Interpretations of Psalm 51:5 in Early Christianity

 

Hello and welcome. In this article, we will look at interpretations of Psalm 51:5 in early Christianity. This article supplements our analysis of whether Psalm 51:5 teaches original sin. To read that article, see here. 

THE TEXT & COMMON INTERPRETATIONS

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

When it comes to interpretations, there's one from the original sin perspective but various others from perspectives that reject the distinct premise of original sin. The main disagreement is over what "iniquity" and "sin" in this verse are meant to convey.

1. The first interpretation which belongs to the original sin perspective is that "iniquity" and "sin" in Psalm 51:5 are specifically a reference to Adam's guilt of "the original sin" which is transmitted by imputation or inheritance through procreation. 

2. The second interpretation is that "iniquity" and "sin" refer to some type of personal sin in David's ancestry which does not necessarily reflect on David as being guilty of this sin. 

3. The third interpretation is that Psalm 51:5 references the pervasiveness and/or general sinfulness of humans that extends back to our origins without assigning guilt to a specific sin. 

4. The fourth interpretation is that Psalm 51:5 says David was conceived in a world and environment generally marked by sin. 

Of the four interpretations, interpretation 1 seems to have the most specificity out of what it's claiming. It claims that David is speaking of a specific sin committed by a specific person with which he was conceived. Interpretations 2 through 4 are generally put forward by those who don't affirm inherited Adamic guilt and are adjacent/complimentary for the most part. There are more potential interpretations, but 2-4 cover the bases as what's most commonly seen. So how was this verse interpreted in history? 

EARLY CHRISTIANS ON PSALM 51:5

Clement of Rome, ? AD - 100 AD 

“But what shall we say concerning David, to whom such testimony was borne, and of whom God said, “I have found a man after Mine own heart, David the son of Jesse; and in everlasting mercy have I anointed him?”Yet this very man saith to God, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, according to Thy great mercy; and according to the multitude of Thy compassions, blot out my transgression. Wash me still more from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my iniquity, and my sin is ever before me. Against Thee only have I sinned, and done that which was evil in Thy sight; that Thou mayest be justified in Thy sayings, and mayest overcome when Thou art judged. For, behold, I was conceived in transgressions, and in my sins did my mother conceive me. For, behold, Thou hast loved truth; the secret and hidden things of wisdom hast Thou shown me. Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed; Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” - Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter XVIII 

Clement quotes a large section of Psalm 51 in his epistle to show David as an example of humility. While he doesn't supply additional comments on the verse outside of the quote, the way he quotes Psalm 51:5 is relevant. Instead of indicating a single transgression and sin from someone else that is inherited or imputed at conception, Clement indicates that multiple transgressions and personal sins are in mind with the language of "transgressions" and "my sins". This is probably because he was working with the Septuagint translation of the verse which is rendered this way. Does the surrounding context give us any additional insight?

“Let us therefore, brethren, be of humble mind, laying aside all haughtiness, and pride, and foolishness, and angry feelings; and let us act according to that which is written (for the Holy Spirit saith, “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, neither let the rich man glory in his riches; but let him that glorieth glory in the Lord, in diligently seeking Him, and doing judgment and righteousness”), being especially mindful of the words of the Lord Jesus which He spake, teaching us meekness and long-suffering.” - Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter XIII

“For Christ is of those who are humble-minded, and not of those who exalt themselves over His flock. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Sceptre of the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of pride or arrogance, although He might have done so, but in a lowly condition, as the Holy Spirit had declared regarding Him…Ye see, beloved, what is the example which has been given us; for if the Lord thus humbled Himself, what shall we do who have through Him come under the yoke of His grace?” - Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter XVI

“Let us be imitators also of those who in goat-skins and sheep-skins went about proclaiming the coming of Christ; I mean Elijah, Elisha, and Ezekiel among the prophets, with those others to whom a like testimony is borne [in Scripture]. Abraham was specially honoured, and was called the friend of God; yet he, earnestly regarding the glory of God, humbly declared, “I am but dust and ashes.” - Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter XVII

Before Chapter XVIII, Clement exhorts the brethren to be humble and act according to the scriptures. He then goes on to cite examples of humility in scripture. This is Clement's point when he gets to Chapter XVIII and what he means to show. After the lengthy Psalm 51 quote, Clement continues. 

