Thoughts On Romans 5

Many Eastern Orthodox writers say (contra Augustine's teaching of original sin or the idea that we're guilty of and/or were condemned by Adam's sin) that Romans 5:12 means that people sin because they’re mortal:¹

Romans 5:12 (SBLGNT): 12 Διὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ διʼ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθεν καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος, καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον—

12 Therefore,² just as through one man this thing “sin” came into the world, and, through this “sin,” this thing “death” came into the world—and so to all humans this “death” spread, and that is why all [have] sinned (usually translated “because all sinned”)— (My translation/interpretation of the Greek)

I.e., we don't die because we have somehow inherited Adam's sin. Rather, we sin because we are mortal and subject to death due to Adam's transgression, with all the temptations and weaknesses that entails. As Paul continues:

Romans 5:13–21 (SBLGNT): 13 ἄχρι γὰρ νόμου ἁμαρτία ἦν ἐν κόσμῳ, ἁμαρτία δὲ οὐκ ἐλλογεῖται μὴ ὄντος νόμου, 14 ἀλλὰ ἐβασίλευσεν ὁ θάνατος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ μέχρι Μωϋσέως καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς παραβάσεως Ἀδάμ, ὅς ἐστιν τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος. 15 Ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὡς τὸ παράπτωμα, οὕτως καὶ τὸ χάρισμα· εἰ γὰρ τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπέθανον, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἡ δωρεὰ ἐν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐπερίσσευσεν. 16 καὶ οὐχ ὡς διʼ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος τὸ δώρημα· τὸ μὲν γὰρ κρίμα ἐξ ἑνὸς εἰς κατάκριμα, τὸ δὲ χάρισμα ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων εἰς δικαίωμα. 17 εἰ γὰρ τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι ὁ θάνατος ἐβασίλευσεν διὰ τοῦ ἑνός, πολλῷ μᾶλλον οἱ τὴν περισσείαν τῆς χάριτος καὶ τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης λαμβάνοντες ἐν ζωῇ βασιλεύσουσιν διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 18 Ἄρα οὖν ὡς διʼ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα, οὕτως καὶ διʼ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς· 19 ὥσπερ γὰρ διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοί, οὕτως καὶ διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί. 20 νόμος δὲ παρεισῆλθεν ἵνα πλεονάσῃ τὸ παράπτωμα· οὗ δὲ ἐπλεόνασεν ἡ ἁμαρτία, ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν ἡ χάρις, 21 ἵνα ὥσπερ ἐβασίλευσεν ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ, οὕτως καὶ ἡ χάρις βασιλεύσῃ διὰ δικαιοσύνης εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν.

13 For until there was [the] Law, sin was in the world, but sin is not charged against a person when there is no Law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam until the time of Moses [and the giving of the Law] even over those who didn’t sin in the same way as Adam’s transgression, who is a type of the one who was to come. 15 But the free gift is indeed not like the trespass. For if by the trespass of the one man the many died, much more have the grace of God and the gracious gift from the [actions of the] one man, Jesus Christ, abounded to the many. 16 And the free gift is not like what resulted from the one man [Adam] having sinned. For the judgment following the one man’s trespass resulted in condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses resulted in acquittal/justification. 17 For if by the one man’s trespass death reigned through that one man, much more will those receiving the abundance of the grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore just as by the trespass of the one man all humans received condemnation [that results in death], so also by the righteous act of the one man all humans received justification that results in life. 19 For just as by the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also by the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 20 And [the] Law came in, with the result that the trespass[ing] increased; but in this situation where sin increased, the grace [of God] abounded even more, 21 so that just as sin reigned through death, so also will/might this grace reign by granting justification leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (My translation/interpretation of the Greek)

Murray J. Harris in his book Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis discusses the use and meaning of ἐφ᾿ ᾧ in Romans 5:12:

C. Important Constructions Using Ἐπί

1. Ἐπί τὸ αὐτό

...

