Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Ephesians 4:17 - 4:24
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_4:17 to Eph_5:21.
a. The principle of the new walk, with reference to the contrast of the old and the new man
Eph_4:17-24.
The heathen walk as a type of the natural walk in general; Eph_4:17 b–19.
Eph_4:17 b. That ye no longer walk [ ìçêÝôé ὑìᾶò ðåñéðáôåὶí .—This infinitive is the object of ëÝãù (it being unnecessary to understand äåῖí ) expressing, however, what ought to be (Eadie) more than what is; Ellicott thinks an imperative sense involved (“that ye no longer must walk”), as indeed the context indicates (Alford).—R.] This says negatively what is expressed positively in Eph_4:1 : “walk worthy.” “No longer” denotes their once walking, as they should not and dare not now, being Christians.—As the rest of the Gentiles walk.—[See Textual Note!] Êáèþò introduces the kind of walk which they should avoid. Êáß is joined with emphasis and admonitory force to ôὰ ëïéðÜ ἔèíç to which class they belong. The heathen are those who remained behind, they no longer belong to the heathen who now “walk,” and how?
In the vanity of their mind, ἔí ìáôáéüôçôéôïῦ íïὸò áὐôῶí .—This is the briefest characterization of the natural heathen walk, presenting both its religious and moral side. It is the explanation of Theodoret ( ôὰ ìὴ ὄíôá èåïðïéå ͂ éí ) in accordance with Rom_1:21; Rom_8:20; 1Pe_1:18. This “vanity” [betokening a waste of the whole rational powers on worthless objects (Alford).—R.] is, of course, one brought about through sin, another nature as it were. It has penetrated even the will of the human spirit, corrupting this high faculty, the ἡãåìïíéêüí in the nature of man. Hence there is no special reference to philosophy (Grotius). To this general sketch are added special traits in Eph_4:18-19.
Eph_4:18. Being darkened in their understanding, ἐóêïôùìÝíïé ôῇ äéáíïßᾳ ὄíôåò .—The masculine form indicates the reference to persons, to particular individuals, and not to the whole, ôὰ ἔèíç , as such. The verb ( óêïôüù ), only here and Rev_16:10, instead of the more usual óêïôßæù , is in the perfect, to denote a state not previously existing, but having come into being, which the present participle, ( ὄíôåò ) designates as present. That to which the darkness clings is set forth by ôῇ äéáíïßᾳ , which means the intellectual power of the mind, the mode of thought, the character, since the reference is not to the formal faculty, but to its condition. Comp. Rom_1:21 f.; Rom_11:10. It is incorrect to join ὄíôåò with what follows (Rueckert) [Eadie]; it follows thus in Tit_1:16 also, and ôῇ äéáíïßᾳ forms one conception, together with the participle in its emphatic position.
Being alienated from the life of God, ἀðçëëïôñéùìÝíïé ôῆò æùῆò ôïῦ èåïῦ .—See on Eph_2:12 : “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel.” The perfect participle must be noted here also; Bengel correctly remarking: participia præsupponunt, gentes ante defectionem suam a fide patrum—fuisse participes lucis et vitæ. Conf. renovari Eph_4:23.— ÆùÞ , the opposite of èÜíáôïò (Eph_2:1), is the intensive spiritual, eternal life, belonging to God ( ôïῦ èåïῦ ), vita, quæ accenditur ex ipsa Dei vita (Bengel), qua Deus vivit in suis (Beza), vera vita, qui est Deus (Erasmus); Luther: the life, that is out of God. [Comp. Trench, Syn. § XXVIII; Olshausen, Stier in loco.—R.] See Winer, p. 175. Thus “the vanity of their mind” is designated as to its two sides, the ethically intelligent, and the ethically practical. [This clause sets forth an “objective result of the subjective ‘being darkened’ ” (Alford).—R.] To this corresponds what is immediately added.
Because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart, äéὰ ôὴí ἄãíïéáí ôὴí ïὖóáí ἐí áὐôïῖò , äéὰ ôὴí ðþñùóéí ôῆò êáñäßáò áὐôῶí .—These two clauses are added without a connecting particle, because they refer to the two preceding ones, as their purport requires, and because the one requires and furthers the other. “Because of the ignorance that is in them,” points to an ignorance which has become immanent, is now natural and peculiar (Act_3:17; Act_17:30; 1Pe_1:14), as the ground ( äéὰ . with the accus., see Winer, p. 372) of the darkening, and which is ever increasing, going from ignorance to ignorance. “Because of the hardness of their heart,” renders prominent in the same way the hardness, unsusceptibility of the heart as the ground of the estrangement from the life of God. The two are ever conjoined in the natural man: There is not intellectual obscuration beside practical estrangement from God, nor ignorance beside hardness of heart; the one conditions the other, working destructively as they reciprocally affect each other. Hence it cannot be affirmed, that the former applies more to the Gentiles, the latter to the Jews (Stier and others); the Gentiles alone are spoken of, as a type of the natural character. But at the same time the “ignorance” is not to be regarded as merely a consequence, and these two clauses (with äéÜ ) referred to the last participial clause alone (Meyer).
