Romans 5:12ff

[Jac3510]

Here's a paper I wrote that some of you might find interesting. It is a very detailed, rather technical analysis of Romans 5:12-21. I'm going to write a more popular version later, but I'd be interested in some feedback for the time being if any of you are so inclined.

An Exegesis of Romans 5:12-21

In the paper, I go into significant details about how to properly translate 5:12 and the importance of the comparative "just as/in this way" clauses not only in 5:12 but in the remaining seven instances in that section and how all of that is essential for a proper interpretation of an otherwise very difficult passage.

[RickD]

It's all Greek to me.

[Danieltwotwenty]

It's all Greek to me.

I agree with Rick, way, way, way above my head.

[RickD]

Jac, when you write the dumbed down version, let me know. You know, Romans 5 for idiots.

[PaulSacramento]

Here's a paper I wrote that some of you might find interesting. It is a very detailed, rather technical analysis of Romans 5:12-21. I'm going to write a more popular version later, but I'd be interested in some feedback for the time being if any of you are so inclined.

An Exegesis of Romans 5:12-21

In the paper, I go into significant details about how to properly translate 5:12 and the importance of the comparative "just as/in this way" clauses not only in 5:12 but in the remaining seven instances in that section and how all of that is essential for a proper interpretation of an otherwise very difficult passage.

Well done.

Hard to disagree with any of that.

I won't go into the issue of "one translation VS another" or "one interpretation VS another", suffice to say that your translation/interpretation has a solid foundation so it is at LEAST as valid as any other "official" version.

IMO, Paul is probably addressing the issue (probably a Jewish one, because of the reference to Adam) of how can one man save "all mankind".
If sin and death (spiritual) came from One man then One Man can save also ( even more so since Jesus was quite a bit more than simply a man).

[Kurieuo]

I'll have the bring myself back up to speed with where I left our discussion off... and then I'll provide commentary on any weaknesses

Always good re-reading detailed discussions, as brings fresh eyes.

[B. W.]

Here's a paper I wrote that some of you might find interesting. It is a very detailed, rather technical analysis of Romans 5:12-21. I'm going to write a more popular version later, but I'd be interested in some feedback for the time being if any of you are so inclined.

An Exegesis of Romans 5:12-21

In the paper, I go into significant details about how to properly translate 5:12 and the importance of the comparative "just as/in this way" clauses not only in 5:12 but in the remaining seven instances in that section and how all of that is essential for a proper interpretation of an otherwise very difficult passage.

I enjoyed the article and it is well thought out.

Only item I saw that was missing is a New Segment Heading after the Introduction explains the crux of the debate as well as all - Points of Views - concerning the verses cited. I thought this was not fully settled for a first time reader. This would help set the tone leading to your conclusion. To me, the reason for the article appeared to me, at first, vague, then later it was explained. IMHO a new heading should in a concise way explain the sides involved, and in so doing, set the stage leading to your conclusion, which is quoted below:

AN EXEGESIS OF ROMANS 5:12-21

Chris Morrison, M.A.

CONCLUSION

The above paper has argued that the basic thrust of Romans 5:12-21 is that death, as brought about by Adam’s transgression of God’s command, has been overcome by the righteousness of Christ. The grammatical issues considered do not require the interpreter to find in the passage any references to “original sin” or any concept of all of humanity sinning “in Adam.” Moreover, the translation suggested for Rom. 5:12 not only seems to make the best sense of the Greek but also contributes to a significant unification of the entire unit (Romans 5-8), for what begins with as a discussion on the cosmic reign of death, especially over mankind, results in the final deliverance of the cosmos from death, especially by the deliverance of mankind. In all of this, the Law is seen to have a unique role to play in redemptive history that could very well anticipate some of the issues Paul sees fit to raise in Romans 9-11 (though such concerns are outside the scope of this paper).

Specifically, it was argued that ἐφʼ ᾧ should continue to be taken in a causal sense but that καὶ οὕτως should be taken to introduce the apodosis to the protasis at the beginning of 5:12, rendering the passage a complete sentence. Moreover, ἥμαρτον should be taken as a gnomic aorist (also in 3:23), and that, therefore, Paul has individual sins in mind rather than a cosmic sin in Adam. From this, it was argued that the remainder of the passage distinguished between a sin nature all people have inherited from Adam and a righteousness imputed to those who have believed in Christ. Thus, while Adam truly is a type “of the one to come,” what comes from Christ really is not like what came from Adam. In the end, Christ was able to take sin, wrap it up in transgression, and through the Law die for sin, thereby bringing eternal life to all who believe in Him.

