The Theology of Original Sin Based on ΕΦ ‘Ω and Romans 5.12
in the Light of Historical and Grammatical Research
Jason G. Andersen
Διὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ δι’ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθεν καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος, καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν, ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον.
Propterea sicut per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intravit et per peccatum mors et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit in quo omnes peccaverunt.
Therefore as through one man, sin entered the world and through sin, death also in this manner death spread unto all men ἐφ’ ᾧ all sinned.
This verse is pivotal in understanding the doctrine of original sin. Over the centuries it has been understood in many different ways. The crux of the problem is the manner in which ἐφ’ ᾧ is translated. Should we translate ἐφ’ ᾧ as because along with nearly every modern translation? The understanding that ensues in our Bibles today is that we, collectively as Adam’s race, sinned concomitantly with Adam when he ate of the fruit in the garden. This paper grapples with the traditional, modern understanding of original sin by challenging the translation of ἐφ’ ᾧ as because preferring the translation upon which [event]. This understanding will be defended by briefly surveying the different modern attempts to understand this difficult passage, by looking at how Augustine and the Greek fathers understood the passage, by looking at the occurences of ἐπί followed by a dative relative pronoun in the Septuagint (LXX) and by trying to flesh out some of the theological implications of this translation.
Although most modern translations agree to translate ἐφ’ ᾧ as because, it is far from certain that these translations portray Paul’s intention. In fact, many commentators note that this translation is improbable either because occurrences of ἐφ’ ᾧ understood causally in contemporary Greek literature are sparse[1] or because the translation does not logically follow the preceding content.[2] Fitzmyer also ponders the question as to why Paul uses ἐφ’ ᾧ when he could have succinctly written διότι.[3] This specific issue needs to be dealt with especially if the plainer meanings, which are most commonly attested, are passed over for an idiomatic meaning. Benedict Englezakis does not think ἐφ’ ᾧ should be translated because in Romans 5.12 noting S. Lyonnet’s and Frederick Danker’s articles. However, he does not provide an alternative translation.[4] Danker prefers the translation in which [νόμος].[5] Thus, there are many different ways that Romans 5.12 has been translated and interpreted.
Much of this confusion can be traced back to the interpretations of the Church Fathers. Our understanding stems from Saint Augustine’s fourth century, Latin understanding, which has heavily influenced our modern concept of verse twelve. David Weaver says that Pelagius himself preferred the translation quia as opposed to in quo, which Augustine preferred.[6] Pelagius’ causal translation allowed for the understanding that denied any real inheritance from Adam but said that we sin only in the likeness of Adam. There is no sin or guilt that passed on through the generations. Augustine influenced us precisely because of his anti-Pelagian interpretation. He said that all men sinned in Adam: “in whom all sinned.” In other words, he understood this passage in a way that would have stood in strict contraposition to any sort of Pelagian understanding. The Pelagian understanding placed all culpability of sin on individual humans.[7] Pelagius’ understanding is difficult to resolve with the Adam-Christ comparison in the rest of chapter 5 where Adam’s act is said to affect the whole race in the same manner that Christ’s act can affect the human race.[8] Augustine, however, did not base his understanding on the Greek text; instead of using the original Greek, he read a Latin translation, which, as Philip Quinn notes, had translated ἐφ’ ᾧ as in quo.[9] Joseph Fitzmyer says that Augustine first thought that the antecedent was peccatum until he found out that ἁμαρτία in Greek was feminine, at which point he considered the antecedent to be the far-fetched unus homo.[10] Many have noted that it is grammatically improbable that, in the Greek, εἷς ἄνθρωπος is the antecedent as Augustine understood it because if Paul wanted to say in, he would have used ἐν and not ἐπι.[11]
The most interesting thing to note about Augustine’s understanding is that he could not have understood death to be the antecedent of ᾧ if he were simply to look at the Latin Bible. Augustine could not have understood mors [death] as the antecedent because in Latin, it is feminine, but the relative pronoun quo refers to either a masculine or neuter antecedent. This does not mean that death has to be the antecedent, but Augustine apparently needed a specific antecedent, and he found it in unus homo [one man]. Thus, he eventually settled on unus homo as the antecedent. Unus homo can be grammatically tied to in quo so Augustine answered the problem of not having a clear antecedent. Therefore, Augustine’s understanding is in that one man (Adam), all men sinned. Augustine’s understanding has greatly influenced Christian thought about this passage and original sin by making us think that the result of Adam’s one sin was that we all sinned with the result that all died so that it is commonly translated as death spread unto all men because [or Augustine’s understanding in whom (Adam)] all sinned.