2. Ἐφʼ ᾧ

There is general unanimity among grammarians that ἐφʼ ᾧ means “because,” “inasmuch as,” or “in view of the fact that,” where ἐφʼ ᾧ = ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὅτι, “on the basis of this reason, namely that,” or = διότι /διὰ τοῦτο ὅτι, “because” (see BDF §235[2]; Moulton 107; Robertson 604, 722, 963; Zerwick §127; Analysis 399; Turner 272, 319; so also BDAG 365a–b; cf. 727c). Such a sense certainly fits the context in Ro 5:12; 2 Co 5:4; Php 3:12, although some have doubts about Php 4:10 (e.g., BDF §235[2], “for”; BDAG 365b “for, indeed”; Turner 272, “whereon”; and Moule 132 suggests “with regard to which” [i.e., τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν, “your concern for me”]).

a. Romans 5:12

Διὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ διʼ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθεν καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος, καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν, ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death entered as a consequence of that sin, and so death has spread to all people, because all have sinned [with Adam].”

In Romans 5:12–21 Paul is comparing (with both similarities and differences) Christ, the sole author of righteousness and life, with Adam, the author of sin and death. Verse 12 is anacoluthic—the true conclusion matching the ὥσπερ would probably have been “so righteousness came into the world through one man, and life through that righteousness.”

Few phrases in Paul’s writings have generated more controversy than ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον. J. A. Fitzmyer lists no fewer than eleven proposed meanings for ἐφʼ ᾧ [J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 413–17]; he himself opts for “with the result that” (cf. LSJ 622c, “wherefore”). The numerous interpretations of the verse fall into two main grammatical categories:

1. those that construe ᾧ as a relative pronoun (whose antecedent may be either ὁ θάνατος, “death,” or ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, “one man”), with ἐπί meaning “in” or “because of”
2. those that treat ἐφʼ ᾧ as a conjunction, equivalent to ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὅτι, “because”

The former alternatives are improbable since elsewhere in Paul (2 Co 5:4; Php 3:12; 4:10), ἐφʼ ᾧ is conjunctional, whatever its precise nuance.

Thus, the focus of exegetical attention naturally moves to πάντες ἥμαρτον, which may refer to human beings’ corporate involvement in the transgression of Adam, or to their personal sin either in imitation of Adam or as a result of inheriting a corrupt Adamic nature. Since some nexus between Adam and his descendants regarding sin seems demanded by Paul’s Adam-Christ analogy (see Ro 5:18–19; cf. 1 Co 15:22), the most likely options seem to be:

1. “death spread to all people because all sinned” (either actually in Adam’s primal transgression or in their federal representative, Adam, ἥμαρτον being a constative aorist)
2. “death spread to all people because all do sin” (as those who have inherited Adam’s nature, ἥμαρτον being a gnomic aorist)
3. *“death spread to all people because all [since the time of Adam] have sinned” (ἥμαρτον being a constative aorist).

* = the writer’s own preference when more than one solution is given for a particular exegetical issue and a preference is not expressed.

(Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 139–140.) 

---

¹Here are some examples of Eastern Orthodox sources espousing/defending this view, saying that ἐφʼ ᾧ refers to ὁ θάνατος (death):

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_sin.aspx 

...From what has been observed, the famous expression, eph'ho pantes hemarton,[228] can be safely interpreted as modifying the word, thanatos, which precedes it, and which grammatically is the only word which fits the context. Eph'ho as a reference to Adam is both grammatically and exegetically impossible. Such an interpretation was first introduced by Origen, who obviously used it with a purpose in mind, because he believed in the pre-existence of all souls whereby he could easily say that all sinned in Adam. The interpretation of eph'ho as "because" was first introduced into the East by Photius,[229] who claims that there are two interpretations prevalent—Adam and thanatos—but he would interpret it dioti (because). He bases his argument on a false interpretation of II Corinthians 5:4 by interpreting eph'ho, here again, as dioti. But here it is quite clear that eph'ho refers to skensi (sic) (eph'ho skenei ou thelomen ekdysasthai). Photius is interpreting Paul within the framework of natural moral law and is seeking to justify the death of all men by personal guilt. He claims that all men die because they sin by following in the footsteps of Adam.[230] However, neither he nor any of the Eastern Fathers accepts the teaching that all men are made guilty for the sin of Adam.

