Did Augustine misunderstand Rom 5:12 because of a Latin mistranslation, and what are the implications?

[pgwolv]

I have been in a discussion with a Provisionist again; I started the conversation when he posted, on another forum, the following quote:

Augustine understood ἐφ ᾧ (eph hō, “because”) as meaning “in whom,” since the Latin mistranslated the Greek at this point. Accordingly, his understanding of the final clause in verse 12 was that we were actually “in Adam,” and therefore Adam’s sin was ours as well. But since his interpretation was based upon an inaccurate translation, we must investigate the clause more closely. -Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 579.

Did Augustine truly misunderstand it and base his theology of original sin on this mistranslation? If so, what does that mean for us?

I saw Rich's post of long ago, quoting Thomas Watson on original sin, also using the terminology "in whom." Thus, it seems this is a vital point in our doctrine of original sin. I need some assistance in thinking through these things.

Blessings to all on this edifying board.

Edit: With the title, I did not mean that Augustine mistranslated it, but that the Latin was a mistranslation and that Augustine derived his doctrine primarily from that mistranslation.

 

[Taylor]

The exact meaning of this prepositional phrase has been a subject of debate for (clearly) centuries. Erickson is right to urge caution, at least when it comes to Augustine in particular, as his Greek was notoriously poor.

 

[iainduguid]

The Geneva Bible has "in whom", which may show us what Bible Thomas Watson was using. From the KJV onward, virtually every English translation has gone with some version of "because" (KJV "for that"). So even if Augustine based his doctrine on the mistranslation (which may or may not be true), all modern commentators and theologians who hold this doctrine (including most of the Puritans) do so without reference to the mistake.

 

[Charles Johnson]

J.H. Heidegger defended the translation of εφ ω as "in whom", pointing to other passages of Scripture where επι is translated as "in". My personal opinion is that it should be translated as "on account of which", a meaning which it frequently carries in Greek literature. I would be interested in seeing any example of it clearly and unequivocally being used to mean "because" in another passage, or an extra biblical source. I think this meaning is probably specious.
The term is used 127 times in the Perseus corpus, which includes all the major classical Greek texts, and some koine ones as well.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Regardless of how one translates Romans 5:12, the doctrine of original sin is quite clear in other passages and the Bible as a whole. Augustine did not derive this teaching from a single passage (nor did he come up with it himself, since other fathers before him taught it).
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
1 Cor. 15:22

 

[pgwolv]

Thank you for all the input!

since other fathers before him taught it

Could you give me some examples?

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
1 Cor. 15:22

I believe that the Doctrines of Grace help us best understand salvation according to Scripture. However, the Provisionists (and probably Arminians likewise) believe otherwise. They say that these passages (Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15) do not indicate that we have inherited guilt, only a propensity to sin (although I am not sure how one can have the one and not the other). I say we die in Adam because God imputed his guilt to us, and we are made alive in Christ because God imputed His righteousness to us who believe. He says we die in Adam because his sin led to us all sinning (we are condemned to death, but this is "ratified" by our own sin), and we are made alive in Christ in that Christ made the sacrifice for all people, paying for all sin, so that anyone can be saved (but this is "ratified" by our faith). Essentially, we see it as imputed sin/guilt vs. imputed righteousness, whereas they see it as our sin (thanks to Adam) vs. our faith (in Christ's gift). We both have presuppositions, but when I talk to these people I sometimes find it difficult to show why my presupposition is correct.

 

[De Jager]

If we have not inherited guilt, then why do any infants die?

The wages of sin is death. If an infant has not yet the capacity to sin, and has no inherited guilt, then God would be unjust to cause that person to die before the person has actually committed an actual personal sin.

The fact of the matter is that we are estranged from the moment of conception. When two rebels procreate, they produce a rebel, from the moment of fertilization. Even in utero, the person is by nature, a child of wrath and worthy of the punishment of a rebel.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Thank you for all the input!


Could you give me some examples?

Spanheim says the fathers used the following terms for original sin:
"By Tertullian, it is called a transmitter of evil; by Cyprian, domestic evil; by Arnobius, the vice of inborn infirmity; by Ambrose, the infused and coagulated contagion of transgressions. By Chrysostom, the first sin."

 

[pgwolv]

If we have not inherited guilt, then why do any infants die?

They say that death entered the world because Adam sinned. As far as I understand it, they believe that all people die because of Adam's sin, but that infants are not guilty, and thus go to heaven upon their death.

