Grace Theological
Journal 1.2 (Spring 1980) 195-219
Copyright © 1980 by Grace
Theological Seminary. Cited with permission.
EPHESIANS 2:3c AND
PECCATUM ORIGINALE
DAVID
L. TURNER
INTRODUCTION
THE student of hamartiology soon discovers that Eph 2:3c is a
standard
proof text for and often occurs in the various presenta-
tions of
original sin (peccatum originale or
habituale). It may well be
that
after Rom 5: 12-21 this passage is the most important in the NT
on this
doctrine. All branches of Christendom, including Reformed,
Lutheran,
Anglican, Arminian, and Roman Catholic1 have
depended
1 Reformed: The Calvinistic
theologians normally view this verse as asserting
hereditary
depravity. See for example: Louis Berkhof, Systematic
Theology (
The Banner of Truth Trust, 1941) 240; John Calvin. Institutes
of the Christian Religion
(LCC 20, 21; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960),
Lectures in
Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976 reprint) 328, 341;
Charles
Hodge, Systematic Theology (3 vols.;
2.243-44; W. G. T. Shedd. Dogmatic Theology (3 vols.; reprinted;
and
Klock, 1979), 2. 217-19; and A. H. Strong. Systematic Theology (
Judson Press, 1907) 578-79. See also the Westminster Confession (6:4) and Shorter
Catechism
(Question 18): The Confession of Faith
(Halkirk,
Committee of the Free Church of Scotland, 1962 reprint) 40, 290. Lutheran:
It is
evident that
Martin Luther viewed Eph 2:3c as support for hereditary sin. For brief
citations from
Luther and references to relevant passages see E. W. Plass, ed., What
Luther Says (3 vols.;
4385). See
also article 2 of the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord
(1. 1-3) in
the Concordia Triglot: The Symbolical
Books of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church (St. Louis: Concordia, 1921) 44, 105, 779. The Lutheran theologian Francis
Pieper also
views Eph 2:3c in this manner. See his Christian
Dogmatics (4 vols.; St.
Louis: Concordia, 1950),
Articles of
the Church of England do not contain proof texts, the language of Article 9
shows that
its framers understood original sin to refer to "the fault and corruption
of
the
nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of
Adam." This
definition
implies a reference to Eph 2:3c. For an exposition of the conservative
Anglican
view, see Gilbert Burnet, An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles of
the
Church of England, rev. by J. R. Page (London: Scott,
Webster, and Geary, 1837) 139-
51 and W. H.
Griffith-Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to
the
Thirty-nine Articles (6th ed.;
gians such as Miley and Sheldon spend
considerable time with Eph 2:3c. While they
admit
"original sin," they deny that man is held responsible or guilty
because of it. See
John Miley,
Systematic Theology (2 vols.;
196 GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
upon this
passage in formulating their hamartiological positions.
There are
those, however, who deny that this passage has any a
relevance to
original sin.2 Their arguments are not to be taken
lightly.
The purpose
of this paper is to determine whether Eph 2:3c actually
supports the
concept of original sin, find if so, what that contribution
is.
One point of definition must be clarified first: this paper deals
with
original sin proper rather than the broader area of man's
depravity.
Kuehner thus explains this term:
It is so named because (1) it is derived from the original root of
mankind; (2) it is present in each individual
from the time of his birth;
(3) it is the inward root of all actual
sins that defile the life of man.3
It is true that "original sin" is often used with all
three of these
concepts .in
mind. As "original sin" is used in this paper, however, a
narrower
concept is implied: "the phrase original sin designates only
the
hereditary moral corruption c01mon to all men from birth.”4
and H.
C. Sheldon, System of Christian Doctrine
(New York: Eaton and Mains, 1903)
316-17. John
Wesley preached a sermon on original sin, evidently from Eph 2:3c on
original sin
was taught in this text. However, his doctrine of prevenient grace probably
caused him
to deny that man was guilty or under wrath due to original sin. See John
Wesley. The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley (4 vols.;
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967) 232-36. Catholic:
Both Augustine and Aquinas used Eph 2:3c
to
support original sin, though they had quite different understandings of man's
sin-
fulness. See
Holmes and
R. E. Wallis; rev. by B. B. Warfield, A Select library of the Nicene and
Post-Nicene
Fathers of the Christian Church (vol. 4;
Literature Company, 1887) 50, 122, 150,236,290-91. One wonders why G. M. Lukken
translates
Augustine's natura (Latin for nature
= fu<sij) as
"second nature." See
Lukken's Original Sin in the Roman liturgy (Leiden: Brill, 1973) 330. For Aquinas,
see
Original Sin (Summa Theologiae, 26; New York: McGraw-Hili, 1963) 11 (Question
81:1). For a modern Catholic perspective see A. M. Dubarle, The Biblical Doctrine of
Original Sin, trans. by E. M. Stewart (London:
Geoffrey Chapman, 1964) 188-89 and
Ferninand
Prat, The Theology of
2Among
many denials, see Markus Barth, Ephesians (AB; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1974),
(London: Longmans, Grren, and Co., Ltd., 1927) 113, n. I; and George B. Stevens,
The Pauline
Theology (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1895), 152-58.
3Fred
C. Kuehner, "Fall of Man" in the Wyclliffe Bible Encyclopedia, ed. by C.
F.
Pfeiffer, et
al. (2 vols.;
4A. A. Hodge. Outlines
of Theology (
1879 edition) 324. It cannot be asserted too strongly that "original" does
not refer to
man's
original character as created by God, but to his original character as a
descendant of
Adam.
TURNER: EPH 2:3c AND PECCATUM
ORIGINALE 197
The
investigation, then, relates to the legitimacy of using Eph 2:3c as
a
proof text for the hereditary moral corruption of man’s nature.
The term "nature" is used incessantly in articulating
the doctrines
of
theology proper (specifically relating to the trinity), Christology
(one person with two "natures"), anthropology
(human "nature"),
and
hamartiology (sin "nature," old "nature"). However, there
is
often
confusion in the way this term is used. In this writer's view, it is
imperative to
distinguish between a "person" as a substantive entity
and a
"nature" as a complex of attributes in any of these branches of
theology.5 Therefore, the term "nature" will
be used here to refer to a
complex of
attributes. Attributes are viewed as innate char1cteristics,
not
acquired habits.
Only an exegetical theology can be a valid biblical theology.
Therefore,
the paper is primarily exegetical. The three sections handle
(1) preliminary matters of exegesis, (2) the Semitic nature, of te<kna
... o]rgh?j, and
(3) the crucial word fu<sei. The conclusion summa-
rizes the exegesis and briefly interacts with
other views from the
perspective that
Eph 2:3c does indeed support the idea of hereditary
moral
corruption.
PRELIMINARY
MATTERS
Context
A well-known approach to the book of Ephesians views its first
three
chapters as primarily doctrinal and its second three chapters as
primarily
expounding duties based upon doctrine. After his normal
epistolary
introduction (1:1-2), Paul breaks out into praise to the
triune God
for his glorious salvation (1:3-14). Next he explains his
prayerful
desire that the Ephesians might apprehend a greater knowl-
edge of
their glorious position in the body of Christ (
first
three verses of chap. 2 serve to remind the Ephesians of their
sinful past
so that they might better appreciate the love, mercy, and
grace of
God who saved them by grace through faith for good works
2:4-10). The remainder of chaps. 2 and 3 further explains God's
gracious
program of uniting Jew and Gentile in Christ's body, the
church (
prayer for
the Ephesians' spiritual growth which concludes with a
stirring doxology
(
5See J. O. Buswell, Jr., A Systematic Theology of the Christian
Religion (Grand
Rapids:
Zondervan, 1962), 1.55,2.56. R. E. Showers comes to
the similar conclusion
that
nature refers to character or "inherent disposition." See his
"The New Nature,"
(unpublished Th.D. dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary,
1975) 23.
