Original sin, part two: 1 Corinthians 15:22 and Ephesians 2:3

Last updated on: July 17, 2014 at 2:25 pm by Morgan Guyton

Original sin, part two: 1 Corinthians 15:22 and Ephesians 2:3 2014-07-17T14:25:31-05:00 Morgan Guyton

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I put aside my original sin blog series idea for a while, but I’m preaching on baptism this weekend so I figured it would be worthwhile to go back to it. I did a post a month ago on Romans 5, the most extensive discourse which names Adam’s trespass as our problem. I raised a lot of questions about the mainstream interpretive presumptions about it. So this is part 2 where I will look at 1 Corinthians 15:22 and Ephesians 2:3. Part 3 will be the Garden of Eden itself (which I should have opened with) and part 4 will look at the theological investments behind this doctrine (since it’s my contention that original sin is not a self-evident conclusion from pure Biblical exegesis but a creation of systematic theology whose necessity by the way I don’t necessarily dispute).

I. 1 Corinthians 15

1 Corinthians 15:22 is cited by the Catholic catechism as one of the proof-texts of original sin: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” The thought is that because all die “in Adam,” this means that Adam’s sin has been imputed to all. I’m very interested in the prepositions here. If Paul were describing the present result of a past historical event by a specific individual person, it would make a lot more sense for him to say δι’ Ἀδὰμ (through/by way of Adam) than ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ (in the Adam). Saying that we are “in the Adam” seems to make Adam into a typological category for humanity rather than a historical figure.

Paul uses the article τῷ for both Adam and Christ in this sentence. But when he is talking about specific people, he doesn’t use the article at all (e.g. ὤφθη Κηφᾷ, “he was seen by Peter,” v. 5). He also often doesn’t use the article when he’s talking about the historical person Christ (ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν, “that Christ died,” v. 3), though he does say that God raised the Christ from the dead (ἤγειρεν τὸν Χριστόν, v. 15). Of course, calling Jesus “the Christ” is unique because it’s a label for his role as the anointed one. It’s similar to the way that someone can say “Pastor visited me” or “the pastor visited me.” In any case, I don’t think it’s immaterial that Adam is referred to as “the Adam” and it really is a significant edit to remove “the” from the translation (a-hem, NIV!).

The other thing that’s relevant to point out is that none of Paul’s discourse in 1 Corinthians 15 makes any reference to sin or punishment. It’s addressing the question of whether people will be resurrected from the dead. In fact, 1 Corinthians 15:29 is the verse Mormons use as their basis for baptizing the dead. Check it out: “Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?” So whether it’s an embarrassment to us or not, people were baptized on behalf of the dead presumably so that the dead could receive their salvation upon resurrection. Paul is using this practice as a basis for his argument that resurrection is real.

Now there is a way in which 1 Corinthians 15 is relevant to the question of original sin even if it doesn’t support an imputed “guilt” from a historical figure named Adam to the human race. What Paul does say is that there are two kinds of humanity, which we could call Adamic and Christian. Those who are Adamic (ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ) are mortal, while those who are Christian (ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ) will rise from the dead. So we can claim that this text says death itself is imputed to us from our ancestors, “the Adam,” and that unless we are incorporated “in the Christ,” we will not be resurrected.

II. Ephesians 2:3

Ephesians 2:3 is another proof-text for original sin because it says, “All of us once lived among them in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of flesh and senses, and we were by nature children of wrath, like everyone else.” The NIV engages in a breathtaking theological edit in its translation making τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς into “children deserving of wrath” (there is no way to make physei, the root word for our word physical, into “deserving of”, no matter how desperate you are to cram the whole Bible into your Four Spiritual Laws). In any case, the implication for original sin from this passage is that if we are “children of wrath,” then we are in some way descended from wrath, or something that provoked (God’s) wrath is passed down to us from our ancestor.

I’m not sure we should read too much ancestry into the phrase τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς just because it says “children of.” It is a very common construction in Hebrew to denote a category of people by writing ben (son of) and then the category, e.g. ben adam (son of man) or ben elohim (son of God). So Paul could be thinking in Hebrew and writing in Greek. Also tekna doesn’t necessarily have to mean “descendent” anyway. It could simply connote “youthfulness.” Though ὀργῆς is in the genitive form, the presence of the φύσει in the phrase makes me think that we should translate it “children of a wrathful nature” (immature young people with volatile emotions) rather than “children of wrath by nature” (descendents of a primordial wrath-causing event).

In any case, there is a legitimate original sin application in this passage. It is definitely a stretch to turn the phrase τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς into a claim that God is mad at us for something a guy named Adam did long ago. However, the reality is that we start out being “children of a wrathful nature,” and we need to be rescued from our mess. We do not evolve, without God’s help, out of our default mode of living according to the desires of our flesh and senses. And this isn’t because God messed up in creating us. How we got to be people who behave irrationally and harmfully after being created by a perfectly loving and rational God is the mysterious blank that original sin seeks to fill in.

Original Sin

Special Series

Previous Post

January 9, 2013

Engaging Spiritual but not Religious #1: God is a three-letter word

Next Post

January 10, 2013 Engaging Spiritual but not Religious #2: Too Hooked on Truth

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Advent Beauty Will Save the World Bible Big Picture: Ephesians Bloggers Book Christian salvation and the Beautitudes Culture Daily Office Danceable Homiletics Deadly Sins Deep Roots: Genesis Devotions Dominican Republic May 2011 El Principio Misericordia (The Mercy Principle) Five verses God tattooed on my heart Fundraising FutureGospel Good Biblical Words Henri Nouwen Interview Jennings' Christian Imagination Jesus inside the beltway Jesus Is My Candidate Jesus vs the Pharisees Jesus vs. Plato Journey to Eternity Looking Back on 2012 Love Actually Monday Merton Monday Merton Music Occupy the manger On Earth As It Is In Heaven Original Sin Podcast Poetry Politics Prayer Psalm 119 Radical Jesus 101 Reviews Sermon on the Mount Sermons Spanish Bible study Special Series Spiritual but not religious Synchroblog Theology Things that made me think Thomas a Kempis Ugliness Into Beauty Uncategorized Viaje Dominicano 2013 Walking in the Valley (Lent) Welcome: It's More than a Mat Wild Goose 2013 Wrestling

Select a Month March 2022 January 2022 December 2021 September 2021 April 2021 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How many days did God take to create the world?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Ten Six Seven Five