Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 2:3 - 2:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_2:3. After the apostle has just depicted the pre-Christian corruption of the readers, who were Gentile-Christians, the sinful corruptness of all—this basis for his enthusiastic certainty of the universality of the redemption (Rom_1:18 … Rom_2:24, Rom_3:19; Rom_3:23, Rom_11:32; Gal_2:15-16; Gal_3:22, al.)—presents itself at the same time with such vividness before his mind, that he now also includes with the others the whole body of the Jewish-Christians ( καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες ) in the same state of corruption, and accordingly, on the resumption of the argument at Eph_2:4, he cannot again employ the second person introduced in Eph_2:1, but must change this into ἡμᾶς . Inasmuch as καὶ ἡμεῖς , we also, must necessarily denote the class falling to be added to ὑμᾶς , Eph_2:1, we cannot understand by it the Christians generally (Estius, Koppe, and others); but, since the ὑμεῖς are Gentile-Christians, we must take it to mean the Jewish-Christians. The general moral description which follows is not opposed to this view (as de Wette objects), since it was the very object of the apostle to delineate the essential equality in the moral condition of both.[132] Comp. Rom_1:2-3. De Wette explains it quite arbitrarily: “we also, who have been already a considerable time Christians.”
ἐν οἷς ] is not to be referred to τοῖς παραπτώματι , Eph_2:1 (Peshito, Jerome, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Baumgarten, Koppe, Rosenmüller), for that reference is not to be supported by Col_3:7, but, on the contrary, is impossible with the reading ὑμῶν after ἁμαρτ ., Eph_2:1, and is, moreover, to be rejected, because Paul has not again written ἐν αἷς , and because the reference to the nearest subject is altogether suitable; for the Jewish-Christians also all walked once among the disobedient, as belonging to the ethical category of the same, inasmuch as they likewise before their conversion were through their immoral walk disobedient towards God (Rom_2:17 ff.; Rom_2:2; Rom_3:9 ff.).
ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμ . τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμ .] more precise definition to what has just been said ἐν οἷς … ἀνεστράφημεν ποτέ , denoting the immoral domain of the pre-Christian state (2Co_1:12; 2Pe_2:18; comp. Xen. Ages. ix. 4; Plat. Legg. ix. p. 865 E; Polyb. ix. 21. 5), in which this walk took place, namely, in the desires of our corporeo-psychical human nature, whose impulses, adverse to God, had not yet experienced the overcoming influence of the Holy Spirit (Rom_7:14 ff; Rom_8:7; Gal_5:17; Rom_8:2, al.), and hence rendered ineffectual the moral volition directed towards the divine law (Rom_7:17-20). The opposite is: πνεύματι περιπατεῖν καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν σαρκὸς μὴ τελεῖν , Gal_5:16; comp. Rom_8:13.
ποιοῦντες κ . τ . λ .] so that we, etc., now specifies the way and manner of this walk, wherein the prefixed ποιοῦντες has the emphasis, in that it predicates what they did, as afterwards ἦμεν , what they were. The θελήματα (comp. on the plural, Act_13:22; Jer_23:26; 2Ma_1:3) are here in reality not different from the ἐπιθυμίαι , which, however, are conceived of as activities of the will, that take place on the part of the σάρξ and the διάνοιαι (both conceived of under a personified aspect as the power ruling the ego of the unconverted man). As regards τῶν διανοιῶν , which stands related to τῆς σαρκός as the special to the general, the bad connotation is not implied in the plural, as Harless conjectures (who finds therein “fluctuating, changing opinions”), but in the context, which makes us think of the unholy thoughts,[133] whose volitions were directed to evil, in the state of disobedience. Comp. Num_15:39 : μνησθήσεσθε πασῶν τῶν ἐντολῶν κυρίου καὶ ποιήσετε αὐτάς · καὶ οὐ διαστραφήσεσθε ὀπίσω τῶν διανοιῶν ὑμῶν ; also Jer_23:26; Isa_55:9 ( τὰ διανοήματα ), where likewise the prejudicial connotation lies not in the plural, but in the connection.