198 GRACE THEOGICAL
JOURNAL
Text
At first glance into the critic I apparatus of the V.B.S. text,6 it
appears that
there are no textual variants in 2:3. The Nestle text's
apparatus
reveals that manuscripts A and D have the second person
u[mei?j instead of the first person h[mei?j in
the first clause of the verse. 7
Tischendorf's
more exhaustive apparatus shows that manuscripts A,
D, E, F, G,
K, L, and P have h#men instead of h@meqa as the main verb
in
2:3c.8 Since these two forms are parsed identically, no change in
meaning is
involved. A variant more important for exegesis changes
the word
order of the phrase from te<kna
fu<sei o]rhh?j to fu<sei te<kna
o]rgh?j (mss
A, D, E, F, G, L, and P, and some versions).9 At first
glance,
this reading seems to place much more emphasis upon the
crucial term
fu<sei.
However, none of the above variants have
sufficient
support to render the text of the passage questionable. This
study,
therefore, will proceed with the text of Eph 2:3c as it stands
in the
Nestle, U.B.S., and Trinitarian Bible Society (textus receptus)
texts.
Change in person
The attentive reader of Ephesians 1-2 will notice that Paul speaks
in the
first person plural10 and addresses the Ephesians in the second
person.11 The question arises as to why Paul shifts from first person
to
second person and then back again to first person (see I: 12-14; see
also 2:
1-3 for the opposite shift). Does his first person plural "we"
refer to
himself and the Ephesians or does it mean "we Jews," as
opposed to
"you (Ephesians) Gentiles"? In interpreting 2:3c h@meqa
6Kurt
Aland, et al., ed.; The Greek New Testament (3rd ed.;
United Bible Societies, 1975) 666-67.
7Nestle,
Eberhard, ed., Novum Testamentum Graece
(24th ed.;
Wiirttem-bergischen Bibelanstalt, 1960)
491.
8Constantine
Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece
(3 vols.; editio
octavo critica major; Lipsiae: Giesecke and Derrient, 1872), 2.
671. The textus
receptus also has h#men instead of h@meqa see H KAINH DIAQHKH (
Trinitarian Bible Society, 1976) 355.
9Tischendorf, NT Graece,
2. 671.
Another very obscure reading listed by
Tischendorf is te<kna o]rgh?j fu<sei. For a rather full textual apparatus on
this
verse see
S. D. F. Salmond, "The Epistle to the Ephesians"in The Expositors
Greek
Testament, ed. by W. R. Nicoll (5 vols.;
10
Notice the first person plural pronouns in 1:2, 3 (2x), 4 (2x), 5, 6, 8,9,
12, 14, 17, 19; 2:3, 4, 5, 7, 14 and the first person plural verbs
in 1:7, 11; 2:3 (2x), 9, 10,
14, 18. The question is whether these first
person plural expressions ("we," "us") relate
to
Paul and the Ephesians or to Paul and other Jews, exclusive of the gentile
Ephesians.
11Notice
also the second person pronouns in 1:2, 13 (2x), 15, 16, 17, 18; 2:2
(2x), 8,11,13,17,22;
3:1 and the second person verbs in 1:13; 2:2,5,8, II, 12, 13,
19 (2x), 22. These expressions undoubtedly refer to the Ephesians
collectively.
TURNER: EPH 2:3c AND PECCATUM ORIGINLE 199
then
refers either to Paul and his readersl2 or to Paul and other
Jews.13 The
final comparative clause, w[j kai> oi[ loipoi<, refers either
to the
rest of the Gentiles,14 or to humanity in general, including Jews
and
Gentiles.15 The position taken here is that "we" is a
reference to
Paul and the
Ephesians, and "the rest" is a reference to mankind in
general. It
is not until 2:11ff. that a discernible distinction
can be
made
between "we" (Jews) and "you" (Gentiles).16
Word order
That the word order of 2:3c was considered difficult at one time
or
another is evident from the textual variants which change the
order from te>lma fi>seo o]rgh?j to fu<sei te<kna
o]rgh?j and te<kna
o]rgh?j fu<sei.
Robertson notes that this word order is unusual, but
offers no
explanation.17 Winer lists some other
instances in Paul
where the
genitive is "separated from its governing noun by another
word"
and suggests that this word order was necessary so that "an
unsuitable
stress was not to fall on fu<sei"18
Abbott finds the
position of fu<sei to
be unemphatic and even uses this as an argument
against
interpreting it to support the doctrine of original sin.19 Alford
agrees that
there is no emphasis on fu<sei but states that "its doctrinal
12For
the view that "we" in 2:3c refers to Paul and his readers, Jews and
Gentiles
alike, see
John Eadie. Commentary on the Epistle to
the Ephesians (reprinted;
Commentary on
1978) 45;
William Hendriksen, New Testament
Commentary: Exposition of Ephesians
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967) 109-10; R. C. H.
Lenski, The Interpretation of
Epistle to the Galatians. Ephesians. and Philippians (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961)
410; and S. D. F. Salmond, "Ephesians," 285-86.
13For the view. that "we" in 2:3c refers to Paul and other Jews, excluding the
gentile
Ephesians (u[ma?j, 2:1), see T. K. Abbott, The Epistles to the Ephesians and
to the Colossians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1897) 43; Francis Foulkes. The
Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians (Tyndale New Testament Commentary;
Eerdmans, 1963) 70; Charles
Hodge. An Exposition of Ephesians (
Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc., n.d.) 37; and H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and
Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the
Ephesians, trans. by
M. J. Evans (reprinted;
14 Abbott, Ephesians, 46; Foulkes. Ephesians,
70; and Meyer, Ephesians, 368.
15Eadie, Ephesians, 137; Ellicott. Ephesians,
46; and Lenski, Ephesians, 412.
16The
writer agrees entirely with Hendriksen on this point. See his Ephesians,
109-10.
17 A. T.
Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New
Testament in the Light of
Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934) 419, 503.
18G. B. Winer. A Grammar
of the Idiom of the New Testament, rev. by G.
Liinemann; trans. by J. H. Thayer (Andover: Warren H. Draper,
1886) 191.
19
Abbott, Ephesians, p. 45 states that
the original sin view "gives a very great
emphasis to fu<sei,
which its position forbids."
200 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
force...is
not thereby lessened.”20 Another differing opinion is
offered by
Nigel Turner:
I would say the position is
very emphatic: the word comes as a
hiatus in a genitive construct construction (Semitic), so
that it
must go closely with tekna
and suggests a meaning, "natural
children of wrath.”21
At this
juncture, it seems that Abbott's contention lacks proof. As
Alford
stated, even if fu<sei is not emphatic, its doctrinal force is
not
negated. The
meaning of fu<sei is more crucial to its doctrinal import
than its
position in the sentence. However, Turner's view deserves
careful
consideration, especially when: it is noted that this is the only
place in
the NT where this type of construction is interrupted in
this way.22
Syntax of 2:1-3
Only three questions can be noted briefly here. The first concerns
the
logical and grammatical connection of 2:1 (kai> u[ma?j...) with the
preceding
prayer of Paul. Westcott's view that u[ma?j in
2:1 is
"strictly parallel" to kai> pa<nta u[pe<tacen and au]to>n
e@dwken
in 1:2 23
seems untenable in view of the climactic nature of
concluding
Paul's prayer. Rather, 2:1 is better viewed as a specific
application to
the Ephesians (The position of kai>
u[ma?j is emphatic
of the
power of God mentioned previously (1:19ff.)24
A second consideration is the anacoluthon in 2:1. Paul's exposi-
tion of
sin in 2:2-3 breaks the sentence begun in 2:1. Evidently the
main verb
lacking in 2:1 (for which u[ma?j o@ntaj
nekrou>j was to be
the
direct object) is finally supplied by sunezwopoi<hsen. The
adjec-
tive nekrou>j, describing man's problem in 2:1, is answered by the
verb sunezwopoi<hsen in 2:5.
The third syntactical question relates to the connection of 2:3c
to
the
preceding. In 2:3 the subject h[mei?j has
a compound predicate.
20 Henry
Alford, The Greek Testament, rev. by E. F. Harrison (4
vols.;
Moody, 1958), 3. 91.
21Nigel Turner, personal letter to this writer,
22The
Semitic construct construction mentioned by Turner will be
discussed in
the next chapter. Table 2 lists every NT instance of this construction.
Eph 2:3c is
the only instance where another word interrupts between metaphorical
ui[o<j or te<kna and
its following genitive.
