John Calvin: "This is the hereditary corruption to which early Christian writers gave the name of Original Sin, meaning by the term the depravation of a nature formerly good and pure. The subject gave rise to much discussion, there being nothing more remote from common apprehension, than that the fault of one should render all guilty, and so become a common sin. This seems to be the reason why the oldest doctors of the church only glance obscurely at the point, or, at least, do not explain it so clearly as it required." (Institutes Book 2 Chap 1 section 5)
I would suggest that there is another, more likely, reason "the oldest doctors of the church only glance obscurely at the point." That would be that the oldest doctors of the church, the ones closest to the original apostles, the ones closest to the historical Jesus Himself, did not believe in the doctrine of Original Sin! There are explicit statements from almost ALL ante-Nicene fathers that indicate that the freedom of the will is central to the paradigm of the oldest doctors of the church. If one believes that each man is free to choose God, or not, and the ante-Nicene fathers most certainly believed that, then one cannot hold to the doctrine of Original Sin and Total Depravity, at least not the way John Calvin defines it:
"We thus see that the impurity of parents is transmitted to their children, so that all, without exception, are originally depraved. The commencement of this depravity will not be found until we ascend to the first parent of all as the fountainhead. We must, therefore, hold it for certain, that, in regard to human nature, Adam was not merely a progenitor, but, as it were, a root, and that, accordingly, by his corruption, the whole human race was deservedly vitiated. This is plain from the contrast which the Apostle draws between Adam and Christ, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned; even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord," (Institutes Book 2 Chap 1 Section 6).
This passage, Romans 5:12, is a primary proof-text for Original Sin on which hangs the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity. By “early Christian writers” Calvin means Augustine (and those following) who, as far as I can tell, is the man who coined the phrase. Neither the phrase nor the concept is present pre-Augustine, thus Calvin says, “…the oldest doctors of the church only glance obscurely at the point.”
So, none of the disciples of the Apostles (Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Ignatius, Polycarp) and none of their disciples, or their disciples, used the term. It’s only with Augustine (354-430AD) that the term, and the concept, enters the theological lexicon.
As we shall see, there are several translation and interpretive issues that make this passage a shaky support indeed for the concept of imputed guilt &/or an inherited sin nature, i.e. the doctrine of Original Sin. In general, I prefer to avoid technical discussions revolving around translational issues; however, in this case I deem it necessary because the Greek text is vague with several conclusions possible.
The crux of the matter lies in the last clause of the verse, "eph ho pantes hemarton" which is usually translated "because all [men] sinned" (RSV, NAS, NIV). The interpretation of this clause depends on the preposition, "eph" (epi) and the relative pronoun, "ho".
The preposition epi has several different meanings depending on the immediate context and the case of the noun or pronoun with which it occurs. Its primary meaning is superposition, "on" or "upon". Since the relative pronoun ho is in the dative case, the metaphorical meaning of "ground" or "reason" seems best here for epi. Thus it should be translated "on the ground of", "by reason of", "on the condition of" or "because of".
The meaning of the relative pronoun depends on its antecedent. In Greek, the relative pronoun agrees with its antecedent in number and gender. Here the relative pronoun is singular but may be either masculine or neuter in gender.
The following interpretations have been given to this phrase:
1) Some interpret the relative pronoun as masculine with the words henos anthropou (one man) in the first clause as its antecedent. This is Augustine's position. The problem with Augustine is that he did not speak or read Greek. He was relying on Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation which reads, "in quo omnes peccaverunt" (in whom all sinned). This takes the relative pronoun as masculine and at the same time gives the preposition the meaning of "in". Thus Augustine gave the prepositional phrase the meaning in lumbis Adam (in the loins of Adam). Augustine's reasoning goes something like this: In the same way that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek because he was in Abraham's loins when Abraham paid tithes (Heb. 7:9-10), so all men sinned when Adam sinned..."in whom [Adam] all sinned."
I reject this interpretation for 3 reasons:
a) The Greek preposition epi does not have the meaning of "in".b) While anthropou (“man”) is a grammatically possible antecedent, it is the farthest possibility. It is separated from ho by many intervening clauses.
c) Most modern interpreters, even those who agree with Augustine’s theology, reject Augustine’s grammatical analysis of the phrase.
