind of destruction?” But the parallel between “many” and “all” is exact.

There are “many” well-meaning people who come to this passage and say, “Well, it says that “all” die because of that one sin, and it says that the “many” died by that one sin, and it says that “all” were justified by Christ, and the “many” were justified by Christ. So I guess what this passage is teaching is that everybody is saved.” Is Paul teaching the doctrine of universalism here? Everybody is justly condemned, but everybody is also justified and saved through the work of Jesus Christ? Universalists say that it’s our job as Christians not to go out and say, “Repent and be saved.” It is our job as Christians to go out and say, “Look, you’re already saved. You just need to accept it.” The gospel is not to announce to everyone that they’re already saved. Universalism is absolutely false, and this passage, in v17, shows it.

Paul does not say the sin of Adam resulted in the reign of death over all and the righteousness of Christ resulted in the reign of life over all. The parallel is this: the sin of Adam led to the reign of death overall and the righteousness of Christ led to all those who receive Him reigning in life by His grace. Those who receive Him are the ones who participate in this great gift. Note also the parallel in 1 Corinthians 15:21-23 “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. …then those who belong to Him (not all).” Will all be made alive (eternal life)? No, only those who belong to Him. So why does Paul even use the word “all”? The answer:

Paul is talking to Jewish folk who think that in order to be saved, you’ve got to become like them. And Paul is saying, “No, no, no. Salvation is for all (kinds): Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female.”

Now perhaps you're still asking about or disagreeing with me on this whole imputation thing. Maybe you’re saying, “I disagree that Adam does something and it’s imputed to me. I don’t understand how he can be my representative. And that sin can be imputed—you’re wrong about this whole representative principle. It’s not fair.” We'll answer that rebuttal next week, and it'll be a multi-faceted response.