“Thus the humility and godly submission of so great and illustrious men have rendered not only us, but also all the generations before us, better; even as many as have received His oracles in fear and truth. Wherefore, having so many great and glorious examples set before us, let us turn again to the practice of that peace which from the beginning was the mark set before us; and let us look stedfastly to the Father and Creator of the universe, and cleave to His mighty and surpassingly great gifts and benefactions of peace.” - Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter XIX

Clement concludes his teaching point about humility by summarizing the "illustrious men", and their examples, and exhorting his audience to turn to the practice of "that peace". We see that the surrounding details don't give us many hints. There is certainly nothing noteworthy in context that would point us toward an inherited Adamic guilt interpretation from Clement. The plurality of transgression and personal sin in his quote wouldn't neatly fit into that interpretation. 

Clement of Alexandria, 150 AD - 215 AD 

"Such are the arguments of Julius Cassian, the originator of deceits...

When Jeremiah says, Cursed be the day in which I was born, and let it not be longed for," he is not saying simply that birth is accursed, but is in despair at the sins and disobedience of the people...“No one is pure from defilement," says Job, "not even if his life last but one day." Let them tell us how the newly born child could commit fornication, or how that which has done nothing has fallen under the curse of Adam. The only consistent answer for them, it seems, is to say that birth is an evil, not only for the body, but also for the soul for the sake of which the body itself exists. And when David says: “In sin I was born and in unrighteousness my mother conceived me," he says in prophetic manner that Eve is his mother. For Eve became the mother of the living." But if he was conceived in sin, yet he was not himself in sin, nor is he himself sin." - The Stromata, Book III, Chapters XIII & XVI 

The earliest source where we start to see clearly formed interpretations of Psalm 51:5 comes from Clement of Alexandria and his references to Julius Cassian. In the Stromata, Clement responds to various arguments Julius made in his book Concerning Continence and Celibacy. We get an idea of each person's views based on how Clement responds to various verses that Julius was using. Evidently, Julius was using various verses to say that birth is accursed. We then see Job 14:4 referenced side by side with Psalm 51:5 apparently supporting this idea. In response, Clement indicates that he doesn't interpret these verses in a way that means newborn children are guilty of sin. He seems to believe that newborn children have done nothing and in some sense haven't fallen under the curse of Adam. He gives an interpretation of Psalm 51:5 as a prophetic text concerning Eve. Clement interprets the language of being "conceived in sin" to refer back to the parent rather than the infant. For him, a child being conceived in sin does not mean the child is in sin. This interpretation is certainly not in agreement with the original sin perspective. 

"If birth is something evil, let the blasphemers say that the Lord who shared in birth was born in evil, and that the virgin gave birth to him in evil. Woe to these wicked fellows! They blaspheme against the will of God and the mystery of creation in speaking evil of birth. This is the ground upon which Docetism is held by Cassian and by Marcion also, and on which even Valentine indeed teaches that Christ's body was "psychic." - The Stromata, Book III, Chapters XVII

Clement goes on to make a Christological argument against Julius' idea that birth is something evil. What else can we learn about Julius' background?