[This parallelism of construction in which the first and third, second and fourth clauses are connected together is accepted, by Bengel, De Wette, Olshausen, Forbes (Symmetrical structure of Scripture, p. 21), Schenkel and others. It is opposed by Meyer, Hodge, Eadie and Ellicott; but the objection they urge, that “ignorance” is not the cause of “darkness,” loses its force when it is remembered that the Apostle is speaking of a process rather than a condition. Nor is it contrary to the Apostle’s style, in which parallelisms abound, far less so than to explain: “Darkness of mind is the cause of ignorance, ignorance and consequent obduracy of heart are the cause of alienation from God” (Hodge), thus trajecting the third and fourth clauses between the first and second. This is the view of Meyer, who makes the last clause subordinate to the third (though both are introduced by äéÜ ): a needless complication, which leads to the removal of the comma, while the view of Braune requires the insertion of one after èåïῦ . See Textual Note2.—R.]
Eph_4:19. Who ïἵôéíåò [men who, such as], introduces the explanation, the proof of this condition.—Being past feeling have given themselves over [ ἀðçëãçêüôåò ἑáõôïὺò ðáñÝäùêáí ].— Ἀðçëãçêüôåò ; (from ἀðὸ and ἄëãïò , ἀëãÝù ,), unsusceptible of pain, and according to the context, in the heart, the moral consciousness, hence not feeling the unrest and punishment of conscience, the correction of God (Jer_5:3), they have given themselves over, ultro (Bengel); that is the ἀãáéóèçóßá , sponte sese in gurgitem omnium vitiorum præcipitans. Calvin: Homines a Deo relicti, sopita conscientia, exstincto divini judicii timore, amisso denique sensu tanquam attoniti, belluino impetu se ad omnem turpitudinem projiciunt. [The pronoun ἑáõôïýò is used “with terrible emphasis” (Meyer).—R.] Self-reprobation is consummated in becoming apathetic, just as Rom_1:24 : “God delivered them over, in the lusts of their hearts.” Our passage marks the freedom and guilt of men, the passage in Romans the rule, will and power of God, but both of them indicate the means: the lust corrupting even unto want of feeling; here prominence is given to the consequence, the condition which has arisen and becomes aggravated ( ἀðçëãçêüôåò ), there to the ground, the active power (“lusts”).
To wantonness, ôῇ Üóåëãåßᾳ .—The term, apparently from èÝëãù , schwelgen [allied to the English swell, and meaning to over-eat, carouse, debauch], occurs quite frequently (Mar_7:22; Rom_13:13; 2Co_12:21; Gal_5:19; 1Pe_4:3; 2Pe_2:2; 2Pe_2:7; 2Pe_2:18; Judges 4), almost always in connection with sensual sins, denoting, however, not special sin, but reckless, unbridled, extravagant and excessive character in general. Comp. Tittmann, I, p. 150 ff., on ἀóÝëãåéá and ἀêáèáñóßá , [Trench, § 16., and Exeg. Notes on Gal_5:19, in this volume.—R.] It is not to be limited to sensual lasciviousness (Meyer).
To work all uncleanness, åἰò ἐñãáóßáí ἀêáèáñóßáò ðÜóçò .—[The preposition introduces the conscious aim of this self-abandonment.—R.] Ἐñãáóßá marks the managing, the assiduous, connected labor [the working at it as though it were a trade], and ἀêáèáñóßá , extended by ðÜóçò , sets forth what has come to pass in the service of ἀóÝëãåéá . We should apply it to all kinds of uncleanness, especially libidinous, but also to the lust of the eye and pride, natural and unnatural, refined and coarse, solitary and social, in thought, word and deed (Rom_1:24-32). Still less is this to be limited to libidinous filthiness (Meyer), or to trade in harlotry, quæstus ex impudicitia (Grotius, Bengel and others). The next phrase will not justify this.
