Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 4:26 - 4:27
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Eph_4:26-27. See Zyro in the Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 681 ff.
ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε ] a precept expressed literally after the LXX. Psa_4:5, as to which it must be left undetermined whether Paul understood the original text[244] as the LXX. did, or chose this form only in recollection of the LXX., without attending to the original text. To the right understanding of the sense (which Paul would have expressed by ὈΡΓΙΖΌΜΕΝΟΙ ΜῊ ἉΜΑΡΤΆΝΕΤΕ , or something similar, if that definite form of expression in the LXX. had not presented itself to him) the observation of Bengel guides us: “Saepe vis modi cadit super partem duntaxat sermonis, Jer_10:24” (comp. also Isa_12:1; Mat_11:25; and see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 249 f. [E. T. 290]). Here, namely, the vis modi lies upon the second imperative (comp. passages like Joh_1:47; Joh_7:52): be angry and sin not, i.e. in anger do not fall into transgression; so that Paul forbids the combination of the ἁμαρτάνειν with the ὀργίζεσθαι . Comp. Matthies: “In the being angry let it not come to sin;” Harless: “Be angry in the right way, without your sinning.”[245] Paul, therefore, does not forbid the ὀργίζεσθαι in itself, and could not forbid it, because there is (see Wuttke, Sittenl. II. § 243) a holy anger,[246] which is “calcar virtutis” (Seneca, de ira, iii. 3), as there is also a divine anger; the ὀργίζεσθαι καὶ ἁμαρτάνειν , however; is not to take place, but, on the contrary, the ὀργίζεσθαι is to be without sin, consequently an ὀργίζεσθαι καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνειν . As regards the substantial sense, the same result is brought out with the usual explanation, but it is usually believed (and already in the Constitutt. Apost. ii. 53. 2, the passage of the Psalm is so taken) that the imperative may be resolved conditionaliter in accordance with Hebrew usage: if ye are angry, do not sin (Isa_8:9 f.; Amo_5:4; Amo_5:6, al.). So also Koppe, Flatt, Rückert, Holzhausen, Meier, Olshausen, Zyro, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek. But the combination of two imperatives connected by and, like: do this, and live, Gen_42:18, comp. Isa_8:9, and similar passages,—a combination, moreover, which is not a Hebraism, but a general idiom of language (comp. divide et impera),—is not at all in point here, because it would lead to the in this case absurd analysis: “if ye are angry, ye shall not sin.” Winer, p. 279 [E. T. 391 f.], allows the taking of the first imperative in a permissive sense; comp. Krüger, § 54, 4. 2. In this way we should obtain as result: “be angry (I cannot hinder it), but only do not sin.” So also de Wette. No doubt a permission of anger, because subsequently καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτ . follows, would not be in conflict with Eph_4:31, where manifestly all hostile anger is forbidden; but the mere καί is only logically correct when both imperatives are thought of in the same sense, not the former as permitting and the latter as enjoining, in which case the combination becomes exceptive (“only, however”), which would be expressed by ἀλλά , πλήν , or μόνον .[247] Beza, Piscator, Grotius, and others take ὈΡΓΊΖ . interrogatively: “irascimini? et ne peccate.” Against this we cannot urge—the objection usually taken since the time of Wolf—the καί , which often in rapid emotion strikes in with some summons (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 148); but we may urge the fact that Paul reproduces a passage of the LXX. (which, it is true, is quite arbitrarily denied by Beza and Koppe) in which ὀργίζ . is imperative, and that such an abrupt and impassioned question and answer would not be in keeping with the whole calm and sober tone of the discourse.
μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε ] forbids every kind of sinning, to which anger may lead. Zyro, after Neander, would limit it to the hostile relation towards others, which, however, is purely a supplied thought ( εἰς τὸν πλησίον , or the like).
Ὁ ἭΛΙΟς … ΔΙΑΒΌΛῼ ] not included as belonging to the words of the Psalm, states in what way the given precept is to be carried out; namely, (1) the irritation must be laid aside on the same day, and (2) no scope may therein be given to the devil.