“Julius Cassianus (assigned by Lardner to A.D. 190) was an Alexandrian Encratite, of whom, whatever his faults, Clement speaks not without respect. He is quoted with credit in the Stromata (book i. cap. xxi. p. 324), but comes into notice here, as having led off the school of Docetism. But Clement does not treat him as he does the vulgar and licentious errorist. He reproves him for his use of the Gospel according to the Egyptians, incidentally testifying to the Catholic recognition of only four Gospels. He refutes a Platonic idea of Cassian, as to the pre-existence of the soul...Clement refutes a false argument from Christ’s hyperbole of hatred to wife and children and family ties, and also gives lucid explanations of passages from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezra, which had been wrested to heretical abuse. In a similar manner, he overthrows what errorists had built upon Job’s saying, “who can bring a clean thing out of the unclean;” as also their false teachings on the texts, “In sin hath my mother conceived me,” “the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul,” and the apostolic instance of the athlete who is “temperate in all things.” - ANF02, Elucidation XIV, p. 669

We see that Julius Cassian was an Encratite. What's that? 

"Literally, "abstainers" or "persons who practised continency", because they refrained from the use of wine, animal food, and marriage. The name was given to an early Christian sect, or rather to a tendency common to several sects, chiefly Gnostic, whose asceticism was based on heretical views regarding the origin of matter." - New Advent, Catholic Encyclopedia, Encratites 

Encratites "abstained" from various things including marriage/procreation due to various underlying beliefs which are often attributed to Gnostic notions of where matter originates. 

“On the basis of Clement’s testimony, we may conclude that Julius Cassian shared the encratite view according to which babies, even though they have yet to commit any sin personally, are born under the curse of Adam. This not only means that they participate in the punishment inflicted by God on the descendants of the first man on account of his transgression of God’s commandment. It also means that they carry with them, on account of the morally negative nature of procreation, a sin, a prostitution that contaminates them and makes them destined to damnation” - Beatrice, Transmission of Sin, p. 188

Beatrice notes that the Encratites, and Julius Cassian by extension seemed to hold that newly conceived infants carry with them the "morally negative nature of procreation" and are therefore destined to damnation. So while Julius arrives at the conclusion that infants are guilty and under spiritual condemnation from conception through Psalm 51:5 and other verses like that of the original sin perspective, he is certainly using a different cause or premise that leads to this conclusion than the specific imputation or inheritance of an Adamic guilt. The premise for Julius is that procreation and birth are accursed. 

Broadly speaking, we see two perspectives on Psalm 51:5 in Clement of Alexandria. On the one hand, the perspective where infants are contaminated and accursed from Julius. On the other hand, the perspective where infants have done nothing and are not in sin from Clement. 

Origen of Alexandria, 185 AD - 253 AD 

“Celsus has not explained how error accompanies the “becoming, or product of generation; nor has he expressed himself with sufficient clearness to enable us to compare his ideas with ours and to pass judgment on them. But the prophets, who have given some wise suggestions on the subject of things produced by generation, tell us that a sacrifice for sin was offered even for newborn infants, as not being free from sin. They say, “I was shaped in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me’; also, "They are estranged from the womb’; which is followed by the singular expression, “They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” - Against Celsus, Book VII, Chapter L

Origen is the next source to reference Psalm 51:5. He uses the verse to support the statement about newborn infants not being free from sin. We should be cautious about taking Origen's statement to mean the sin in question is Adam's which has been inherited or imputed through procreation. We will cite three examples of scholars to demonstrate why we should be cautious about interpreting Origen in this way.

“He treated the Genesis 3 narrative as an allegorical story of the collective fall of humanity in the transcendent world, a worldview he received from the Greek philosopher Plato. Adam did not represent an individual historical figure, according to Origen, but an allegory of humanity and the fall of humanity before history. The evils and injustices experienced in this life were due to transgressions committed in a previous, other worldly life; that is, Origen believed in the theory of a pre-natal or extra-temporal “fall” of individual souls." - Toews, The Story of Original Sin, p. 56  

"We have already seen that Origen postulated a pre-cosmic fall of the spirits to explain the hierarchy of beings and the different lots human beings receive at birth and that the human souls are united to bodies as a punishment for their sins…Origen regards the story of the garden and Adam's expulsion from it as an allegory of the pre-cosmic fall, pointing out that where Moses seems to be speaking of an individual he really has human nature as a whole in mind. As a result, Origen seems to deny any doctrine of corporate sinfulness, for his allegorical interpretation of Genesis suggests that if human beings are sinful from birth, their wickedness is the legacy of their own misguided choices in the transcendental world, and has nothing to do with the disobedience of anyone first man." - Phan, Grace and the Human Condition, p. 90-91  