Weaver wrote a comprehensive study of the understanding of Romans 5.12 among the Greek fathers. In summary of his nearly 80 pages of research, the Greek fathers had differences with the Augustinian interpretation of Romans 5.12. Much has to do with how Adam, sin, death, and humanity are interrelated. He lists two main ideas present in the Greek fathers: First, humanity inherited a doctrine of passions, which is the immediate doctrine of sinful behavior, and second, there is an explicit rejection of an inheritance of guilt.[12] This is in contraposition to the Augustinian, Latin interpretations, which have influenced the majority of western Christianity who have traditionally had some understanding of an inheritance of guilt from Adam. Along with these premises, Weaver notes that some of the Greek authors “write of death as if it were the cause of sin.”[13] This also is in strict contraposition to Augustine’s view that we all sinned in or because of Adam and therefore fell into death. Weaver says of Athanasius, “There is an inheritance of corruption and death and moral debilitation stemming from Adam’s sin but no doctrine of original sin.”[14]
There are several alternatives to the modern translation of because. Fitzmyer notes twelve different ways this phrase could be interpreted and translated. Some of the more prominent ones are the interpretations because of whom [antecedent Adam], in whom [antecedent Adam], on the grounds of which [antecedent death], or because [idiomatic], which would be synonymous with διότι.[15] The reading that best interprets Paul is a translation similar to upon which with ᾧ being neuter referring to the event ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν. In Greek, unlike our English translations, ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν immediately precedes ἐφ’ ᾧ. This proximity makes the translation with the antecedent being the event of the spreading of death more probable. This translation, as any other, ought to be based on a right understanding of scripture so as not to conform to some historical theology. The few hurdles that must be jumped over in order to understand this concept are worth the effort put into understanding them.
Fitzmyer notes the translation of upon which [death], although he quickly dismisses it as problematic; he says, “It seems to put the cart before the horse.”[16] Stanley Porter notes similarly that if θάνατος is the antecedent, the sentence isn’t only “redundant,” but “it seems to invert the order of events of sin and death. . . with sin coming in a mandatory two stage process, with sin coming on account of death and with death limited to a purely spiritual sense.”[17] Is it ok, in this instance, to put the cart before the horse? The translation we have provided would also seem to put the cart before the horse. In order to dispute these claims, it is necessary to understand the theology of sin and death within the context of Romans 5.12-21 and not only within the context of one’s systematic theology. First, this verse seems to be setting up the whole rest of the passage: a topic sentence of sorts. Διὰ τοῦτο links this passage back to the rest of chapter five. This is a transitional phrase but also a conjunction to tie what Paul has said—we have been reconciled to God through Christ—to what he will say—Adam’s act was efficacious in that all died in the same manner that Christ’s act is efficacious in that all are justified and made alive (5.18). Adam’s act brought death and Christ’s act brings life. Although this sequence of sin and death is in opposition to our traditional understanding, it can be understood with as few problems as our traditional understanding.
Schreiner concurs that 5.12d should not be translated as because but rather as on the basis of this death all sinned.[18] This understanding is neither widely accepted nor understood and is foreign to many people’s understanding of the inception of sin because of Augustine’s interpretation. Schreiner notes succinctly, “In other words, the result of spiritual death [which was a consequence of Adam’s one sin] is a lifestyle of sin.”[19] Schreiner understands that ᾧ does not specifically refer to θάνατος rather ἐφ’ ᾧ connects the two ideas.[20]
Concerning the sequence of sin and death in the verse, some have noted the grammatical structure as a way in which we can understand this sequence. Many consider this verse to be a chiasm[21] or even a complete ὥσπερ/οὕτως comparison.[22] The grammatical structure of the verse may (or may not) seem to support either understanding, but conceptually, there are problems. As Fitzmyer notes if ἐφ’ ᾧ is taken to be because, which as Moo notes produces a chiasm,[23] it makes 12d “contradictory” to 12a-c. “At the beginning of v. 12 sin and death are ascribed to Adam; now death seems to be owing to human acts.”[24] If one is to understand ἐφ’ ᾧ as a causal idiom, it is not consistent with the rest of the verse and paragraph, but if one is to understand ἐφ’ ᾧ as upon which [event], it goes against the whole historical understanding of original sin.