If an infant has not yet the capacity to sin, and has no inherited guilt, then God would be unjust to cause that person to die before the person has actually committed an actual personal sin.

Could this not also be said of Christ's death?

The fact of the matter is that we are estranged from the moment of conception. When two rebels procreate, they produce a rebel, from the moment of fertilization. Even in utero, the person is by nature, a child of wrath and worthy of the punishment of a rebel.

Amen

 

[Charles Johnson]

Could this not also be said of Christ's death?

Yes, and indeed it should. Both infants and Christ die because they have been imputed the guilt of another, without actual sin. Infants are imputed original sin, and Christ is imputed the sins of believers.

 

[pgwolv]

Yes, and indeed it should. Both infants and Christ die because they have been imputed the guilt of another, without actual sin. Infants are imputed original sin, and Christ is imputed the sins of believers.

I agree, I was just wondering about the word "unjust"

 

[retroGRAD3]

They say that death entered the world because Adam sinned. As far as I understand it, they believe that all people die because of Adam's sin, but that infants are not guilty, and thus go to heaven upon their death.

As far as I know, there is no way to demonstrate this from scripture. The opposite seems abundantly clear though that ALL have fallen short of the glory of God.

 

[De Jager]

They say that death entered the world because Adam sinned. As far as I understand it, they believe that all people die because of Adam's sin, but that infants are not guilty, and thus go to heaven upon their death.

If infants are not guilty, then they should not die, according to the logic of "the wages of sin is death". These people are saying, in the case of an infant who died, that the infant did not deserve to die and yet, died. And yet, the scriptures say "the wages of sin is death" and, as pointed out above "all have fallen short of the glory of God". I believe that "all" is a universal "all", i.e. includes all people everywhere, without exception. This means that from the moment of conception, an infant has "fallen short of the glory of God". What is the proper place for such a person? Not heaven. What does a person who falls short of the glory of God deserve? Not life. I do not believe that all infants who die go to heaven. That would make the evil of abortion the single greatest tool in the history of mankind for the population of the kingdom of God. I believe that those who believe that all infants that die go to heaven are mistaken. I do believe that believers ought not to doubt the election of their children whom it pleaseth the Lord to call out of this life in their infancy (C.O.D. 1.17), because God has proven throughout the scriptures that he includes the helpless children of believers in his salvific acts; but for the general salvation of all infants I find no basis whatsoever.

Could this not also be said of Christ's death?

It would be unjust except we believe that our sins were literally transferred to him and in the sight of God, Jesus was "guilty". My understanding is that in his death Christ was united to all elect throughout all time as their covenant head, and the sins of those united to Christ 'became his' by virtue of that union, in the same way that Adam's sin becomes ours by virtue of that union even though we did not eat of the fruit in the garden. So while Christ himself never committed a sin, he was united to all the elect, with all their sinfulness, so that when Christ received God's wrath he received it for all the elect (in him) and when he died, we died, and when he rose, we rose (Romans 6:3-6).

 

[retroGRAD3]

It is important to remember too that the provisionists are heretics by denying original sin. I believe this still falls under pelegianism.

 

[Eyedoc84]

The rest of Romans 5 clearly teaches original sin and imputed sin/guilt, regardless of how verse 12 is translated. And I think verse 12 teaches that “all sinned” when the one man sinned, whether or not it’s “in whom” or “upon which” or “for that”. It doesn’t say all will sin, but all did sin.

 

[Knight]

If infants are not guilty, then they should not die, according to the logic of "the wages of sin is death". These people are saying, in the case of an infant who died, that the infant did not deserve to die and yet, died. And yet, the scriptures say "the wages of sin is death" and, as pointed out above "all have fallen short of the glory of God". I believe that "all" is a universal "all", i.e. includes all people everywhere, without exception. This means that from the moment of conception, an infant has "fallen short of the glory of God". What is the proper place for such a person? Not heaven. What does a person who falls short of the glory of God deserve? Not life. I do not believe that all infants who die go to heaven. That would make the evil of abortion the single greatest tool in the history of mankind for the population of the kingdom of God. I believe that those who believe that all infants that die go to heaven are mistaken. I do believe that believers ought not to doubt the election of their children whom it pleaseth the Lord to call out of this life in their infancy (C.O.D. 1.17), because God has proven throughout the scriptures that he includes the helpless children of believers in his salvific acts; but for the general salvation of all infants I find no basis whatsoever.


