Romans 5:12

Romans 5:12 Alan Simons asimons226 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 01:02:35 EDT 1999   Philippians 1:23-24 Romans 5:12 Dear List,This is my first post to the list, even though I havebeen a member for some time. I want to express mygratitude for the information on it. I work inindustry and have to treat this list as a digest.My question is about the time factor of the aoristsinned in Romans 5:12 from the view point of aspect. Iwas discussing this verse with a friend. We both weretaught that the aorist was a past action at a point intime which is probably not held to now.Also, I would like to know the methodology one uses todetermine the time factors in this passage from theaspect position.Thanks for the help,Al Simons__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com   Philippians 1:23-24Romans 5:12 Romans 5:12 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Thu Sep 30 06:32:47 EDT 1999   Romans 5:12 Romans 5:12 At 10:02 PM -0700 9/29/99, Alan Simons wrote:>Dear List,> >This is my first post to the list, even though I have>been a member for some time. I want to express my>gratitude for the information on it. I work in>industry and have to treat this list as a digest.> >My question is about the time factor of the aorist>sinned in Romans 5:12 from the view point of aspect. I>was discussing this verse with a friend. We both were>taught that the aorist was a past action at a point in>time which is probably not held to now.> >Also, I would like to know the methodology one uses to>determine the time factors in this passage from the>aspect position.These aorists are indicative; I think that MOST interpreters wouldunderstand them as referring to past time. I suppose that some might arguethat in the last clause, EF' hWi PANTES hHMARTON, hHMARTON might be gnomic("they have sinned, they always do sin"), my own sense is that what isunderscored is the factuality of universal guilt as a state achieved--sothat this aorist might be seen as 'resultative' and even be translated as aperfect tense.Offhand I don't know if we've discussed this particular passage before, butI might just check the archives for it and come back. It will beinteresting to see other views on this one.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/   Romans 5:12Romans 5:12 Romans 5:12 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Thu Sep 30 07:06:04 EDT 1999   Romans 5:12 Why is EMHS feminine At 5:32 AM -0500 9/30/99, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>Offhand I don't know if we've discussed this particular passage before, but>I might just check the archives for it and come back. It will be>interesting to see other views on this one.Upon checking the archives I have found an interesting thread running March3-5, 1998 entitled "Rom 5:12 Death spread... because all sinned - How?"That would be found in the older archives; I could be wrong but Ithink it was two or three months at the end of 97 that never made it intothose archives, so I think this segment is there.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/   Romans 5:12Why is EMHS feminine Romans 5:12 Carlton Winbery winberyc at speedgate.net Thu Sep 30 09:46:03 EDT 1999   New on-line Greek NT Why is EMHS feminine Alan Simons wrote;>>My question is about the time factor of the aorist>>sinned in Romans 5:12 from the view point of aspect. I>>was discussing this verse with a friend. We both were>>taught that the aorist was a past action at a point in>>time which is probably not held to now.>> >>Also, I would like to know the methodology one uses to>>determine the time factors in this passage from the>>aspect position.Carl Conrad replied;>These aorists are indicative; I think that MOST interpreters would>understand them as referring to past time. I suppose that some might argue>that in the last clause, EF' hWi PANTES hHMARTON, hHMARTON might be gnomic>("they have sinned, they always do sin"), my own sense is that what is>underscored is the factuality of universal guilt as a state achieved--so>that this aorist might be seen as 'resultative' and even be translated as a>perfect tense.> There was also a discussion somewhere in times past of the similarespression in Rom. 3:23. I would agree with Carl that the element in thecontext that is important is the sense of an action that has results. Inthe Robertson tradition, some call this "culminative," i.e., the emphasisis on the end of the action or its results. I would not argue against the"gnomic" since this does point to a universal condition. In R.3.22-23 thisis even more attractive since it explains the reason there is no"distinction" (DIASTOLH), "for all sin and come short of the glory of God."There is also here a clear case of resultative action. You could arguepersuasively for either.Carlton L. WinberyFogleman Prof. of ReligionLouisiana College Box 612Pineville, LA 71359winbery at andria.lacollege.eduPhones 318 487 7241, Home 318 448 6103   New on-line Greek NTWhy is EMHS feminine Romans 5:12 George Goolde goolde at mtnempire.net Fri Oct 1 02:32:04 EDT 1999   Request for study recommendations. Fonts Dear Friends,Thank you, Al, for this post. It is a good and important question. As Carl accurately observed sinned is an aorist indicative. This means that most exegetes would see it indicating past time and undefined aspect. The idea that the aorist indicative shows a past action in a point of time is an inaccurate summation. What the aorist indicative DOES show is that the aspect is not defined. (The word aorist itself comes from horizo with the alpha privitive. Horizo means to mark out a limit; with the alpha privitive it means unlimited.)Carlton's post shows that he, too, understands the aspect to be undefined, or at least uncertain. Here is where we ought to realize, as we struggle to be honest with ourselves and our own presuppositions, that we unconsciously read our presuppositions and/or our theology into our exegesis. We cannot make the text mean something it does not say, such as making this verse a present tense; that would be eisegesis. But as we work to select an appropriate description of which use of the aorist indicative we believe this to be, we will probably make a selection that is "influenced" by the above factors.I myself would understand that the three aorist indicatives happened at the same time. Sin entered the world through Adam. At the same time death passed to all men (in a positional sense; some men weren't even born yet so they didn't die yet temporally). The reason for this is that, at the same time, these same all men sinned. This is, in my opinion, the most natural way to understand the aorists. It is clearly not possible to understand the first aorist imperative (entered) as gnomic.I would like to think that this particular exegesis informs my theology, but I must also wonder if my theology does not prompt me to interpret these aorists as I do. I do not see this as a statement that explains that men always do sin (although I agree that we habitually do!). I see this as a statement that Adam's sin was imputed to the entire human race so that all die physically as a result. The reason for this is that all sinned (in the person of their substitute, Adam), The passage goes on to explain that we receive the imputation of God's righteousness, thereby leading to justification, because of the gift of the Second Adam, Christ. I'm not intending a theological discourse here, but am trying to show evidence in the passage for interpreting the aorist indicatives of verse twelve as simple, cotaneous actions in past time, with no emphasis on or definition of aspect.Hope this helps.George A. GooldeProfessor, Bible and TheologySouthern California Bible College & SeminaryEl Cajon, Californiagoolde at mtnempire.net   Request for study recommendations.Fonts Romans 5:12 Alan Simons asimons226 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 03:57:20 EDT 1999   Matt 19:9 Matt 19:9 --- George Goolde wrote:> Dear Friends,> > Thank you, Al, for this post. It is a good and> important question. As > Carl accurately observed sinned is an aorist> indicative. This means that > most exegetes would see it indicating past time and> undefined aspect. The > idea that the aorist indicative shows a past action> in a point of time is > an inaccurate summation. What the aorist indicative> DOES show is that the > aspect is not defined. (The word aorist itself> comes from horizo with the > alpha privitive. Horizo means to mark out a limit;> with the alpha > privitive it means unlimited.)> > Carlton's post shows that he, too, understands the> aspect to be undefined, > or at least uncertain. Here is where we ought to> realize, as we struggle > to be honest with ourselves and our own> presuppositions, that we > unconsciously read our presuppositions and/or our> theology into our > exegesis. We cannot make the text mean something it> does not say, such as > making this verse a present tense; that would be> eisegesis. But as we work > to select an appropriate description of which use of> the aorist indicative > we believe this to be, we will probably make a> selection that is > "influenced" by the above factors.> > I myself would understand that the three aorist> indicatives happened at > the same time. Sin entered the world through Adam. > At the same time death > passed to all men (in a positional sense; some men> weren't even born yet so > they didn't die yet temporally). The reason for> this is that, at the same > time, these same all men sinned. This is, in my> opinion, the most natural > way to understand the aorists. It is clearly not> possible to understand > the first aorist imperative (entered) as gnomic.