“Origen believed that infants were guilty of sin, but not for the reasons one might think. These souls had sinned before entering the body (from the pre-cosmic Fall) and that was the rationale for believing in the inheritance of guilt… their own, not Adam’s. Like his predecessor, he believed that Genesis 3 was not a literal historical account. Rather, the account was an allegory of all of humanity. Origen held to the platonic notion of the preexistence of the soul, so he believed that infants were guilty ‘because of prior choices in the transcendent realm.’ He believed that infant baptism was an apostolic tradition and that it was done for the remission of those sins and to cleanse the ‘filth of birth.'" - Jaros, Original Sin in the Gallic Monks, p. 123   

We see that Origen did not believe Adam was an individual historical figure. In light of this, it is hard to imagine that Origen held "not being free from sin" as referring to a perpetually inherited Adamic guilt. As Phan and Jaros point out, any mention from Origen of humans being sinful from birth is attributed to their own personal sins before the world began in "the transcendental world" rather than a corporate Adamic sin. 

Cyprian of Carthage, 210 AD - 258 AD 

“That no one is without filth and without sin. In Job: “For who is pure from filth? Not one; even if his life be of one day on the earth.” Also in the fiftieth Psalm: “Behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins hath my mother conceived me.” Also in the Epistle of John: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” - Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews, Book III, Section 54 

Next is Cyprian. Like Julius Cassian, he also references Job 14:4 and Psalm 51:5 side by side to demonstrate his proposition that everyone is filthy and possesses sin. To help flesh out Cyprian's thoughts on Psalm 51:5, let's look at another text from him. 


“But if anything could hinder men from obtaining grace, their more heinous sins might rather hinder those who are mature and grown up and older. But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted—and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace—how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins—that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.” - Epistle LVIII, Section 5

In Epistle LVIII, we get the full picture of what Cyprian means by everyone possessing filth and sin. In applying Psalm 51:5, he takes this to mean that infants contract a contagion at conception which is "the ancient death". This is then part of Cyprian's justification for infant baptism. When these children are then baptized, the sins of another are remitted. Presumably, this is a reference to the guilt of Adam's sin which is believed to be inherited through procreation. 

“Arguing for infant baptism, he states that even a newborn child who has never committed actual sin has been ‘born carnally after the pattern of Adam, and by his first nativity has contracted the contagion of the ancient death’, although the sins involved here are ‘not his own, but someone else’s’. That he linked the transmission of sinfulness with the process of generation is confirmed by his appeal to Ps. 51, 5: ‘Behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother bear me’.” - JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 176-177

Kelly summarizes Cyprian's interpretation, where he linked the transmission of sin with generation through procreation by using Psalm 51:5, which he used in the context of arguing for infant baptism. 

Ambrose of Milan, 339 AD - 397 AD

“For He was not begotten, as is every man, by intercourse between male and female, but born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin; He received a stainless body, which not only no sins polluted, but which neither the generation nor the conception had been stained by any admixture of defilement. For we men are all born under sin, and our very origin is in evil, as we read in the words of David: “For lo, I was conceived in wickedness, and in sin did my mother bring me forth.” Therefore the flesh of Paul was a body of death, as he himself says: “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” But the flesh of Christ condemned sin, which He felt not at His birth, and crucified by His death, so that in our flesh there might be justification through grace, in which before there had been pollution by guilt.” - Concerning Repentance, Book I, Chapter 3, Section 13

The next comments on Psalm 51:5 that have survived to our day come over a century after Cyprian in Ambrose's writings. Ambrose sees an "admixture of defilement" included in an infant's conception, and so "our very origin is in evil" as a result. 

