# Deut. 1:29



## sola_gratia (May 22, 2006)

"Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it."

I've been talking to my friend about depravity, and he brought this up to me. Can someone help me out with the context of this verse? Because it almost seems like he is trying to argue a pelagian point of view to me.


----------



## gwine (May 22, 2006)

BTW, it's Deut 1:39, not 1:29

JFB comments thus:


> Deu 1:39 -
> your children ... who in that day had no knowledge between good and evil "” All ancient versions read "œto-day" instead of "œthat day"; and the sense is - "œyour children who now know," or "œwho know not as yet good or evil." As the children had not been partakers of the sinful outbreak, they were spared to obtain the privilege which their unbelieving parents had forfeited. God´s ways are not as man´s ways [Isa_55:8, Isa_55:9].



and Gill says the little ones are under 20 years of age


> Deu 1:39 - Moreover your (u) little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
> 
> (u) Who were under twenty years of age, (Num_14:31).



Just a couple of comments to get people helping you out. As far as the total depravity, Gill also makes this comment:


> and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil; not being at years of understanding, and which is a common description of children; it is particularly expressed "in that day", for now they were the very persons Moses was directing his speech unto, and relating this history, it being thirty eight years ago when this affair was, so that now they were grown up to years of discretion:



Just because we don't know the difference between right and wrong when we are very young doesn't follow that we did not inherit Adam's propensity to sin.


----------



## sola_gratia (May 22, 2006)

So, it doesn't mean that they were not fallen in nature?


----------



## gwine (May 22, 2006)

Maybe I am misunderstanding your question but let me try again.

Wikipedia defines Pelagianism as:


> Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin.



As pointed out in the first comment by JFB (Jamison Fawcet and Brown) the text is saying today, the day their fathers sinned against the LORD, and not the day of their (the children's) birth. And the 'not yet' that Gill refers to in the third quote speaks of human understanding of children.

If you look at 34-46 it is talking about what happened to Israel when they refused to go into the Promised Land the first time. The children being spoken about are now the grown up adults that Moses is talking to. They wouldn't have been old enough to actively rebel as far as going into the land.

So this passage is not talking about their original fallen nature but about the rebellion.


----------



## sola_gratia (May 22, 2006)

I think I am getting it now. I was wondering about the context. This isn't speaking about human nature, but refers to them not being at an age of where they could rebel. Am I right?

I was wondering because my friend was using it to argue that all young children go to heaven if they die before having faith, and that the world is what corrupts them later in life. But that they are not born inherently sinful.


----------



## gwine (May 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by sola_gratia_
> I think I am getting it now. I was wondering about the context. This isn't speaking about human nature, but refers to them not being at an age of where they could rebel. Am I right?


Well, that's how I am understanding it, too. 



> I was wondering because my friend was using it to argue that all young children go to heaven if they die before having faith, and that the world is what corrupts them later in life. But that they are not born inherently sinful.


There are plenty of other passages to prove that we are born inherently sinful. Romans, for one. But you might ask your friend at what age children wouldn't get to go to heaven. The logical extension of that idea is that he would have to include everyone who had never heard the gospel.


----------