In greediness, ἐí ðëåïíåîßᾳ .—This word means to want to have more, greediness, avarice, graspingness, limited usually to earthly possession, to money (Eph_5:3; Col_3:5; Mar_7:22; Luk_12:15); but the limitation arises from the context, not from the word itself. The context here does not admit of any such limitation: ἐí , in, marks the ground on which the “uncleanness” moves, and this is not avarice, but greed in general unto insatiableness. Hence the Greek Fathers thus explain it (Chrysostom: ἀìÝôñùò , Theodoret: ἀìåôñßá , Œcumenius: êùè ̓ ὑìåñâïëÞí êáὶ ἀíåíäüôùò . Ἐí is not= óýí (Luther: together with avarice); there is not a new special vice, avarice, added to another special one, unchastity (Meyer, Schenkel); neither the context nor the word itself favors the explanation: gluttony (Harless).
Reminder respecting Christ and Christian instruction; Eph_4:20-21.
Eph_4:20. But ye, ὑìåῖò äἐ , in opposition to “the rest of the Gentiles” [just described].—Did not so learn Christ.— Ïὑ÷ ïὕôùò is a very emphatic litotes=entirely otherwise, not at all in such a way that you can live afterwards as you did before. ἘìÜèåôå [the historical aorist] ôὸí ×ñéóôüí marks Christ as the object, the substance of the preaching of the Apostles and of Christ. Himself; His person we must attain to; He Himself must be accepted and appropriated in us (Eph_4:13; Eph_4:15; Col_2:6; 1Co_1:23; 2Co_1:19). Hence it is not=the doctrine of Christ, as was once almost generally thought. [This use of the verb with an accusative of the person is probably unique (Ellicott), and properly so, for in no other learning is a Person so directly and fully the object. Hence the explanation: learnt to know is inadmissible as without lexical authority and insufficient. Beza’s exegesis is totally unwarranted: “Ye are not so—ye have learned Christ.”—R.]
Eph_4:21. If indeed ye heard him [ åἴãå áὐôὸí ἠêïýóáôå ]—̓́ Åéãå , as in Eph_3:2, marks in a fine turn of expression a definite, undoubted fact (“that he heard him”), particula non miruit, sed auget vim admonitionis (Bengel). It is not however—“so as” (Stier). Áὐôüí is in emphatic position; “heard” denotes the beginning of the discipleship; hence it is not merely, heard of Him (Luther), but heard Him Himself in spirit, even though through the instrumentality of others. He is the subject of the very first instruction. Hence Paul adds:
And were taught in him, êáὶ ἐí áὐôῷ ἐäéÜ ÷èçôå .—The two designations correspond to those in Mat_28:19-20 : “disciple all nations”—“teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” “In,” ἐí , is neither= ðåñß , concerning (Piscator), nor ὑðü (Flatt), nor äéÜ , by (Beza) [E. V.], nor illius nomine, quod ad illum attinet (Bengel), but an instruction not merely having its result, a being or living in Him, but in accordance with the fellowship with Him (Winer, p. 366); in ipso=ipsi insiti and docti are equivalent (Bucer); doceri is inseri.
As is the truth in Jesus [ êáèþò ἐóôéí ἀëÞèåéá ἐí ôῷ Ἰçóïῦ ].—“As” refers only to the instruction, to its quality; it corresponds to “not go” (Eph_4:20); what was there negatively and briefly indicated, is here positively expressed, and then given in detail. “Is truth” gives prominence to the agreement of the teaching with the reality: in the instruction they hear Him really, possess Him as He is. Ἐóôéí , coming first, denotes the existence, the reality, and that, too, as a present, now valid and continuing reality.
Consequens ( ôïῦ audire. et ôïῦ doceri est ôὸ discere Bengel): they have therefore learned, as truth is in Him. “Truth” is here opposed to the heathen “vanity;” as the latter was a self-made foundling, the former is something bestowed, real, excluding the subtleties of human origin or change of any kind. [The notion of the Greek adjective áëçèéíüò is thus included by Dr. Braune. The clause setting forth the manner of the instruction (the substance follows in Eph_4:22-24), may be thus explained: If ye were taught so that what you received was according to what is true (true and real) as embodied in a personal Saviour: The literal rendering: “as is truth in Jesus” gives most nearly the exact force.—R.] In the expression ἐí ôῷ Ἰçóïῦ , the article is significant, pointing to the known Person, the personal name being chosen instead of the official title, Christ. Bengel: Expressius ponit nomen Ἰçóïῦ . Christi, ideam perfectissime et fulgidissime explevit Jesus; this preserves the received instruction from obliteration.—The clause is, therefore, not parenthetical (Beza, Rueckert and others), “truth” is neither agnitio Dei (Bengel), nor true doctrine of Christ (Piscator and others), nor true holiness, goodness (Erasmus, Harless [Hodge] and others). We should not connect “in Jesus” with what follows (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, II, 2, p. 291).
