Hello and welcome. In this article, we'll analyze Ephesians 2:1-3 as it pertains to the fall and its consequences for humanity. More precisely, whether or not Ephesians 2:1-3 demonstrates that one of the consequences of the fall is that from conception all humans receive the guilt of Adam's personal sin that he committed in the garden. This potential consequence is one of the distinctions of the original sin perspective of the fall. Our aim is to provide an in-depth analysis of these verses and present reasons why this passage does not teach distinctive points of original sin.
WHAT ARE THE POINTS OF CONTENTION?
1. Human mortality
2. Humanity having an inclination and predisposition to personal sin which inevitably leads to personal guilt
3. A fallen world with pain, suffering, and corruption
4. All humans from conception being held personally guilty in God's sight for Adam's sin
We affirm consequences 1-3. This summarizes our view of the fall's consequences called ancestral sin. To see more about ancestral sin and why we affirm it, read our article here.
In addition to affirming consequences 1-3, the original sin perspective on the fall also affirms consequence 4. This is the primary point of contention. We don't believe potential consequence 4 is true. We don't believe mankind is guilty of Adam's sin from conception.
THE TEXT OF CONCERN
Eph 2:1-3 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
When it comes to original sin, the part of this passage that is touted as proof of the doctrine is the phrase "by nature the children of wrath" in Ephesians 2:3. Let's look at a few popular confessions and canons from those who both affirm this distinction original sin and include this passage in their prooftext footnotes.
CONFESSIONS ON EPHESIANS 2:1-3
The Synod of Dort, 1618 AD - 1619 AD
“Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin. Without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.” - The Canons of Dort, The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine, Article 3
“Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.” - Chapter 6, Paragraph 6
The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689 AD
“They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.” - Chapter 6, Paragraph 3
The interpretation of Ephesians 2:1-3 by our interlocutors in these confessions is as follows: Mankind is guilty of Adam's sin from the beginning of our lives. Ephesians 2:1-3 isn't speaking of this premise exactly. But it is speaking of the result of this premise. We are under God's wrath from the beginning of our existence. Being "children of wrath" by nature is interpreted to mean that from the beginning of our lives, we are under God's wrath due to being guilty of Adam's sin. Rather than being directly connected to any of our transgressions, this condition of being under wrath is connected to being guilty of Adam's sin.
OUR OBJECTIONS TO THE ORIGINAL SIN INTERPRETATION OF EPHESIANS 2:1-3
In no particular order, let's list our objections to this interpretation of Ephesians 2:1-3.
1. It's inconsistent with parallel statements from Paul in Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3
2. It's inconsistent with overarching themes of who and what God sets his wrath on
3. It misunderstands the contextual theme of personal transgressions being in view
4. It misunderstands the overall context of Ephesians 2
5. It misunderstands the range of meaning for "nature"
6. Paul's choice of words in Greek makes the interpretation unlikely
These six points summarize our objections to the original sin interpretation of Ephesians 2:1-3. Let's start working through them.
PAUL'S WORD CHOICE FOR "CHILDREN"
Critical to the original sin interpretation of Ephesians 2:1-3 is the idea that when Paul says "children" in "by nature the children of wrath" he means to say we are under wrath from the beginning of our lives from infancy. If this is indeed what Paul meant to convey, one would think his word choice would reflect it.
In the Greek New Testament, there are a few distinct words to explicitly denote infancy.
Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
The first word is brephos (Strong's G1025). It is rendered as "babe" in Luke 1:41 referring to a baby leaping in a womb. The biblical usage of brephos includes unborn children and newborn infants.
Mat 2:8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
The second word is paidion (Strong's G3813). It is rendered as "young child" in Matthew 2:8 referring to the baby Jesus. The biblical usage of paidion includes young children, infants, and older adolescent children.
Paul utilizes these two Greek words in 2 Timothy 3:15, 1 Corinthians 14:20 as well as three times in Hebrews if you count him as the author. Therefore, going into Ephesians 2 we know they're within his wheelhouse of vocabulary. Now the question is, does Paul utilize either of these words in verse three to specifically alert the reader that he has wrath upon infants in mind?
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
In Ephesians 2:3, the underlying word rendered as "children" is not brephos or paidion. Rather, Paul utilizes the word teknon (Strong's G5043). What's the biblical usage of the word teknon?
"I. offspring, children" - G5043, Outline of Biblical Usage
The primary usage of teknon is to refer to literal offspring or children without denoting a specific age. However, we know things like wrath don't have literal offspring or children.