23B. F.
Westcott, St. Paul's Epistle to the
Ephesians (reprinted;
Klock and Klock, 1976) 29.
24For
this view see Abbott. Ephesians,
38-39; Ellicott. Ephesians,
42; and
Meyer, Ephesians,
356. Perhaps the kai> in 2:1 is to be understood as emphatic
("indeed").
See H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(Toronto: Macmillan,
1955) 250-51.
TURNER: EPH 2:3c AND PECCATUM
ORIGINALE 201
The two main
verbs, a]nestra<fhme<n and h@meqa portray first
the acts
and then the state of the Ephesians' past lives. Two e]n plus
relative
pronoun phrases are the means of connecting both v 1 to v 2
and v 2
to V 3.25
THE ALLEGED SEMITISM
General definition of Semitisms
The precise nature and literary identity of the language of the NT
has long
been a matter of scholarly debate. Gone are the days when
the NT
was viewed as "Holy Ghost Greek," written in a mystical
language
unrelated to the secular world26 It is commonly recognized
today that
the NT was written largely in koine Greek, the
language of
the
people, rather than in the polished literary style of classical
Greek.27
More controversial is the degree of influence exercised by
25The writer would like to introduce the question of a chiastic
arrangement in 2:1-
3. This is
merely a tentative suggestion, not a dogmatic conclusion. Note that vv. I and
3b
both have
verb forms which refer to a state of
being (o@ntaj present participle of ei#mi and
h@meqa imperfect indicative of
ei#mi. Also note that vv. 2 and 3a, both of
which begin with
prepositional phrases in e]n have
verbs which present analogous concepts of habitual
behavior
periepath<sate and a]nestra<fhme<n,
probably constative aorists. The possible ABBA
chiasmus,
diagrammed below, has as its first and fourth elements the idea of sin as a state,
while its
second and third elements view sin as activity.
Let the reader analyze this and
decide
whether it is intentional or merely coincidental. Whether or not chiasmus is
accepted, it is
evident that conceptually 2:3b is
similar to 2:1, and that 2:2 is similar to
2:3. For some
insights and additional sources on chiasmus, see Nigel Turner, Syntax
(A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 3; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1963)
345-47;
and J. H.
Moulton, Style (A Grammar of New
Testament Greek, 4;
T. Clark,
1976) 3, 6~, 87, 97ff., 116, 147.
116, 147.
2:1 A: kai> u[ma?j o@ntaj nekrou>j
toi?j paraptw<masin kai> tai?j a[marti<aij u[mw?n
2:2 B: e]n ai#j pote periepath<sate
kata>
to>n ai]w?na tou? ko<smou
tou<tou, kata> to>n a@rxonta th?j e]cousi<aj tou? a]e<roj, tou?
pneu<matoj tou? nu?n e[nergou?ntoj e]n toi?j ui[oi?j
th?j
a]peiqei<aj.
2:3 B1
e]n oi$j kai> h[mei?j pa<ntej a]pestra<fhme<n pote e]n tai?j
e]piqumi<aij th?j sarko>j h[mw?n, poiou?ntej ta> qelh<mata
th?j sarko>j kai> tw?n dianoiw?n,
2:3b
A1: kai> h@meqa te<kna fu<sei o]rgh?j w[j kai> oi[ loipoi<
26See Adolf Deissmann, Bible
Studies, trans. by A. Grieve I (reprinted;
corollary of verbal inspiration.
In deprecating one, he deprecated the other, as if the
doctrine of
verbal inspiration ruled out the personalities and culture of the human authors
of
Scripture. This indicates a need for conservatives to adequately articulate a
Bibliology
which
avoids the pitfalls of both errantism and docetism.
27This
writer is aware that this statement is perhaps over-simplified. Obviously
the style of the NT
writers varies exceedingly; Luke and the author of Hebrews both
used a rather
polished style.
202 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Semitic culture and language upon the NT writers. Related to this
influence are
the literary similarities and disparities between the NT
and the
LXX.28 Deissmann directed much of his
labors against an
extreme theory
of heavy dependence an the LXX and emphasized the
living
nature of language and the various circumstances present in the
lives of
the NT writers.29 One must take care, however, to notice the
Semitic
background of the NT writers.30
The terms Hebraism, Aramaism, and Semitism are all used to
describe
Semitic influence upon the I vocabulary and style of NT
Greek. As
Moule states, "this ugly and rather jargonistic word seems
to have
'come to stay' as a term to describe features of Greek which
are
tinged with either Aramaic or Hebrew."31 Moule's
definition is
perhaps
over-simplified, since other works distinguish between "Semi-
tisms"
and "secondary Semitisms." A Semitism proper (or primary
Semitism) is
defined as "a deviation from genuine Greek idiom to a
28For a
concise discussion of Semitisrns and a valuable bibliography on the
subject, see
C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom-Book of New
Testament Greek (
see
Weston Fields, "Aramaic New Testament Originals?" (unpublished
Postgraduate
Seminar paper, Grace
Theological Seminary, 1975). H. St. John Thackeray discusses
the
nature of LXX Greek from the perspectives of its koinh< basis and its Semitic
element. See
his Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek
(
Press, 1909)
16-55.
29Deissmann
stated "The theory 1ndicated is a great power in exegesis, and
that is
not to be denied. It is edifying and what is more, it is convenient. But it is
absurd. It mechanises
the marvellous variety of the linguistic elements of the Greek
Bible and
cannot be established either by the psychology of language or by history."
See his Bible Studies, 65. In Deissmann's view
the key to understanding NT Greek
was not
found in the "translation Greek" of the LXX but in the inscriptions
and
papyri of
the NT period (80-84).
30While
respecting the work of Deissmann and J. H. Moulton in relating NT
Greek to
secular Greek, C. F. D. Moule cautions that "the pendulum has swung rather
too far
in the direction of equating Biblical with 'secular' Greek; and we must not
allow
these fascinating
discoveries to blind us to the fact that Biblical Greek still does retain
certain
peculiarities, due in part to Semitic influence...and in part to the moulding
influence of
the Christian experience, which did in some measure create an idiom
and a
vocabulary of its own." See his Idiom-Book,
3-4;cf. 188. Similarly Nigel
Turner
speaks of the "strongly Semitic character of Bibl. Greek.;' Turner views
the
language of the NT to be as unique as its subject matter. See his Syntax, 9.
31Moule. Idiom-Book, 171. For additional discussions of Semitisms
see F.
Blass and A.
Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and
Other Early
Ozristian
literature, trans. and
rev. by R. W. Funk (
1961) 3-4;
James H. Moulton, Prolegomena (A
Grammar of New Testament Greek,
I;
Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1908) 1-20; J. H. Moulton and W. F. Howard,
Accidence
and Word Formation (A Grammar of New
Testament Greek, 2;
88-108; and G. B. Winer, Grammar,
238.
TURNER: EPH 2:3c AND PECCATUM
ORIG NALE 203
too
literal rendering of the language of a Semitic original.”32 In this
sense, Eph
2:3c is not a Semitism (primary). A secondary Semitism,
however is a
possible but unidiomatic Greek construction, which
strains
ordinary Greek usage to conform to a normal Semitic con-
struction.”33
It is only in this secondary sense that the term Semitism
relates to
Eph 2:3c.
A specific Semitism: te<kna o]rgh?j
Hebrew syntaxes and lexicons often note the use of NBe in
the
construct
state followed by a noun expressing quality, character, or
other
attributes.34 According to Gesenius, this construction is used
"to represent a person...as possessing some object or
quality, or
being in
some condition.”35 While normal Greek or English idiom
would
simply supply an adjective, Davidson states,
The genius of the [Hebrew] language is not favorable to the
formation
of adjectives, and the gen. is used in various ways as explicative
of the
preceding noun, indicating its material, qualities,
or relations.36
Certain
other Hebrew words are used comparatively, often with this
type of
"qualifying genitive:" wyxi, lfaBa, and tBe. Two good examples
of NBe in
this construction are tOKha NBe
(Deut 25:2, a "son of stripes" =
"deserves beating") and LyiHa-yneB; (2 Kgs
"strong men"). For further examples, see Table 1.