The Christian walk; Eph_4:22-24, a. Negative side; Eph_4:22, b. Positive side; Eph_4:23-24.
Eph_4:22. That ye put off, ἀðïèÝóèáéὑìᾶò .—This infinitive depends grammatically on the entire thought, that they heard Him and were taught in Him, as the truth in Jesus is (Bleek), although Stier and Bengel are not incorrect in connecting it in sense with “I say and testify” (Eph_4:17); they recognise, however, “a certain reference to the nearest words” (Eph_4:21). The emphasis rests on the verb, coming first, which has its antithesis in “put on” (Eph_4:24). It is incorrect to accept a dependence on the last clause alone (Meyer) and a contrast between “Jesus” and “ye” (Jerome, Harless, and others), which would be indicated by an emphatic position for ὑìᾶò and the insertion of ïὕôùò . In the frequently occurring figures of putting on and off the clothes to represent the external appearance from which the internal state may be inferred, it is not necessary to find an allusion to a race before which, or a baptism (of a proselyte) at which the clothes should be taken off; the context gives no warrant for either. The Lord Himself (Luk_24:49) transferred into the New Testament the usage of the Old Testament in describing an instantaneous, sudden inspiration. Comp. Stier, Words of Jesus, 7 p. 323 f. Paul extended the figure (Eph_4:25; Eph_6:11; Eph_6:14; Rom_13:12-13; Col_3:8-10; 1Co_15:53-54; Gal_3:27; 1Th_5:8). The verb includes the sense of a decided casting away, not merely a gentle putting off, since this is required of the followers of Jesus, among whom a preserving of the old man and the heathen walk is intolerable.
As regards your former way of life [ êáôὰ ôὴí ðñïôÝñáí ἀíáóôñïöÞí .— ÊáôÜ introduces that with respect to which the putting off takes place. The substantive ( áíáóôñïöÞ ), like the verb, includes a course of conduct arising from a corresponding disposition, the manifestation of what is within, as Gal_1:13; 1Pe_2:11-12; 1Pe_1:17-18 (Stier), and is more than ðåñéðáôåῖí , preparing the way for the mention of the internal disposition which should be put off. It is not enough to put off merely the former heathen ( ðñïôÝñáí ) walk. Antitheton versus 23 totus (Bengel).
The old man [ ôὸí ðáëáéὸí ἄíèñùðïí ].—“Man” denotes here the Ego ( ἐãþ , Rom_7:9-10; Rom_7:17-21). “Old” designates that it is condemned to be put away, old over against Jesus the second Adam; hence “the old man” (Col_3:9; Rom_6:6) means the sinful Ego deranged by sin, the natural man in the corruption of his sin. This condition is then described:
Which waxeth corrupt according to the lusts of deceit [ ôὸí öèåéñüìåíïí êáôὰ ôὰò ἐðéèõìßáò ôῆò ἀðÜôçò ].—The present participle denotes the present condition, which is not however a purely passive one: “which is corrupted,” but in accordance with Eph_4:19 : “which corrupts himself.” It is then neither imperfect: which corrupted himself (Bengel), nor to be taken as referring to the future judgment (Rueckert and others); yet it is not merely=morally destroying himself (Harless). The antithesis is creatum (Bengel) and the use of öèïñÜ and öèåßñåóèáé (Gal_6:8; Rom_8:20-21) points to the whole man, body and soul. [Meyer and Hodge refer it to eternal destruction: “which tends to destruction,” but this does not do justice to the present participle, the peculiar force of which, as indicating a process not entirely passive, is brought out by “waxeth corrupt” (Ellicott). Hodge’s objection, that “old” already expresses the idea of corruption, has no force against this description of the progressive character, while his own view introduces an objective element into a delineation which is strictly subjective.—R.]
The accomplishment of the corruption is more closely defined by the phrase: “according to the lusts of deceit,” The corruption is accomplished in accordance with the lusts, the factors of the corruption; and these are affairs of sin, which are here personified in accordance with the power of deceiving and betraying inherent in it (Rom_7:11; 1Co_11:3; 2Th_2:9). The genitive, which is that of the subject, is not to be resolved into an adjective (Grotius [E. V.] and thus weakened, nor applied merely to error technicus (Bengel). The antithesis is secundum Deum—in justitia et sanctitate veritatis (Bengel).