It would be unjust except we believe that our sins were literally transferred to him and in the sight of God, Jesus was "guilty". My understanding is that in his death Christ was united to all elect throughout all time as their covenant head, and the sins of those united to Christ 'became his' by virtue of that union, in the same way that Adam's sin becomes ours by virtue of that union even though we did not eat of the fruit in the garden. So while Christ himself never committed a sin, he was united to all the elect, with all their sinfulness, so that when Christ received God's wrath he received it for all the elect (in him) and when he died, we died, and when he rose, we rose (Romans 6:3-6).

"According to our understanding of the Scriptures, it was provided in the eternal covenant that the elect should be actually ingrafted into Christ by his Spirit, and their acceptance and justification is by virtue of this their actual union to him… Thus, the sin of Adam, and the righteousness of Christ are severally imputed to their seed, by virtue of the union, constituted in the one case by the principle of natural generation, and in the other, by ‘the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,’ the Holy Spirit, the principle of regeneration…

If the imputation of Christ’s righteousness be founded in a real inbeing in him, wrought by the uniting power of his Spirit in regeneration,—if it is thus that we are brought within the provisions of the covenant of grace to our justification, it follows, (we will venture the word,) incontestably, that the imputation to us of Adam’s sin, is founded in a real inbeing in him, by natural generation, by virtue of which we come under the provisions of the covenant of works, to our condemnation. But this, according to our reviewer, is “simply a physiological theory,” involving “a mysterious identity,” which he cannot admit. Hence the necessity of ignoring the doctrine, in its relation to justification." (Samuel Baird, link)

According to Baird (and contrary to Charles Hodge), we are not viewed by God merely as if we are righteous - Roman Catholics would have a serious argument against us if this legal fiction were really the case. Rather, we are and are viewed by the Father as really righteous, not because of anything we have done or earned, but because the Spirit has really united us to Christ's person and work.

I agree, I was just wondering about the word "unjust"

There is a significant difference between Christ and infants. Christ voluntarily sacrificed Himself as a substitute for us. Infants involuntarily die, which would be unjust if not for the fact that they were, being united to Adam, participants in his sin and thus [imputed] guilty for it.

 

[De Jager]

"According to our understanding of the Scriptures, it was provided in the eternal covenant that the elect should be actually ingrafted into Christ by his Spirit, and their acceptance and justification is by virtue of this their actual union to him… Thus, the sin of Adam, and the righteousness of Christ are severally imputed to their seed, by virtue of the union, constituted in the one case by the principle of natural generation, and in the other, by ‘the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,’ the Holy Spirit, the principle of regeneration…

If the imputation of Christ’s righteousness be founded in a real inbeing in him, wrought by the uniting power of his Spirit in regeneration,—if it is thus that we are brought within the provisions of the covenant of grace to our justification, it follows, (we will venture the word,) incontestably, that the imputation to us of Adam’s sin, is founded in a real inbeing in him, by natural generation, by virtue of which we come under the provisions of the covenant of works, to our condemnation. But this, according to our reviewer, is “simply a physiological theory,” involving “a mysterious identity,” which he cannot admit. Hence the necessity of ignoring the doctrine, in its relation to justification." (Samuel Baird, link)

According to Baird (and contrary to Charles Hodge), we are not viewed by God merely as if we are righteous - Roman Catholics would have a serious argument against us if this legal fiction were really the case. Rather, we are and are viewed by the Father as really righteous, not because of anything we have done or earned, but because the Spirit has really united us to Christ's person and work.


There is a significant difference between Christ and infants. Christ voluntarily sacrificed Himself as a substitute for us. Infants involuntarily die, which would be unjust if not for the fact that they were, being united to Adam, participants in his sin and thus [imputed] guilty for it.

I agree with what is posited here by Samuel Baird, this is how I have come to understand it in my own mind.

It is not a matter of God plucking our sin off of us and throwing it on Christ, but keeping us in the periphery. It is about taking us (including our sin) and uniting us to Christ in his death and resurrection - Christ being our covenant head and we being "in him". When he was crucified - I was crucified. When he rose - I rose. Do I understand this? No. But it seems to me that's what the Scriptures teach.

 

[Knight]

I agree with what is posited here by Samuel Baird, this is how I have come to understand it in my own mind.

It is not a matter of God plucking our sin off of us and throwing it on Christ, but keeping us in the periphery. It is about taking us (including our sin) and uniting us to Christ in his death and resurrection - Christ being our covenant head and we being "in him". When he was crucified - I was crucified. When he rose - I rose. Do I understand this? No. But it seems to me that's what the Scriptures teach.