> > I would like to think that this particular exegesis> informs my theology, > but I must also wonder if my theology does not> prompt me to interpret these > aorists as I do. I do not see this as a statement> that explains that men > always do sin (although I agree that we habitually> do!). I see this as a > statement that Adam's sin was imputed to the entire> human race so that all > die physically as a result. The reason for this is> that all sinned (in the > person of their substitute, Adam), The passage goes> on to explain that we > receive the imputation of God's righteousness,> thereby leading to > justification, because of the gift of the Second> Adam, Christ. I'm not > intending a theological discourse here, but am> trying to show evidence in > the passage for interpreting the aorist indicatives> of verse twelve as > simple, cotaneous actions in past time, with no> emphasis on or definition > of aspect.> > Hope this helps.> > > > > George A. Goolde> Professor, Bible and Theology> Southern California Bible College & Seminary> El Cajon, California> > goolde at mtnempire.net> Dear George,Your post is what I was looking for. I'm the type thatunderstands a concept the best when it is applied to aconcrete example. I also was greatly helped by theother posts.I would like to explore this verse a little bitfarther.In one of Carl Conrad's post from tht archives, heposted:"Re: "EF' hWi" in Rom. 5:12Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu)Mon, 18 Nov 1996 11:23:13 -0600 (CST) Johnny Felker: "Re: "EF' hWi" inRom. 5:12" In reply to: Johnny Felker: "Re: "EF' hWi" in Rom.5:12" Next in thread: Johnny Felker: "Re: "EF' hWi" inRom. 5:12" At 11:23 AM -0600 11/18/96, Johnny Felker wrote:>Dear Mr. Conrad,> >I have noted and appreciate your active participationin the >Archives. I am learning a great deal by reading theposts from day to day>for nearly a year now. In addition I have exploredyour home page and>enjoyed the Bible and language study links on it. Iwas hoping you might>comment on my recent question on , if you havetime and see fit. Any>ideas for me on this?> >Thanks for your consideration,>Johnny> >>Greetings to all. I could use some help on how thisphrase might best be>>translated ("because"?, "whereupon?") and thereforehow it affects the>>relation of the statements "death passed to all men"and "all sinned".Okay, I read the EF' hWi as an abbreviated version ofEPI TOUTWi, hOTI and understand it fundamentally as "because": I translatethe whole sentence thus: "For this reason, just as through the instrumentalityof one human being Sin entered into the world and, through theinstrumentality of Sin Death [entered into the world], even so Death extended to all humanbeings FOR THE REASON THAT all (human beings) sinned." EPI TOUTWi = "on the basisof this", and hOTI = "namely, the fact that ..." This is a commoncompression into the antecedent clause of the relative word introducing thesubordinate clause. This, at any rate, is how I understand it. I hope that helps; ifyou still find it problematic, let me know what you see as particularlyproblematic.Regards, cwc "Earlier, Carl called the last aorist resultive. Here,he appears to caled it causative. I have no problemwith it being a combination of the two.It appears that this understanding would require asequence. i. e. Adam's sin caused two things, death toenter the world and all to sin which caused all todie.I'm a learner and not a debater, so is there adifferent way of looking at this verse or did I misssomething.Thanks for the help,Al Simons__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com   Matt 19:9Matt 19:9 Romans 5:12 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Mon Oct 4 06:48:37 EDT 1999   Matt 19:9 Matt 19:9 At 12:57 AM -0700 10/4/99, Alan Simons wrote:>I would like to explore this verse a little bit>farther.> >In one of Carl Conrad's post from tht archives, he>posted:> >"Re: "EF' hWi" in Rom. 5:12>Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu)>Mon, 18 Nov 1996 11:23:13 -0600 (CST)> > Johnny Felker: "Re: "EF' hWi" in>Rom. 5:12"> In reply to: Johnny Felker: "Re: "EF' hWi" in Rom.>5:12"> Next in thread: Johnny Felker: "Re: "EF' hWi" in>Rom. 5:12">At 11:23 AM -0600 11/18/96, Johnny Felker wrote:>>Dear Mr. Conrad,>> >>I have noted and appreciate your active participation>in the >>Archives. I am learning a great deal by reading the>posts from day to day>>for nearly a year now. In addition I have explored>your home page and>>enjoyed the Bible and language study links on it. I>was hoping you might>>comment on my recent question on , if you have>time and see fit. Any>>ideas for me on this?>> >>Thanks for your consideration,>>Johnny>> >>>Greetings to all. I could use some help on how this>phrase might best be>>>translated ("because"?, "whereupon?") and therefore>how it affects the>>>relation of the statements "death passed to all men">and "all sinned".> >Okay, I read the EF' hWi as an abbreviated version of>EPI TOUTWi, hOTI and>understand it fundamentally as "because": I translate>the whole sentence thus:>"For this reason, just as through the instrumentality>of one human being Sin>entered into the world and, through the>instrumentality of Sin Death [entered>into the world], even so Death extended to all human>beings FOR THE REASON THAT>all (human beings) sinned." EPI TOUTWi = "on the basis>of this", and hOTI =>"namely, the fact that ..." This is a common>compression into the antecedent>clause of the relative word introducing the>subordinate clause. This, at any>rate, is how I understand it. I hope that helps; if>you still find it>problematic, let me know what you see as particularly>problematic.> >Regards, cwc "> >Earlier, Carl called the last aorist resultive. Here,>he appears to caled it causative. I have no problem>with it being a combination of the two.> >It appears that this understanding would require a>sequence. i. e. Adam's sin caused two things, death to>enter the world and all to sin which caused all to>die.> >I'm a learner and not a debater, so is there a>different way of looking at this verse or did I miss>something.Sorry for any misunderstanding; what I said is that I considered the aoristas resultative in nature--NOT the clause; the clause itself is what I wouldconsider causal. The force of the aorist, as I see it, is "did commit sin"and I suggested that in this instance I think the English perfect tensewould be appropriate here: "have sinned" to emphasize the resultative forceof the aorist. The clause is causal because of the EF' hWi and therelationship of the clause to the propositions in the rest of the sentence.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/   Matt 19:9Matt 19:9 Romans 5:12 EF hW Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com Wed Jan 5 10:18:29 EST 2000   stauros - upright pole reply to Bill Ross on EF hWi <Bill>>The words EF hW are commonly translated "because." I personally object tothis. In the same sentence Paul uses DIA for that purpose.<Carl>In fact, however, DIA is not used so simply; DIA is used with TOUTO...<Bill>I was thinking more of KAI DIA THS hAMARTIAS hO QANATOS where there is acause and effect relationship. Here Paul says:"DIA THS hAMRATIAS hO QANATOS"and does not use that construction later.Carl, are you saying that:* DIA by itself is never used to say "because"?* EF hW means the same as DIA TOUTO but not the same as DIA?* EF hW cannot/will not translate to "upon which"?* there is a grammatical reason why hW in Acts 7:53 refers back to TOPOS buthW in Romans 5:12 cannot refer back to QANATOS (or more properly, EIS PANTASANQROWPOUS hO QANATOS DIHLQEN)? (Paul follows this statement with astrikingly relevant subject:Romans 5:14ALLA EBASILEUSEN O QANATOS APO ADAM MECRI MWUSEWS KAI EPI TOUS***MH AMARTHSANTAS EPI TW OMOIWMATI THS PARABASEWS ADAM*** OS ESTIN TUPOSTOU MELLONTOSPaul specifically tells us in the immediate context that death reigned onthose who *did not transgress* as per Adam.)* EF hW intrinsically must mean "because" and cannot mean anything else?* that any difference between EF hW and DIA is imaginary?>The words are literally "upon which" as in Acts 7:33:> >Acts 7:33 EIPEN DE AUTWi hO KURIOS: LUSON TO hUPODHMA TWN PODWN SOU, hO>GAR >TOPOS EF' hWi hESTHKAS GH hAGIA ESTI<Carl>EF' hWi here is only superficially comparable to the adverbial conjunctivephrase EF' hWi; here EPI is the preposition used with a locative dative"upon" and the hWi is in this instance a relative pronoun referring back tothe antecedent TOPOS.<Bill>Is there any difference in the words? Why can't Paul be saying,figuratively, that PANTA were [standing] EP hWS [occurrence] when theysinned.We agree that the subject is PANTA and the verb is hHMARTON is the verb.Does EF hW answer the question "why?" or "how?" or "when?" or (as I hold)"what precipitated it?" Or even, "What were the prevailing conditions?">This leads me to the conclusion that, to Paul, the first phrase is the>antecedent of the second, not the result. That is "all died, upon which [EF>W] all sinned" not "all died, because [DIA] all sinned"<Carl>Here are the four GNT texts wherein EF' hWi appears, in every one of whichthe prepositional phrase EF' hWi may legitimately be translated "because"or "since":Rom 5:12 DIA TOUTO hWSPER DI' hENOS ANQRWPOU hH hAMARTIA EIS TON KOSMONEISHLQEN KAI DIA THS hAMAARTIAS hO QANATOS, KAI hOUTWS EIS PANTAS ANQRWPOUShO QANATOS DIHLQEN, EF' hWi PANTES hHMARTON ("... because/since they haveall sinned")<Bill>"they have all sinned?" Or "all sinned?" Your translation of the aoristslants the reading of the text to require it to read in the past but thatisn't the way I would understand the translation of the aorist.This verse can only be understood as "because all sinned" if, in addition toa specious idiom, we accept very strange incongruous interpretations:* participation of all men in Adam's sin/transgression?? Then why must death"pass through" from Adam to them?