This verse happens to appear in the portion of Scripture that is a key part of my dissertation. This is all my own work (and thinking through Romanides's examples helped solidify further my own take on the verse that I had previously come to).
Romanides's Errors
Romanides makes some errors in his argument that should be exposed. Your quote from him was as follows (note: I've incorporated the footnote info in brackets here to ease the discussion):
Each time the grammatical construction of the preposition epi [(ἐπί)]
with the dative is used by Paul, it is always used as a relative
pronoun which modifies a preceding noun [Rom. 9:33; 10:19; 15:12; II Cor. 5:4; Rom. 6:21] or phrase [Phil. 4:10].
First, it is a little unclear to me when Romanides says "it is always used as a relative pronoun" if he intends the "it" to refer to the relative pronoun itself in the dative case, or if he intends the "it" to refer to the whole prepositional construction. I believe he intends the second, based on his examples, but in either case he would be in error.
If he in fact intends the first idea, then three of his "preceding noun" proofs are not proofs at all, because they are not constructions using a relative pronoun. They are Rom 9:33 (ἐπʼ αὐτῷ), 10:19 (ἐπʼ οὐκ ἔθνει, ἐπʼ ἔθνει ἀσυνέτῳ), 15:12 (ἐπʼ αὐτῷ); so two using a personal pronoun and one using no pronouns at all. This seems too obvious, and thus why I believe he intends the second idea.
However, if he intends the second idea, he is still in error with the same three verses, as the prepositional phrase does not act as a relative pronoun at all in those verses. It should also be noted that all three of those verses are intended by Paul as quotations (or at least references back to prior Scripture), so the wording is not strictly showing Paul's "usage" anyway, as it would be influenced by what he is referencing.
In two verses it acts as the direct object of who is believed in (Rom 9:33) or hoped upon (Rom 15:12):
Rom 9:33 (NKJV/NA28)
As it is written: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
καθὼς γέγραπται· ἰδοὺ τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν λίθον προσκόμματος καὶ πέτραν σκανδάλου, καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπʼ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται.
Rom 15:12 (NKJV/NA28)
καὶ πάλιν Ἠσαΐας λέγει· ἔσται ἡ ῥίζα τοῦ Ἰεσσαὶ καὶ ὁ ἀνιστάμενος ἄρχειν ἐθνῶν, ἐπʼ αὐτῷ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν.
And again, Isaiah says: “There shall be a root of Jesse; And He who shall rise to reign over the Gentiles, In Him the Gentiles shall hope.” (NKJV)
It is an adverbial modifier of means/agency in Rom 10:19. It should also be stated that the second of the two uses here precedes that which it modifies in the Greek, so Romanides is also in error about the construction always relating to something (noun or phrase) that preceded the preposition's usage.
Rom 10:19 (NKJV/NA28)
But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says: “I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation, I will move you to anger by a foolish nation.”
ἀλλὰ λέγω, μὴ Ἰσραὴλ οὐκ ἔγνω; πρῶτος Μωϋσῆς λέγει· ἐγὼ παραζηλώσω ὑμᾶς ἐπʼ οὐκ ἔθνει, ἐπʼ ἔθνει ἀσυνέτῳ παροργιῶ ὑμᾶς.
Second, the remaining two "preceding noun" proofs have the correct grammatical construction, but I would argue should be included as proof of reference to a "preceding ... phrase" along with Phil 4:10. Note in all three of these cases the object of the preposition is itself the relative pronoun, and that is what makes the phrase function in a relative sense at all. For the translations here, I still use the NKJV, but have amended it with my own translation of the phrase to better see where it functions. I have also bolded both the prepositional phrase and what the relative pronoun points back to, and also included the referent of ᾧ inside curly braces {}
.
2 Cor 5:4 (NKJV [+mine]/NA28)
For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because [of which] we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life.
καὶ γὰρ {οἱ ὄντες ἐν τῷ σκήνει} στενάζομεν βαρούμενοι, ἐφʼ ᾧ οὐ θέλομεν ἐκδύσασθαι ἀλλʼ ἐπενδύσασθαι, ἵνα καταποθῇ τὸ θνητὸν ὑπὸ τῆς ζωῆς.