As Paul says, "he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him" (1 Corthians 6:17). We were born out of the first Adam and are born into the last Adam. Following Baird, I think a Reformed anthropology view should be worked out along these lines, but the ontology of our synthetic identity as being persons in Christ after regeneration and conversion is either underdeveloped or a discussion of which I am ignorant. I have a hard enough time convincing my friends that Hodge's and Murray's views have problems.

 

[JTB.SDG]

This may be a helpful resource on Romans 5; it deals a good bit with that verse in 5:12 if you're interested: https://www.ruinandredemption.com/_files/ugd/be37d2_45d48f7adb2b44e4a5004f32814b21ab.pdf

 

[Stephen L Smith]

This may be a helpful resource on Romans 5; it deals a good bit with that verse in 5:12 if you're interested: https://www.ruinandredemption.com/_files/ugd/be37d2_45d48f7adb2b44e4a5004f32814b21ab.pdf

I second this resource

 

[pgwolv]

"According to our understanding of the Scriptures, it was provided in the eternal covenant that the elect should be actually ingrafted into Christ by his Spirit, and their acceptance and justification is by virtue of this their actual union to him… Thus, the sin of Adam, and the righteousness of Christ are severally imputed to their seed, by virtue of the union, constituted in the one case by the principle of natural generation, and in the other, by ‘the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,’ the Holy Spirit, the principle of regeneration…

If the imputation of Christ’s righteousness be founded in a real inbeing in him, wrought by the uniting power of his Spirit in regeneration,—if it is thus that we are brought within the provisions of the covenant of grace to our justification, it follows, (we will venture the word,) incontestably, that the imputation to us of Adam’s sin, is founded in a real inbeing in him, by natural generation, by virtue of which we come under the provisions of the covenant of works, to our condemnation. But this, according to our reviewer, is “simply a physiological theory,” involving “a mysterious identity,” which he cannot admit. Hence the necessity of ignoring the doctrine, in its relation to justification." (Samuel Baird, link)

According to Baird (and contrary to Charles Hodge), we are not viewed by God merely as if we are righteous - Roman Catholics would have a serious argument against us if this legal fiction were really the case. Rather, we are and are viewed by the Father as really righteous, not because of anything we have done or earned, but because the Spirit has really united us to Christ's person and work.


There is a significant difference between Christ and infants. Christ voluntarily sacrificed Himself as a substitute for us. Infants involuntarily die, which would be unjust if not for the fact that they were, being united to Adam, participants in his sin and thus [imputed] guilty for it.

Thank you, this is really helpful (I am going to read the rejoinder)

EDIT: The rejoinder was excellent! Now I wonder whether I should read his entire thesis...

 

[pgwolv]

This may be a helpful resource on Romans 5; it deals a good bit with that verse in 5:12 if you're interested: https://www.ruinandredemption.com/_files/ugd/be37d2_45d48f7adb2b44e4a5004f32814b21ab.pdf

Thank you so much

 

[pgwolv]

I have a hard enough time convincing my friends that Hodge's and Murray's views have problems.

Elsewhere on the board, I saw an endorsement for Murray's book "Imputation of Adam's Sin." What are the main "problems" with Murray's views?

EDIT: I want to read more on this subject, but I don't want to start of with a mixture of the views espoused by Baird and those by Hodge and Murray. I am nearly done with the rebuttal by Baird of the review of his work. Should I read the entire work? It seems the study of Rom 5:12-21 at Ruin and Redemption, as recommended by some here, will lead me to Hodge's and Murray's view?

 

[pgwolv]

If infants are not guilty, then they should not die, according to the logic of "the wages of sin is death". These people are saying, in the case of an infant who died, that the infant did not deserve to die and yet, died.

As a follow-up, I have asked this question, and received the following answer (paraphrased): This earthly physical death is not an eternal spiritual death. God allows the innocent to die because of sin in the world, and he works all things for his own glory, and Christ's salvation of the innocent is glorious.

EDIT: He also refers to David's son, whom David expected to see again after death. I'm wondering whether that text refers to David who will follow his son in physical death, or whether it is an expectation of seeing his son in heaven.

EDIT 2: Also, regarding the phrase "Christ's salvation of the innocent," this refers to their belief that Adam's sin brought a separation between God and man (but not an inherited guilt in Adam's progeny), and that Christ's salvation restored God and innocent man (innocent by not sinning or innocent by faith in Christ).