Eph_4:23. And become renewed [ ἀíáíåïῦóèáé äÝ ],—The contrast is marked by äÝ , which introduces the positive side (Eph_4:23-24), The verb in the passive points to the fact that a work and operation of God is spoken of (Eph_2:10; Eph_4:24; êôéóèÝíôá ; see Tit_3:5, 2Ti_1:9). The present refers to an operation which is not concluded in a moment, but continues. The roots of the word ( íÝïò [recent], new) points to a becoming rejuvenated, to the beginning, the coming into being, of what was not, or not yet, or no longer; êáéíüò [novus] refers to the character of that which exists, as compared with its former condition; Üíáêáéíïõí is to put away the ruins of the present condition and to supply new powers, to transfer into a condition of newness, as distinguished from the previous one. Hence we never find íÝá êôßóéò , but êáéíÞ , since íåüôçò is already implied in êôéóéò . See Tittmann, Syn. I., p. 60 f. [Trench, Syn. (§ xviii; Colossians, p. 65,) Alford and Hodge in loco.—R.] ἉíÜ indicates not merely a setting up, but according to the participles in Eph_4:18-19, a restitution of the original creation. The infinitive is in the same dependence as ἀðïèÝóèáé , although in these infinitives there is latent, a hortatory imperative, which comes out in Eph_4:25. Still this inheres in the thought, not in the form.
In the Spirit [or by the Spirit] of your mind [ ôῷ ðíåýìáôé ôïῦ íïὸò ýìῶí ].—The renewal, the letting themselves be renewed, is accomplished in this. The dative is one of reference, the genitive that of the subject. Harless says: øõ÷Þ designates the immediateness of the personal life, êáñäßá the same as the internal life of a human person, íïῦò is the habitus corresponding to this existence and life, ðíåῦìá the motive power which calls forth and conditions this habitus. To this the organism of the human spirit corresponds. Bengel: spiritu mentis, 1Co_14:14. Spiritus est intimum mentis. That inexplicabile coming from God (Oetinger) must be renewed, is seized by the corruption of sin, needs redemption from “the vanity of the mind.” We may not take ðíåýìáôé as instrumental on account of the genitive and understand it of the Holy Spirit (Oekumen, and others), nor can both explanations be combined (Stier: through the Spirit yet living in you); in that case the middle, contrary to the usage which gives it an active sense, and contrary to the Biblical view, which never speaks of men renewing themselves, is taken as reflexive. Nor is the “spirit” of man to be regarded as opposed absolutely to the “flesh,” as if it could never be subject to the latter (Schenkel).
[The view of Braune, which takes ôῷ ðíåýìáôé as a dative of reference referring exclusively to the human spirit, is accepted by most commentators. Hodge takes ðíåῦìá here as the “interior life—that of which the íïῦò , êáñäßá , øõ÷Þ are the modes of manifestation,”—a psychological statement inferior to that of Harless, and probably resulting from the desire to avoid any trichotomic opinion.—Meyer has wavered in his views: adopting in the 1James , 3 d and 4th eds. the usual opinion, and in the second that of Fritzsche, Alford, Ellicott and others. This takes the dative as instrumental, and as referring to the human spirit acted upon by the Holy Spirit (see Romans, p. 235), or to the Holy Spirit in a gracious union with the human spirit (Ellicott, 3d ed.). To this view I incline, but not decidedly. The other interpretation is open to objections both of an exegetical and psychological nature. This sense of ðíåῦìá is now clearly established, and indispensable in exegesis. In fact as Alford says: “the ðíåῦìá a of man is only then used ‘sensu proprio’ as worthy of its place and governing functions, when it is one Spirit with the Lord.” The trouble is, that this ðíåῦìá would hardly be spoken of as the instrument; the answer being that a process is described as going on, the agent being “the restored and Divinely informed leading principle of their íïῦò .”—The genitive is their possessive.—R.]
