# Romans 5:12



## tmckinney (Mar 19, 2006)

I recently encountered a person (a Calvinist) very knowledgable in Greek who said that the phrase "epi ho" translated "because" in most, if not all, English translations at the end of Romans 5:12 is misleading. The phrase, he argued, should be translated "upon which", which in turn would change the entire meaning of the passage and our understanding of the doctrine of original sin. He argued that Paul had a number of words in Greek that meant "because" and he chose none of them. 

So according to this model, then, Adam brought death into the world through sin, and then death would come upon us thus causing us to sin, rather than the traditional model which states that our sinning with Adam brought death to ourselves. If this translation is correct, then this new model would look something like this:

DEATH â†’ SIN â†’ ADAM â†’ WORLD â†’ ALL MEN â†’ SIN

rather than the traditional model:

DEATH â†’ SIN â†’ ADAM (all men in Adam) â†’ WORLD â†’ DEATH


This was the first time I have ever heard this surrounding Romans 5:12. I am kind of confused about Romans 5:12. 

Can anyone help me to understand this little phrase at the end on v. 12? Should we re-translate "epi ho pantes hemarton" as "upon which all sinned", or just leave it like it is in most of our English translations? If we should re-translate it, then wouldn't that modify the doctrine of original sin?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 19, 2006)

That was a little hard to follow, so bear with me...

How does my being subject to death necessitate my sinning? It sounds like he's saying that because I am subject to death, therefore I sin. Is that his position? If so, why? To me that sounds like saying that if BillyBob is convicted, and sent to prison (penalty) therefore he will commit crimes (acquire guilt). That is a complete inversion of justice.

Or take this example: Country X is defeated in war. All the people in the country are rounded up and deported as a covenantaly imposed penalty, even those in a little mountain villiage that contributed nothing to the war effort. Shall we say that _therefore,_ on account of this deportation, the people of that villiage will now certainly become rebels _in fact_ against the victors. Why?

Does this gentleman think that the imposition of death/dying is the instrumental cause of a change in human nature? Does Adam give birth to creatures that will certainly die (mortality), and _therefore,_ these creatures sin (immorality)? I do not see how this follows. In fact, it seems (and this is not a knee-jerk reaction) akin to Romanism, which postulates the following: (finite) --> (sin-prone)


Linguistics:
Yes, there are a number of Greek words and phrases that we can translate into English by means of "because." And "epi+ho" happens to be one of them.

"ep' w", epi+ho--literally upon which (w in the dative case, neuter).
The question here is: "which" what? What is the referent? The neuter is commonly used when the referent is not a definite noun (i.e. having its own gender), but rather indefinite somehow, either by list, or whole phrases or clauses--that is conceptual.

The immediate antecedent is the phrase (lit.) "And thus into all men the death it passed." Is this the referent? I don't think so, for all the difficulties proposed above in the first section. _And there is no rule of Greek grammar that would dictate that it must._ What is left? That which follows has the greatest probability (lit.): "all {pl., that is "all men"} they sinned." 

A natural rendering, then, of "ep' w" is: "on account of which," or just as reasonably, "because" or as many translations have, "for that" 

So I see that final phrase reading as follows:
"And thus death passed into all men; _on account of which *fact*,_ namely: all sinned."

This understanding does no prejudice to the whole flow of thought. Everyone died--death passed upon all--due to the fact that everyone sinned. Whether that sin is taken in this verse to refer to Adam's sin imputed to them, or to their personal sins, it makes no difference. *Men die because they are sinners.* That is the statement.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> That was a little hard to follow, so bear with me...
> 
> How does my being subject to death necessitate my sinning? It sounds like he's saying that because I am subject to death, therefore I sin. Is that his position? If so, why? To me that sounds like saying that if BillyBob is convicted, and sent to prison (penalty) therefore he will commit crimes (acquire guilt). That is a complete inversion of justice.
> ...





{Said with Tim the Toolman Taylor's grunt} Ohhhhh yea. O O O O!


----------



## tmckinney (Mar 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> That was a little hard to follow, so bear with me...
> 
> How does my being subject to death necessitate my sinning? It sounds like he's saying that because I am subject to death, therefore I sin. Is that his position? If so, why? To me that sounds like saying that if BillyBob is convicted, and sent to prison (penalty) therefore he will commit crimes (acquire guilt). That is a complete inversion of justice.
> ...