“Also writing against the Novatians he says: “All of us men are born under sin. And our very origin is in corruption, as you have it read in the words of David,” - Augustine, On Original Sin, Book II, Chapter 29 

“In the work which the saintly Ambrose wrote, Concerning the Resurrection, he says: “I fell in Adam, in Adam was I expelled from Paradise, in Adam I died; and He does not recall me unless He has found me in Adam,—so as that, as I am obnoxious to the guilt of sin in him, and subject to death, I may be also justified in Christ.”Then, again, writing against the Novatians, he says: “We men are all of us born in sin; our very origin is in sin; as you may read when David says, ‘Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.’” - Augustine, On Original Sin, Book II, Chapter 47

This statement from Ambrose was later picked up and cited by Augustine twice in his own treatment of original sin. 

Jerome of Stridon, 342 AD - 420 AD

“The preacher also who is the mouthpiece of the Divine Wisdom freely protests and says: “there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth not:” and again, “if thy people sin against thee, for there is no man that sinneth not:” and “who can say, I have made my heart clean?” and “none is clean from stain, not even if his life on earth has been but for one day.” David insists on the same thing when he says: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me;” - Letter CXXXIII, Section 2 

“Let Him but touch your scars and pass his hands over your eyeballs; and although you may have been born blind from the womb and although your mother may have conceived you in sin, he will purge you with hyssop and you shall be clean, he will wash you and you shall be whiter than snow.” - Letter CXLVII, Section 9 

Jerome references Psalm 51:5 in two of his letters. His work against Jovinian fully articulates his interpretation. 

“But we, according to the Epistle of James, “all stumble in many things,” and “no one is pure from sin, no not if his life be but a day long.” For who will boast “that he has a clean heart? or who will be sure that he is pure from sin?” And we are held guilty after the similitude of Adam’s transgression. Hence David says, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” - Against Jovinian, Book II, Section 2

Like Julius Cassian and Cyprian before him, Jerome cites Psalm 51:5 alongside Job 14:4. In Jerome's mind, Psalm 51:5 supports his belief that humans are "held guilty after the similitude of Adam's transgression". 

“Cyprian, in the fifty-fourth heading of the third book, lays it down that no one is free from stain and without sin, and he immediately gives proofs, among them the passage in Job, “Who is cleansed from uncleanness? Not he who has lived but one day upon the earth.” And in the fifty-first Psalm, “Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”” - Against the Pelagians, Book I, Section 32 

Jerome even cites Cyprian as a historical witness in his polemical works against the Pelagians. 

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 350 AD - 428 AD

“The principles of their heresy are, in summary, the following.  Men sin, they say, by nature and not by intention; and 'by nature' they do not mean that nature which was in Adam when first created (because this, they say, was good because made by a good God), but that nature which was his later after the fall because of his ill conduct and sin.  He received a sinful nature in exchange for the good and a mortal nature in exchange for an immortal; it is in this manner and by nature that men became sinners after having been good by nature. It is in their nature and not by a voluntary choice that they acquired sin. The second point is connected to the preceding propositions. They say that infants, even newly born, are not free from sin because, since the disobedience of Adam, nature is fixed into sin and that this sinful nature, as was said, extends to all his descendants.  They quote, he says, the verse, "I was born in sin" and others similar: the holy baptism itself; the communion with the incorruptible body for the remission of sins and the fact that these apply to infants as a confirmation of their own opinion.  They claim also that no man is just, and this is thus obviously a corollary of their initial position, "because nothing of flesh can be justified before you," he says, and he cites other texts of the same kind.” - Photius’ Bibliotheca, 177, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Against the defenders of Original sin,  para. 3-4

After Clement of Alexandria, the next voice against an original sin interpretation of Psalm 51:5 is Theodore of Mopsuestia. Virtually all sources that comment on Psalm 51:5 before this point were either in North Africa or Southern Europe. On the other hand, Theodore was located in the East in modern-day Turkey. In his writing against the defenders of original sin, he notes that they frequently quoted Psalm 51:5 to support their perspective. 