From purely grammatical considerations it is impossible to interpret eph'ho as a reference to any word other than thanatos. Each time the grammatical construction of the preposition epi with the dative is used by Paul, it is always used as a relative pronoun which modifies a preceding noun [231] or phrase.[232] To make an exception in Romans 5:12 by making St. Paul use the wrong Greek expression to express the idea, "because," is to beg the issue. The correct interpretation of this passage, both grammatically and exegetically, can be supplied only when eph'ho is understood to modify thanatos—kai houtos eis pantas anthropous ho thanatos dielthen eph'ho (thanato) pantes hemarton—"because of which" (death), or "on the basis of which" (death), or "for which (death) all have sinned." Satan, being himself the principle of sin, through death and corruption involves all of humanity and creation in sin and death. Thus, to be under the power of death according to Paul is to be a slave to the devil and a sinner, because of the inability of the flesh to live according to the law of God, which is selfless love....

http://saintandrewgoc.org/home/2014/8/11/the-wages-of-sin.html

...Adam died because he sinned; now we sin because we die. "And so death passed to all men, "because of which all have sinned (έφ΄ ώ πάντες ήμαρτον)" [Rom. 5:12]. The passage is given as Saint Paul wrote it and as the Holy Fathers, untainted by Augustine's doctrine of original sin, understood it: Death is the cause of all men having sinned. The West (Roman Catholicism), however, is steeped in Augustine's doctrines and teaches that death passed to all men as a punishment imposed by God because all men, from their conception, have sinned. They sinned by inheriting legal guilt and culpability of the original sin. Therefore, they also inherit death, the just punishment. Protestant and Roman Catholic Bibles present this erroneous understanding in one way or another, obscuring the true meaning that "sin reigns in death" (Romans 5:21), in our corruptibility and mortality, that the "sting of death is sin" (1 Cor. 15:56), that death is the root, and sin is the thorn that springs from it....

 https://www.saintjohnchurch.org/original-sin-vs-ancestral-sin/

Instead of original sin, which is used in Western Christianity, the Orthodox Church uses the term ancestral sin to describe the effect of Adam’s sin on mankind. We do this to make one key distinction; we didn’t sin in Adam (as the Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12 implies). Rather we sin because Adam’s sin made us capable of doing so.

The Greek word for sin, amartema, refers to an individual act, indicating that Adam and Eve alone assume full responsibility for the sin in the Garden of Eden. The Orthodox Church never speaks of Adam and Eve passing guilt on to their descendants, as did Augustine. Instead, each person bears the guilt of his or her own sins.

² When Paul uses διὰ τοῦτο (Romans 1:26; 4:16; 5:12; 13:6; 15:9; 1 Corinthians 4:17; 11:10; 11:30; 2 Corinthians 4:1; 7:13; 13:10; Ephesians 1:15; 5:6; 5:17; 6:13; Colossians 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 3:5; 3:7; 2 Thessalonians 2:11; 1 Timothy 1:16; 2 Timothy 2:10; Philemon 15), the τοῦτο usually refers back to something he just stated, but I have difficulty figuring out what precisely in Romans 5:1–11 (or earlier) he might be referring to as the basis for what he says in 5:12–21 about Adam, Christ, sin, death, and the Law. Though there are other attempted explanations, I’ll defer to Dunn in his WBC on Romans and leave the question alone as far as this discussion is concerned: “The διὰ τοῦτο does not signify a conclusion drawn simply from an immediately preceding argument; v 11 had already effectively rounded off the preceding train of thought. Its function is rather to indicate that vv 12–21 serve as a conclusion to the complete argument from 1:18–5:11 (see further 5:1–21 Introduction).” (James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, vol. 38A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1988), 271–272.)

³ “In Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all humans inherit.” (Wikipedia on “Original Sin”)

The Holy Spirit And The Institutional Church

"Pentecost" by Hyatt Moore

The following (reformatted by me, and with some minor edits) was written by a former Eastern Orthodox (convert) Christian in his correspondence with another convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church who had inquired of the writer why he had left the EOC.