καὶ ἦμεν τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς ] Instead of continuing the construction in uniformity with ποιοῦντες by καὶ ὄντες , the apostle passes over, as at Eph_1:20 (see on that passage), emphatically into the oratio finita, depicting, after the immoral mode of action, the unhappy condition in which withal we found ourselves. The fact that on this account ἦμεν is prefixed has been left unnoticed, and hence καὶ ἦμεν has been either tacitly (so usually) or expressly (as by Fritzsche, Conject. p. 45, who takes ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμ . τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ποιοῦντες κ . τ . λ . together as one clause) connected with ἐν οἷς … ἀνεστρ . Harless regards the words as only a supplemental and more exact definition and modification of the thought expressed immediately before; but in that case an isolation of the words is needlessly assumed, and likewise the correlation of the prefixed verbs ποιοῦντες and ἦμεν is overlooked.
τέκνα ὀργῆς are children of wrath (comp. on Eph_2:2), that is, however, not merely those worthy of wrath (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Castalio, Calvin, Grotius, and others), which relation of dependence is not in keeping with the context, but, as νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτ . shows, Eph_2:1, subject to wrath, irae dbnoxii, standing under wrath (comp. Eph_5:8; Mat_23:15; Joh_17:12). So most expositors rightly take it. To whose wrath they were subject, Paul does not indicate (for he does not write τῆς ὀργῆς , comp. Rom_12:19), but (comp. Rom_4:15) he leaves it to the reader to say for himself that it is God’s wrath he has to think of (see Eph_2:4). As to the wrath of God,—which here, too, is not to be understood merely of that of the future judgment (Ritschl, de ira Dei, p. 17),—the holy emotion of absolute displeasure at evil, which is necessarily posited by absolute love to the good, and is thus the necessary principle of temporal and eternal punishment on the part of God (not the punishment itself), comp. on Rom_1:18.
φύσει ] dative of the more precise mode (= κατὰ φύσιν ), may either attach itself merely to τέκνα (not to ἦμεν ), so that the idea expressed is: nature-children, τέκνα φυσικὰ ὀργῆς (see on such datives joined on to nouns, Lobeck, ad Phryn p. 688; Heind. ad Cratyl. p. 131); or it may more precisely define the whole notion τέκνα ὀργῆς , thus: wrath-children by nature, τέκνα ὀργῆς φυσικά ; so that the τέκνα ὀργ ., like υἱοὶ τ . ἀπειθείας , Eph_2:2, forms a single idea. The latter is the correct view, because τέκνα is used figuratively and receives the real contents of the conception only by means of ὀργῆς , for which reason it is not to be thought of as separated therefrom.[134] The notion of φύσει must obtain its more precise definition solely from the context, as to whether, namely, it betokens an innate relation (as in Gal_2:15; Xen. Mem. i. 4. 14; Dem. 1411 ult.; Soph. Aj. 1280; O. C. 1297; Isoc. Evag. 16: τῷ μὲν γὰρ ἦν φύσει πατρίς , τὸν δὲ … νόμῳ πολίτην ἐπεποίηντο ; specially instructive are Plat. Prot. p. 323 C D, Dem. 774, 7),—whether it is consequently equivalent to γενέσει , and the sonship of wrath is ἔμφυτος , a qualitas innata (Wis_12:10, comp. Wis_13:1, and thereon Grimm, Handb. p. 233),—or, on the other hand, a relation brought about by development of a nativa indoles, one that has been produced by virtue of natural endowment (as Rom_2:14; 1Co_11:14; Xen. Mem. i. 2. 14, iv. 1. 3; Plat. Legg. vi. p. 777 D; Ael. V. H. ii. 13. 3, xxii. 9. 1; see also Wetstein in loc., and Loesner, p. 340 f.). In the latter sense David is said by Josephus, Antt. vii. 7. 1, to have been φύσει δίκαιος καὶ θεοσεβής ; comp. xiii. 10. 6. Philo, de conf. lingu. p. 327 E: ἀντιλογικοὶ φύσει , Xen. Oec. xx. 25: φύσει φιλογεωργότατος , Plut. Artax. Ephesians 6 : φύσει βαρύθυμος οὖσα , Arist. Polit. i. 1. 