Rev. Bruce, your linguistic analysis was slightly over my head. I have had two semesters of Greek and have yet to take exegetical syntax I & II. Maybe when I take these classes I can follow you better in your grammar presentaion 

But from what I do understand, are you saying that we can still translate "ep' w" as "upon which" and still be consistent with original sin? That is my interpretation of your analysis. 

In your first section you responded the exact way I did when hearing this for the first time. I cannot see how death spreading to all men would necessitate them sinning. 

Anyway I appreciate the way you are helping me to understand problem texts that I have.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 20, 2006)

Yes, Tracey,
You can render the words literally as epi=upon and ho=which. But the thrust of my analysis is to answer the question: to what are the words "ep' w" refering? And my conclusion shows that _however_ you may wish to fairly translate the term, if the referent of the words is "all sinned," then the standard formulation of the doctrine of original sin is not called into question whatsoever.

Your challenger seems to think that by returning to a wooden literalism in translation, the widely acknowledged referent of the words may be called into question. He may strike you as being "very knowledgable in Greek," and perhaps he is, in the main. Frankly, I won't boast on my very moderate abilities, coming as they do from the same type of education that you are taking presently. Nevertheless, I am bold to think he's being careless in his exegesis of this passage.

Refering the words to the antecedent (prior) clause yields the nonsensical result advocated by the person you were speaking to, and on which you quite rightly questioned him. No rule of Greek grammar insists that the "upon which" *must* refer to the previous clause. As to "death" alone being the referent, that can be well nigh positively dismissed. "Death" is masculine gender, and "ho" is neuter gender.

We are obligated to seek the meaning of any man's writing that yields the least prejudicial or tendentious sense. We can never completely escape the interpretive-translational dilemma, but we have to recognize the issue.

Refering "ep' w" to the clause they introduce (post) yields the very satisfactory sense "for which reason being: they all sinned"--that's why they died. This simple fact is the reason that our translations so uniformly commend this rendering.


God bless your studies.


----------



## Saiph (Mar 20, 2006)

Tracey, was your friend Orthodox before they became reformed ? Because the idea that you presented is popular among a few orthodox theologians. It is one of the ways they try to avoid being guilty in Adam at conception.

The easiest way to answer the question is to look at Romans 5:20-21

_ Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, *as sin reigned in death*, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. _

Adam dies, because of his sin, (death sentance) and so sin now reigns in death's kingdom. Since Adam was made in God's image, his death is much more important than animal or plant death (since death for them is not penology). The emphasis is salvation of man through one man's obedience, that is, Christ.


----------



## kceaster (Mar 20, 2006)

There are four places this prepositional phrase occurs in the NT (according to the GRAMCORD search I did with Logos on evf v w-|). If 'upon which' is pressed into service in Rom 5:12, look at what it does in the other 3 places.

ESV 

2 Cor. 5:4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened"“"“not that we would be unclothed, but *that* we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 

Your Friend's Suggested Rendering

2 Cor. 5:4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened"“"“not *upon which* we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.

ESV

Phil 3:12 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. 

Your Friend's Suggested Rendering

Phil 3:12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, *upon which* Christ Jesus has made me his own.

ESV

Phil 4:10 I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me (ESV chose to leave the phrase out, and instead provide "for me" as that which is understood), but you had no opportunity. 

Your Friend's Suggested Rendering

Phil 4:10 I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. And *upon which* you were concerned, but you had no opportunity.

I think these other places make the statements made by Paul very confusing. In these three passages, there is no hard object upon which these words would rest (pun intended).

Many wise men have said that we shouldn't base our theology upon prepositions. This is exactly why.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## tmckinney (Mar 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Tracey, was your friend Orthodox before they became reformed ? Because the idea that you presented is popular among a few orthodox theologians. It is one of the ways they try to avoid being guilty in Adam at conception.
> 
> The easiest way to answer the question is to look at Romans 5:20-21
> ...



Mark, I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by "Orthodox before reformed"? This person does believe in the doctrine of Election, but, however, he leans toward the New Perspective Movement and loves to read N. T. Wright.


----------



## tmckinney (Mar 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> There are four places this prepositional phrase occurs in the NT (according to the GRAMCORD search I did with Logos on evf v w-|). If 'upon which' is pressed into service in Rom 5:12, look at what it does in the other 3 places.
> 
> ESV
> ...




Thanks for the insight. Maybe I'll bring this up next time I see him.


----------



## Saiph (Mar 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tmckinney_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...



Eastern or Russian Orthodox.


----------



## tmckinney (Mar 21, 2006)

No Mark


----------



## beej6 (Mar 21, 2006)

Wow - I read the thread quickly above - and thought one sentence read 

"...we shouldn't base our theology upon *propositions*."