* death only to those of mankind who subsequently sin?? But death isattributed to Adam's **transgression** [PARAPTWMA], not to a multitude ofsins [hAMARTIAS]<Carl>2 COR 5:4 KAI GAR hOI ONTES EN TWi SKHNEI STENAZOMEN BAROUMENOI, EF' HWi OUQELOMEN EKDUSASQAI ALL' EPENDUSASQAI, hINA KATAPOQHi TO QNHTON hUPO THSZWHS. ("... because/since we don't want to strip naked but rather to put onnew clothes ...")<Bill>You would read that "..we groan because/since we don't want to strip naked"?I don't find that reasonable at all.I prefer "We know that...we have an eternal house...we groan under ourburdens. But upon this we do not desire to be unclothed, but rather to beclothed"The UPON THIS refers back to what we know and what we have and provides thereason for the subsequent action - just as in Romans 5:12. Of course thereis overlap in the sense with because, but UPON THIS is more precise in thiscontext. We might find a meeting ground on some sense like "since thispremise is true..." or "given this prerequisite" but not on "because" or"since."<Carl>Phil 3:12 OUC' hOTI HDH ELABON H HDH TETELEIWMAI, DIWKW DE EI KAI KATALABW,EF' hWi KAI KATELHMFQHN hUPO CRISTOU [IHSOU]. ("... because/since I toohave been gripped firmly by Christ [Jesus].")<Bill>Might it not be:"..I might also lay hold, on [account of] which also, I have been gripped byChrist Jesus"?If so, then the sentence is one consistent thought instead of two joined bya pun. Paul is Christ's "slave" and "prisoner" and the phrase is a synonoumfor DIA TOUTO as used here:1 Tim 1:16 Howbeit **for this cause** [DIA TOUTO] I obtained mercy, that inme first Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering, for a pattern tothem which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.1 Timothy 1:16 ALLA **DIA TOUTO** HLEHQHN INA EN EMOI PRWTW ENDEIXHTAICRISTOS IHSOUS THN APASAN MAKROQUMIAN PROS UPOTUPWSIN TWN MELLONTWNPISTEUEIN EP AUTW EIS ZWHN AIWNION<Carl>Phil 4:12 ECARHN DE EN KURIWi MEGALWS hOTI HDH POTE ANEQALETE TO hUPER EMOUFRONEIN, EF' hWi KAI EFRONEITE, HKAIREISQE DE. ("... because/since you wereindeed anxious (about me) but your timing was bad.")<Bill>Or rather,"upon which also you were thinking, but you were lacking opportunity"or"on [account of] which you were thinking..."<Carl>In sum, there's all the difference in the world between DIA TOUTO and EF'hWi; the former means "for this reason" or "because of this" or "therefore",while the latter means "because" or "since" and functions as an adverbialconjunction introducing the clause explaining the reason for what was justasserted.<Bill>Are you setting out to show:* EF hW has a "meaning" of "because" that must dictate the usage, or onlythat your notion is "plausible?"* EF hW must always be read idiomatically as "because" or that it can bethus construed?* EF hW is "defined" by four occurences where "it may be legitimatelytranslated" as "since," (while on closer inspection, such a translation isreally not as good as the literal "upon which", or the idiom "on account ofwhich")?Do you even concede that it could be legitimately translated any other way?Is this "idiom" of "because" an established "fact" or just a hasty theorysubject to investigation?I think we would all benefit from a dip into the classic literature forexamples of the phrase. Have you a tool that could supply examples?Bill Ross   stauros - upright pole reply to Bill Ross on EF hWi Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com Mon Feb 22 12:36:00 EST 1999   Biblical Greek Readings LUKE 6:4 House of God {Carl}You are indeed fishing. It's quite normal for a neuter pronoun to refer toa whole idea expressed in the immediately preceding sentence. I do thinkthat the pronouns often are the most elusive elements in Greek and evenmore so than the verbs, but it isn't really always the case.{Bill}But it isn't normal to say "Through this, just as..." without finishing thethought, eh?As to DIA TOUTO appearing at the end of a phrase, Hebrews 1:2 has a TOUTWNthat has an antecedent at the end of a phrase, presumably because it had oneat the front of the same phrase, no? Is this relevant?But maybe this all argues for EF hW serving as working differently than itdoes in the KJV and others:12NIVTherefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death throughsin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--RSVTherefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin,and so death spread to all men because all men sinned--KJVWherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; andso death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:DBYFor this [cause], even as by one man sin entered into the world, and by sindeath; and thus death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:YLTbecause of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world,and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did passthrough, for that all did sin;Since these constructions do not complete the "Wherefore, as by" byinterpreting EF hO as "inasmuch as" or the like, then perhaps EF hW must beread differently. Perhaps it should read as:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;and so death passed upon all men, *on account of* all have sinned:So there is a logical, grammatical construct:"As sin caused all to die,so alsodeath was the ocassion that all sinned"Does the *grammar* forbid this *construction*?By the way, the aorist of hHMARTON in 5:12 seems to indicate to me that allhave sinned "at one point or another." Is that a fair way to represent theaorist here? Or would it give a better sense to say "all sinned at a certainpoint in time"?   Biblical Greek ReadingsLUKE 6:4 House of God Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Maurice A. O'Sullivan mauros at iol.ie Mon Feb 22 06:29:32 EST 1999   ELEGKEI UBS4 vs NA27 vs UBS3 At 14:47 21/02/99 -0600, you wrote:>Carl, Maurice, Mary, thanks for the help. Mary, was Maurice's paper what you>were referring to?Heavens, no !! I was quoting from a _very_distinguished scholar, as Ithought I had made clear with the following:>> according to:Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. Anchor Bible 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993when he remarks of EF' hWi that:<<<Bill, I know we all at times scan our e-mail hurriedly, but please,please, take care <g>MauriceMaurice A. O'Sullivan[Bray, Ireland]mauros at iol.ie" With computers we can now mistinterpret Scripture at speeds never beforepossible"   ELEGKEIUBS4 vs NA27 vs UBS3 Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, KATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com Sun Feb 21 23:53:05 EST 1999   Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, KATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN {Bill}>Is there any gramatical reason that DIA TOUTO in Romans 5:12 cannot referto TH ZWH AUTOU in 5:10?{Carl}It's a neuter, I hardly think it can refer back to THN ZWHN AUTOU. I wouldunderstand it as referring to the entire mainclause of 5:11 as the antecedent.{Bill}What I'm considering is, rather than ending the sentence in 5:11 withKATALLAGHN ELABOMEN, continuing it with DIA TOUTO, so it reads: KATALLAGHNELABOMEN DIA TOUTO.* is this grammatically acceptable?* if so, what would seem to be the antecedent of TOUTO?>While I'm at it, does anyone object to KATAKRIMA being translated "deathsentence" in 5:16?{Carl}It will mean "condemnation" and in this instance that will be death, but Iwouldn't want to endorse "death sentence" itselfas an appropriate translation for KATAKRIMA in 5:16.{Bill}How would KATEKRIQH in Matthew 27:3 be translated? It reads:TOTE IDWN...hOTI KATEKRIQH...PARADOUS hAIMA AQWON.The reason I ask is that he did not see the legal sentencing (see verse 11).Does the word necessarily imply a "legal" sentencing, or might he seen onlythat "He was going to die"?I am wondering if the word has a range of nuances like our English word"condemned," used in reference to:* someone sentenced to death by a court;* a building marked for destruction;* a person who will inevitably come to some demise, apart from a judicialsetting (i.e. "he was condemned to remember his mistake for the rest of hislife");{Bill}>And KATESTAQHSAN beint translated "oriented as" in 5:19?{Carl}Seems very strange to me; it really means "were constituted" = "were causedto be" or even "were made" This verb KAQISTHMI regular means "put someoneinto a state/condition," which state/condition is normally indicated as apredicate accusative or, in this instance of a passive verb, as a predicatenominative.{Bill}This is the definition I have for "constituted":1 : to appoint to an office, function, or dignitySince "sinners" and "righteous" are adjectives and not nouns and describethe *characters* of the ones being KAQISTHMI, I wanted to translate this ina way that made clear to the reader that this was not a "positional" or"judicial" statement (ie: "reckoned" as "unrighteous"). Constituted, in thesense of "appoint" fits many of the contexts of KAQISTHMI, but it would seema strange reading for being "appointed to the office of sinner," or"appointed to the office of uprightness" though it could be an intentionalspin by Paul.Perhaps "were made into sinful people" and "made into righteous people"?   Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSANRomans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, KATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Sun Feb 21 20:17:00 EST 1999   Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, KATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN At 2:47 PM -0600 2/21/99, Bill Ross wrote:>Carl, Maurice, Mary, thanks for the help. Mary, was Maurice's paper what you>were referring to?