32Moulton and Howard. Accidence
and Word Formation, 14, 477. This
definition
assumes Hebrew or Aramaic NT source documents or perhaps; even originals.
This theory
has been evaluated in Fields' work cited in n. 28.
33Moulton and Howard. Accidence
and Word Formation 477. Nigel Turner's
definition is
similar. He describes Semitisms as "those Greek idioms which owe their
form of
the frequence of their occurrence to Aramaic, or Hebrew, or to an influence
which might
equally well apply to both languages." See his Style, 5.
34See A. B. Davidson. Hebrew Syntax
(Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1901)
30-33; W. R. Harper. Elements of Hebrew Syntax
(5th ed.;
Scribner's Sons, 1899) 30-31; S. P. Tregelles. Gesenius'
Hebrew and Chaldee
Lexicon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949) 126, sec (7); Ludwig Koehler and
Walter
Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris
Testamenti Libros (2 vols.;
Brill/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), 1. 133; and Francis Brown, S. R. Driver,
and
Charles Briggs, A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament
(Oxford:
Clarendon, 1906) 121, § 8; H. Haag, "NBe” TDOT,
2 (
Eerdmans, 1975) 152-53. For ,this in the
LXX see Thackeray, Grammar,
41-42.
35W. Gesenius and
(2nd English ed.; ed. by A. E. Cowley;
Examples of the construction are given on 418.
36Davidson, Syntax, 32.
GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL 204
Many Greek grammars and lexicons note that ui!oj and te<knon
are
sometimes used in a manner equivalent to this Hebrew construc-
tion. It
is described in various sources as the "Hebraic genitive,”37
the
"genitive of relationship,"38 the
"attributive genitive,”39 the "adjectival
genitive",40
the "genitive of quality",41 and the "genitive of a
thing.”42
All of these
terms describe the same grammatical feature: instead of
modifying a
noun with a simple adjective, the word ui!oj or te<knon is
followed by a
noun in the genitive which modifies the noun. For
example,
instead of describing a person as "peaceful" (ei]rhniko<j), he
is
described as a "son of peace" (ui!oj ei]rhnhj, Luke 10:6). For
further NT
examples, see Table 2.43
Although an impressive array of scholars view Eph 2:3c as a
Semitism,44 some deny or
diminish the Semitic influence. Adolf
Deissmann in
his Bible Studies made a case for ui!oj or te<knon
followed by
the genitive as a genuine Greek idiom. Distinguishing
such
expressions in the gospels (which he regarded as translation
Greek) from
those in the Pauline and Petrine epistles, he concluded
concerning the
latter:
In no case whatever are they un-Greek; they might quite well have
been
coined by a Greek who wished to use impressive
language. Since,
however, similar turns of expression are found in
the Greek Bible
[LXX], and are in part cited by Paul and others, the theory of
analogical formations will be found a sufficient
explanation.45
37Moulton and Howard, Accidence
and Word Formation, 440. M. Zerwick
similarly
refers to the "Hebrew genitive." See his Biblical Greek (English ed.;
Scripta Pontificii
Instituti Biblici, 1963) 14.
38Blass-Debrunner-Funk, Grammar,
89.
39Robertson, Grammar,
496-97.
40Moule, Idiom-Book,
174-75.
41Turner, Style, 90.
42 J. H.
Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament (
T. and T. Clark, 1901) 635; and W. F. Arndt and
F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. by F. W.
Gingrich and
F. W. Danker (2nd ed.;
43Table
2 has been adapted from a list in Moulton and Howard, Accidence
and Word Formation, 441.
44To
mention only a few scholars, see Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, 839;
Alexander
Buttman, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek,
trans. by J. H.
Thayer
(Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1880) 161-62; C. F. D. Moule, Idiom-Book,
174; Moulton and Howard, Accidence and Word Formation, 441; Albracht Oepke,
pai<j TDNT,
5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967) 639; Thayer, Lexicon, 618; and
Winer, Grammar, 238. Nearly all critical commentaries also
view te<kna ... o]rghj
as a
Semitism.
45Deissmann, Bible Studies,
166. Evidently
"analogical formation" meant
that NT
writers used a Greek idiom analogous to the Hebrew idiom.
TURNER: EPH 2:3c AND PECCATUM ORIG NALE 205
Deissmann's
argumentation was twofold. First, he supplied inscrip-
tional
evidence of similar pure Greek idiom.46 Second, he pointed out
that even
the translators of the LXX did not slavishly translate
metaphorical NBe with ui!oj.47 While Moulton and Milligan followed
Deissmann,48 this writer must agree with the majority of scholars,
who view
Eph 2:3c as a genuine Semitism. Nigel Turner's statement
seems
adequate: "The LXX translators so often faced the problem of
the
construct state in its adjectival function...that apparently the
habit of
using a genitive of quality had been caught by Paul...”49
Three lingering questions
While most scholars view te<kna in
2:3c as synonymous with ui[oi>,
there are
a few dissenters. In 2:2 Paul used the Semitic toi?j ui[oi?j
th?j
a]peiqei<aj. Why
then in the next verse did he switch from ui!oj to
te<kna? Was
this unconscious, or for literary variety, or was it a subtle
emphasis of a
birth concept (te<knon from ti<ktw,
"to beget,')?50 It is
interesting to
note that there seem to be comparatively few instances
in the
LXX where te<knon translates metaphorical NBe.51 As seen in
Table 1, ui!oj is the predominant word. However, as
shown in Table
2, there are
six NT instances where te<knon
seems to be used in the
Semitic metaphorical sense. Only further study will show whether this
change from
ui!oj to te<knon is exegetically significant. Presently,
however,
such significance seems doubtful.
46Ibid.,
165-66.
47Ibid., 164.
I
48 J. H.
Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the
Greek Testament
Illustrated from the Papyri and Other
Non-Literary Sources (
1976 reprint) 649.
49Tumer, Style, 649. It is interesting to note that scholars
before Deissmann
(when NT Greek was
explained as either Semitic or derived from classical) and after
Deissrnann (when
NT Greek is viewed in its koine context) are agreed
that Eph
2:3c is a
Semitism.
50C. F.
Ellicott, citing Bengel as in agreement, states that te<kna is not simply
identical with the
Hebraistic ui[oi< ver. 2 ..." He believes that the
word connoted "a
near and
close relation" to God's wrath. See his Ephesians, 46 and Alford, "Ephesians,"
3. 91. M. R.
Vincent views te<kna as emphasizing the connection to wrath by
birth.
See his
"The Epistles of Paul" (Word Studies in the New Testament, 3;
reprinted;
Edwards also
noted the change from ui!oj to te<knon and
saw in it an emphasis on
birth. See
his Original Sin (The Works of Jonathan
Edwards, 3; New Haven/London:
51 This writer
has not done the concordance work necessary for dogmatism
on this point.
However, thus far he has found te<knon for metaphorical NBe only in
Hos 2:4;
10:9. Isa 57:4 has te<kna
a]pwlei<aj for fwap,-ydel;yi
206 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
In
the introductory section on word order, the writer has already
presented
several opinions on the sequence of words in this phrase.
At this
point the question of word order must be directed to the
question of
Semitic influence. Of all the OT examples of metaphori-
cal NBe and
the NT examples of metaphorical ui!oj/te<knon only
in 2:3c
does a
word intervene between the term "son" and the qualifying geni-
tive.
This fact seems to make fu<sei quite emphatic. Is this unique word
order
relevant to the question of Semitism? Perhaps this indicates that
2:3c is more
emphatic than a normal Semitic construction.52
construction.52
While the nature of the genitive-whether subjective or objec-
tive is
not broached in many sources, it is an important question.53
The
ambiguity of such constructions is evident from the NIV's
translation
("those who are anointed:" objective) and margin ("two
who bring
oil:" subjective) of Zech
a]peiqei<aj must
be subjective. However, 2:3c is normally taken as
objective: te<kna... o]rgh?j means those who are presently under
God's wrath
(cf. John
worthy of
God's wrath (Eph 5:6;
that te<kna... o]rgh?j should be understood as those
characterized by
wrath in the
same sense that the toi?j ui[oi?j th?j a]peiqei<aj are
characterized by disobedience. In other words, is this wrath another
aspect of
man's rebellion against God? Is it his own wrath against
others?