Overall, very good...
-
-
-

[Jac3510]

Thanks for the feedback thus far. I am actually about halfway through a popular level rewrite that will include just the sort of introduction you are talking about, BW. My assumption (though perhaps it is a poor one) is that those who don't find this too technical--those proficient enough to follow the argument--have certainly been exposed to the basic arguments Calvinists and related theologians make based on Rom. 5:12. Besides, I didn't want to prejudice a technical audience at the outset by giving away all my cards up front. I just wanted to present the evidence and draw conclusions from there.

I know, though, that something designed for more popular distribution would need to justify its importance. I hope to have that version done by this week.

K, definitely looking forward to your thoughts, too.

[RickD]

Jac,

In all seriousness, I didn't find anything controversial in what you wrote. It's pretty straightforward. Who would disagree with that?

[B. W.]

Thanks for the feedback thus far. I am actually about halfway through a popular level rewrite that will include just the sort of introduction you are talking about, BW. My assumption (though perhaps it is a poor one) is that those who don't find this too technical--those proficient enough to follow the argument--have certainly been exposed to the basic arguments Calvinists and related theologians make based on Rom. 5:12. Besides, I didn't want to prejudice a technical audience at the outset by giving away all my cards up front. I just wanted to present the evidence and draw conclusions from there.

I know, though, that something designed for more popular distribution would need to justify its importance. I hope to have that version done by this week.

K, definitely looking forward to your thoughts, too.

Well, you can do this with a well worded fair Introduction section that presents facts and not arguments that turn off folks.

On another note, would you be mentioning more on how Augustine translated Romans 5:12 from a faulty Latin translation which read something like this: Therefore, just as through one man death entered into the world, and that through sin, so death spread to all man, in whom all sinned http://www.augnet.org/?ipageid=158

From this, the doctrine you mention was buttressed upon, and spread to later theologians whom codified Augustine's faulty Latin translation into their own translations of the Greek verbs, etc, that you mentioned in your article. Have you thought of clarifying this further in a manner that simply provokes thought and not the fist of fellowship?

Lastly, what would be your best rendering of a translation from the Greek into English of Romans 5:12ff?
-
-
-

[Jac3510]

Jac,

In all seriousness, I didn't find anything controversial in what you wrote. It's pretty straightforward. Who would disagree with that?

A lot of people. My reading doesn't allow for someone to claim that Rom. 5:12 teaches original sin, and since it is apparently the clearest passage on the subject (and since that doctrine lies at the heart of so much theology), then the reading I'm suggesting would challenge a lot of existing theology.

I also think Deem wouldn't approve of my rendering. He wants to argue that kosmos refers to mankind, but my argument requires it refer to the world. Now, K has offered what I think could well be a plausible understanding of the text that allows kosmos to refer to the world and not humanity in particular without contradicting OEC beliefs. (See his post here, which I haven't been able to respond to yet.) What I absolutely think is the case is that Paul isn't explicitly teaching that there was no death before the Fall as YECs are wont to assume, although my rendering certainly can be taken to imply as much. My point is just that the traditional OEC argument that Paul is talking about "the world of humanity" doesn't work with the logic if we take the grammar seriously.

Beyond that, a lot of other theologians won't like the idea that we're doing away with a headship argument here (suddenly debates about federal vs. seminal headship, which take up a lot of the literature, are superfluous). Some are going to think that this is a too individualistic reading, that I'm not taking the so-called Jewish idea of corporate identity seriously enough. Universalists won't like this because it denies their claim that all really have been made righteous in Christ.

There are lots of people who will disagree in a lot of places. With that said, I still think I'm right, haha! I think this is one of those passages that people have spent a lot of time more interested in their theology than following Paul's logic and getting his point out of the text. *shrug*

----------------------------------------------

Well, you can do this with a well worded fair Introduction section that presents facts and not arguments that turn off folks.