ὁ ἥλιος μὴ ἐπιδυέτω κ . τ . λ .] Comp. Deu_24:13; Deu_24:15; Jer_15:9; Philo, de Legg. Spec. II. p. 324. On the citation of these words in Polyc. Phil. 12, see Introd. § 3. The ἐπιδυέτω is to be taken: go down over your irritation. Comp. also Hom. Il. ii. 413, and Faesi in loc. (Nägelsbach in loc. takes another view). That the night is here conceived of as the nurse of wrath (Fathers in Suicer, I. p. 1323; Bengel, and others), or that the eventide of prayer is thought of (Baumgarten), is arbitrarily assumed. Jerome and Augustine interpreted it even of Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, and Lombard of the sun of reason! The meaning of these words, to be taken quite literally (comp. the custom of the Pythagoreans: εἴποτε προαχθεῖεν εἰς λοιδορίας ὑπʼ ὀργῆς , πρὶν ἢ τὸν ἥλιον δύναι τὰς δεξιὰς ἐμβάλλοντες ἀλλήλοις καὶ ἀσπασάμενοι διελύοντο , Plut. de am. frat. p. 488 B), is no other than: before evening let your irritation be over, by which the very speedy, undelayed abandoning of anger is concretely represented.
παροργισμός is the arousing of wrath, exacerbatio, from which ὀργή , as a lasting mood, is different. Comp. LXX. 1Ki_15:30, al. In the Greek writers the word does not occur. We may add that Zanchius and Holzhausen are mistaken in holding the παρά in the word to indicate unrighteous irritation. See, on the other hand, e.g. Rom_10:19; Eze_32:9. It denotes the excitement brought upon us.
μηδέ ] nor yet, for the annexation of a new clause falling to be added. See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 210. The Recepta μήτε would so place the two prohibitions side by side, that they ought properly to be connected by neither … nor ( μήτε … μήτε ), but that Paul had not yet thought of this in the first clause, but had written the simple ΜΉ , and had only at the second clause changed the conception into such a form as if he had previously written ΜΉΤΕ (comp. our: not … nor). This usage is met with (in opposition to Elmsley) also in classical writers, although more rarely (see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 709; Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 3, p. 303, Lips.; Maetzn. ad Antiph. p. 195 f.), but not elsewhere in Paul, and hence is not probable here.
δίδοτε τόπον ] i.e. give scope, opportunity for being active. See on Rom_12:19.
τῷ διαβόλῳ ] to the devil; for he is denoted by διάβολος in all passages of the N.T., where it is not an adjective (1Ti_3:11-12; 2Ti_3:3; Tit_2:3), even in 1Ti_3:6; Joh_6:70. Hence Erasmus (not in the Paraphr.), Luther, Erasmus Schmid, Michaelis, Zachariae, Moras, Stolz, Flatt, and others (Koppe is undecided) are in error in holding that διάβολος is here equivalent to calumniator; in which view Erasmus thought of the heathen slandering the Christians, to whom they were to furnish no material; and most expositors thought of the tale-bearers nursing disputes, to whom they were not to lend an ear. In an irritated frame of mind passion easily gains the ascendancy over sobriety and watchfulness, and that physical condition is favourable to the devil for his work of seducing into everything that is opposed to God. Comp. 1Pe_5:8; 2Co_2:11; Eph_6:11 ff. Harless refers the danger on the part of the devil to the corruption of the church-life (comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.), the fellowship of which, in the absence of placability, is rent by the devil. But this, as not implied in the context, must have been said by an addition ( ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ , or the like, after ΤΌΠΟΝ ).
The name ΔΙΆΒΟΛΟς does not occur elsewhere in the undoubtedly genuine Epistles of the apostle; but this, considering the equally general currency of the two names devil and Satan, may be accidental Comp. also Act_13:10. We may add that the citation of the Clementines (Hom. xix. 2): μὴ δότε πρόφασιν τῷ πονηρῷ , has nothing to do with our passage (in opposition to Schwegler, l.c. p. 394 f.).
[244] The words of the original, øÄðÀæåÌ åÀàÇìÎúÌÆçÁèÈàåÌ , mean: tremble, and err not (Ewald), with which David calls upon his enemies to tremble on account of their iniquities towards him, the favourite of God, and not further to sin. Comp. also Hupfeld in loc. Yet other recent scholars, including Hitzig, have translated, in harmony with the LXX.: Be angry, but offend not.
[245] When, however, Harless would assign to our passage a place “not under the head of anger, but under that of placability,” he overlooks the fact that in anger one may commit sin otherwise than by implacability; and that the following ὁ ἥλιος κ . τ . λ . brings into prominence only a single precept falling under the μὴ ἁμαρτ .
[246] That this, however, is not meant in ver. 31, see on that verse.
[247] This is no “philological theorizing,” but is based on logical necessity. No instance can be adduced in which, of two imperatives coupled by καί , the former is to be taken as concessive and the second as preceptive, in contrast to the former. To refer to Jer_10:24 as a parallel, as Winer does, is erroneous, for the very reason that in that passage—which, however, in general is very different from ours
πλήν , not καί , is used.