Romans 5:18 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.
Or, 20th Century NT “Just as a single offense resulted for all mankind in condemnation, so, too, a single decree of righteousness resulted for all mankind in that declaration of righteousness which brings Life.”
Here, I have included what one proponent of UOJ has declared to be the best translation of Romans 5:18 which is from the 20th Century NT translation.
Convenience is King?
Does anyone else find it completely convenient that the proponent of UOJ will regularly use this verse as a proof passage, while always consistently ignoring the end of the verse?
I guess I shouldn’t say he will ignore it, he will dismiss it instead.
In other words, the proponent of UOJ will teach that this passage effectively says, “Just as all have been condemned as a result of the one sin of Adam, so the one act of righteousness (or the one decree of righteousness) of Christ, has brought about the justification (declaration of righteousness) of all mankind. Oh, and forget about the ‘life’ portion of the verse because we all know God does not give eternal life to the unbeliever, only the justification/righteousness portion of the verse counts for all people. ‘All’ is not referring to those with life, only those with justification/righteousness.”
Lesson in Interpretation
Hmmm, mental note for Bible interpretation…life and justification/righteousness always get separated when referring to the objective aspect of UOJ, even when both are included in the same verse of Scripture as the object of “all” or “all mankind.” Got it!
This is what proponents of UOJ would have you believe. But, examine this verse more closely.
Closer Examination & Analysis
First, this verse does more to disprove UOJ than it does to prove it. Think about it. If UOJ were true, then it must apply to all people of all time. This includes all people before the time of Christ, going back to the beginning of time with Adam and Eve.
If UOJ were true, what this verse would actually be saying is this, “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men (who have been declared righteous whether they believe it or not), so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification for all (even those who are not only justified but also condemned) that brings life for all men (well, not really life, just justification for all…life comes only to those who believe).”
Do you see it? Universal Objective Condemnation (as I have come to call it) disproves UOJ. One cannot legitimately be declared condemned and declared justified and forgiven at the same time.
In Christ
What makes far more sense and is most consistent with Scripture (in my view) is to understand this verse to be saying something like this, “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness (or decree of righteousness applied to Christ’s account) was justification for all (hidden in Christ and applied to each personal account by faith) which also brings with it life for all men (life has been acquired for all and remains hidden in Christ and is applied to each personal account by faith…or, life has been applied to Christ’s account and is distributed to each account by faith).”
Or we might think of it this way. Just as Adam confers sin and death to all who are born from him, so Christ confers justification/righteousness and life to those who are born of him (which is available to all).
Did Christ’s justifying work bring about justification for all? Yes. But, where is this justification for all to be found? You will have to decide for yourself in light of the full testimony of Scripture. Has it been applied to each individual’s account? Or… has it been applied to Christ’s account, to be distributed to each individual only through faith?
Did Christ’s justifying work bring about life for all? Yes. But where is this life to be found? Has it been applied to all? If not, what is it about the verse which tells you life should be separated from the justification and/righteousness for all?
Natural Meaning
Consider that according to both translations, it is most natural to read and understand the verse as saying, the justification (or righteousness) which has been brought about through Christ, brings life right along with it. Look at each again and see if this isn’t true.
~ Romans 5:18 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.
~ Or, 20th Century NT “Just as a single offense resulted for all mankind in condemnation, so, too, a single decree of righteousness resulted for all mankind in that declaration of righteousness which brings Life.”
To read it and come to the conclusion that justification/righteousness should be separated from life is to read it through the lens of UOJ (or some other faulty lens) and to impose that meaning on the text. Nothing in the text, itself, suggests the two should be separated.
To separate the two is nothing more than a convenient way of supporting one’s own false doctrine.
Context is King!
By the way, since proponents of UOJ tell us that life should NOT be applied to all in the same way that justification/righteousness should be, the question becomes, “How do they know?”
“Ahh…” proponents may say, “The evidence lies in the context of the rest of Scripture, which does not allow us to conclude that all people have life.”
To which I would say, “Precisely!”
It is this same “full context of Scripture” which also does not allow us to conclude that all have been justified either. So, once again the UOJ proponent’s own argumentation works against him.
The proponent of UOJ is therefore left with the only conclusion he can come to, in an effort to cling to his false theology, “The broader context of Scripture should be taken at face value when referring to the fact that all do not have life, but it should not be taken at face value when it speaks of the fact that all have not been justified. In the case of justification, it is somehow a law gospel distinction, while in the case of eternal life it is somehow not a law/gospel distinction. In short, in the case of justification, UOJ is still true. Why? Because we say so.”
Do you see it? The real object of faith becomes the doctrine of UOJ, itself. That and a trust in the words of those who teach UOJ, over a trust in the words of Scripture. (See Q & A, Category 1)
So, what do you think…in light of the whole testimony of Scripture, does UOJ or JIC work best here?