9: ἄνθρωπος φύσει πολιτικὸν ζῶον , and many others. According to this view, ἦμεν τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς would have to be paraphrased by: ἦμεν , τῇ φύσει χρησάμενοι , τέκνα ὀργῆς . From early times (see, already, Augustine, Retract, i. 10. 15; de verb. Revelation 14) the word in our passage has been employed in defence of original sin as an inborn condition of culpability (inborn peccatum vere damnans), as indeed even Rückert, Harless, Olshausen, Usteri,[135] Julius Müller, Lechler, Philippi, Thomasius, and others have understood an inborn childship of wrath. “Paulus nos cum peccato gigni testatur, quemadmodum serpentes suum venenum ex utero afferunt,” Calvin. “Hoc uno verbo, quasi fulmine, totus homo, quantus quantus est, prosternitur; neque enim naturam dicit laesam, sed mortuam per peccatum ideoque irae obnoxiam,” Beza. Comp. Form. Conc. p. 639 f. But (1) the context points, in Eph_2:1-3, as again also in Eph_2:5, to an actually produced, not to an inborn state of guilt.[136] Further, (2) if Paul had wished, after touching on the sinful action, to bring into prominence the inborn state of culpability, and so had taken the course ab effectu ad causam, φύσει would have an emphasis, which would make its critically assured position, as it stands in the Recepta, appear simply inappropriate; in fact, not even the position in Lachmann ( ἦμεν φύσει τέκνα ὀργῆς ) would be sufficiently in keeping, but we should be obliged logically to expect: καὶ φύσει ἦμεν τέκνα ὀργῆς , “and (already) by birth were we children of wrath,” in which would lie the source of sinful action. But (3) the ecclesiastical dogma, that man is a born subject of wrath, from birth an object of the divine condemnation, is not at all a doctrine of the apostle, according to whom man by his actual sin falls under the wrath of God (Rom_1:18; Rom_2:8-9; Rom_7:7 f., al.), inasmuch, namely, as he becomes subject to and follows the inborn principle of sin (Rom_7:14 ff.), in opposition to his moral will, which he likewise by nature bears in himself; in connection with which, we may add, bodily death has its causal basis not in the individual sin of the particular persons, but in the connection of the whole race with the fall and death-penalty of its first progenitor (see on Rom_5:12). And (4) how could Paul, speaking of the Jews, predicate of them an inborn childship of wrath, when he regarded them as κλάδους ἁγίους τῆς ῥίζης ἁγίας (Rom_11:16)! They were in fact οἱ κατὰ φύσιν κλάδοι of the sacred olive-tree of the theocracy (Rom_11:21); how could they be at the same time the opposite (observe the κατὰ φύσιν ), born τέκνα ὀργῆς ? See also Gal_2:15, where the φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι are opposed to the ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί ,[137] as well as Rom_9:4, where of them is predicated the possession of the υἱοθεσία , consequently the type of the Christian childship of God, whereof the inborn childship of wrath would be the direct opposite. See, generally, on the sanctity of the people of God, Ewald, Alterth. p. 262 ff. Several have found in φύσει the sense: “apart from the special relation in which they as Israelites stood to God” (Thomasius, I. p. 289); but this is just a mere saving clause obtruded on the text, in connection with which there is nevertheless retained the un-Pauline conception of born liability to wrath, consequently of condemnation from the very first, without any personal participation and contracting of guilt, before one yet knows sin (Rom_7:7). This remark also holds in opposition to the essentially similar interpretation in Hofmann, p. 565, comp. Schmid, bibl. Theol. II. p. 274, and Julius Müller, v. d. Sünde, p. 377 f. Further, (5) if Paul had thought of an inborn liability to wrath, he could not have regarded even the children of Christians as holy and pure (1Co_7:14); and infant baptism must have been already ordained in the N.T., and that, indeed, with the absolute necessity, which had to be subsequently assigned to it in consistency with the elaboration of