While this interpretation does not commend itself to this
writer, it
deserves further consideration.54
THE CRUCIAL WORD: fu<sei
In many ways, the doctrinal import of this passage depends upon
the
sense of this word. The preceding discussion of the Semitic
background of
the, phrase h@meqa
te<kna fu<sei o]rgh?j does not really
assert or
deny that peccatum originale is
taught in Eph 2:3c. While
the
Semitic idiom certainly does not specify why
men are under God's
wrath or when they come under it. These two
questions must be
answered from
the exegesis of fu<sei. If fu<sei refers to innate
character,
then the sense of hereditary moral corruption is supported.
If fu<sei
legitimately can be viewed as an acquired characteristic
("second nature"), then this verse should not be used to
support the
52Buttmann
(Grammar, 387) views this as
hyperbaton, an inverted construction
used for
emphasis and perspicuity. Arndt and Gingrich (Lexicon, 877) cite an instance
in Plutarch with fu<sei in
this position.
53In
each case it must be asked whether the noun modified by the genitive is its
subject or
object. See Turner, Style, 90.
54Ellicott, Ephesians, 171
and Alford, "Ephesians," 3. 91 react against the subjective sense.
TURNER: EPH 2:3c AND PECCATUM ORIGINALE 207
doctrine.
This section of the paper will survey the etymology of fu<sij
and its
use in both the extra-biblical and biblicalliterature.55 Then the
meaning of
the word in Eph 2:3c will be discussed.
Etymology
The noun fu<sij seems to be a "verbal abstract”56
derived from
fu<omai or fu<w meaning "bring forth, produce, put forth" (transi-
tive) or
"grow, wax, spring up or forth (intransitive ).57 It is often
used
of the
natural growth of the physical creation, especially of plant life.
Thus, the
noun fu<sij is
related to the external form of plant life as a
state of
its growth. It came also to be applied to the natural state of
humanity
resulting from birth.58
Extra-biblical use
In addition to its botanical and anthropological senses, fu<sij
"became a key concept among the Pre-Socratic philosophers in
considering the
nature of the world, and similarly the Sophists in the
question of
the foundation and basis of law.”59 In Stoic philosophy,
fu<sij became a god of the universe, with whom
man must live
harmoniously.60 The following outline summarizes the diverse usages
of the
word.61
I. Origin
(of persons and plants)
A. origin or birth
B. growth
55Due to
lack of space, this survey must necessarily be quite brief. For
more
detailed information see G. Harder, "Nature," (NIDNTT, 2;
Zondervan, 1976), 2. 656-62; H. Koster, “fu<sij...“ TDNT,
9 (1974) 251-77;
and H. G.
Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English
Lexicon, rev. and aug.
by H. S.
Jones (9th ed.;
56Koster, "fu<sij" TDNT,
9. 252. It is
attested as early as Homer (eighth
century
B.C.). See Harder, "Nature," 656.
57Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, 1966.
58Koster,
"fu<sij..." TDNT 9. 252. Other related words are the
adjective
fusiko<j ("natural, inborn, native"),
the nouns fusi<wma and fusi<wsij
("natural
tendency, character"), and the verbs fusio<w ("to dispose oneself
naturally"),
fusiologe<w ("to discourse upon nature or natural causes"),
and fusiopoie<w ("to remold as by a second
nature").
59Harder, "Nature," NIDNTT,
2. 656.
60lbid., 2.
657-58. The citation of Marcus Aurelius' words w$
fu<sij,
e]k
sou? pa<nta, e@n soi? pa<nta, ei#j se pa<nta (cf. Rom
provide a
vivid illustration of e]la<treusan t^? kti<sei para> to>n
kti<santa (Rom 1:25).
61
Adapted from Liddell and Scott, Lexicon
1964-65.
208 GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
II. Natural form or constitution resulting
from growth (persons or
things)
A. nature, constitution
B. outward form, appearance
C. constitution
D. mental character or nature or instinct
(animals)
III. Regular order of nature (men, plants,
the world in general
IV. Philosophical
A. originating power of the universe
B. elementary substance of the universe
C. concretely for the universe
V. Concrete term for men, animals or plants
collectively
VI. Kind, sort, or species (of plants)
VII. Sex (organs or characteristics)
"There is no Hebrew equivalent in the Old Testament for phy-
sis,”62 due to the
creator/creature distinction in OT revelation. God is
the
ultimate reference point instead of fu<sij. Thus fu<sij does not
occur in
the LXX canonical writings, but only in the apocryphal
books of
Wisdom and 3 and 4 Maccabees. In these books, usage
generally
parallels Greek literature. Probably the most significant
occurrence is
Does fu<sei here
mean "birth" (cf.
(created nature)? If innate created nature is in view, this
concept is in
contrast to
Paul's explanation (Rom 1:19ff.) of the perspicuity of
natural
revelation.64 The Jewish writer Philo modified fu<sij in
his
unsuccessful attempt to harmonize the OT and Greek philosophy,65
Josephus
similarly adapted fu<sij using it often to describe the
natural
topography of the land, human character, and nature as a
whole.66
62Harder, "Nature," NIDNTT,
2. 658.
63The
New English Bible with Apocrypha:
64Koster, fu<sij...TDNT,
9. 267.
65Fu<sij is
extremely common in Philo, who viewed it as divine power
and agency. See Koster, "fu<sij…" TDNT, 9.267-69 and Harder, "Nature,"
NIDNTT, 2. 658-59.
66See
Koster, "fu<sij…" TDNT 9. 279-81; Harder,
"Nature," NIDNTT,
2. 659-60.
One passage from Josephus has been urged in proof that fu<sij
need not
always refer to innate character but also may refer to acquired
characteristics or habits. Thus fu<sij in Eph 2:3c need not refer to sin as
in
inherited or innate trait but instead to an acquired sinfulness. The passage
is found in the
Antiquities, 3:8: I. In it he describes the Pharisees' philosophy
of
punishment in the words of a@llwj te kai> fu<sei pro>j
ta>j
li<an
e]xale<phne which is translated "any way they
are naturally lenient in the
matter of
punishments." Eadie describes this as "constitutional clemency"
(Ephesians, 135). While it appears that this use may include habitual
practice, it
is practice which
TURNER: EPH 2:3c AND PECCATUM
ORIGINALE 209
New
Testament use
Fu<sij occurs 14 times in the NT (12 of these
are in Paul). Three
related
words also occur: (1) the adjective fusiko<j (three times); (2)
the
adverb fusikw?j (once); and (3) the verb fu<w (three times). All of
these
occurrences are listed in Table 3. According to Koster, the
relative
rarity of fu<sij in the NT (as compared with its frequency
in
extra-biblical literature) is noteworthy.67 Abbott-Smith's summary of
its
occurrences is accurate and concise:
(1) nature (natural powers or
constitution) of a person or a thing:
Jas 3:1; 2
Pet 1 :4; Eph 2:3
(2) origin or birth: Rom
(3) nature,
i.e., the regular order or law of nature: 1Cor
Rom
Scholars are agreed that the concept of natural, innate character
is
present in
all but three of these passages: Rom
Eph 2:3c.
Rom
more
extensive treatment of Eph 2:3c.
Fu<sij in
Rom
and also
the most difficult passage in which Paul uses fu<sij69 it is
certainly not
an easy text, as the discouraging comments of Sanday
and
Headlam show.70 The hermeneutical problem here is to deter-
mine in
what sense, if any, do Gentiles e@qnh by nature
emanates from
natural characteristics. For the original Greek and the English
translation see
Flavius Josephus, Josephus (Jewish Antiquities, Books 12-14, The
Loeb
Classical Library, 1 [
67Koster
("fu<sij...," TDNT,
9. 211) finds the absence of fu<sij from
such
passages as Acts 11 and Romans 1:18-25 as an indicator that Paul would say
"nein" to
natural theology!
68G.
