Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 4:22 - 4:22
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_4:22. Ἀποθέσθαι ὑμᾶς ] dependent on καθώς ἐστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ . See on Eph_4:21. What is truth in Jesus, Paul states, not in general (to lay aside, etc.), but individualizingly in relation to the readers; that ye lay aside.[239] Michaelis and Flatt give the strangely erroneous rendering: to lay aside yourselves! In that case there would be wanting the main matter, the reflexive ἑαυτούς ; and how alien to the N.T. such a form of conceiving self-denial! Luther and others are also incorrect in rendering: lay aside. It is not till Eph_4:25 that the direct summons comes in, and that in the usual form of the imperative, instead of which the infinitive (Winer, p. 282 f. [E. T. 397]), and with the accusative ὑμᾶς in addition (Matthiae, p. 1267), would be inappropriate. The figurative expression of laying aside is borrowed from the putting off clothing (comp. ἐνδύσασθαι , Eph_4:24), and in current use, as with Paul (Rom_13:12; Rom_13:14; Col_3:8 ff.; Gal_3:27), so also with Greek writers (see Wetstein in loc.); hence there was the less reason for forcing on the context any more special reference, such as to the custom (at any rate, certainly later) of changing clothes at baptism (so Grotius).
κατὰ τὴν προτέραν ἀναστροφήν ] is not to be explained, as if the words stood: τὸν παλ . ἄνθρ . τὸν κατὰ τὴν προτέροαν ἀναστρ . (Jerome, Oecumenius, Vorstius, Grotius, Raphel, Estius, Semler, Koppe, Rosenmüller, and others), but: that ye lay aside in respect of your former life-walk the old man, so that it expresses, in what respect, in reference to what the laying aside of the old man is spoken of. “Declarat vim verbi relationem habentis deponere,” Bengel. The Pauline παλ . ἄνθρ ., ideally conceived of, is not injuriously affected, as de Wette thinks, in its internal truth by this recalling of the pre-Christian walk (as if the author had conceived of it empirically). The προτέρα ἀναστρ ., in fact, concerns the whole moral nature of man before his conversion, and the ἀποθέσθαι τὸν παλ . ἄνθρ . affirms that the converted man is to retain nothing of his pre-Christian moral personality, but, as concerns the pre-Christian conduct of life, is utterly to do away with the old ethical individuality and to become the new man. Such a contrast, however, as Cornelius a Lapide (comp. Anselm) found: “non quoad naturam et substantiam,” would be in itself singular and foreign to the context.
As to ἀναστροφή , see on Gal_1:13.
τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρ .] The pre-Christian moral frame[240] is represented as a person. See on Rom_6:6.
τὸν φθειρόμενον κ . τ . λ .] an attribute of the old man serving as a motive for that ἀποθέσθαι κ . τ . λ .: which is being destroyed according to the lusts of deception. φθειρόμενον is not to be explained of putrefaction (Michaelis), seeing that ὁ παλαιὸς ἄνθρ . is not equivalent to τὸ σῶμα , nor yet of inward moral corruption (Koppe, Flatt, Holzhausen, Meier, Harless, and older expositors), or self-corruption (Schenkel), seeing that the moral corruption of the old man is obvious of itself and is already present, not merely coming into existence (present participle, which is not to be taken, with Bengel, as imperfect), but of eternal destruction (Gal_6:8), in which case the present participle: which goes to ruin (comp. on 1Co_1:18), is to be taken either of the certain future realized as present, or of the destruction in the course of development (so Grotius: “qui tendit ad exitium”). The latter appears more appropriate to the contrast of τὸν κατὰ Θεὸν κτισθέντα , Eph_4:24.
κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τῦς ἀπάτης ] τῆς ἀπάτης is genitive subjecti, and ἡ ἀπάτη is personified (comp. Hesiod. Theog. 224). Hence: in accordance with the lusts of deception, with which it has had designs on the corruption of the old man. What ἀπάτη is meant, cannot be doubtful according to the context, and according to the doctrine of the apostle as to the principle of sin in man, namely, the power of sin deceiving man (Rom_7:11). Comp. Heb_3:13, also 2Co_11:3. The adjectival resolution into cupiditates seducentes (Grotius), followed by many, is in itself arbitrary and not in keeping with the contrast in Eph_4:24 ( τῆς ἀληθείας ).
[239] Not: that ye have laid aside, as Hofmann wishes to take it, who explains as if Paul had written: ἀποθεμένους ὑμᾶς … ἀνανεοῦσθαι τῷ πνεύματι … ἐνδυσαμένους κ . τ . λ . Starting from the aorist infinitive thus taken at variance with linguistic usage (comp. on Rom_15:9; 2Co_6:1), Hofmann has incorrectly understood the whole passage. According to his interpretation, the perfect infinitive must have been used. The Vulgate already has correctly not deposuisse, but deponere.
[240] Not original sin (as Calovius and others would have it), which, in fact, cannot be laid aside, but the moral habitus, such as it is in the unregenerate man under the dominion of the sin-principle. Comp. Rom_7:7 ff.; Eph_2:1 ff.