"C. metaph. i. of anything who depends upon it, is possessed by a desire or affection for it, is addicted to it. ii. one who is liable to any fate" - G5043, Outline of Biblical Usage
We find this outline of usage to be more in line with what we see in Ephesians 2:3. We find similar language and usage in other parts of the New Testament.
Mat 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
Luk 7:35 But wisdom is justified of all her children.
We find this type of usage in the gospel where we're told wisdom has children. Obviously, wisdom doesn't have literal offspring or children. It's not unprecedented for certain qualities to be personified. Wisdom having children most likely just means that there are people (children) who are influenced by wisdom, regarded as being marked by wisdom or possessing wisdom. In fact, this is congruent with how the word "children" is often understood in the English language.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs"
Dictionary.com: "a person regarded as conditioned or marked by a given circumstance, situation, etc."
Cambridge Dictionary: "someone who has been very influenced by a particular period or situation"
Collins Dictionary: "a person identified with a specified place, time, etc."
Britannica: "a person who has been strongly influenced by a certain place or time or by the events happening during that time"
In our modern vernacular, we would implement this usage by saying something like "John and Mary are children of the streets." This doesn't mean John and Mary are infants or that the streets have biological children. This just means that they're strongly influenced by, conditioned, and marked by the streets.
As we move through our objections, this usage will come into the frame more clearly as what Paul most likely meant to convey. For now, suffice it to say that Paul's word choice for "children" in Ephesians 2:3 does not lend itself to the original sin interpretation which requires that this is referring to infancy and the beginning of life. If Paul meant to convey this idea, he easily could have with it being in his vocabulary. This point serves as disconfirmation for the original sin interpretation of Ephesians 2:1-3.
UNDERSTANDING THE RANGE OF MEANING FOR "NATURE"
Just as relevant is understanding what "by nature" could possibly be referring to in Ephesians 2:1-3.
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
In Ephesians 2, our interlocutors essentially interpret "by nature" to mean from the beginning of our existence as a component of our being. So from the beginning, we are infants of wrath. In light of the context and other usages of the underlying word for "nature", we believe this understanding is incorrect.
Rom 2:13-14 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
In Romans 2:14, we see the same rendering of the underlying word physis (Strong's G5449) in Romans 2:14. In this verse, Paul speaks about Gentiles doing the works of the law "by nature". It's contextually obvious that Paul is not making a point that the Gentiles were performing works of the law in and from the womb as a component of their being. Rather, Paul is saying this is the natural state of affairs Gentiles end up in. It's their natural usage or habit. This speaks to a normative state of affairs or natural production rather than a precise time of origin.
"growth (by germination or expansion) that is (by implication) natural production (lineal descent); by extension a genus or sort; figuratively native disposition constitution or usage" - Strong's Definition, G5449
"C. a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature" - G5449, Outline of Biblical Usage
This understanding of nature is compatible with Strong's definition of physis (Strong's G5449) and one of its biblical usages. In our modern vernacular, we might say something like "Males are attracted to females by nature". The point of this wouldn't be that male infants in the womb are attracted to female infants in the womb. No, the point would be that it's the normative state of affairs, natural usage, and habit that males are attracted to females. The point of the statement isn't to say when exactly this arises, just that it's normative and natural for it to arise.
Remember that Paul didn't use a word for "children" that denotes the beginning of life like paidion or brephos. Instead, he used teknon which does not inherently denote infancy or the beginning of life. In light of that fact, we find it unlikely that when he pairs this with "nature" he means to say that being under wrath is a component or aspect of our being from the beginning of our lives.
We've now looked at the grammar for the relevant words in Ephesians 2:1-3 and discovered that it doesn't inherently lend itself to the original sin interpretation of the verses. With this in mind, let's continue to other objections and build a coherent and thematically consistent interpretation of Ephesians 2:1-3.
THE PAULINE THEME OF GOD'S WRATH AND ITS SUBJECTS
Since we're talking about people being "children of wrath", it's important to unpack this theme of divine wrath in Paul's writings. This theme is largely uncontroversial, but it's relevant to the context of Ephesians 2.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
Col 3:6-8 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
In Paul's writing, we see a consistent theme that wrath from God is upon actions that are ungodly, unrighteous, and disobedient. God sets his wrath on humans who commit these aforementioned actions. It seems that wrath begins and is conditioned upon actions of transgression.
Our interlocutors would affirm all of this and say while this is true, Adam's sin was a disobedient action and we are held guilty of that action by God. So while we didn't transgress ourselves, we are justly under wrath because of that transgression of Adam. This leads to our next point.