Abbott Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament
(3rd ed.;
Vine is
identical. See his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
(.Old Tapan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1966 reprint) 103. Arndt and Gingrich's
classification (lexicon, 869-10) differs slightly: (1) natural endowment or
condition, inherited
from one's ancestors:" Gal 2: 15; Rom 2:21; Eph 2:3;
Rom 11 :21, 24; (2) "natural characteristics or
disposition:" Jas 3:1b; 2 Pet
I :4; Gal
4:8; (3) "nature as the regular natural order:" Rom 1 :26; 2: 14; 1
Cor
11:14; and (4) "natural being, product of nature, creature” Jas 3:7a. It
is difficult to
distinguish between the first and second categories. Other
possibilities for fu<sij are simply "physically" in Rom
2:21 and "species"
in both
instances in Jas 3:1 (cf. NASB, NIV,
and Harder, "Nature, NIDNTT,
660-61.
69Koster, "fu<sij...," TDNT, 9. 213.
70The impression received when one reads their note on this verse
is that
rationalists have taken it more literally than orthodox theologians. See
William
Sanday and
A. C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1902)
59-60.
The
treatment given this verse
210 GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
fulfill the
law's demands? The clause in question reads o!tan ga>r e@qnh
ta> mh> no<mon e@xonta fu<sei ta> tou? no<mou poiw?sin, . .
. While
orthodox
scholars have proposed some plausible solutions to the
problem,
most of them assume a questionable point. That is, most of
them take
fu<sei with
the following clause, making it modify poiw?sin.
This writer
tends to agree with Cranfield in taking fu<sei with what
precedes,
modifying e@xonta. Thus, the difficulties of either toning
down fu<sei
(viewing it as an acquired "second nature") or implying
Pelagianism are eliminated. Instead, the passage is interpreted as
describing
regenerate Gentiles who practice the law, though by their
birth and
natural circumstances they do not possess the law. This
allows fu<sij to
retain its normal meaning. This passage cannot
be
legitimately used to deny that fu<sij refers to innate character in
Eph 2:3c.71
Fu<sij in 1 Cor
in
confirms his
teaching (
(sunh<qeia) of
all the churches. While some expositors may tend to
blur the
distinction between fu<sij and sunh<qeia making
fu<sij
equivalent to
acquired habit or style, such exegesis is untenable in
light of
Pauline usage. Paul in Rom 1:26-27 stated that homosexual-
ity was para> fu<sin obviously referring to mankind's innate
sexual
orientation
resulting from his being created by God.72 Therefore, it
would seem
that Paul in I Corinthians again appeals to the God-
given
natural order for men and women. The innate sexual orienta-
tion of
men and women is the basis of Paul's position on hair length.
Again, this
passage provides no evidence for those who wish to make
fu<sij in Eph 2:3c an acquired "second
nature."
Use in
Ephesians 2:3c
In this writer's view, fu<sij in this passage retains its normal
meaning of
innate or natural character. While this passage alone
by C. E. B. Cranfield is a decided improvement. See his Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark,
1975),
71Francis Foulkes does just this with this passage. See his The Epistle
of Paul to the Ephesians (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1963) 71. Cf. Cranfield's stimulating discussion in Romans,
with footnotes. Hodge (Romans, 55) takes fu<sei with poiei?n but distinguishes
between merely Turner, outwardly doing the law and actually spiritually
fulfilling
the law. This view is also possible.
72This refutes the current claim that homosexuality is the
"natural"
orientation for some people.
TURNER: EPH 2:3c AND PECCATUM ORIGINALE 211
certainly
would not sustain the developed Christian doctrine of
original sin,
it does make a contribution. While the word fu<sij is
neutral and
in itself has no sinful connotation, this can be supplied
from
context. There is no contextual connection with Adam's first
sin, nor
is there any explicit proof of Traducianism. However, this
passage does
seem to have its place in asserting the hereditary moral
corruption of
the human race, which corruption results from Adam's
first sin
and is passed along by natural generation. In addition to the
lexical
support for this view, many scholarly commentaries have also
advocated it.73
The form of fu<sij in this verse is dative. What is its precise
significance? The answer to this question is admittedly subjective and
interpretive, for the dative case is used to express a wide range of
nuance.
From most of the English translations, the idea of instrumen-
tality
surfaces ("by nature”).74 Turner and Winer, however, favor the
dative of
respect idea, which seems milder than instrumentality.
Instead of
being under wrath "by nature," it is thus "with respect to
nature.”75
A third option is supported by Green who views fu<sei as
73Karl
Braune, "Ephesians," Langes
Commentary on the Holy Scriptures
(
to the Galatians. Ephesians. Philippians. and Colossians (
Eerdmans, 1965) 141-42. Calvin says that "by nature"
means "from their very
origin, and
from their mother's womb. In further comments he critiques
Pelagianism and
makes an important distinction between two ways the word
nature is
used: (1) man's original nature created by God, and (2) man's fallen
nature
corrupted by Adam's sin. John Eadie, Ephesians,
133-40. Eadie's extended
treatment of 2:3c is
one of the best this writer has found. He cites evidence from
classical and
Jewish Greek writings and interacts with sources who hold opposing
views. He concludes
thus: "The modus may be and is
among 'the deep things
of God,'
but the res is palpable; for
experience confirms the divine testimony
that we
are by nature 'children of wrath,' per
generationem, not per imitationem."
Charles
Hodge, Ephesians, 38-39. In his fairly full treatment Hodge briefly deals
with the
Semitic background, the use of fu<sij and other views. Hodge cautiously
states
"this doctrine [hereditary depravity] may be fairly implied in the text
but
it is
not asserted" (38). Lenski, Ephesians, 412-13. While viewing fu<sij as innate
here, Lenski concedes
that fu<sij may sometimes mean a "habitually and
gradually
developed...'second
nature.'" This writer is not convinced that such a concession is
necessary. It
seems that even when fu<sij refers to development or growth it
does so in
the context of an outward development of an inner nature. Salmond,
"Ephesians," 286-87. He also
makes the
questionable concession that fu<sij can mean habit, but his treatment
is very helpful,
especially the section refuting Meyer's view, which will be
explained
later. E. K. Simpson and F. F. Bruce, Commentary
on the Epistles
to the Ephesians and the
Colossians (New International Commentary on the
New Testament;
defends this
view by citing classical authors and interacting with J. A. Robinson,
whose views will be
explained later.
74Robertson,
Grammar, 530, speaks of this as
"instrumental of manner."
75Nigel Turner, personal letter; Winer, Grammar, 215.
212 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
dative of
sphere.76 While the instrumental idea seems most accept-
able, in
reality there is little difference between the three possibilities.
The view of fu<sij favored above has not gone unchallenged.
Several other
views have been suggested and are briefly summarized
here.77 First, it is asserted by some that fu<sei is the equivalent of an
adverb such
as o@ntwj, a]lh<qwj, or gnhsi<wj. Thus Paul only says that
"we were truly or genuinely children of wrath." The
problem with this
view is
that, while fu<sij may imply this sense, it means much more.78
A second
view takes the whole expression (te<kna fu<sei o]rgh?j) as a
subjective
genitive. In this view o]rgh?j is
human wrath which char-
acterizes the
individuals described. This view is grammatically pos-
sible but
exegetically and contextually doubtful. A third view is that
fu<sei simply means "in or by
ourselves," apart from God's grace.79
While fu<sei
certainly includes this idea, it means much more. Fur-
ther, this
view is vague and does not really answer the question of
whether fu<sei
refers to original or actual sin.80 A fourth view, that
fu<sij refers to developed or habitual behavior,81
(a "second-nature")
cannot be
sustained from the NT and extra-biblical usage of the
word.
CONCLUSION
This study has demonstrated that Eph 2:3c is relevant to the
doctrine of
original sin. The Semitic phrase te<kna... o]rgh?j
places
the
unsaved individual as a worthy object of the wrath of God.
Perhaps even
more is implied by this phrase. The word fu<sei
presents the
reason or cause for this most perilous of all positions.
While it is
true that God's wrath is upon all men for their actual sins,
76Samuel
G. Green, Handbook to the Grammar of the
Greek New
Testament (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1912) 228. He defines sphere in a
logical sense as
"that in which a quality inheres."
77For
more detailed interaction see the works of Alford, Eadie, Hodge,
Simpson, and Salmond cited previously. These works cite sources holding
the
opposing views listed
here.