It appears that the charismata (the grace gifts of the Holy Spirit) had already begun to wane in the second century. Edwin Hatch wrote that the philosophers replaced the prophets as the leading spokesmen for Christianity. Clearly the role of the Holy Spirit changed within a couple of generations of the Church. St. John Chrysostom actually laments this fact as a great loss to the Church in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:

"Seest thou by how many reasons he leads him to silence and soothes him, in the act of giving way to the other? By one thing and that the chief, that he was not shut up by such a proceeding; 'for ye all can prophesy,' saith he, 'one by one.' By a second, that this seems good to the Spirit Himself; 'for the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.' Besides these, that this is according to the mind of God; 'for God,' saith he, 'is not a God of confusion, but of peace:' and by a fourth, that in every part of the world this custom prevails, and no strange thing is enjoined upon them. For thus, saith he, 'I teach in all the Churches of the saints.' What now can be more awful than these things? For in truth the Church was a heaven then, the Spirit governing all things, and moving each one of the rulers and making him inspired. But now we retain only the symbols of those gifts. For now also we speak two or three, and in turn, and when one is silent, another begins. But these are only signs and memorials of those things. Wherefore when we begin to speak, the people respond, 'with thy Spirit,' indicating that of old they thus used to speak, not of their own wisdom, but moved by the Spirit. But not so now: (I speak of mine own case so far.) But the present Church is like a woman who hath fallen from her former prosperous days, and in many respects retains the symbols only of that ancient prosperity; displaying indeed the repositories and caskets of her golden ornaments, but bereft of her wealth: such an one doth the present Church resemble." - Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Volume 12, Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, Homily XXXVI. 1 Cor. xiv. 20

In its obsession with apostolic succession, the Catholic Church (as it was called before the split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church) lost the apostolic power and spirit. The episcopate had already asserted its right as the final ecclesial authority, and they did not welcome prophets into the services. This is quite contrary to the New Testament and The Didache. The Catholic Church had become so institutionalized that it confused institutional authority with ecclesial authority. While there have always been bishops and priests who walked in these graces, there were many who, while void of the Spirit, obtained their positions by political intrigue. Charismatic authority was still recognized, but it was generally relegated to the monastic community, reserved for only the more advanced elders.

Those who wrote about the Holy Spirit, such as Ambrose and Basil, spoke of Him in detached terms based on a study of Scriptures, indicating that they were not familiar with the active living presence of the third Person of the Trinity in their lives. The role of the Holy Spirit was redefined as liturgical, Eucharistic, and rationalistic, as though the living God were to comply with the rubrics of the Sacraments. He could no longer be trusted to show up and inspire the people in unregulated spontaneity or impromptu movings. He could no longer be trusted to speak, lead, guide, reveal, and heal. Only the most advanced could expect to see the uncreated light and experience the deifying work of the Spirit. Consequently, the monastic understanding of the Holy Spirit was limited to an ascetical approach which, in turn, became the prevailing opinion of the Orthodox Church.

Vladimir Lossky and Georges Florovsky both provide some rather good arguments that Orthodox theology was not the Hellenization of Christianity, but the Christianization of Hellenism. However, the transition from a Church full of the Spirit in Acts toward the more Hellenized model would indicate otherwise. The Orthodox Church won't admit such a thing since it claims to have guarded the sacred deposit without corruption, maintaining the fullness of what the Apostolic Church had in the New Testament period.

Philosophy began to be the dominant method of theologizing very early. Long before the West introduced Scholastic Theology, the East had succumbed to the temptation to make Christianity a cerebral activity. At least as early as Justin Martyr and Clement, Christianity became a philosophy. An academic aristocracy replaced charismatic authority, which often manifested among the most uneducated and barbaric people. Yet the Apostle Paul warned that philosophy cannot know God (1 Corinthians 1:18-20). Paul said that he deliberately chose not to rely on sophia when preaching so that the "demonstration of the Spirit" and the "power of God" could be present (1 Corinthians 2:4-5). This is precisely why one does not see the power of God or demonstrations of the Spirit with most of the Church Fathers. It is also why the Holy Spirit does not manifest with most contemporary priests, bishops, and Protestant preachers. Volumes of treatises were written, but "The kingdom of God does not consist in words, but in power" (1 Corinthians 4:20). Because of the general Greek belief that the image of God in man is his rational faculty, God was approached as a rational Being. However, the things of the Holy Spirit cannot be received by "the natural man ... because they are foolishness to him" (1 Corinthians 2:14).