“He finds no fault with offspring on the basis of nature—perish the thought—nor is there any reference to nature in their case; rather, he comments adversely on the mind-set of the parents. That is to say, it is clear from “conceived in iniquities and carried in sin” by the mother that he refers to the fault of the parents, not the offspring, criticizing the mind-set of the former, not the nature of the children, as some foolish people would like to hold. David, in fact, is not referring to himself; how could he say this of his own nature, when God said to him, “I found a man after my own heart,” far from finding fault with his nature but even admiring his use of free will? So David is not saying this of himself; and even if someone mistakenly put a title on the psalm to this effect, it does not bring the drift of the psalm into question. In other words, I appear to have been conceived in sin and never to have been free from wickedness. Now, “I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins my mother carried me” was well put in reference to the people, since later generations failed seriously and followed their parents in sinning…” - Commentary on Psalm 1-81, p. 675

Theodore's own interpretation of Psalm 51:5 comes in his commentary. He sees David as not ultimately referring to himself. Instead, David is referring to the fault of the parents rather than the nature of infants. Theodore also points out another significance and aspect of Psalm 51:5 in which later generations follow their parents in sinning. 

Augustine of Hippo, 354 AD - 430 AD

“Let us see, then, what Cyprian, most glorious in the Lord, thought of this…Rightly, also, he proposed in his letter to Quirinus his own most absolute judgment on this subject, to which he subjoined the divine testimonies, “That no one is without filth and without sin.” There also he set down those testimonies by which original sin is confirmed, which these men endeavour to twist into I know not what new and evil meanings, whether what the holy Job says, “No one is pure from filth, not one even if his life be of one day upon the earth,” or what is read in the Psalm, “Behold, I was conceived in iniquity; and in sins hath my mother nourished me in the womb.” - Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book IV, Chapter 27

We previously mentioned that Augustine cited Ambrose's comment on Psalm 51:5 twice in his treatment of original sin. Like Jerome, Augustine also cites Cyprian as a historical witness for the original sin interpretation of the verse. 

“Whence also that exclamation of the Psalmist: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me!” This is either said in the person of our common humanity, or if of himself only David speaks, it does not imply that he was born of fornication, but in lawful wedlock.” - Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, Book I, Chapter 34

When it comes to his own comments, Augustine references Psalm 51:5 over a dozen times in his writings. In the quote above, he acknowledges other potential interpretations of the verse which focus on various personal sins rather than a corporate and unilaterally inherited sin from Adam. However, he rejects such interpretations. 

“We are held guilty according to the likeness of Adam’s transgression. Accordingly David also says: ‘Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.’” - Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, Book III, Chapter 13 

Later in the same work, Augustine cites Psalm 51:5 to support the idea that the guilt of Adam's transgression is transmitted to his descendants. 

“Here lies the necessity that each man should be born again, that he might be freed from the sin in which he was born. For the sins committed afterwards can be cured by penitence, as we see is the case after baptism. And therefore the new birth would not have been appointed only that the first birth was sinful, so sinful that even one who was legitimately born in wedlock says: “I was shapen in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me.”” - The Enchiridion, Chapter 46 

In his work on the Trinity, Augustine uses Psalm 51:5 to support the idea that our first birth is sinful. 

"What is it that he saith himself to have been in iniquity conceived, except that iniquity is drawn from Adam? Even the very bond of death, with iniquity itself is engrained? No man is born without bringing punishment, bringing desert of punishment.” - Expositions on the Psalms, LI. 10

In his exposition on Psalm 51:5, Augustine says we bring punishment with our birth.  

SUMMARIZING THE DATA 

What interpretation appears first? 

Multiple interpretations appear around the same time toward the end of the 2nd century. On the one hand, we have an interpretation going in the direction of the original sin perspective with Julius Cassian the Encratite. On the other hand, we have another interpretation that does not align with the original sin perspective coming from Clement of Alexandria.  

Who is the most central figure for the original sin interpretation? 