> >I am leaning toward meaning 5:> >>(5) "On the grounds of which," or "because of which," an interpretation>that takes "death" as the antecedent of masc. EF' hWi and explains it>as the origin of death> >I have another question:> >Is there any gramatical reason that DIA TOUTA in Romans 5:12 cannot refer to>TH ZWH AUTOU in 5:10?It's DIA TOUTO, and as it's a neuter, I hardly think it can refer back toTHN ZWHN AUTOU. I would understand it as referring to the entire mainclause of 5:11 as the antecedent.>While I'm at it, does anyone object to DATAKRIMA being translated "death>sentence" in 5:16?Do you mean KATAKRIMA? It will mean "condemnation" and in this instancethat will be death, but I wouldn't want to endorse "death sentence" itselfas an appropriate translation for KATAKRIMA in 5:16.>And KATESTAQHSAN beint translated "oriented as" in 5:19?Seems very strange to me; it really means "were constituted" = "were causedto be" or even "were made" This verb KAQISTHMI regular means "put someoneinto a state/condition," which state/condition is normally indicated as apredicate accusative or, in this instance of a passive verb, as a predicatenominative.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/   Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSANRomans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, KATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com Sun Feb 21 15:47:54 EST 1999   Romans 5:12 EF hW Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Carl, Maurice, Mary, thanks for the help. Mary, was Maurice's paper what youwere referring to?I am leaning toward meaning 5:>(5) "On the grounds of which," or "because of which," an interpretationthat takes "death" as the antecedent of masc. EF' hWi and explains itas the origin of deathI have another question:Is there any gramatical reason that DIA TOUTA in Romans 5:12 cannot refer toTH ZWH AUTOU in 5:10?While I'm at it, does anyone object to DATAKRIMA being translated "deathsentence" in 5:16?And KATESTAQHSAN beint translated "oriented as" in 5:19?   Romans 5:12 EF hWRomans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Romans 5:12 EF hW Maurice A. O'Sullivan mauros at iol.ie Sun Feb 21 11:39:10 EST 1999   UBS4 AND NA27 Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN At 23:45 20/02/99, you wrote:>Hi, I've been away for a while, up to my neck in other alligators, so if >anyone has addressed anything to me and found it unanswered, please try >again.> >I find myself in need of your expertise...> >In Romans 5:12, Paul writes EF hW PANTES hHMARTON, commonly translated "for >that all sinned."> >If I'm not mistaken, this is literally "upon which all sinned."> >Is the EF hW part used anywhere else in Scripture?> >Or is it a common construct outside of the Scriptures?Bill:Taking your second question first:> : What other possibile translations might it support?<I see that Carl has replied: >>you might use "because," "since," "the reason being that ..." or the like.<<Well, his first suggestion is supported by:RSVNRSVJBNJB,with the REB going for " inasmuch that ..."On the major, grammatical question, you are in good company, according to:Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. Anchor Bible 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993when he remarks of EF' hWi that:"it has been much debated throughout the centuries. It has been understood, first, as introducing a genuine relative clause. " [ here follows 11/2 pages devoted to 8 separate translations ]and" Second, EF' hWi has been understood as equivalent to a conjunction. " [with more than anothr page devoted to the subtleties of this ]His analysis is replete with examples from early Greek literature, ChurchFathers, and modern scholars, so clearly you will have to have recourse tothis volume for a full treatment.But perhaps I can outline the various options he considers:Under the first ( above ) we find:(1) "In whom," with the masc. pron. referring to Adam; it would implyincorporation in him, a meaning based on the VL and Vg translations _inquo_ and commonly used in the western church since Ambrosiaster(2) "Because of whom," i.e., Adam, all have sinned. So several Creek Fathers: 3) "Because of the one by whom" (EF' hWi would elliptically equal EPITOUTWi EF' hWi ) , an interpretation that spells out a possibl ellipticalphrase and refers themasc. pron. to Adam. It would thus imply "a relationship between the stateof sin and its initiator" (4) "To the extent that all have sinned," an interpretation thatunderstands EF' hWi as neuter and equal to KAQ' HO; (so Cyril ofAlexandria etc )(5) "On the grounds of which," or "because of which," an interpretationthat takes "death" as the antecedent of masc. EF' hWi and explains itas the origin of death(6) "Toward which," again with QANATOS as the antecedent, but expressingthe end or goal of human sin. (7) "On the basis of what (law) all sinned," understanding NOMWi from thegeneral context and especially v I 3;(8) "On the basis of which" or "under which circumstances," with theantecedent understood as the preceding clauses in the verse; Then he comes to the second, 'understood as a conjuntion'(9) "Since, because, inasmuch as,'' the equivalent of a causal conj. DIOTI,or as the equivalent of EPI TOUTWi hOTI, as many modern commentatorsunderstand EF' hWi comparing 2 Cor 5:4; Phil 3:12; 4:10 (BAGD, 287; BDF5235.2); This is followed by a sharp critique of BAGD and Bauer, Aland, and Aland:"The trouble with this interpretation is that there are almost no certaininstances in early Creek literature wherein EF' hWi is used as theequivalent of causal DIOTI. Most of the examples cited by BAGD (287) or B-A(582) are invalid. "He issues a cautionary note on other occurences within the Pauline corpus:"Moreover, alleged examples in the Pauline corpus itself, apart from 5: 12,are far from certain. In Phil 3: I 2 EF' hWi means "that for which"; inPhil 4: 10, "for whom," or possibly "with regard to which" (Moule, IdiomBook, 132). Not even 2 Cor 5:4 does EF' hWi certainly mean "because" There are futher examples of translation considered, and then Fitzmyer'ssumming up.Well worth reading, and it should satisfy you to be in the company of manydown the centuries <g>MauriceMaurice A. O'Sullivan [Bray, Ireland]" To bury oneself in a Greek lexicon is to rise with Christ "--- Sir Edwyn C. Hoskyns, Bart.   UBS4 AND NA27Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Romans 5:12 EF hW Mary L B Pendergraft pender at f1n7.sp2net.wfu.edu Sun Feb 21 09:45:22 EST 1999   The syntax of " ti phago^sin" in Mark 8:2 The syntax of " ti phago^sin" in Mark 8:2 At 11:45 PM 2/20/99, Bill Ross wrote:>Hi, I've been away for a while, up to my neck in other alligators, so if >anyone has addressed anything to me and found it unanswered, please try >again.> >I find myself in need of your expertise...> >In Romans 5:12, Paul writes EF hW PANTES hHMARTON, commonly translated "for >that all sinned."> >If I'm not mistaken, this is literally "upon which all sinned."> >Is the EF hW part used anywhere else in Scripture?> >Or is it a common construct outside of the Scriptures?> >What other possibile translations might it support?> One of my students wrote a first-rate paper on this very difficult phraselast semester, and I've asked him to summarize his research for you. Ihope we'll hear from him soon.MaryMary PendergraftAssociate Professor of Classical LanguagesWake Forest UniversityWinston-Salem NC 27109-7343336-758-5331 (NOTE: this is a new number) pender at wfu.edu   The syntax of " ti phago^sin" in Mark 8:2The syntax of " ti phago^sin" in Mark 8:2 Romans 5:12 EF hW Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Sun Feb 21 07:00:56 EST 1999   The syntax of " ti phago^sin" in Mark 8:2 The syntax of " ti phago^sin" in Mark 8:2 At 11:45 PM -0600 2/20/99, Bill Ross wrote:>Hi, I've been away for a while, up to my neck in other alligators, so if>anyone has addressed anything to me and found it unanswered, please try>again.> >I find myself in need of your expertise...> >In Romans 5:12, Paul writes EF hW PANTES hHMARTON, commonly translated "for>that all sinned."> >If I'm not mistaken, this is literally "upon which all sinned."> >Is the EF hW part used anywhere else in Scripture?>Or is it a common construct outside of the Scriptures?I only checked the NT in Accordance, but I found it in2 Cor 5:4 ... STENAZOMEN BAROUMENOI, EF' hWi OU QELOMEN EKDUSASQAI ALLEPENDUSASQAI, hINA ...Phil 3:12 ... DIWKW DE EI KAI KATALABW, EF' hWi KAI KATELHMFQHN hUPOCRISTOU IHSOU.Phil 4:10 ... ANEQALETE TO hUPER EMOU FRONEIN, EF' hWi KAI EFRONEITE,HKAIREISQE DE.EPI + dative in older Greek tends to be spatial locative ("upon this," "atthis particular [place]") or metaphorical ("on the basis of" = "for thereason that ..."> >What other possibile translations might it support?I think you have to consider the particular context, but depending on thatyou might use "because," "since," "the reason being that ..." or the like.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/   The syntax of " ti phago^sin" in Mark 8:2The syntax of " ti phago^sin" in Mark 8:2 Romans 5:12 EF hW Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com Sat Feb 20 23:45:51 EST 1999   2 Clement 2:6 UBS4 vs NA27 vs UBS3 Hi, I've been away for a while, up to my neck in other alligators, so if anyone has addressed anything to me and found it unanswered, please try again.I find myself in need of your expertise...In Romans 5:12, Paul writes EF hW PANTES hHMARTON, commonly translated "for that all sinned."If I'm not mistaken, this is literally "upon which all sinned."Is the EF hW part used anywhere else in Scripture?Or is it a common construct outside of the Scriptures?What other possibile translations might it support?   