The relative phrase beginning with ἐφʼ ᾧ here is explaining why they feel burdened and are groaning but also that it is for more clothing not less. It is "not because [being in a tent] we want to be unclothed, but further clothed." The ᾧ is referring back to being in a tent, not simply the preceding noun of the "tent" (σκήνει) itself (as Romanides appears to assert), but the whole concept of people being in an "earthly house" (v.1), which 2 Cor 4 demonstrates is referring to the physical body. So this refers back to a preceding phrase, not a noun.
Rom 6:19-21 (NKJV [+mine]/NA28)
I include v.19 and v.20 here because v.19 is where the referent resides.
19I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as {you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness,} so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness. 20For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21What fruit did you have then [because of] the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death.
19Ἀνθρώπινον λέγω διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν. ὥσπερ γὰρ {παρεστήσατε τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν δοῦλα τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ καὶ τῇ ἀνομίᾳ εἰς τὴν ἀνομίαν,} οὕτως νῦν παραστήσατε τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν δοῦλα τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ εἰς ἁγιασμόν.
20ὅτε γὰρ δοῦλοι ἦτε τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ἐλεύθεροι ἦτε τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ. 21τίνα οὖν καρπὸν εἴχετε τότε; ἐφʼ οἷς νῦν ἐπαισχύνεσθε, τὸ γὰρ τέλος ἐκείνων θάνατος.
The relative phrase beginning with ἐφʼ οἷς here is explaining why they have shame in fruit they bore. The plural οἷς does not refer back to the singular nown "fruit" (καρπὸν), which must be Romanides view since he classifies this as referring back to the "preceding noun." Granted, "fruit" can have a collective meaning, and a plural could theoretically be used to refer back to it. But the "fruit" is what is itself being explained by the relative referent that caused the fruit. The two things (plural) that bore the fruit are found back in v.19, uncleanness and lawlessness, which they had served. So this refers back to a preceding phrase in v.19, not a noun.
Romanides potentially makes one correct parallel (potential, because I am not certain what phrase he is keying to), which I'll include here for completeness and because it relates to the two verses preveiously discussed.
Phil 4:9-10 (NKJV [+mine]/NA28)
I include v.9 here because it is where the referent resides.
9{The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me}, these do, and the God of peace will be with you.
10But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at last your care for me has flourished again; [because of which] you surely did care, but you lacked opportunity.
9{ἃ καὶ ἐμάθετε καὶ παρελάβετε καὶ ἠκούσατε καὶ εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοί}, ταῦτα πράσσετε· καὶ ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ἔσται μεθʼ ὑμῶν.
10Ἐχάρην δὲ ἐν κυρίῳ μεγάλως ὅτι ἤδη ποτὲ ἀνεθάλετε τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν, ἐφʼ ᾧ καὶ ἐφρονεῖτε, ἠκαιρεῖσθε δέ.
The relative phrase beginning with ἐφʼ ᾧ here is explaining why the Philippians "surely did care" about Paul and thus why that care was flourishing. He does not use the plural οἷς here to refer back to these four things (as he did in Rom 6:21) because he is not referring back to each of the individual things as why they cared, but rather the sum total of all four of them (i.e. Paul's ministry to them).
Important Observations and Grammatical Considerations
There are three important observations from the analysis above.
- The ἐφʼ ᾧ (or plural form οἷς) construction exclusively used by Paul to refer back to a previous concept expressed in a phrase or clause (more than just a single word) that preceded.
- The concept is always somewhat "distant" from the ἐφʼ ᾧ, meaning the relative pronoun never refers to the immediately preceding topic, but in fact refers to a topic prior to that, for the immediately preceding topic is the one being explained with help of the more distant referent being combined into a new relationship to what follows.
Related to #2, each ἐφʼ ᾧ gives a ground cause for the immediately preceding statement by the prepositional phrase, but the relative pronoun is actually functioning within the prepositional phrase to modify the following part of that phrase as well. To illustrate this, the core idea of the three verses above can be rewritten to show logic of how this construction is working.
2 Cor 5:4 We are not desiring to be unclothed because of the fact that {we are dwelling in a tent}, but further clothed, and so we are burdened and groan.
