Romans 9, Predestination & Total Depravity

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.

 

Immediate Context

 

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.

 

NEXT: Death Leads to Sin?