Which is also correct, we base our theology on our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but my misreading would have taken the thread in a completely different direction !


----------



## DTK (Mar 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tmckinney_
> Can anyone help me to understand this little phrase at the end on v. 12? Should we re-translate "epi ho pantes hemarton" as "upon which all sinned", or just leave it like it is in most of our English translations? If we should re-translate it, then wouldn't that modify the doctrine of original sin?


Dear Tracey, 

The view to which your friend has exposed you is an Eastern Orthodox perspective. The Eastern Orthodox deny that universal guilt is transmitted in their understanding of original sin. They insist that it is the cosmic reality of death itself, not guilt, that is transmitted by virtue of original sin. The Eastern Orthodox, though they would deny it, hold a view similar, but not exactly, to that of Pelagius. In other words, they affirm the reality of original sin, whereas Pelagius denied it. But they insist that it (original sin) consisted in the cosmic reality of death, not guilt. Notice what one of their prominent (now deceased) theologians put it...



> *John Meyendorff:* The scriptural text which played a decisive role in the polemics between Augustine and the Pelagians is found in Romans 5:12, where Paul, speaking of Adam, writes: As sin came into the world through one man, and through sin, death, so death spread to all men _because all men have sinned_ [_eph ho pantes hemarton_]." In this passage there is a major issue of translation. The last four Greek words were translated in Latin as _in quo omnes peccaverunt_ ("œin whom [i.e., in Adam] all men have sinned"), and this translation was used in the West to justify the doctrine of guilt inherited from Adam and spread to his descendants. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original Greek"”the text read, of course, by the Byzantines. The form _eph ho_"”a contraction of _epi_ with the relative pronoun _ho_"”can be translated as "œbecause," a Meaning accepted by most modern scholars of all confessional backgrounds. Such a translation renders Paul´s thought to mean that death, which was "œthe wages of sin" (Rm 6:23) for Adam, is also the punishment applied to those who, like him, sin. It presupposes a cosmic significance of the sin of Adam, but does not say that his descendants are "œguilty" as he was, unless they also sin as he sinned. John Meyendorff, _Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes_, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 144.



Now, then, in his massive commentary on Romans (which I encourage you to examine), Douglas Moo interacts with (not directly with Meyendorff himself), and discusses at length the translation of _eph ho_ as "œbecause." I think in context, Moo demonstrates the problem with Meyendroff´s myopic conclusion (He doesn´t deal with the force of Romans 5:18-19) that turns on the single form of _eph ho_. I don´t have the time to reproduce everything Moo includes in his argumentation, but here´s a sample. Notice what Moo says. He too produces a chart, like yourself, and then writes...


> A sin (12a) produces
> B death (12b);
> B all die (12c)
> A because all sin (12d).
> ...


Now, one need not agree with everything Moo goes on to say in this section, but what he does go on to say at one point is, I think, noteworthy...


> *Douglas Moo:* If, then, we are to read v. 12d in the light of vv. 18-19"”and, since the comparative clauses in these verses repeat the substance of v. 12, this seems to be a legitimate procedure"”"œall sinned" must be given some kind of "œcorporate" meaning" "œsinning" not as voluntary acts of sin in "œone´s own person," but sinning "œin and with" Adam. This is not to adopt the translation "œin Adam" rejected above. The point is rather that the sin here attributed to the "œall" is to be understood, in the light of vv. 12a-c and 15-19, as a sin that in some manner is identical to the sin committed by Adam. Paul can therefore say both "œall die because all sin" and "œall die because Adam" sinned with no hint of conflict because the sin of Adam _is_ the sin of all. All people, therefore, stand condemned "œin Adam," guilty by reason of the sins committed "œin him." This interpretation is defended by a great number of exegetes and theologians. It maintains the close connection between Adam´s sin and the condemnation of all that is required by vv. 15-19, a connection also suggested by 1 Cor. 15:22"”"œin Adam all die." And a sin committed before individual consciousness also explains how Paul coul consider all people as "œby nature children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3). Douglas Moo, _NICNT: The Epistle to the Romans_ (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), pp. 326-327.


I hope this helps. You see, your friend (and I too have run into such a person claiming to be a Calvinist) suffers from a rather myopic exegesis that does not take into account the entire passage, and the structure of universality that it demands as a consequence of Adam´s sin.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## tmckinney (Mar 22, 2006)

Thanks David. That helps tremendously. I wish Moo went into more detail about the information you qoute in the NIV Application Commentary on the book of Romans.


----------