In regard to the use of ἐφ’ ᾧ as a causal idiom, it is possible that ἐφ’ ᾧ never actually was used idiomatically at the time that Paul wrote the epistle. Photius of the ninth century is quoted as one of the earliest to have understood ἐφ’ ᾧ causally, but he does not cite other extra-biblical examples.[25] Somehow over the course of history, it has become more accepted to translate ἐφ’ ᾧ as because. It is interesting to see that Pelagius translated ἐφ’ ᾧ causally.[26]
In order to understand ἐφ’ ᾧ in this context, it is necessary to look at other local occurences of this phrase-specifically ἐφ’ ᾧ and also all of the occurrences of ἐπί followed by a dative relative pronoun in the LXX and the Greek New Testament. To our knowledge, no one has published any literature on ἐφ’ ᾧ and the LXX. These results must be understood as supplemental to research that is already established about ἐφ’ ᾧ because the majority of the LXX is a translation and was not originally composed in Greek. The information from the apocryphal books, such as 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Maccabees, may help solidify a Greek understanding of ἐφ’ ᾧ if they were composed in Greek. Following is a list of Hebrew words and phrases that the LXX translates as ἐπί followed by a dative relative pronoun derived from Emmanuel Tov’s parallel LXX and Hebrew Bible (MT).
| אשר 6 times | Øעל + 1 time |
| על. . .אשר 6 times (על with or without a pronominal suffix) | אל בצעך 1 time |
| ב. . .אשר 4 times (ב with a pronominal suffix) | מבטחה 1 time (noun) |
| זה + לו 1 time (separated by יְהוָה קִוִּינוּ) | מבטחם 1 time (noun) |
Lancelot Brenton translates all the occurrences of ἐπί followed by a dative relative pronoun as for which, on which, on whom, whereby, wherein, etc.[27] In other words, he sees that each occurrence of this phrase always has an antecedent; it never is understood as a causal idiom. It seems that the LXX translators never thought that a Hebrew word indicating cause e.g. כי would best be translated as ἐφ’ ὧ. The phrases translated most often as ἐπί followed by a dative relative pronoun from the Hebrew are the relative pronoun אשר with either על, ב. . ., or nothing. Of the apocryphal occurrences, none should be treated as a causal idiom, as nearly all of them refer to a specific antecedent. This group of examples supports Joseph Fitzmyer’s article in questioning whether or not the causal understanding of ἐφ’ ὧ exists outside of the New Testament. If, in fact, ἐφ’ ᾧ does not occur as a causal idiom outside of the New Testament, its use in the New Testament as a causal idiom must be questioned verse by verse.
The complete chart of occurrences of ἐπί followed by a dative relative pronoun in the LXX also lists all of the New Testament occurrences with the KJV translation. It is interesting to note that none of the KJV translations translate it as because. All of them translate the prepositional phrase as a prepositional phrase. So, either we know something that the King James translators did not know, or between the course of then and now, we have invented a new meaning. Perhaps someone read Photius’ statement that ἐφ’ ὧ in Romans 5.12 was taken “manifestly” in a causal sense[28] and therefore accepted the causal sense as a fact before seeing the absence of any occurrence in other Greek literature.
Being hesitant to translate ἐφ’ ὧ causally, what happens when we translate it upon which [event]? This translation does not make sense according to our systematic understanding of original sin partially because of Augustine’s understanding of the sequence of sin and death: Adam’s sin, everyone’s sin, and death. If ἐφ’ ᾧ is understood as upon which [event], it shows not only that death is derived from sin—τὰ γὰρ ὀψώνια τῆς ἁμαρτίας θάνατος—but sin is also derived from death, which ultimately stems from Adam’s one sin. Perhaps Paul was thinking of God’s declaration to Adam if he were to eat from the tree: “You will surely die!” Genesis provides the first view of the consequences for Adam’s sin in chapter two when God says to Adam that if he eats the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he will surely die. So that it is seen that when δι’ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθεν—that first occurrence of sin—אדם died. In other words, sin entered the world by means of the death that Adam passed on to his descendents. In fact, Paul may be saying אדם-mankind-died along with אדם-the man as a consequence for his trespass. To refine this thought, he did not die nine-hundred years later, but אדם died at the exact time when he first bit of the fruit. When Adam first bit the fruit declaring himself to be like God, he and his progeny with him died.
