Of the proof-texts used to support the doctrine of Total Hereditary Depravity, few are cited with more confidence than Ephesians 2:1-3. To the proponent of inherited sin, Paul’s description of humanity as being “by nature children of wrath” is the definitive smoking gun. It is argued that if we are under God’s wrath by nature, then that nature – and its attendant guilt – must be something we possess from the moment of conception.
B.H. Carroll, the founder of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, articulated this position clearly in his Interpretation of the English Bible:
This passage knocks the bottom out of the thought that sin consists in the willful transgression of a known commandment. The apostle here refers to original sin – the nature with which we are born. 1
If Carroll is correct, then the Bible teaches that infants are born under the judicial condemnation of God. However, if we examine the context, the grammar, and the historical understanding of the Greek language, we find that Paul is not describing an inherited nature, but a spiritual condition manufactured by personal choice.
The Context of Conduct
An elementary rule of biblical interpretation is to understand things within their context. Before Paul reaches the phrase by nature, he spends two verses meticulously describing the actions of the people in question:
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom we also once conducted ourselves in the lust of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. (Ephesians 2:1-3)
Notice the verbs. Paul does not say they were dead because of what Adam did; he says they were dead in “trespasses and sins” in which they walked. One cannot walk in a sin committed by another. He further notes they conducted themselves by fulfilling their specific desires. This is the language of personal agency. The death Paul described is a spiritual state brought about by a lifestyle of active rebellion, not an inherited condition. To suggest this text applies to an infant – who has never walked in trespasses nor fulfilled the desires of the mind – is to force a meaning onto the text which the context flatly rejects.
The Meaning & Ancient Use of “Nature”
The meaning of the word nature (Gr. physis, φύσει) is essential in this discussion. If it is and can only be something which is innate, then Paul’s phrase “by nature children of wrath” describes an inherent corrupt state – total hereditary depravity. However, if physis can refer to that which is a settled disposition or a habit established through repeated behaviour, it is not necessarily inherent but may also be learned.
Due to the prevalence of the depravity doctrine, many modern readers assume it must refer to the former – an inborn condition. However, a study of the use of the word shows a different picture.
Long before Paul, Aristotle argued in his Nicomachean Ethics,
For habit is hard to change, since it is like nature; for as Euenus says: ‘Habit, I say, is long practice, my friend, and this becomes men’s nature in the end.’ 2
The Jewish historian Josephus, who was a contemporary of Paul, used nature to describe a person’s developed disposition or moral character resulting from their choices. In his work Against Apion, he used physis to explain why the Jewish people were so uniquely committed to their laws. However, he didn’t identify it as an inborn condition, but due to their rigorous education and lifelong habits. He wrote:
…for our people, if any one do but ask any one of them about our laws, he will more readily tell them all than he will tell his own name, and this is because we have learned them immediately, as soon as ever we become sensible of anything, and have them, as it were, engraven on our souls. For this reason it is that our people are so steadfast in the observance of them, and that it is, as it were, their very nature to observe them. 3
Philo of Alexandria, a first century Jewish philosopher, like the Greeks Aristotle and Euenus, used the term physis to describe a state acquired through habit, not inherited at birth. He wrote:
For habit is a difficult thing to change, since it becomes a second nature. 4
In his work De Vita Mosis (The Life of Moses), Philo further observed that Moses, through his upbringing and discipline, developed a character that appeared innate:
For his nature was improved and strengthened by training and practice… 5
We must not read or impose modern limitations due to doctrinal dogma into the ancient Greek understanding of nature. Such a restriction is inconsistent, as both ancient usage and modern linguistic practice allow the word nature to speak of that which is acquired through choices or practice, and not merely what is inherent. It is natural for a skilled driver to seamlessly shift gears and check their mirrors. Through thousands of hours of practice, a guitarist may play as though the instrument were a natural extension of their body. If someone is a naturalized citizen, we understand they were not born in the country, but through a long process of residency, testing, and oath-taking became a citizen. In Sociology, a socialized behaviour might be described as human nature – it is not perceived to be genetic but a matter of social conditioning and personal upbringing.