Eph_4:24. And that ye put on, êáὶἑíäýóáóèáé , is an internal act done by us, having an effect upon the walk and thus manifesting itself.—The new man, ôὸí êáéíὸí ἄíèñùðïí , we have as present, given, outside of ourselves, in Christ; hence Rom_13:14 : “Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Who after God hath been created [ ôὸí êáôὰ èåὸí êôéóèÝíôá ].—This marks both the reality and the character of the new man. The designation evidently points to Gen_1:26-27; which is even more prominent in the parallel passage, Col_3:10 (“after the image of Him that created”). Comp. 1Pe_1:15. It should be noticed that this qualification compels us not to take “new man” as exactly=Christ; for He is not “created,” but rather “God, the image of Him who creates,” after whom ( êáôὰ ) the new man is created. Hence we should refer it to the new human personality as respects Christ, which the Christian should become. Thus in the Epistle to the Colossians we find: ôὸí íÝïí ôὸí ἀíáêáéíüìåíïí , the young, tender, newly born, which is renewed, developed in contrast with the previous one. The creation of the protoplast is however merely recalled; the expressions are borrowed from it, to designate the new creation taking place in Christ and to put it in relation to the first.
In righteousness and holiness of the truth [ ἐí äéêáéïóýíῃ êáὶ ὁóéüôçôéôῆò ἀëçèåßáò ].—This characterizes the new man and sets forth the distinguishing marks of its character; the preposition adjoining to “created” that in which the created man appears, with which he is endowed, equipped. The Apostle proceeds from without to within. The two notions are united together and applied to God (Rev_16:5), to men (1Th_2:10; Tit_1:1; Luk_1:75), ὄóéïò is predicated of God (Rev_15:4), of Christ (Heb_7:26; Act_2:27; Act_13:35), of men (1Ti_2:8). ̔ Ïóéüôçò refers to the inmost nature, the disposition, the immaculate purity of love (Eph_1:4; Eph_5:27; Heb_7:26), äéêáéïóýíç to the action and mode of dealing, which keeps all relations within the bounds of truth and right (Stier). Tittmann, Syn. I. 25 ff. Here we may not apply the frequent usage of Plato, who joins both notions, of which Philo says: ὀóéüôçò ìὲí ðñὸò èåüí , äéêáéïóýíç äὲ ðñὸò ἀíèñþðïõò èåùñåῖôáé . Meyer regards äéêáéïóýíç as moral rectitude in itself, ὁóéïôçò specially in reference to God. Schenkel takes the former as respecting the world, the latter God; the latter is evidently opposed to “uncleanness” (Eph_4:19) and the former to “wantonness” and “greediness.” [So Stier and Ellicott]. The genitive sets forth the ground of both; “the truth” is personified, like “love” (Eph_4:22), the cause of the righteousness and holiness; out of the eternal Divine basis of truth springs the ethical personal life, which is conditioned by this as true: without this man would lapse into “vanity” (Eph_4:17). Luther incorrectly renders the genitive by an adjective: in real righteousness and holiness. [So Calvin, Beza, Holzhausen and the E. V., while Pelagius explains: “in the truth,” êáὶ ἐí ἀëçèåßᾳ (the reading of D. F. and some fathers) There seems to be an antithesis between “truth” here and “deceit” in Eph_4:22 (Hodge, Eadie and others), which suggests that the notion “real” is prominent here.—R.] It is incorrect to take the preposition as instrumental (Morus), or as= åἰò . The new man is not created by this ethical quality but by God, nor is this the end, but the accompanying gift of this creation, as is manifest in Christ, to whom this belonged from the beginning, not becoming His in the course of His life.
[Olshausen’s remarks are generally accepted: Äéêáéïóýíç , betokens a just relation among the powers of the soul within, and towards men and duties without. But ὁóéüôçò , like the Hebrew úָּîִéí , betokens the integrity of the spiritual life, and the piety towards God of which that is the condition. Hence both expressions together complete the moral idea of perfection. As here the ethical side of the Divine image is brought out, Col_3:10 brings out the intellectual. The new birth alone leads to ἐðßãíùóéò : all knowledge which proceeds not from renewal of heart, is but outward appearance; and of this kind was that among the false Colossian teachers. On the other hand, in Wis_2:23 the physical side of the Divine image is brought out.” Ellicott deems the last reference somewhat doubtful—R.]
2. The “vanity of the mind” is the result of a fall from a previous possession and enjoyment of original gifts, which is accomplished in a twofold series of acts reciprocally requiring and furthering each other; the intellectual and moral side of man’s nature being in turn solicited, and thus roused in selfishness, it is ever further removed from the truth in God and from the God of truth. Indeed, the result, the vanity of the mind, is itself capable of increase and must develop into extreme corruption, if aid does not come and a retrograde movement begin.