I have the intro written. I'll post it tomorrow when I get back to the computer that I have it saved on.

On another note, would you be mentioning more on how Augustine translated Romans 5:12 from a faulty Latin translation which read something like this: Therefore, just as through one man death entered into the world, and that through sin, so death spread to all man, in whom all sinned http://www.augnet.org/?ipageid=158

Actually, yes, I am pointing that out. I don't make too big a deal out of it, much like I don't make a very big deal out of the eph ho clause in the technical paper. I do note that some scholars have started arguing that the phrase should be rendered "with the result that," but the consensus is still (rightly) that the phrase is causal and should be rendered "because." I get the Latin translation (in quo) in that it's a pretty literal Latin rendering. The problem is just that the Latin words don't have nearly the range that the Greek do, and as such, while I get the translation, like you noted, I would say it's just wrong. Anyway, this is broadly a passing point for me. I just want the reader to know that all this argument over this particular issue is really due to Augustine's lack of ability to work in Greek. In fact, if we adopt my understanding of "sinned," then his whole position becomes moot anyway.

From this, the doctrine you mention was buttressed upon, and spread to later theologians whom codified Augustine's faulty Latin translation into their own translations of the Greek verbs, etc, that you mentioned in your article. Have you thought of clarifying this further in a manner that simply provokes thought and not the fist of fellowship?

In the popular version I'm hoping to extend that. Again, my assumption in this version is that those who were able to follow the essential argument here would be pretty well versed in the theological issues you are raising. Your own response is a good example of that, I think. But I'll definitely clarify more in the version I'm working on now (about halfway done).

Lastly, what would be your best rendering of a translation from the Greek into English of Romans 5.12ff?

I'll translate Rom. 5:12-14

• For this reason, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, so even in the same manner Death spread to all men, because all sin; I say this because sin was still in the world until the Law came. Now where there is no Law, sin is not imputed. Even so, death still reigned from Adam to Moses, that is, over those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression (who was a type of the one to come).

I'm a little loose here in some of the terms as I'm trying to bring out the force of some of them a bit more clearly. But that's a translation I would be very happy with.

[B. W.]

Lastly, what would be your best rendering of a translation from the Greek into English of Romans 5.12ff?

I'll translate Rom. 5:12-14

• For this reason, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, so even in the same manner Death spread to all men, because all sin; I say this because sin was still in the world until the Law came. Now where there is no Law, sin is not imputed. Even so, death still reigned from Adam to Moses, that is, over those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression (who was a type of the one to come).

I'm a little loose here in some of the terms as I'm trying to bring out the force of some of them a bit more clearly. But that's a translation I would be very happy with.

That is a good rendering.

Question regarding world – kosmos in the text. In the Genesis account, sin entered thru the serpent’s lie, hence, is that what you were referring to regarding to kosmos in your last post?

Or did you mean something else?

Next question: People do have a nature that bends toward sin, naturally. Again, the law defined sin, or better to say, the fruits of sin and mortal death came before the law anyways due to sin – now how do you define sin?

It is the definition of sin that hangs people up. It is more than transgression of the law in a legal since but goes deeper into the very heart of all mankind. People’s nature is bent toward sin and as we develop, it grows. God judges all justly and that he in Deut mentions that a child should not be put to death for the father’s crimes (the Law).

How does that deal with Augustine’s contention concerning all newborn human infants are already condemned to you know where? How could God render to each one what they have sown in life – if Augustine was correct and remain truly just?

Please note, I am not trying to knock anyone’s rocker off its base, nor trying to start anything – these are some questions that puzzled me for sometime – and only concerns Augustine historically?
-
-
-

[Jac3510]

Here's the intro I to the popular version I was talking about (rough draft, of course):

• Romans 5:12-21 has been at the heart of significant scholarly debate over the years. It has often been used to prove the doctrine of “original sin,” that is, the idea that all human beings are not merely born with a fallen nature inclined to sin, but that human beings are actually born guilty of (Adam’s) sin. Jonathan Edward’s famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” is based just on this principle. So Kreider says, “What is probably most distasteful in Edwards's theology is the doctrine of original sin, that he would believe that human beings are born guilty of sin and deserving of divine wrath.” This theology was hardly unique to Edwards. It permeates all of Reformed theology today through the influence of John Calvin, who in turn took this idea from Augustine (and thus, the doctrine is fundamental to Catholic teaching). Calvin wrote, “as Augustine says, whether a man is a guilty unbeliever or an innocent believer, he begets not innocent but guilty children.”
  It is my view that Romans 5:12-21 does not teach original sin, and that, in fact, such an understanding obscures the meaning of the entire passage. As such, this paper offers a detailed analysis of the passage, in which I hope to show that Paul is actually dealing with the death brought about by each person’s sin and how Christ’s life overcomes that death.