2) Other interpreters take the relative pronoun as neuter with the words that follow pantes hamarton (all sinned) as the antecedent. Thus the prepositional phrase eph ho would have the meaning, "because of this, that". Accordingly, the translators of most English versions have rendered it either, "for that" (KJV) or "because" (RSV, NAS, NIV). The clause would then be understood to mean that death passed to all men because all men sinned, that is, men die because of their own sins.
3) One other interpretation is possible if the relative pronoun ho is taken as masculine and the words ho thanatos (the death) in the preceding clause, which are singular and masculine, are taken as its antecedent. Then eph ho would mean, "because of death". In that case, the phrase should be translated "because of which" or "upon which condition". Eph (because of) ho (which). With this meaning given to the prepositional phrase the whole clause may be translated, "because of which all sinned" and understood to mean that all men sinned because of death that has been transmitted to them from Adam. In other words, the transmitted death from Adam provides the grounds or condition upon which all men sin.
The controversy between number 2 and number 3 can be summed up by the following question: In Romans 5:12, is Paul saying that men die because they sin, or do they sin because they die?
If men die because they sin, then what is inherited from Adam is sin, not death. This would support Original Sin and Total Depravity (although it's possible to hold this translational position and not accept Total Depravity/Original Sin.). If they sin because they die, then what is inherited from Adam is death, not sin. This makes death the necessity, not sin. If Paul is saying here that death is what's inherited from Adam and not sin, then this passage cannot be used to support the Calvinist notion of Original Sin, which leads to the doctrine of Total Depravity.
In my opinion, the phrase should be translated “because of which all sinned” no matter what side of the issue you come down on. This accurately reflects the ambiguity of the Greek and leaves it to the reader to decide what the antecedent is – “one man” (Adam), “all sinned”, or “death”. To translate it as, “because all sinned” as most English translations do, is forcing the reader to a theological position without informing him of the other grammatically valid possibilities. In short, it is translational bias.
I don’t see any way to resolve this problem other than to look for indications in the immediate context for what the antecedent should be.
In Romans 12a Paul says that death came into the world because of one man’s sin. So that’s why death exists (at least in the world) - because Adam sinned. 12b concerns the spread of death to all men – and the translation there is what is at issue, so 12b is not available to either position.
Verses 13 and 14 state that even though sin was not counted from Adam to Moses, yet death reigned – even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam. DEATH reigned, not sin. If death is the penalty for sin (which it is) and sin is not counted, then it would stand to reason that the penalty is waived. It so stands to reason that Paul has to explicitly tell us it’s not waived. (“Yet death reigned…”) Why is the penalty not waived? Paul has already told us. Because Adam’s sin is what brought death into the world. Man is mortal because of Adam’s sin.
Verse 15 confirms this: “…many died through one man’s trespass…” Died not because the many sinned, but because of one man’s trespass. This speaks to the phrase, “death spread to all men” in verse 12b.
In verse 16 it says, “And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin.” What is the effect of one man’s sin? Death. Not the effect of many men’s sins, but ONE MAN.
16b: “For the judgment following ONE trespass brought condemnation…” What is the condemnation brought by ONE trespass? Death.
This is confirmed in verse 18: “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and LIFE…” If the acquittal is life then the condemnation would be death. And that death is the result of one man’s trespass.
Compare: “For as by a man came death by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:21-22)
Conclusion: Obviously, I come down in favor of number 3. My position is: “…because of which [death] all sinned.” While I do not dispute the idea that sin leads to death (Jer. 31:30, Rom. 6:23, & etc.) I dispute that that is what Paul is saying in Romans 5:12. I believe he’s saying that all men sin because of death, not because they’re born sinners. And in a more general context, I don’t think the two concepts – death leads to sin/sin leads to death – are mutually exclusive – both are true. However, in the case of Romans 5:12, the immediate context supports the notion that the antecedent to ho is ho thanatos (the death) in the immediately preceding clause.
This raises the question: How is it that death leads to sin? In attempting to answer that question, we need to go to the beginning, when death entered the world.
"...And the Lord god commanded the man, saying, 'You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die'" (Gen 2:16-17).