780nly
one source consulted by this writer said that this was a legitimate
meaning of fu<sij but
the source viewed fu<sij as having this meaning only in
Gal 4:8. See
Markus Barth, Ephesians,
with the
original sin view, denies the validity of this view. See his Ephesians, 368.
79For advocates of this view see F. W. Beare and T. O. Wedel,
"The
Epistle to the Ephesians" (The Interpreter's Bible; 10;
Cokesbury, 1953) 641; C. F. D.
Moule, Idiom-Book, 174
("perhaps"); J. A.
Robinson, Ephesians, 50; and N. P. Williams, The Ideas of the Fall and
Original Sin, I 13 n. I.
80 As Meyer points out (Ephesians, 367), in this view "nothing is
explained."
81For advocates of this view see Foulkes, Ephesians, 71; Thayer,
Lexicon, 660 sec. c; and the Arminian theologians John Miley, Systematic
Theology,
TURNER: EPH 2:3c AND PECCATUM
ORIGINALE 213
Paul's use
of fu<sij here indicates a more basic problem. Men's
evil
deeds are
done in a state of spiritual and moral separation from God
(2: 1). Man
is in this state of spiritual death due to his sinful
nature-his
hereditary moral corruption. And it is this innate condi-
tion
which ultimately brings the wrath of God upon him. Men are
"natural children of wrath."82
Opposition
to this view
Diverse arguments have been offered by the opponents of this
view.
Some of the arguments are exegetical and deserve an answer.
While this
could not be done in detail in this study, Appendix I has
begun the
task. Other arguments are more "logical" in nature but
actually seem
to place reason over revelation, as in the extreme case
of
those who would dismiss original sin an immoral monstrosity
on a
priori grounds.83 The answer to this objection must
emphasize
that
man's present natural state is in a sense also unnatural.84 His
sinfulness,
though included in God's plan, is viewed by God as man's
own fault.
God cannot be blamed for original sin for he did not
create man
sinful, but holy. All this aside, however, the final
answer
is
"who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" (Rom
While some would admit to a doctrine of original sin, they would
deny that
men are accounted guilty for this reason. Shedd sum-
marizes the
situation quite well:
The semi-Pelagian, Papal, and Arminian anthropologies differ from
the Augustinian and reformed, by denying that corruption of nature is
guilt. It is a physical and moral disorder leading to sin, but is not
sin
itself.85
82"Natural
children of wrath" is the translation suggested by Nigel Turner
in his
letter to this writer.
83For
example see Charles G. Finney, Systematic
Theology (
porter Kemp,
1946 reprint) 244. Finney said that Eph 2:3c "cannot, consistently
with
natural justice, be understood to mean, that we are exposed to the wrath of God
on
account of our nature. It is a monstrous and blasphemous doctrine..." On a
more
modern note,
C. H. Dodd spoke of the "figment of an inherited guilt." He asked,
"how
could
anything so individual as guilty responsibility be inherited?" In the same
context
he also
speaks of the "monstrous development of the doctrine of total
depravity."
See his The Meaning of Paul for Today (
1974) 61.
84See
Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2. 219:
"As opposed to what is natural
in the
sense of created by God, man's inability is moral, not natural; but as opposed
to what
is moral in the sense of acquired by habit, man's inability is natural. When
"natural means innate, we assert that inability is
"natural." When natural means
"created" we assert that inability is "moral,"
that is, "voluntary." See also Calvin,
Ephesians, 141-42.
85Shedd, Dogmatic Theology,
2. 198. Even
in reformed circles, however,
some theologians have attempted to dilute the idea that corruption of
nature is
guilt.
See Nathaniel W. Taylor, Concio ad
Clerum: A Sermon Delivered in the
Chapel of Yale
214 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
The Romanist
perspective alleviates the guilt of original sin with its
understanding of limbus infantium and
infant baptism.86 The Armin-
ian
position as articulated by Miley is "native depravity without
native
demerit.”87 This position is exegetically and logically unten-
able. It
does not handle fu<sij properly. Neither does it make sense,
for the
innate disposition to sin, which leads to sin, is not viewed as
sinful or
guilty. How can the effect be worthy of wrath and the cause
be
innocent?88
Implications for Christian living
The study of Scripture (What does it mean?) is incomplete unless
the
student asks, "What does it mean to me?"
In the context of Eph
2:1-10 the
answer is not hard to find. The believer is God's workman-
ship,
created for good works. When one contemplates his sinfulness
in all
its degradation, and when he realizes he deserves only the wrath
of God,
he then begins to appreciate the glorious gospel of God's
grace and
realizes a true incentive for a holy lifestyle. C. H. Spurgeon
said
A spiritual experience which is thoroughly flavored with a deep
and
bitter sense of sin is of great value to him
that hath had it. It is terrible
in the drinking, but it is most wholesome in the bowels, and in the
whole of the after-life. Possibly, much of the flimsy piety of the
present
day arises from the ease with which men attain to peace and joy in
these evangelistic days...Too many think lightly of sin, and therefore
think lightly of the Savior. He who has stood before his God,
College, September 10. 1828 (New Haven: A. H. Moltby and
Homan Hallock, 1842)
1-43.
86See S.
Harent, "Original Sin" (The
Catholic Encyclopedia, 11,
Robert Appleton Co., 1911), 2. 314; and P. J. Toner, "Limbo," The Catholic
Encyclopedia, 9. 256. To a lesser degree one wonders whether the Lutheran and
Anglican
views of baptismal regeneration for infants have also tended to minimize
the guilt
of original sin.
87Miley, Systematic Theology,
advocated by
Meyer, Ephesians, 367. Meyer believes in a sinful natural constitution
which
eventually awakens and vanquishes man's "moral will," thereby
incurring guilt
and
wrath. He bases this on his view that Romans 7 describes the experience of the
natural man.
OveraU, the Arminian doctrine of universal prevenient (preliminary)
grace has
probably tended to obscure the guiltiness of man by nature. This seems to
be the position of
John Wesley. See the analysis of his views on original sin in
Mildred B.
Wynkoop, A Theology of Love: The Dynamic of
Wesleyanism (
City, MO:
88See
Calvin, Ephesians, 141-42; Eadie,
Ephesians, 136; and Salmond,
"'Ephesians," 287. Salmond correctly observes that this "is to make a nature
which
originates sinful acts and which does that in the case of all men without
exception,
itself a neutral thing." Cf. Shedd, Dogmatic
Theology, 2. 199-202.
TURNER: EPH 2:3c AND PECCATUM
ORIGINALE 215
convicted and
condemned, with the rope about his neck, is the man to
weep for
joy when he is pardoned, to hate the evil which has been
forgiven him,
and to live to the honor of the Redeemer by whose
blood he
has been cleansed.89
TABLE
1
SOME
OCCURRENCES OF NBe IN
THE
USED METAPHORICALLY*
Text
NASB
NIV
Num
Num 24:
17 sons of Sheth or tumult sons of Sheth or the noisy
boasters
Deut
25:2 deserves to be beaten or a son deserves to be beaten
of
beating
(LXX a@cioj
plhgw?n
Judg
18:2 valiant men or sons of
valor warriors
Judg
Belial
Judg
1 Sam
1 Sam 26: 16 must surely die or
are surely deserve to die
sons
of death
2 Sam
2:7 valiant or sons of valor brave
2 Sam
wickedness
2 Sam
12:5 deserves to die or is a son of deserves to die
death
I Kgs I :52 a worthy
man a
worthy man
2 Kgs
2:3 sons of the prophets company of the prophets
2 Kgs
2 Kgs
I Chr
17:9 the wicked or sons of wicked people
wickedness
Neh
Ps 79:
11 those who are doomed to
die those condemned
or
children of death
Ps
89:22 sons of wickedness or wicked man
wicked
man
Isa 57:3 sons of a
sorceress sons
of a sorceress
Dan
Hos
10:9 the sons of iniquity the evildoers (LXX ta> te<kna
a]diki<oj)
Zech 4:
14 anointed ones or sons of two who are anointed
or
fresh
oil
two who bring oil
* This chart
is representative-not exhaustive. It was compiled from exam-
ples
given in the lexicons and from a similar list compiled by Prof. Donald
89C. H.