Just as we understand the word nature can refer to things not necessarily hereditary, the first-century mind also perceived physis frequently to describe a settled disposition or a second nature established through long practice. When Paul used this word, he is not describing the innate condition of an infant, but the entrenched character of a practicing sinner.
Thayer’s Lexical Testimony
While the historical usage of physis among the Greeks and Jews is illuminating, the testimony of Greek lexicographer, Joseph Thayer is equally helpful in discerning Paul’s use of physis in Ephesians 2:3. Among the definitions in Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, we find:
a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature: ἦμεν φύσει τέκνα ὀργῆς, by (our depraved) nature we were exposed to the wrath of God, Ephesians 2:3 (this meaning is evident from the preceding context, and stands in contrast with the change of heart and life wrought through Christ by the blessing of divine grace; φύσει πρὸς τὰς κολάσεις ἐπιεικῶς ἔχουσιν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, Josephus, Antiquities 13, 10, 6). 6
It is worth noting that this is not definition A (the nature of things, the forces, laws, order, of nature) or definition B (birth, physical origin), but definition C from Thayer. That is significant, for the lexicographer had the opportunity to list Ephesians 2:3 as a matter of “birth, physical origin,” but he chose not to. He is correct – “the meaning is evident from the preceding context” – a context which says nothing about Adam, Adamic sin, or inherent depravity. But it does identify exactly why people are “by nature children of wrath” – because of “trespasses and sins, in which we once walked” and “conducted ourselves in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind.” The context itself makes this point unmistakable. And as evidence for this real-world usage of physis, Thayer cited Josephus, which may be translated, “The Pharisees are by nature disposed to deal leniently with punishments.” This leniency he described in Pharisees was an acquired tendency, not something innate.
Although Thayer listed Ephesians 2:3 under the meaning “which by long habit has become nature,” rather than by “birth, physical origin,” he felt the need to mitigate his scholarly conclusion before even mentioning the text. He equivocated, “…by (our depraved) nature we were exposed to the wrath of God.” His parenthetical qualification is interpretive, not lexical. The challenge for Mr. Thayer and all who read depravity into the text is this – neither the inspired apostle nor the inspiring Spirit put it there. The text has nothing to do with guilt transmitted by a hereditary link, but a spiritual state that has been naturalized by a lifestyle of rebellion. They were not “children of wrath” by birth; it was through their habit of disobedience.
Insights from the Commentators
Some commentators, despite belonging to traditions that historically affirm a depravity doctrine in one form or another, have realized the grammar of Ephesians 2:1-3 cannot be forced into an inherited corruption model. Adam Clarke, the preeminent Wesleyan commentator, firmly believed we inherit a corrupt nature, and yet he adamantly affirmed that nature in this passage refers to an acquired state rather than an innate one. He wrote:
By nature, children of wrath… it was their own character; they were born in a country where the true God was not known… they had been brought up in this way; they lived in it; it became their nature; it was their second nature. They were children of wrath – deserving of wrath, because they were sons of disobedience. 7
Clarke’s distinction is crucial: we are called “children of wrath” (verse 3) precisely because we are first “sons of disobedience” (verse 2). God’s wrath is a judicial response to man’s conduct, and the nature is the result of that conduct being naturalized by habit.
Similarly, the Presbyterian scholar Albert Barnes cautioned against reading an inherited nature into Paul’s words. In his Notes on the Bible, he explains:
The word ‘nature’ here does not necessarily mean that they were born with this propensity… it means that they were truly and really children of wrath. It was their characteristic. It was a state of things where they were, by their own conduct, exposed to the divine displeasure. The word nature is often used in this sense, to denote the settled character of a man. 8
These men represent a lexical admission from within the traditions that have long upheld and defended the doctrine of human depravity. They recognize physis is being used to describe a settled character or a second nature established by a walk of sin (verses 1-2).