2 Clement 2:6UBS4 vs NA27 vs UBS3 Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com Mon Feb 22 12:36:00 EST 1999   Biblical Greek Readings LUKE 6:4 House of God {Carl}You are indeed fishing. It's quite normal for a neuter pronoun to refer toa whole idea expressed in the immediately preceding sentence. I do thinkthat the pronouns often are the most elusive elements in Greek and evenmore so than the verbs, but it isn't really always the case.{Bill}But it isn't normal to say "Through this, just as..." without finishing thethought, eh?As to DIA TOUTO appearing at the end of a phrase, Hebrews 1:2 has a TOUTWNthat has an antecedent at the end of a phrase, presumably because it had oneat the front of the same phrase, no? Is this relevant?But maybe this all argues for EF hW serving as working differently than itdoes in the KJV and others:12NIVTherefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death throughsin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--RSVTherefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin,and so death spread to all men because all men sinned--KJVWherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; andso death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:DBYFor this [cause], even as by one man sin entered into the world, and by sindeath; and thus death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:YLTbecause of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world,and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did passthrough, for that all did sin;Since these constructions do not complete the "Wherefore, as by" byinterpreting EF hO as "inasmuch as" or the like, then perhaps EF hW must beread differently. Perhaps it should read as:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;and so death passed upon all men, *on account of* all have sinned:So there is a logical, grammatical construct:"As sin caused all to die,so alsodeath was the ocassion that all sinned"Does the *grammar* forbid this *construction*?By the way, the aorist of hHMARTON in 5:12 seems to indicate to me that allhave sinned "at one point or another." Is that a fair way to represent theaorist here? Or would it give a better sense to say "all sinned at a certainpoint in time"?   Biblical Greek ReadingsLUKE 6:4 House of God Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, KATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Mon Feb 22 06:43:37 EST 1999   Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, KATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN The syntax of At 10:53 PM -0600 2/21/99, Bill Ross wrote:>{Bill}>>Is there any gramatical reason that DIA TOUTO in Romans 5:12 cannot refer>to TH ZWH AUTOU in 5:10?> >{Carl}>It's a neuter, I hardly think it can refer back to THN ZWHN AUTOU. I would>understand it as referring to the entire main>clause of 5:11 as the antecedent.> >{Bill}>What I'm considering is, rather than ending the sentence in 5:11 with>KATALLAGHN ELABOMEN, continuing it with DIA TOUTO, so it reads: KATALLAGHN>ELABOMEN DIA TOUTO.> >* is this grammatically acceptable?>* if so, what would seem to be the antecedent of TOUTO?It would be very odd idiomatically, inasmuch as (a) forms of hOUTOS, hAUTH,TOUTO generally refer backwards to what has been previously mentioned; and(b) the phrase DIA TOUTO or DIA TAUTA almost, if not always, appears at thebeginning of a clause--I can't remember ever seeing it at the END of aclause.If this is the case, you're going against the grain of ordinary usage.>>While I'm at it, does anyone object to KATAKRIMA being translated "death>sentence" in 5:16?> >{Carl}>It will mean "condemnation" and in this instance that will be death, but I>wouldn't want to endorse "death sentence" itself>as an appropriate translation for KATAKRIMA in 5:16.> >{Bill}>How would KATEKRIQH in Matthew 27:3 be translated? It reads:> >TOTE IDWN...hOTI KATEKRIQH...PARADOUS hAIMA AQWON.> >The reason I ask is that he did not see the legal sentencing (see verse 11).>Does the word necessarily imply a "legal" sentencing, or might he seen only>that "He was going to die"?> >I am wondering if the word has a range of nuances like our English word>"condemned," used in reference to:> >* someone sentenced to death by a court;>* a building marked for destruction;>* a person who will inevitably come to some demise, apart from a judicial>setting (i.e. "he was condemned to remember his mistake for the rest of his>life");Your problem, if I may say so, seems to be a matter of working from theEnglish word "condemn" and its common meanings in English rather than fromKATAKRINW and its common meanings in Greek. KATAKRINW is used fundamentallyof a judicial decision against a person in a court; while the decisionMIGHT mean a death penalty, it would more often mean a fine or loss ofcitizen rights (in Athens, at any rate). So KATAKRINW is used fundamentallyof a finding of a court against a defendant. Beyond that you can'tgeneralize. Although the verb might be used metaphorically, I cannotimagine KATAKRINW being used in that third sentence of yours, "he wascondemned to remember his mistake ..." nor can I imagine it ever being usedof a decision to declare a building unfit for use.As for Mt 27:3, the sense, as I see it, is simply that Judas took note ofthe fact that the Sanhedrin had found against Jesus; no doubt the Sanhedrinwanted the death penalty, but only a Roman court could ratify that decisionby the Sanhedrin. Now you might well imagine that Judas takes note of theSanhedrin's decision and makes the assumption that Pilate will, in fact,ratify that decision and execute Jesus. My own point is simply that theverb KATAKRINW in and of itself does NOT imply a death sentence.>{Bill}>>And KATESTAQHSAN beint translated "oriented as" in 5:19?> >{Carl}>Seems very strange to me; it really means "were constituted" = "were caused>to be" or even "were made" This verb KAQISTHMI regular means "put someone>into a state/condition," which state/condition is normally indicated as a>predicate accusative or, in this instance of a passive verb, as a predicate>nominative.> >{Bill}>This is the definition I have for "constituted":> >1 : to appoint to an office, function, or dignity> >Since "sinners" and "righteous" are adjectives and not nouns and describe>the *characters* of the ones being KAQISTHMI, I wanted to translate this in>a way that made clear to the reader that this was not a "positional" or>"judicial" statement (ie: "reckoned" as "unrighteous"). Constituted, in the>sense of "appoint" fits many of the contexts of KAQISTHMI, but it would seem>a strange reading for being "appointed to the office of sinner," or>"appointed to the office of uprightness" though it could be an intentional>spin by Paul.> >Perhaps "were made into sinful people" and "made into righteous people"?I had always thought that Paul's intention was to say that, owing to thedisobedience of Adam, countless descendants of Adam were put into thecondition/status of being sinners. I don't want to get into the wholedoctrine of original sin here, but at the least Paul seems to be sayingthat sinfulness or a proneness to sin is passed on genetically from Adam tohis descendants as an aspect of their "constitution." You might not want touse "constituted" for those to whom righteousness is reckoned/imputed(ELOGISQH) but the verb KAQISTHMI has the range that allows it to be usedfor both the establishment of sinfulness in Adam's heirs and for thedeclaration of righteousness for Christ's heirs.If I may make a comment here on the formulation of these questions, itseems to me that they focus more on English word usage than on thedistinctive Greek words and their usage in and for judicial process. Itought not to be assumed that Hellenistic Jewish/Roman judicial practicedescribed with Greek judicial terminology is going to correspondword-for-word with English terminology used to describe processes in a verydifferent judicial system.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/   Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, KATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSANThe syntax of Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, KATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Mon Feb 22 06:43:37 EST 1999   Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, KATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN The syntax of At 10:53 PM -0600 2/21/99, Bill Ross wrote:>{Bill}>>Is there any gramatical reason that DIA TOUTO in Romans 5:12 cannot refer>to TH ZWH AUTOU in 5:10?> >{Carl}>It's a neuter, I hardly think it can refer back to THN ZWHN AUTOU. I would>understand it as referring to the entire main>clause of 5:11 as the antecedent.> >{Bill}>What I'm considering is, rather than ending the sentence in 5:11 with>KATALLAGHN ELABOMEN, continuing it with DIA TOUTO, so it reads: KATALLAGHN>ELABOMEN DIA TOUTO.> >* is this grammatically acceptable?>* if so, what would seem to be the antecedent of TOUTO?It would be very odd idiomatically, inasmuch as (a) forms of hOUTOS, hAUTH,TOUTO generally refer backwards to what has been previously mentioned; and(b) the phrase DIA TOUTO or DIA TAUTA almost, if not always, appears at thebeginning of a clause--I can't remember ever seeing it at the END of aclause.If this is the case, you're going against the grain of ordinary usage.>>While I'm at it, does anyone object to KATAKRIMA being translated "death>sentence" in 5:16?> >{Carl}>It will mean "condemnation" and in this instance that will be death, but I>wouldn't want to endorse "death sentence" itself>as an appropriate translation for KATAKRIMA in 5:16.> >{Bill}>How would KATEKRIQH in Matthew 27:3 be translated? It reads:> >TOTE IDWN...hOTI KATEKRIQH...PARADOUS hAIMA AQWON.> >The reason I ask is that he did not see the legal sentencing (see verse 11).>Does the word necessarily imply a "legal" sentencing, or might he seen only>that "He was going to die"?