THE CONTEXTUAL THEME OF PERSONAL TRANSGRESSION
In Ephesians 2, our interlocutors believe that the reason we are under wrath by nature isn't because of any transgressions we have committed. Rather, we are "children of wrath" because of possessing the guilt of Adam's sin irrespective of what we have or haven't done. According to the original sin view, mankind is under wrath because of a sin that isn't personal to any of us, meaning that we didn't commit this transgression ourselves.
Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
In verse 1, Paul speaks of his audience in time past being dead in trespasses and sins. Notice that words are plural. Being dead in a plural amount of sins and transgressions indicates that these are personal sins in mind. This is because, according to original sin, we inherited the singular initial sin of Adam, and it's on that basis by which all mankind is guilty and under wrath.
Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
In the next verse, we're told the audience had walked in these trespasses and sins. This again appears to be referencing personal sins.
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
In verse 3, we're told about the fulfillment of lusts and desires. This is again framed in the plural twice which appears to reference personal sins. Immediately after this, we see the text of concern about "the children of wrath".
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
THE OVERARCHING THEME OF EPHESIANS 2
We must also consider the primary theme and point Paul tries to convey in this passage.
Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
A key phrase Paul uses three times in this passage is "in time past". We see it in Ephesians 2:2, 2:3, and 2:11. With our prior section in mind, Ephesians 2 could be broken into three aspects.
1. This was your condition before being saved.
2. This condition was connected to your own personal sins.
3. But this is how you were saved and these are the benefits you now share in.
We believe Paul's message in Ephesians 2 is not to say we are guilty of other people's sins. Rather, it's to say that the horrid condition before being saved is connected to our own sins, but according to God's grace and love, we are saved by grace through faith.
LOOKING AT PARALLEL STATEMENTS IN EPHESIANS 5 AND COLOSSIANS 3
One of the objections we listed earlier was that the original sin interpretation is inconsistent with two other parallel statements from Paul. Let's take a look at them side by side.
Eph 2:2-3 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Eph 5:3-8 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
Col 3:5-7 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.
There are two other times when Paul closely connects the words "children" and "wrath" with the notion of doing things in the past. It's worth noting that Paul doesn't use brephos (Strong's G1025) or paidion (Strong's G3813) in either of these passages to explicitly denote infants or young children. In Ephesians 5, Paul lists various sins and connects them with God's wrath coming upon the children of disobedience. In Colossians 3, Paul again lists various sins and connects them with God's wrath coming upon the children of disobedience. Colossians 3 then says "In the which ye also walked". Compare this with Ephesians 2:2 which says "In time past ye walked". All three of these passages are parallel and detail the condition of people (children of wrath) before their conversion. This condition is directly connected and attributed to personal sins in Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3.
In light of Ephesians 2 also referring to personal sins repeatedly in the surrounding context, we see no reason to not interpret this connection between "children" and "wrath" in the same way. Being a child of wrath is the normative state and condition of humans due to their personal disobedience and sin before conversion. It's our view that because of the inclination and proclivity to sin that we all have as a consequence of the fall, being under wrath is a naturally produced nature we all have as humans.
SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION
We believe the surrounding context and parallel passages of Ephesians 2:1-3 undermine the original sin interpretation of these verses. We see Ephesians 2 as a passage about the habitual practice of humans transgressing themselves and the state of Christians before they were saved by grace through faith.
In verse 3, "children" does not inherently denote infancy as the original sin interpretation demands. Paul is saying being under wrath is the natural state of affairs humans end up in due to being dead in their own sins. This is the state of affairs Christians were in before their conversion and being saved by grace. In Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3, "children of disobedience" doesn't mean infants in the womb were committing the sins Paul listed. Rather, it contextually makes sense to see it as referring to those who have a desire or affection for disobedience related to the sins Paul mentions.
What our interlocutors need to demonstrate for their interpretation to be plausible is:
1. Newly conceived infants is the proper definition of children in these passages.
2. Children of disobedience and wrath needs to be shown as having a connection to other people's sins in Paul's mind. However, every time these words appear together in Paul's corpus, it's surrounded by a context of personal sins and "walking".
3. Adam's sin is in Paul's mind contextually. However, Adam isn't mentioned one time in the entire book of Ephesians.
In light of the points we've gone over, we don't believe a compelling case can be made for fulfilling these three points. Therefore, we believe the original sin interpretation of Ephesians 2:1-3 fails. In our estimation, the original sin interpretation isolates and interprets “children of wrath” without examining and considering the context in which we find this phrase.
Thanks for reading. That concludes this article.
No comments:
Post a Comment