The Hebrew expression which is translated "you shall surely die" in Gen. 2:17 is literally, "dying you shall die."
This means that from the day Adam sinned his death was a sure thing. He began the process that very day, a process that culminated in his death some 900 years later. No extra-biblical, non-Hebraic theory of some kind of "spiritual death" is needed to explain why he didn't die that day. The Hebrew phrase accommodates a process (dying) beginning with the sinful act that culminates in complete death at a later point in time (you shall die). As we have seen, the sin of Adam resulted in all his descendants being born mortal - subject to death. Even though you and I are not dead yet, we are dying, and "dying you shall die".
Hebrews 2.14-15: Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.
The operative idea in this verse as far as the point I want to make is that we are "held in slavery by [our] fear of death." Slavery to what? Does it mean “slavery TO our fear of death” or does our fear of death cause us to be in slavery to something else? I have perused dozens of translations as well as a Greek interlinear and am unable to come to a firm conclusion.
My understanding at this point is that our fear of death causes slavery to sin. That is based in part on verse 17 – “Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people.”
It’s also based on something in the context of the verse in question (Rom 5:12). Rom. 6:6: “We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.”
The idea that the “old self” or “sinful body” is the mortal body, the body that’s subject to death seems to be confirmed by the following verse, “For he who has died is free from sin.” If you haven’t died (yet), that is, if you are still subject to death (and not obedient from the heart – see v17), you are NOT free from sin, you are still enslaved. We see here that being enslaved to sin is contingent on the “old self/sinful body”. When the “sinful body” is dead, one is then free from sin.
My position could accommodate either understanding (enslaved TO the fear of death / enslaved BY the fear of death) but I will structure the argument that the slavery is not TO the fear of death but that the fear of death is the cause of the enslavement. It could, of course, possibly be both.
Either way, fearing death we act in various ways that are prompted by needs for self-preservation. Life is ruled by a Darwinian survival instinct that makes us selfish, acquisitive, rivalrous and violent. Mortality fears lead to sinful actions and attitudes. Fearful and anxious to stave off death we move into sinful practices; envy, greed, selfishness, paranoia, acquisitiveness, etc. It is in this sense that death leads to sin.
When talking about slavery to sin because of death I can’t avoid Paul’s concept of sarx.
Sin, death, and sarx are intimately related in Paul. Soma seems to have a fairly uniform and consistent meaning in Paul and among the ancients generally. For the most part soma is best translated as "body." And in Paul soma often has that straightforward connotation. However, soma often has a larger, more abstract meaning, more akin to the notion of "embodiment." James Dunn states that soma "denotes the person embodied in a particular environment." And it's through this embodiment that we come into relationship/contact with one other. For example, in Romans 12.1-13.14 Paul describes how the Christian community is to relate to itself. And the word soma regulates how we understand these relationships: presenting our bodies as living sacrifices in Christ we, though many, form one body, with each member belonging to all the others. In short, Christian life and practice is embodied, physically and socially. And all in all, Paul sees this embodiment as a good thing. Paul, we could say, has a positive view of "the body" (soma).
Sarx is not so easy. In my research on this I have discovered that the meaning of sarx is hotly contested. The word occurs 26 times in the book of Romans. Generally, sarx is translated as "flesh." But sarx is also translated as "human limitation," "natural limitation," "weakness of the flesh," "the weakness of our natural selves," "the weakness of our human nature," "the weakness of our sinful nature," "sinful nature," "fleshly desires," and "sinful flesh." Obviously, there are a variety of interpretive choices when it comes to sarx.
The following method comes from James Dunn’s Theology of Paul the Apostle. I first ran across it in Richard Beck’s blog from which much of this section, SARX and SOMA, is taken. In trying to define Paul’s use of sarx he (James Dunn) places every use of it along a continuum from neutral to very bad. Here are some examples, all from the book of Romans:
Sarx as a morally neutral reference to the body:
Romans 11.14: "in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people [sarx] to envy and save some of them."
Sarx as weakness or limitation with no moral connotation: Romans 6.19: "I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations [sarx]."
Sarx as weakness or limitation with a moral connotation: Romans 3.20: "Therefore no one [sarx] will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin."
