[B-Greek] possible meanings of FUSIS ("nature")

Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Sun Jul 18 20:24:38 EDT 2004


Dear B-Greekers,

In another discussion group I gave Harold Hoehner's understanding of 
the phrase "children of wrath" in Eph 2:3

>>HH: He explains the phrase "children of wrath" to mean "children 
>>destined to God's wrath." He says Paul makes it clear in Romans 
>>that it is their willful acts of transgression and disobedience 
>>that bring this wrath.

Someone in response wondered what Mr. Hoehner meant by "children." In 
other words, was he using the word as part of a semiticism indicating 
one's quality of being; "son of disobedience" could signify 
"disobedient one" and "child of wrath" could imply "person deserving 
of wrath."

I replied:

HH: No, he does not refer to childhood but seems to support the idea 
of birth as entailing a natural destiny of becoming an object of 
God's anger. He says:

The term TEKNA, "children," is similar to hUIOIS, "sons," mentioned 
in verse 2 [in Eph 2], but it denotes a closer relationship to the 
parent. The word "son" has "the thought of individual freedom, and 
the dignity or responsibility of personal choice," while "child" 
depicts a close relationship and dependence on the parent. One does 
not call an eighteen-year-old male in the family a child but a son. 
Thus to be a child of wrath is one who by his relationship to his 
parent or ancestor comes under God's wrath, as will be discussed 
below.

HH: Then he talks about FUSIS [nature] and concludes that the meaning 
here is that of origin or descent:

The dative could be instrumental or causal. We were, because of our 
ancestors, children of wrath. It is the natural endowment or 
condition inherited from our ancestors, particularly from Adam (Rom 
5:12-21), that brings wrath. This fits well with the term TEKNA, 
"children," who have a close relationship to parents.

HH: He ends the discussion of the verse talking about wrath and its 
universality:

Lincoln correctly links this to original sin discussed in Rom 5:12-21 
where our natural ancestor, Adam, sinned and so we by nature are 
sinners. Accordingly, there is no way that men and women by 
themselves are able to escape this terrible dilemma. It is only God's 
intervening grace that can deliver us. It is this initiative that 
Paul discusses next.

HH: One could argue that Hoehner is favoring the concept of original 
sin, whereas the wording may let the expressions "sons of 
disobedience" and "children of wrath" be grecized semitisms 
describing character. I think Hoehner would respond that his 
understanding of FUSIS determines his exegesis. It's interesting that 
he does not give the idea of a derived or developed, that is, 
secondary, nature as one of the possible meanings of FUSIS. He only 
gives 1) origin, source, or descent, 2) natural condition, state, or 
quality (e.g., natural lay of the land, or nature of the existence of 
the gods), and 3) the created world or nature. But BAGD does not give 
the idea of a developed or secondary nature either. In fact BAGD says 
about FUSIS at this verse: "we were, in our natural condition (as 
descendants of Adam) children of wrath." I can't really tell what LSJ 
allows, although they give "4. of the mind, one's nature, character." 
Usually one's mental character is a developed quality, but Greek may 
use FUSIS of one's natural character. That would be a good question 
for B-Greek-whether FUSIS could describe a developed character.

So, does anyone know whether FUSIS can refer to a mental character 
that one develops over time, or does it refer to one's innate mental 
character? The idea would be that if it could refer to developed 
character, then the idea of an Adamic inheritance would not be so 
necessary to incorporate into the exegesis of the Ephesians 2 
passage. I support Mr. Hoehner's general perspective, but it is good 
to check such things.

					Yours,
					Harold Holmyard





More information about the B-Greek mailing list