3. The intellectual and moral side of man require and promote each other. The Reason cannot remain healthy and clear, or susceptible, as from the beginning, if the will is or becomes warped or weakened. The obscuration, weakening of the Reason necessarily enters with the enfeebling and confusion of the will. The Apostle comprises both under the term ðíåῦìá (Eph_4:23); the former he designates íïῦò (Eph_4:17; Eph_4:23), äé íïéá (Eph_4:18); the latter êáñäéá (Eph_4:18). The Apostle Paul places the initiative in the lusts (Eph_4:22 : “corrupted according to the lusts of deceit”), as Luther sharply indicates in his incorrect translation (which corrupts itself through lusts in error). The perverted will, executing what is wrong, makes the understanding a sophistical attorney, a crafty counsellor for its unrighteousness.
4. The factors of corruption are three: God, who hardens (Exo_4:21; Exo_7:3; Exo_14:4; Exo_14:8; Joh_12:40; Rom_9:18; Rom_1:24), man himself (1Sa_6:6; Psa_95:8; Heb_3:8), the surrounding circumstances, through which and under which it takes place (Gen_7:13; Gen_8:15; Heb_3:13). According to the context man is here described as the cause of the corruption (Eph_4:19), because personal guilt and the evoking of self-activity is treated of, while in Rom_1:24 God is termed the Author in the same matter, since there the final and deepest ground is touched upon. Usually its consummation appears as a history, which is pragmatically sketched by the external circumstances, the Power above the man and the concealed doings within him not being brought into prominence. What comes to pass is never loosed from the dealings of God and His holy rule, nor from the consent and opposition of man or without the influences of historical circumstances and persons. Consider, however, that thy guilt is at once God’s punishment and thine own guilt, and forget not that the two appear together as a developing history.
5. The dangerous element of sin is the deceit of lust, which plays the role of pleasure, and is not really ἡäïíÞ , but öèïñÜ and öèåß . åé . This is God’s appointment, that what is unholy should be unwholesome, as wrong is ill; the lustful one, turning away from God, naturally ruins himself, which is possible only in self-deception.
6. Renewal is not accomplished by man in his own strength, but only in the acceptance and use of the vital strength promised and imparted to him with justification, hence in the appropriated power of God, in the strength of Divine life. Comp. notes 8, 10.
7. Renewal too, like corruption, has its history. As the latter proceeds from ἀíïìßá to ἀíïìßá , even to the end, èÜíáôïò (Rom_6:19; Rom_6:21), so in the former advance is made from hearing Christ to being taught in Him, from the scholar to the friend, the intimate of Christ, and from the servant of God, who permits himself to be thus termed, to heirship and participation in His kingdom. [Comp. Exegetical Notes on Eph_4:23.—R.]
8. The beginning of the Christian walk is the putting off the previous vices (Eph_4:28-32), and from resistance, even if with feeble result, advance is made to victorious crucifixion of the flesh and its lusts (Gal_5:16-17; Gal_5:24).
9. In this too knowing and willing stand in reciprocal action conditioning each other: learning Christ and putting on Christ, Christian science and Christian life. Theological faculties and the Church of Christ belong together. No knowledge should sunder itself from life, nor the science of Theology from the Christian Church. Where faith in Christ is not active, the scientific culture of individuals and churches will fare badly enough.
10. The vital power of faith must in the moral life-process prove itself real ( ôῆò ἀëçèåßáò ) and permeate the whole mode of life ( ἐí äéêáéïóýíῃ ) from within to without ( ἐí ὁóéüôçôé ) and thus manifest itself in the walk. Faith, in itself a moral act, must prove itself in an ethical life-process.
[11. “This passage is of special doctrinal importance, as teaching us the true nature of the image of God in which man was originally created. That image did not consist merely in man’s rational nature, nor in his immortality, nor in his dominion, but specially in that righteousness and holiness, that rectitude in all his principles, and that susceptibility of devout affections, which are inseparable from the possession of the truth, or true knowledge of God. This is the Scriptural view of the original state of man, or of original righteousness, as opposed, on the one hand, to the Pelagian theory, that man was created without moral character; and, on the other, to the Romish doctrine, that original righteousness was a supernatural endowment not belonging to man’s nature. Knowledge, and consequently righteousness and holiness, were immanent or con-created in the first man, in the same sense as were his sense of beauty and susceptibility of impression from the external world.” Hodge.—R.]