Sarx as the sphere/location/domain/realm of sin: Romans 7.5: "For when we were in the realm of the flesh [sarx], the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death."
Sarx as a morally destructive force, opposed to the Spirit (pneuma): Romans 8.6: "The mind governed by the flesh [sarx] is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace."
Sarx as source of moral corruption and hostility to God: Romans 8.7: "The mind governed by the flesh [sarx] is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so."
What understanding of sarx would include all these uses? What links all the disparate usages? And how does sarx relate to soma?
Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:35-50 that in the resurrection we will have soma, embodiment. The change is from a "natural body [soma]" to a "spiritual body [soma]." Again, Paul seems to have a high view of embodiment.
But Paul then goes on to state that "flesh [sarx] and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." In short, for Paul, embodiment (soma) will be a part of the resurrection but sarx will not. Sarx is left behind.
Dunn's assessment is that sarx is describing the mortal aspect of soma. Sarx is describing our biological contingency, our mortal and animal nature. This conclusion seems to be supported by 1 Cor. 15.35-50. Soma can inherit the kingdom of God but sarx cannot. Why? Because "the perishable cannot inherit the imperishable." What is left behind is "perishability." In the resurrection perishability – sarx - is exchanged for imperishability. Consequently the soma becomes "immortal," "spiritual," "imperishable," - it has shed and left sarx behind.
Dunn says, “Sarx denotes "what we might describe as human mortality. It is the continuum of human mortality, the person characterized and conditioned by human frailty, which gives sarx its spectrum of meaning and which provides the link between Paul's different uses of the term.”
With this understanding we can see how sin and death relate to sarx. Specifically, we can see how sarx can become enslaved to the fear of death and is the theatre of sin. As biological creatures we are driven by our instincts for self-preservation. And given that pleasure and pain regulate this instinct we become selfish and hedonistic. In short, we become sinful. Animalistic as it were. Further, given that self-preservation is the motivator of sarx we can see how we can become enslaved because of the fear of death. Mortality fears push and pull on sarx, manipulating our animal instincts for survival and self-preservation. In all this we see how sarx drives us toward sin and is in bondage because of the fear of death.
This is why translating sarx as "sinful nature" can be misleading. It is not that sarx is inherently evil and sinful. Rather, sarx is weak, finite, perishable, and vulnerable. And it's this weakness that makes sarx vulnerable to selfish instincts. Biological vulnerability isn't inherently "bad," but it reliably produces sin. Biological contingency produces a mode of living, what Paul calls kata sarka ("according to the flesh") that is driven by biological/animal appetites, cravings and desires.
This analysis brings us back to Hebrews 2.14-15: Since the children have flesh (sarx) and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.
Why does the fear of death hold us in slavery? Because of sarx. Because we are "flesh", the Devil - who holds the power of death - can use the fear of death to draw sarx into sin. And given that we are sarx we are defenseless to this power. Death has power over sarx. And the Devil holds the power of death. Using death, the Devil keeps drawing sarx into sin and rebellion.
Paul’s use of sarx in Romans 7 is entirely consistent with this understanding. In Romans 7, it’s all about sin and the law, wanting to not sin and yet sinning. Sin, sin, and more sin – aggravated and defined by the law - sinful beyond measure. What is the cry? Is it, “Who can deliver me from sin?” No. Is it, “Who can deliver me from the law? Nope, it is, “Who can deliver me from this body of DEATH?” Death is the necessity, not sin.
Dunn’s assessment of Paul’s use of sarx makes sense to me. It logically shows how death, that is, mortality, leads to sin - thereby increasing the likelihood that in Rom 5:12 “ho” refers to “death” and not “sin”.
(BTW - there are occurrences of sarx in the NT that appear to be inconsistent with this concept – e.g. Luke has Jesus referring to his resurrected body as “flesh (sarx) and bone” in Luke 24:40. I’ve qualified my statements above by indicating I’m limiting this idea to Paul for now.)