> >I am wondering if the word has a range of nuances like our English word>"condemned," used in reference to:> >* someone sentenced to death by a court;>* a building marked for destruction;>* a person who will inevitably come to some demise, apart from a judicial>setting (i.e. "he was condemned to remember his mistake for the rest of his>life");Your problem, if I may say so, seems to be a matter of working from theEnglish word "condemn" and its common meanings in English rather than fromKATAKRINW and its common meanings in Greek. KATAKRINW is used fundamentallyof a judicial decision against a person in a court; while the decisionMIGHT mean a death penalty, it would more often mean a fine or loss ofcitizen rights (in Athens, at any rate). So KATAKRINW is used fundamentallyof a finding of a court against a defendant. Beyond that you can'tgeneralize. Although the verb might be used metaphorically, I cannotimagine KATAKRINW being used in that third sentence of yours, "he wascondemned to remember his mistake ..." nor can I imagine it ever being usedof a decision to declare a building unfit for use.As for Mt 27:3, the sense, as I see it, is simply that Judas took note ofthe fact that the Sanhedrin had found against Jesus; no doubt the Sanhedrinwanted the death penalty, but only a Roman court could ratify that decisionby the Sanhedrin. Now you might well imagine that Judas takes note of theSanhedrin's decision and makes the assumption that Pilate will, in fact,ratify that decision and execute Jesus. My own point is simply that theverb KATAKRINW in and of itself does NOT imply a death sentence.>{Bill}>>And KATESTAQHSAN beint translated "oriented as" in 5:19?> >{Carl}>Seems very strange to me; it really means "were constituted" = "were caused>to be" or even "were made" This verb KAQISTHMI regular means "put someone>into a state/condition," which state/condition is normally indicated as a>predicate accusative or, in this instance of a passive verb, as a predicate>nominative.> >{Bill}>This is the definition I have for "constituted":> >1 : to appoint to an office, function, or dignity> >Since "sinners" and "righteous" are adjectives and not nouns and describe>the *characters* of the ones being KAQISTHMI, I wanted to translate this in>a way that made clear to the reader that this was not a "positional" or>"judicial" statement (ie: "reckoned" as "unrighteous"). Constituted, in the>sense of "appoint" fits many of the contexts of KAQISTHMI, but it would seem>a strange reading for being "appointed to the office of sinner," or>"appointed to the office of uprightness" though it could be an intentional>spin by Paul.> >Perhaps "were made into sinful people" and "made into righteous people"?I had always thought that Paul's intention was to say that, owing to thedisobedience of Adam, countless descendants of Adam were put into thecondition/status of being sinners. I don't want to get into the wholedoctrine of original sin here, but at the least Paul seems to be sayingthat sinfulness or a proneness to sin is passed on genetically from Adam tohis descendants as an aspect of their "constitution." You might not want touse "constituted" for those to whom righteousness is reckoned/imputed(ELOGISQH) but the verb KAQISTHMI has the range that allows it to be usedfor both the establishment of sinfulness in Adam's heirs and for thedeclaration of righteousness for Christ's heirs.If I may make a comment here on the formulation of these questions, itseems to me that they focus more on English word usage than on thedistinctive Greek words and their usage in and for judicial process. Itought not to be assumed that Hellenistic Jewish/Roman judicial practicedescribed with Greek judicial terminology is going to correspondword-for-word with English terminology used to describe processes in a verydifferent judicial system.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/   Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, KATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSANThe syntax of Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Maurice A. O'Sullivan mauros at iol.ie Mon Feb 22 06:29:32 EST 1999   ELEGKEI UBS4 vs NA27 vs UBS3 At 14:47 21/02/99 -0600, you wrote:>Carl, Maurice, Mary, thanks for the help. Mary, was Maurice's paper what you>were referring to?Heavens, no !! I was quoting from a _very_distinguished scholar, as Ithought I had made clear with the following:>> according to:Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. Anchor Bible 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993when he remarks of EF' hWi that:<<<Bill, I know we all at times scan our e-mail hurriedly, but please,please, take care <g>MauriceMaurice A. O'Sullivan[Bray, Ireland]mauros at iol.ie" With computers we can now mistinterpret Scripture at speeds never beforepossible"   ELEGKEIUBS4 vs NA27 vs UBS3 Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, KATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com Sun Feb 21 23:53:05 EST 1999   Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, KATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN {Bill}>Is there any gramatical reason that DIA TOUTO in Romans 5:12 cannot referto TH ZWH AUTOU in 5:10?{Carl}It's a neuter, I hardly think it can refer back to THN ZWHN AUTOU. I wouldunderstand it as referring to the entire mainclause of 5:11 as the antecedent.{Bill}What I'm considering is, rather than ending the sentence in 5:11 withKATALLAGHN ELABOMEN, continuing it with DIA TOUTO, so it reads: KATALLAGHNELABOMEN DIA TOUTO.* is this grammatically acceptable?* if so, what would seem to be the antecedent of TOUTO?>While I'm at it, does anyone object to KATAKRIMA being translated "deathsentence" in 5:16?{Carl}It will mean "condemnation" and in this instance that will be death, but Iwouldn't want to endorse "death sentence" itselfas an appropriate translation for KATAKRIMA in 5:16.{Bill}How would KATEKRIQH in Matthew 27:3 be translated? It reads:TOTE IDWN...hOTI KATEKRIQH...PARADOUS hAIMA AQWON.The reason I ask is that he did not see the legal sentencing (see verse 11).Does the word necessarily imply a "legal" sentencing, or might he seen onlythat "He was going to die"?I am wondering if the word has a range of nuances like our English word"condemned," used in reference to:* someone sentenced to death by a court;* a building marked for destruction;* a person who will inevitably come to some demise, apart from a judicialsetting (i.e. "he was condemned to remember his mistake for the rest of hislife");{Bill}>And KATESTAQHSAN beint translated "oriented as" in 5:19?{Carl}Seems very strange to me; it really means "were constituted" = "were causedto be" or even "were made" This verb KAQISTHMI regular means "put someoneinto a state/condition," which state/condition is normally indicated as apredicate accusative or, in this instance of a passive verb, as a predicatenominative.{Bill}This is the definition I have for "constituted":1 : to appoint to an office, function, or dignitySince "sinners" and "righteous" are adjectives and not nouns and describethe *characters* of the ones being KAQISTHMI, I wanted to translate this ina way that made clear to the reader that this was not a "positional" or"judicial" statement (ie: "reckoned" as "unrighteous"). Constituted, in thesense of "appoint" fits many of the contexts of KAQISTHMI, but it would seema strange reading for being "appointed to the office of sinner," or"appointed to the office of uprightness" though it could be an intentionalspin by Paul.Perhaps "were made into sinful people" and "made into righteous people"?   Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSANRomans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, KATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Sun Feb 21 20:17:00 EST 1999   Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, KATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN At 2:47 PM -0600 2/21/99, Bill Ross wrote:>Carl, Maurice, Mary, thanks for the help. Mary, was Maurice's paper what you>were referring to?> >I am leaning toward meaning 5:> >>(5) "On the grounds of which," or "because of which," an interpretation>that takes "death" as the antecedent of masc. EF' hWi and explains it>as the origin of death> >I have another question:> >Is there any gramatical reason that DIA TOUTA in Romans 5:12 cannot refer to>TH ZWH AUTOU in 5:10?It's DIA TOUTO, and as it's a neuter, I hardly think it can refer back toTHN ZWHN AUTOU. I would understand it as referring to the entire mainclause of 5:11 as the antecedent.>While I'm at it, does anyone object to DATAKRIMA being translated "death>sentence" in 5:16?Do you mean KATAKRIMA? It will mean "condemnation" and in this instancethat will be death, but I wouldn't want to endorse "death sentence" itselfas an appropriate translation for KATAKRIMA in 5:16.>And KATESTAQHSAN beint translated "oriented as" in 5:19?Seems very strange to me; it really means "were constituted" = "were causedto be" or even "were made" This verb KAQISTHMI regular means "put someoneinto a state/condition," which state/condition is normally indicated as apredicate accusative or, in this instance of a passive verb, as a predicatenominative.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/   Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSANRomans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, KATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com Sun Feb 21 15:47:54 EST 1999   Romans 5:12 EF hW Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Carl, Maurice, Mary, thanks for the help. Mary, was Maurice's paper what youwere referring to?I am leaning toward meaning 5:>(5) "On the grounds of which," or "because of which," an interpretationthat takes "death" as the antecedent of masc. EF' hWi and explains itas the origin of deathI have another question:Is there any gramatical reason that DIA TOUTA in Romans 5:12 cannot refer toTH ZWH AUTOU in 5:10?While I'm at it, does anyone object to DATAKRIMA being translated "deathsentence" in 5:16?And KATESTAQHSAN beint translated "oriented as" in 5:19?   