Starke:—The natural knowledge of God is not the right one, and is far from sufficing for salvation, 1Co_1:21.—The origin of all our sins is the “vanity of the mind” and the darkened understanding. We do not understand what the true good is, nor how we can attain to it. If we are to be helped, we must be helped in these respects, else a hardening results, and we become at last “without feeling.”—All, even the best, in man is corrupted by nature, accordingly nothing is to be expected from his own strength.—Mark, man, the stripes of thy conscience, they are a favor from God; despise them not, lest thy heart be gradually led by the deceit of sin into obduracy.—He who does not live devoutly has not rightly learned or heard Christ.—In Christ Jesus is the truth, not a doctrine merely, but a righteous life, and this truth consists in a putting off of the old man and a putting on of the new.—He who rightly knows Christ, must, to honor Him, live holily.—It is a sheer impossibility to be a Christian and to be willing to continue walking in heathenish lusts.—Through a long habit of sinning, the understanding at length becomes so darkened, the conscience so insensible, the will so stubborn, that the man no longer perceives the danger of his sinful condition, has no more conscience about sin, and no desire to desist from sin.—Where sin began, there repentance must begin.
Rieger:—The understanding would otherwise be a pre-eminent ornament of man, but it too has suffered much from the inroads of sin.—A proper character begins in us with the knowledge and confession of the might of sin, how it has clung to us from the time of our birth and extended itself as an old man over all our powers and members.
Heubner:—Where the will is corrupt, the understanding is darkened; blindness is the result of hardening.—Heathenism is life without God, Christianity life from God.—The Christian must ever begin anew and at the same time afresh. Daily repentance is needed, if we know the weakness, impurity, inconstancy of our hearts.—We will be ever seeing remnants of the old man appearing and returning here and there, and then a putting off of the old and putting on the new man is at once necessary again, and a purging process must be begun as in the case of sick people.—There is no more certain sign of an unspiritual mind, than the question: What then is so bad in me? Am I then so entirely unlike the image of God?
Passavant:—The history of the heathen of all ages and countries is a history of such vanity of mind, and of vanities; and all this vain character and action is renewed, re-decked and increased in the history of the character and doings of the heathen now-a-day, of the unbelieving and God-forsaken in Christendom. In the latter case the guilt is indeed greater, the injury deeper and the vanity worse.—This story of the origin of all heathen character and action, and of all idolatry in the world, repeats itself in every heart, which permits itself to be led through lustfulness and vanity of the mind away from the only true God into unbelief, disobedience and ingratitude. The will becomes perverted and evil, seducing in its turn the understanding and all the senses of man; and the mind, when it has once become false and vain, seduces in turn the impure heart, which has forsaken truth and faith; and here, in this impurity is the damnable ground and beginning of all ignorance and obduracy. That which is most exalted in us, which shall inherit immortality, our most beautiful, thinking, poetizing, loving, that which moves our whole heart and soul, what is inmost and most intellectual, our most profound life, our “spirit” itself must be renewed within us.
Stier:—The natural man in the vanity of his mind chooses what is void, empty and perishing, instead of what is Divinely real. Lust and deceit are akin.—Hearing, learning, becoming learned, are the three orderly degrees.—Man, corrupt by nature, destroys that which was created, God’s Spirit in our spirit breaks anew the first creation. Once for all in the Person of Christ is that created and prepared for us, which we are to put on.
Gerlach:—The lusts paint joy for us and then bring misery, place man in opposition to his Creator, his eternal destiny, himself, making out of the whole character a lie.
Ziel: The heathenish nature in our Christian congregations of to-day. From the text (Eph_4:17-32) we may perceive as in a mirror: 1) In what inward character of the heart (Eph_4:17-19), 2) in what outward form of the conduct it still manifests itself among us (Eph_4:25-32). Conclusion: To extirpate it by the roots, each one for himself, puts and must put it away from him.
On the Epistle for the 19th Sunday after Trinity, Eph_4:22-28.—Langbein: How it is chiefly shown in social life, that something really new is born within us? When there is found, 1) in our mouth, instead of a lie, the truth, 2) in our heart, instead of wrath, placability, 3) in our hands, instead of unjust property, the gift of mercy.
Tholuck: The virtue of Christian love of truth. 1. How does it manifest itself a) toward God, b) toward our neighbor, c) towards ourselves? 2. How do we attain to it? a) Through the consciousness of the continued presence of that eye, which sees in secret and to which a lie is an abomination, b) by taking the right standard, the Word of God.
F. A. Wolf: On the proper conduct of all in authority for the promotion of fidelity and probity in their subordinates. 1. Strict love of truth. 2. Forbearing earnestness in discipline and admonition. 3. Zeal for the public good in our own place and calling.
Florey:—A new man, a new life! 1) In words of truth, 2) mastery over the passions, 3) blamelessness in walk, 4) turning away from what is unjust, 5) activity in one’s calling, 6) brotherly love in the heart.—