Death came into the world because of Adam’s sin. “For as by a man came death by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:21-22) And more importantly because it’s in the same context as the verse under discussion: “…because of one man’s trespass, death [not sin] reigned through that one man…” (Rom.5:17)
All humans die in Adam, whether they individually sin or not. This explains why sinless infants die. It explains why those who have not the Law still die, even though sin is not counted. It explains why those who do not sin in the likeness of Adam still die. It accommodates the various scriptures that indicate a relativity to sin:
1 John 5:16-17: “There is sin leading to death…and there is sin not leading to death.”James 4:17: “…to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.”
John 9:41: “Jesus said to them, “If you were blind you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.”
Romans 7:9: “I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died…”
And it explains how Jesus could die even though he knew no sin. It was because he “shared in their humanity” (Heb. 2:14) and being human, was subject to death. It also explains how sin – Adam’s sin – led to Death entering the world. There is relativity to sin – there is no relativity to death. “It is appointed for men to die once…” (Heb.9:27) All men die. Now, post-fall, being subject to Death leads men to sin, which leads to death, and thus man is trapped in a vicious cycle of sin and death which was initiated by Adam’s primal sin.
With all this in mind, let’s go back to the immediate context.
In Romans 5, previous to verse 12, in verses 6-8 it says, “While we were yet helpless [Why were we helpless? Because we were enslaved by sin - Rom 6:6], at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man – though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. But God showed his love for us in that while we were yet sinners [i.e. helpless] Christ died for us.”
Christ died for us. Why was Christ’s death necessary to free us from sin? Because it is our subjection to death that enslaves us to sin. “…he too shared in their humanity [That is, shared in their sarx and blood] so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death… and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.”
Verse 9: Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. [v.10] For if while we were enemies [sarx is hostile to God – Rom. 8:7] we were reconciled to God by the death of his son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
I take “saved by his life” to be a reference to the resurrection. Because Jesus has conquered death, as a forerunner and example for us, I no longer need fear death because “If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies [another reference to the resurrection] also through his Spirit which dwells in you.” (Rom 8:11)
Since, through Christ’s death and resurrection, God has made it possible for me to not fear death, then it is now possible for me to escape my bondage to sin.
As it turns out, this understanding of Romans 5:12 (because of which [death] all sinned) is the consensus of the Church Fathers before Augustine. One of the foremost Greek Orthodox scholars of the 20th century, John Romanides, in his book, The Ancestral Sin, surveys the Biblical and Patristic authors up through Irenaeus (c. approx. 200AD) and compares them to the Augustinian (354-430) formulation of Original Sin. Romanides says concerning Romans 5:12,
"It is noteworthy that during this period, the interpretation of the phrase, "...because of which all have sinned" never appears to be the problem that it became later. This silence is powerful proof that doubt did not exist about the meaning of this passage. If there had been a problem with this passage, the Gnostics would have exploited it easily to support their belief in the fall of souls in a previous existence. The two later interpretations, "in Adam all have sinned" and "because all have sinned," would have been tantamount to a powerful argument in support of such heretical teachings about the fall.Nowhere does a problem arise regarding, "because of which" and its meaning or regarding the fact that death was viewed as the root from which sin springs up. This firmly justifies the view that the passage was naturally understood by the writers of the period to mean, "because of death all have sinned." The case for this is made strongly by Irenaeus, who uses the phrase, "because of death" etiologically. In this vein, he speaks of, "the passions that have naturally befallen us because of death; I refer to grief and cowardice and perplexity, distress and all the rest by which our nature afflicted with death and corruptibility is known." "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, because of which [death] all have sinned".
Most Arminians believe in the doctrine of Original Sin but they do not hold that it results in Total Depravity. Likewise, Catholic doctrine, according to the Catholic encyclopedia, under Original Sin, says, "...neither intelligence nor free will had been destroyed by original sin and, consequently, there still remained the possibility of material progress, whilst in the spiritual order God did not abandon man, to whom He had promised redemption." One can still believe in the doctrine of Original Sin, as most Arminians and Catholics do, and still not hold to the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity. However, if we refute the doctrine of Original Sin, as defined by Reformed theology, the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity falls on its own, and then the need for monergistic predestination falls, then like dominoes, the other doctrines of 5-point Calvinism.
All Have Sinned - Romans 3:10-18
Main Index
Site Introduction/Setup
