were by nature the children of wrath, can only mean, ‘We were born in that condition.’ It was something natural. We did not become the children of wrath, but were already such as we were born.* The sim- ple fact is asserted, not the reason of it. It is by nature, not on account of nature that we are here de- clared to be the children of wrath. The Scriptures do indeed teach the doctrine of inherent, hereditary de- pravity, and that that depravity is of the nature of sin, and therefore justly exposes us to the divine displea- sure. And this doctrine may be fairly implied in the text, but it is not asserted. In other words, φύσις does not mean natural depravity, and the dative (φύσει) does not here mean on account of. The assertion is that men are born in a state of condemnation, and not that their nature is the ground of that condemnation. This is, indeed, an old and widely extended interpretation ;
* In this interpretation commentators of all classes agree. RUECKERT, one of the ablest and most untrammelled of the recent German commenta- tors, says: “It is perfectly evident from Rom. 5, 12-20, that Paul was far from being opposed to the view expressed in Ps. 51, 7, that men are born sinners ; and as we interpret for no system, so we will not attempt to deny that the thought, ‘ we were born children of wrath,’ i. e. such as we were from our birth we were exposed to the divine wrath, is the true sense of the words.”
Har ess, 8, commentator of higher order, says: ‘‘ Unless we choose to explain the word φύσει ina senseless and inconsistent manner, we can account for its use only by admitting that Paul proceeds on the assumption of an enmity to God at present natural and indwelling. And since such a native condition is not a fatuity, we can properly acknowledge no other explanation of the fact here incidentally mentioned, than that which in perfect consistency with the whole apostolic system of doctrine, is given in Rom. 5th.”