Spurgeon, The Early Years (London: The Banner of
Truth Trust, 1962) 54.
216 GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Fowler. In
each case except Deut 25:2 and Hos 10:9 the LXX renders the
construction with ui!oj plus the genitive. Notice the varying
degrees of
literality or
dynamic equivalence used in translating the Hebrew NBe
constructions.
TABLE 2
NT USES OF ui!oj AND te<knon WITH
GENITIVE
IN A METAPHORICAL SENSE
Reference Text
Matt
Matt
Mark
Mark
Luke
Luke
10:6 ui!oj ei]rh<nhj
Luke
16:8 oi[ ui[oi> tou? ai]w?noj tou<tou (also in
Luke
John
Acts
Rom 9:8 ta> te<kna th?j e]paggeli<aj
Gal
Eph 2:2 toi?j ui[oi?j th?j a]peiqei<aj (also in 5:6)
Eph 2:3 te<kna fu<sei o]rgh?j
Eph 5:8 te<kna fwto>j
I Pet I:
14 te<kna u[pakoh?j
2 Pet
TABLE 3
NT USES
OF fu<sij
AND RELATED WORDS.
Reference Text
fu<sij
Rom I
:26 meth<llacan th>n fusikh>n xrh?sin ei]j th>n para> fu<sin
Rom
Rom
Rom 11:21 ei] ga>r o[ qeo>j tw?n kata>
fu<sin kla<dwn ou]k e]fei<sato
TURNER: EPH 2:3c AND PECCATUM
ORIGINALE 217
Reference Text
Rom 11
:24 ei] ga>r su> e]k th?j kata>
fu<sin e]ceko<phj a]grielai<ou,
kai> para> fu<sin
e]nekentri<sqhj ei]j kallie<laion, po<s&
ma?llon ou$toi oi[ kata> fu<sin
e]gkentrisqh?sontai
1 Cor 11: 14 ou]de> h[ fu<sij au]th> dida<skei u[ma?j
Gal
Gal 4:8 e]douleu<sate toi?j du<sei mh> ou#sin qeoi?j
Eph 2:3 h@meqa te<kna fu<sei o]rgh?j
Jas 3:7 pa?sa ga>r fu<sij qhri<wn te kai> peteinw?n . . . dama<zetai
. .
. t^? fu<sei t^? a]nqrwpi<n^
2 Pet
1:4 i!na dia> tou<twn ge<nhsqe qei<aj koinwnoi> fu<sewj
fusiko<j
Rom 1 :26 meth<llacan th>n fusikh>n xrh?sin
Rom 1 :27
6 o[moi<wj te kai> oi[ a@rsenej a]fe<ntej th>n fusikh>n
xrh?sin th?j qelei<aj
2 Pet 2:
12 w[j a@loga z&?a gegennhme<na fusika>
fu<sikw?j
Jude 10
o!sa de>
fusikw?j
w[j ta> a@loga z&?a e]pi<stantai
fu<w
Luke
8:6 fue>n
e]chra<nqh dia> to>
mh> e@xein i]kma<da
Luke
8:8 fue>n e]poi<hsen karpo>n e]katontaplasi<ona
Heb
12:15 mh< tij r[i<za pikri<aj a@nw fu<ousa e]noxl^?
* Adapted
from W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, A
Concordance to the
Greek Testament, rev. by H. K. Moulton (5th ed.;
APPENDIX I
ORIGINAL SIN AND GOD’S WRATH: ARGUMENTS AND
ANSWERS
1. Argument from the Context of Ephesians 2:1-3:
The context treats
actual sin, not original sin. (See Abbott, Ephesians, 45-46; Foulkes,
Ephesians, 71; Meyer, Ephesians, 365-66; George B. Stevens, Pauline
Theology [NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1895]
152ff.)
Answer: 2:1 speaks not only of actual sin but
also of sin as a state
of
separation from God. Even so, this may be an example
of
an argument leading up to a climactic statement, ab
effectu
ad causam.
II. Argument from the Word Order of Ephesians
2:3c: The word order
of the
phrase must be fu<sei te<kna o]rgh?j for the original sin view to
be
true. The position of fu<sei is unemphatic. (See Abbott, Ephesians.
45; Meyer, Ephesians, 366.)
Answer: Interpretation of word order is quite
subjective, but there
is some reason to view fu<sei in its position between te<kna
218 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
and o]rgh?j as quite emphatic. Even if it is not
emphatic it
could possibly indicate that Paul was implicitly assuming
hereditary moral corruption.
III. Argument from the time Reference of
Ephesians 2:3c: The original
sin view
"supposes Kat 1'jJ.1f.9a to refer to, or at least include, a time
prior to e]n oi$j a]n (See
Abbott, Ephesians, 45.)
Answer: Nothing in the original sin view
necessitates this supposi-
tion.
@Hmeqa does refer to the same time as the
previous
context.
At that time, before the Ephesians were con-
verted,
they were deserving objects of God's wrath due to
innate
depravity.
IV. Argument from the Analogy of Scripture:
The ecclesiastical dogma of
original sin
is not Pauline. Paul views actual sin as the reason why
man is under
God's wrath. (See Meyer, Ephesians,
366.)
Answer: This argument begs the question. It is
true that Paul in
other
contexts views wrath coming upon men due to actual
sin
(Rom 1:18; Eph 5:6; e.g.). However, sin, like beauty, "is
more
than skin deep." The Scripture speaks of man's
conception
in a state of sin (Psa 51 :5), of his sinful heart
(Jer 17:9; Matt 15:17-19), of
his sinful mind set (Eph 2:3ab;
4:17-19). The
sinful heart (a term implying an innate
nature
or essence) is viewed in Matt 15:19 and Eph 4:18 as
the
root of sinful activity. Ultimately man's nature causes
him to
be under God's wrath.
V. Argument from Romans 11:17-24: If Paul
views the Jews as inborn
children of
wrath, he contradicts his teaching in Rom 11:17-24 where
he
speaks of Jews as the "natural branches" of the olive tree of the
theocracy.
(See Meyer, Ephesians, 366.)
Answer: Fu<sij in Rom 11 is used in an illustration of
favored
position in God's program. The natural branches
of the
olive tree are Jews who are the objects of God's
theocratic
dealings. The unnatural branches are Gentiles
who may
become objects of God's grace in Christ. Paul's
perspective
in Rom 11 is national and positional: the Jews
naturally
enjoyed God's special theocratic favor and the
Gentiles did not. The perspective
in Eph 2:3 is quite differ-
ent.
Here individuals, both Jews and Gentiles, are viewed
as
naturally objects of God's wrath. This is no more
contradictory
than the words of Hos 3:2.
position
in God's plan is viewed as a reason for her
judgment.
VI. Argument from 1 Cor 7:14: Paul could not
have taught an inborn
liability to
wrath for this would contradict his words about the
children of
believers in I Cor 7:14. (See Meyer, Ephesians, 366-67.)
TURNER: EPH 2:3c AND PECCATUM ORIGINALE 219
Answer: 1 Cor 7: 14 is admittedly a difficult
passage. It seems best
to view
the sanctification and holiness spoken of here not
in an
experiential moral sense. Instead there is a sense in
which
the unsaved marriage partner and the children in
such a
home are set apart by the believer there. This is a
matter
of privilege and exposure to Christian testimony. It
should be
noted, however, that whatever "holiness" is
spoken
of in the verse is true of the unbelieving adult
as well
as the children. This weakens Meyer's argument
considerably.
VII. Argument from Matthew 18:2ff; 19:14ff:
This view of original sin
contradicts the
words of Jesus Christ concerning children, especially
His promise
that whoever becomes like a child will enter the King-
dom of
heaven. (See Meyer, Ephesians, 367.)
Answer: Our Lord's exhortation was not to become
"morally neu-
tral"
or "innocent" as infants are sometime supposed to
be.
Instead His emphasis evidently was upon the humility
(Matt 18:4)
and faith (18:6) of the children. It is neces-
sary to exercise child-like faith to enter the
Kingdom. Jesus
was
certainly not making a blanket statement on infant
salvation.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu