Commentaries that take Romans 5:12 as "in Adam"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

TryingToLearn

Puritan Board Freshman
I'm looking for commentaries that take Romans 5:12 ("because all sinned"), as meaning, all sinned "in Adam", as their federal head. So far, I can only find 2 commentaries (Murray and Moo) that take it this way (I believe Leon Morris also does, but I can't get access to it at the moment).

All other commentaries I can find (Schreiner, Longnecker, Dunn, Cranfield [and Bruce who seems to agree with him], Wright, Osborne, Kruse) take a mediate view in this verse where death spreads to all people because of their own sin, which they inevitably commit because of an inherited sin nature. Popular reformed commentators (Sproul, Fesko) obviously take the traditional view, but I'm looking for exegetical commentaries.

Any other (modern) academic commentaries besides Murray and Moo take the traditional Reformed/Augustinian view here? And more importantly, are there any good exegetical arguments for this view and against the objections of the majority of modern commentators?

Right now I'm like 51% in favor of Moo's interpretation of v. 12, but I'm beginning to lean towards Schreiner's understanding of verse (and everyone else I mentioned with him).
 
Last edited:
"in whom/which all sinned" is the standard Vulgate reading, so any of the Latin fathers or scholastics (e.g. Jerome, Anselm, Aquinas) will follow that reading.
I think it's worth mentioning that the phrase can be translated "on account of which all sinned". Compare the use of εφ ω in classical and koine writers.
 
I'm looking for commentaries that take Romans 5:12 ("because all sinned"), as meaning, all sinned "in Adam", as their federal head. So far, I can only find 2 commentaries (Murray and Moo) that take it this way (I believe Leon Morris also does, but I can't get access to it at the moment).

All other commentaries I can find (Schreiner, Longnecker, Dunn, Cranfield [and Bruce who seems to agree with him], Wright, Osborne, Kruse) take a mediate view in this verse where death spreads to all people because of their own sin, which they inevitably commit because of an inherited sin nature. Popular reformed commentators (Sproul, Fesko) obviously take the traditional view, but I'm looking for exegetical commentaries.

Any other (modern) academic commentaries besides Murray and Moo take the traditional Reformed/Augustinian view here? And more importantly, are there any good exegetical arguments for this view and against the objections of the majority of modern commentators?

Right now I'm like 51% in favor of Moo's interpretation of v. 12, but I'm beginning to lean towards Schreiner's understanding of verse (and everyone else I mentioned with him).
infants die. that rules out view #2. unless they believe actual sin can be committed between conception and ~6 months old.
 
infants die. that rules out view #2. unless they believe actual sin can be committed between conception and ~6 months old.
I don't believe Paul has infants in mind in Romans 5:12-21 (the only commentator who does is Murray). When he writes v. 14, he refers to those who did not sin against a specially revealed law (those prior to Moses), not about infants. You can't do responsible exegesis by importing objections to interpretations based on factors that aren't normative (such as infants who may or may not have the ability to commit actual sins).
 
Last edited:
I don't believe Paul has infants in mind in Romans 5:12-21 (the only commentator who does is Murray). When he writes v. 14, he refers to those who did not sin against a specially revealed law (those prior to Moses), not about infants. You can't do responsible exegesis by importing objections to interpretations based on factors that aren't normative (such as infants who may or may not have the ability to commit actual sins).
Paul has all men in mind when he talks about the propagation of sin in Adam, and all the elect in mind when he mentions salvation in Christ. That fact is absolutely essential to the meaning of the passage.
 
Paul has all men in mind when he talks about the propagation of sin in Adam, and all the elect in mind when he mentions salvation in Christ. That fact is absolutely essential to the meaning of the passage.
Amen. Thus he isn't singling out infants in order to make his argument.

As far as the linked paper goes, the only argument made in favor of taking v. 12 as "in Adam" is the fact that the verb is all "sinned", definitively in the past-tense. A good argument to be sure, but I believe there needs to be more work done to adjudicate between this interpretation and say, Tom Schreiner's for example. Even Moo comments that his own interpretation rests almost entirely on juxtaposing v. 12 to 18-19.
 
Last edited:
@tr
I'm looking for commentaries that take Romans 5:12 ("because all sinned"), as meaning, all sinned "in Adam", as their federal head. So far, I can only find 2 commentaries (Murray and Moo) that take it this way (I believe Leon Morris also does, but I can't get access to it at the moment).

All other commentaries I can find (Schreiner, Longnecker, Dunn, Cranfield [and Bruce who seems to agree with him], Wright, Osborne, Kruse) take a mediate view in this verse where death spreads to all people because of their own sin, which they inevitably commit because of an inherited sin nature. Popular reformed commentators (Sproul, Fesko) obviously take the traditional view, but I'm looking for exegetical commentaries.

Any other (modern) academic commentaries besides Murray and Moo take the traditional Reformed/Augustinian view here? And more importantly, are there any good exegetical arguments for this view and against the objections of the majority of modern commentators?

Right now I'm like 51% in favor of Moo's interpretation of v. 12, but I'm beginning to lean towards Schreiner's understanding of verse (and everyone else I mentioned with him).

You asked about Morris:
"All this does not mean that we have simply followed Adam’s example. The apostle’s tremendous emphasis surely forces us to some variant of the first view, that all the race is somehow caught up in Adam’s sin."

Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 232.

I also checked commentaries that i own that you did not check (I also own the above mentioned commentaries) :

C.K. Barret:
"and all men die because they sin; but Paul does not add here that they sin, or that they die, because they are physically descended from Adam."

C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, Rev. ed., Black’s New Testament Commentary (London: Continuum, 1991), 104.

William Hendriksen:
He obviously means that the entire human race was included in Adam, so that when Adam sinned, all sinned; when the process of death began to ruin him, it immediately affected the entire race.

William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, vol. 12–13, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 178.

Joseph Fitzmyer
"Adam is treated by Paul as the head of the old humanity, and what happened to the head has influenced the body of human beings. Adam is again referred to as “one man” in vv 15–19. Yet one should guard against interpreting “one man” as the Urmensch."

"From this statement it might seem that all humanity has been doomed to death without any responsibility; but Paul corrects that impression by the addition of the following clause, which asserts in addition to Adam’s causality the causality of individual responsibility. Sin brings death not only as punishment"

It seems to me that Fitzmyer stresses both that sin and death are hereditary because of Adam. But also that dead is there because of individual accountability. He also has a really good survey of all positions trough church history.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 33, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 412-413.

Michael Middendorf Concordia Commentary Romans 1-8

I don't have this commentary but knowing other entries in this series it properly will have the traditional exegeses.
 
I was reminded of this thread by my morning reading in Matthew 21, one of the other passages in Scripture where ἐφ᾿ ὃ (in its various cases) is found.
Mt. 21:43 reads,
Καὶ ὁ πεσὼν ἐπὶ τὸν λίθον τοῦτον, συνθλασθήσεται· ἐφ᾿ ὃν δ᾿ ἂν πέσῃ, λικμήσει αὐτόν
"And the one who falls upon this stone shall be crushed. And the one at which he falls shall winnow him."
επι with a dative, however, as is found in Romans 5:12 has the varied meaning of "on" or "on account of". The meaning, therefore, of the relative expression εφ' ῳ is either "on which" (when expressing physical relations) or "on account of which" (for causal relations). This is the meaning given in the LSJ lexicon. Romans 5:12, then,
Διὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ δι᾿ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθε καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος, καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν, ἐφ᾿ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον,
means,
"Because of this, just as through one man sin entered the world, and through sin, death, also in this way, death reached all men, on account of which all have sinned."
1. Sin enters the world in Adam's first transgression.
2. Adam dies a spiritual death through that sin.
3. That death, original sin in theological terms, spreads to all his posterity through their ordinary generation and birth from a race of men that is properly dead.
4. That death, original sin, is the reason why all men have committed and do commit actual transgressions.
 
As far as the linked paper goes, the only argument made in favor of taking v. 12 as "in Adam" is the fact that the verb is all "sinned", definitively in the past-tense.
Did you read all the way through? Starting especially with page 16 and following.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top