Rom 6:21 You are now ashamed because of {uncleanness and lawlessness}, and so what fruit do you have then?
Phil 4:10 You surely did care for me because of the fact of {the things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me}, and so now at last your care for me has flourished again.
This can be confirmed as a valid understanding by piecing together some grammatical considerations.
- The preposition ἐπί with the dative case can be a "marker of basis for a state of being, action, or result" (BDAG, s.v. ἐπί, 6).
- The dative itself can be used to indicate cause (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software, 1999], 167).
- The neuter relative pronoun can look back to a whole clause (BDAG, s.v. ὅς, 1.g.β).
- The relative pronoun used with a preposition can produce a "kind of conjunction" (BDAG, s.v. ὅς, 1.k, esp. 1.k.δ for ἐφʼ ᾧ), and when so used, it "either has no antecedent, or else its antecedent is conceptual, not grammatical" (Wallace, 342; emphasis added).
Having a conceptual antecedent does not mean, however, that the concept should be considered missing from the context. So in fact in these instances, evidence shows the antecedent concept is just a step before the relative reference. Essentially, Paul's usage appears to be mapped like so:
[Concept #1] [Concept #2] [ἐφʼ ᾧ] [Concept #3]
The construction is then following this logic:
- The neuter relative pronoun ᾧ refers back to
[Concept #1]
(or concepts, in the case of the plural relative).
- The use of the dative relative pronoun is functioning within the propositional phrase to indicate that
[Concept #1]
also relates to the cause of [Concept #3]
, and it is [Concept #1]
causing [Concept #3]
.
- The prepositional phrase itself, using the contracted preposition ἐπί (ἐφʼ) with the dative indicates it is giving a basis or ground for
[Concept #2]
, but it is doing so by connecting the basis not just to [Concept #1]
but also [Concept #3]
, so [Concept #1]
causing [Concept #3]
that causes [Concept #2]
.
(Perhaps at some point I or someone may be able to examine extra biblical evidence to support this same formatting and construction of conceptual connection. My dissertation is not about this at all, but I did need to think through what Rom 5:12 was saying to fit with my argument for Rom 5:12-21 that I am making in my dissertation.)
Applying to Romans 5:12
Romans 5:12 matches both the observations above, as well as the greater scope of revelation regarding the relation of sin and death when so viewed.
Romans 5:12 (NA28/my translation [brackets inferred])
Διὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ {διʼ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθεν καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος,} καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν, ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον·
Because of this, just as {through one man sin entered the world and through sin [is] death,} and so upon all men death spread, because of which fact [i.e. sin entering and bringing death] all sinned.
The relative phrase beginning with ἐφʼ ᾧ here is explaining why death comes to all. Applying observation #1, we are looking for a phrase/clause concept, not a single word. Applying observation #2, we are looking for this concept to be distant, preceding that which immediately preceded the prepositional phrase itself. Applying observation #3, we need to relate the prepositional phrase itself directly with that which follows. I have attempted to reflect this in my translation, but it will be helpful to reword the thought as I did for the other verses noted when giving observation #3.
All sinned because of the fact that {through one man sin entered the world and through sin [is] death}, and so upon all men death spread.
Why all sin is because sin entered, but why all die is because death came as the consequence of sin. So the combined thought is needed here to link both concepts (sin and death) the phrase is related to.
Theologically, the thought matches Romans 3:23 (that all sinned). It matches what Romans 5 indicates about death, that it comes because of sin itself being in the world from Adam's transgression (v.12, 15, 17-18), not because of accounting others' individual transgressions (v.13-14).
But how is it so that "all sinned" (past tense) because of Adam's sin? How does the mere presence of sin entering the world cause all to be considered as having sinned? It is because the nature of mankind was changed at that point, and mankind lost the aspect of being righteous "like God" had designed mankind to be (Rom 1:18-19; cf. Gen 1:26). Instead, as Romans 5 related prior to this, mankind became by nature "without strength" (v.6), "ungodly" (v.6), "sinners" (v.8), and "enemies" to God (v.10). A person does not need to transgress God's law (v.13) to still be otherwise sinful against that person's God intended nature (v.14), which nature changed because of the sin of the first member and head of the humanity, Adam.