Even Matthew Henry, writing from a much more traditional Calvinistic framework, concedes that this nature is linked to the course of one’s life. He notes that the wrath is the consequence for those who choose the lifestyle of the world:
…children of wrath, that is, deserving of wrath and actually under it… our state and course were such as could result in nothing else. 9
The bottom is not knocked out of the idea that sin is willful transgression, as Carroll suggested. These commentators suggest that willful transgression, when repeated, becomes so ingrained that it defines the very nature of the person standing before God.
Comparative Usage in the New Testament
To understand Paul’s meaning in Ephesians, it is helpful to see how he used the word nature (physis) elsewhere in his writing.
In Romans 2:14, the apostle wrote:
for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves…
If physis always refers to innate nature, that which is inherited from Adam, it would be impossible for a Gentile to do by nature the very things which God’s law required. In this context, physis refers to a sense of right and wrong – a conscience and a practiced morality that had become part of their character.
1 Corinthians 11:14 asked the question:
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
Paul’s point is not that a man having long hair is inherently sinful or contrary to how God made us. If so, then God commanded men to sin and violate their created nature with the Nazirite vow (Numbers 6). In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul refers to a sense of propriety regarding social custom which is so deeply ingrained that it feels natural.
In these texts, the word physis refers to a settled state of being or a characteristic quality, whether that is developed through practice, conscience or custom.
The Idiom of Character: “Children of…”
The final piece of the puzzle lies in the Hebraic idiom, “children of…” In the biblical world, to be a child of something was a common way of saying one was characterized by or deserving of that thing.
In the immediate context of Ephesians 2:3 we’re told they were “sons of disobedience” (verse 2). These are not people who were born of a mother named “Disobedience” – they are people whose lives are defined by the act of disobeying. Consequently, in verse 3, they are called “children of wrath.”
Just as a “son of encouragement” (Acts 4:36) is one who practices encouragement, and a “son of perdition” (John 17:12) is one whose life leads to destruction, a “child of wrath” is one whose personal conduct has brought God’s wrath upon them. The wrath is not a consequence of their birth; it is the consequence of having walked and conducted ourselves in the lust of the flesh (Ephesians 2:2-3).
Conclusion
If B.H. Carroll and the proponents of hereditary depravity are correct, then Paul’s message is one of inborn impotence – we are born without the capacity to choose anything but evil. However, the bulk of evidence surrounding Paul’s statement suggests a much more sobering reality. Paul’s description of us as being “by nature children of wrath” is the climax of a list of voluntary actions.
We were not born dead – we became dead by trespasses and sins (verse 1). We were not inherently subjects of God’s wrath – we walked in the course of the world as sons of disobedience (verse 2). We were not “children of wrath” from birth – we became such because we acted to fulfill the lusts of the flesh and the mind (verse 3).
The beauty of the gospel, as Paul transitions in verse 4, is that God’s mercy is greater than our sin.
But God who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (verses 4-5).
The death was our choice, the nature was our habit, but His gift to us, through Christ Jesus, is life. By rejecting the doctrine of inherited depravity, we do not minimize sin; rather, we emphasize the personal responsibility of the sinner, as the Scriptures do, and the transformative power of God’s grace which calls us to obedience unto life as servants of Jesus Christ.
Works Referenced
- Carroll, B.H. An Interpretation of the English Bible.
- Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, Book VII, Chapter 10.
- Josephus, Flavius. Against Apion, 2.19.
- Philo of Alexandria. The Special Laws (De Specialibus Legibus), 4.149.
- Philo of Alexandria. De Vita Mosis (The Life of Moses), 1.21.
- Thayer, J.H. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. (G5449)
- Clarke, Adam. Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. VI, Ephesians 2:3.
- Barnes, Albert. Notes on the New Testament: Ephesians, 2:3.
- Henry, Matthew. An Exposition of the Old and New Testament, Vol. VI (Ephesians 2:1-3).
Links: YouVersion | GROW magazine
Return to the article archive