Romans 5:12 EF hWRomans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Romans 5:12 EF hW Maurice A. O'Sullivan mauros at iol.ie Sun Feb 21 11:39:10 EST 1999   UBS4 AND NA27 Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN At 23:45 20/02/99, you wrote:>Hi, I've been away for a while, up to my neck in other alligators, so if >anyone has addressed anything to me and found it unanswered, please try >again.> >I find myself in need of your expertise...> >In Romans 5:12, Paul writes EF hW PANTES hHMARTON, commonly translated "for >that all sinned."> >If I'm not mistaken, this is literally "upon which all sinned."> >Is the EF hW part used anywhere else in Scripture?> >Or is it a common construct outside of the Scriptures?Bill:Taking your second question first:> : What other possibile translations might it support?<I see that Carl has replied: >>you might use "because," "since," "the reason being that ..." or the like.<<Well, his first suggestion is supported by:RSVNRSVJBNJB,with the REB going for " inasmuch that ..."On the major, grammatical question, you are in good company, according to:Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. Anchor Bible 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993when he remarks of EF' hWi that:"it has been much debated throughout the centuries. It has been understood, first, as introducing a genuine relative clause. " [ here follows 11/2 pages devoted to 8 separate translations ]and" Second, EF' hWi has been understood as equivalent to a conjunction. " [with more than anothr page devoted to the subtleties of this ]His analysis is replete with examples from early Greek literature, ChurchFathers, and modern scholars, so clearly you will have to have recourse tothis volume for a full treatment.But perhaps I can outline the various options he considers:Under the first ( above ) we find:(1) "In whom," with the masc. pron. referring to Adam; it would implyincorporation in him, a meaning based on the VL and Vg translations _inquo_ and commonly used in the western church since Ambrosiaster(2) "Because of whom," i.e., Adam, all have sinned. So several Creek Fathers: 3) "Because of the one by whom" (EF' hWi would elliptically equal EPITOUTWi EF' hWi ) , an interpretation that spells out a possibl ellipticalphrase and refers themasc. pron. to Adam. It would thus imply "a relationship between the stateof sin and its initiator" (4) "To the extent that all have sinned," an interpretation thatunderstands EF' hWi as neuter and equal to KAQ' HO; (so Cyril ofAlexandria etc )(5) "On the grounds of which," or "because of which," an interpretationthat takes "death" as the antecedent of masc. EF' hWi and explains itas the origin of death(6) "Toward which," again with QANATOS as the antecedent, but expressingthe end or goal of human sin. (7) "On the basis of what (law) all sinned," understanding NOMWi from thegeneral context and especially v I 3;(8) "On the basis of which" or "under which circumstances," with theantecedent understood as the preceding clauses in the verse; Then he comes to the second, 'understood as a conjuntion'(9) "Since, because, inasmuch as,'' the equivalent of a causal conj. DIOTI,or as the equivalent of EPI TOUTWi hOTI, as many modern commentatorsunderstand EF' hWi comparing 2 Cor 5:4; Phil 3:12; 4:10 (BAGD, 287; BDF5235.2); This is followed by a sharp critique of BAGD and Bauer, Aland, and Aland:"The trouble with this interpretation is that there are almost no certaininstances in early Creek literature wherein EF' hWi is used as theequivalent of causal DIOTI. Most of the examples cited by BAGD (287) or B-A(582) are invalid. "He issues a cautionary note on other occurences within the Pauline corpus:"Moreover, alleged examples in the Pauline corpus itself, apart from 5: 12,are far from certain. In Phil 3: I 2 EF' hWi means "that for which"; inPhil 4: 10, "for whom," or possibly "with regard to which" (Moule, IdiomBook, 132). Not even 2 Cor 5:4 does EF' hWi certainly mean "because" There are futher examples of translation considered, and then Fitzmyer'ssumming up.Well worth reading, and it should satisfy you to be in the company of manydown the centuries <g>MauriceMaurice A. O'Sullivan [Bray, Ireland]" To bury oneself in a Greek lexicon is to rise with Christ "--- Sir Edwyn C. Hoskyns, Bart.   UBS4 AND NA27Romans 5:12 DIA TOUTO, DATAKRIMA, KATESTAQHSAN Romans 5:12 EF hW Mary L B Pendergraft pender at f1n7.sp2net.wfu.edu Sun Feb 21 09:45:22 EST 1999   The syntax of " ti phago^sin" in Mark 8:2 The syntax of " ti phago^sin" in Mark 8:2 At 11:45 PM 2/20/99, Bill Ross wrote:>Hi, I've been away for a while, up to my neck in other alligators, so if >anyone has addressed anything to me and found it unanswered, please try >again.> >I find myself in need of your expertise...> >In Romans 5:12, Paul writes EF hW PANTES hHMARTON, commonly translated "for >that all sinned."> >If I'm not mistaken, this is literally "upon which all sinned."> >Is the EF hW part used anywhere else in Scripture?> >Or is it a common construct outside of the Scriptures?> >What other possibile translations might it support?> One of my students wrote a first-rate paper on this very difficult phraselast semester, and I've asked him to summarize his research for you. Ihope we'll hear from him soon.MaryMary PendergraftAssociate Professor of Classical LanguagesWake Forest UniversityWinston-Salem NC 27109-7343336-758-5331 (NOTE: this is a new number) pender at wfu.edu   The syntax of " ti phago^sin" in Mark 8:2The syntax of " ti phago^sin" in Mark 8:2 Romans 5:12 EF hW Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Sun Feb 21 07:00:56 EST 1999   The syntax of " ti phago^sin" in Mark 8:2 The syntax of " ti phago^sin" in Mark 8:2 At 11:45 PM -0600 2/20/99, Bill Ross wrote:>Hi, I've been away for a while, up to my neck in other alligators, so if>anyone has addressed anything to me and found it unanswered, please try>again.> >I find myself in need of your expertise...> >In Romans 5:12, Paul writes EF hW PANTES hHMARTON, commonly translated "for>that all sinned."> >If I'm not mistaken, this is literally "upon which all sinned."> >Is the EF hW part used anywhere else in Scripture?>Or is it a common construct outside of the Scriptures?I only checked the NT in Accordance, but I found it in2 Cor 5:4 ... STENAZOMEN BAROUMENOI, EF' hWi OU QELOMEN EKDUSASQAI ALLEPENDUSASQAI, hINA ...Phil 3:12 ... DIWKW DE EI KAI KATALABW, EF' hWi KAI KATELHMFQHN hUPOCRISTOU IHSOU.Phil 4:10 ... ANEQALETE TO hUPER EMOU FRONEIN, EF' hWi KAI EFRONEITE,HKAIREISQE DE.EPI + dative in older Greek tends to be spatial locative ("upon this," "atthis particular [place]") or metaphorical ("on the basis of" = "for thereason that ..."> >What other possibile translations might it support?I think you have to consider the particular context, but depending on thatyou might use "because," "since," "the reason being that ..." or the like.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/   The syntax of " ti phago^sin" in Mark 8:2The syntax of " ti phago^sin" in Mark 8:2 Romans 5: 12-21 jldrick at juno.com jldrick at juno.com Thu May 16 19:56:49 EDT 2002   Lexical Semantics Methods Books for Beginners Folks,In Romans 5: 15, Paul has written, "ALLOUX hWS TO PARAPTWMA, OUTWS KAI TOXARISMA EI GAR TWi TOU hENOS PARAPTWMATIhOI POLLOI APEQANON, POLLWi MALLON hHXARIS TOU QEOU KAI hH DWREA EN XARITI THiTOU hENOS ANQRWPOU IHSOU XRISTOU EISTOUS POLLOUS EPERISSEUSEN."Do hOI POLLOI and TOUS POLLOUSin this passage mean "all" or "many?" Why orwhy not?Jim Drickamer   Lexical Semantics MethodsBooks for Beginners Romans 5: 12-21 Stephen C. Carlson scarlson at mindspring.com Fri May 17 09:09:15 EDT 2002   New GJn textbook Books for Beginners At 06:56 PM 5/16/02 -0500, jldrick at juno.com wrote:>In Romans 5: 15>Do hOI POLLOI and TOUS POLLOUS>in this passage mean "all" or "many?"Neither. According to BDAG, it means "the many."The article is crucial.Stephen Carlson--Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson at mindspring.comSynoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35   New GJn textbookBooks for Beginners Romans 5:12 EF hW Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com Sat Feb 20 23:45:51 EST 1999   2 Clement 2:6 UBS4 vs NA27 vs UBS3 Hi, I've been away for a while, up to my neck in other alligators, so if anyone has addressed anything to me and found it unanswered, please try again.I find myself in need of your expertise...In Romans 5:12, Paul writes EF hW PANTES hHMARTON, commonly translated "for that all sinned."If I'm not mistaken, this is literally "upon which all sinned."Is the EF hW part used anywhere else in Scripture?Or is it a common construct outside of the Scriptures?What other possibile translations might it support?   2 Clement 2:6UBS4 vs NA27 vs UBS3
Msindisi wrote:
June 27th, 2017, 4:33 am
As the context must govern the referent it would make sense that εΦ ω would signify 'upon which' rather than 'upon whom' for three major reasons. 1. Though Hebrews speaks of Levi being in the loins of Abraham when he paid tithes, the immediate context of Romans 5 does not speak of our pre-existence in Adam but it does speak of our helpless sinful condition, verse 6, 8 and possibly verse 10. Therefore, verse 12 may easily be seen as explaining the reason why we are sinful which speaks of inheriting a sinful condition. 2. The following 2 verses do not speak of sin at the time of the fall but the condition of sin when there was no law. The whole discourse concerns the committing of sin by people and the mastery of death over people who sin. The idea of inheriting guilt would therefore be of secondary importance and tangential to the whole discussion Paul is expounding. 3. There is a logical progression, which makes sense in light of the context. Not a simple chiasmus that has the last point returning back to the same event mentioned in the first point. Not. A. One man sins. B. Sin came into the world. C. Death came into the world through sin. B'. Death spread to all men. A'. In Adam all sinned. Rather A- B' show a consequential progression and so it would make sense that as B' is a consequence of C that A' is also a consequence of B'. Though this argument is not conclusive by itself it is strong in light of arguments numbers 1 & 2. Secondary strengths of this interpretation, but not decisive points are that, aside from a Pelagian reading of the passage, all viewpoints can agree on this understanding. We all agree that we sin because we have inherited a sin nature. This is consistent with the Jewish concept of 'היצר הרע' 'hayetser Hara' or the evil impulse. It is consistent with the reformed understanding of original sin in the concept that people inherit both sin nature and guilt of Adam's sin. It also agrees with the Arminian view that we inherit the sin nature though not the guilt but become guilty of Adam's sin when we sin in like manner. Also it preserves a systematic approach from misinterpreting a passage through reading it according to a presupposed theological stance but ties the theology to the exegesis of that passage in a way that is governed by that particular text and minimises the danger of prooftexting. Thirdly, even people with reformed theological understanding, such as Thomas Schreiner, recognise the strength of the "upon which" argument in his exegetical commentary on Romans (BECNT). Though this is not conclusive regarding the referent in the passage it does raise questions concerning the strength of the argument itself when one whose theology has been heavily influenced by a reformed soteriology disregards the referent that more clearly supports the reformed position even though the interpretation that he sided with does not in itself contradict a reformed understanding of original sin.
Talk about resurrection, this is quite an old thread. Please note that on we focus on on issues of grammar and syntax, understanding the Greek as Greek, and not issues of theology. In this case of Romans 5:12, what tips it for me is not the theological content, but that the phrase is really a stock phrase used adverbially elsewhere, and particularly in the plural, ἐφ οἷς, but not unknown in the singular. Now, whether it's consecutive or causal is a matter of some debate in the history of interpretation. This article by Cranfield is supposed to be quite exhaustive on the subject: “On Some of the Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5.12,” SJT 22 (1969): 324–41 But I can't comment further since the Scottish Journal of Theology is not accessible through JSTOR (the first time I've been let down on that regard). Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — June 29th, 2017, 11:02 am
As the context must govern the referent it would make sense that εΦ ω would signify 'upon which' rather than 'upon whom' for three major reasons. 1. Though Hebrews speaks of Levi being in the loins of Abraham when he paid tithes, the immediate context of Romans 5 does not speak of our pre-existence in Adam but it does speak of our helpless sinful condition, verse 6, 8 and possibly verse 10. Therefore, verse 12 may easily be seen as explaining the reason why we are sinful which speaks of inheriting a sinful condition. 2. The following 2 verses do not speak of sin at the time of the fall but the condition of sin when there was no law. The whole discourse concerns the committing of sin by people and the mastery of death over people who sin. The idea of inheriting guilt would therefore be of secondary importance and tangential to the whole discussion Paul is expounding. 3. There is a logical progression, which makes sense in light of the context. Not a simple chiasmus that has the last point returning back to the same event mentioned in the first point. Not. A. One man sins. B. Sin came into the world. C. Death came into the world through sin. B'. Death spread to all men. A'. In Adam all sinned. Rather A- B' show a consequential progression and so it would make sense that as B' is a consequence of C that A' is also a consequence of B'. Though this argument is not conclusive by itself it is strong in light of arguments numbers 1 & 2. Secondary strengths of this interpretation, but not decisive points are that, aside from a Pelagian reading of the passage, all viewpoints can agree on this understanding. We all agree that we sin because we have inherited a sin nature. This is consistent with the Jewish concept of 'היצר הרע' 'hayetser Hara' or the evil impulse. It is consistent with the reformed understanding of original sin in the concept that people inherit both sin nature and guilt of Adam's sin. It also agrees with the Arminian view that we inherit the sin nature though not the guilt but become guilty of Adam's sin when we sin in like manner. Also it preserves a systematic approach from misinterpreting a passage through reading it according to a presupposed theological stance but ties the theology to the exegesis of that passage in a way that is governed by that particular text and minimises the danger of prooftexting. Thirdly, even people with reformed theological understanding, such as Thomas Schreiner, recognise the strength of the "upon which" argument in his exegetical commentary on Romans (BECNT). Though this is not conclusive regarding the referent in the passage it does raise questions concerning the strength of the argument itself when one whose theology has been heavily influenced by a reformed soteriology disregards the referent that more clearly supports the reformed position even though the interpretation that he sided with does not in itself contradict a reformed understanding of original sin. Statistics: Posted by Msindisi — June 27th, 2017, 4:33 am
 

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

12 thoughts on “Romans 5:12

  1. Troy Day says:

    Though this argument is not conclusive by itself it is strong in light of arguments numbers 1 & 2. Secondary strengths of this interpretation, but not decisive points are that, aside from a Pelagian reading of the passage, all viewpoints can agree on this understanding. We all agree that we sin because we have inherited a sin nature. This is consistent with the Jewish concept of ‘היצר הרע’ ‘hayetser Hara’ or the evil impulse. It is consistent with the reformed understanding of original sin in the concept that people inherit both sin nature and guilt of Adam’s sin. It also agrees with the Arminian view that we inherit the sin nature though not the guilt but become guilty of Adam’s sin when we sin in like manner. Also it preserves a systematic approach from misinterpreting a passage through reading it according to a presupposed theological stance but ties the theology to the exegesis of that passage in a way that is governed by that particular text and minimises the danger of prooftexting. Thirdly, even people with reformed theological understanding, such as Thomas Schreiner, recognise the strength of the “upon which” argument in his exegetical commentary on Romans

  2. “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:”
    – Romans 5:12

    I believe it just the way it’s written no need to add to it or take anything away. Adam introduced sin and it’s fruit death by his disobedience. Most people will admit to their own sins. Paul further develops the death of sin in Romans 6:23
    “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

  3. I don’t think any doctrine stands on one verse. Is original sin a hard doctrine to understand. There are a lot verses on it. I heard some good preaching on it.
    Owning our own sin really is the foundation of repentance isn’t it.

  4. Troy Day Troy Day says:

    Though this argument is not conclusive by itself it is strong in light of arguments numbers 1 & 2. Secondary strengths of this interpretation, but not decisive points are that, aside from a Pelagian reading of the passage, all viewpoints can agree on this understanding. We all agree that we sin because we have inherited a sin nature. This is consistent with the Jewish concept of ‘היצר הרע’ ‘hayetser Hara’ or the evil impulse. It is consistent with the reformed understanding of original sin in the concept that people inherit both sin nature and guilt of Adam’s sin. It also agrees with the Arminian view that we inherit the sin nature though not the guilt but become guilty of Adam’s sin when we sin in like manner. Also it preserves a systematic approach from misinterpreting a passage through reading it according to a presupposed theological stance but ties the theology to the exegesis of that passage in a way that is governed by that particular text and minimises the danger of prooftexting. Thirdly, even people with reformed theological understanding, such as Thomas Schreiner, recognise the strength of the “upon which” argument in his exegetical commentary on Romans

  5. “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:”
    – Romans 5:12

    I believe it just the way it’s written no need to add to it or take anything away. Adam introduced sin and it’s fruit death by his disobedience. Most people will admit to their own sins. Paul further develops the death of sin in Romans 6:23
    “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

  6. I don’t think any doctrine stands on one verse. Is original sin a hard doctrine to understand. There are a lot verses on it. I heard some good preaching on it.
    Owning our own sin really is the foundation of repentance isn’t it.

Comments are closed.