the dogma of original sin bringing eternal condemnation on every one born by ordinary generation. The explanation of an inborn state of wrath (which also does not tally with the fact that Jesus promises the kingdom of heaven to those who should be like children, Mat_18:2 f., Mat_19:14 f.) is accordingly to be rejected as opposed to the context and un-Pauline; and φύσει defines the childship of wrath to the effect, that it has arisen in virtue of natural constitution (observe the just-mentioned ἐπιθυμίαι τῆς σαρκός , comp. the νόμος ἐν τοῖς μέλεσι , which overcomes the moral law in man, Rom_7:23-24). Certainly man is born with this natural, sinful quality, i.e. with the principle of sin, by the awakening and development of which the moral will is vanquished (Romans 7; comp. also Joh_3:6); it is not, however, the mere fact of this inborn presence having its basis in his σάρξ , that in and of itself[138] makes him the child of wrath (comp. Beyschlag, Christol. d. N.T. p. 207), but he only becomes so, when that constitution of his moral nature, that mingling of two opposite principles in his natural disposition, has—which, however, is the case with every one (Rom_3:9; Rom_11:32; Gal_3:22)—brought about the victory of the sin-principle, and therewith the σαρκικόν and πεπραμένον ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν εἶναι (Rom_7:14).[139] Others, such as Erasmus, Balduin, Bengel, Morus, Koppe, Stolz, Flatt, Matthies, de Wette, Bleek (comp. also Weber, vom Zorn Gottes, p. 88), have explained it of the so-called natural state of man, i.e. of the state of the pre-Christian life, which was as yet aloof from the influence of χάρις (Eph_2:5 ff.) and of the Holy Spirit; but in this way, properly speaking, nothing is explained; for while the whole description, and not merely φύσει , delineates “the natural state in which the redemptive activity of God found the nations” (de Wette), in connection with φύσει there always remains the special question, whether the “by nature” denotes an inborn relation to wrath or not. Holzhausen would even combine φύσει ὀργῆς (“wrath which comes from the ungodly nature-life”),—a view from which, even if φύσις meant nature-life, the very absence of any article ought in itself to have precluded him; τῆς τῇ φύσει ὀργῆς , or τῆς ἐκ τῆς φύσ . ὀργῆς , or the like, must have been used. Moreover, Cyril, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Grotius, erroneously hold φύσει as equivalent to ἀληθῶς (comp. others in Jerome, who take it as prorsus), which it never is, not even in Gal_4:8, to which Grotius appeals. Lastly, in a quite peculiar way Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, II. p. 174 ff., obtains the exact opposite of a born liability to wrath by conducting his interpretation so as to enclose τέκνα φύσει within two commas, and to connect ὀργῆς with ἦμεν : “We were in consequence of our actual sinfulness, although children [of God in the Israelitish sense, Rom_9:4] by nature, liable to wrath even as the Gentiles;” according to which, therefore, ἦμεν ὀργῆς is explained from the well-known usage of εἶναί τινος in the sense of “belonging to.” But it may be decisively urged against this view, first, that the supplying the thought of Θεοῦ after τέκνα (as Isa_63:8; Rom_8:17; Gal_4:6) is not in any way suggested by the context, but is purely arbitrary, and the more so, inasmuch as there is already in the text a genitive which offers itself to complete the notion of τέκνα ; and secondly, that there is nothing to indicate the contrast assumed by Ernesti (although, etc.), for in order to write in some measure intelligibly, Paul must at least have said: καὶ ἦμεν τέκνα μὲν φύσει , ὀργῆς δέ , although this, too, on account of the absence of a definition to τέκνα , would have been enigmatic enough. Equally to be rejected is the quite similar interpretation of Nickel (in Reuter’s Repert. 1860, Oct., p. 16), who explains as though the words ran: καὶ ἦμεν Θεοῦ μὲν τέκνα φύσει , ὀργῆς δὲ τέκνα .
ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί ] sc. ἦσαν . The λοιποί are the Gentiles (Rom_3:9; 1Th_4:13), and καί is not adhuc (Grotius), but the also of comparison.
[132] In doing which Paul could, least of all, venture to except himself, although, according to Php_3:6, the justitia externa had not been wanting to him.
[133] That these were selfish, is in itself correct, but is not implied in the word itself, and is not expressed by Paul (in opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew, I. p. 563).
[134] According to this view, there is here in the position of the words a severance (Kühner, II. p. 627) whereby the genitive is separated from its governing word (Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 332 [E. T. 387]). This hyperbaton has for its object the reserving of the whole emphasis for the closing word ὀργῆς , and letting it fall thereon. Comp. Philem. fragm. p. 354, ed. Cleric.: πολλῶν φύσει τοῖς πᾶσιν αἰτία κακῶν .
[135] Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 30, we may add, suspects the genuineness of φύσει , partly on account of its alleged singular position, partly on account of the various readings. But as regards the position, see above. And of various readings there are none at all, since different translations are not various readings. Φύσει is omitted only in 109, Aeth. No doubt Clem. Alex. ad Gent. (Opp. ed. Pott, p. 23) is also adduced, where the passage is cited without φύσει . But in Clem. l.c. (comp. p. 560) we have no citation, but merely a free use of the passage, from which the existence of variations cannot be made good. Clement, we may add, singularly explains τέκνα ὀργῆς by τρεφόμενα ὀργῇ , ὀργῆς θρέμματα .
[136] Quite mistakenly Grotius argues from the context against the ecclesiastical exposition in this way: “Non agi hic de labe originaria, satis ostendunt praecedentia, ubi describuntur vitia, a quibus multi veterum fuere immunes.” See, on the other hand, Romans 1-3, Rom_11:32; Gal_3:22, al.
[137] Which Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 564 (comp. his Heil. Schr. N.T. II. 1, p. 24), denies on invalid linguistic grounds; see on Gal. l.c.
[138] The objection of Lechler, p. 107 (comp. Philippi, Dogm. III. p. 205 f.)—that my explanation, inasmuch as the sinful disposition is inborn, thereby after all concedes the traditional Church-view—overlooks the essential distinction, that it is only according to the latter that man is born as object of the divine wrath; whereas, according to my view, the natural disposition to sin does not yet in and by itself make him such an object of wrath, but he becomes so only through the setting in of actual sin, which, it is true, does not fail to emerge in any one who lives long enough to be able to sin. According to the traditional view, even the newly-born unconscious child is already guilty and liable to the Divine wrath; so that in this way the imputation attaches itself not merely to the perpetration of sin, but even to the occasion to sin, which every one has by nature. This is, so far as I can see, exegetically incompatible with the anthropological teachings of the apostle elsewhere, especially with his exposition in Rom_7:7 f. Only with the actual sin, according to Paul, is the guilt connected, and consequently the wrath of God. An inborn guilt is not taught by the apostle; as is rightly brought out by Ernesti, but is only hesitatingly hinted at by Bleek.
[139] Through Christian regeneration the moral will attains, by virtue of the Spirit (Rom_8:2), the ascendancy in man, and he becomes therewithal qualitatively θείας κοινωνὸς φύσεως , 2Pe_1:4, and μεταλαμβάνων τῆς ἁγιότητος τοῦ Θεοῦ , Heb_12:10. Comp. 1Jn_5:18.