 

[pgwolv]

If an infant has not yet the capacity to sin, and has no inherited guilt, then God would be unjust to cause that person to die before the person has actually committed an actual personal sin.

The person agrees that the innocent infant's death is unjust because this is the result of sin. They contrast sin and God: Sin is so evil that it causes unjust death, whereas God is so good that he rescues the infant with resurrection life. To me, this looks like adding the part of their doctrine that God's sovereignty does not mean He ordains all things; hence the injustice is accounted to sin rather than to God. However, it is God who condemns us to death, so this does not make sense. I suspect they may also attempt to explain this as "death is corporate condemnation to humanity for sin" or something. It is a house of cards

 

[De Jager]

As a follow-up, I have asked this question, and received the following answer (paraphrased): This earthly physical death is not an eternal spiritual death. God allows the innocent to die because of sin in the world, and he works all things for his own glory, and Christ's salvation of the innocent is glorious.

EDIT: He also refers to David's son, whom David expected to see again after death. I'm wondering whether that text refers to David who will follow his son in physical death, or whether it is an expectation of seeing his son in heaven.

EDIT 2: Also, regarding the phrase "Christ's salvation of the innocent," this refers to their belief that Adam's sin brought a separation between God and man (but not an inherited guilt in Adam's progeny), and that Christ's salvation restored God and innocent man (innocent by not sinning or innocent by faith in Christ).

"Christ's salvation of the innocent"? An innocent person does not need to be saved from anything. If a person is innocent, they have the same state as pre-fall Adam. Again, they are simply denying the truth of "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Reformed bible interpretation interprets the less clear with the clear. The clear teaching of the scriptures is that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The clear teaching of scripture is that there have only ever been three "innocent" people in the history of mankind - Adam, Eve (and that didn't last) and Jesus. The scriptures nowhere suggest, or give the slightest indication that infants are born in a state of innocence. That is a foreign idea that is simply being inserted in God's word, and which can only be defended by "explaining away" the clearer teachings. It does not hold up.

Secondly, human beings are a union of body and spirit. I do not believe that you can simply separate physical death from spiritual death and act as though they are unrelated. They are 100% correlated except in the case of the elect, whereby our death is not a punishment for sin, but rather an entrance into eternal life. (Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 42). "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live". For all other persons - they die physically AND spiritually. Only in the elect is this correlation broken.

His reference to David's son (2 Samuel 12:23) is commonly cited in these debates. As a Reformed person, I will point out that his son was not just any person, but the son of a believer. It is one thing to believe that God elects and saves the (sinful) children of believers who die in infancy, and quite another to extrapolate that to all infants who die. This ignores all in the scriptures about the benefits of God's covenant and also the inverse - the hopeless state of all outside of God's covenant. I do personally believe that David was speaking about seeing his son in heaven, and not simply in some obscure "sheol" or grave-like place for a couple reasons: 1) before making the pronouncement that he would see his son again, David washed, worshipped and ate, while before he was grief-stricken and would not eat. Why the change? I believe it is because he realized that his son was with the Lord, and that one day he would be too. 2) Throughout the Psalms we see that David had a thorough understanding of his eternal destiny, and it was not in some obscure watery "sheol" but it was with God. See: Psalm 16:11, 17:14-15, others. I do also believe that David's son did not deserve to go to heaven, but only is there because of God's electing grace, which presupposes that the child was a sinner.

 

[pgwolv]

Again, they are simply denying the truth of "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Reformed bible interpretation interprets the less clear with the clear. The clear teaching of the scriptures is that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Thank you, this is helpful to keep in mind.

Secondly, human beings are a union of body and spirit. I do not believe that you can simply separate physical death from spiritual death and act as though they are unrelated. They are 100% correlated except in the case of the elect, whereby our death is not a punishment for sin, but rather an entrance into eternal life. (Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 42). "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live". For all other persons - they die physically AND spiritually. Only in the elect is this correlation broken.

I guess the onus of proof would be on those who state that one can separate the physical and spiritual death in general?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I guess the onus of proof would be on those who state that one can separate the physical and spiritual death in general?

I would ask when did death begin? Did it start a thousand years later or did death begin when they disobeyed? Spiritual death began when they immediately needed a mediator and a promise for sin. Just a thought.

 

[pgwolv]

Following Baird, I think a Reformed anthropology view should be worked out along these lines, but the ontology of our synthetic identity as being persons in Christ after regeneration and conversion is either underdeveloped or a discussion of which I am ignorant.

This seems important; surely in the 160-odd years since the thesis and rejoinder, someone took this up?