Based on the sources that are available to us in the 21st century, it seems that Cyprian of Carthage is the most central figure. In the mid-3rd century, he articulated what became the standard original sin interpretation of the verse and drew various conclusions that became prominent. Cyprian is the earliest figure that later sources Jerome and Augustine reference back to as historical support for their position on the verse. After Cyprian, the next most central figure is certainly Augustine. This was one of his key prooftexts for his doctrine of an inherited Adamic guilt. He cited the verse over a dozen times in his works. 

Are there any common themes among the original sin interpretation?

The most striking common theme is the dual citation of Job 14:4 and Psalm 51:5 side by side in virtually all of the sources that promote something like an original sin interpretation. There is also a common thread of how birth is spoken of among these sources. In Julius Cassian, birth is accursed. In Ambrose, our very origin is in evil. In Augustine, our first birth is sinful. 

Is there any opposition to the original sin interpretation in the 4th century? 

The usage of Psalm 51:5 in support of original sin gained repeated usage and prominence toward the end of the 4th century. During this time, opposition and/or the existence of other interpretations can be seen in Augustine's writings as well as in Theodore of Mopsuestia's commentary on Psalms. 

WHY IS THERE SILENCE IN THE EAST?

As we've noted already, the sources up to the beginning of the 5th century that comment on Psalm 51:5 are almost exclusive from the Latin-speaking western regions of North Africa or Southern Europe. The exception to this rule is Theodore of Mopsuestia. So why do we not see more comments and interpretations of this verse in the Greek-speaking eastern regions? The answer is quite simple.

“The Greek fathers, with their insistence that man’s free will remains intact and is the root of actual sinning, have a much more optimistic outlook than the West. It is easy to collect passages from their works which, at any rate in the light of later orthodoxy, appear to rule out any doctrine of original sin…Admittedly there is hardly a hint in the Greek fathers that mankind as a whole shares in Adam’s guilt, i.e. his culpability.” - JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 349-350

“For the Greek Fathers, as the consequence of Adam's sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt - common in Western tradition - was foreign to this perspective, since in their view sin could only be a free, personal act.” - International Theological Commission, The hope of salvation for infants who die without being baptized, para. 11

"To a quite remarkable extent, the Greek Fathers carried on in their time-honoured fashion, emphasizing above all else the universal mortality which has spread as the result of Adam's sin, but steering clear of any imputation of his guilt." - Gerald Bray, Original Sin in patristic thought, p. 46

"From the discussion of the controversies about the problem of original sin in the East, which we have traced in these last three chapters, it seems possible to draw the following conclusion. Apart from authors such as Origen, Didymus the Blind, Isidore of Pelusium, and Hesychius of Jerusalem, whose positions are for the most part indecisive and ambiguous, the Greek Fathers opposed this doctrine from the beginning with all of their theological and pastoral authority. They felt it to be alien to the main body of orthodox belief, and therefore judged it to be heretical." - Beatrice, The Transmission of Sin, p. 219 

“The most critical point of difference between the East and the West is the absence among the Greek-speaking theologians of the concept of inherited guilt, which is the central point of the Latin doctrine of sin. Without exception among the Greek theologians, the inheritance from Adam’s sin was mortality and corruption only. That is, the Greek fathers taught that humanity inherited Adam’s punishment, death, but not Adam’s sin. Guilt for sin could only be the result of a freely committed personal act. The Greek theologians consistently espoused the sinlessness of infants as late as John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia, contemporaries of Augustine.” - Toews, The Story of Original Sin, Chapter 4

As much scholarship has attested to, there was no prominent doctrine of original sin as an inherited guilt among the Greek-speaking Christians in the East. Since this doctrine was not prominent there was no reason to seize upon one of the primary prooftexts of original sin and make repeated comments on it. It simply didn't have substantial theological relevance for those in the East. This seems to be the most straightforward explanation for why we don't see many comments on this verse in this region and why instead the verse sees near-exclusive use in the West. 

 

Thanks for reading. That concludes this article.