As to your comments . . .

Question regarding world – kosmos in the text. In the Genesis account, sin entered thru the serpent’s lie, hence, is that what you were referring to regarding to kosmos in your last post?

Or did you mean something else?

More strictly, I would say it entered through Adam's sin (so Rom. 5:12). Adam sinned, of course, because he believed the lie. But I would just say that the conduit for sin entering the world wasn't the serpent's lie but Adam's disobedience. But, in any case, yes, that's what I'm referring to concerning the kosmos.

Next question: People do have a nature that bends toward sin, naturally. Again, the law defined sin, or better to say, the fruits of sin and mortal death came before the law anyways due to sin – now how do you define sin?

It is the definition of sin that hangs people up. It is more than transgression of the law in a legal since but goes deeper into the very heart of all mankind. People’s nature is bent toward sin and as we develop, it grows. God judges all justly and that he in Deut mentions that a child should not be put to death for the father’s crimes (the Law).

Quite right, and that's a point I make in the second half of the paper. Sin was in the world before the Law, so sin cannot be defined simply as "breaking the Law" (although that which broke the Law was certainly sin). Sin is anything contrary to the nature and will of God; it is that which falls short of His glory. So Adam broke God's spoken law, meaning not only did he sin, but more, he transgressed the Law. That is, then, the purpose of the Law. It elevates sin from being the mere falling short of God's nature to a violation of His commandment--a transgression.

How does that deal with Augustine’s contention concerning all newborn human infants are already condemned to you know where? How could God render to each one what they have sown in life – if Augustine was correct and remain truly just?

Please note, I am not trying to knock anyone’s rocker off its base, nor trying to start anything – these are some questions that puzzled me for sometime – and only concerns Augustine historically?

Well this verse doesn't answer that specifically, but the reason Augustine and others would say that babies are condemned is that they are born with inherited sin. If, though, we have no biblical evidence of that (and this verse is no evidence of that), then we can actually affirm that babies are born innocent. Now, they are certainly born with a sin nature, but the nature is not sinful. It is the act itself that is sinful. Thus, the baby that dies before she sins dies in a state of innocence, and thus there is no reason to claim that they would be damned. On the other hand, the moment a person sins, they transgress the Law (in the OT, the Mosaic Law, and today, the Law of Christ). Transgression is thus imputed, and the necessary sentence is death. Such a person has lost their innocence and if they die in their sins, they will be separated from God eternally. Thus, God truly is just. Each one dies for his own sins and no one else's.

[RickD]

Jac, B. W. brought up something that made me wonder about how you would account for something in light of your interpretation of Romans 5:12. First, you wrote:

Jac wrote:
Sin is anything contrary to the nature and will of God; it is that which falls short of His glory.

Since satan was in the world before Adam sinned, wouldn't you say sin was already in the world(earth)? Or, would you not consider lucifer's transgression a sin? In other words, if your interpretation is correct, and kosmos means "earth", not "humanity", then how did sin enter the "earth" through Adam, when sin had already entered through satan?

[Jac3510]

Paul doesn't say that there as no sin present in the kosmos, as if it did not exist. Paul is saying that it entered the kosmos, in that it had not infected things or taken up residence. There is an idea here of Adam's role as vice-regent here over creation. It seems to me that Adam's proper role would have been to see sin evil of the serpent (and even his wife, for that matter), and judge it accordingly rather than submit to it. I mean, think about it . . . why does Paul mention Adam? Eve sinned before Adam did. Are we going to suggest that Eve's disobedience wasn't sin? Of course not. If Eve is not an issue, Satan (or the serpent) is still less of one.