All of the debates about homoousios and hypostasis may have clarified the Trinity and the two natures of Christ, but they resulted in further intellectualizing Christianity. This all goes contrary to the warning of Paul, who wrote, "Solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers" (2 Timothy 2:14). While the Orthodox Church sees the many schisms as necessary heresies in order to define and defend the truth, the reality is that Christianity began to split and divide over these wranglings about words.

The early preachers, unlike the Church Fathers, did not rely on the schools of Greek rhetoric and the rules which governed homilies. Preaching was not a cognitive function. Rather, they relied upon the person and power of the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 1:12). When they preached, people did not just hear about God; they actually heard from God (1 Thessalonians 1:5; 2:13).

The Body of Christ needs all the ministries mentioned in Ephesians 4:11 (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers). This is a problem for the institutional hierarchy because they have no control over whom God chooses. These charisms are given by the sovereign choice of God, not the Church. Those who walk in these graces have authority in the body of Christ, which is proven by the Spirit and power.

Montanism was an attempt to return to a living relationship with the Holy Spirit. The documentation on the Montanists is very limited. It is unfortunate that, with the exception of Tertullian, we do not have any documents authored by the Montanists which show us what they taught or prophesied. However, it found success because the laity still operated in the charismata. There was a remnant of believers who still trusted the Holy Spirit. It was really little different than the prophets of the Old Testament who were in constant conflict with formalized Judaism, or the Lord and His apostles in their conflicts with the Jews of the Second Temple Period.

Montanism revealed the tension between political authority and spiritual authority. But it was flawed and it ultimately failed. The death nail in the coffin came when Constantine outlawed private meetings in houses. Spiritual songs and hymns were also outlawed in an attempt to stamp out some of the heresies. In other words, it was against the law for a group of people to meet with the Holy Spirit. But in their effort to control the heretics they quenched the Spirit.

As an exercise, go through the book of Acts and mark every reference to the Holy Spirit to understand how He operated and how the early Church related to Him. Follow this up by doing the same thing in the Epistles. After doing so, ask yourself these questions: Why did the Church discontinue this relationship with the Holy Spirit? Why do we not see the Holy Spirit manifesting in this manner? Can we experience the Holy Spirit in this way and, if so, what do we need to do to invite the Holy Spirit to be manifest as Lord in our lives?

Even if one is baptized, chrismated, and partakes of the Eucharist regularly, one still needs to personally invite the Holy Spirit to fill, baptize, speak, guide, teach, and manifest Himself. One needs to cry out that the Holy Spirit would reveal Jesus and the Father to his heart. If a person has not experienced the baptism in the Holy Spirit as believers did in the book of Acts, it is very difficult to understand many things the New Testament says about Him.

One can accumulate a pedantic understanding of all the Church Fathers and still not have a single revelation of the truth, because such revelation comes from the Spirit. The theology of the Fathers has great appeal to those who are intellectually inclined. This is especially true for those with a background in philosophy. However, the Father in heaven chose to conceal things from the wise and reveal them to babes. Therefore Paul wrote, "Let him who is wise become a fool that he may be truly wise" (1 Corinthians 3:18).

In the end we are utterly dependent upon the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth.

- - -

Postscript: The person who wrote this was at one point working on a dissertation for an online Orthodox seminary. His paper was an effort to disprove the claim made by Pentecostals that as the Church became more hierarchical and clericalized, the gifts and operations and manifestations of the Holy Spirit diminished and largely ceased. He said that there came a point where he saw his thesis "fall apart in [his] hands," for his research was indeed supporting and proving the Pentecostals' claim.

---

Of related interest: The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, by Hatch, Edwin, 1835-1889; Fairbairn, Andrew Martin, ed.

https://archive.org/details/influenceofgreek00hatc