This understanding of death is contrary to the manner that we typically think because we consider ourselves alive until we stop moving. Since Adam died, his race died. This term “dead” is not simply the loss of a cognitive, physical, and spiritual ability. Within the context of the passage, death might also refer to a disposition to die. A child is disposed to die at his or her conception. This death is not simply spiritual; it is also physical, emotional, and psychological. A baby is dead physically because he or she is prone to death, and this death is caused by Adam’s one sin. A baby is dead spiritually in that he or she is prone to sin; in fact, the baby will sin. So in this sense, death does not refer to absence of movement, but it would mean an absence of life for which God had originally created it. When Adam was kicked out the Garden, which contained the tree of life, he was denied the opportunity for life. According to our interpretation of Paul, this absence of life is the result of Adam’s one sin. That baby is thus disposed to die and disposed to sin, and indeed, he or she dies and sins. Εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν, ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον. There is an absence of life in that newborn. Through Adam’s one sin all died, and because of this death, all sinned and are disposed to and prone to sin. This is a possible understanding of what follows logically when ἐφ’ ᾧ is taken as we have suggested. Death spread to all men, upon which event all sinned. Because man is dead, he consequently sins. This is why Paul can say in Romans 3 that there is not a righteous one—not one. All have sinned, and this is because of their spiritual death.
Thus, ἐφ’ ᾧ as translated upon which [event] in Romans 5.12 is a valid translation, and it ought to be dealt with seriously in scholarship. The phrase ought to be translated as upon which, with the event ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν as the antecedent. This possible understanding stems from a right understanding of the Bible and Romans and is not hindered by our understanding of the systematic category of original sin. If we continue to understand ἐφ’ ᾧ causally, we will remain in Augustine’s Latin sequential misunderstanding, all the while being at a loss in understanding what Paul may actually be saying.
Works Cited
Brenton, Lancelot, C.L. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1986.
Cranfield, C.E.B. “On Some of the Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5.12.” Scottish Journal of Theology 22 (1969): 324-341.
Danker, F.W. “Romans V. 12. Sin Under Law.” New Testament Studies 14 (1968): 424-439.
Englezakis, Benedict. “Romans 5,12-15 and the Pauline Teaching on the Lord’s Death: Some Observations.” Biblica 58 (1977): 231-236.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Consecutive Meaning of ΕΦ Ω in Romans 5.12.” New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 321-339.
Kirby, John T. “The Syntax of Romans 5.12: A Rhetorical Approach.” New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 283-286.
Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Porter, Stanley E. “The Pauline Concept of Original Sin, in Light of Rabbinic Background.” Tyndale Bulletin 41 (1990): 3-30.
Quinn, Philip. “Disputing the Augustinian Legacy: John Locke and Jonathan Edwards on Romans 5:12-19.” In The Augustinian Tradition, edited by Gareth B. Matthews, 233-250. Berkeley: University of California, 1999.
Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1977.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.
Weaver, David. “The Exegesis of Romans 5:12 Among the Greek Fathers and Its Implications for the Doctrine of Original Sin: The 5th-12th Centuries, Part III.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 29 (1985): 231-257.
Weaver, David. “From Paul to Augustine: Romans 5:12 in Early Christian Exegesis.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 27 (1983): 187-206.
[1] Joseph Fitzmyer, “The Consecutive Meaning of ΕΦ Ω in Romans 5.12,” New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 326.
[4] Benedict Englezakis, “Romans 5,12-15 and the Pauline Teaching on the Lord’s Death: Some Observations,” Biblica 58 (1977): 232.
[5] F. W. Danker, “Romans V. 12. Sin Under Law,” New Testament Studies 14 (1968): 439.
[6] David Weaver, “From Paul to Augustine: Romans 5:12 in Early Christian Exegesis,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 27 (1983): 203.
[8] Ibid.; C.E.B. Cranfield, “On Some of the Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5.12,” Scottish Journal of Theology 22 (1969): 335.
[9] Philip Quinn, “Disputing the Augustinian Legacy: John Locke and Jonathan Edwards on Romans 5:12-19,” in The Augustinian Tradition, ed. Gareth B. Matthews (Berkeley: University of California, 1999) 235.
[11] Fitzmyer, 323; William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1977), 133; Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 273-274.
[12] David Weaver, “The Exegesis of Romans 5:12 Among the Greek Fathers and Its Implications for the Doctrine of Original Sin: The 5th-12th Centuries, Part III,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 29 (1985): 251.
[14] Weaver, “Early Christian Exegesis,” 199.
[17] Stanley E. Porter, “The Pauline Concept of Original Sin, in Light of Rabbinic Background,” Tyndale Bulletin 41 (1990): 23.
[21] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 321; Englezakis, 231, 232.
[22] John T. Kirby, “The Syntax of Romans 5.12: A Rhetorical Approach,” New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 284.
[25] Fitzmyer, 326; Weaver, “Greek Fathers, Part III,” 244-246.
[26] Weaver, “Early Christian Exegesis,” 203.
[27] Lancelot C. L. Brenton, The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1986).
[28] Weaver, “Greek Fathers, Part III,” 245.
